Project outline.
To deliver natural gas infrastructure to Warburton* with a nett positive 'return on investment' across sustainability benchmarks.
What's so damn special about this project?
To this point in time, decision-makers and industry experts have applied linear thinking to extending the pipeline from Millgrove to Warburton. (That is, constrained to terms of delivering a brand new, dedicated service comprising single-use infrastructure, the nett benefit doesn't 'justify' the outlay - amounting to a $4.6 million project cost.)
My proposal is that, in building the infrastructure, we develop its capacity to share other services: both at the build stage and into the future - NOT ONLY including the long-awaited optic fibre rollout BUT mains electricity as well.
Pre-requisites.
Fresh thinking from all levels of government, business and other stakeholders.
Co-operation between all levels of government, business and other stakeholders investing in the project (including the possibility of partial ownership by locals).
Potted history.
Three or four years ago, Warburton Highway was plumbed with natural gas mains as far as Millgrove ('last town' before us).
Warburton missed out, mainly because the return on investment of extending the gas pipeline was considered too low by the State Government: we automatically failed the 'National Feasibility Test'.
(I do understand the bean-counters' logic, though it's never been convincing.)
To their credit various parties, including our State representative (Tammy Lobato) and a handful of locals have kept the pot simmering.
When the Federal Government announced the economic-stimulus-led-recovery early last year (including many billions invested in 'community-strengthening' projects) something clicked in my brain.
With the idea still taking shape - but also with an understandable sense of urgency - I emailed our excellent State MP Tammy Lobato on 10 June with my initial suggestion: of rolling out the gas pipe and the optic fibre pipe at the same time, into the same trench - achieving obvious gains in efficiency and splitting costs between different funding streams (in addition to inviting private investment).
Tammy wrote to the relevant State and Federal Ministers on my behalf.
Having waited 11 weeks for a response in the first instance and 19 weeks in the second, I found that my suggestion doesn't rate a single mention, even in passing.
Ironically, I'd been half-expecting a gentle Labor-style Realpolitik refutation of my technical naiveté.
So, a pretty piss-poor outcome you'd have to agree. 'Democracy' inaction [sic].
Turning to the positive, my original idea has evolved still further.
To quote from my followup email to Tammy (13 October):
"In the backwash from the Bushfires Royal Commission* it has also occurred to me that the same infrastructure rollout (gas pipe plus telco pipe installed in a single trench) could potentially include the 'backbone' mains electricity supply in fire-prone districts.
Provided it's technically feasible, this possibility value-adds the proposal immeasurably across the Triple Bottom Line.
Indeed, such a venture could provide a template for future rollouts across Australia and across the world."
*Six months after it started, the blame at the Bushfires Royal Commission has finally slipped focus from the failed warnings of the fire agencies and taken aim even further back in the chain, at the power companies.
In a sad postscript to the Commission's (unfinished) findings, the Toodyay fire in Western Australia this week - which destroyed 40 homes and 3000 Hectares - has been traced to a fallen powerline.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/01/2783710.htm
Encouraging news.
In addition to emphasising his support of the benefits of natural gas, Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson's response to Tammy's letter (see above) refers to legislation - the National Gas Law and the National Gas Rules - enacted by his government on 1 July 2008; their purpose "is to encourage investment in economically viable gas supply infrastructure without the need for an ongoing subsidy by the taxpayer."
In the light of a fresh discussion – a fresh set of parameters – Federal support may well translate into a little 'community-building' seed funding as well - particularly if we can roll out (at the bare minimum) dual services simultaneously.
Point of interest: guess who live in the most marginal Federal electorate in the country? ;)
Yes, I realise that such a combined and synchronised rollout would require unprecedented levels of flexibility and planning (and common sense?) from diverse – historically process-bound – public and private! bureaucracies.
Perhaps it's time we collectively dragged ourselves from our respective comfort zones and into the 21st century.
If governments can't do it alone, I'm sure we can help!
This project can and should transcend insular – dare I say 'obstructionist'? – number-crunching and finally address the S word – Sustainability – in reality.
