“What is so different about sustainability?”
The officers in charge of providing roads and hospitals etc. don’t need to ensure that the resource-use of people in 50, 500, 5,000, and 50,000 years’ time is not compromised. Those in charge of sustainability do.

“Twice I have put to you (and twice you have completely ignored it) that government addresses all manner of things without knowing the full detail of them.”

I’ve ignored it because by merely pointing to other governmental actions, all you’re doing is arguing in a circle - again! Your argument is just “government can rationalize scarce resources to their most valued ends, because government can rationalize scarce resources to their most valued ends”.

It’s just a mental vice. I’ve proved my argument and demolished yours, and you can’t defend your own argument, and can’t refute - and actually agree with - mine.

See Ludwig, I don’t just argue “It can’t because it can’t because it can’t”.

I start by assuming that government can manage sustainability, and then I ask what would they need in order to do it. I don’t just *tell* you reasons regardless whether or not you agree. I *ask* you, and only if you agree, do I use that agreed datum to construct my argument. And then I show *reasons* why they can’t do it.

Your methodology is entirely different. You adopt a proposition that cannot be falsified by logic or evidence; you look on reasons which show it’s not true, agree that they’re correct; and just keep going round and round in circles, insisting it must be true because you find it unthinkable otherwise.

Well think otherwise! *Change* your anti-sense, anti-human, anti-freedom beliefs!

Okay, settle it. Any reply by you that repeats the same error constitutes an irrevocable admission that you are wrong, a compleat idiot, and owe me a big fat slab of the finest ale.

<< As I said before, generalizations simply don't cut it. >>

Haaahahaaa. The bigger and more profound an example is, the more you see it as a generalisation, apparently!

Now that IS funny, Pericles!

<< Or alternatively, the result of successive governments' perpetual round of under-investment, fudge, political compromise and outright corruption that gives rise to such half-baked schemes as the monorail, the light rail system, the various tolled tunnels that are over-engineered, over-priced and under-used etc. etc - the list is very long indeed. >>

Under-investment….over-priced ?!?

One gets the feeling you are trying to cover anything that the government does with one broad brush stroke and paint it all the same filthy colour!

What we can see from this list of yours is that the government has indeed been putting great effort and massive money into trying to alluvial congestion, in Sydney and elsewhere, without much success. And the reason is? It is primarily due to ever-rapidly-increasing usage/pressure/stress/demand.

And yes, when this happens and solutions to it become very difficult if not impossible, then we get all manner of complications happening: political compromise, overstated benefits, corruption, etc.

Crikey, if the issue was easy to fix, the government would have done it, and won great acclaim for doing so, yes?

continued

<< And how much effort had the government taken previously to ensure adequate water supply to the population that they knew would be growing? >>

Nowhere near enough.

Could this be the start of a breakthrough?? You have apparently acknowledged here that the government is indeed not good at implementing services / infrastructure / resource supply capability in preparation for increasing demand. Wonderful!

I’m sure you appreciate that population growth is very largely controlled by the government, and that they would, if they were half-decent managers of this country, either make sure that the supply side of the equation was all in place ahead of any increase in demand, or that the planned increase in demand was halted or at least slowed right down.

I asked:

>> How about you give an example or two of where businesses have called for a stop to the increasing demand in situations where the supply capability is precarious. <<

Nope. You give no examples. I’m sure you woulda if you coulda - as I have said to you several times before when my requests for corroboration of your assertions has gone unanswered!

Come on, you know exactly what I’m asking for here. You assert that business plans do largely align with the right sort of governmental plan for our national future, and you assert that businesses are inherently very careful to plan their future in regards to resource access. So… where are the examples?

For example; what business has ever recommended to the Qld government that they strive to stop heaping pressure on the precarious water-provision capability in SEQ via their facilitation of rapid population growth?

Or… what mining company has ever told the government that they should slow down the rate of mining rather than open up more mines? Or forestry. Or fisheries. Or farming…..

Pericles, not meaning to be rude, but I am beginning to equate you with the old black knight! http://youtu.be/zKhEw7nD9C4

< Trying to alluvial congestion > ??!!??

Fascinating!

Of course that should have read: 'Trying to alleviate congestion'.

Sheesh! |:>/

As usual, Ludwig, you have the whole thing arse-about-face.

>>For example; what business has ever recommended to the Qld government that they strive to stop heaping pressure on the precarious water-provision capability in SEQ via their facilitation of rapid population growth?<<

That is hardly an example of a business ensuring its supply, is it? Which is what we were talking about.

>>Or… what mining company has ever told the government that they should slow down the rate of mining rather than open up more mines? Or forestry. Or fisheries. Or farming…<<

Why on earth would they do that, if they have a workable plan to maintain the flow of raw material - including carbon-based life forms - that takes into account the limitations of their environment. Which is precisely what they do. And they publish these plans every year so that their shareholders can see that they are prudent managers, with a clear view of their future.

What you still fail to accept is that companies are apolitical, and operate with a level of openness and clarity that would be unthinkable to governments. Open any annual report you like - BHP Billiton, Xstrata, Newmont, RioTinto etc. - and you will see exactly how they align their own futures with that of Australia.

Have a look as well at the timber industry, and how it manages its relationship with its environment. Here's an example:

http://www.austgum.com.au/australian-plantations-woodchips/home.html

And since you also mention fishing, here's a major Australian company addresses the issues:

http://www.australfisheries.com.au/corporate-profile/message-from-the-ceo/

You might even care to glance at their sustainability statement.

http://www.australfisheries.com.au/sustainability-2/sustainability-statement/

What's left. Oh yes, farming.

I don't know a great deal about agriculture, but I would imagine that any farm would need to have a sustainability plan that preserves its productive capacity for the long term - otherwise, they would simply go out of business. Here's Elders annual report, that will give you some idea of what is involved:

http://www.elderslimited.com/upload/2012-Elders-Limited-Annual-Report.pdf

If you can find any holes in that, to support your theory that they are all rapists and pillagers of our fair land, please identify them.

<< “I assume that government CAN manage sustainability.” It’s obvious you *assume* it! The question is whether you can prove it’s true >>

No it isn’t Jardine!

Why do I need to prove this any more than you need to prove the opposite?

We assume that people, organisations, governments, etc can do things all the time in the absence of proof. And guess what…. there is no way of proving that they can actually do it until they’ve actually done it!

If they fail, we can’t say that that is proof that they couldn’t have done it. If they are successful, that would constitute proof that they were capable of doing it. Unless they had previously done it, nothing else would constitute proof!

So you’re asking for the impossible.

Think about that – it literally is impossible to prove that our government can manage sustainability or that they are utterly incapable of managing sustainability. The only real way that we can approach proof either way is to look back at what has transpired in about the year ?2500!

And maybe even then we won’t able to establish proof either way, because with a few small differences in methodology, the opposite outcome could perhaps have resulted.

In the absence of a very good reason to not assume that government can manage sustainability, I will continue to assume that they can. And really, I can’t see any reason why that assumption would be fallacious.

There are certainly some big things stopping them from properly addressing sustainability at the moment, but this doesn’t mean that they’re not capable of it.

continued