Melbourne most livable (again)

Melbourne was voted most livable for this year again for health care, education and infrastructure. Which bemused many, including me, as there is much to be improved in all these areas. It is certainly a better place to live than many other cities, but far from perfect.

I dislike this sort of publicity as this makes people more inclined to want to move here when the city and suburbs are already bursting at the seams and struggling to cope. Another article came out this week saying Melbourne was undergoing rapid population growth, which is dismayingly obvious to anyone who has lived here for a while – infrastructure is not coping with the influx.

Melbourne’s population is swelling by 2 per cent a year, adding more than 900,000 people since this century began – and putting it on track to be a city of 8 million people by 2050.

The Bureau of Statistics estimates that in mid-2012, the city’s population was about to hit 4.25 million, after six boom years in which it grew by almost half a million.

Recent bureau figures imply that Melbourne today is home to 4.35 million people – and 27 per cent bigger than the city it was at the start of 2000.

With a rapidly growing population squeezing into road and rail systems that are barely growing at all, this would intensify the strain on the city’s infrastructure, leading to increased congestion on the roads and overcrowding on trains.

The figures will probably seem miniscule compared with many major cities – Wikipedia has a list of these, where population for the highest is into the tens of millions. High density living is promoted as desirable because amenities are close together, but there is a tradeoff in loss of open space, stress from overcrowding, noise and other pollution, and limited access to nature. A properly-planned city might alleviate some of these negative factors, but few if any urban centers are; they tend to grow haphazardly over decades as more people are crammed in.

Embrace growth? No thanks!

“State government minister says Victoria should embrace growth”, Herald-Sun, 2/8. I read the statements by a Victorian State Government minister in this article with stunned disbelief. Despite all the problems population growth is causing Melbourne – which are acknowledged in the article – we should “welcome” it because it is supposedly economically and socially beneficial. Probably the only people benefiting from growth are parasitical property developers, as is mentioned near the end, as it means more homes being built (never mind the environmental damage from more land being built over). This is a prime example of a self-perpetuating problem: continually encouraging growth means that infrastructure and services are forever struggling to keep up, and never quite manage to. People are increasingly stressed from competing for dwindling resources, living space and jobs, which does nothing for the supposed “diversity” championed in the article – it’s more likely to lead to social disintegration.

Collected letters

Another batch of letters from The Age, in response to the article linked to last entry about Planning Minister Matthew Guy. Most feel the same negativity toward him and the planning system as I do. I did not comment on the planning reforms site as I did not know what to say specifically about the topics – not qualified enough.

Government-sanctioned vandalism

Two dismaying articles from The Age demonstrating an assult on the environment and residents’ rights by the Victorian Liberal government under Ted Baillieu.

“Baillieu reviews green laws”, 12/2. Native habitat is once again under threat due to the Liberal government’s seeking to remove excessive “red tape” (regulations). This despite that biodiversity is already much reduced:

Victorian National Parks Association executive director Matt Ruchel said numerous government and scientific reports over the last decades had shown Victoria as the most cleared and ecologically stressed state in Australia, with high numbers of threatened species.

“Planning reform blocks appeals”, 15/3. The overcrowding and destruction of once-pleasant established suburbs looks set to continue, and residents will not be notified, and have no right to appeal inappropriate housing developments near them. The anger and despair I feel at this is almost too much to be borne. And I am powerless to do anything about it. Planning Minister Matthew Guy is proving just as much an urban vandal as his predecessor, Justin Madden.

And, of course, a main factor behind each issue is Victoria’s continuing and relentless population growth, which is neither inevitable nor desirable (except to businesses such as the building industry which profit from it).

Some collected letters in response to both issues:

Paving over Victoria

The continuing development and destruction of Victoria’s green spaces leaves me (and many others) in a frustrated rage. The current Government continues this policy, wanting to put up for development the Green Wedges around Melbourne – corridors established over 3 decades ago to provide some environmental breathing space. Unfortunately the deliberate encouraging of population growth (approximately 90 000 people a year) has these areas under threat. The Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, is proving as developer-friendly as his predecessor, Justin Madden, was. Some recent articles from The Age:

• “Review threatens to destroy ‘Melbourne’s lungs’ ”, 30/7
• “Open spaces to shrink as Melbourne grows”, 8/8 – public parks are also under threat.

Some letters:

Victoria: open borders

“Interstate raiders buying up Melbourne properties”, 2/4. More unwelcome competition for housing – but Premier Ted Bailleu reveals his true colors in this remark:

Despite pressure on housing affordability from rapid population growth, Premier Ted Baillieu said he was not about to close Victoria’s borders. He said he would never “put up the stop sign” to curb population growth, but warned Victorians will have to “endure” the problems of a growth rate that saw Melbourne increase by more than 1500 people a week last financial year. “You’d like to think, in government, that you could invest for the future. We’ll be investing to catch [up] because the previous Labor government allowed Victoria to fall behind,” he said.

Well, Melbourne is ruined. No hope from him, then, of curbing growth – just the opposite, continuing the insane growth mania begun by Jeff Kennett’s government and continued by Labor. Melbourne’s population is closing in on Sydney’s.

I wonder if one solution might be to introduce some sort of residential permit – that if a person wishes to live in Melbourne, they would need to apply; if there were no room they would be refused. Preference would be given to Australian citizens, and then long-term residents of the city first. The State Government should, ideally, refuse to issue any more land releases to developers, and set a firm boundary to limit expansion. I doubt anyone would have the courage to take those measures, though – there would be an outcry of “We should be able to live where ever we want!” A hotel, though, can’t accommodate an infinite number of people, and neither can a city – not if it is to stay liveable rather than turn into an overcrowded slum.

Trying to get people to move to regional centers is no solution – these are often poorly serviced and, despite vague Government assurances, will remain so for a long time. Most people thus tend to want to live in well-serviced areas, which the established regions of Melbourne provide. Successive governments have done a poor job of managing growth – it is a game of catch-up, and they never quite manage to.

Dick Smith suggested that families be discouraged from having more than two children, though the Herald-Sun article linked was something of a misquote, according to this post at PublicPopForum. Some clueless fool did respond:

MacroPlan economist Brian Haratsis said Mr Smith was an alarmist. A population of 40 million was inevitable and that “the only choice is if we want a really big Australia of 40 million to 80 million”. He said population debate in Australia had been stolen by “anti-growth people with a Green sentiment”.

80 million? What has he been smoking? Much of Australia is infertile desert, so populations are mainly limited to thin strips of land along the coastline. Where is he planning to fit them all, and where will their food come from?

Collected letters

A lengthy backlog of printed letters from mostly The Age, collected from the last 3 months, on overpopulation, overdevelopment and property planning issues. Unfortunately, none of the few I sent were published.

(I just found out how to make cuts so I don’t clog up the front page with long entries!)

Collected letters

A backlog of letters from The Age concerning environmental destruction, population growth, immigration and new PM Julia Gillard.

22/6:

Two letters on the Green Wedges, remnant volcanic grasslands now under threat from development no thanks to Brumby & Co.

Land grab stance is a pox on the two major parties

Before the 2006 election, Liberal, ALP and Greens MPs surveyed by the Green Wedges Coalition all supported the government policy to protect green wedges, “including the present boundaries”.

The uniformity of the major party responses suggested they had their respective campaign offices’ approval.

It is therefore disappointing for those who want green wedges protected for their environmental, recreational, and landscape values, open space and sustainable agriculture, to find the government proposing to move in Parliament today to amend the urban growth boundary to remove 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development, among other controversial proposals in planning scheme amendment VC67 (“Greens warn of planning changes”, The Age, 17/6).

Equally disappointing are Coalition MPs’ comments that they will not oppose this disgraceful land grab, which will destroy

4600 hectares of western basalt plains grassland, up to 900 hectares of grassy woodland (plus giant red gums) in the Merri and Darebin Creek catchments and 4000 hectares of the south-east food bowl, where productive market gardens double as southern brown bandicoot habitat.

