Federal member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson has just made a parliamentary speech on the problems with population growth, both globally and nationally.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMLNxszTdO0

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2658750.htm?section=justin

He is receiving a great deal of support from ordinary people, as is evident in the responses to this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/18/2658750.htm?section=justin

Kelvin is calling for debate. I hope he gets it, and doesn’t get squashed by Rudd or powerful business influences that constantly push for high growth.

His speech will hopefully be remembered as the ground-breaking event that triggers the change away from the utter absurdity of continuous-growth politics and towards limits-to-growth steady-state economy sustainability-based politics.

It has seemed as though we’ve been hopelessly hooked into never-ending expansionism, even after enormous ominous problems with this sort of growth have become evident.

Rudd will IMO be remembered as the worst politician of this sort that Australia ever had, with his considerable boost to immigration beyond already records rates under Howard, and right at the time that manic expansionism needed to be wound back. Instead of entering an era of progressive politics off the end of the dinosaur Howard era, we were lumbered with a bigger and meaner dinosaur!

So, now that a federal politician has broken the ice on the taboo subject of continuous growth, and received very favourable responses, maybe it will all start to change.

Here’s hoping…..like I’ve never hoped before!

Ah phoowey. The second link should be:

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/4065847/1616857852/name/Kelvin's%20090817%20Parliamentary%20Population%20Speech%20ac[1].doc

This points out a weakness in the Australian system. Kelvin Thomson has emphasised a glaring problem that the body politick in Australia has chosen to ignore. In the United States he could gather support and possibly even be president if enough people supported him and contributed to him. I think he should replace Rudd. In Australia the talent pool is much smaller. The prime ministership is restricted to senior members of parliament. In the United States the president can be anyone born a US citizen who is 35 and over. He may be a junior senator like Obama and Lincoln, a military leader like Eisenhower, an educator like Wilson etc.

Penny Wong is minister for Climate Change. She is intelligent but has little background for her position. However, she may have as good a background as anyone in parliament. In the United States President Obama has appointed Stephen Chu, a Nobel Laureate scientist, as Secretary of Energy. Certainly all US appointees to cabinet posts are not as highly qualified, but the president has the power to appoint any US citizen to a cabinet post. The president has a big field of talent to choose from. The prime minister of Australia is restricted to members of parliament.

In an era where many of the problems involve technology and specialised knowledge the Australian system is inadequate. The leadership pool should be larger.

Davidf
I agree with most of what you say but I'm a little more cynical about the US presidency....A right wing b grade actor,
A bumbling fool who was described as being incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Both G Bushes hardly resounding endorsements for the system.
Mind you the cabinet being comprised of individuals of considerable experience and capacity is a good idea I did suggest a variation for Aust. But given the galloping inertia that is the Australian way of politics I don't hold out much hope for real change.

Ludwig
I agree with the diagnosis and it is time we got further.....I'm getting splinters with my hobbyhorse....What? How? By what mechanism? etc ad nausium.

Ludwig

Agree with you regards population

BUT (there's always a 'but')

Rudd worse than Howard?

Remember Costello's "have one for mum, dad and country"?

What I am disappointed about Rudd is his failure to cancel the Baby Bonus. And we do need to consider vis a vis immigration where new migrants can be supported (water, work, environmental capabilities) - that would be one study out of the many Rudd has conducted I would support.

At least now we have set some targets - Renewable Energy Targets legislation, remember Howard's obfuscation on setting targets? However, I do remain deeply skeptical about the ETS - that has to be the biggest tax-rort opportunity of the century.

But Rudd worse than Howard? In your heart of hearts, do you really believe after all GFC and other assorted economic changes (including impact of climate change) we would be better off with Howard?

I think we would be worse off, we would be left at the starting post regarding investment into sustainable technology. Rudd might not be doing enough (canceling solar panel rebate just dumb) but Howard would've done nothing except invest into 'clean' coal and nuclear power.

That is not better, never no way, not at all.

It didn't take long for this thread, whose title concerned over population, to turn into a rave session about Rudd, solar panels, US Presidents etc. Is it going to continue to be a soap box session for the anti govt boys or is the topic of over population going to addressed? I'd like to know before I bother making any further posts.