OBSERVATIONS
“ALL ELEMENTAL THINGS ARE FINITE,
EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED”
The fundamental and seminal question that must be answered before considering all else concerning mankind and the planet is –
"What is the sustainable human carrying capacity of planet Earth — on each continent and in every country on earth?"
Only after determining and acknowledging the numbers of humans that can be sustainably carried, can all present and future plans of whatsoever nature, including for the conservation of resources, protection of biodiversity and dealing with the threat of adverse climate change, be assessed as to adequacy and success or failure.
Clearly, human population growth quite simply cannot continue to increase indefinately. Any continued increase will inevitably result in reduced "quality of life", environmental degradation and reduced bio-diversity.
If as seems to be the case Australia (and the World) are at or close to maximum carrying capacity NOW (see: Optimum Population Trust, then surely our leaders should be planning to stabilise population growth and even to seriously consider measures to reduce total population.
In Australia, rather than the Chinese "one family, one child" approach, disincentives under the various benefits schemes and by way of the taxation system may be effective.
For example, limit family allowance to two children. If a family has a third child their aggregate allowance is halved. A fourth child would disentitled that family to any allowance. Same approach could be applied to tax deductibles. Families not receving any government allowances, those whose aggregate income exceeds that set to qualify for family allowances, may attract a surtax in lieu.
Curiously, we seem perfectly able to determine when a species is in need of culling (even though this culling is most often only for our convenience) or in danger of depletion or extinction (again, usually only where it is a food or other valuable resource from the human perspective), yet we cannot, or will not determine the maximum number of humans that is sustainable. This is political cowardice of the first order.
Limitless growth in population quite clearly cannot be sustained. It would be far less painful to put in place appropriate plans and policies now than in 20 or 30 years time when pressures will be significantly greater.
Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity, World by Country, 2008
View Sir David Attenborough's challenging documentary: How Many People Can Live on Planet Earth?
To quote the WWF, "The protection of biodiversity and ecosystems must be a priority in our quest to build a stronger, fairer and cleaner world economy. Rather than an excuse to delay further action, the recent financial and economic crisis should serve as a reminder of the urgency of developing greener economies." See: WWF Living Planet Report
The natural system of planet earth is truly amazing. It is essentiually a closed system and all else being equal, strives for "balance". It can be argued that the human population is putting an ever increasing and unsustainable strain on the natural system on which the planet depends. Taking urgent steps to reverse this process is vital.
We humans have a prodigous knowledge of all manner of things however it seems that the more we know, the more we should realise how little we know. Much that may be put at risk by our actions (and inactions) now or in the near future may also be of immense importance to humanity in the future.
Consider for instance all bio and other resources that are within our forests and oceans and how perhaps treatment of medical conditions may be dependent upon the sustainable availability of those resources.
If we are to respect bio-diversity as a "good" then we simply must take early action to ensure the unacceptably high number of at risk species are not further endangered by our actions.
We undoubtedly have incomplete knowledge of the importance of the interaction between all plant and animal species. See: International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Our increasing impact on the planet and our unabated consumption of resources is a serious threat to bio-diversity
All comes back to making a real effort to stabilise and reduce our population. Everything is connected!
Given a pre-determined, sustainable population carrying capacity all present agricultural and grazing lands must be carefully husbanded and protected from mining or extraction activity and loss to urban development and urban sprawl. We are in real danger of not being able to feed ourselves sustainably in the future.
Poor land management, unduly intense agribusiness in marginal areas, deforestation, rising salinity … the list goes on.
We should have the primary objective of leaving the land in better condition than we found it – end of.
Sustainable land use in agribusiness should be measured and regulated and rewarded on this basis.
The setting aside and planting of trees in a 3-6 metre strip along the fence-lines of all agricultural and grazing lands (certainly around the eastern seaboard) is essential - a partial grant for planting and a further grant for the number of matured trees would perhaps be an encouragement to do so.
Without water we die!
Truly the most valuable resource that we have and its wastage is bordering on the criminal (certainly in our country).