The Greens seem to be the only party whose MPs stick to their election policies and principles. No wonder polls show their votes increasing.

– Louis Delacretaz, Sassafras

Hold our urban boundary

Thankfully, Premier John Brumby has woken up to the fact that the population boom he has created is threatening Melbourne’s liveability.

Now that he is spending $59 million to promote regional development as a more acceptable alternative to overloading the city, he surely has no need to push urban development out into the green wedges.

Let’s hope that this means Mr Brumby will now withdraw his draft planning scheme amendment VC67, which proposes to expand the urban growth boundary to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Arnie Azaris, joint co-ordinator, Green Wedges Coalition, Sunbury

Losing our liveability

Proposed amendments to the Planning and Environment Act to increase development around public transport networks, represent another shocking assault on Melbourne’s liveability and amenity.

With the Brumby government trying to feed the endless hunger of developers for high-rise, high-density housing, it fails to recognise that many of the train and tram lines in Melbourne are well and truly at capacity already.

If that is not bad enough, the green wedges that have been preserved for decades, to provide Melbourne’s “lungs”, will simply be sliced and diced by developers. This will have a detrimental effect on air quality for future generations.

With all this infill and loss of green wedges, open space for recreation will become a thing of the past. If these amendments are passed, our way of life and liveability will be lost for all eternity.

– Mathew Knight, Malvern East

23/6:

Region’s no answer

Distributing growth to regional cities won’t prevent further expansion into Melbourne’s urban growth boundary and nor is this a preventable solution.

The numbers of people moving to regional Victoria have always been minimal. The great majority of new arrivals to Victoria prefer to settle in Melbourne. John Brumby might think he’ll buy your vote with promises to “relieve the pressure” on Melbourne, yet - with 2000 people choosing Victoria as “the place to be” each week, most settling in Melbourne - this is a pipe dream.

If, by chance, 43,600 hectares of land within Melbourne’s growth boundary was saved from development, then 43,600 hectares of development would simply be allocated elsewhere. Don’t assume that your regional cousins want to lose their green wedges or liveability either.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

28/6:

Gillard’s firm hand

Australia’s growth rate is not “natural” but driven by immigration. People have been silenced on the issue of population growth because they might be labelled racist. This is very clever political control.

The issue is not about race but about caring for our nation, showing responsibility for future generations, balancing environmental resources, ensuring the survival of indigenous species and existing without continually stretching basic infrastructure.

Our present growth rate is about property developers’ greed. Let’s hope Julia Gillard, who has shown some common sense (“Gillard rejects ‘Big Australia’ ”, The Sunday Age, 27/6), is not overpowered by commercial forces.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Don’t blame men or motherhood

Hariklia Heristanidis (Letters, 26/6) says women with children, unlike Julia Gillard, can never have the drive and single vision to compete with men to be prime ministers. If true, is this asymmetry peculiar to the Australian psyche and way of life?

Since 1960, when Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandaranaike became the world’s first female head of government, there have been more than 60 women prime ministers, presidents and heads of state, many of them mothers with young children. The widowed Mrs Bandaranaike’s children were 17, 15 and 11 when she was elected prime minister. She was prime minister three times (1960-65, 1970-77, 1994-2000) and one of her daughters (also a mother) became Sri Lanka’s first female president.

Closer to home, the first woman to occupy New Zealand’s highest office, Jenny Shipley, is a mother of two.

We shouldn’t blame men or motherhood for gender imbalance in high offices.

– Hendry Wan, Matraville, NSW

Could we please use the term “child-free” in preference to “childless”. I doubt Julia Gillard feels she is lacking anything at the moment.

– Joanna Unferdorben, Brunswick

29/6:

Slow migrant intake

Julia Gillard’s policy statement on population is thoughtful and well judged. The rate of population growth is fundamental to every aspect of public policy, from health and education to greenhouse gas emissions. Slowing population growth will ease the difficulty of ensuring availability of water, housing and rail and road transport, and constrain destruction of biodiversity.

Communities need sufficient time to absorb immigrants: the social adjustments can only be gradual. Reducing the numbers will reduce the risk of potential conflicts. One reason there is opposition to accepting the tiny number of asylum seekers is resentment about the total immigration rate. Slowing the intake of migrants would reduce the perception of competition for jobs and housing. This might contribute to greater willingness for Australia to take a fair share of refugees from violent and repressive places.

– Professor John Langmore, chairman, Anglican Public Affairs Commission

7/7:

Opening floodgates

One important fact has been overlooked by the bleeding heart do-gooders among Age readers. The main body of asylum seekers are male. What will be the first thing they do following the granting of residency? Send for their wives and other relatives. So we end up with more immigrants who have more children.

I count myself to be lucky to live in Australia, having escaped from Britain where this kind of uncontrolled immigration has wreaked havoc with services from education to health. Read the British newspapers and see what Australia could become if you shrug your shoulders and let it happen. Stating this is not being racist. It is fact.

– Anthony Toone, Hampton East

England certainly does have huge problems with immigration; the irony is the writer has, in his own words, “escaped” for a better life, just as the genuine refugees seek to. The spillover effect again.

A sustainable population is one based on natural increase, not massive immigration. Skilled people and a quota of refugees is all we should allow.

– Philip Squire, Ashgrove, Qld

8/7:

Most desperate targeted

Why all this fuss about refugees? Don’t people realise that the people who are flooding our cities, inflating our real estate values and putting strains on our community facilities are the legal immigrants: 180,000 so far this year?

Why don’t politicians mention the 50,000 overstayers who come by plane, not by boat? It is the above groups who are stressing our social and physical environment.

We certainly need a population policy for sustainable development rather than a policy of scapegoating the most desperate.

– John Addie, Ringwood East

On inane comments by the Melbourne Lord Mayor, who thinks the city’s “vigorous growth” (in reality, barely-contained chaos) is a good thing:

Doyle is dreaming

Lord Mayor Robert Doyle, like all proponents of a larger Australia, uses emotive words such as “vigorous” (The Age, 4/7), which is supposed to conjure images of this wonderful, youthful-energy-filled utopia that will overcome an ageing population and a lack of skills.

In reality, what you will have is overcrowding on a Third World level, increased crime, shortage of housing, unsustainable rents, water restrictions, a filthy city (look at any sprawling metropolis overseas) and horrendous traffic jams.

As a frequent visitor, I can attest that it is easier and quicker to drive around Sydney.

– Warwick Kent, South Cronulla, NSW

Vanishing bushland

“Freeway builders admit damage to wetlands area”, The Age, 8/7. The Frankston Bypass, mentioned in my 12/1/2010 entry, is continuing construction despite protests, and the incompetent builders managed to raze part of a wetlands reserve. One wonders if this were done “accidentally on purpose”. One can only feel frustration and anger at the Brumby Government’s maniacal obsession with building roads no matter how this damages the environment.

9/7:

Mindless vandalism

The mindless and unwarranted destruction of the significant heritage value and vegetation on the Westerfield property (The Age, 8/7), despite advice from environmental and conservation bodies regarding its importance, highlights the state government’s political expediency and short-term economic priorities.

If a tunnel had been included in the Frankston bypass project, the permanent damage now being carried out could have been avoided. More freeways carrying more motorised vehicles is not an acceptable excuse for this irresponsible environmental vandalism.

– Gloria O’Connor, Pakenham Upper

Picket Westerfields

All Victorians should picket the Westerfields reserve. This beautiful area of bushland belongs to all of us. The politicians have signed a deal and created a bill to deliver freeways that will deprive our children of our last suburban wild places.

