95 replies to this topic

[hybridfiat]

Ive read a few articles in the last week that purport to expose the "greens movement's" campaign against coal using the law to stop major projects and stop any investment.
The latest is a piece by David Byers From: The Australian March 07, 2012.
In it he lumps the 'Greens Party' with those who are being funded to dystroy the coal industry and any other industry or mining project they are opposed to.
We have some folk here who have a much better knowledge and understanding of the 'Greens' policy than me, is what he says true? Or is it bunkum?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

From:

http://greens.org.au...tural-resources

Mining and Mineral Exploration
Goals

The Australian Greens want:

• a viable mining and mineral exploration sector that meets stringent environmental protection standards.
  
• all mining activity to be consistent with the desires and needs of affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

Measures

The Australian Greens will:

• ensure that environmental and social impact assessments are rigorously applied and implemented on all mining proposals and projects.
  
• prohibit the exploration for, and mining and export of, uranium.
  
• oppose the establishment of new coal mines and the expansion of existing mines
  
• prohibit mineral exploration and mining as well as extraction of petroleum and gas in terrestrial and marine nature conservation reserves, including national parks, wilderness areas and other areas of outstanding nature conservation value.
  
• establish a national mining insurance fund, based on mining industry contributions, to provide resources sufficient to rehabilitate the environmental impacts of existing mining operations.>
  
• ensure that all new mining proposals include a fully costed and funded allocation for the restoration and rehabilitation of the impacted area(s) to world’s best practice standards.

[hybridfiat]

Thanks Zaphod.

[proftournesol]

It's just more standard misinformation from the Murdoch Press as ZB demonstrates. There's no more "The Green Movement" than there is "the mining industry", there are many green groups, both self identified and identified by others as such with a variety of motives and methods.

[THOMO]

Less use of coal means more use of fossil fuels.
Which will just deplete fossil fuel reserves sooner which will then result in an increasing use of coal at a later date.
Surely it is better to maintain a mixed use of non renewable energy over a longer time frame than using the cleaner options now and the dirtier options out of necessity at a later time?
It seems very short sighted to me.

Nearly every bit of fossil fuel / coal will be used by the human race.It is just a matter of the when.
Sustainable energy might become more viable over time but the demand for nitrogen based fertilisers[which are made from fossil fuels] to feed an ever increasing population will be likely to negate any of these energy gains.

Edited by THOMO, 08 March 2012 - 08:42 AM.

[Super Mustud]

...the demand for nitrogen based fertilisers[which are made from fossil fuels] to feed an ever increasing population will be likely to negate any of these energy gains.

An interesting point. Perhaps use of nitrogen based fertilisers should be banned. An excellent way to reduce population. The pain will only affect one generation. Quite a reasonable proposition.

Aid to Africa could be provided on the basis of sterilisation after one child. A logical solution that aligns with the logic of a carbon tax.

[frankn]

Less use of coal means more use of fossil fuels.

I'm sure this is a typo - coal = fossil fuel

An interesting point. Perhaps use of nitrogen based fertilisers should be banned. An excellent way to reduce population. The pain will only affect one generation. Quite a reasonable proposition.

Aid to Africa could be provided on the basis of sterilisation after one child. A logical solution that aligns with the logic of a carbon tax.

Banning nitrogen fertilisers would (IMHO) affect at least 3 generations if not more.
Assume it was banned tommorow - the resultant spike in prices would be delayed somewhat until reduction in production hits availablitiy on shelves, flow-on effect is a dramatic price rise, which imeadiately affects aging popultation & current families + the near/ongoing future jobs loss which impacts on the pre-work generation. Job loses may be offset by shifting future workforce into other industries - depends on other market forces.

Sterilisation after one child (even when linked to aid), why should this work? The one child policy wasn't effective in China - certainly not in the agricultural centres (low income) and not to the wealthy in the cities - and China had tight political and cultural control over the population. India tried reducing family size by sterilisation (giving away a free radio from memory??) - didn't work.
Why would it work in other developing countries which have less control over their population? What happens in countries that have endemic corruption, the average person sees little benefit from aid anyway.

