Humans increase as wild animals decrease

Another gap in writing, and I again have a huge backlog of articles. Writing just feels pointless at times as few want to acknowledge that human overpopulation is a major problem – certainly not those with influence.

A new and horrifying report was released in September that predicted the world’s population could climb to 11 billion by 2100 – rather than peak and decline as has previously been the accepted scenario. That is just over one-and-a-half as many people as today.

Another analysis was also released last month by the WWF stating that Earth had lost half of its wildlife in the past 40 years (as contrasted to domesticated animals, which are also in plague proportions). However the report only mentions human consumption as the culprit, not our growing numbers also.

Despite the implications – ultimately far more alarming than the terrorist scaremongering currently occupying governments – the extinction article barely recieved a mention in the mainstream press, as the letter below points out (Herald-Sun, 3/10):

Threat underplayed

I READ with great interest the snippet, “Wildlife plummet” (HS, Oct 1), stating that wildlife numbers have plunged by more than half in 40 years as the Earth’s human population has nearly doubled.

Given that humans are consuming natural resources that would require L5 Earths to sustain, I cannot comprehend why this was on page 21. This is an extremely serious threat to life as we know it. Granted, it doesn’t appear to be as immediate or sensational a threat as terrorism, but this has the potential to be a planetary disaster. Every day I am further convinced of the truth of the underlying message in Dan Brown’s novel, Inferno, in which the problem of overpopulation is the central theme.

– Geoff McKeon, Huntly

Given these two factors, the Earth of 2100 (when I will be dead, barring access to any life-extension technology of then) will be a far less biodiverse planet. The few wild animals left will live out restricted lives in nature reserves or zoos. Megacities of tens of millions will sprawl over the various continents like grey cancer cells. Big forests such as the Amazon or Siberian taiga will have all but vanished. Global warming will wreak havoc. Aside from the mega-wealthy, many humans will likely also have miserably restricted lives, seeking to escape from their bleak reality into the virtual world with whatever technologies have evolved then. In fact that is not too far off the Earth presented in the movie Avatar.

A recent book by Paul Hanley on the topic of eleven billion was featured on io9. He seems to be optimistic that humans will find ways to cope, but I find such optimism dangerous – it is a complacent feeling of “No worries, things will work out” rather than take measures now to prevent the population getting to such a huge number in the first place (prevention is preferable to the cure).

Well, we can look at 11 billion as too many people, or look at the population as huge potential to do things like reclaim deteriorated ecosystems. There are some 3 billion hectares of deteriorated ecosystems by some reckoning (see Rattan Lal) Restoring those lands, which would require a huge amount of work, would be like adding a new continent to the world. It would also ameliorate climate change by capturing huge amounts of carbon in plants and soil. But in rick areas where people have more than we need, we will have to look at shorter work weeks, more job sharing, lower income and consumption, but more time to do things like hang out with family and friends, be creative, garden, etc.

We may be able to restore the natural world, but I think there will be a net loss of biodiversity what ere we do. But ecological function can be prioritized, leading to better incomes for the rural poor. I talk about an outstanding large scale example of this on China’s Loess Plateau.

I don’t find the prospect of such loss of biodiversity at all acceptable – humans don’t own the Earth, but share it with other lifeforms. We as a species should not let things get to such a condition in the first place – this should be considered a moral imperative.

“It is not primarily the number of people that’s important in population policy, it’s what they are capable of, their level of education, and their health.”

– Wolfgang Lutz, director of the Vienna Institute of Demography

A quote from the first “11 billion” article which I strongly disagree with for reasons previously stated.

23 million and counting

Australia’s population officially reached 23 million on 23 April; a milestone that was generally reported positively. The population is small compared to many other countries (as is pointed out with tedious regularity), but Australia does not have a great amount of habitable land, so most of the population tends to live along the coastline, and much of that is clumped into the major cities.

Melbourne is, unfortunately, leading the nation’s population growth, and the negative effects of this are ever increasing: chronic traffic congestion (is it a coincidence that road rage is on the increase?), increased housing prices, inappropriate high-density developments in suburbs, pressure on health care, public transport and other services … the list goes on. Little if anything about this manic growth is for the better. From my perspective – I live in a suburb of Melbourne – quality of life is definitely deteriorating and the stress from this is continual. The State Government makes nebulous promises about improving infrastructure, but at the same time they cut funding.

Much of that infrastructure seems to only involve building more environmentally-destructive roads – an example being this brief report from my local newspaper (also online):

Plants face chop

ENDANGERED vegetation will be removed to make way for the new Dingley bypass, despite objections from green groups.

Greater Dandenong Council has given VicRoads the go-ahead to rip out a large old tree and vegetation, classified as “of very high conservation significance”, from the 0.19ha swampy woodland in the Westall Rd reserve.

Four environmental groups have slammed the unadvertised proposal. They say an overpass should be built to protect them.

Engineering services director Bruce Rendall said the proposal was not advertised because no third party would suffer.

It is similar to the Westerfield heritage woodlands being bulldozed through in 2010 (see 10/7/2010, 24/10/2010 entries) for the Frankston bypass. Native bushland continues to be razed for so-called “progress” and one feels so powerless and frustrated that it can’t be stopped. The Australian Aborigines lived here for 40,000 years or more, but in all that vast span of time they never did as much damage as did the arrival of European settlers in the last 200 years. The estimated population of Aborigines before settlement/invasion was around a million or so – something the fragile landscape here could cope with.

Some recent letters:

Freeway mania

The Peninsula Link is soon to open. This is the freeway
opposed by environment groups as it cut through several reserves, including the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, heritage original native bushland. The aerial map images below show the extent of the destruction:

2009:

2012:

The remaining creatures living there will be subjected to the noise and pollution from thousands of motor vehicles passing through every day.

Those who participated in this vandalism – construction workers and others – should be thoroughly ashamed. How would they like their houses to be bulldozed while they were living in them? So much of Victoria’s vegetation has been cleared since European settlement and it is still ongoing despite supposedly greater environmental awareness now. The situation is much the same in other states.

Roads are one infrastructure item governments always seem to find funding for – despite making cuts to vital services such as health care – and there are more planned around Melbourne to scar the landscape. Population growth is one driving force (so to speak) behind road construction and there is no sign of either stopping, unfortunately.

A relevant letter from today’s Herald-Sun:

Precious peninsula

THE Government claims the new Peninsula Link freeway will cut the time of traveling between Mt Martha and Carrum Downs by 17 minutes, and save 40 minutes in peak time.

The aim is more than an expensive $759 million effort to reduce driving times for commuters.

The peninsula’s green wedges will be more accessible and be nibbled away for urban sprawl. More land will be opened for housing to soak up our population growth, set at full-throttle speed by government policies.

More of our environmental and social capital will be traded in so developers and investors can profit from Melbourne’s growth.

Housing on the peninsula won’t be affordable, but maximised by good location and the globalisation of the property market.

– Beatrice Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

More angering news is that the Victorian Planning Minister now has new powers to speed major projects. Which means he can override environmental concerns and residents’ protests against inappropriate developments in favor of business and developers. I feel so helpless to oppose these greedy growth-obsessed parasites and politicians, and it is incredibly frustrating to see the continuing destruction of the once-livable city and state I have grown up in.

---

Addendum: A letter, The Age, 29/1:

Destroying nature just to fulfil wants

AS PENINSULA Link opens to huge amounts of traffic and raves about the racing car-perfect surface, we should take a minute to think about what we have lost in order to save some time: hundreds of trees that were homes to wildlife, hundreds of hectares of precious habitat for endangered southern brown bandicoots, and the songs of birds. We’re going to lose more as development speeds up throughout the Mornington Peninsula and, in particular, the Tootgarook Swamp, which stands in the way of the Peninsula Link extension to Rye.

The cost, so often advertised as $756 million, will be more than $2 billion by the time we pay it off over 25 years. As we hear more and more of our human services being cut, education being slashed, and hospital beds being closed, I despair at our selfish desire for comfort over substance; and at our ability to leave a sustainable planet for the future.

– Gillian Collins, Friends of the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve, Frankston North

News article, 31/1: “Peninsula Link blamed for more animal fatalities on Casey roads”, Cranbourne Leader.

African apocalypse

Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan showed recently that he realized overpopulation was a timebomb when saying that his country’s citizens should limit the number of children they have. Unfortunately, most of the religious leaders there castigated him on this issue, and having large families is an embedded part of the culture.

Two articles from April also looked at the social and environmental devastation that population growth is causing in Africa (as it is everywhere).

Across sub-Saharan Africa, alarmed governments have begun to act, often reversing longstanding policies that encouraged or accepted large families. Nigeria made contraceptives free last year, and officials are promoting smaller families as a key to economic salvation, holding up the financial gains in nations like Thailand as inspiration.

Nigeria, already the world’s sixth most populous nation with 167 million people, is a crucial test case, since its success or failure at bringing down birthrates will have outsize influence on the world’s population. If this large nation rich with oil cannot control its growth, what hope is there for the many smaller, poorer countries?

“Population is key,” said Peter Ogunjuyigbe, a demographer at Obafemi Awolowo University in the small central city of Ile-Ife. “If you don’t take care of population, schools can’t cope, hospitals can’t cope, there’s not enough housing – there’s nothing you can do to have economic development.”

– “Nigeria Tested by Rapid Rise in Population”, NYT 14/4

If Africa’s population increases according to the UN’s medium prediction, the continent will have about 3.6 billion people by the end of the century – raising its current share of global population from 12 per cent to about one-third. Nevertheless, its population could reach 5.2 billion or 2.4 billion by 2100, depending on whether fertility is 0.5 children above or below the UN’s medium estimate.

The population of the Sahel – those semi-arid countries bordering the Sahara – will double or more by 2050 at exactly the time that global warming is likely to have the harshest effects. As population growth and global warming coincide, the hunger and refugee problems in the Horn of Africa, and type of resource battles seen in Darfur or South Sudan, will multiply.

Worldwide, the UN predicts 15.8 billion humans by the end of the century if average family size remains around 2.6 children per woman, but 6.2 billion if it stabilises at 1.6 children. If fertility levels drop to the replacement level of 2.1, then there will be 10 billion people. (NS)

“How to defuse sub-Saharan Africa’s population bomb”, New Scientist 26/4

Wildlife there is already under serious threat; a lot of animal species are increasingly being corralled into wildlife parks that are surrounded by farmland, unable to traverse their ancient migratory routes. It is depressing to contemplate that the continent where humans first evolved – our ancient first homeland – may ultimately be turned into a wasteland by our species because we won’t or can’t restrict our numbers.

1/7:

Birth control key

MATT Wade’s report (“Children near starvation in world’s largest refugee camp”, 17/7) on the tragedy in Africa’s Dadaab refugee camp is heart-breaking. The clue to the cause of the problem is also in Wade’s report: overpopulation. One of the refugees has nine children, another has six children below the age of eight. The drought has dramatically exacerbated an untenable situation.

The only solution to poverty in countries such as Somalia is birth control. Developed countries give hundreds of billions of dollars a year for the economic development of poor countries. Any progress they make is swallowed up by the increasing population and the end result is increasing poverty.

It is time for us to reassess our options.

– Bill Mathew, Parkville

As always, the trinity of health care, family planning and education for women is the only long-term way to break the poverty and famine cycle in developing countries. Aid should be given only if these will be implemented also, otherwise such humanitarian disasters will continue.

“The Other Arab Spring”, NYT, 7/4. This opinion piece by Thomas L. Friedman notes that the revolutions that have shaken the Middle East since 2011 can be attrituted to the high population growth in the region, especially a high and unemployable youth population.

All these tensions over land, water and food are telling us something: The Arab awakening was driven not only by political and economic stresses, but, less visibly, by environmental, population and climate stresses as well. If we focus only on the former and not the latter, we will never be able to help stabilize these societies. […]

If you ask “what are the real threats to our security today,” said Brown, “at the top of the list would be climate change, population growth, water shortages, rising food prices and the number of failing states in the world. As that list grows, how many failed states before we have a failing global civilization, and everything begins to unravel?”

The coming collapse?