Water intensive cropping in marginal areas (rice for example) should be banned forthwith. Water allocations must be such as to preserve the river systems. No excuses.
If farms cannot be sustained on allocations that do not inhibit the survival of the river systems then those farms must change the mode of operation or cease operation. Another argument for preserving agricultural lands from mining and urban sprawl.
In other parts of the world, the day is not too distant when "water wars" will be fought.
Australia is fortunate to have an abundance of natural and mineral resources.
Some natural resources, timber for example, need more far more hands-on, regulatory approach to sustainable management. Old growth forests are nature's lungs and we need them badly. Our commercial timber requirements should all come from plantations, without exception.
As for gas minerals — there is only so much that can be extracted economically. These deposits form part of the "capital assets" of the country and the exploitation must take account of the finite nature of those resources. For all extractions there must be a contribution to a national capital fund to be built up over time for the future years when no more such resources are available.
Liquid natural gas is a must for energy generation into the future and long-term sales contracts for the export of this most valuable commodity must be regulated and a proportion of all known fields of ascertainable volumes set aside with a view to conservation for national needs.
In terms of "future-proofing" national energy needs, it seems logical to require all energy extraction entities to retain no less than (say) 50% of their independently assessed reserves and which reserves may not be exported.
Notwithstanding those who believe human activity is not affecting climate, clearly air quality is seriously affected by industrial activity and coal-fired energy generation.
We could be doing a massive amount to counter this by converting our coal-fired electricity generation plants to gas-fired as a matter of priority.
If it is correct that some 70% of Australia's climate-changing pollution is sourced from coal-fired power stations, the result of such conversion is obviously to our distinct advantage and would show international leadership.
All developed nations must contribute to measures to be put in place in developing nations to curb and reduce the growth of carbon emitting manufactures. Regard must be had to the fact that developed nations are, in effect, exporting such polluting industries to developing nations.
We can and should be focussing on developing technology to make such a contribution.
Why not put real impetous behind solar, wind and geothermal means of power generation. Germany is way ahead of Australia for goodness sake – and sunshine in Germany is hardly comparable to the hours of sunshine in Australia (and despite the infrastructure challenges in routing generated power to the national grid).
Let's have a coordinated plan! Now!
A "new paradigm" is required
Corporates and business that see their survival on continued, infinite growth in population are plain wrong. If as is suggested infinite population growth is not sustainable, then clearly the market will ultimately need to "plateau" and so growth from population increase will no longer prevail. Then, the only "growth" will come from greater productivity.
Governments might usefully consider policies that give business incentives, perhaps:
Long-term warranty rewards
Long-life products
Minimal resource extraction
Utilisation of re-cycled materials
If it is correct that the Henry tax review found that of the 125 different taxes imposed in Australia, just 10 taxes generate 90 per cent of the country's total tax take (in 2006-7), then it seems obvious that a 11.1% increase in those 10 taxes, would cover the income foregone with the dispensing of 115 taxes and all the accompanying bureaucratic rigmarole. Too easy? Just get on with it!
See: Australia's future tax system
As for the remuneration packages enjoyed by company directors and executives, it would seem far more equitable that their total remuneration packages be limited to a multiple of (say 10 times) the average of the salaries and wages paid to the employees. A range should be set voluntarily, with government amendment of the corporations legislation in the event that this reform is not attained within a short period.
See: ACTU Congress 2009 – Executive Pay 01-04 June 2009.
It also seems inequitable that the personal income taxation system is "progressive" up to $150,000 (with a marginal rate of $0.45 on income above that level).
This favours those on extremely high incomes. Wouldn't it be more equitable if the progressive system was extended with additional levels and increasing marginal rates? May do something for the budget too.
The following or something similar is suggested:
| Taxable Income | Marginal Tax Rate |
$180,001 to
$300,000 | $0.45 |
$300,001 to
$750,000 | $0.50 |
$750,001 to
$1,500,000 | $0.55 |
$1,500,001 to
$3,000,000 | $0.60 |
$3,000,001 to
$7,500,000 | $0.65 |
$7,500,001 to
$15,000,000 | $0.70 |
$15,000,001 to
$75,000,000 | $0.75 |
| $75,000,001 and over | $0.80 |
The top 10% of individuals with the highest incomes should also be subject to continuous annual audit, with all corporations or entities being required to report to the Australian Taxation Office, all payments made to individual directors and executives every financial year.
