I was working for John when the CFC debate was being raged in the parliament in 1988 and it was the same then. The liberals were the worst as they stood one by one in the senate and argued that we had to keep using CFC's to support the chemical companies even though the ozone layer was being utterly destroyed.

Business in the end did the re-tooling on their own and they didn't all go broke and the sky didn't fall in. Look at your fridge next time you open the door, that was largely down to John and the Democrats in 1988 and is forgotten in this latest debate.

As a person who grew up in the SA Mallee and watched the land being turned into a desert I am endlessly astonished at the lackadaisikal behaviour of Howard and his mob who continually before the "conomy" before everything else.

Palimpsest,

With the tools of modern science, archaeologists have gotten better at figuring out what happened to some of the past societies that ended in collapse. Overexploitation of the environment played a major role. Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" summarizes the evidence on a number of these cases.

No doubt Easter Islanders who suggested that it might not be a smart idea to cut down all the trees were condemned in words equivalent to "economically illiterate" and "unable to sell ice in the Simpson desert".

Liam,
You asked for a reference to the origin of the nitrogen in our bodies. I picked it up first in Thomas Homer-Dixon's book, 'The Upside of Down' p141. The original references are available at http://www.ourplanet.com/imgversn/111/may.html and Vaclav Smil 'Global Population and the Nitrogen Cycle' Scientific American 277 No 1, July 1997 pp76-81.
As regards the comments implying that economic growth is the only way forward for the last time we did not have economic growth we had the great depression, this writer does not know his/her history. GNP, as was the earlier measure, did not come into widespread use until the time of WWII and after the war.
GDP, the measure now used, grows faster the faster we use up our non-renewable resources. It's like saying you become richer the faster you run down your bank account.
There is a world of difference between a society desperately trying to maintain growth of GDP and failing and one that deliberately sets out to create a sustainable dynamic steady-state economy.
There is nothing magic about full 40 hours per week employment. We have a very productive industrial system now. Having everyone engaged in paid employment in that system is only one way of sharing out the products of that system. There are other ways.
The analysis here should revolve about redefining a productive and creative contribution to the overall social welfare and how equitably to share out the goods and services now available from our highly productive system.
This is the future, endless growth is the past and has no future.
John Coulter

We also have to learn how to do it all while reducing the number of people on the planet. That might be a little difficult to do, given our potential for unlimited shagging, particularly in our youth.

Any suggestions?

VK3AUU we are obviously going to have to lose the "a baby for dad, one for mum and another for the country" mantra. In fact most Australian women have ignored Costello's pleas as the fertility rate is about 1.7 births per 1000 population. Public debate might have to be more open to contraception and abortion.

To reduce the population you have to reduce immigration. We do not have low unemployment, what we have is a lowered workforce participation rate in comparison to other OECD countries. This will lead to cries about what are we going to do about

1. the skills shortage

a. it requires long term planning to train up enough skilled workers. The planning isn't hard but politicians strategically plan on a 2 year horizon. Large scale mines or capital plants are planned on a 10 year horizon. Stop using stock brokers and share traders in lieu of economic planners.

b. many unskilled jobs are lowly paid and part time, they could disappear with no adverse effect on GDP or society. This might reduce Jerry Harvey's profits and we might have to do away with 24 hour shopping

2. aging population - what's the problem?

a. Health costs - most elderly only become a drain on the health system in their last 2 years of life.

b. Tax - its only this year that over 60s became tax exempt. Treasury obviously did their sums, right?

----

Our society has to become mindful of our environmental footprint.

a. We have to condemn the "look at me" culture that advertises HUMMERs on Melbourne trams. Definitely don't want to see one of those vehicles jostling with me on the tram tracks

b. we are going to have to buy local produce, no more cheap Chinese crackers or fresh green beans, no more Mareeba mangoes being shipped to Melbourne then back to Cairns for sale, maybe no more Queensland citrus in southern states

c. build solar passive dwellings with opening windows close to public transport

d. design work places and jobs that are not reliant on cars

Billie and others... you have good ideas.... so does just about everyone who thinks and cares - but they don't become politicians; people who want power do that. and they dont have time to think, because they're too busy getting re-elected by promising what they can't deliver.
Australia could be put on the right track in three years if:
1. We make it illegal to belong to political parties; only independents may stand for election in the electorate in which they live, and they must speak for themselves.
2.Every candidate is given $1,000 to spend and no more.
3. Independent umpires decide whether campaign speeches are truthful and factual. Candidates are given one warning, then removed from the list if they transgress.
4. There should be no government and opposition because presumably every representative wants the best for Australia and its citizens, therefore, in the one chamber all the representatives elect a chairperson for the assembly, and for each ministry, to which members are allocated.
5. there should be no voting on issues. Every topic must be discussed calmly with opinions sustained by facts and research, until a consensus is arrived at, to which everyone agrees .