"Why don't you show it then?"

What proof will you accept?

Don't try and pull that one, JKJ.

"....I'll show why I think government can't achieve it..."

Go on then.

I'm genuinely interested.

Let's not get into a "I'll show you mine if your show me yours first" situation.

You've obviously got something to say on the issue - so say it.

Here's an interesting comparison.

Canada's population has just passed the 35 million mark - the fastest growing in the G8.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/canada-population-reaches-35-million-fastest-growing-g8-174256519.html

Having said that, Canada's government seems to be following a rabid neoliberal agenda these days, so lots of folks are probably what they're after.

As I have mentioned before on numerous occasions, Ludwig, your view of business is fundamentally warped. Commercial enterprises of any substance do not run on the cavalier, self-destructive lines that you imagine.

At base, you simply mis-read the underlying point.

>>...if one lays back on the procurement of a particular item, resource or type of employee, because they want to secure the source of these things into the long-term, its competitors will just simply take the bit that was laid back on!<<

You mentioned before this curious act of "laying back" - which, incidentally, is a concept that cannot apply to "items" or "people". These are either available or unavailable. "Laying back" does nothing to ensure their long-term future. In fact, you could be cutting your own throat by not acquiring them when you need them - they simply might not be there in the future, as you have no direct control over their production.

With resources, on the other hand, you are far more concerned to understand how and under what conditions they will be available in the future. Since this involves long-term planning - maybe the weather is a factor, maybe time-to-recover is a factor (particularly applicable in agriculture, I would have thought), maybe geographic, geological, geopolitical considerations come into play. Whatever the case, unless you have a long-term plan to cope with the situation, you have signed your company's death-warrant.

Why is it, do you suppose, that in times of oil price hikes, R&D into alternative energy sources suddenly ramps up? Because the company economists have gone to the Board and said, guys, we need to ensure the energy-future requirements of our business more quickly than we envisaged a year ago.

>>You seem to be completely missing this all-important point.<<

As you can see, I did not miss it at all. Maybe I was not providing enough detail on how businesses reach decisions like this, so perhaps you could provide an illustration of how "strong competition over a resource that is in limited or declining supply" leads to the company behaviours that obviously concern you so much.

<< Does this mean you don't know what sustainability actually is? Can you define it? >>

Oh dear Jardine, is that really necessary? I trust that you know what it means and I would have thought the converse would be true as well.

Well alright then…

Wikipedia defines sustainability adequately: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability

From this definition: < The second approach is management of human consumption of resources… >

This is the bit that concerns me the most in Australia, with our rapidly growing population and hence consumption of everything.

As to the nitty-gritty of what a paradigm of sustainability would mean, that is up to government, with the assistance of scientists, other experts and all sections of the public to nut out.

To that extent, no I don’t know EXACTLY what sustainablility is. But because we can’t define it right down to the nth degree doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be noting the broad principles and moving strongly in that direction.

So then, why on earth couldn’t our government do this?

And I think we may be making just a modicum of progress, Ludwig. I am noticing some stray qualifications wandering into your views. Altogether a very healthy trait.

>>...the real world does not support your assertion that businesses think and act sustainably.<<

Ok, maybe not that one. On that, we have different view of what the "real world" consists of. But this looks promising:

I noticed the "it could well be" qualification in this assertion of yours:

>>...it could well be a matter of a company striving to secure what it can in the short term in order to survive in the short term, and simply not having the option of preserving resources in the interests of its longer term survival.<<

As I said, this would be a very self-destructive approach, if it ever happened. Do you have any examples you can call on to support your view?

>>All the companies involved need to work together towards the same plan. But this would sit in conflict with the competitive ethos<<

There you go again. Companies do band together into "Industry Associations", where common problems are aired and discussed without crossing any collusion boundaries. They do indeed work together on these problems, most particularly where issues of resource sustainability are on the table. As well as the future of stuff-we-dig-up type resources, these groups also address issues of work-force education, health-and-safety, trade imbalances and a whole raft of other stuff that affects their collective survival.

I suspect that much of this is invisible when viewed through the lens of "governments know best". But you can always read the other side of the story, if you care to open your mind to it.