Thanks Divergence.

I am pleased to find out about a couple more commentators – Adam Creighton and Leigh van Onselen – who can see the terrible folly of GDP as clearly as I can.

From the article:

< Thankfully, the ABS is developing new ways of measuring Australia’s progress, which includes a bunch of qualitative factors such as health, safety, equality, etc. Let’s hope that it gains greater prominence amongst commentators and policy makers. >

Let’s hope indeed.

.

Pericles, you wrote:

<< I will certainly agree that GDP is not the be-all and end-all of economic health measurements. >>

Well….. how could you not agree.

<< But as I have said before, it one clear virtue is that it is a simple, added-up number. >>

YES! That is its ONE….. and only…. clear virtue.

Simple added-up economic activity….. regardless of the merits of that activity, how it relates to health and wellbeing or to disasters… or population growth.

Some virtue!

Pericles,

While I strongly disagree with some of the Greens' policies, I find it amusing how they have become the scapegoat for everything. The truth is that our business class has the best politicians that money can buy, and it doesn't matter which wing of the Property Party is in power. What exactly can the Greens do if one of the major parties won't vote with them? Drum their heels on the Parliamentary carpet? Hold their breath until they turn blue? They are having so much success with asylum seekers, aren't they? Or with stopping fracking and other mining activities from damaging agricultural land, even with the farmers onside. The Greens would never be able to block more dams if they were a viable proposition. Unfortunately, there is only so much water in a catchment area, and dams can't be put just anywhere, as I am told by a friend who is a civil engineer.

It was reported in the newspapers that the last lot of water restrictions cost us all around a billion dollars, due to such things as cracks in walls and foundations, and elderly people injuring themselves while carrying water to gardens. The 2010/2011 Productivity Commission Annual Report puts the damage at $150 million just in Melbourne. Another example of socialisation of the costs of growth.

Ludwig,

Leith van Onselen is good value, and you can find other good articles of his at the Macrobusiness site. Not all economists have sold out or are stupid enough to believe in unlimited growth on a finite earth.

Not so sure about that, Divergence.

>>The Greens would never be able to block more dams if they were a viable proposition.<<

The last dam built in NSW was at Splitrock, 70km north of Tamworth. That was more than 25 years ago. Since then, every proposal has been blocked by greenies of one flavour or another. Like this one:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/nsw-opposition-dumps-plan-for-tillegra-dam-20100519-vddc.html

"The Liberals and Nationals are desperate to court the green vote in the marginal seats of Newcastle and Maitland, set to be key battlegrounds in the election."

In the end, what they succeed in doing is twofold. They raise the price of water for everyone, as the government is forced to resort to building expensive backup resources such as desalination.

Then they have the chutzpah to complain that there is a water shortage in NSW.

Much like the boy who murdered his parents, and then requested clemency at his trial, on the basis that he was an orphan.

Pericles, I’m beyond being flabbergasted by your last post!!

<< Since then, every proposal has been blocked by greenies of one flavour or another. >>

So what are you saying? – that everyone who opposes new dams is a ‘greenie’? That those people who would have lost their properties and livelihoods, and generations of family ownership if the Traveston Dam had gone ahead, are automatically greenies – even if they are the antithesis of environmentalists in every other way, and would never in a fit want to be thought of as greenies?

There are very good ‘non-greenie’ reasons for opposing new dams.

<< In the end, what they succeed in doing is twofold. They raise the price of water for everyone, as the government is forced to resort to building expensive backup resources such as desalination. >>

What an absolute shocker of a statement!

You blame those who oppose new dams for this! That is bizarre! You couldn’t be more wrong.

It is governments, vested-interest big business, the apathetic public and people like you who actually support continuous population growth who are to blame!

Meanwhile, when it suits you to put on your greenie hat and vehemently oppose something, it is somehow completely different. Re: privatisation of Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16202

That’s your worst post yet on OLO, Pericles.

Not at all, Ludwig.

>>So what are you saying? – that everyone who opposes new dams is a ‘greenie’?<<

But there has not been a single dam proposal for a generation that has not been opposed by a green faction of one kind or another. To me, that is strong circumstantial evidence supporting my assertion. While non-greenies might also object, they are far from being the ubiquitous presence that the tree-huggers display.

Let's take a look at Traveston, since you brought it up.

"Traveston Crossing Dam was a proposed water project that was initiated by the state government of Queensland, Australia, in 2006 as a result of a prolonged drought which saw South-East Queensland's dam catchment area receive record-low rain" (Wikipedia)

And the government response?

"Mr Garrett said he had made the decision [to reject the proposal] based on science and the "unacceptable impact" it would have on threatened species, including the Mary River turtle and Australian lungfish.

To which I can only say:

"Then they have the chutzpah to complain that there is a water shortage"

But you are spot-on with one of your statements:

>>There are very good ‘non-greenie’ reasons for opposing new dams.<<

I found this one:

"Only 17 per cent of Southeast Queensland is held in state forests and national parks, compared to 43 per cent of Greater Sydney. One obvious result is that the catchment areas for dams in SEQ are not a patch on the Sydney catchment areas."

That does put a limit on the government's ability to address the problem of water supply. But once again, the problem is exacerbated by a complete absence of political will.

Or as I said earlier.

"The investment deficit in other infrastructure... is principally a failure of political will"

>>Meanwhile, when it suits you to put on your greenie hat and vehemently oppose something, it is somehow completely different.<<

The desecration of inner-city open space is a world away from protecting the Mary River Turtle, don't you think?

Significantly, you probably don't.

Pericles,

So far as the Traveston dam is concerned, Pharyngula, one of the main biology blogs, got up a petition with 7,000 signatures to oppose the dam because of the threat to the Queensland lungfish, which is of great scientific importance. You may not have a problem with extinctions or environmental vandalism (unless they affect you personally), but many of the rest of us do.

There will always be opposition to dams, regardless of the environmentalists and the Greens, because people tend to object to having their houses, towns, or farms flooded for pretty inadequate compensation (funny thing that!). There would be nothing to stop the major parties from announcing that the dams were a bipartisan policy (just like mass migration, means testing the old age pension, the GST, etc.). They could even do a deal for two dams at a time in different electorates so that any electoral disadvantage for one party was cancelled out. The Greens would be able to do nothing to stop it. If the politicians didn't go ahead with the dams, there were doubtless other reasons for it. You (rightly) criticize Rrhosty for his pie-in-the-sky technological solutions to everything, but you are just assuming that the dams would make economic sense. In places like the Murray Darling basin, there just isn't enough water to keep the river healthy and provide all of the water that people want.