A report (home page) was released last week by the United Nations Environment Programme on the current state of the environment and what, if anything, countries are doing to avert damage. It is not a hopeful picture. This Herald-Sun article from 8/6 provides a summary (you would think that such an important topic would make headlines, but it was hidden away back on page 43):

Earth in danger zone

Critical thresholds being exceeded

THE Earth’s environmental systems “are being pushed towards their biophysical limits”, the United Nations Environment Program says.

The agency’s 525-page report on the health of the planet paints a grim picture.

It says: “Several critical global, regional and local thresholds are close or have been exceeded. Abrupt and possibly irreversible changes to the lifesupport functions of the planet are likely to occur.”

The report, released yesterday, says changes include rising sea levels, increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts, and the collapse of fisheries.

The report, which compiles three years of work by 300 scientists, says about 20 per cent of vertebrate species are under threat of extinction, coral reefs have declined by 38 per cent since 1980, green house gas emissions could double over the next 50 years, and 90 percent of water and fish samples are contaminated by pesticides.

It says little or no progress has been made over the past five years on almost a third of the main environmental goals, including global warming. Significant progress has been made on just four of the 90 most important goals, the report says.

“This is an indictment,” UNEP executive director Achim Steiner told a news conference in Rio De Janeiro. “We live in an age of irresponsibility that is also testified and documented in this report. In 1992 (when the first of the agency’s five reports was released) we talked about the future that was likely to occur. This report 20 years later (says) … a number of the things that we talked about in the future tense in 1992 have arrived. Once the tipping point occurs, you don’t wake up the next morning and say, ‘This is terrible, can we change it?’. We are condemning people to not having the choice.”

Dr Steiner said: “Change is possible. Given what we know, we can move in another direction.”

The report was released in the run-up to the UN Rio+20 conference on June 20 and 21.

A few reactions: “We’re breaking our planet once and for all, warn scientists”, io9; “Irreversible”, MetaFilter post; “Earth could reach ecological tipping point by 2025”, Population Matters. This article links to a similar report in Nature journal (also: “Earth summit: Rio report card” there). (Annoyingly it is subscriber-access only. Surely they could make such an important report free-access?)

The reports state that Earth’s various ecologies will reach a “tipping point” before this century’s end with possibly dire consequences for the lifeforms here. If it comes to pass, many species will go extinct, forests will be decimated, the oceans will be toxic waste dumps. In effect, the grim barren Earth depicted in Avatar will become reality. The article linked back in my 31/3 entry, “Here’s a view of the world at 2050 – if you dare to look”, also is worth a re-read.

The July U.S. edition of Popular Science, featuring a “Future of the Environment” special, has a diagram showing four possible futures depending upon the choices made now, reproduced below:

Is all this doom-mongering, crying wolf? A lot of people will think so and dismiss it, as they have global warming, as there are so many more pressingly immediate issues – keeping their job, paying off mortgages and bills, all the minutiae of daily life. As individuals there seems to be little we can do, so we shrug it off and carry on as usual. Nations are locked into the same destructive path of consumption and endless economic growth, and lack the will to change. If the dire predictions come to pass (and for the sake of other lifeforms here, one hopes they do not), humanity can’t say it was not warned.

A grim future

“Here’s a view of the world at 2050 – if you dare to look”, The Age, 21/3. This opinion piece presents a dismal view of the world midway through this century, with environmental devastation and extensive biodiversity loss due to human activity and overpopulation. It is not dissimilar to the hellish Earth presented in the Avatar movie. The Environmental Outlook to 2050 is available online, though annoyingly it is subscriber-0nly.

The report asks whether the planet’s resource base could support ever-increasing demands for energy, food, water and other natural resources, and at the same time absorb our waste streams.

The huge amounts of various waste products produced by 7 billion people does not get much attention in population arguments, but most of this waste is toxic and not recycled, so it ends up polluting the environment we depend upon – the land, air and oceans.

The purpose of reports such as this is to motivate rather than depress. The report’s implicit assumption is there are policies we could pursue to make population growth and rising living standards compatible with environmental sustainability.

We’re not yet at the point where the sources of official orthodoxy are ready concede there are limits to economic growth. But this report comes mighty close.