– Yasmin Kelsall, Brunswick

10/7:

An act of vandalism

Victoria’s natural and cultural heritage is again in serious peril, this time from the construction of the Frankston bypass. A valuable wetland has been recklessly bulldozed by the private developers, Abigroup (The Age, 8/7). Under threat is Westerfield property, a state heritage-listed bushland sanctuary. With Linking Melbourne Authority’s approval, Abigroup is preparing to raze Westerfield before Heritage Victoria decides on an appeal to save it. Given that Westerfield could be preserved by tunnelling underneath, it is perplexing that our state government approved this vandalism.

Rather than monitor and enforce environmental protection standards for infrastructure projects, John Brumby and his ministers remain silent.

The government must act to ensure other nature reserves to be bulldozed soon for freeways, such as the Pines and Coomoora Woodland Flora and Fauna Reserves, do not suffer the same fate as those already destroyed. If not, may it be consigned to the dustbin of electoral history.

– Damon Anderson, Keysborough

Save our bushland

An astonishing treasure, Westerfield,is about to be bulldozed and it seems that few people know about it. It is remnant bushland in its original state with a diverse population of native mammals and birds, 45 minutes from the city, near Frankston. Why is it about to be destroyed? To create another giant road to get to places on the Mornington Peninsula already served by excellent freeways, highways, and all manner of roads. Once destroyed, this unique habitat cannot be replaced. Even on the peninsula itself there are very few places left of such significance. Is this the choice that we as a society want to make?

– Cecilia Cairns and Frank Burden, Carlton North

Perhaps they should resort to tactics such as those utilized by the Earth Liberation Front – nothing else is stopping the developer vandals.

Collected letters

A collection of letters from The Age over the last 2 months.

18/5:

Stable population key to our future

In an act of seemingly good planning and policy, hundreds of homes will be added to three of Melbourne’s largest public housing estates at a time when the waiting list for public housing is nearing 40,000 (“Public housing gets boost”, The Age, 17/5).

The crisis at all levels of housing means that our federal government, with the support of state governments, can implement its high-density social housing agenda under the guise of a much-needed, but manufactured, social necessity.

Our population growth is not inevitable and neither is the public’s displacement from home ownership. In a stable population, most houses would already be existing, or inherited.

Children should not be raised in hot-houses, and we should expect escalating violence and crime.

Crises such as peak oil, the global population blow-out and climate change demand more functional, sustainable, self-supporting towns, rather than heat-trapping high-rises and environmentally destructive urban sprawl.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

30/5:

Missing the point

“Foreign Property Fear Exaggerated” (23/5) misses the point. There are two issues regarding foreigners purchasing property. The first is whether foreigners were making illegal purchases in breach of the FIRB rules. I doubt whether this is a significant factor but it’s hard to know when the FIRB reviewed only 58 sales. The second is Rudd relaxing the FIRB rules making it much easier for temporary residents to legally purchase property. These purchases were not identified in the FIRB review because they’re legal transactions. Therefore, to conclude fears over foreigners purchasing our homes are exaggerated on the basis the FIRB did not identify illegal purchases is ignorant.

The fact is Rudd has reduced the visa eligibility period from three years to one year, broadened the definition of “existing dwelling”, and abolished the $300,000 cap for student visa holders. These changes, none of which have been reversed, have had a significant impact. The Age’s own survey concluded 30-40 per cent of sales between Camberwell and Doncaster may have been to foreigners. You don’t need an economics degree to conclude these changes have priced local families out of the market – and they have every right to be angry.

– Stephen Roberts, Box Hill North

11/6:

Earth has limits

David Milner (Letters, 10/6) queries the notion that perpetual economic growth is a bad thing. There are two main reasons why it is. The first is that it is impossible. The earth has limits. The failure to recognise this is one reason why there is such widespread environmental damage and why billions of people live in poverty. Things will get much worse if we stay on this path. The second is that there is a better way that avoids these consequences – the steady state economy.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

13/6:

Population control a must

“People could be a threat to ecology” (6/6). Could Be? We are! Humans are the greatest threat to the balanced ecology of this planet. The excessive growth of the human species at the expense of all other living creatures, both flora and fauna, cannot go unchecked without the ecological system breaking down.

The Rudd government needs to take the lead to curb the growth of humans on this planet.

Carbon tax, carbon trading and now mining tax are side issues compared with the unchecked growth of the human species.

– Bob Greaves, Mount Eliza

17/6:

In response to Premier Brumby’s dubious plan to alleviate Melbourne’s growth problems by forcing people into rural areas, which are ill-equipped to deal with such growth, and would spoil their amenity:

One-track plan will ruin our lifestyles

It appears that John Brumby, having made Melbourne a not-so-liveable city, is planning to divert some surplus population to some regional cities.

Residents of Castlemaine and Bendigo have a good lifestyle, community spirit and access to parks, gardens and countryside. House prices, though increasing, are not insane and you can generally park your car near where you want to go without paying mega-bucks for the privilege.

We also have a rail link to Melbourne, which works tolerably well, except on very hot days, when the lines buckle. There is a limit as to how much more the line could take since former transport minister Peter Batchelor removed, at great expense, large sections of the parallel line. The single line doesn’t handle the delays well, as trains have to wait for those travelling in the other direction.

An increase in population will bring increased difficulties with these single-line sections of the track and probable meltdowns.

Mr. Brumby might find it to his advantage to try to limit population growth rather than exporting the surplus to us, for most of us are not going to be happy about it. We like our lifestyle the way it is.

– Cedric Buck, Castlemaine

What’s the point in shifting all those public sector jobs to rural areas – there’s no water here; you’ve already piped it to Melbourne. Leave the jobs in Melbourne and reap the so-called benefits of encouraging population growth for the past few decades.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

18/6:

Sold lie on growth

It is nonsense to state that Melbourne or regional Victoria’s record high population growth is evidence of prosperity. Study after study has concluded there is no link between population growth and an increase in per capita wealth. Population growth damns us to unaffordable housing, increased pollution, loss of native habitat, strained infrastructure, and a growing wealth divide. How is any of this evidence of prosperity?

John Brumby may seek to spread the pain, but the real political backlash will come when Australians realise they are being sold a lie.

– Vladimir Stoikovich, Brunswick East

19/6:

Victorians aren’t hankering for more

To implement a cohesive growth and development strategy for Victoria, we need to recast our thinking away from the dichotomous Melbourne/regional, city/country mindset. We need to think of ourselves simply as Victoria. Because that is the eventual outcome of a push for growth in regional Victoria – a blurring of lines between city and country lifestyle.

But do Victorians wish to make this change in thinking, let alone change their way of life? I think not. There is no impetus for change. Only the government and businesses are crying out for growth to feed their greedy budgets. Everyone else loves the way they live, and all are reeling from a decade of far-too-rapid change.

Victoria is a very liveable state, and liveability is all about size. Melburnians love their city because it is big, without being huge. It has world-class amenities without the Tokyo commuting times. Regional Victorians equally enjoy their open spaces and smaller towns, but appreciate their easy access to big cities. Country people have no burning desire to become citified.

Mr. Brumby seems deaf and blind to his constituents. Over to you, Mr. Baillieu.

– Cecilia Litchfield, Balwyn

Sustainable sign

Why is an apparent downturn in the building industry so often reported as a negative thing (“Victoria props up ailing building”, The Age, 17/6)? Surely it’s an indicator that we are slowly moving towards a sustainable society. We can’t keep on pushing the urban boundaries into former green areas, or cramming ever more people into densely populated suburbs, or forcing people into rural areas thus destroying country character.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

John Brumby has “detected a hunger for growth” in regional cities. From whom did he “detect” this hunger – politicians and developers perhaps? Australians wanting a sustainable future detected something else – the start of a large political backlash.