[proftournesol]

Why would it work in other developing countries which have less control over their population? What happens in countries that have endemic corruption, the average person sees little benefit from aid anyway.

we'd have 'bricking crews' roaming the streets like the old press gangs:(

[frankn]

we'd have 'bricking crews' roaming the streets like the old press gangs:(

OOOOOOOOOOOOw

[Super Mustud]

Banning nitrogen fertilisers would (IMHO) affect at least 3 generations if not more.
Assume it was banned tommorow - the resultant spike in prices would be delayed somewhat until reduction in production hits availablitiy on shelves, flow-on effect is a dramatic price rise, which imeadiately affects aging popultation & current families + the near/ongoing future jobs loss which impacts on the pre-work generation. Job loses may be offset by shifting future workforce into other industries - depends on other market forces.

Sterilisation after one child (even when linked to aid), why should this work? The one child policy wasn't effective in China - certainly not in the agricultural centres (low income) and not to the wealthy in the cities - and China had tight political and cultural control over the population. India tried reducing family size by sterilisation (giving away a free radio from memory??) - didn't work.
Why would it work in other developing countries which have less control over their population? What happens in countries that have endemic corruption, the average person sees little benefit from aid anyway.

Yes, there would be some pain. Such is existemce. It would be termination for convenience. Many here are in favour of termination for convenience, so I can't see too much difficulty.

With regard to China and its policy. It is actually VERY effective. You might want to read up a bit more about it.

My suggestion is, however, far more draconian. No charity without sterilization. Actually I think that LP suggested it a few months ago.

It would work a damn sight more effectively in achieving its aim than will Australia's Carbon Tax on global warming.

[Super Mustud]

we'd have 'bricking crews' roaming the streets like the old press gangs:(

Prof, I will have to give you credit for innovative policy formulation.

[LogicprObe]

The Greens have no credibility while they embrace on open door population policy for Australia.

[Super Mustud]

The Greens have no credibility while they embrace on open door population policy for Australia.

And open pockets (not their pockets, mind) charity for the population bomb in Africa.

How can encouraging population growth in Africa be good policy given the Green's other professed policies?

[LogicprObe]

And open pockets (not their pockets, mind) charity for the population bomb in Africa.

How can encouraging population growth in Africa be good policy given the Green's other professed policies?

LOL!
I got into trouble last time this subject was broached!

[Super Mustud]

LOL!
I got into trouble last time this subject was broached!

Yes, but I will deal with complaints by pointing out the contradictions that will inevitably exist in any complainant's ethical argument and the associated belief they are on high moral ground.

The chances are that the only way they will be able to get on higher ground is to get thicker carpets.

[proftournesol]

The Greens have no credibility while they embrace on open door population policy for Australia.

The Coalition will have no credibility while they embrace machine gunning all indigenous Australians.
Oh sorry, I made that up just like Lp!!

Principles
The Australian Greens believe that:

the presence in Australia of people of many cultural backgrounds greatly enriches our society and should be celebrated.
Australian society, culture and the economy has benefited, and will continue to benefit, from immigration of people from around the world.
immigration must be non-discriminatory on the grounds of nationality, ethnic origin, religion, language, gender, disability, sexuality, age or socioeconomic background.
Australia has humanitarian and legal obligations to accept refugees and reunite families.
asylum seekers and refugees are no more of a threat to our borders or to society than anyone else and must be treated with compassion and dignity.
Australia must assess in good faith all asylum seekers who arrive on our mainland or any of our islands, without discrimination based on the method of arrival.
Goals
The Australian Greens want:

an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.
all migrants to be given access to a full range of culturally sensitive, appropriate health services including a comprehensive medical examination on arrival.
services for new migrants to include appropriate English language classes, social security, legal and interpreter services, programs to ease transition to Australia's multicultural society, and post-trauma counselling where needed.
the elimination of the policies of mandatory detention, and other forms of harsh, punitive or discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers and refugees.
asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to have their claims for asylum assessed while living in the community.
planning for climate change refugees with a particular focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
Measures
The Australian Greens will:

ensure that potential immigrants are not unfairly discriminated against on any grounds.
increase the share of places for off-shore refugees and humanitarian entrants.
ensure that funding for public and community sector agencies providing migrant-specific services is increased to a level sufficient to provide adequate, effective and timely support.
ensure the development of networks, materials and programs that increase community understanding of the causes and benefits of migration.
abolish mandatory and indefinite detention of asylum seekers.
abolish discriminatory separation of refugees into permanent and temporary visa categories based on whether or not they arrived with a valid visa.
abolish the 'seven day rule' legislation whereby asylum seekers cannot gain a permanent protection visa if they have spent seven days in a third country.
restore the Australian migration zone to match Australia's territory and accept responsibility for processing all asylum seekers who seek Australia's protection within the migration zone.
ensure asylum seekers are fully informed of their rights on arrival and given immediate access to legal assistance.
restore asylum seekers' legal right to challenge decisions that affect them in the courts.
replace the current system of humanitarian visas (granted only by the Immigration Minister after rejection as a refugee) with an open, accountable humanitarian visa process incorporating a humanitarian review tribunal.
house asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa in publicly owned and managed open reception centres, where entry and exit to these centres are unrestricted except where prohibited for medical or security reasons specified in clause 28.
ensure that initial assessment of refugee status is completed within 90 days.
grant asylum seekers an asylum application visa (AAV) and assist without delay their move into the community provided medical and security checks are satisfied or after 14 days has passed, whichever occurs first.
ensure asylum seekers living in the community while their claim is assessed will be granted an AAV which will entitle them to travel, work, income support and access to ongoing educational and medical services anywhere within Australia while their claims for asylum are assessed.
deny an AAV if security checks demonstrate the person poses a serious criminal threat to the Australian community or if the person has not remained housed in the reception centre while the medical and security checks were completed.
ensure that refusal to grant an AAV is reviewable at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
house those people refused an AAV in separate, appropriate, publicly owned and managed facilities close to urban areas.
ensure that, if refugee status is refused and the person cannot be repatriated, the AAV will remain in force until he or she can be repatriated.
ensure that the number of AAVs given to asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa has no impact on the prescribed number of off-shore refugee and humanitarian entrants that Australia accepts.
support skilled migration programs that do not drain critical skills from other countries and do not substitute for training or undermine wages and conditions in Australia.
ensure that Australia adequately contributes to the funding of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
ensure that Australia adopts a definition of environmental refugee in its assessment criteria and works in the UN system for inclusion of a definition in the United Nations Refugee Convention.
ensure that no family unit is forcibly separated by the Australian assessment processes.
grant the families of approved asylum seekers permission to migrate to Australia for family reunions within a reasonable time, in accordance with the UNHCR humanitarian program.

[LogicprObe]

As I said..........an open door policy.

[Super Mustud]

A very sad document that just reeks of naivety. The hard heads in the Greens must know that this is nonsense.

[proftournesol]

Lp, if you read 'open door' into that then you'll probably misinterpret anything the Greens say or write to suit you preconceived ideas.
S&M calls the Greens naive because they support his wish for international mass genocide.

[LogicprObe]

Lp, if you read 'open door' into that then you'll probably misinterpret anything the Greens say or write to suit you preconceived ideas.
S&M calls the Greens naive because they support his wish for international mass genocide.

I don't know what you're reading prof but all I can see in that doc is...........'COME ON DOWN!.............and we'll pay for everything!'

[skippy124]

OP was to do with green vs coal...... how did we get on to immigration policy..... ahhh the thread diverters are hard at work......

[LogicprObe]

OP was to do with green vs coal...... how did we get on to immigration policy..... ahhh the thread diverters are hard at work......

The Greens can't afford their ridiculous policies without all that coal money Skip!

[Super Mustud]

Lp, if you read 'open door' into that then you'll probably misinterpret anything the Greens say or write to suit you preconceived ideas.
S&M calls the Greens naive because they support his wish for international mass genocide.

You need a thicker carpet if you are trying to take the high moral ground.

Termination for convenience is highly defended on SNA. Anyway, everybody has to die sooner or later. There is no tragedy in death.

[Super Mustud]

I don't know what you're reading prof but all I can see in that doc is...........'COME ON DOWN!.............and we'll pay for everything!'

LP, it will never happen. That policy is just ridiculous. The bulk of Australians will never fall for it. Only a niche party could publish something like it. It comes from the smugness of security that only ignorance could produce. It will disappear if the Greens ever become a major party.

You only need to consider what happened in Europe over the last 20 years to see this.

[Super Mustud]

OP was to do with green vs coal...... how did we get on to immigration policy..... ahhh the thread diverters are hard at work......

Skippy, it is because discussing carbon emissions and power supply is close to opintless without discussing population growth.

[rantan]

...........and population growth is the number one issue facing our planet in 2012 and beyond. In fact it is the only issue that matters because it is a simple truth that if there were half as many people on the earth, we would not be facing even a fraction of the number of problems that we do now, let alone their intensity.

