A future timebomb

“Sir Bob Geldof calls for women to have fewer children”, The National (UAE), 16/3. The musician and activist made these remarks during a visit to the United Arab Emirates, but the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research, rejected this suggestion:

“It’s not entirely clear to me that the way to succeed is to stop having children,” said Sheikh Nahyan, also at the forum. “They are the future.”

He said it would be better to focus on food production and consumption, as well as energy, water, pollution, deforestation, biodiversity, urbanisation and disease.

Sheikh Nahyan also quoted the UN as saying “we should not ask whether we are too many, but what can we do to make the world better”.

A foolish and short-sighted response. The Middle East generally has a large and growing population of young people, many of whom are impoverished, and even some of those educated have little in the way of job opportunities. This has been one unpublicized motivation behind the “Arab Spring” – venting anger and frustration at their situation.

Like China, Middle Eastern countries are facing a “perfect storm” of rising populations and dwindling resources, and are scouring the world to alleviate this, mainly by buying up farmland in countries such as Australia and Africa, something which understandably meets with resentment from many citizens there. Something has to give.

But Geldof called on the UAE to accept the harsh reality now and avoid disastrous consequences later.

“They either find a cultural way to make this acceptable or they’re going to have an anthropogenic critical event,” he said.

Global consumption is also expected to increase by 1,600 per cent in the next 90 years.

“I think the tipping point has been reached,” Geldof said. “There can’t be more people on the Earth than we can feed.”

They can’t say that they haven’t been warned.

Speaking of celebrities, “Cherryl Barassi on hoons, suicide pills and ratbags in sport”, H-S, 3/3. The wife of a well-known former Australian footballer had a few incisive things to say, including opinions on population growth. In the print article this was also included in a sidebar:

“Overpopulation and rabid consumerism are destroying our one and only beautiful little planet. Even the one-percenters who run the show can’t be happy in this climate of greed and denial. We are the ka-ching dynasty.

“How about we cancel public funding of the IVF program, and any other breeding incentives, and make it easier to adopt around the world?

“I’m tired of hearing about rights, the right to have 12 children, 12 cars and 12 televisions in one household. I’d like to hear more about responsibility.”

Perfect storm

“Australia faces famine, expert warns”, ABC News, 29/10. The idea of Australians facing famine seems unthinkable, but this could be a real prospect in the future as the “perfect storm” of population growth, water shortages, land degradation and climate change converge.

Treasury head Ken Henry this week said that Australia’s population growth is the biggest challenge to Commonwealth and state governments since Federation.

Professor Cribb agrees it will cause problems, and says governments must not forget future famine goes hand in hand with population growth.

“They have grossly underestimated the potential for population growth in Australia,” he said.

“If you get a major collapse in food supply in an area like the north China plains or the Indo-Gangetic plains, there will be hundreds of millions of refugees cut lose so we could easily see 20 or 30 million refugees arrive in Australia over a couple of years.

[…]

He says a range of issues have sparked current food production problems.

“Apart from the obvious things going on in the world food markets, there’s a colossal shortage of water emerging because cities worldwide are pinching the farmers’ water,” he said.

“There’s land degradation that’s proceeded unabated for about 30 or 40 years now. We’re losing land at the rate of 1 per cent of the world’s farmland every year.

“We’re running into energy shortages, we’re running into shortages of fertilisers, and on top of that you’ve got climate change. All of these things are making the agricultural environment much less certain.”

The main problem with increasing the food supply is that the population invariably expands to consume it. This was one consequence of the “Green Revolution” after World War 2. Perhaps one (rather draconian) solution is to demand that people either be sterilized or limit their children to two, in return for access to food.

“Rudd touts plan for better cities”, The Age, 28/10. PM Rudd regards population growth as a good thing and a “challenge” (yet another word I have come to detest), and is prepared to hold the states hostage to his demands.

“Perils of a bigger footprint”, The Age, 29/10. Australia cannot afford to avoid the population debate any longer.

A selection of letters from The Age and SMH. Incidentally, the newspaper sites are even more irritating to use and are badly-formatted; not all letters are put online. The papers themselves (like nearly all publications now) are almost worthless in terms of information.

24/10:

Free at what price?

Chris Berg seems to suggest that Australia should allow global free movement of people just as we allow free global trade – for economic growth. Yet free trade has resulted in many Australian industries going offshore and our exposure to world financial losses. Free people movement in Europe is a cause of serious social problems as governments attempt to accommodate a flood of uninvited immigrants. Economic growth is a goal for Australia, but not the only goal. Regulation recognises that.

– Janine Truter, The Basin

26/10:

We must put the serious questions ahead of profits

Peter Munro’s comprehensive examination of Australia and Melbourne’s population growth (“The big squeezy”, The Sunday Age, 25/10) was commendable in terms of getting comment from both sides of the debate.

Some opinions carry more weight, however, than others. When Treasury secretary Ken Henry asks if Australia’s natural endowments, including water, are capable of sustaining a population of 35 million, it’s a serious question. When Bob Birrell warns that a cost will be the loss of access to established detached houses for all but the affluent, we have to ask: is this a cost worth paying? When Ian Lowe says that adding another 4 million to 5 million people by 2020 could raise Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 per cent, we have to wonder how we reconcile that with Australia’s commitment to reduce emissions by up to 25 per cent by 2020.

