rc, you raise a bunch of things that need comment:

The sort of economic growth that we have in Australia is not good for pensions, healthcare, education, etc, because it is growth generated by population growth. The per-capita growth rate is tiny even in economic rationalist terms, and negative in real terms when you factor in all the added pressures that an ever-greater demand on our resource base and environment create, as well as increasing social pressures. Current economic growth is essentially just providing a similar standard of living for more and more people.

It is a mindless self-defeating spiral; more economic growth is needed for an ever-larger population, but an ever-larger population is very strongly promoted in order to boost economic growth. It can’t get much crazier, especially with the blindingly obvious stresses and limitations evident with primary resources and environment.

We have had strong economic growth since the last so-called recession in 1991. But it hasn’t led to much in the way of continued improvements.

If economic growth could be confined to new technologies and better efficiencies that lead to real average per-person gains, without more rapidly depleting non renewable and potentially renewable resources or leading to environmental degradation, then fine. That’s the sort of growth we want. But our economic growth is almost entirely based on the continued increase in rates of resource consumption and expansion in the overall extent of economic activity.

That’s not going to help pay for healthcare or for an aging population. It will do precisely the opposite; it will more rapidly stress out our whole society, which means things will be cut back further and further.

If we want to be able to cover the forthcoming ‘bulge’ of baby-boomers reaching retirement age, we need to desperately stabilise the size of our economy and population and concentrate on improved efficiencies in industry and resource usage, fiscal policies that better distribute wealth, especially regarding taxation of the rich and of big business, and incentives to keep would-be retirees in the workforce.

Coyote, in any electoral system Howard would have won. In First Past the Post, he would have won by 16507 votes. In a preferential system, he won by 6656 votes.

If you want a candidate to only win his seat when he gains more than 50% of the starting vote, then you would find next to all the National party members in the parliament, some independants, and very few of Liberal or Labor. It would be a very empty room, and conservatives would still hold sway.

Regarding the article, the dualism at the end between faith in progress and fear of progress exists when it is feared that progress will not be able to clean up its inevitable mess... perhaps this move to use technology to clean up traditional energy sources is one that breaks this cycle and gives us hope?

The thought that we can simply sequest carbon or build nuclear power which emitt no Greenhouse gasses is far more inspiring and with a clearer goal than installing, bit by bit, renewable energies at large expense. Those who have, such as Denmark, live in an isolated bliss, as when the wind is not enough to power their nation, their power will be supplemented from nuclear stations in Sweden.

Well written article, Richard Eckersley.

The problem of human beings having far more concern for their own material well being than to some apocalyptic vision (regardless of it's validity), is rooted in human personality. Put simply, most people do not give a damn about anything unless it affects them personally.

Even todays youth, who sternly lecture their parents about how older people have ruined the environment, are far more obssessed with owning and wearing overpriced brand name clothing or buying the latest electronic trinket from Harvey Norman, than protecting the environment that they so solomnly decree is their fave cause. Ever seen the mounds of casually discarded litter left after a rock concert?

Greenpeace in Australia grew out of the ZPG (Zero Population Growth) Party but today it is far more concerned with the rights of asylum shopping "refugees" or saving non endagered whales from Jap harpoons than focussing upon atacking the philosophy of economic growth at any cost.

But don't worry Richard. As an Epidimiologist, you are fully aware that the Earth is sick because of the growth in a parasitic organism called The Human Race. But Bird Flue may prove to be an effective antibody.

Excellent article, Richard. BTW are you married ;-)

Anyway, yes sustainable growth in relevant industries would be a good start, as well as loosing the myth that infinite profit is an attainable and desirable goal as well as being mathematically impossible.

Redneck - your post, cynical but unfortunately holds much truth.

However, imagine a world where the USA, since 1990, had poured all its $ into R&D of renewables instead of waging war. We'd have solar batteries the size 20 cent pieces to power our homes and absolutely no need to control the economy of the middle east. I can but sigh and dream. Al-Qaida may never have happened. But, then what would we have to argue about on this forum?

Shonga : the government has a huge surplus because it is the highest taxing ever in Australia's history and we are at the top of an economic cycle after straight 15 years of economic growth. Presumably that will end with the next recession, which means over an economic cycle, there won't be a profit (there almost never is -- otherwise the goverment would have a huge pile of savings). Would you rather the goverment spend the money now whilst things are comparitively good or the next recession, when they are bad ?

Ludwig : I agree that simple economic growth figures hide indivudal reality (like growth per person) and that not all economic growth is good (it is just an overall measure, after all). Alternatively, I don't buy the argument that minor population growth (which might be useful as part of solution to keeping a higher % of the population working) increases resource pressure in any meaningful way. A fair amount of the resource pressure and environmental problems in Australia are caused by mining and agriculture, both of which are mainly export industries. Damage from those industries is going occur no matter what the population.

So the Government waits for a solution to the global warming problem that will not hurt the economy.
Meanwhile, the public waits for the Government to enforce laws to protect the environment, or force industries to make affordable products that minimise harm to the environment.
And the industries wait for the public to change their demands away from products that harm the environment.

Who is going to make the first move to redress this problem and prevent a future crisis?

Example: will the government make laws to regulate what sort of cars the car industry can make or what sort of cars the public can drive? will the public dispose of their beloved fuel-guzzling vehicles for more enviro-friendly cars? or will the car industries stop making fuel-guzzling cars and start building enviro-friendly cars only?

Or will a deadlock remain until the problem becomes much much worse?