I very much doubt that the current rate of population growth can be sustained without even more damage to the environment – the outlooks are mutually incompatible. Implementing restrictions on such growth would be met with much resistance in the present day, but if things get really desperate as described in the article, I wonder if this opposition would change.

There is a tendency amongst many to mock and dismiss such opinions as alarmist, and assert that humans will find a technological fix (cramming us all into megacities seems to be a favored option). Indeed the very first reader’s comment below the article is breezily dismissive:

No i don’t worry about it because like most humans you are exaggerating. The worst thing never happens just like the best thing never happens … it will sort itself out. You will look back on this and feel somewhat foolish.

A saying I like is, “A pessimist is an informed optimist”. In other words, it is a realistic viewpoint.

A 22/3 letter in response:

The population threat

ROSS Gittins wrote about the release of various reports regarding climate change and the response to it based on these reports. These reports are designed to inspire people into action. Issues such as carbon emissions, economic growth, energy needs, alternative sources of energy, emerging or developing countries and so on. However, every time a report is mentioned or discussed in the media, the glaring omission is population growth.

Population growth is a hot topic that is difficult to discuss and even harder to deal with. Surely the time has come to raise this as a matter of urgency. While the world may be able to deal with increased growth, should it?

The world has enough problems with 7 billion people; what would it be like with 8, 9 or 10 billion people?

– David Love, North Balwyn

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:

Humans vs. kangaroos

Last night an ABC documentary, Kangaroo Mob, was screened, about the increasing competition for living space between kangaroos and humans in Canberra. Predictably the kangaroos are on the losing end, their habitat being eroded by the expansion of housing estates over grassland. The comments about supposed kangaroo overpopulation in the narrative could equally be applied to humans! I kept envisioning some aliens coming to Earth and deciding to “hold an annual cull to ‘manage’ the problem by keeping [human] numbers at ‘sustainable levels’ ”! To quote from a PDF from the documentary site.) We certainly would not like it if that were done to us. I previously mentioned the hypocrisy around animal culls in my 7/7/2010 entry.

I was infuriated at a news item on ABC TV last night (I don’t have a link) about how property developers are lobbying the Bailleu government to remove environmental controls and release more land around Melbourne for development. They are loathesome parasites who care only about making profit, no matter at what cost to the environment. An article in The Age today, “Native grasslands suffer ‘death by a thousand cuts’  ”, describes the threat to the remaining volcanic plains grasslands around Melbourne which are a valuable ecosystem but are viewed by many as open space to be built over.

Letter in The Age, 20/2:

OUR number plates should now read “Victoria – a property developer’s paradise”.

– Margaret Ludowyk, Brunswick

Collected articles

I have a backlog of various articles from the last 4 months that I meant to comment on, so much linkage follows!

Who are the real vandals?

“Mornington vandals cause $500k damage”, The Age (also ABC News, H-S). Vandals attacked and damaged road construction equipment for the controversial Peninsula Link in Frankston. This is the same freeway that was brutally bulldozed through the Westerfield heritage woodlands last year (see 10/7/2010, 24/10/2010 entries), despite a protest campaign. If this is a “targeted” attack, rather than random vandalism, then I support it! Harass and delay construction as much as possible; inconvenience the evil bastards in the construction industry and government who care nothing for the environment and who disregarded protests. They are evil by any definition. I do think of the Na’vi in Avatar who tried to fight the invading humans who were desecrating their land.

Deluded environmentalism

“Be Afraid. Experts Discuss Hallowe’en Population Doomsday” (PPF/Huffington Post, 1/10) contains various opinions on how the world will cope with continuing population growth. Of note is the opinion of an environmental reporter, Fred Pearce:

“The issue for me is about consumption, for which there are worrying statistics. We are not overpopulated in an absolute sense, we’ve got the technology for 10 billion, probably 15 billion people, to live on this planet and live good lives. What we haven’t done is developed our technology.” When asked of the issue that needed most redress, he said: “We really need to kick the carbon habit and stop making our energy from burning things. Climate change is also really important. You can wreck one rainforest then move, drain one area of resources and move onto another but climate change is global.”