On the other hand, when economists and business people clap their hands because of population-fuelled increased profits, it smacks of self-interest topped with profound environmental ignorance. Ian Lowe deserves the last say: “There is no prospect of solving our serious environmental problems…if we are committed to having the most rapid population increase of any developed country.”

Without an environment, there is no economy.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Do it for the children

In 1965, leading urban economist Max Neutze tentatively suggested that the optimum population size of a major Australian city was about half a million. Melbourne now has 4 million and is heading for 7 million by 2049.

In 2006 I invited the audience at a meeting on population growth to vote on what they thought Australia’s optimum population to be. Responses ranged from 5 million to 20 million, with an average of 10 million to 15 million. We now have 22 million and are headed for 35 million.

In a recent ABC interview, Kevin Rudd welcomed this growth, but gave only national security as justification. No mention of economic or environmental effects. If national security is the motive, does his Government have a plan to achieve this, such as for the geographical distribution of the population? Would 7 million for Melbourne and Sydney be part of that plan? Does it have a realistic assessment of the economic and environmental sacrifices such growth would entail?

Our political leaders need to pull their fingers out and face up to their social responsibilities, and get business lobbyists out of their pockets. Our children and grandchildren deserve better.

– Robert Braby, Eltham

The prognosis is grim

It seems that the growth fetishists are among us again, this time advocating unsustainable population growth for Australia, Victoria and Melbourne.

In Listening to Grasshoppers, Arundhati Roy skewers their argument with forensic accuracy: “The higher the rate of this kind of growth, the worse the prognosis. Any oncologist will tell you that.”

– Jim Spithill, Chadstone

27/10:

35m-person question

The Age is right to consider Ken Henry justified in questioning how this nation intends to support a growing human population (Editorial, 26/10). What appears to be missing in the cant about how this nation will cope with 35 million people is whether Australians want, need and must have such high population growth. The high immigration-fuelled population growth, comprising 63 per cent of net annual population growth, is calibrated by the Rudd Government and can therefore be revised downwards, giving Australia a different set of future projections. It is not enough for the Government, and special interest groups, to simply tell Australians that they must have 35 million or more citizens by 2050.

So far the bipartisanship of the major parties has kept the issue of high immigration-fuelled population growth and population policy out of the electoral arena. This is not only an affront to democracy, it takes no account of the precautionary principle concerning the impact of 35 million people on the built and natural environment.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

SMH, 24/10:

If human numbers boom, resistance will be futile

With our unprecedented and growing human population we have brought the natural environment to the brink of collapse. We search for life on other planets while we decimate complex species here. We are wealthier now than ever, but less happy and less optimistic.

Massive efforts are dedicated to “protect” nations from growing hordes of desperate people fleeing homelands ravaged by the wars and famines that inevitably result from the combination of limited resources and the growing number of humans.

We offer foreign aid to help improve survival rates (a good thing) but provide almost nothing in the way of family planning and access to contraception. Consequently, the populations of many poor countries are so numerous now, they will be forever dependent on aid. We do this while paying Australian women to produce babies.

If we insist on perpetuating the obsession for population growth, let’s open all our borders. Let people live wherever they like. It makes no sense that some can live on good land while others cannot.

If we are going to lay waste to the environment, let’s do it together to the short-term benefit and long-term detriment of everyone equally. Let’s end the protracted misery we have brought on all the other life struggling to share this planet with us.

– Larry Tofler, Tea Gardens

Keep talking, Dr. Henry (“Treasury chief and PM differ on growth”, October 23). Kevin Rudd’s response of welcoming population expansion is of deep concern. Can he really be oblivious to the limits on water and food in our arid homeland, let alone the difficulties of providing adequate education, transport and housing? We can only hope his intelligence will overcome his shallow political response.

– Andrew Scott, Pymble

Let’s be consistent. Kevin Rudd espouses the benefits of population growth, yet talks about the effects of global warming and environmental devastation. As the world’s population grows, land suitable for food production declines and demand increases, with hunger an obvious consequence.

It’s time Australia took a lead on issues other than global warming. Perhaps population growth fails to provide the international forum and media coverage politicians seek, but it is fundamental to so many problems. Reducing or eliminating it should be high on our agenda.

– Arthur Gates, Armidale

So the Association of Consulting Engineers has joined business and property interests and megalomaniac politicians in spreading the myth that Sydney’s population must reach 10 million by 2050 and there is nothing we can do about it (“Abolish councils, make drivers pay”, October 23). On the same day farmers tell us we must all live in high-rise apartments (“Food for thought: suburbs save farms”).

And what happens after 2050? More of the same, only more so, presumably. Animal liberationists must be chortling into their beer. Having forced chooks to live in great conglomerates inches from their neighbours, we are hell bent on visiting the same fate on ourselves.

– Norman Carter, Roseville

27/10:

Profit or peril?

It seems mystifying that the property supplements in the Herald and elsewhere continue to celebrate the “good news” that Sydney property prices and rental returns are still very high and will keep rising in the foreseeable future. The reason the boom will continue, we are assured, is that increasing population, largely through immigration, will outstrip the supply of housing.

