Dick Smith’s Population Puzzle
Dick in his own uniquely Australian way produced this documentary while a little heavy on nationalism raised a number of questions around the population debate. The debate seemingly avoided by politicians of all shades was already happening in a strange and abstract way for example around infrastructure, immigration, climate change, aging population and economic development. Then just to confuse us further a number of furphies pop up around racism, if you speak about population then there is some correlation to racism. This debate like all complex questions attracts a large number of knuckleheads with a litany of simplistic analyses and commentary note finger pointing at Hanson & One Nation if they are still around.
The debate BIG Australia (36 Million -2020) verse a sustainable Australia (?), obviously the truth is located somewhere between the two. What attracts me to the sustainable Australia position is simply that it needs to be a strategic approach to address the needs of our country (environmentally, socially and economically). The only problem I see is capitalist greed that equates economic development +even increasing population + broader tax base + increased profit margins + infinite = positive social outcomes. How realistic is this equation do the numbers add up, nothing grows for ever there is a finite value attributable to everything, do keep on consuming until Western civilisation crashes and the whole biosphere implodes. One point that does stand out is Smith a self-titled capitalist naming capitalism as the major reason for this issue in naming the sacred cow as an unsustainable burdensome beast.
Homophobia – a number of tweets made disparaging comments around same-sex attraction – disappointing – heterosexuals still do not understand same-sex people live in a family, some parent children and live very ordinary lives – they may get us mixed up with Str8 tea room princesses
The Agenda: It is time Australia has a serious policy debate about issues that affect its future.
- Environmental stewardship – strategic management of a finite resource
- Comprehensive primary healthcare – beyond hospitals
- Civil society – social justice – poverty – housing – employment – training – education – relationships ,
- Economic development beyond capitalism towards sustainability – focus on developing Human capital – social capital
It is time for capitalism to start paying its due
“Moving forward together on Climate Change”
Market economy – market based mechanism
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
Carbon tax Carbon capture & storage Emissions trading scheme
Climate Change Commission?
150 person Citizen’s Assembly – seeking Community consensus through a 12mth consultation process
Incentives for early action from business and industry
Today Labor announced its climate change policy full of fluffy language and restatements of old positions, except an aim to seek community rather than political consensus. The bones of this framework are based on the CPRS, which Rudd took to the last election and seemingly gained an electoral mandate to implement, but did not. Inevitably, someone will have to bit the proverbial bullet and move beyond the talk fests of consensus building to provide a green alternative to the carbon guzzling one we now have. It is the environmental vandalism perpetrated by Capitalist upon the planet is something new at some point we will all have to pay for this abuse. In Gillard’s own words
“that the price of inaction is too high a price for our country to pay. The price of inaction is a price ultimately that our country will not be able to afford” this may be the bottom line. However, this policy seems more consistent with the inaction she seeks to reflect upon in this quote.
Political smoke & mirrors
Coalition – No Carbon Tax
The Greens policy positions
Can we really afford the inherent Capitalist debt, in its abuse of the planet?
We need action Now?
FACTBOX: Australia’s carbon footprint | Reuters
How green is paradise, since the advent of the industrial revolution, we have been consumed by capitalist greed. In this timeframe, we have pursued economic profit, through the relentless consumption of limited resources, with little if any consideration of the long-term consequences. This may explain why we have reached a critical point in our history in facing a climatic crisis. Admittedly, in the last 30 years we have seen significant changes with greater consideration given by government and business towards global stewardship. This shift may be due in part to the increasing influences of Green Politics, who have been able to better articulate an ecologically informed political agenda.
Today the Australian Senate voted on an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) put forward by the Rudd Government to manage climate change, which was defeated. The government lost 42 votes to 30. was interesting for a number of reasons i.e.
- Government – it is a reality and we need to do something about it now
- Conservatives – it may or may not exist
- Liberals – it exists
- Greens – It is a reality
How do we address Climate Change?
- Government by cutting emissions, develop renewable fuels and grow a green economy
- Conservatives do nothing
- Liberals we can do very little to affect climate change but we support development of renewable fuels and in growing a green economy
- Greens – we need to be proactive actively develop renewable fuels and grow a green economy
- Government – be pro-active
- Conservatives – do nothing, especially if it means a threat to living standards or the economy
- Liberals – wait and see what major nations ie USA do and take our lead from them
- Greens – be pro-active
- Government – high stakes poker with a schoolyard bully tone
- Conservatives – Henny Penny
- Liberals – Henny Penny with a you need to do it our way
- Greens – government pandering to big end of town
Reason for defeat:
- Government the opposition was playing politics and mounting a an oppositional politics for the sake of it.
- Conservatives – it is inherently flawed
- Liberals – it is inherently flawed
- Greens – it is inherently flawed
On this Legislation:
- Government this is the best we can come up with, even if it needs some details that need work although we are open to negotiation
- Conservatives – it is simply a tax grab and would lead to a financial crisis
- Liberals – it is inherently flawed and the Government should adopt our plan
- Greens – it is inherently flawed , it needs to go further and we are open to negotiation
- Government – we will be back
- Conservatives – Back to the future – we will vote it down again
- Liberals – we are open but it has to be done our way
- Greens – meet with us
We need to show respect for the planet as its stewards and start paying the debut back