That is the fallacy a lot of environmentalists believe: that population growth can be coped with if everyone learns to live sustainably and “magical” technological fixes are applied (what these are I am not sure). Well, in reality that is unlikely to happen; a lot of people, including those in developing countries, want high living standards, which is fair enough, and would resent having to downgrade their lifestyle. His opinion does not address the sheer amount of waste that 15 billion people would produce, and it’s unlikely all waste would be recycled. With a lower population, everyone could enjoy high living standards, though the wasteful consumerism that drives current society is behaviour that should be changed. I certainly consider myself an environmentalist, but do not share that optimistic faith in technological fixes.

Collected letters:

4/10:

City can’t cope

JASON Dowling’s article “ Storm of protest as sewage released into waterways” (The Age, 3/10) is a testament to the fact that Melbourne’s population has grown far too rapidly and has outstripped the capacity of our sewerage infrastructure to cope.

Compounding the problem is that open spaces that absorb rainfall into the ground are diminishing as they are built over or paved over to accommodate ever-high population.

The government should show concern but instead it encourages more and more development, which is incrementally to our detriment. Citizens and government need to wake up while we can still do something about ensuring a sustainable future.

– Jill Quirk, Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch), East Malvern

6/10:

Price of growth

THE cost of traffic congestion financially, socially (more time commuting means less family time, more tiredness, illness and injury), and environmentally (pollution, loss of open space, habitat and biodiversity) is actually a cost of population growth. We always hear how we must have population growth to stimulate the economy, but we almost never hear about the costs. Traffic congestion is just one of many detrimental effects of high growth rates that are inevitably unsustainable.

– Jennie Epstein, Little River

Food security

“Great Tully sugar sell-off proves bittersweet”, The Australian, 6/7. The topic of food security has been getting some media attention in Australia recently, due to people realizing that foreign companies are purchasing vast tracts of farmland here. This means that food grown here by them will be sent overseas. Add this to the foolish government policy of letting developers build over arable land and Australia may well have to import food for its citizens in the future.

His concern is that Australia is selling off its food-producing capacity, piece-by-piece, without thinking through the implications of what foreign ownership means. “We seem to be selling off the farm so we can go offshore ourselves,” he told The Australian. “We’ve got large superannuation funds and other funds available for investment in this country, but the people running them overlook the significant assets in this country because they think they can always get a better deal offshore. I see that as a real shame, that people overseas can see the value in our businesses and enterprises here, but we can’t seem to.”

Perhaps if the food supply situation became dire, the Government could seize the land back in the name of national security? Other countries should take responsibility for containing their own growth, not expect to keep grabbing resources from others.

“A Future of Price Spikes”, Time magazine, 14/7, looks at the concern of rising food prices and says that technology has enabled Thomas Malthus’s predictions (the planet’s population grows exponentially, while food production increases arithmetically) to be staved off – for now. But rising populations and decimation of the environment are pushing technology to its limits, and the world has only about 3 month’s wheat storage in reserve should some sort of blight wipe out the world’s wheat crops (illustrating the danger of reliance upon a limited variety of food products). The article asserts that “what we need is a new green revolution” – better technology such as genetically engineering foods, hardier seeds, fairer food distribution. But the world’s population will continue to rise and environmental destruction will hamper the attempts to increase food supplies.

Little media attention was given to recent reports about human activity in the oceans – mainly overfishing and dumping waste – threatening to wipe out marine species, but the sea is another major provider of food so this is an obvious area of concern.

Needless destruction

“Auditor hits $2b road project”, The Age, 2/6. The controversial Frankston bypass road project (see 24/10/2010 entry) was condemned by the state Auditor-General as unnecessary.

The promised economic benefits of the multibillion-dollar freeway may have been overstated and its potential negative impacts ignored, according to a report by the state Auditor-General, Des Pearson. In a landmark finding, the report criticises Victorian road authorities for failing to take account of “induced demand” - the idea that bigger and better roads encourage more traffic - when deciding whether to build new freeways. […]

Environment group the Pines Protectors fought to stop the road. Spokeswoman Gillian Collins said she was shocked by the frankness of the audit report. She said it showed the Linking Melbourne Authority had misled people about the need for the road and the cost of the public sector building it.

So the Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve was destroyed no thanks to an uncaring Government that can’t see beyond its myopic focus on economic growth.