Feedback welcome, as always: either here (add a Comment) or via email.
Further reading:
The Solutions We Need Now
Highly recommended. ;)
* Victoria, Australia; Latitude: -37.753530634370875 Longitude: 145.68950414657593
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sustainability. Show all posts
Friday, 1 January 2010
Saturday, 19 December 2009
kobenhavn: beyond the smoke and mirrors
Well, I've had my say on the Climate Change Summit – time to move on.
Over the past couple of years I've laboured the point that, given current technologies and resources and population trends, a sustainable planet simply cannot embrace continual economic growth.
That same old Elephant in the Room turned up at Copenhagen – indeed, I saw her lurking in every single telecast – but I've been unable to turn up an interview, nor even a concession that she was there! (Perhaps she fell into the junket.)
In repeatedly and perversely decoupling 'growth' from 'sustainability' our Western 'leaders' are being simply disingenuous. A fairly vicious word, but an accurate one.*
Now, I'm not a specialist in any academic discipline. But I know enough to do my share of damage.
The way I see it, everyone – everywhere – is entitled to a decent standard of living.
They're entitled to eat well, to live in relative comfort and safety, to work productively, to attain their potential, to enjoy friendships and leisure activities, to be looked after by their society in times of need.
Over recent centuries, as Western countries built their nett wealth (by whatever means – some more ethical than others), individual standards of living improved.
In these nations, affluence became the province of the majority.
All good so far?
In getting to this point, however, most of our neighbours have been left behind.
Surely no reasonable individual would deny them the opportunity to catch up, to enjoy similar standards to ours?
More importantly, reasonable individuals might finally agree that we've had it too good for too long: it might be time to wind back our aspirations, our 'standards' – and split the difference.
This nexus, to me, crystallizes the true 'outcome' of the Summit (and – since every debate needs a forum – another justification for it).
The collective WE need to determine the boundary between 'Standard of living' (which drives modern economic systems via the necessity to produce excessively and consume wastefully) and 'Quality of life' (which, however amorphous and fungible, comprises fundamental rights and values above wealth).
The latter state is not only achievable but indefinitely sustainable: for every single one of us.
Supplementary reading (recommended): The exploited and the exploiters
* lacking in frankness; insincere; covertly guileful; crafty.
Over the past couple of years I've laboured the point that, given current technologies and resources and population trends, a sustainable planet simply cannot embrace continual economic growth.
That same old Elephant in the Room turned up at Copenhagen – indeed, I saw her lurking in every single telecast – but I've been unable to turn up an interview, nor even a concession that she was there! (Perhaps she fell into the junket.)
In repeatedly and perversely decoupling 'growth' from 'sustainability' our Western 'leaders' are being simply disingenuous. A fairly vicious word, but an accurate one.*
Now, I'm not a specialist in any academic discipline. But I know enough to do my share of damage.
The way I see it, everyone – everywhere – is entitled to a decent standard of living.
They're entitled to eat well, to live in relative comfort and safety, to work productively, to attain their potential, to enjoy friendships and leisure activities, to be looked after by their society in times of need.
Over recent centuries, as Western countries built their nett wealth (by whatever means – some more ethical than others), individual standards of living improved.
In these nations, affluence became the province of the majority.
All good so far?
In getting to this point, however, most of our neighbours have been left behind.
Surely no reasonable individual would deny them the opportunity to catch up, to enjoy similar standards to ours?
More importantly, reasonable individuals might finally agree that we've had it too good for too long: it might be time to wind back our aspirations, our 'standards' – and split the difference.
This nexus, to me, crystallizes the true 'outcome' of the Summit (and – since every debate needs a forum – another justification for it).
The collective WE need to determine the boundary between 'Standard of living' (which drives modern economic systems via the necessity to produce excessively and consume wastefully) and 'Quality of life' (which, however amorphous and fungible, comprises fundamental rights and values above wealth).
The latter state is not only achievable but indefinitely sustainable: for every single one of us.
Supplementary reading (recommended): The exploited and the exploiters
* lacking in frankness; insincere; covertly guileful; crafty.