Yes, it is good news for speculators, developers and landlords. But it is bad news for most people entering the property market to get a roof over their heads. Home owners are told it is good news for them, too, but if your inner-city terrace is now worth $1 million, how does it profit you if all other houses cost the same?

One wonders if the happy smiles of the people pictured will be shared by their children when they enter an even more unaffordable market and in an even more crowded city.

– John Mahony, Avalon Beach

Water wars

Another week of population articles, the first few from The Age:

“Our population explosion: more people, more damage”, 23/9; “Let’s think twice about growth by immigration”, 28/9. Opinion piece by Ross Gittins, on the wilful blindness of politicians towards the negative effects of population growth.

“Migration waves”, 26/9. Australia has a high rate of immigration, but is poorly-prepared to deal with the consequences of this.

“Australia’s population fairytale”, 28/9. Australia’s efforts at reducing greenhouse emissions are made futile by its high population growth.

While the Prime Minister was away, figures were released by the Treasurer in Canberra, and by the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, which showed Australia had the fastest-growing population in the industrialised world, and it is projected to reach 35 million in 40 years.

“Water wars loom in a nation of parched fields”, 26/9. Water shortages are already happening in parts of the world, and India is one such place – failed monsoons have farmers fighting over what water supplies are left.

According to Vandana Shiva, water shortages could split Indian communities along deeply entrenched divisions of caste and religion. “What we will start seeing is localised conflicts over water,” she says. “As livelihoods evaporate, along with water, you will see all sorts of cracks opening up in society.” Conflict is also possible between India’s majority rural population and its bursting cities. “People with power live in cities and, as the water crisis is deepening, what remains is being increasingly delivered to the cities,” says Shiva.

[…]

Scientists say the annual monsoon, on which about 40 per cent of India’s farmers depend, is likely to become more unpredictable. At the same time, the Himalayan glaciers that feed great rivers of the subcontinent upon which hundreds of millions of people rely are receding at a worrying rate. The World Bank says climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields by 30 per cent by the mid-21st century. Meanwhile, India adds more than 20 million new mouths to feed every year.

The predicted future of environmental disasters is here already, but most people go about their daily lives unheeding. Another grim article is “Animal Extinction – the greatest threat to mankind”, Independent, 30/4/2007, on the sixth great extinction of many species that also goes mostly unnoticed – much of it due to human activity.

We now understand that the majority of life on Earth has never been – and will never be – known to us. In a staggering forecast, Wilson predicts that our present course will lead to the extinction of half of all plant and animal species by 2100. You probably had no idea. Few do. A poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that seven in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a colossal threat to human existence, a more serious environmental problem than even its contributor, global warming; and that the dangers of mass extinction are woefully underestimated by almost everyone outside science. In the 200 years since French naturalist Georges Cuvier first floated the concept of extinction, after examining fossil bones and concluding “the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some sort of catastrophe”, we have only slowly recognised and attempted to correct our own catastrophic behaviour.

New Scientist magazine had a population-themed issue for its 23/9 issue, the articles accessed at “The population delusion” link. The population problem is described as “complex”, in that it is not merely due to numbers of people. One writer, a “techno-optimist” believes that a population of 20 billion could be supported using technological advances. I suppose that would involve cramming millions into megacities like caged battery hens – no thanks! Even if that is possible, it doesn’t mean it should be done. The “technology can solve everything” mentality is dangerous, and is no substitute for simply limiting population growth.

Annoying stories

I was browsing through the Young Adult section in Borders bookstore today, and came across a series by a Gemma Malley that aroused my ire. Beginning with The Declaration and continuing with The Resistance, they are set in a dystopian future, a drug to prolong life has been discovered, and naturally is used by a lot of people. With an increasing population, though, this puts a great burden on society, so the solution is to ban those who take the drug from having children, with harsh penalties for those who disobey this. Fair enough, but from my brief skimming through the novel, the plot takes the irritatingly predictable theme of Resisting Authority, a trope that infects a lot of YA and adult novels.

In the year 2140, it is illegal to be young. Children are all but extinct. The world is a better place. Longevity drugs are a fountain of youth. Sign the Declaration, agree not to have children and you too can live forever. Refuse, and you will live as an outcast. For the children born outside the law, it only gets worse – Surplus status. Not everyone thinks Longevity is a good thing, but you better be clear what side you’re on… Surplus Anna is about to find out what happens when you can’t decide if you should cheat the law or cheat death.

Anna does not have a last name. She has no right to one. She is Surplus – an unwanted burden on fragile Mother Nature; a child born after the Declaration which outlawed all children to control the rising human population. The most she can hope for in life is to Know Her Place and be a Valuable Asset to Legal humans, who stave off mortality with daily doses of Longevity drugs. At age fourteen, she has learned to accept her bleak fate – but then Surplus Peter arrives at Grange Hall, and turns her world upside down. Peter refuses to accept that he is Surplus. He insists that Anna has a family – and he plans to escape from Grange Hall to reunite her with them.

