Peter Hume wrote:

<< Agree with your points 2 and 3 >>

But not 1?

You’ve given no reasons.

<< The whole sustainability thing seems vexed… It seems to me a dream of stasis, a modern version of the religious concept of Paradise, in which all economic problems of the scarcity of resources are permanently solved. >>

Yes, basically. Except that I’d prefer to think of it in terms of logic and common sense rather than religion or religious comparison.

<< Many of the alleged problems of sustainability … are not really problems of sustainability, but of the governmental provision of services. >>

If the population was stable, the government could provide services of an increasing quality. But it is pushing sh!t uphill with rapid population growth, and ends up on average just providing the same (or declining) level of service for ever-more people, instead of improvements for the original populace.

So the provision of services is very much a sustainability issue. It is an issue of poor governance allowing demand and supply to be out of balance, with government very strongly promoting ever-increasing demand and then forever struggling with supply.

<< For example, private water suppliers never regard demand as a problem, but when government supplies water we get this there-are-too-many-people business >>

Really? It is both private suppliers and the government that desire increasing demand. There is not enough thought or planning from government about the ‘too many people’ side of the equation. There needs to be much more of it, not least where water resources are concerned.

<< Thus even if sustainability is a problem, the conclusion that government can make things better than worse is unsound >>

You’ve lost me. Why couldn’t government makes things better? They could easily redirect the money spent on the stupid baby bonus into useful improvements in education, and all sorts of other things which could take us a lot closer to a sustainable future.

Ludwig, my reason for being agnostic on your point 1 is because my agreeing to it would depend on you first making out your reasons for thinking that government can make the situation better than worse, when both the upsides and downsides of government action have been taken into account, which I don't think you've done yet. You can't just assume or assert it.

In particular, you need to eliminate the possibility that government attempts to achieve sustainability will not make the situation worse, even in its own terms.

"You’ve lost me. Why couldn’t government makes things better?"

Because of the economic calculation problem which is explained in that link I posted. Government will have all the same problems that inhere in the original problem *and* the economic calculation problem on top of that. The result must be either
a) *greater* waste of natural resources to achieve a given outcome, or
b) lesser satisfaction of human wants as compared to the non-policy option (ie the option of leaving people free from being subject to policy), so you're not comparing apples with apples.

Peter Hume,

You really need to get over your hate of Government, it can only do you ill. Government is the accepted mechanism chosen to maintain an orderly society, and democracy is the form of government chosen by free societies as the best and fairest available. We all will have reason to find fault with particular governments from time to time, or with various policies or the way they may be implemented, but we either accept that our particular form of government generally serves the needs of our society with reasonable effectiveness, or we seek means to establish a better form of government. We have the polls, we have the media, and we have free speech with which to voice our concerns or suggestions, which is far more than some societies have available to them. But, in the absence of a better model, simply finding fault with no superior suggestions offered is simply baying at the moon. Find a few thousand people or so who may agree with your viewpoints and you may have something worth considering, but a lone voice in the wilderness bears no credence.

You appear to propose anarchy, or libertarianism, which fundamentally amounts to the same thing, and which amounts to chaos. If you have some specific suggestions for improvement, or grievance in mind, please identify them. Else, if you just hate taxes then join the club and try to make the best of it. And, please, try to think seriously about the legitimately available alternatives.

Saltpetre
My specific suggestion for improvement is freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean chaos and disorder. In fact most of the order and harmony in society does not come from government, for example, the order that is in language, art, science, morality, sport, family, cuisine, music, and the provision of the goods and services that you take for granted, like the food on your table from all over the world. It is simply brainwashing to attribute this order and harmony to government. Only about ten percent of government’s activity – the protection of rights to personal freedom and private property – can claim any credit for the downstream order and harmony. The rest of governmental activity actively promotes waste and division. My question is whether you can refute the argument, not whether you agree on the basis of beliefs you can’t rationally defend.

Nothing you have said has dealt with the issue here, which is, whether it is true that government can promote ecological sustainability at the same time as promoting the countervailing values that people want satisfied; any better than could be done in the absence of any government policy apart from protecting freedom and private property rights. I have shown the viable alternative – freedom. I have shown why governments can’t do they pretend, because of the problem of economic calculation. It’s no use trying to personalize the problem to me. It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of reason. Either you can refute the argument, or you can’t. You haven’t done so. Do you even understand what the argument from economic calculation is? Can you represent it accurately? If not, why not try to understand it? If you think you can refute it, go ahead, don’t bore me with irrelevant personal argument.

“if you just hate taxes then join the club”.
You have just shown that you don’t even agree with your own theory. We don’t pay taxes for the reasons you gave, do we, that government is the accepted mechanism blahblahblah. Give me rational reasons, not brainwashed reasons.

“We have the polls, we have the media…”

Why should you or I have to try to get what we want through the polls or the media or government, for gossake, when you haven’t been able to give one single reason why government is competent to make better decisions than the people in the first place?

Thus the problem is not “hate” on my part, it’s that you and so many statists just keep re-circulating beliefs in the state, like the dark ages belief in the church, for which you are completely unable to offer any rational justification but just slogans that you don’t even agree with yourselves. It is truly a religious mindset.

For example, the idea that government can centrally plan the optimal use of the entire Murrary-Darling Basin so as to satisfy the most urgent and important wants of all the people with an interest in its resources, is just so stupid, so contradicted by experience and logic, that you should be joining in criticizing it, not joining in blindly promoting obedience or acquiescence to what will and can only be another tragedy of the commons.

Peter Hume,

"My question is whether you can refute the argument.."

The food on the table you say I can take for granted is subject to myriad government regulations and controls to ensure quality and safety, from the farmer's use of pesticides (and their availability and usage protocols) through handling, packaging, transportation and finally presentation. Meat is tracked from producer to plate, fish stocks are monitored and subject to sustainable quotas, drinking water is processed to ensure quality and freedom from pathogens, industries are subject to environmental conditions (to obviate toxic pollution) and workplaces and methods subject to OH&S, food outlets subject to health inspection, and food subject to analysis to ensure absence of contamination or toxins, licencing used to provide safety on our roads and safe use of heavy equipment, environmental analyses mandated for exploration and mining or industrial ventures (partly to protect your 'non-monetary values' of habitat and quality of life), building standards and town planning employed to ensure public safety, amenity and quality of life, water usage is rationed to provide adequacy of supply as well as maintaining environmental values, education and health services are provided affordably and at appropriate standards, transportation, roads, garbage tips, electricity, sewage, telephone, internet, radio, TV, air travel and aircraft certification, maintenance standards and operator standards, flight crew, groundstaff, airports, airspace, emergency services, police, military, industry, and taxation to pay for these services and to ensure value to the Aus populace from production and utilisation of resources, trade unionism and Fair Work Act, etc..

In the Murray-Darling state governments over-allocated water rights, probably based on optimal conditions, with insufficient allowance for extended dry spells - but without quotas no water would have reached Adelaide at all. Without government control there would be complete chaos.

You make much of your 'economic calculation', but this is just a construct in your mind, because values and heritage of both economic and non-economic significance are in reality the very essence of government, maintained and preserved for all, for now and for the future. I say again, your plan is chaos.