– Shaun Dumbrell, Williamstown

Too popular

There’s been a steady deluge of articles about the population debate, as well as a related issue: housing affordability. Problem is, while the debate drags on, the population continues to grow. The housing shortage is directly attributable to growth, but no politician is game to drastically change the system. For me it is dismaying to see the older houses and gardens in my suburb and others be demolished and replaced with ugly cramped townhouses and enormous multistory houses with barely any room for vegetation, as well as open land be smothered with housing estates that are spreading like cancerous growths. I absolutely hate how Victoria has changed since the early 1990s, when Jeff Kennett’s Liberal government came into power and instigated a massive social upheaval which has been continued under the Labor government following it. It is horrid to live through. Victoria’s population growth is now the fastest in Australia. Popularity sucks!

“Inquiry call as population tops 22 million”, ABC News, 25/3. Various population experts, the Federal Opposition and the Greens want an inquiry into what population is sustainable for Australia. The last such inquiry was in 1971!

“Australia’s population growth is already leading to a range of pressures”, ABC News, 25/3. An overview of Australia’s population issues.

“Carr wants migrant intake cut to curb growth”, SMH, 25/3. Bob Carr, the former Labor premier of NSW, says Australia’s immigration intake should be slashed by half to slow population growth. The Stable Population Party is also quoted:

A new party pushing for a stabilised population capped at 23 million was gathering support, its Sydney convener, William Bourke, said. The Stable Population Party of Australia wants to keep the national population static despite a projected population increase to 9.2 billion globally, from 6.8 billion now. “Australia’s extreme population growth is either causing or exacerbating our economic, environmental and social problems,” he said. The main problems were housing affordability in cities, soaring power prices, scarce water resources and a straining health system. Migration and inducements for families to have more children were contributing.

“Australian population growth double the world average”, H-S, 26/3. Australia’s population growth is 2.1% – higher than China, the US, Canada, Indonesia and most other nations. This should be considered a disgrace!

“Victoria’s population boom could be recipe for disaster says Labor MP”, H-S, 26/3. MP Kelvin Thomson again is a sole voice speaking out against unchecked growth.

Growth and greed

Three population articles in today’s The Age, two of them pro-growth.

“More people does not equal trashing our environment”: a minister (for migration) argues that population growth (though immigration) can be accommodated for with adequate planning. Given how hopeless the Brumby Government is at planning anything, his is wishful thinking. More immigration might seem to boost the economy in the short term, but those people will in turn grow old, and require even more people to support them – where does this end? We do not have infinite space, jobs or resources, and stating that people should curtail their standard of living is unacceptable – the most severe water restrictions will be futile if the population keeps increasing.

“Green wedges lost in the woods”: a representative from the Master Builders Association of Victoria says urban growth should continue, that people should be able to build big houses, that grasslands are “barren” and thus should be smothered over with housing.

Large homes have long been the obvious signs of affluence, success and in many cases, fertility. These are all social virtues that should be supported.

Greed is good, in short? What a load of self-serving bullshit. Large homes are environmentally-unfriendly and far from being “efficient”.

He was responding to an earlier article, “We need more green areas, not people”, 12/1, by a member of the Green Wedges Coalition.

“Reality check on growth”: by Bob Birrell, says that such a population increase will destroy quality of life for Australia’s citizens, and that the 35 million population projection is over-inflated as high migration programs have historically not been sustained. Both State and Federal Governments, however, have vested interests in maintaining growth:

Those involved in the building needed for the housing, services and employment required by new residents have a direct interest in high population growth. They include Victoria’s state government leaders, who are aware that the state’s main growth industry is city building.

Relying on building stuff can’t be sustained forever, though (as much as the industry would like it too). Mr. Birrell notes that:

Pursuit of the migration-driven 35 million target will generate increasing vexations as governments struggle to accommodate the extra numbers. Opposition will increase, as will critical attention to migration policies.

Many of the responding comments to the first two articles are quite good (and acerbic!). It is reassuring at least to see that commenters share my concerns about unrestrained population growth, though few politicans do, aside from Kelvin Thomson.

Some recent letters on the same topics:

6/1:

Preserving our green wedges

I am heartened that Planning Minister Justin Madden has stated “we are not in hurry to move the urban growth boundary” (The Age, 5/1). Melbourne has outgrown its optimal size, both in population and the surface area it covers. Our green wedges need to be preserved for their ecological value and food production. With the problems of “peak oil” (increased demand but plateauing of supplies) and the need to reduce our greenhouse gas production, it makes sense for farmland to be within closer transport distance. For example, the extensive market garden area on the south-eastern edge of Melbourne supplies much of our fresh produce. It has rich soils and a reliable rainfall. It should be preserved as a national treasure, not an area to be paved over for housing.

– Kit James, Melbourne

A defining moment

At last, democracy in action. Reading that the Government’s ridiculous decision to destroy our green wedges and further turn our once most-liveable city into a monstrous urban sprawl is being put on the backburner, due to Coalition and Greens resistance, is a breath of fresh air.

This is true bipartisanship that will shape what a 21st century Melbourne can be at its best. Let us build more efficiently, effectively and environmentally, improve our land use, curb our hunger for huge backyards and McMansions, and stop developers’ greed getting in the way of good planning. The challenge is upon us.

– Paul Bugeja, Caulfield North

Victoria has a population crisis, not a water crisis. By attacking the symptom (less water) rather than the cause (overpopulation), we live in a fool’s paradise while resolving nothing.

– Luke Hooper, Northcote

7/1:

Yes, there is a choice

Poor old developer, Delfin Lend Lease (The Age, 6/1), unable to open up more grasslands to flog off unsustainable future ghettos. Apparently the only way to afford a home in “Melbourne” is to buy one of its houses and enjoy all the future driving, health and social costs thereafter. There are no shortage of alternatives; for example, living regionally (it’s quicker to get the train to the CBD from Geelong than Berwick) or doing without a backyard and living near a park instead. But, as they say, it’s all about “My Choice”. Well, I would like the choice (having decided to live in a modest house, with no yard) of my countryside to remain as country when I escape town occasionally, rather than becoming one massive sprawl of obese housing estates so that private companies can flip a quick profit.

– Patricia Bakacs, Seddon

10/1:

Vanishing dream

While developers, investors and state government stamp duty coffers grow fat on Melbourne’s property boom (The Sunday Age, 3/1), we should all spare a thought for the average home buyer. With the median home price now $481,000 and rising, the Australian dream is becoming unachievable for the average Melburnian. While the Prime Minister and Premier crow about population growth, the next generation is slowly being locked out of the property market altogether, due to the spiralling cost. And those who are braving the market and purchasing a home are generally saddled with a massive mortgage, that may never be paid in their lifetime.

A debate on future population and migration levels is long overdue, along with a number of initiatives to direct growth to regional towns and cities.

– Mathew Knight, Malvern East

David vs. Goliath

“Bushland owners to fight bid for overpass”, The Age, 11/1. The owners of a heritage-listed bushland property are to fight the State Government’s compulsory land acquisition for a freeway bypass (mentioned in my 16/12/2009 entry). I really hope they can win as the Brumby Government are environmental vandals. The Save The Pines! website is a support group.

A letter, 12/1:

Warped priorities

I sympathise with Simon and Joyce Welsh whose heritage-listed property, Westerfield, has been compulsorily acquired for the Frankston bypass (The Age, 11/1). It seems the State Government is hell-bent on destroying ecosystems and remnant habitat for the sake of its sacred freeways and other developments. Local governments, too, collude with developers to mount unrelenting attacks on the environment. Apparently all that is required to tear down a “protected” tree in the suburbs, for example, is for a developer to apply for a permit. The result is an increasing loss of habitat as vegetation makes way for McMansions. We need governments who have greater vision than building freeways, lining the pockets of developers or hosting events.

– Tim Hartnett, Mont Albert North

Much of Victoria’s wilderness has been destroyed already – the forests that once covered it decimated since the arrival of European settlers – so it is vital that remnant bushland be preserved.