The first novel has a website [edit: now an Archive.org link]; from the “Inspiration” page:

I decided to put the questions to some friends. Would they, if given the chance to extend their lifespan considerably, give up the right to have children? The result was fascinating. Initially, all of them dismissed the idea out of hand; then, gradually, they started to consider it, to consider the temptation of a long, long life. After this consideration, about fifty percent still rejected the idea outright – some because the idea of living forever was abhorrent (“what would you do with yourself?”), some because the idea of not having children was too terrible. The others, to varying degrees, saw the temptation. Men were slightly more likely than women to agree; single men and women were more likely to agree than their married counterparts. Some older couples with grown up children thought long and hard and said that whilst they adored their children and wouldn’t be without them, they might perhaps have done things differently if given the chance again. Recently married couples were those most likely to be aghast at the idea; those who considered their chances of conceiving to be low (those who were resolutely single and those who had been (unsuccessfully) through the torturous route of infertility treatment) wanted details – how healthy would their extended life be; how would they feel physically and mentally a hundred years from now – but were generally open to the idea.

I realised I had the makings of a potentially terrifying new world, and one that many would recognise as only too credible. But I needed a protagonist, someone to lead us into this world, to expose its inner workings, its temptations, its horrific dark side. Everything comes with a cost; Longevity’s “cost” would be the end of new human life, the end of new thought, new energy; the end of youth with its naïve ambition, its determination, its belief in itself. And yet, I realised, as I mulled my new, inner world over in my head, there would, no doubt, be people who broke the rules, who ignored the Declaration. There would be mistakes; there would be rebels. In short, there would be children. Children that no one (except their parents) wanted; children who were considered a threat, a burden, a problem. Children who were Surplus.

There’s always an irrational few who spoil things for everyone else! There seems to be a vague preaching against population control, but I can’t verify this without reading the novels. I am certainly not buying them, but I may borrow them at my local library (if I can force myself to read them).

I can’t see much wrong with this; I don’t find such a world “terrifying”! I would certainly choose longevity over having children (I have done little in my life so far, and would like to have more time than the normal lifespan!). If society is to be sustainable into the future, some form of population growth control is a necessity, whether citizens like it or not.

“Mumbai faces acute water shortage”, BBC News 7/7. A city of 20 million with a water shortage – a nightmarish scenario, and a justification for population control. What happens if all water dries up?

“Sink immigrants’ boats – Griffin”, BBC News, 10/7. A member of the far-Right BNP made a statement that illegal immigrants’ boats should be sunk on sight, and to “Throw [the occupants] a life raft and they can go back to Libya”. I suspect this comes out of increasing exasperation at the never-ending flow of illegals, and many might agree with him (though not admit it). The U.K. is seriously overcrowded, and stress due to this will result in many adopting harsher attitudes towards immigrants, despite this not being politically-correct. Australia has the same problem of illegals coming in from the north (though not in the numbers that Europe gets). The brutal truth is that a country can’t take in everyone who wants to go there – it has limited space and resources, and should put its own citizens’ interests first. There should also be a U.N. taskforce to intervene in dysfunctional countries and take over their governments forcibly if need be, so the citizens of those countries won’t feel such a need to leave.

“Australia’s overseas education ‘a scam’ ”, AAP, 14/7. Not surprisingly, the growing international student market is also become an immigration racket. There are 500 000 students in Australia – using up resources. In my view the program should be ended – surely the education system in their home countries is not that bad?

Dwindling supplies

An alarming article about our water supplies from The Age, 1/7:

Drought runs into 13th year

Melbourne has endured its driest first half year on record, with less than 50 per cent of the long-term average falling up until late yesterday afternoon.

The year’s rainfall up until 9am yesterday was 126.2 millimetres, 8 millimetres below the previous half-year record low of 134.5 millimetres set in 1967. The rain that fell later yesterday was not included in the half-year total, as the bureau applies a 9 a.m. cut-off time on the last day of the month when recording rainfall.

The bureau’s Victorian climate services manager, Harvey Stern, said Melbourne had not recorded above-average annual rainfall since 1996. “It is going to take many years of good rainfall to remove these deficiencies,” Dr Stern said.

Melbourne Water said the city’s dams had received about half the average inflow since the start of the year, with the reconnection of the Tarago reservoir last week providing the only real boost to water supplies this year.

I believe this “drought” is more climate change, and permanent – with dire implications for a city with an unsustainably-growing population. Reservoir storage reserves are at 26.5%, the lowest they have ever been.

“Melbourne suburbs are the best and the future’s in the west”, Herald-Sun, 7/7. A baffling opinion piece from Bernard Salt, who seems to think that Melbourne should keep expanding indefinitely and that population growth is a good thing.

Population growth supports job growth and business opportunity. Melbourne is growing at a record rate of 74,000 residents every year. Every 10,000 new residents expand the retail spending pie by $9 million and create demand for about 4000 new households. More jobs and rising business confidence are good for the future prosperity of this city and its residents.

Such growth puts pressure on resources, transport and utilities, and makes life increasingly stressful for residents. It can’t continue indefinitely.