Wednesday, 21 January 2009
Ockham's Razor*: sorting the wheat from the chaff
(Before I start: if any of the following terms are unclear, feel free to look them up in a dictionary or use the 'define' option in Google.)
The best lies are half true.
Compare, for example, the mainstream (official) analyses of '9-11' with the alternative ('truthist') viewpoints.
Both 'sides' have much to gain by obfuscation in serving their respective agendas.
The best way to achieve this level of confusion (disharmony, conflict) is to blend truth and fiction in roughly equal measures, mix well - preferably by the light of the new moon! - and serve: with extreme prejudice.
I had my say on 9-11 several months ago - that the real truth is all there … but isolating it is much like separating egg yolks from an omelette.
Moving on …
I've had a bit of free time over the break and have spent too much of it doing research.
I'm now a lot more savvy about subjects as diverse as glyphosate, passionvine hoppers, the GM food agenda, water ownership …
However, what I'd like to focus on today is Globalism.
From time to time, I've had my say about this too. In fact, the subheading above sums up my world view: '… ACT GLOBALLY'.
This is something I believe in with all my heart: that we can all contribute to our planet in a positive way.
In promoting this ideal, occasionally I've made it clear that I believe all levels of government in Australia have 'lost the plot'.
They've embraced a sectional-interest-and-market-lobby-driven platform - as opposed to one that is people-driven; they buy our compliance with middle-class handouts and hide behind secrecy provisions; they still can't (won't) recognise the all-too-obvious connection between economic 'growth' (consumption) and environmental unsustainability.
Well, yes, everything I've written is (of course) true.
There's more government-bagging to come! And I'll continue to deconstruct The Emperor's New Clothes - in the interests of transparency! - until Conroy's goons (try to) shut me down.
However, today I'm going to switch my focus to the fringe-dwellers who feel compelled to believe in secret or cabalistic conspiracies against us - as opposed to the obvious conspiracy by the mechanics of 'market forces' to disempower us.
I've read a lot about (what I'll arbitrarily term) the New World Order over recent weeks; this reading supplements what I'd already known about exclusive cults (Freemasonry, the Illuminati, etc.), about the UN's Agenda 21, about privatisation of essential services, about debt-for-equity swaps, about corporate welfare, imperialism …
There's literally tens of millions of 'conspiracists' who believe - god bless 'em - that a secret plan has been in place (for up to 2000 years) to control the planet. According to which source you read, this plan is currently being shaped by any combination of the following: Jews, bankers, communists, fascists(!), fabian socialists, the UN, the IMF, environmentalists, green politicians, catholics …
over the past couple of days I've learnt that even shire councils and the feminist movement are complicit!
Yet there's nothing in any of these allegations which can't be explained by the ongoing struggle between capital and labour.
Here's a bonus irony: the anti-NWO movement seems to be a morass of half-informed, fundie christians. Heh … just like the NRA!
I won't charge these 'truthists' with feeble-mindedness, because there is, indeed, too much truth layered between the lies and assumptions. Furthermore, many people have lost what little they have - their jobs, their homes, frequently their self-esteem - due to the behaviour of one or more of the above groups - and it's human nature to blame someone.
No wonder Australia's One Nation party flamed briefly a few years back! It opportunistically rode this tidal wave of resentment and hatred.
No, the biggest problem I have with the Global Paranoia Movement is its lack of integrity: clear analysis and objectivity.
Take Agenda 21 as an isolated example: released by the UN in 1992, A21 offers us (as global citizens) some policies and pathways toward achieving a more sustainable future: protected natural environments, reduced consumption, increased equity, etc.
In order to achieve this, it 'requires' a degree of intervention by governments, worldwide, to secure such a future.
(I term this the Benevolent Big Brother effect; though I'm ambivalent, I concede it has an important role to play.)
As a body, the Conspiracists have selectively cherry-picked elements from A21 to convince the ignorant that it's little more than an attack on personal liberty.
In doing so, they have alienated people like me who believe we can have the best of both worlds - despite the cynicism and opportunism of regulators - by taking ownership of the problem of poor governance! By Acting Globally in our own Backyards!
