The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Optimising the resources boom means smarter planning > Comments

Optimising the resources boom means smarter planning : Comments

By Robin Batterham, published 19/11/2007

We need to move our thinking paradigm from 'me' to 'us' and work for the longer term to make the best of this once-in-a-generation resources boom.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
There are some issues here that people haven't wrapped their heads around since World War 2, namely that the present generation make sacrifices for the sake of future generations. I believe there is no way that renewable energy and recycling could enable business to continue more or less as usual, in other words we have to keep throwing away finite resources and degrading the environment. Examples of sacrifices are carbon taxes, rationing, recycling targets, future funds, population planning and strategic reserves. The inconvenience these pose may be a lot less in the long run than war and conflict caused by lack of planning. Despite the glaring evidence of water shortages and rapidly increasing prices for fuel and fertiliser, the present federal government doesn't seem to grasp this. More of the same won't work.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 19 November 2007 9:11:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Couldn't agree more. There has been a wilful lack of investment in Australia's infrastructure for decades. If we want to help future generations of Australians it is time that state and federal governments start investing a substantial portion of the record windfalls of monies from the resources boom into fixing the state of major arterial roads in country Australia and the Murray Darling water crisis need action now, NOT in 10 years time. Where is the visible long term planning for all to see?? Tax cuts - a bit of bread and circus for the masses.
Posted by bacchus, Monday, 19 November 2007 10:49:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“We must drive for increased investment in education, a greater focus on science and technology, more risk-taking in R&D, a narrower focus on what we do best and a national understanding of and commitment to long-term, over-the-horizon planning in the interests of the whole nation.”

Yes

“This is not just about governments. We all need to move our thinking paradigm from ‘me’ to ‘us’ and work for the longer term to make the best of this once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-century resources boom.”

Yes

“The demand for engineers and technologists to support growth and production is unprecedented.”

Yes. But hold on!

There’s that horrible ‘growth’ word again. Let’s be very careful about what it means. If it means continued rapid expansion in production, population and everything that goes with them, then NO! Let’s NOT go down that path.

Let’s make sure that improved education and R&D works towards a sustainable future and not away from it. It must not facilitate ever-increasing demand on our resource base and environment.

It comes down to this: whether or not we can collectively psyche ourselves off of the future-destroying continuous growth paradigm and onto a dynamic steady state sustainable economy and society. If we can quickly do the latter, then we can make great use of profits from the resource boom to help us. But if we continue along the continuous growth path, even with improved education, R&D, a future fund and considerable efforts to develop renewable energy sources, profits from the resources boom are more likely to be used against the achievement of a sustainable future than for it.

A great change has occurred in 2007, being the widespread acceptance by the community and government of the significance of climate change. Now if 2008 can be the year of realisation of the greater urgency of peak oil and 2009 can see all this concern morph into the need to stop expansionism and urgently address overall sustainability, then we might just have a chance of actually achieving this fundamental balancing act before it is too late…with great assistance from wealth from the resources boom.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 19 November 2007 2:07:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article doesn't touch on the problem of "Dutch Disease", which Australia seems to be experiencing via its increasingly strong currency. While the mining sector does quite well, other non-resource export industries as well as tourism are taking a considerable income hit.

At the moment our government is racking up huge surpluses from the tax earned on resources & then recklessly spending it all at election time trying to buy votes. Australia could be better served by investing the bulk of the revenue offshore and then drawing down money for projects such as skills training and infrastructure in a steady, controllable stream while saving the proceeds of the boom for future generations. It would also soften the blow when the boom eventually declines.

Instead it seems they'd (both parties) rather throw away billions on tax cuts and mammoth road projects, which not only fails to invest for the country's future, but also totally ignores the realities of both climate change and peak oil production.
Posted by commuter, Monday, 19 November 2007 3:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“This is not just about governments. We all need to move our thinking paradigm from ‘me’ to ‘us’ and work for the longer term to make the best of this once-in-a-generation or once-in-a-century resources boom.”
We do indeed.
Unfortunately the article, for this purpose, is no more than techno-babble.
Let the author off his leash, and his thinking paradigm will do no more than jam us tighter into impossible problems: Facilitate continuous growth of consumption for continuous increase in populations. No word of caution that anticipated technical advances provide no more than a short breathing space as we approach our asymptote on the graph of exponential growth.
We might have hoped for an article having its base on science rather than upon faith in the impossible.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 19 November 2007 4:42:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Commuter did well to raise the point about 'Dutch Disease'.

The mining industry's impact on terms of trade & the value of the currency undermines other export industries -in turn leaving us all the more reliant on a low value-added resources sector that reflects the strength of Asian economies rather than our own.

Rudd recognised this in his comment about wanting us to be more than China's quarry.

Another factor that wasn't mentioned in this article was competition & foreign investment policy. The case of the Windimurra vanadium mine comes to mind (of course) where Xstrata acquired the mine & watched the WA govt. provide $30M worth of infrastructure for it. When the price of vanadium fell Xstrata closed it down so as to limit world supply & ensure that Widimurra didn't compete with Xstrata's South African vanadium interests.

The proposed BHP-Rio Tinto merger raises serious concerns regarding the sort of power that a giant virtual monopoly might have in a resource-dependent economy. China's steelmakers are already concerned about the implications of a BHP-Rio merger & have begun to buy stock in iron-ore suppliers. That in turn raises the matter of sovereign capital ie. state-owned foreign companies acquiring Australian resources.

The decisions we make now (as in right now) have lasting implications. Which is all the more reason why we shouldn't just 'green light' everything in order to rip the stuff out of the ground & cash-in-quick like there was no tomorrow.

Given the rather optimistic assumption that humanity has a long future ahead of it, Prof. Batterham's comments about exploration & depleted ore bodies makes me wonder if anyone is pausing to consider the true meaning of "finite" in the term 'finite resources'.

- Mr Smith
Posted by MrSmith, Tuesday, 20 November 2007 2:33:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy