wizofous wrote, "... I think it would be wrong to assume that private developers are incapable of designing and building sustainable and livable communities – as community attitudes change, and with sensible government oversight and an informed regulatory framework, there is profit to be made from developing housing estates that genuinely put sustainability first."

The experience has been otherwise.

Developers will make far greater profit by trashing the environment than by caring for it. How many examples can you provide where this has not been the case? Even if examples of truly "sustainable and livable communities" built by private developers can be found, they are insignificant compared to the others which are not. The only hope of halting the large scale enviornmental vandalism caused by private developers is to remove the corrupting infuence that they have over all state governments and the federal government (largely thorugh their funding of the major political parties), and for governments to assume full responsibility for town planning through open and accountable decision-making processes.

"My suggestion is to find ways of reducing emissions that have other benefits: e.g. set yourself the challenge of reducing your annual electricity bill by $100. It may not be much, but if you're anything like me, you might be quite surprised at the sense of achievement you get from succeeding."

Wiz, this comment by you, kind of sums up my point about population,
energy use etc.

Clearly your sense of achievement makes you feel good! Thats one
motivation, endorphins are released in the brain etc, as you
pat yourself on the back.

But will it make a scrap of difference? Apart from your motivation
of feeling great, not really.

You accept another 3 billion human population as a given, when
alot of it could easily be solved by doing what we have done in
the West, ie give women access to modern family planning. They
don't have that in the third world, largely due to the fact that
the Catholic Church has fought it all the way.

Thats why I refuse to get excited about 100$ worth of power.
Until we as a global community address some of these mega global
issues, its all fairly pointless, apart from the feelgood factor.

"In Africa its faster, easier and simpler, to just shoot the
wildlife to eat and chop down the forests"

Exactly. Partly this is because of insufficient government regulation, but partly because the technology to harvest food and generate wealth in less destructive means is not available. I generally don't believe in hand-outs, but technology transfer to the 3rd world (when combined with proper education) will be a significant part of addressing environmental destruction and alleviating poverty, which go hand in hand.

" Italy [has] told the Catholic Church where to go jump when it comes to family planning, not so in Africa, where people are less educated"

Precisely: education. There's no point telling the Catholic Church to give up its dogma.

"Export wealth certainly is required, whilst there are imports."

Of course. And I'm not proposing that Australia's economy has any need to be completely self-contained, just that it's in-principle possible.

"Education and scientific research can only happen, if there is
wealth creation to bankroll them"

Again, true, but it's a virtuous circle - indeed that's the basis of capitalism - use the capital you generate initially (from mining, agriculture), invest it in a higher level of wealth creation, and generate even more capital, etc. etc.

The reason I see it as a "given" that there’ll be 3 billion more of us by 2050 is the structure of the current population pyramid. It's so heavily weighted towards the low end that even if the fertility rate magically dropped to 2 children per female tomorrow (i.e. just on replacement rate), we would still be looking at over 8 billion by 2050. But at the current rate (~2.6, falling steadily), that gives about another billion extra.
My point re reducing your own energy usage is that I see it as a “win-win-win”: you make a (very minor) different to the total GHG emissions, you save a small amount of money, and you gain a sense of achievement. You only lose if you think watching bigger TVs, having a bigger fridge or running the A/C constantly is what makes life better.

Daggett, I might as well ask for examples where having the government take control of everything has been good for the environment. Russia? China?

Once the right regulatory/taxation framework is in place, along with the swing in consumer attitudes, the activities that "trash the environment" will no longer become profitable. That way, free enterprise and market economies will, I believe, have a chance to truly prove their effectiveness.

wizofaus, I think you need to read my post more carefully.

I wrote, "The only hope of halting the large scale enviornmental vandalism caused by private developers is ... for governments to assume full responsibility for town planning through open and accountable decision-making processes."

Now, I don't believe that I have ever attempted to argue that decision-making processes in either China or Russia were open and acountable.

... or do you maintain that they were?

---

I think that your hope, that a regulatory framewrk which can deter private corporatians from their natural inclination to destroy the natural environment can be found, is naive.

It would be far simpler, than setting up a complex framework of regulation and financial incentives, for the community, who will bear the direct consequences of any harm done to their environment, to assume this responsibility through open and accounatable local government.

I don't see how it's less naive than your hope! I don't know of one successful "eco-friendly" housing project that has been funded, planned and built by a government acency. OTOH, there are many examples built by private builders (not, unfortunately, in Australia). Because the financial incentives at this point are not great, many of those projects have been not-for-profit, but non-project organisations are realistically only ever going to be able to fill a small niche of the market.
Sensible regulation and the right taxation incentives have proven a successful formula in reducing and reversing the environmental damage caused by industry over the last 30 years - governments stepping in and "taking over" is always a possible last resort, but, like Orwell, I'm rather skeptical how truly open and accountable any government with excessive powers can remain.