Not in my back yard = NIMBY ,Affordable or social housing in my backyard = ASHIMBY! Now that makes sense, who's first in this line of density proponents, hands up? Who actually has delivered, not me you say, or is this just more idealistic rubbish!

Rick S, yes it seems that the promotion of the good type of growth to which I refer in my last post is being used by antisustainabilityists in a highly devious manner to aid their growth addiction. Their goal just seems to be to reduce per-capita consumption of stressed resources in order to squeeze more people in! This is blatantly obvious in cities with precarious water supplies.

.
“The only option is to aim for sustainability:”

Absolutely right Pelican. I course I agree with all your points regarding this. But while the way forward seems obvious to you and I, how on Earth do we get our politicians to embrace it??

This is surely one of the most important questions of our time.

And I’m afraid that I just don’t see any easy answer.

Dallas says "Not in my back yard = NIMBY."

And don't forget the newer version, that describes those who are so fed up with things that they are taking whatever action they can:

NIMBI

(Now I Must Become Involved).

I agree with Ludwic & Pelican,
The politicians won't even recognise peak oil so I don't think there
is much chance to get them to consider raising the drawbridge.
Natural population growth is negative, so stopping immigration will
solve most of the growth problem.

I read an interesting article which suggests that when the national
cost of oil reaches 4% of GDP then the economy stalls and growth stops.
In the US this happened last year in May at about $110 per barrel.
Hence the Global Financial Crisis (GFC).
So when we get there again the government will be forced to face zero
growth whether they like it or not.
So hang on tight.

A riddle:

Two people knock on a politicians door. One is carrying a bag of money and says "I can help you get re-elected, if you help me." The other says I've got some ideas that will help people have a better lifestyle, after you retire from politics.

Which one is the politician more likely to give his support to?

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

There is no sense lamenting that politicians should think about the future and not worry about getting re-elected. Even if one guy comes along and does think about the future in preference to short term interests, he will get beaten at the next election, anyway.

Until the general public recognises that sustainability is important and population is linked to sustainability, there won't be any change to the developer / politician coalition. It is too sweet an arrangement for both.

What could possibly make the general public concerned enough with sustainability to break this developer / politician coalition? If we look for one silver bullet, we might be waiting a long time. Maybe if everyone just keeps up the effort, just as the dozen or so commentators on this article have done, the tide will eventually turn. Maybe eventually is too long.

Thanks for those thoughts, ericc, and I certainly agree. It seems that a certain critical mass is required for major social change, and I think that we are still quite far from that threshold, barring some immediate disaster. Yet there are those who feel that the only sane and civilized thing to do is continue to work peacefully toward that critical mass.

Personally, as I have said elsewhere on this forum, I believe that we are long past the point of disaster prevention, and can only work on disaster mitigation to the best of our abilities.