[LogicprObe]

...........and population growth is the number one issue facing our planet in 2012 and beyond. In fact it is the only issue that matters because it is a simple truth that if there were half as many people on the earth, we would not be facing even a fraction of the number of problems that we do now, let alone their intensity.

I fail to see how anyone can argue with that.

[Super Mustud]

I fail to see how anyone can argue with that.

Depends on your grasp of arithmetic.

[Willow]

...........and population growth is the number one issue facing our planet in 2012 and beyond. In fact it is the only issue that matters because it is a simple truth that if there were half as many people on the earth, we would not be facing even a fraction of the number of problems that we do now, let alone their intensity.

Quite so rantan , the majority of reasonable sustainable population advocates have two noble goals :

1) To educate the world so that we might make more responsible decisions with regards to family size.

2) To move away from the public policies that encourage population growth and towards policies that discourage it.

Those that fear stable or lower population levels for some reason attribute evil motives to these advocates and call it population control in order to elicit a negative
emotional response. If we deny we are in overshoot long enough , perhaps control will become our only option.




..... do I get a badge too ?

[THOMO]

Depends on your grasp of arithmetic.

As in going forth and multiplying?

[davidsss]

But, the more refugees we accept, the more of these people will now be living in an advanced western country where education is high and birth rates are low. By taking in immigrants we are contributing to population control. As the migrants arrive and stay here for a couple of generations education levels rise and poverty levels fall, both factors which lead to lower birth rates. Then we can also provide aid to struggling countries, raise their education levels, reduce poverty and we all reap the benefit of lower birth rates.

However, the fact is that all of this will take time. Some can dream of draconian population policies but they are dreaming, not going to happen. Time to come back to reality and stop believing in faries at the bottom of the garden. In the time it will take to reduce population we may well screw up the planet in severe ways. So, while we're waiting for the population bomb to be defused, we also have to face the reality of the current and projected population levels, and the amount of energy required for the existing and future populations. The stark fact is that to continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate this energy is a recipe for disaster. It is time now to start to build capacity in renewable clean energy sources and to phase out the use of fossil fuels. We don't need to reduce fossil fuel use to nothing, but we do need to severely cut back on fossil fuel use and replace it with clean energy.

DS

[Super Mustud]

As in going forth and multiplying?

Well, Prof very unkindly says I am in favour of genocide (calm down a little, Prof), so...perhaps it is really subtraction?

[LogicprObe]

There will more than likely be a big war to reduce world populations............if not, a plague.

[THOMO]

Quite so rantan , the majority of reasonable sustainable population advocates have two noble goals :

1) To educate the world so that we might make more responsible decisions with regards to family size.

2) To move away from the public policies that encourage population growth and towards policies that discourage it.

Those that fear stable or lower population levels for some reason attribute evil motives to these advocates and call it population control in order to elicit a negative
emotional response. If we deny we are in overshoot long enough , perhaps control will become our only option.




..... do I get a badge too ?

Yes but that is neither what God wants or our genes dictate.
Not to mention big business.

That sort of partnership is going to take some beating.

[Super Mustud]

But, the more refugees we accept, the more of these people will now be living in an advanced western country where education is high and birth rates are low. By taking in immigrants we are contributing to population control. As the migrants arrive and stay here for a couple of generations education levels rise and poverty levels fall, both factors which lead to lower birth rates. Then we can also provide aid to struggling countries, raise their education levels, reduce poverty and we all reap the benefit of lower birth rates.

However, the fact is that all of this will take time. Some can dream of draconian population policies but they are dreaming, not going to happen. Time to come back to reality and stop believing in faries at the bottom of the garden. In the time it will take to reduce population we may well screw up the planet in severe ways. So, while we're waiting for the population bomb to be defused, we also have to face the reality of the current and projected population levels, and the amount of energy required for the existing and future populations. The stark fact is that to continue to rely on fossil fuels to generate this energy is a recipe for disaster. It is time now to start to build capacity in renewable clean energy sources and to phase out the use of fossil fuels. We don't need to reduce fossil fuel use to nothing, but we do need to severely cut back on fossil fuel use and replace it with clean energy.

DS

One bad point and one good point in your post, David.

The first para is logically flawed, as accepting a refugee leaves a breeding space from where the refugee came from. So your conclusion is incorrect. In a purely mathematical sense.

The second para has a teensy bit of logic to it.

[Whatmore]

...........and population growth is the number one issue facing our planet in 2012 and beyond. In fact it is the only issue that matters because it is a simple truth that if there were half as many people on the earth, we would not be facing even a fraction of the number of problems that we do now, let alone their intensity.

