Climate change and sustainability – how to fix it.

Checking the definition of the word “sustainable” we have:


Mirriam Webster


To sustain is to continue at the same level. Support where we are at. Everyone is jumping up and down about carbon credits, pollution and the greenhouse effect, but no one talks about population. In Australia we are growing at around 430k people per year according to the ABS populations clock. How is this SUSTAINABLE?
It doesn’t matter which way you look at it, it is not sustainable. All the other environmental saving methods are null and void until we fix this one. Personally I want to see us sustain population at 13 million like it was in the 70’s.

With all the automation removing people from work and almost all our manufacturing industry going offshore at the moment, how are we to provide decent fairly paid work in fair conditions for all those people?

Ahhhh yes… the UBI I hear you say. The UBI is a split of resources though and the more there are, the less there is each.

“Oh, but I’ve worked so hard for this house and if the population isn’t growing then I won’t get capital growth and all this hard work will be for nothing. ”

Yes, but continuing down the path we’re on you’ll end up like the people of Castle Hill in Sydney. Once a nice rural place of open farmland with a relaxed pace. Now it’s sold out. The people that made money from the property developments there have either had to leave the land that was their families home for generations or they are stuck in traffic and smog up to their eyeballs in a situation where it takes a minimum of 40minutes to get anywhere useful and transit of 1hr 20mins is considered normal.

No tram system, Walking for 20 minutes get’s you to a place that looks like where you just came from which is exactly nowhere useful. The new train line that’s been put in was an afterthought and only goes part of the way to the outer suburbs. A different gauge track (that makes sense). You still mostly have to get in the car to go anywhere. Bicycle tracks are limited and riding on the footpath has been made illegal in places so you have to ride next to trucks on the main road. New suburbs have been put in with no corridors for mass transit systems allowed for and no extra space on the side of existing roads to increase the width. No verges so there can be no trees planted. 450 square meter blocks with houses on them which belong on 2000sqm blocks. The roofs of which are so close in some places that you can just from roof top to roof top. No space on housing blocks for a vegetable garden, let alone a shed. What’s the man in a household supposed to do? The woman has the house and he has???? …. nothing really.

Is that what we want?

Climate change, at the moment we don’t really care at all. If we did we’d get onto this population thing and truly SUSTAIN. Think about that word. What does it mean people?

Rising sea levels due to global warming in Ballina?

Tonight at 21:19 the tide was 1.87m and this was the result:

Interesting thing is that if you go into Barlows Bolt Barn hardware store in the industrial area of Ballina, you’ll see many old photos of Ballina with the main street flooded at high tide. the photos are from more than 80 years ago.

Election voting?

As a late add in to this article (4/6/2019), below are links to some political comparison spreadsheets.


I’m going to wander on down to the local election voting box today to have some say in what’s going on in Australia.

The two things I am interested in the most:

  1. All imported products to be taxed to a point that makes it possible for local manufacturers to produce goods more cheaply than the imported.
  2. That at LEAST 51% of all property and companies in Australia must be owned by Australian citizens.
    • In this enforce that we match other countries ownership rules which are more extreme than this. Indonesia has this rule. China (as far as I know) does not allow Australians to buy any company shares or land in China.

In my 5 minutes of sniffing around on the net this morning I found this customs website outlining the fact that as of this year or last year that ALL imports from China are FREE.

This means that for every dollar I spend on Chinese manufactured goods, 100% of all the profit leaves Australia. NOTHING goes to any Australian workers!!! How does this make any sense?

It also means that we as Australians agree with Communist policies on how to treat workers, thus giving them a reason to keep growing their communist nation. Didn’t we go to war to stop extremest communism? Didn’t our grandparents die opposing it??? Extreme capitalism is not great either as Australian who’s worked and lived in the USA (for more than a month) will inform you. A good way to judge a country is by how it’s poor people are treated. Go work and live in the USA and see what you think. Yes it’s way better than China, but no where near as good as Australia, Western Europe or Japan.


Import taxes / tariffs will not be created by the UAP

The UAP doesn’t mention the above. They kind of imply it in their policies by saying:

  • Creating Mineral Wealth to continuously contribute to the welfare of the Australian community. This will be achieved  by utilising  mineral resources from Queensland and Western Australia, and incentives from the Commonwealth of Australia to establish downstream processing in the States of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia; and exporting products  at a higher dollar value, thereby creating more revenue, jobs, tax and more facilities.
  • Establishing a System where people create wealth in various parts of the country and for that wealth to flow back to the Community that generates the wealth. For example, if a particular region creates wealth, a significant percentage of that wealth should go back to the region.

But on the Wikipedia page under their policies say:

“Moving towards free trade and closer economic relations with Asia”

Which references the May30 2014 UAP website, which shows nothing now and Wikipedia is a commercial entity which can be bought, so it’s not really a reference.

51% rule – not mentioned in any way by the UAP.

Science Party

Import taxes / tariffs will not be created by the Science Party

Good on the young crew for having a go, but they mention nothing about any of this in their polices. They have noble ideas as we all have at 20 years old, but they don’t seem to know much about GAAP and cashflow management. If you come from a rich family in a rich neighborhood though, you’ve not lived long enough to go live in the environments of other countries and you’re a generally good person, then this will be where you’re at. Keep going Science Party, but you’ve got some economic learning to do and some traveling to do.

51% rule – not mentioned in any way by the Science Party.

Labour Party

Import taxes / tariffs will not be created by the Labour Party

On their website they mention nothing about the above two policies. The closest they come is the lithium battery policy which says they want to help a small slither of manufacturing here, but mention nothing about taxing imported batteries. They want to drop a cool $6bil + into it, but not protect any local manufacturers, retailers or workers!!!