Back in 2006 a 400-year-old River Red Gum was felled to make way for a freeway. I will quote my 23/6/2006 journey entry from then:

Another tree murdered! This one a 400-year-old River Red Gum:

Tree was there first, but it had to go

Liam Houlihan, 23 June 2006

A 400-year-old tree that threatened to stump the Eastlink tollway has been chopped down by road builders. Dandenong council rallied to save the ancient River Red Gum, but was refused a last-ditch attempt for heritage protection.

Eastlink builders felled the tree about 9 a.m. yesterday, clearing the way for work to continue on the Dandenong Southern Bypass. Road builder Thiess John Holland said there was no feasible way to save the tree, near Hammond Rd, Dandenong South.

Dandenong Council admitted an oversight meant they had failed to protect it earlier. “I feel very sad today,” said Cr. John Kelly, who led the push to save the tree. “Unfortunately, we didn’t get our interim heritage order.” He said he was now pushing for the council to investigate whether there were similar old trees needing protection.

The tree was lopped just two days after its plight came to public attention.

“That might have quickened the process up,” Cr. Kelly said.

The main body of the tree was lifted onto a truck by a crane yesterday afternoon to be taken to council offices. It may be made into sculptures or art or erected in the ground with a plaque.

A tree that had been growing long before the first European settlers arrived here is now no more, no thanks to heartless developers and the overpopulated state’s insatiable need for more roads. It was rather isolated, the only tree near a busy road and housing developments. Perhaps it was once surrounded by forest.

This cartoon by Mark Knight provides some perspective:

Collected letters

Some recent newspaper letters (none mine).

The Age, 16/12:

Sorry, the eco-tooth fairy is not coming

Climate change is happening. Ask anyone in the bush. It seems as if only idiot politicians insulated from reality think that you can escape it.

I live about 100 kilometres from Melbourne on eight hectares. February taught me that I cannot rely on the CFA to come to my rescue.

I have installed sprinkler systems on my house and on my workshop, which with time, materials, and two petrol fire-fighting pumps cost about $15,000. I built myself a fire tanker from an old four-wheel-drive, with a new pump, $2000. I spent a couple of months clearing trees, undergrowth and ground litter from the fire-zone directions, which meant loss of working time. I installed a photo-voltaic electricity system, which will cost me a further $3000, after the rebate.

I drive to Melbourne, and I see the McMansions on the way. No verandas, not even eaves, relying only on cheap electricity to power their air-conditioners. I think: “I hope the price of power goes through the roof to show these fools that stupidity is not free.”

I see that these people have representatives, on both sides of the parliaments of this country, who believe in the eco-tooth fairy. I despair.

– Wolfgang Rebien, Welshmans Reef

Climate change; forget it. Population of the world in 2000, about 6 billion. 2050, about 9 billion; end of story.

– Stuart Young, Sorrento

Until politicians begin to ask how the environment can accommodate economics, rather than how economics can accommodate the environment, a sustainable future will never be realised.

– Will Hardiker, Thornbury

17/12, on the immigration scam disguised as international students:

Admission on visas

The straight-talking Indian consul-general seems to have settled in well to her life in Melbourne (“The joy of the envoy”, Insight, 12/12). What unsettles me, and I find insulting and undiplomatic, is her open admission that Indian students are here to gain permanent residency, rather than a skill.

No Australian politician seems to want to address this issue or look at the real long-term value to Australia. These trade courses do not come up to our own apprenticeship standards (even if all the colleges were well run). Thus, by definition, we are not producing skilled migrants - one of the factors on which permanent residency is based.

What is in it for Australia, apart from the course fees? Given the number of college collapses, you have to wonder how much of these fees actually remain in the country. Isn’t it about time we ended this hypocrisy?

– Graham Hogarth, Melbourne

H-S, 28/12:

Population growth bad for state

May I add to Brian Rockliff’s dismay (December 24) at the Brumby Government’s performance.

The core of Victoria’s problems comes down to the fact that the Premier is a very strong advocate of a massive population growth in the state (up to 2000 a week), and the serious side-effects this is having in unprecedented urban sprawl, traffic mayhem, water shortages, expensive housing and so on. No minister ever accepts responsibility. The most galling thing about this is that the coterie of Brumby ministers will eventually leave Parliament and be very handsomely rewarded by tax payers for the dreadful mess that this Government has created.

– Tony Davidson, Glen Waverley

Housing greed

Letters from the Herald-Sun, both concerning housing, 7/12:

Why have our regulators allowed the building of suburbs full of large homes without eaves and with no room for shade trees? These homes require air conditioners and those coolers consume energy while pumping hot air into the small gaps between the buildings. The same developments have no associated energy-efficient public transport. Contact your local councillors and representatives and demand answers and accountability, followed by the appointment of planners who know what common sense is.

– Paul Worden. Portland

I suspect such poor planning is because of corruption and influence from property developers, who can bribe councilors and politicians in developers’ favor.

16/12:

Overseas buyers swoop on homes

The decision by Kevin Rudd to eliminate any residency requirements when purchasing Australian real estate has propelled prices into the stratosphere. Even 24-hour junkets are now being organised to purchase property and then fly back over seas, particularly from China.

Any auctioneer would have noted that since March this year, when any form of residency requirement was lifted, the successful buyer was almost inevitably from overseas. How does the PM expect every day Australians to compete with a plethora of multi-millionaires? Prices have become obscene. A million dollars, or close enough to, has now become an everyday benchmark. On the basis that real estate doubles roughly every 10 years, our children can look forward to paying at least $2 million for that same property.

– Lou Coppola, Hawthorn East

I wonder if this baffling and counterintuitive decision to make the housing market even more unsustainably competitive is because the Prime Minister has contacts in China? It makes being a citizen rather pointless – why bother, when non-citizens are given the same privileges?

“High property prices should be a warning for Singaporeans”, Asian Correspondent. Singapore also has a housing affordability crisis, brought on by both inflation and overpopulation. The only people who benefit are investors (a dishonest way to make money, in my view). As pointed out, one’s house might be worth a million dollars, but it is not the same as having money in a bank that can be accessed (unless you sign up for a dubious “reverse mortgage” scheme). High property values also mean council rates go up, making life even more difficult for home owners who don’t have a high income of real money.

And as for the “net worth” of property owners going up – well, yes, that’s true. But it’s not much use to home owners, who don’t actually get that money unless they sell their house and don’t need to buy another one. The only people who really benefit from houses rising ahead of inflation are those with investment properties, and they do it at the expense of those trying to enter the market to buy one single home.

A house should first and foremost be a place to live in. The property market is corrupted by greed and is out of control, and if the government had any sense of social justice, it would abolish investor-favoring schemes such as negative gearing – and also, of course, reduce population growth so housing demand falls.

“Melbourne property market bounces back”, H-S, 21/12. I am sick of seeing articles exulting over rising house prices, this being one. The spokesperson quoted in the article is from the Real Estate Institute Victoria:

Homebuyers would face rising costs if the industry failed to build houses at a rate that matched the population growth, Mr. Larocca said.

“We would like to see an increased rate in construction of housing.

“Unless that occurs, we’re likely to see next year that prices will continue to rise,” he said.

“It really is supply and demand. While the population continues to increase unless more houses are put on the market, the demand will continue to be more pronounced.”

Well, duh, reduce population growth and you won’t have to smother more land with unsustainable housing estates?

“Homing in on the big decisions”, H-S, 1/12. Articles like this make me despair; Melbourne is on its way to becoming a nightmare megacity.

But the days of larger homes may be numbered as new home seekers are pushed farther from the city in search of affordable land. Infrastructure – public transport, schools and hospitals – are incredibly expensive and cannot keep pace. Aside from those who are willing to put up with a commute to the city of more than an hour each way, our rising population will be increasingly squashed into existing urban boundaries aided by government polices that promote higher-density living. Developers will continue knocking down existing homes to make way for multiple units, to the anger of existing home owners, who will be forced to sit back and watch as the character of their neighbourhood changes. Our way of life is about to change dramatically in the next couple of decades thanks to higher fertility rates and the government’s drive to boost our population through migration. Australia’s current population of 22 million is expected to reach 35 million by 2049. To fit everyone in, someone’s dream will have to be shattered.

