David Hasslegrove (aka Ludwig), I am 51 years old. I semi-retired at 45 with a number of times more retirement funds than the superannuation industry suggests one should have. I earned that money from scratch in the market place from people who valued my capacity to observe, assess and properly implement information, people, processes and technology into the circumstances that would maximise the contribution of all these elements. This often presented the opportunity to bet my professional reputation on a "rough diamond" or an unknown quantity and the record confirms that I left the industry with my reputation intact.

Your highly defamatory attempts at portraying me as some sort of extremist with severe cognitive dysfunction would appear to be directly at variance with the assessment of my peers. And these include state and national level industry representatives, executives of major corporations and partners of numerous firms.

Your devotion to your cause would be admirable if you confined your efforts to commentary on articles discussing population etc. But you have consistently dumped your anti-population diatribes onto any trail with even the most tenuous of links to population issues. And when brought to task, you invariably resort to villification, defamation and abuse.

And when all your tedium makes other contributors tire of having any further dealings with you, you respond with boorish gloating over some sort of moral victory that exists solely within your own head.

You have stated on an earlier occasion that you are currently employed somewhere in the Queensland public service. And to this one can only say, "that would be right" and suggest that you take all steps to keep your position. For one thing is very certain from your performance on this site, sir, you have zero commercial value anywhere else.

Fickle, working towards sustainability has got be everyone’s goal with respect to water recycling, overall water policy, and everything else. But it’s got to happen within the realms of government. We can’t take control on something this big away from government without usurping the role of government. It is the very basic role of government to protect society now and into the future and to mitigate the forces that threaten this. Sustainability is one of the most fundamental roles of government.

Pericles, these questions are reasonable to ask, but they are personal questions, not questions that promulgate the debate. No one should feel pressured to answer personal stuff on a public forum.

Exchanges with Perseus have proven to be a total one-way street, as he just refuses to answer my questions. I came onto this forum in November last year with the intention of answering every question that was put to me in the interests of sensible debate. But only if the courtesy is repaid. I continue to exercise this goal of answering sensible questions with respectable respondents, which after nearly five months has proven to be every other person with whom I have had any debate on this forum.

So then, it will come as no surprise to you that I don’t have a water tank next to my urban house. I am also very pleased to say that in my forties, I have no kids and have no plans to have any. I think about that a lot and remain very grateful that it has turned out that way. It wasn’t planned – just life circumstance. By the way, I think that people in Australia should be free to have as many kids as they like, for as long as the fertility rate is well below 2.

I guess you can say that my position is dogmatic but by crikey, what do you call the position held by our governments, that is leading us so strongly away from sustainability?

Perseus

I think our battle has reached its natural conclusion.

It has become obvious that there is no point in exchanging bad blood any longer.

As you will see under ‘Some Labor states would rather rob the poor’, I have attempted to engage you in meaningful completely non-derogatory discussion.

I think we can do this very successfully if we both make an undertaking to just respect each other and to be non-offensive. I will if you will. Just give the word.

For years I wrote letters to the editor. I had a long-running hard-case battle with one particular respondent. When I finally sought him out and we sat down together, we found an enormous amount of common ground. We became good friends.

Here’s hoping.

(Ludwig is not David Haselgrove).

Ludwig says "We can’t take control on something this big away from government without usurping the role of government."

Given that in a democracy "the government" is "the people" I disagree that the proposal is taking control away from "the people". Governments still have responsibility for "the system" and can still change the way people are appointed to the board that controls the money to be spent on water sustainability. What is proposed is a different way of appointing people to boards that have responsibility for spending money on sustainability of water supply.

For society to function we cannot have "the people" controlling everything and so we have invented corporations, cooperatives, departments, etc. who each have roles.

The issue being addressed is who decides who gets to control the running of each of these bodies. Privatisation gives control to shareholders whose objectives will almost certainly not be sustainability. Leaving appointments to "the government" or state means that control is given to a group which changes and which in practise is unlikely to have sustainability as a prime objective.

The objective of the proposal is to give power to appointment boards to those members of society who through their actions are likely to agree with the premise that sustainability is a good idea.

The proposal does not take ultimate reponsibility away from "the people". What it does is to provide a different mechanism for the appointment of boards. It gives responsibility for the appointment of the board that controls the spending of money on sustainability of water supply to the members of society whose objectives are likely to include sustainability.

I disagree with Cay - water recycling is within the reach of many Australians given appropriate support from governing bodies..

Living in SE QLD, those of us in the industry have waited impatiently for changes in the QLD Plumbing Code to come into effect on 1 March this year, outlining guidelines for use of greywater. Unfortunately to our great disappointment and frustration, discretion to accept the use of greywater was given to each individual local authority and use was limited to subsurface dispersal. (Don"t make it too difficult to bring in this new technology!)

It is not cost or lack of ability that is holding back water recycling from the masses it is the governing bodies fear of responsibility and litigation. This has been maintained quite nicely by the State handing discretion to the Local Authority and around in a circle we go with no-one wanting to take responsibility and explore the possibilities. (I may not entirely agree with Toowoomba Mayor Diane Thorley but I do respect her courage in at least attempting to move council out of their comfort zone.)

Greywater treatment plants are available and could be used to provide recycled water for outdoor use. The local councils are quick to offer rebates on rainwater tanks-a passive means of increasing water storage (it does need to rain though!). Why not offer rebates on greywater treatment systems-an active means of providing an alternative and relatively constant water supply. Figures suggest that a standard household produces somewhere in excess of 1 000 litres of wastewater a day. WASTEwater is an accurate description because that's exactly what we do with it! I am sure our gardens, pathways and cars would not suffer if we were to replace mains water with recycled water for outdoor use. The high level of treatment results in recycled water of a class that it could safely be used for outdoor purposes with the support of governing bodies. Incidentally the cost of a greywater treatment system is similar to that of a large tank and installation isn't that much harder on suburban properties.

Fickle, thanks for the clarification. I have no disagreement.

But how do we get people who have sustainability as their primary motive onto boards?

Even if we did manage this, we would still have the pro-growth anti-sustainability government above them. It really has to be government itself that embraces the sustainability ethic. And for that to happen, the whole of society has to do it, and elect the appropriate government.

We may well see water boards appointed or adjusted that have sustainability as a goal. You might even argue that some do now. But for as long as we have governments that promote population growth and thus a constantly increasing demand for water, we aren’t getting sustainability. The same sort of thing applies with all sorts of things, such as the Qld Vegetation Management Act and end to tree-clearing at the end of 2006, which is very sustainability-oriented….but which is operated by a government that is far and away antisustainability-oriented, by way of its promotion and facilitation of rapid population growth and everything that goes with it.

So how do we get governments, that are in the pockets of multinationals and the vested-interest continuous growthers in general, to switch to sustainability? That is the question.

I would love to hear some suggestions.