Letters in response, 3/6:

Environmental atrocity

The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve has been decimated as the Frankston Bypass freeway construction now cuts through the once-pristine bushland. A photo gallery documents the destruction; it is a depressing sight. Two photos below show before and a simulated after (once the freeway is built):

Shame, shame, shame on this heartless uncaring government. Its environmental credentials are a farce. Australia’s disgraceful record of environmental destruction continues unabated (another example is the logging of old-growth forests in Victoria). Some letters in response below:

7/8:

Paradise paved over

John Brumby pledged last week to cut Victoria’s greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 through cleaner power generation (The Age, 26/7).

Simultaneously his government signs contracts to construct more freeways, which will increase carbon emissions. In the process the historic Westerfield sanctuary and Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve for the Frankston Bypass, and Coomoora Woodland Reserve for the Dingley Arterial will be sacrificed. Yet in each case there is a viable alternative route that would preserve these invaluable environmental assets.

Why set a target to cut emissions, but authorise the destruction of natural carbon sinks. Is the Premier genuine or just a pretender, creating a smokescreen for short-sighted and unsustainable development by setting a long-term target for which he will never be held accountable? Even if emissions are eventually contained, what natural heritage will be left for future generations to enjoy once paradise has been fully paved?

– Damon Anderson, Keysborough

30/9:

Dark day as state shows its might

To say Tuesday was a sad day for democracy and for the environment is an understatement. But it is hard to adequately express the significance of the freeway protesters’ defeat at Westerfield, near Frankston (“Police arrest freeway protesters”, The Age, 29/9).

That 100 police are brought in to subdue protesters sends a message that no matter what people do to protect what they value, the state will bring in stronger forces to overpower them.

At that point there is nothing further that citizens can do to protect their environment and the only reasonable reaction is despair. A disengaged populace without hope fits best into the Brumby government’s “plan”.

– Jill Quirk, Malvern East

No more softly, softly

The Brumby government will not tolerate any interference with Peninsula Link freeway plans, even if it means the compulsory acquisition and destruction of pristine, privately owned, heritage-listed bushland complete with endangered species of fauna and flora.

This was carried out before a VCAT hearing pertaining to the historic site.

I was witness to the extraordinary events at the Westerfield site on Tuesday, when 100 or more police, including mounted police, arrived on the site equipped in riot gear, ready to defend construction workers against a tiny group of peaceful protesters, many of whom were in their 60s or over.

It appears that since former chief commissioner Christine Nixon retired, the era of softly softly “community policing” is over. We are well and truly back in the strong-arm-of-the-law era of the Kennett government.

– Rod Binnington, Brighton

No trust for Pallas

Roads Minister Tim Pallas should resign. Last week he assured the protesters that the bulldozing would not go ahead until the VCAT ruling was handed down.

On Tuesday, Mr Pallas suddenly switched. It is shameful when a minister of the state cannot be trusted.

These incredible protesters have picketed this area all through the cold winter. They deserve medals; instead they are arrested.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash, Camberwell

Bullying shifts south-east

John Brumby, not satisfied with bullying Footscray residents affected by the $4.3 billion new rail line, from Southern Cross through Footscray to Little River, now bullies southern pensioners and retirees.

Mr Brumby’s message to residents in the west that the new rail line will go ahead regardless of the findings of any study on its impact on residents and the environment reeks of the bully-boy tactics well practised by his government.

Charging in to break up the Westerfield picket line, manned by locals in their senior years, is the latest new low for this government. Once again, Brumby’s mantra – regardless of residents and the environment – wins the day, but perhaps not the next state election.

– Darlene Reilly, Sunshine

3/10:

Biting the hand

If the ALP want to win votes from the Greens (“What’s eating Labor”, 19/9) they should not have bulldozed the Westerfield heritage bushland last week. And they should not bulldoze the environmentally significant Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve (also in the Peninsula Link reservation at Frankston) or the Coomoora woodland.

Nor should they be dreaming of putting a north-east link freeway through the Yarra Flats at Banyule. Nor should they have voted, with Coalition support, to take 43,600 hectares of green wedge land for urban development.