Melbourne, and indeed Australia, must expand its population for two fundamental reasons. Developed nations have a humanitarian responsibility to accommodate a greater share of the world’s rising population. And with the imminent retirement of the baby-boomer generation (who first reach pensionable age in July 2011) we need to shore up the tax base by drawing young, fit, skilled migrants who can go straight into the workforce. Someone else has paid for these migrants’ education, health and defence: they arrive here, go to work and export tax to the rest of us. This is how we will fund the retirement of the baby-boomer generation.

We have no such responsibility – if other countries can’t or won’t contain their expanding populations, why should we have to cope with the fallout? The young migrants will eventually age and add to the strain on resources. And the baby-boomers will just have to look after themselves (or be euthanized!) – they have messed up the world for my generation and those following.

I sent in a rather snippy letter, don’t know if it will be published:

No, Bernard Salt, there are no positives in Melbourne’s population growth, just increasing strain on resources and utilities, as well as stress for residents. Australia has no responsibility to other countries who can’t or won’t contain their expanding populations – why should we have to cope with the fallout? And the baby-boomers will just have to look after themselves – they have messed up the world for my generation (Gen-X) and those following.

“Keep baby hope alive with IVF”, Herald-Sun, 7/7. Another entitlement whinge about how IVF is a “right” and should continue to be government-funded.

Surely having a baby is a basic right worth fighting for? Why, then, would we ever think of restricting access to IVF just to those who can afford it?

[…]

And so we must fight for the right of 11,000 babies to be born every year to parents who desperately want to have kids, but can’t for medical reasons.

Reproduction is not a “right”, and IVF certainly isn’t! People who can’t have children can find other means of fulfilment, and infertility is not in the same category as a life-threatening or disabling illness. IVF should not be taxpayer-funded! The world is overpopulated as it is.

A collection of letters from The Age, which often express opinions on various issues better than I can:

6/6:

A lottery no one wants to win

Mark Davis (Comment, 4/7) argues that Australia should triple its intake of refugees. Presumably, so should every other developed country. Irrespective of whether resettlement is doubled or quadrupled, the few who win the resettlement lottery hardly make a dent in the overall numbers of at least 35 million displaced persons/refugees in the world, with the numbers increasing.

Uprooting these people from their own culture and resettling them into an alien one is not the answer. In desperation they cling to their own communities and form a culture within a culture, which makes neither them nor the host country happy.

The problem requires an in-situ solution. Almost all conflict arises from an excess demand for the planet’s scarce resources – in other words: too many people crowding each other out on a planet that is fixed in size.

Time is overdue for global leaders to recognise this population explosion issue, take it seriously and afford it highest priority. The Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December would be a good starting point.

– Margit Alm, Eltham

30/6:

Wild about the west

I support Justin Madden in shifting the growth boundary in the west. I, like a lot of other people, do not want to be forced into living in overpriced, small high-rise living, where you can hear and smell what your neighbours are cooking.

The do-gooders, who usually live in the east, are trying to force their ideals on the working class; these snobs do not even know how to get to the west.

The land in the west is infertile and useless for farming. The so-called native grasslands are scattered and you cannot tell the difference between native grass and weeds. Native grasses will be catered for in the proposed growth extension in a more controlled way.

Some also want to stop population growth. Next they’ll want to limit families to one child. What comes first, the greenies’ ideals, or affordable land for hard-working families who want to build affordable housing on their own little block? The west is a great place to live; bring it on, Mr Madden.

– Lance Hughes, Melton

[Totally clueless. The “do-gooders” want to preserve liveability and open space – and stopping population growth is the only way to ensure Melbourne has a sustainable future, and that people don’t have to live crammed together in high-density apartments.]

Only way is up

Let me get this straight. High population growth encouraged by the Government is causing high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, price rises for water and power as we run low on supplies, rate rises up to three times the inflation rate to pay for new infrastructure, loss of productive farm land due to urban expansion, and loss of open space and tree cover in or near urban areas as they are infilled. Could someone remind me again how this is benefiting us?

– Jennie Epstein, Little River

1/7:

Disaster in waiting

Reports that 10,000 people are in Malaysia and planning to “migrate” to Australia using people smugglers are a cause for concern. The debate about whether the Government’s softened stance is causing this problem is irrelevant. The reality is that it is happening.

Refugee advocates who would throw open the doors to all comers need to recognise that even more will follow by example, regardless of whether these potential immigrants are “refugees” or not.

The world recession and continuing political unrest will further exacerbate the situation to the point of impossibility.

Like Grocery Watch and FuelWatch, the Rudd Government will soon have to abandon another election undertaking and further tighten immigration controls to avoid this potential catastrophe.

– Greg Angelo, Balwyn North

2/7 – a sarcastic letter about rising house prices, which are almost always reported positively, but in reality these only benefit greedy investors, developers and speculators:

Great, let’s party

Attention students, pensioners, the unemployed and low-income workers. It is time to celebrate the “housing recovery” (The Age, 1/7). Rental “yields” will continue to “climb”, the “damage” of cheaper housing is undone, and Melbourne prices have “soared” the fastest, “eclipsing” everywhere else in the country to reach “record highs”.

– Scott Fisher, Kiama, NSW

4/7:

Ask tough questions

Will extending Melbourne’s population solve the water shortage imposed by climate change? Will extending housing onto dwindling arable land feed those who live there?