The nett outcome of these poorly-constructed conspiracy theories is that the baby goes with the bathwater and the real enemy rejoices …
Divide and Conquer!
Patriots vs nationalists! Environmentalists vs trade unions! Social conservatives vs (small L) liberals vs feminists. Low-paid, unskilled workers vs immigrants!
US vs THEM!
In discovering 'who to blame', it's best to put reason ahead of emotion.
Apply Ockham's Razor: shave away the irrelevant and spurious data - if you can - and you'll discover the truth.
Friends! The conspiracy is clear - but it's no secret!
It's simply the ugly face of market economics.
As always, there's a fairly clear solution:
1. the people, united, will never be defeated;
2. know your real enemy: (BTW, who is underwriting the Global Paranoia Movement?).
*Ockham's razor (sometimes spelled Occam's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
The best lies are half true.
Compare, for example, the mainstream (official) analyses of '9-11' with the alternative ('truthist') viewpoints.
Both 'sides' have much to gain by obfuscation in serving their respective agendas.
The best way to achieve this level of confusion (disharmony, conflict) is to blend truth and fiction in roughly equal measures, mix well - preferably by the light of the new moon! - and serve: with extreme prejudice.
I had my say on 9-11 several months ago - that the real truth is all there … but isolating it is much like separating egg yolks from an omelette.
Moving on …
I've had a bit of free time over the break and have spent too much of it doing research.
I'm now a lot more savvy about subjects as diverse as glyphosate, passionvine hoppers, the GM food agenda, water ownership …
However, what I'd like to focus on today is Globalism.
From time to time, I've had my say about this too. In fact, the subheading above sums up my world view: '… ACT GLOBALLY'.
This is something I believe in with all my heart: that we can all contribute to our planet in a positive way.
In promoting this ideal, occasionally I've made it clear that I believe all levels of government in Australia have 'lost the plot'.
They've embraced a sectional-interest-and-market-lobby-driven platform - as opposed to one that is people-driven; they buy our compliance with middle-class handouts and hide behind secrecy provisions; they still can't (won't) recognise the all-too-obvious connection between economic 'growth' (consumption) and environmental unsustainability.
Well, yes, everything I've written is (of course) true.
There's more government-bagging to come! And I'll continue to deconstruct The Emperor's New Clothes - in the interests of transparency! - until Conroy's goons (try to) shut me down.
However, today I'm going to switch my focus to the fringe-dwellers who feel compelled to believe in secret or cabalistic conspiracies against us - as opposed to the obvious conspiracy by the mechanics of 'market forces' to disempower us.
I've read a lot about (what I'll arbitrarily term) the New World Order over recent weeks; this reading supplements what I'd already known about exclusive cults (Freemasonry, the Illuminati, etc.), about the UN's Agenda 21, about privatisation of essential services, about debt-for-equity swaps, about corporate welfare, imperialism …
There's literally tens of millions of 'conspiracists' who believe - god bless 'em - that a secret plan has been in place (for up to 2000 years) to control the planet. According to which source you read, this plan is currently being shaped by any combination of the following: Jews, bankers, communists, fascists(!), fabian socialists, the UN, the IMF, environmentalists, green politicians, catholics …
over the past couple of days I've learnt that even shire councils and the feminist movement are complicit!
Yet there's nothing in any of these allegations which can't be explained by the ongoing struggle between capital and labour.
Here's a bonus irony: the anti-NWO movement seems to be a morass of half-informed, fundie christians. Heh … just like the NRA!
I won't charge these 'truthists' with feeble-mindedness, because there is, indeed, too much truth layered between the lies and assumptions. Furthermore, many people have lost what little they have - their jobs, their homes, frequently their self-esteem - due to the behaviour of one or more of the above groups - and it's human nature to blame someone.
No wonder Australia's One Nation party flamed briefly a few years back! It opportunistically rode this tidal wave of resentment and hatred.
No, the biggest problem I have with the Global Paranoia Movement is its lack of integrity: clear analysis and objectivity.