I fail to see how anyone can argue with that.

If we halve the world's population but they all pollute like rich westerners then we are still screwed

[mikey d]

I think that to blame the overpopulated third world is all too easy. The finite resources that one American requires to maintain his lifestyle would support 10,000 Somalians. Wiping out the USA is obviously the answer.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

...........and population growth is the number one issue facing our planet in 2012 and beyond. In fact it is the only issue that matters because it is a simple truth that if there were half as many people on the earth, we would not be facing even a fraction of the number of problems that we do now, let alone their intensity.

Not necessarily. Brazil, for instance, has a population of 188 million. Brazil emits less CO2 than Australia does.

[frankn]

With regard to China and its policy. It is actually VERY effective. You might want to read up a bit more about it.

I disagree, you might wnt to check but I believe that compared with other populations (India, South America) the fertility rate in China is/was higher during the 1CP. Educating/empowering the female population is FAR more effective in reducing population growth than trying to force couples to restrict family size.
For one year I lived in rural China a few years back and saw the results 1st hand-rural families often ignored the 1CP. My wife teaches a lot of Chienese students and confirms that many wealthy families ignored the 1CP.

Edited by frankn, 09 March 2012 - 07:24 AM.
clarity

[Super Mustud]

I disagree, you might wnt to check but I believe that compared with other populations (India, South America) the fertility rate in China is/was higher during the 1CP. Educating/empowering the female population is FAR more effective in reducing population growth than trying to force couples to restrict family size.
For one year I lived in rural China a few years back and saw the results 1st hand-rural families often ignored the 1CP. My wife teaches a lot of Chienese students and confirms that many wealthy families ignored the 1CP.

The rurals were exempt. The wealthy had to pay for additional children, they did not receive the government support that the first child did.

All in all, the policy made a huge difference. China is huge, yes, a lot of people. The population policy there was more efective in curbing increase than any deliberate action outside war.

[Super Mustud]

Not necessarily. Brazil, for instance, has a population of 188 million. Brazil emits less CO2 than Australia does.

The sooner they clean up the Amazon forest and make room for the Africans to migrate into it the sooner we will bring global warming under control.

[rantan]

I did not say that there were not other very serious issues facing the planet, it would be utterly foolish to do so.......... however people = consumption, of energy, of food, of resources, of land, of everything that is farmed, mined and produced.
If we still "polluted like rich westeners" with half or a quarter of the people we have now, the immediate and serious problems would not exist. I don't for one moment, deny that we need to change our living practices and our attitude to consumption and pollution, but the sad fact is that a 50-75% reduction of population would give us time to develop a less rapacious mentality and develop technological solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
I also note the strawman argument about Brazil with 188 million people emitting less Co2 than Australia which conveniently forgets and ignores the facts that there is large scale deforestation and serious pollution occurring there and that their lower-than-Australia emissions level must be the most pyrrhic victory of all time.

Anyone who contests that we do not need a dramatic reduction in population as the major component in saving the planet is in a state of serious denial.

If we halve the world's population but they all pollute like rich westerners then we are still screwed

[Whatmore]

If there are too many people there will probably be a major population reduction whether or not we have anything to do with it

[rantan]

yes indeed.........

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I also note the strawman argument about Brazil with 188 million people emitting less Co2 than Australia which conveniently forgets and ignores the facts that there is large scale deforestation and serious pollution occurring there and that their lower-than-Australia emissions level must be the most pyrrhic victory of all time.

The CO2 emissions of each nation takes the deforestation which occurs in BOTH nations into account. Even then, Australia emits more CO2 than Brazil, with almost TEN times Australia's population.

Anyone who contests that we do not need a dramatic reduction in population as the major component in saving the planet is in a state of serious denial.

Over-population IS a major problem. No doubt about it. However, removing 188 million Brazilians from the planet, will cause less of an impact than removing 22 million Australians.

In fact, we could either remove 303 million Americans from the planet OR;

1.33 Billion Chinese +
1.147 Billion Indians +
327 Million Indonesians +
196 million Brazilians +
172 Million Pakistanis +
153 million Bangladeshis +
146 million Nigerians from the planet.
That's 3.794 BILLION people.

Is over-population the main problem? Or is it the US (and Australia)?

Edited by Zaphod Beeblebrox, 10 March 2012 - 01:53 PM.
Brain fart