Will exploding global population create the resources to support it? Won’t Government funding for first home buyers merely force up house prices?

Isn’t it time our politicians, and those who vote for them, think about the real questions we must confront? Answers are easy; it’s the questions we don’t ask that matter.

– Eric Mack, Eltham

A site called Hard SF has an opinion page, Can Space Colonization End Overpopulation? I have griped before (12/5/2009 entry) about Conservative/Libertarian “Space Cadets” who think humanity can solve all its problems by expanding into space and continuing as before with its destructive and wasteful behavior, as there are supposedly unlimited resources in the solar system and beyond. The article makes clear the absurdity of transporting large numbers of people off-world.

Suppose, in order to accomplish all of these necessary projects it took 75 years rather than 50. At a 1% population growth rate, the Earth’s population in 2083 would be 13.8 billion with 138 million more each year. Suppose, all of this took 100 years. At a 1% rate, by 2108, the population would be 17.7 billion. It would be necessary to take 177 million people off-planet every year just to maintain Earth at 17.7 billion. If we consider 17.7 billion too many and want to reduce Earth’s population, it would be necessary to transport even more millions to other habitats.

I do not believe our current population growth will permit us enough time for this to be a practical solution. It seems that by the time we may be able to accomplish the technological marvels that would be required, the Earth’s population would already be at too great a state of crisis. Other means are needed that can help us avoid such a huge population which can be implemented in a shorter period of time.

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.

My published letter – 30/4

Got published, in today’s Herald-Sun! Same as my last entry (only slightly edited), but I’ll reproduce it below, along with another:

Plan to restrict population instead

Planning Institute of Australia Victorian president Jason Black can surely not be serious in proposing to destroy pleasant, leafy suburbs and replacing them with hideous high-rise apartments (“Bulldoze the ‘burbs”, April 29). Any government that tried that strategy would face a citizens’ revolution. Far better to restrict population growth so housing demand is lessened and amenity can be preserved, though that would not please the greedy developers and construction industry.

– Suzanne McHale

Planners, politicians are out of touch

The Planning Summit referred to in your report, “Bulldoze the ‘burbs” (April 29) was for professionals, not for residents. It was too expensive for us, and they did not want any of us speaking. Planners and politicians are out of touch with reality and out of touch with the people.

It is time we had a summit on population. Do we want Melbourne to have a population of five million? Would it stop there? Let’s discuss alternatives. Let the people have a say. I challenge the Government to organise a population summit that includes residents.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash (a network of 150 resident groups), Camberwell Plan to restrict population instead

“High-rise plan to halt the sprawl”, The Age, 30/4. Another plan to accommodate a projected population of 5 million by building ugly high-rise apartments along transport routes and shopping centers. These would overshadow the streets.

“Australia’s Dry Run”, National Geographic, April 2009. This is an alarming report on the degradation of a major river system in Australia (the Murray-Darling Basin) and the consequences for the people and animals dependent upon it (the river has been a major source of irrigation and water supplies). (If the article is taken offline, I will reproduce it below.) It shows how human carelessness can destroy an ecosystem. The capital city of Adelaide is precariously dependent upon the Murray for its water supply, and is now on permanent water restrictions.

IVF entitlement fanatics

“IVF baby is priceless, but who pays?”, The Age, 12/4. This article gives some details of the costs of IVF treatments, 80% of which is funded by Medicare. There is talk of paring back such rebates as part of budget cuts, but again the selfish irrationality of the lobby group, Access Australia, is evident:

But Access Australia, which represents IVF consumers, is taking no chances. It has been encouraging its members to flood the offices of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan with angry emails. Sandra Dill, Access chief executive, argues that infertility is a medical condition like any other funded through Medicare and should not be singled out.

These fanatics seriously anger me. As I have said before, while infertility is a medical condition, it is not life-threatening, disabling or disfiguring – an infertile person can lead a normal life and perhaps find other means of fulfilment. Some ideas for curbing funding:

• Funding for one child per woman.
• No funding for women over 40 (when fertility declines and risks of birth defects increase).

“Water cut off in Mexican capital ”, BBC News, 10/4; “Dry Taps in Mexico City: A Water Crisis Gets Worse”, TIME, 11/4. Mexico City is currently enduring a water supply crisis. It has a growing population of nearly 9 million (and ~10 million in the outer region), so you can imagine the ensuing disaster should supplies dry up altogether. This is an ominous warning for other drought-prone cities, such as those in Australia.

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

Bushfire holocaust

One week ago on Saturday 7, Melbourne saw its highest temperature since records began 150 years ago: 46.4°C. There were warnings in the previous days that Victoria was facing its “Worst fire threat in history”. That was no exaggeration! Bushfires raged across the state (some deliberately lit, which obviously did not help). There was initially no mention of deaths, so it seemed the fires would be like previous seasons: some properties lost, a lot of forest burnt.

The next day, though, reports of deaths began filtering through: first 14, then it kept climbing over the next few days. The current toll stands at 181, though this is expected to increase as razed towns are searched for bodies. The bushfire deaths exceed “Ash Wednesday” (16 February 1983, 75 killed) and “Black Friday” (13 January 1939, 71 killed) combined, with thousands more left homeless (around 7000 to date). Thousands of native and domestic animals have also been killed.