Take Agenda 21 as an isolated example: released by the UN in 1992, A21 offers us (as global citizens) some policies and pathways toward achieving a more sustainable future: protected natural environments, reduced consumption, increased equity, etc.
In order to achieve this, it 'requires' a degree of intervention by governments, worldwide, to secure such a future.
(I term this the Benevolent Big Brother effect; though I'm ambivalent, I concede it has an important role to play.)
As a body, the Conspiracists have selectively cherry-picked elements from A21 to convince the ignorant that it's little more than an attack on personal liberty.
In doing so, they have alienated people like me who believe we can have the best of both worlds - despite the cynicism and opportunism of regulators - by taking ownership of the problem of poor governance! By Acting Globally in our own Backyards!
The nett outcome of these poorly-constructed conspiracy theories is that the baby goes with the bathwater and the real enemy rejoices …
Divide and Conquer!
Patriots vs nationalists! Environmentalists vs trade unions! Social conservatives vs (small L) liberals vs feminists. Low-paid, unskilled workers vs immigrants!
US vs THEM!
In discovering 'who to blame', it's best to put reason ahead of emotion.
Apply Ockham's Razor: shave away the irrelevant and spurious data - if you can - and you'll discover the truth.
Friends! The conspiracy is clear - but it's no secret!
It's simply the ugly face of market economics.
As always, there's a fairly clear solution:
1. the people, united, will never be defeated;
2. know your real enemy: (BTW, who is underwriting the Global Paranoia Movement?).
*Ockham's razor (sometimes spelled Occam's razor) is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Saturday, 26 April 2008
shark fin soup 1
Background info here:
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
"ego, pride, exhibitionism, hubris..." a strong case for retrospective abortion.com
As always, never accept my word for it: Google is your friend.
The increasing demand for shark fin soup during an accelerating global food crisis serves, in many ways, to encapsulate the intellectual vacuum manifest between the tokenistic 'sustainability mantra' and a less-than-smug reality.
To supply the decadent demand for a bland and occasionally toxic product, whole dorsal fins are cut from live sharks before the animals are dumped back into the ocean to die slowly or to be torn apart by their cousins.
Now, I'm no fan of Japanese whaling 'research'. Everyone knows this 'research' nothing but a Big Lie.
Governments and diplomats would do well to call Japan's bluff, literally, by 'shirtfronting' the lying, hypocritical bastards and giving them a few smacks for fibbing.
In mitigation, however, at least the whales aren't being mutilated and thrown away. The entire whale is the product, not a tiny piece of it. It's killed; it's used.
Although the jury's still out, whale harvesting may even prove to be sustainable.
Given these two parallel realities, why do people get all warm, fuzzy and concerned about the latter but not the former?
Why are there quotas for whales and not for sharks?
How many sharks are being butchered alive for every whale killed and eaten?
How many tens of millions of dollars, tens of thousands of litres of fuel, thousands of hours of human resources, are invested in the annual Greenpeace Anti-Whaling stunt?*
Is it possible these resources might be invested more wisely?
Perhaps in one of dozens of third-world countries where people are literally starving?
Hmmm, the lying-hypocritical-bastard syndrome is catching on!
Boycott shark fin soup. Boycott restaurants that serve it. Boycott people who eat it.
*In the interests of balance re Greenpeace activities:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4495790a6031.html
(But who died and annointed them cops?! If I wanted another pack of interventionist bully-boys I'd become a US citizen.)
Saturday, 5 April 2008
Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to die
Ever since sustainability became 'fashionable' and entered the mainstream - over the past year or two - this song has been kicking around in my head.
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
What am I getting at?
Most of us have good intentions. Flush once a day. Use more moderate settings on the reverse-cycle. Separate our waste (and maybe even value add it through a compost bin). Minimise using the car. And so forth.
Simple, good, enviro-friendly stuff.
At this level, society has no problem with sustainable practices.
However (and I don't enjoy pointing this out), in the current global context most of this stuff is feelgood tokenism.