– Rosemary West, Edithvale

4/10:

Woodland lost, questions remain

State Roads Minister Tim Pallas justifies destruction of the Westerfield property’s heritage bushland to construct the Peninsula Link freeway with the claim that “work commenced in this area with all the necessary heritage and environmental approvals and permits in place following extensive planning” (Letters, 2/10).

Wrong, Mr Pallas. You must surely be aware that VCAT – our civil justice court – is hearing questions as to why native vegetation is being cleared from the site before “vegetation offsets” have been secured to comply with Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework (“vegetation offsets” provide like-for-like vegetation at another location in lieu of that to be destroyed).

Westerfield’s rare and pristine “grassy woodland”, which has been destroyed in 48 hours, should have had the question of offsets resolved before clearing of any vegetation. The government should follow due process and not change soundly based laws that protect our environment.

– Joyce and Simon Welsh, Westerfield, Frankston

We are misinformed

Tim Pallas’s claim that the heritage-listed Westerfield land was available for clearing in June is misleading. Heritage Victoria’s final decision regarding the property was handed down on July 28. An appeal committee found the initial approval of March 17 was flawed. Final approval was given on September 9, meaning that if work was started in June it would have been without the necessary approval of Heritage Victoria.

There is a history of misinformation. In August 2007, Mr Pallas announced the statutory offsets for native vegetation cleared for EastLink and claimed that a parcel of land in Langwarrin was “now Crown land”. This statement was false then and remains so now, despite the law that these matters are to be finalised 12 months after construction starts.

The land remains in private hands and the $600,000 payment for its improvement remains in limbo, pending a planning scheme amendment and its subdivision from a larger site.

There are laws that govern the preservation of our landscape and heritage and norms that apply to truth and sound governance. These laws and norms have been treated with contempt.

– Jim Kerin, Frankston

(I also posted this at Avatar-Forums.com.)

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.

Victims of growth

Two examples of how human population growth is negatively impacting native fauna in Australia (who arguably have more right to the land than the foreign-born or -descended humans who now inhabit it).

“Fears cassowary may vanish”, The Age, 24/6. The habitat of endangered Cassowary birds in North Queensland is under threat from housing. This only adds to my hatred of greedy property developers and the politicians who give them free rein.

“Roo culling wrong, protesters say”, 7/7. Grey kangaroos are being shot for the annual cull in Canberra. Why?

The ACT’s parks director Russell Watkinson said culling was necessary to protect the environment.

“We have an overabundant number of eastern grey kangaroos,” he said, adding they were overpopulating areas after being hemmed in reserves because of urban development.

“The kangaroos are grazing the habitats of rare and endangered species down to bare earth.”

Start culling the humans who are overpopulating the area, instead!

Sometimes I imagine aliens visiting Earth and deciding to cull the human population for the exact same reasons as given in that article (replace the word “kangaroos” with “humans”). This would be a sort of cosmic karma!

Environmental vandals

“Australia’s global footprint one of the worst”, The Age, 6/5. The discovery and settlement of Australia by European explorers was arguably the most disastrous event in the continent’s history – for both its environment and indigenous population – and the destruction is still ongoing. The Federal and State Governments’ supposed concern about the environment is just empty rhetoric. Greens Senator Bob Brown said that Australia and humanity are sealing their own fates. I will probably vote for the Greens in the Federal election later this year, though I don’t agree with all their policies; they seem to be the only party with some integrity left.

“Melbourne’s liveability under threat as population grows, experts warn”, Herald-Sun, 14/6. I now have the misfortune to live in the fastest-growing state in Australia, and it is hell, as far as I am concerned. Premier Brumby did acknowledge that Victoria’s population has been growing too fast, but then repeated the furphy that growth was necessary to deal with an ageing population:

Mr. Brumby said it was important Victoria and Australia maintained population growth to deal with an ageing population. “When all of the baby boomers go through, for every seven baby boomers there will just be two people who are productive in the community,” he said.

Following this line of reasoning, those younger people will also grow old in the future, and require yet more people to sustain them. Where does this idiocy end?

The state in which I grew up is being ruined, both socially and environmentally, and the blame starts with Premier Jeff Kennett’s policies in the 1990s, followed by the Labor Government.

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