People are looking for something to blame. Climate change scientists earlier warned that fires would become more intense and destructive; this fire is some evidence of that. There are many letters in the newspapers blaming the Greens political party and environmentalists (presumably for opposing burnoffs), but if such people had their way, all the forests would be felled! (There’s no bushfires in deserts…) An Onymous Lefty has a few sarcastic entries on the reactionaries. Housing has impeded on bushland as population has increased, so more damage and fatalities are inevitable. If people choose to live in fire-prone areas, there is risk. And, no, you can’t chop down all the trees to make a region safe (as much as some people would want to) – the trees have as much a right to exist. The habitat of animals is destroyed when trees are felled.

Some (hopefully permanent) links on the 2009 bushfires:

• ABC News: Bushfire Emergency
• Herald-Sun: “Victoria in flames”
• MetaFilter: Victoria’s Bushfires
• Wikipedia: 2009 Victorian bushfires

“Solution for the world’s water woes”, BBC News, 10/2. Yet another article on solutions to the world’s fresh water shortages, but does not mention reducing population growth as a fundamental solution! People can only restrict their water use to a certain degree; one still needs to drink, use the toilet and bathe! If population keeps increasing, this negates any water conservation efforts. A few commentators (including me) have pointed this out to the writer.

Daniel Tammet is a savant with Asperger’s Syndrome who has gained a measure of fame because he can recite pi to a huge amount and learn languages quickly (my more dour observation is that he’s certainly got a talent for self-promotion). But he instantly lost any respect I might have had for him, as he is an overpopulation denier, as demonstrated in this blog entry from 2006; he does not believe that the U.K. is overpopulated. He uses the spurious argument that if the population was distributed evenly across the land, then everyone would have an acre or so to themselves. This ignores the reality that there are mountains, lakes and wilderness areas where people couldn’t live. The U.K.-based Optimum Population site has a page on The UK’s population problem. 60 million people crammed onto a relatively small island is overpopulation by anyone’s standard.

Overpopulation book

“Population Australia’s ‘big threat’ ”, The Age, 24/1. A recently-released book, Overloading Australia, is the subject of this article; it’s unusual for the overpopulation issue to get such attention.

In a provocative attack on water conservation schemes, such as Melbourne’s Target 155, the book Overloading Australia urges Australians to ignore water conservation, forcing politicians to rethink population and immigration policy.

Focusing on perhaps the most taboo aspect of environmental debate, authors Mark O’Connor and William Lines have argued that pro-immigration and “baby bonus” policies are at odds with plans to reduce carbon emissions and secure water supplies.

“The task of simultaneously increasing population and achieving sustainability is impossible,” the book argues.

Predicting Australian cities will suffer more congestion, pollution, loss of biodiversity and diminished services, the authors argue there is no point conserving water “until we get restraint in population”.

“Overloading Australia – new book about Australia’s overpopulation problem”, We Can Do Better, with some extracts (and at one of the authors’ website).

“Target 155” is the latest Victorian Government attempt at water conservation (rather than going to stricter Stage 4), in which each individual is encouraged to use no more than 155 liters a day. While one should not waste water, the fact that cities in a First-World nation have to go on these measures demonstrates poor planning by State and Federal Governments.

Ignoring water conservation seems sacrilegious, but if the government won’t reduce population growth, then more water will be used by these increasing numbers of people no matter how stringent restrictions are. Gardens should not be denied water as the plants and trees provide shade and a cooling effect in urban environments that otherwise have too much concrete and paving (“It’s time literally to go green”, The Age, 23/1).

There was also a related article in The Age A2 section – not online, annoyingly, so I scanned it in below. Liberal MP Ms. Louise Asher criticizes the unreasonable water restrictions, saying that with proper Government planning, a First-World city should not have been reduced to this. I agree with her, but am not inclined to vote Liberal, who are just as untrustworthy as the Labor Party – it was Jeff Kennett’s Liberal Government who privatized public utilites such as water and public transport, something I regard as a crime against the State.

Staying alive

Denise Gadd
The Age, 24 January 2008

When Age photographer Penny Stephens took a picture of Louise Asher watering a tree in her front garden, the Opposition water spokeswoman pointed out that it was recycled water from her kitchen sink, not straight from the tap.

The bits of coriander and spring onion that she had washed in a bowl the night before for an Asian salad could be seen floating in the watering can and were proof enough.

These days it wouldn’t pay to be caught using tap water for your garden outside the prescribed watering times. And certainly not for someone in Ms. Asher’s position.

While she adheres to the stage 3a water restrictions – using automatic drip systems and watering by hand for two hours, twice weekly – the member for Brighton is unimpressed by the State Government’s response to these dry times.

Governments, she says, are elected to provide five basic services: police, transport, schools, hospitals and water. A failure to provide the last, instead resorting to tough water restrictions and now a daily target for each person of 155 litres of water, is outrageous, Ms. Asher says.

Targeting the domestic user – in particular, gardeners – and some industries such as turf growers, who had lost up to 90 per cent of staff because of the ban on watering new lawns, is beyond the pale, she says.