“Houses too big, say Greens”, SMH, 1/12. Houses built since the 1990s have become obscenely oversized behemoths, as the Greens political party point out.

The Government should consider “putting the brakes” on developers who are building ever larger houses on relatively small lots, he said. He also believed it was time to discuss imposing limits on how large new houses could be.

Of course, some will snipe that this is “Government interference” and “social engineering”, but regulations are necessary in any society. My parents’ home – the one I grew up in (family of 4) – would be tiny by today’s standards; it was built in the late 1940s. I am not sure how many squares it is, but it is a 1-storey weatherboard with: 3 bedrooms (originally 2, before the previous owners added an extension), a hall, 1 bathroom & toilet, 1 kitchen, 1 dining room, 1 laundry, 1 living room. Admittedly an extra room or two would be nice (not to mention another toilet!) as possessions accumulate! The Google Maps image below shows the house (at bottom of picture) beside a newer (1-storey) one built a few years ago.

Freeway mania

“Frankston Bypass to bury historical remnant bush at Westerfield”, Courier-Mail, 10/12. I can only feel disgust at the Brumby Government for its obsession with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways, and this particular freeway will cut through an ecologically-significant piece of remnant bushland. No amount of compensation will make up for the loss once that ecology is gone. As it is a compulsory aquisition, the old couple who own the land appear powerless to do anything to stop it – though surely they could take their objection to court? I can see why people rebel against governments out of sheer frustration when all else fails (I am wishing for civil war against the current one). The environmental credentials of the State Government are a joke; it only cares for growing the economy and population, and placating developers and the building industry.

“Expert calls for freeway projects to be scrapped”, The Age, 3/12. No more freeways should be built until there is a comprehensive transport plan in place, and money should instead be put into rail lines. That’s a forlorn hope, however, with the current Government.

“Victorian prep classes to be at bursting point as ‘one for the country’ kids start school”, H-S, 15/12. Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello’s stupid remark in 2004 is unfortunately becoming reality as the birth rate has increased, no thanks to the baby bonus. We don’t need any more children.

China and India are, not surprisingly, among the highest source of immigrants. Both countries have such unsustainably huge populations that many have to go to other countries to find work. But they can’t expect to keep exporting their surplus people. The UK has a similar problem with its high immigration; there is a “spillover” of its citizens coming to Australia because the UK is so overcrowded. What happens when Australia in turn becomes unliveable because of growth? There is nowhere else to go.

Outspoken federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson wants immigration slashed on the basis that rampant population growth is worsening urban congestion, harming the environment and exacerbating the water shortage. But his leader, PM Kevin Rudd, is a “big Australia man”, with the Federal Government predicting the population will grow to 35 million by 2050.

Could Kelvin Thomson please run for PM? He would definitely get my vote (I certainly won’t be voting for the Rudd Government again, and the Liberals are just as bad).

“Wake-up to the opportunities in population growth”, The Age, 11/12. An utterly inane opinion by columnist Julie Szego, who believes that Australia has some moral duty to import more people because other countries have high populations.

Changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness, the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) ethos writ large. It would not help make cities more dense and habits less wasteful – quite the reverse. Lessen the pressure for change and the danger is complacency. Go down the misanthropic path and tomorrow’s suburban protesters (what, a new housing block /school/skate park? In my street?) are emboldened today.

People are NIMBYs because they want to retain their pleasant surroundings of gardens and space, not be crammed into high-density developments like battery hens. The article got a lot of scathing comments, including mine:

More people are an “opportunity”? Yes – if you don’t mind competing for dwindling living space, jobs and resources. European countries are facing social unrest from their massive immigration (remember the riots in France?). If you think population growth is a good thing, you are seriously deluded.

12/12:

Expect a backlash

Julie Szego (Comment, 11/12) provides little information as to exactly what the opportunities are in population growth. In fact by references to congestion, water shortages, fraying social fabric and greenhouse gas emissions, she gives examples of how our lifestyle will be diminished.

She holds up Spain as an example because it absorbed 2.5 million immigrants, but fails to mention the impact it had as development ran amok, corrupting local councils.

In Europe there is hardly a nation that has not experienced a backlash against immigration. Right-wing extreme parties have proliferated and violence against minorities has escalated, often because migrants have a disproportionately high level of unemployment and are forced to congregate in slums.

– Don Owers, Dudley, NSW

14/12:

Can’t cut footprint if adding more feet

I would like to correct four points in Julie Szego’s argument (Comment, 11/12) in favour of a 60 per cent population increase.

First, that “changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness”. It is the exact opposite. We should be less selfish, and share this country with our wonderful wildlife, and keep it intact for our children and grandchildren. It would be utterly selfish to ruin our country for the sake of a bigger corporate bottom line now.

Second, that my proposal to scrap the baby bonus means “the future’s no longer worth nurturing”. Wrong again. I am in favour of nurturing the future, but you do that far better by putting money into educating and training young Australians.

Third, at no stage have I proposed a Chinese-style one child policy. My plan also involves a net 70,000 migrants each year.

Finally, that “climate change is a red herring”. Nonsense. Cutting Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent or more by 2050 is made much harder by population rising by 60 per cent during that time. It’s hard to reduce your carbon footprint when you keep adding more feet.

– Kelvin Thomson, federal member for Wills

Monument to greed

Graham Reilly (Insight, 12/12) said it all. Local residents with limited resources are obliged to be the custodians of the very “soul” of each local area while developers are given free rein to push the envelope as far as possible – and beyond – to maximise profit. They’re on a “search and destroy” mission called “planning by arithmetic”.

Meanwhile, the Planning Minister happily endorses every plot to curtail the rights of residents and the already limited powers of councils, so that the “soul” of Melbourne is forever dammed to a car-packed, grey, concrete monument to greed.

The unique qualities of our suburbs are lost to what is euphemistically known as “urban renewal”. Just what is the minister renewing? He is being handed unprecedented powers over our way of life.

– Ann Reid, Malvern East

15/12:

Weight of numbers

The world’s human population is anticipated to rise quickly to at least 9 billion, but is likely to go higher if sufficient water and food can be found to sustain more people. This is easily the biggest crisis confronting humanity. All over the planet ecosystems are collapsing under the weight of human populations and species are being made extinct at cataclysmic rates.

My ancestors came here from Europe because it was overcrowded and without opportunities. They dispossessed Aboriginal populations who were living sustainably. That process continues. Why humans should decide to cram as many people on to the planet as conceivably possible is strange, given the history of overcrowding, environmental collapse, resource wars, and famines past and present.

The least we might expect is rational debate on this most important issue, not dictum from on high. Let’s think about where increased overpopulation might take us.

– Jim Walker, Caulfield

Impeach Brumby!

That expresses the exasperation and frustration I feel with the current Victorian Government. Planning issues have been in the news again this week, and the Brumby Government (especially Planning Minister Justin Madden) continue to force their overcrowding and overdevelopment agenda, irrespective of how residents feel. Some articles from The Age:

• “Brumby tackled on urban sprawl”, 9/6. The “Green Wedge” zones supposed to retain open space are to be developed to accommodate a projected population of 5 million in Melbourne and surrounding suburbs. The Open Letter from councils is reproduced below.
• “Wedge politics”, 9/6. Some of the open areas are part of the diminishing Victorian Volcanic Plains Grasslands and include some of the last remnants of the plains grasslands, which are being smothered under housing estates.
• “Threat to grab power off councils”, 13/6. Justin Madden – whom I have come to despise (and the building industry as well), and who has been Planning Minister for far too long – is to override councils’ decisions on planning.

This Labor Government is just as bad as the previous Liberal Government under Jeff Kennett (who began the planning reforms that have led to this); I would not vote for either of them.

