Sadly it is mass insanity that prevents solutions to combat global warming being embraced. How many times have we been told we cannot continue to consume and procreate at present levels or risk devastating consequences? No one it seems is willing to even countenance a reduced standard of living? This new government will find it impossible to tell the punters they cannot have whatever they want. The credo, 'if I can afford it I'll have it' is now an inalienable right of private individuals to have or do whatever they choose with their money regardless of the consequence to others. Whether that is having 5 children, spending millions on a Macmansion on the Gold Coast or buying a Hummer for use as a suburban runabout. I doubt any government will have the ability or courage to impede people's rights and survive. The cards have been dealt and no one is willing to hold or fold.

While making changes to reduce waste, the real problem is overpopulation and unless we address this issue all other actions are just bandaid solutions.

No-one seems to want to tackle this issue, some say because we depend on population growth to sustain economic growth ie. higher consumption means a strong economy.

Maybe we are tied too strongly to the idea of capitalism and consumerism. It is a mad system when you think about it, the government on one hand tells us to curb spending to stop inflation and rising interest rates which will only affect small to medium and large businesses which will then have to sack people and lead to a rise in unemployment. You get the drift.

Maybe if we get away from the idea of obscene profit making and being beholden only to shareholders we can talk of reducing waste which would include meaningful talks about population sustainability. This would have to include the developing world where larger families take the place of a social welfare system.

The issues are large and far-reaching and I am not sure the world is ready to make major changes to solve the problems of the environment but we can hope.

HenryVIII

Thanks for the info. I can see I've got a bit of a learning curve ahead of me here!

Good article.
The problem is a big one: Our economy is based on growth and individual wealth. Both will have to be modified in the society that survives. (The ones that don't *will* collapse, sooner or later.)
History shows us that most humans will follow the tendencies that evolution has endowed us: Hunger for safety/Power and suspicion of "others".
Imagine for a moment that zero growth is achieved: As technology improves it wil be harder and harder for the next generation to "compete" with established wealth because capital assets are more productive. (e.g. 50 years ago 10 farmers could feed 50 humans, now 1 can do it with tractors, fertilisers, high yeild crops, etc). When houses are pre-fabricated in factories, robots make the cars, 3D printers mature so any plastic object can be downloaded from internet and printed in your own home....Is the 40 hour week, "you have to earn a living" society going to work? No.
We are already seeing the symptoms of the coming crunch in middle man syndrome: cheap, easy, fast things are costly, complex and late. Consultants, middle-management and councils are great examples.
In short: waste is necessary to keep the labor market balanced.
A lot of "employment" is adult day-care.

“Bronwyn-if you have a diesel car you can run it on diesel with mixtures of vegetable oils” (Henry VIII)
Sometimes. It depends on where, when, the vegetable oil, and what sort of banger is burning it. Modern diesel engines depend upon ultra-fine filters to disperse the fuel for the burn-mix. And oils-aint-oils when it comes to getting gluggy – stuff such as Canola, Eucalyptus, form waxes under cool conditions. The biofuels industry has attempted to address this by pleading for lowering of existing fuel standards. Even conventional diesel has special grades for places that get frosty weather, and some grumpy farmers, with summer-grade fuel in their tanks, have had to wait until after sun-up for tractor mobility.
But, from his long-time experience, Henry V111 would already know that waste is not our fundamental problem: Other than being less than couth, there is nothing wrong with throwing dinner scraps over the shoulder to be mopped up by the waiting dogs; and their scraps by rodents working a later shift. Like money and manure, the problem is - too much in the one place at the one time. Spread around thinly it might even have some benefits.
Why should we scrimp-and-save, when that serves no purpose other than to prolong the agonies associated with our false economic dream: everlasting growth in our finite world? There is some argument to be made to “eat, drink, and be merry” so that we will come up against the limits of finite resources sooner. Under the present economic paradigm, that limit would then be reached with less numbers of people than there would be if we were careful and canny; less people in utter desperation; less needy among whom to distribute the insufficient resources.
Valerie Yule’s essay is excellent for training purposes. It is long past time that such training started: get us ready for the time when the fundamentalists’ urgings to fornicate without forethought are in the dustbin of history. Training for when our numbers are being stabilized. Our great human feast has already thrown too many scraps into the atmosphere, oceans, etc..

These suggestions are all very worthy, however, they remain insufficient when our governments continue in their pursuits for economic growth, increased immigration and remain fixated on maximum profits alone.

One needs a better understanding of the state of the eco systems in Australia to realise that all past governments have failed abysmally in sustaining a healthy environment for their people. Politicians are indeed an ignorant lot.

Successive governments must take a good deal of responsibility for the present state of our environment when they have deliberately ignored and exploited the EPA statutes.

Governments remain captured by the market and are adept at instilling guilt in the common folk whilst encouraging pollutant industries to pump it out by the truck loads - out of control and unregulated thereby seriously affecting the health of communities in close proximity and beyond (Australia emits more mercury than does 90% of all North America.)

Those citizens who reside far from mining or heavy industy communities have little idea of the enormous drain on our resources. One company alone uses a mere 35 million litres of water per day and free of charge for the next 70 years.

The use of energy in the resource industries is obscene and reveals the vast inequalities between our fragile environment and industry. Pollutant companies continue to encroach on residential lands forcing citizens to relocate or suffer the consequences.

One is not about "destroying economies", however, the inequality between pollutant industries and the environment should be addressed and it should be addressed quickly. Enough of the rhetoric