And the strain of being asked to adhere to a daily water usage of 155 litres has added another dimension to the crisis.

“Gardens add to what Melbourne is – we were once the Garden State – and I do object to people inferring that there’s a hierarchy of water use and gardening’s low. In the end, I’m a liberal and it’s about choice.

“I think the Government should supply water for a metropolis like Melbourne. It has a constitutional responsibility to provide adequate water, and this one hasn’t.”

Ms. Asher says that since the 155-litre daily target was introduced in November, people have had to choose between personal hygiene and keeping their gardens alive. She wants to know how the figure was arrived at.

“Where did they get figure from? Was it plucked from the air or a guess – which I think it probably was. And does it account for overnight visitors? It’s a very tough figure, especially if you’ve got a garden.

(It is calculated using the city’s daily water use by its population. The usage increases on hot days.)

Ms. Asher says the target is not mandatory unlike water restrictions. “Most people in my electorate will be good citizens who want to do the right thing. So sometimes there will be circumstances where plants will unfortunately die, which is a great shame.

“We do have to abide by the restrictions and there is the legal power to be fined if you don’t, but not the 155 target. The trouble is, there will be some in the community who will use as much as they want (despite the target).”

Ms. Asher and her husband chose not to install a water tank, believing they could keep their garden alive with the twice-weekly watering sessions and by reusing water from the shower, washing machine and kitchen sink. But since the introduction of the 155 target, the situation has worsened and they are now contemplating a tank.

“I had an expensive spray system, which was converted to a dripper system once the 3a restrictions were introduced, but now I don’t think we can do basic cleanliness and have the dripper system running on the allotted days.”

Ms. Asher says she gets angry with the Government every time she lugs a bucket from the shower “like Third World conditions” to either throw down the toilet, instead of flushing it, or on the garden.

“Every time a person fills a bucket from the shower or reuses theft water from the kitchen sink, they should think of John Brumby and the massive system failure to provide water to a sophisticated international city like Melbourne.”

Former premier Steve Bracks’ pledge in 2002 that water was a major issue for his government, and the subsequent appointment of John Thwaites as the country’s first water minister to solve the problem, have not amounted to anything, Ms. Asher says.

“The Government has been condemned by its own rhetoric. In my opinion, they should have built a small desalination plant, a dam and also made more recycled water available.

“The Eastern Treatment Plant at Carrum still hasn’t been upgraded to produce class-A recycled water and it won’t come online until 2012.”

The restrictions have also come at a cost to many, including those in the turf industry, nurseries and consumers who have been urged to buy less water-hungry washing machines and dishwashers.

They have also affected gardeners’ pockets she says, not just when replacing dead shrubs and trees or turning to different species to cope with the drought and lack of water, but also when upgrading irrigation systems as the restrictions have increased.

While Ms. Asher does not believe we should go back to the bad old days of people hosing their driveways and overwatering their gardens, she says the Government also has to demonstrate that it is committed to providing Melburnians with a modern, first-class water supply that does not involve restrictions or a daily water target.

Failure to install water tanks at Southern Cross Station and Federation Square, despite their inclusion in the original designs, was bad planning, Ms. Asher says.

“We don’t live in a desert and even Dubai doesn’t have restrictions. The Government has deferred investment and thought it could get away with it, praying for rain – and it hasn’t come.”

Allocating water is not an option, she says. “Melbourne is a modern city. There should be water for people to have showers, clean clothes and wash your hair. That’s basic hygiene. What’s wrong with that? If people don’t want to wash every day that’s their choice.”

The long-term use of grey water on gardens was an issue for plants and Victoria’s water tables, and Ms. Asher does not blame people for sinking bores to keep their gardens alive.

“It’s about amenity and lifestyle and if someone wants a garden and a swimming pool, they should be able to have one.

“We live in a society where people are allowed to choose and if gardening is your leisure activity and you like to have one, that is your right.”

None so blind as those who will not see

The Australian Government is obsessed with increasing immigration (“Migration plan to ease skills crisis”, The Age, 20/3; “Record migration but more needed”, 21/3). I have doubts about the so-called “skills shortage” that is given as a reason for this; it seems more that employers want cheap labor:

The 457 visas have been controversial, with Labor claiming in opposition that unscrupulous employers were using foreign workers to undercut local wages. Unions also claim that temporary skilled migration is a form of indentured servitude, which is used to keep a lid on wages. […]

Meanwhile, Australia’s population is growing at its fastest rate in almost 20 years, with imports of skilled workers lifting net migration to a record 179 122 people in the year to September, and population growing by 318 500 to 21 097 148. But the arrival of new workers has exacerbated the housing shortage.

So, reduce population growth – restrict immigration – and the housing shortage won’t be so acute! The obvious solution that governments don’t want to see. I am so sick of this idiocy; increasing overpopulation is eroding the liveability of this city.

South Australia’s Premier has pledged that “the state will not run out of water” despite its ongoing drought and allocation from the Murray River at a mere 10%. So where is this extra water going to magically come from? There are plans for a desalination plant (as there is in Melbourne), but it is years away, and won’t address the problem of living sustainably. The self-delusion of politicians is dismaying.