Whether politicians and political parties accept the substance of these issues or not, what is most needed is some very straightforward thinking, meticulous planning, prompt and properly supervised action and the transparent means to assess success or failure of any project.
Run the government as a successful corporation might be run, the "profits" going to a "future fund" to buffer the country against hard times that a guaranteed to emerge over time.
The practice of hiving off activities to QUANGOS and NGOs and hiding costs of programmes should be abolished and all government funding subject to an audit regime at least as rigorous as that applied to corporations.
The practice in western democracies of building up a "war chest" to enable much largesse to be promised during election campaigns should be eliminated. If a proposal put forward in the lead up to an election is so good, why was it not acted upon during the relevant term of government?
Only properly costed promises that are accompanied by a stated time line for implementation together with a clear method of measuring success or failure should be espoused. The use of "changed circumstances" as an excuse for not achieving a promised outcome should be deemed a failure per se.
Given that there are a vaste number of Australians who need to be re-trained to get them out of being jobless or homeless, foreign aid should be cut to any country that has not a legislated plan to limit population growth, or which has laws that discriminate against women or homosexuality or any other group of people, or where discrimination and persecution against women and GLBTI-folks prevails.
Foreign aid recipient nations must be a signatory of and their sovereign laws must comply with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Any foreign aid that is given, must not be in the form of money but in the form that most meets the actual needs of the general populace and which can be distributed in a closely controlled way to ensure that the aid reaches those in need and corrupt practices are minimised or eliminated.
Given the determination of the maximum population carrying capacity of the country and the setting of the rate of change to achieve that level of population, strict quotas must be applied and adhered to.
That said, there seems no rational basis for treating asylum seekers and refugees who arrive in Australia by air any differently to those that arrive by boat. All should be treated equally. The manner of transport should not determine how the individuals are processed.
Citizenship should only be granted after (say) a three-year period of assimilation and only to those asylum seekers, immigrants and refugees who have then demonstrated they have mastered the English language sufficiently to converse understandably. Attendance at language classes should be mandated (even if the costs are similarly based to the HECS scheme requiring repayment over time).
Family reunion rules should be limited to allowing immigration only of a spouse and not more than two children.
Any found guilty of criminal activity during the assimilation period must be denied citizenship and in serious cases of criminality, deported.
Everyone is perfectly entitled to believe and have faith in whatever they wish however, any assertion that those beliefs are the only beliefs or that a particular religion is the only religion is not only mistaken and but the height of arrogance.
Begrudgingly, I accept that the writings in the various religious scriptures represent the then views of the authors and perhaps even society as it then was. Indeed, it may also be that those writings were the sole repository of "scientific" knowledge as it was at the time.
Science has thankfully moved on somewhat and to many, the concept of an omnipresent, loving deity is not at all consistent with the real world.
Clearly, we humans like to be able to point to how things happened. We look for causation. However, this leads to an inifinite regression without imposing some superstitious notion.
Equally clearly, there is much we humans do not know and probably can never know with any certainty. In this context, probably the only certainty is that there is no certainty.
Organised religion seems over the ages to have been singularly concerned with obtaining and preserving power and the indoctrination and subjugation of the populace. Shades of all politics.
All things considered, a cursory look at history suggests that most human woes are or have been instigated by blind faith in some religion or other. Were religion not to exist perhaps we humans would be at peace and learn to live with one another, though doubtless the power hungry would devise an alternative belief system to foist upon and keep the masses blinkered.
This writer is of the view that life as we each may know it is all there is. Sure, much improvement could be made with little effort or sacrifice, but more probably wont be. This is it … enjoy the journey. As for the "hereafter", don't hold your breath.
"Buzz" words and phrases that grate
It's about …
Moving forward
We've got the balance right
28 JAN 12