Other than that they don’t even mention the above in their policies.

51% rule – not mentioned in any way by the Labour Party

Liberal Party


Import taxes / tariffs will not be created by the Liberals

Looking at the policy section of their website we see the manufacturing link which states “Australia’s manufacturers cannot afford Labor’s export-damaging opposition to free trade” which implies that they love the idea of free trade and allowing other countries to import here for free. Hmmm.

As a side note they also state in this policy that “Population growth is an important economic driver and contributes to our dynamic and diverse society. “

This is pretty much what most politicians say. Does this make sense? If you have a pot of $100 and there are 100 people, how much does each person get?

If you increase the population to 200 people, how much does each person get?

Draw your own conclusion here.

Globally we are sitting at over 7 billion humans on Earth. Maximum holding capacity is thought to be around 10 billion. I personally did the numbers and came out with 17-18 billion, but I only worked it out on energy consumption in kilojoules. Thus 10 billion is more realistic. At the current growth rates we will easily hit this number within 50 years.

Do you still think population growth is a good idea?

Back to the point. The Liberal party actually do mention import tariffs in this policy, but not in the way mentioned above. It has one of the most extensive write up’s of any government policy I’ve seen. In conclusion though, they will NOT tax imports to make imported products and commodities cheaper than Australian created ones.

They are lobbying other governments to create free trade agreements for us. It’s like going to China and saying in a petite little bashful voice “Excuse me, excuse me please??? Can we please import our best products into your country for free which you can’t produce there anyway? Pretty please???”

Fantastic approach!! Nice thinking Liberals. (Sarcasm intended)

At least they have created this website http://(

for Australian exporters to use to complain about other countries not giving us free trade into their country….. Hmmm, what???? That link doesn’t work. Strange!!! It must be my dodgy connection provided by an ISP that was a West Australian company that was bought out by Asia…. It must be. So slow…. Hmmm. ….. Let’s see –> Terminal –>


Oooops, I can’t seem to ping that site. The government obviously can’t afford 99999 servers to keep their critical websites up and running. Oh well, at least they mentioned it.

51% rule – not mentioned in any way by the Liberals.

One Nation Party

Import taxes / tariffs will not be created by the One Nation Party

And here are their policies.

51% rule – At least mentioned by the One Nation Party.

Looking through them we find this policy, which is the only on that comes close to the 51% rule. They say

“We oppose full foreign ownership of Australian land and assets. Foreign ownership of established housing must be investigated with illegally purchased properties seized. We must protect our farming industry from foreign ownership.”

So it’s very fluffy and not an assertive “We will”. More a “stamping my feet on the ground and say it’s yucky!” type of approach. Far better than any other party though, for they are at least a bit snotty about it

However they do actually solidly put forward a decent argument in this policy “Tax foreign owned multinationals“. Here it doesn’t make the 51% rule happen, but at least it put’s forward that they will charge multinationals for each litre or tonne of commodity they take out of the ground. Good idea.

The other good idea they mention it this policy, is not a policy. They say that Australians should by shares in the companies mining our soil. Think about it, if we all bought into Australian companies, then we’d own Australia. Then we’d look for ways to make my / our companies work for us better at all levels. Before you do rush out to go buy shares for the long term though, please read “Buffetology” by Mary Buffett so you know how to analyse a company.

In Summary

In summary for this review of a few of the main parties in Australia, I am sorely disappointed. None of the above solidly address the two main policies which affect every country so strongly.

Of course the main controller is the reserve bank of every country which control the printing of money, for it does not matter with political party is in power. If you can take the currency in and out of the economy, you ultimately hold the cards and no political party has any say on that matter. At least on some surface type level the two above policies will make some difference to how many hours us plebs work per week and how long we spend in traffic. The masters on puppets at the Reserve Bank can always alter the insertion and removal of currency through OMO and undermine any government policy they like.

But we can kick up a stink at some level an make our living environment nice, safe and clean to live in. Remember that being wealthy in a poor political society mean that you’ll just have enough to build your own prison. This leads me to repeat “You judge the quality of a county by how the poorest people are treated there.”

Don’t worry about oil running out.

As a friend of mine constantly points out that if the human race were concerned about air pollution and energy over consumption then we would not be driving around in the cars we’re driving around in. “Huh, what do you mean?” most people ask him.

He then goes on to explain about air drag. We drive around in cars with the driver seat next to the passenger seat. This makes the front surface of the car wider and thus displace more air as it moves along. VW came up with this car back back in about 2002.


So what does this do?

Well my car takes about 55 litres of fuel and gets 450km which works out to 8.2km/L. Most sedans do better than this and most 4WD’s do worse, but it’s not much either side.

When you put the passenger directly behind the driver the efficiency goes to around 100km/L. People will justify all sorts of arguments in their heads against this, but the only way to look at it is this:

Take your existing car you drive now with it’s current engine and current mass.

Put all the seats directly behind the driver.

Curve all the forward edges and

if you can, make the wheels narrower.

Your fuel efficiency will improve drastically.


VW is going towards the same shape with the XL1

which is said to have an efficiency of about 68km/L. However the marketing department has had the final say and totally destroyed the key feature of passengers behind the driver.

I understand that if you need to carry big heavy items you need a big vehicle, but most of the time it’s just a couple of people and basic luggage. At 100km/L verses 10km/L I think many of us would start to rationalise just paying a freight company to carry our big items a few times a year. Then again if you want to convey prestige, power, wealth and (in some peoples minds, sexual prowess) then you should definitely stick with a Hummer, Land Cruiser, or F100 with the widest nobbliest tires on the market. Oh, and upgrade the engine to race spec.

Having said all the above, I look at my own doings and realise through my actions that I am not really an environmentalist at all, even though I’d like to think I am.