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.

Ditch, I’m sure that if you put up your views on population or ask a few questions, then you’ll get responses and the topic will proceed as you want it to….in amongst posts that you are not interested in.

However, I don’t think that there is much point in discussing the merits of the population growth problem. It is all pretty obvious really, as per Kelvin Thomson’s speech. It has also been done to death on this forum.

What is important is getting the necessary changes to take place. And one big way of pursuing that is to support Thomson in his expression of the issues and his push for a high-profile debate.

Mind you, we’ve had all that before as well – back in 1994 with the Inquiry into Australia’s Population Carrying Capacity. But I guess after fifteen years it needs to be rehashed.

I’m just waiting for Thomson to be muzzled. I think that that is the next obvious step – for Rudd to just tell him to can it. We won’t hear about it of course. We’ll just notice silence from Thomson after a couple months. Let’s see if I’m right.

Oh I'm interested in the other topics that were raised but of the 4 or 5 posts that preceded mine, none were directly concerned with the topic. I cannot see why it was titled as it was if the talk was off on a tangent on different topics.

I've mixed feelings on the immigration policy and the pressures it has put on resources, social harmony and employment. I don't claim expertise in the dynamics of population and economic growth beyond the fact that if the economy grows then a larger labour force is needed and if the present population is insufficient then you need more people. So long as there is a demand for the products produced then the net result is usually positive. That's simple enough for most to understand.

The opinions Thompson expresses regarding global population increases and the effect on the planet are so obvious it's legitimate to call them a no brainer. Of course when there are limited resources in decreasing availability and an increasing demand, something has got to give. It's the biggest problem facing the planet. Anyone got a solution?

“Rudd worse than Howard?”

Absolutely Fractelle.

He considerably boosted immigration as soon as he got into power. He didn’t mention this in the election campaign. He had no mandate to do it.

He increased the baby bonus. So he is every bit as bad as Costello.

But worst of all, in 2007 it was patently obvious that a major change in political philosophy was needed. Rudd saw part of it, in the need to address climate change, but has completely missed the imperative to steer this country towards a sustainable future, which quite frankly is a whole lot more important.

Despite some progress on climate change / peak oil / alternative energy sources, Rudd’s increased population growth will serve to undermine any gains made in reducing emissions. He’s admitted this, but has no intention of doing anything about it. He is happy for national carbon emissions to be a whole lot higher than they would be if we reduced population growth.

He's in bed with big business just as fully as any national government has ever been. This means that Labor is going to do what the real estate industry and other powerful business interests want - keep up the very high rate of expansionism, regardless of the consequences.

Kelvin Thomson has struck right at the heart of Ruddism. He’s got the potential to really stir the pot, if he can gain the support of a large section of the community, which seems very likely. So again, I’m just waiting for him to be silenced by his unscrupulous master.

Ludwig

This may surprise you, but I think almost every one of your criticisms of Rudd are valid.

To really move into a national philosophy of sustainable living we need to consider all factors from population to pollution, ecosystems to economics, from renewable to redundant technology.

However, there was not a single aspect of the previous Liberal-led federal government that indicated to me, we would be better off under Howard. There we will have to agree to disagree.

I remain hopeful that there is sufficient understanding of the big picture within the Labor party for us to have a chance - Kelvin Thompson being but one. It won't be soon enough and we will lose a lot before we become fully self sustainable - both here and world wide.

However, we also have a change of regime in one of the world's biggest economies - the USA. Now if you are going to say that Obama is going to be a worse president than George W, I would like to politely request, that you have a big rethink.

Cheers

Full marks to Kelvin Thompson on his speech - having now read it (thanks Ludwig) I think he's spot on. However, I very much doubt that it will gain much traction with either the Government or Opposition. As Ludwig says, they're both in bed with big business, and really have no option but to support continued growth, which requires an ever increasing population according to their paradigm.

However, I disagree that Rudd is worse than Howard overall. We've gone from a heartless, warmongering growthist government to one that's slightly more humane, less inclined to toady to its American masters and is at least making baby steps towards sustainability.

Has immigration actually increased under Rudd? While Ludwig says so, I haven't seen any figures that bear that out. As I've said before, the baby bonus and so-called 'skilled' migration should be scrapped forthwith, along with childcare subsidies.

However, neither the Government nor Opposition is likely to do anything of the sort, because it would be electoral suicide.

No one has yet been able to explain why with more people than ever before in our nation we have more wealth, abundant food, a higher standard of living and yet we think it intellectual to sprout the over population mantra. I can understand the earth worshipers who somehow think we can return to the garden of Eden sprouting this crap but those who claim to have brains certainly don't think this one through. How about we start killing off a few animals if we are so short of resources.

CJ

Are you, therefore, saying we have no hope?

That all the Kelvin Thompsons will be silenced? That the big non-renewable resource monopolies will win out? That we will continue to breed and use up all resources until nothing is left?

I don't believe it.

I refuse to give up.

Hi Fractelle -

No, but I'm not overly optimistic. I do think that there's little likelihood that the ALP or Coalition will adopt Thomson's proposals or anything much like them - but that certainly doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged strongly to do so.

I think it's far more likely that a minor party like the Greens might be persuaded from within to formulate population policies along the lines that Thomson proposes, and for them to be able to exert pressure for governments of whatever persuasion to take steps in that direction.

For example, it's quite conceivable that the Greens could hold the balance of power in the Senate following a double dissolution election. If that proves to be the case, they would be well-positioned to encourage government action to stabilise our population, and to modify international aid so that it is directed towards population sustainability.

I agree that this scenario is also unlikely, but I think it's somewhat less so than the majors producing a sustainable population policy in the foreseeable future.