Yes, I consciously and actively boycotted 'Turn-Off-Your-Lights-For-An-Hour' Day.
Face facts. None of this micro-behaviour will deliver a more liveable planet - that is, 'heaven' (what it was at some stage and what it still can be) - unless we are prepared to change our MACRO-habits.
Face facts II. OUR beloved market economy is working continually against a sustainable planet by inciting us to spend, consume, replace, upgrade … whatever it takes, including accumulate debt and, yes, fuck up the future.
As a society, what are we doing to resist?
(It's OUR economy at the end of the day, since it couldn't function without us.)
You tell me.
What is sustainable about buying a new car (or computer or TV or whatever) every three years?
Without delving into the issue of increasing fuel prices, I see a nett benefit in the disincentive to consume. HOWEVER, as long as work-related vehicle expenses are tax-deductible there is no real disincentive for many, is there?
Don't get me started on discounted airfares!
Can anyone else see the elephant in the room? (She's wielding a baseball bat.) Where is the disincentive to consume?
Look, I'm not out to spoil the fun - and everyone is entitled to travel now and then - but a single extra flight, created from the demand / supply relationship, probable cancels out dozens of lifetimes of 'micro-improvements'.
Many posts ago I wrote a little on the subject 'governments just don't get it'.
Well, they don't.
As they toy with sustainability - spraying our money around on warm, fuzzy confabs - they remain paralyzed like rabbits in the floodlight of the Future train.
Addicted to revenue, they desire both a boom economy and a green future but can't decide which is more important. WTF??
None of them can get its head around the compelling need to enforce lower consumption … by reducing production first and foremost as well as by implementing genuinely progressive policy and proactive legislation.
Interest rates and the stock market don't exist to serve people; governments do.
The market economy is simply not sustainable. Further, since it's largely managed by profiteers servicing an addiction to overconsumption, it simply can't be trusted.
When the carrot approach doesn't work, get out the stick.
Example: legislate to remove tax-deductibility from all unsustainable business practices.
Example: as with fuel, tobacco and alcohol, apply a massive (non-deductible) 'excise' to airfares and inefficient vehicles.
To get to 'heaven', we all need to 'die' a little.
[Phew! That was exhausting. I wanted to briefly address 'carbon trading' from my Backyard point of view, but that will have to wait for another day.]
Thursday, 3 April 2008
functionality II
Last month I mentioned applying for a few jobs.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
As one who treasures autonomy, all I can say is that you do what circumstances dictate.
If any of these applications had been successful I'd be back on the chain-gang, earning up to 300% of my current income, paying my bills comfortably, conquering the mortgage … and probably drifting away from what I really want to do.
Best outcome: one company asked me if I'd consider relocating interstate. I was chuffed but had to decline.
Worst outcome: an employment agency declined to respond to either of my emails.
(I was surprised that they demonstrated such contempt to a job-seeker - but enjoyed the irony.
I'm going to suggest they employ someone with appropriate skills to respond to emails.)
It can be difficult living literally month-to-month, not knowing what's around the corner in terms of income or how to meet that next batch of bills.
I've seen a lot of new grey hairs this year! (And, despite renewed efforts, my business is still far from sustainable.)
Yet, there's a wholly different set of stresses involved when you work for someone else.
You and I both know it, so don't argue. Just don't.
As a realist, I know I'll never be 'master of my destiny' in the purest sense - but working for yourself comes close.
I seriously love hard work.
Yes, I'm actively disengaging from physical hard yakka - I've seen more than my share over the past 35 years - but I'm happy to power away at any 'office' jobs indefinitely.
When I say 'happy', I mean it! I love doing illustration, design, typesetting, copywriting and the rest.
I love my little network of three computers and three printers. I even love the frequent challenge of keeping them functional.
I love turning a job around quickly.
I love looking after my clients - and take a genuine interest in their business operations, as well as in their success.
I love the efficiency and immediacy of modern equipment and telco services, as well as their dwindling enviro-footprints. Appropriate technology at its best!
Fair dinkum, if I had a reliable revenue stream I'd do most of this stuff for free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