Dear Sirs,

Governments have to make difficult decisions. We understand that. However recent planning reforms have gone too far. In the past few months your Government has:

1. Introduced legislation to deprive local communities of their normal rights to have their own elected Councillors make decisions on development applications in their larger shopping centers;
2. Planned to appoint a government-dominated committee to
   1. make decisions,
   2. require local residents to write a blank cheque to pay for the committee, and
   3. demand Councils pay the cost of defending the committee’s decisions even where residents and Councillors may strongly oppose these decisions.
3. Removed the rights of residents, Councils and VCAT to make decisions on development applications which are deemed important economy-boosting opportunities. The normal rights of residents have been taken away. Applications are now decided behind closed doors.
4. Removed both the rights of residents to be advised of applications next door to them, and to express concern about applications involving social housing and private schools where government funding is involved.

These measures demolish the cornerstone of this state’s planning system – the rights of residents to have a say about their neighborhood. These rights are at the very heart of our democratic system of governance. The use of the economic downturn to justify the denial of these fundamental rights is short-term thinking with disasterous long-term consequences. How can communities have any confidence in a planning system where the ends justify the means?

It is time to reinstate residents’ rights. It is time to return democratic planning processes to the people who elected you to respect and protect those rights in our society.

All of this is attributable to a growing population. If the Federal and State Governments would have the foresight to restrict Australia’s population growth such pressures would be alleviated, but they are hopelessly addicted to growth.

“Australia turns back the clock to baby boomer era”, The Age, 5/6. A dismaying report of the current high rate of Australia’s population growth, due to both immigration and birth rate increase.

“The Top 10 Most Absurd Time Covers of The Past 40 Years”, Reason Online. This site has a byline of “free minds and free markets” which sounds suspiciously like it is a Libertarian site. №8 is “August 6, 1984: The Population Curse”, reproduced below:

Why So Worried? Using an upcoming U.N. conference in Mexico City as its hook, Time engages in some Paul Ehrlich-style doom-mongering about overpopulation.

Cue Ominous Music: “The consequences of a failure to bring the world’s population growth under control are frightening. They could include widespread hunger and joblessness, accompanied by environmental devastation and cancerous urban growth. Politically, the outcome could be heightened global instability, violence and authoritarianism.”

Oh, Just Settle Down: Since Time’s 1984 cover story, the world’s population has increased from 4.75 billion to 6.78 billion people. This year, the World Bank’s Poverty Analysis reported, “Living standards have risen dramatically over the last decades. The proportion of the developing world’s population living in extreme economic poverty…has fallen from 52 percent in 1981 to 26 percent in 2005… Infant mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries have fallen from 87 per 1,000 live births in 1980 to 54 in 2006. Life expectancy in [low and middle-income] countries has risen from 60 to 66 between 1980 and 2006.” According to the peace advocacy group Ploughshares, the number of armed conflicts across the globe has generally been in decline since the mid-1990s (PDF). As for “authoritarianism,” with the fall of the Soviet empire, a far greater percentage of the global population lived under such regimes in 1984 than do today. Even the massive population in China is freer (if not actually “free”) than it was in 1984.

Well, we are already seeing the consequences of overpopulation (hunger, joblessness, environmental devastation, etc.), so what reality are the article writers living in?

“Pop the Pill and think of England”, New Statesman, 4/11/2002. An older article that explains why an aging and declining population is not something to be feared.

Totally clueless

Words fail me. From today’s Herald-Sun:

Population boost

The State Government has ruled out cutting population growth as a way of dealing with the acute water shortage.

Water Minister Tim Holding said rapid population growth should continue, despite record low dam levels.

“We’ve seen strong population growth in Victoria as something that’s contributing to the strong economy that we have, the strong jobs growth that we’ve seen, the growth in the building and construction sector,” he said.

The Water Minister’s refusal to consider restricting population growth to protect dwindling water supplies is symptomatic of a government addicted to growth – no matter what the social and environmental costs. The Brumby Government appears obsessed with protecting its mates in the building industry.

He cannot be serious!

“Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs”, Herald-Sun, 29/4. Seems to be a week for dumb articles, as this outrageous proposal was published today: Jason Black, the president of the Planning Institute of Australia’s Victorian division, put forward a proposal that Melbourne’s eastern suburbs (which have a lot of established trees and vegetation) be forcibly acquired, demolished and replaced with high-density housing.

Mr. Black says spacious suburban blocks should be leveled and the homes replaced with three to six-storey apartment buildings. Mr. Black said at a Melbourne planning summit yesterday: “We need to realise that some of the fundamentals driving the Government’s 2030 development plan have changed and we need to rethink how we’re going to go about delivering some of the objectives and the vision.” The conference heard that metropolitan Melbourne would need an extra 850,000 new homes by 2036 if fertility and immigration levels remained the same.

[…]

But Dr. Bob Birrell, a Monash University population and urban research expert, said compulsory acquisition of middle suburban properties would not be acceptable. “I think this (redevelopment) would be a nightmare for people that live there and they would see it as expropriating them in order facilitate someone else’s growth objective and I could see why they would be so testy,” he said.

A letter I sent to the H-S (don’t know if it will be published):

Jason Black can surely not be serious in proposing to destroy the pleasant leafy suburbs that help make Melbourne liveable, and replace them with hideous cramped high-rise apartments (“Planning expert says Melbourne must destroy leafy eastern suburbs”, 29/4) – any government that tried that strategy would face a citizens’ revolution! Far better to restrict population growth so that housing demand is lessened and amenity can be preserved, though that would not please the greedy developers and construction industry.

It’s bad enough that this increasingly dictatorial government is intending to override councils’ decisions in order to fast-track planning and construction (“Brumby sidelines councils”, The Age, 16/4) – I wish enough people would get motivated to instigate a revolt and overthrow this government!

Water is a right, not a privilege

I have a collection of saved-up articles, so I will go through them here:

“Extreme Motherhood”, Newsweek, 17/3. Report on a rather disturbing religious fanatic organization called “Quiverfull”, whose aim is for its women members to bear as many children as possible. The Duggars (18 children and counting…) are the most notorious example. They forego all forms of birth control in the misguided belief that their deity wishes women to be primarily breeders. Aside from the obvious overpopulation issues this raises, such constant childbearing is deleterious to a woman’s health and body.

“Earth population ‘exceeds limits’ ”, BBC News, 31/3. Comment by a U.S. science advisor, Dr. Nina Fedoroff.

Next, a 1/4 Herald-Sun article on the mass worldwide unemployment resulting from the recession caused by financial greed and stupidity. This shows the disadvantage of a growing population when such a preventable event happens – there are simply not enough jobs for everyone, so social unrest and crime will increase. It also demonstrates that governments can’t see past the entrenched “endless growth” mindset. I could not find the article online, so I have reproduced it below:

Millions to join jobless queues

Bank chiefs say we will fare better than most

An extra 25 million workers could be thrown on the scraphead by the world’s leading devel oped nations, one of the world’s economic power- brokers has warned. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development boss Angel Gurria spoke of a “fully blown social crisis” unless decisive action is taken to halt the global economic crisis. “Restoring global growth is an economic and political priority, but also an ethical, moral, social and human imperative,” he told G8 labour ministers in Rome.

The bleak assessment came as the Reserve Bank admitted for the first time that Australia will fall into recession. But Australia’s unemployment rate is not expected to sink to the disastrous 10 per cent plus levels of other OECD countries. OECD chief economist Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel said jobless numbers in the Group of Seven rich nations would nearly double to almost 36 million and would rise by 25 million across the OECD as a whole by late 2010. The sombre analysis came ahead of G20 Summit talks in London starting tomorrow.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last night told a business forum in London the financial system cracked after decades of worshipping the “false god” of unfettered markets. “The truth is, sometime last September, something almost audibly cracked in the public’s trust in our financial markets,” Mr. Rudd said. He condemned “an ideology that says government intervention is, by definition, bad”. Mr. Rudd called for a balance between individual enterprise and the common good. “Over the last quarter of a century this balance has been eroded. Unfettered markets became worshipped as a god – and we now know that god was false.”