CJ

Last week when there was talk of a double dissolution when the ETS/RET duo failed to get through, I was hoping that would be the case. The only way is for the Greens to have a greater input into policy - keeping the bastards honest seeing as the Democrats have lost the plot on that one.

I must admit to finding it difficult to remain optimistic when intelligent people like Ludwig favour Howard over Rudd. There are times when I feel like I have inadvertently entered a parallel universe, like people wanting Costello back, 9/11, everything George W has ever said, children overboard, the world is a magic pudding of endless resource and can't be polluted - at least not by humans, Margaret Thatcher was a woman, intelligent design, we need to continue growing our cities... that's enough.

Must go outside and stare at the Mountain Ash, take a few lungfuls of fresh air - I'll feel better then.

“I must admit to finding it difficult to remain optimistic when intelligent people like Ludwig favour Howard over Rudd.”

Fractelle, I wouldn’t favour Howard over a pile of pig manure for PM! But yes I would favour him over Rudd !!

What makes Rudd so much worse is that he has entrenched the continuous expansion paradigm…and boosted it.

Yes it is awfully hard to be optimistic when someone who seemed so promising turns out to be so dismal.

I hope your sortie amongst the regal Eucalyptus regnans was refreshing.

I think I’ll wander down the back yard and sit in the dark under the Leichhardt tree, contemplate my navel and start wailing in chorus with the bush stone-curlews ( :> (

It is so bloody obvious that any species cannot keep increasing in numbers indefinitely without eventually suffering a disastrous crash. Kelvin Thomson stated something that should have stated long ago by some political figure. I was very impressed by the essays Rudd wrote on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the economic system. I wish he would go to writing essays full time and let people like Thomson who at least are aware there is a problem try to do something about it. Howard lied, manipulated, appealed to prejudice, removed barriers between church and state and tried to roll back the gains of labour, but he was not as remote from reality as Rudd seems to be.

“I think it's far more likely that a minor party like the Greens might be persuaded from within to formulate population policies along the lines that Thomson proposes, and for them to be able to exert pressure for governments of whatever persuasion to take steps in that direction.”

CJ, yes you’d think that the Greens would be MUCH more likely to embrace the population issue than either the libs or labs, given that their political paradigm is apparently much more closely aligned.

But I don’t think they will!

Why on earth it has taken someone like Kelvin Thomson to elucidate the basics of continuous population growth, instead of Bob Brown, Christine Milne or anyone else in the Greens is just beyond me.

I just get the feeling that the grizzly old Greens just ain’t gunna go for it, even if Thomson is successful in triggering a major debate and garnering massive support. There is something terribly wrong with the Greens.

I think that Turnbull or his replacement, and even KRudd, are more likely to move towards Thomson’s way of thinking before the Greens even budge!

Of course, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Dear Ludwig,

There is much that I admire about the Greens. However, they not only support creating a sustainable world they also wish to be seen as holy. In their pursuit of holiness they will not support restricting immigration as they have a fear of being regarded as prejudiced.

There is a question of giving IVF to lesbians or single mothers. I would deny it to everybody. We do not need means of producing more humans.

Ludwig,
It is simple what needs to be done in Aus.

Break the idoitic agreement the major parties have about not debating immigration.

Hawke brokered that, claiming the issue was too complex for us mere mortals to grasp. More like the poiticians would be caught out by their own bungling. Polys don't like being embarassed by their own shortcomings.

I think the government will just ignore Thomson for fear of starting a debate and of course the Opposition won't break the agreement.

That leaves the Greens who claim to have a low immigration policy, but never give it air because they need Labor support to get their seats in the Senate. Bloody hypocritics the lot of them!

The government holds the whip hand and while ever busness keeps donating large an\mounts to the major parties, the situation is likely to remain the same. But all encouragement to Thomson.

we presume to know[or are told we have problems[overcrowded cities[wtf?]your kidding...ditto increasing populations...the global lies about a population explosion is distorted..see previous debates

zero intrest by policy makers[what the heck is he]...polulation[man...blamed for global warmin g is a lie...yes the more we consume the mopre polution[but he said the more we are...well how come we got a reducing cap?...its going down no matter what
...that dosnt need wheat or meat

housing affordability...stop giving tax egsemptions for investers to buy up all the cheap property..locking it away...there is plenty of housing[those big units in town are mostly owned for investment[their mostly empty...go live there

foood crisis...when we are shutting down farm..[its insane stuff you gullable eugenisysts are spouting on about...there is plenty of food able to be grown...[european farmers are PAID NOT TO PRODUCE...

yes production figures ARE deliberatly quoted low[because were eating stuff we didnt eat before...ythat dont get measured nor grown here

<<it's legitimate to call them a no brainer.>>>..as someone said earlier means the mindless hacve swallowed the con

<<Of course when there are limited resources in decreasing availability and an increasing demand, something has got to give.>>>we throw millions of tons into the sea...have mountains of food...its deliberatly kept neare demand to keep the price up

species extinctions have littler to do with immagrants

<<It's the biggest problem facing the planet>>>what is too many people breathing[over population..or global warming...or species extinction...we over fished whales to near extibction...but they recoverd...so can the seas...in time

the increased costs of basic resources/water/power..etc is multinational greed...we had plenty when govt did the delivery...but ubder privatisation its gone skyhigh...

he is using all the buzz words..scarce..[thus valuable...border tensions armed conflict...[yeah them damm imagrants...send em home to fight usa invasions]

what a wwwanker...you guys are being sucked in again by spin[and hate of others...simply being racists...intent on murder of immagrants