In its interim report, the OECD does not make a prediction on Australia’s unemployment rate, which is officially forecast by Treasury to reach just 7 per cent. Growth is expected to shrink by an average 4.3 per cent this year in the 30 OECD nations, while the world economy will shrink by 2.7 per cent. Deputy Reserve Bank governor Ric Battelino conceded Australia would go into recession. “There are limits on how much we can insulate ourselves from what is happening abroad. GDP is likely to fall in 2009,” he said.

But Mr. Battelino maintained Australia will fare better than other countries and says the worst of China’s economic problems have passed. Treasurer Wayne Swan agreed negative growth was inevitable. “The significant downgrade in global growth from the OECD and World Bank reflects just how severe this global recession has become,” he said. The OECD said China will grow by just 6.3 per cent and India by 4.3 per cent. “The world economy is in the midst of its deepest and most synchronized recession in our lifetimes,” it said.

“Time for rethink on water: adviser”, The Age, 3/4. A Victorian State Government adviser, David Downie, belives water should be treated as a commodity, not an essential service. The fallacy of this view is appalling – water is not a frivolity people can do without, and it is listed by the United Nations as one of humanity’s basic rights (see quote from the linked document below). A society should not have its essential services held hostage by rapacious private corporations! Unfortunately Victoria is one state that is in this situation, no thanks to Premier Jeff Kennett’s traumatic reforms and privatization through the 1990s. A disaster it has been, with prices constantly rising.

“Privatization” of water services is often a controversial issue, and the involvement of the private sector in water delivery has accelerated over the past decade. In many countries, private sector involvement has extended beyond selling water from trucks and supply of infrastructure to the full operation and management of water delivery systems. While governments under international human rights law may permit private sector involvement, their responsibilities remain the same. Steps must be taken to ensure that the sufficiency, safety, affordability and accessibility of water are protected from interference as well as ensuring that everyone will enjoy the right in the shortest possible time.Where it is involved, the private sector should be encouraged by governments to participate effectively in ensuring people’s right to water.

– The right to water

I commented about this on a 2007 libertarian blog entry, “Government’s water shortage”, (can’t directly link to the comment, but mine is #218). A few of the libertarian types sought to correct me (they believe privatization solves all problems), but I stand by my opinion. Some letters from The Age, 4/4:

Just another way to make money

A top State Government water adviser, David Downie, is asking Victorians to see water as a commodity rather than relying on our “traditional belief” that it is an essential service (“Time for rethink on water: adviser”, The Age, 3/4).

What a remarkable insight into the thinking of the State Government. Mr. Downie was one of the architects of the 2007 water plan that includes desalination and the north-south pipeline.

Let’s consider how well that plan has played out – cost blow-outs with both projects, a multinational company set to take over the desalination plant, the possibility that only a fraction of the intended water will flow through the pipeline from our inland rivers, billions of litres of water a year pumped out to sea rather than being used in industry, and our water-guzzling power stations relying on excellent-quality drinking water from the mountains near Mount Baw Baw. To pay for these projects, our water bills are set to go through the roof.

If this is what happens when you consider water as just another commodity, then maybe it’s time to revert to our “traditional beliefs” and demand the Government treat it as an essential resource that must be managed for the public good and the benefit of the environment, rather than just one more way to make money.

– Cam Walker, campaigns co-ordinator, Friends of the Earth, Fitzroy

Essential service

David Downie, there can never be any doubt that the supply of water is an essential service. Would you have water dribble out of taps according to one’s ability to pay? Would you have a company with the efficiency standards of Connex and the relevant minister controlling the on/off valve? Other countries have gone down this fraught road only to regret it. Water may be treated for our health but it is not a manufactured product to be sold according to whatever the market will bear. The true character of big business has been exposed by our current global financial difficulties, yet you advise that the supply of water be endangered by the gambling habits of brokers.

– Roger Green, Ferntree Gully

Selling hot air

It appears that David Downie, who is employed by the State Government, which theoretically represents the interests of Victorian residents, wants to hand over the sale of water to private industry, the same type of people that misrun our suburban rail network.

The excuse is that we should “consider water as a commodity rather than cling to our traditional belief that it is an essential service”. Try doing without water or anything containing water for a week and see how essential it is. Next they will probably try to sell us the air that we breathe.

– Lance Fishman, Upwey

“EcoGeek of the Week: Author, Paolo Bacigalupi”, Ecogeek, 4/4. An author who has some blunt opinions on overpopulation. I found this via an io9 entry – “The Best Green Technology Is Population Control”. The topic annoyed a few commentators, who voiced the usual asinine opinions (much of the commentary and articles on io9 tend to be such).

“G20 missed consumption, population issues: lobby group”, ABC News, 5/4. Statement by Sustainable Population Australia that “the G20 summit has failed to recognise that over-consumption and overpopulation are the reasons for the global economic turmoil.”

Some collected letters:

Swamps help to keep us all cool

Denise Gadd’s article on Phillip Johnson’s wetland ecosystem for the Melbourne garden show (Metropolis, 1/4) is a timely reminder of the effect of wetlands on lowering temperatures and guaranteeing moisture to surrounding areas.

It’s a wake-up call for governments, which have allowed the infilling of these systems in the past 30 years for housing and commercial purposes, in particular the western wetlands and those at Edithvale. Those under the West Gate Bridge, in which enormous numbers of waterfowl nested in 1992-93, are largely gone, with only two unappealing greenish ponds remaining. Ditto for much of the Laverton marsh areas and, if the Planning Minister has his way, those at Point Lonsdale soon.

I contend that this disregard for our natural waterways has added to the drying out of Melbourne in general and increased the impact of high temperatures on surrounding suburbs. Certainly it has contributed to the demise of waterbirds, few of which now have a wide choice of habitat to resort to in times of climatic stress.

– Loucille McGinley, East Brighton, The Age, 2/4

Less people, more power

What a waste of effort and what hypocrisy in 1 billion people switching off their lights for one Earth Hour. In that time, there were approximately 10,000 new consumers added to the planet.

From just one hour’s net increase in human numbers, and assuming they live in a Western lifestyle as they all wish to do, our tiny planet must provide in one year a princely 7 billion litres of water.

For this hourly net increase of 10,000 humans, there will be a carbon footprint of about 15,000 tonnes in the first year, and about 1.2 million tonnes in their collective lifetime. And this is only one hour’s production of our species.

Cessation of population growth will give our species a chance to compute a sustainable number of us depending upon how we wish to consume. Any other fix must end in disaster, as has occurred in many past civilisations as they overpopulated themselves into oblivion, no doubt with the blessings of their political leaders, economists, planners and other population zealots.

– Geoff Rankin, Brighton, The Age, 4/4

Lawns breathe life into environment

It seems the Brumby government spin doctors have people believing watering lawns is a waste of water. One per cent of water is used on gardens yet 10 per cent is wasted because of broken water mains each year.

Lawns cut and maintained at 50 mm or more provide three times more oxygen than trees and absorb three times more O₂ than Australian trees. Green grass is an outdoor “climate control”, able to lower ground and air temperatures by up to 20 degrees. Lawns of 240 m² provide enough oxygen for a family of four a day (at ground level). Grasses act as a dust and erosion filter for cleaner air and prevention of water runoff. Green grasses are fire retar dant, but dry, burning grass adds tonnes of CO₂ to the air.

As there are many thousands employed in the long-suffering horticultural industry, it is time for those who profess to be green to realise where the solution to global warming really is. Green is cool.

– John Bird, (Supporter of Vic Coalition for Sustainable Water Use), Somerville, Herald-Sun, 6/4