“The world is sleepwalking its way to the edge of catastrophe.… The Doomsday Clock of climate change is ticking ever faster towards midnight.” Prince Charles

Is it good enough to hope that everything will turn out fine? Would you take the people you love on a trip if you knew that you might run out of fuel, water, food and shelter? Would you still take the trip if you knew that the risk of disaster was one per cent, or 10 per cent, or more than 60 per cent?  At what point would you make other plans?

The reality is that you are already taking a journey with all your family and all your friends. We are all on ‘Spaceship Earth’, and the crew is warning that the life-support systems are breaking down. But the officers aren’t listening. Like the officers of the Titanic, their main concern is making the ship go faster. Whenever the lookouts and engineers call in warnings, they brush them away. There is nothing to worry about; the ship is indestructible; there are no limits.

What will you do? This is not a hypothetical question.

We now face the greatest challenge in the history of our species. Sea ice, glaciers and permafrost are melting faster each year. The earth has lost its ability to maintain a stable temperature. Runaway global warming now threatens to extinguish most life on earth and end human civilisations.

This crisis is being driven by our unsustainable global economy. The problem is that limitless economic expansion is not possible on a finite planet. The danger is that our growth-based global system will collapse as critical resources become scarce and major ecosystems fail. The hope is that new ideas, values and technologies will enable us to avoid disaster and create a better world.

We are quickly approaching a tipping point where we will either transform our violent, exploitative global system into a peaceful, co-operative one, or begin a disastrous decline. Using evolutionary systems theory, Evolution’s Edge explains how societies evolve, and why rapid, non-linear change is not only possible but inevitable.

Although our future is threatened, Evolution’s Edge is an optimistic book. It explains why the next level of civilisation has already begun to emerge and how we can support this evolutionary process—the transformation of our unsustainable consumer society into a sustainable conserver society. The coming decades will be a time of transition: while we now have the ability to destroy our world, for the first time in history we also have the capacity to evolve a peaceful and sustainable planetary system.

The fate of the world is in our hands. This is not only a time of great dangers, but also a time of great opportunities. The brink of catastrophe is also the edge of evolution. If we fail to transform our unsustainable global system, our descendants will inherit a dying world. But if we act now, we can create a peaceful and sustainable planetary civilisation. The choice is ours.

We are the products of hundreds of thousands of years of caring, courage and commitment. No generation before us has ever failed in their duty: we will not fail now. Humanity has never before been so skilled or had so many resources. We know the problems and we know the solutions. We can and will prevent disaster, build a better world, and give our children and grandchildren a future filled with life and hope.

Graeme Taylor is the coordinator of BEST Futures and the author of Evolution’s Edge: The Coming Collapse and Transformation of Our World. (New Society Publishers 2008. 320 pages, 64 full-colour illustrations.)

Graeme Taylor will be speaking at the GREENhouse at this year’s Woodford Folk Festival.

I first read the script of Elaine’s book while on holiday in Sydney and found myself having to read out passages of it to friends who could hardly believe what they were hearing. A fun park on Mount Coolum? Development on the Marcus Dunes?

While it sounds incredible today, these and other disasters almost happened, except for the efforts of our Sunshine Coast’s eco-activists — those indomitable pioneers of the environment movement who tirelessly fought to preserve our green heritage.

Green Legends is written in a charming personal style by environmentalist and former Maroochy Shire councillor, Elaine Green who was herself actively involved and so is speaking from experience.

Through her eyes we re-live the cronyism of the Bjelke-Petersen days of white-shoed atrocities and we share in the wins and the losses of the continual campaigns to reject unwanted and inappropriate development. Our precious wetlands, dunes, wallum, wildlife corridors, waterways and forests were and still are constantly under threat, and it is largely due to the watchfulness, diligence and just plain hard work of community groups and dedicated individuals as described in Green Legends that our Sunshine Coast has not become a repeat of the Gold Coast.

Green Legends also delights with many photographs of the coast as it once was, which will amaze recent residents, and with photo collages of activists past and present. I found it all a riveting read from Stan Tutt’s evocative and metaphoric imagining at the beginning, through the history of the local environment movement, and in particular following the stories of the campaigns, our ‘green legends.’

It is a timely reminder that these stories continue on today with the chronic push to increase our population at the expense of our native habitat. We can draw hope and courage from the green legends described and perhaps be inspired to not ever become complacent, but to maintain our vigilant watch and to continue to support our community groups that act on our behalf.

I highly recommend Green Legends to all residents of the Sunshine Coast and to anyone contemplating living here.

Green Legends is published by the Sunshine Coast Environment Council and was officially launched at the the Coolum Civic Centre on September 15.

Our focus on meat consumption has been at the expense of the environment. Image greghardwick.com.au

In 2006, an important paper by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow” was released and then almost completely ignored by the world’s media.

In it, the contribution of the world’s livestock agribusiness, including dairy and eggs was shown to be 18 per cent of total greenhouse gases. It stated that animal industries are one of “the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.”

I first heard about this stunning information in a speech given by Prof Ian Lowe at the Greenhouse at the Woodford Folk Festival. Prof Lowe wondered how anyone could call themselves an environmentalist and still eat meat. He told us that we could help the planet more by reducing, or better still giving up eating animal products than just about anything else we could do as individuals.

Most people, even committed environmentalists, when they hear this factual assertion develop the mental equivalent of eye-glazing. No-one wants to think about changing their dietary habits to help the planet. We don’t mind to change what light globes we use, or watch our water consumption, turn off lights, use solar hot water, and pay for green electricity. But give up eating meat?

Alright, you might ask, so livestock agribusiness contributes a huge amount to greenhouse gases, but how does that affect population issues?

Starting with Australia, according to the CSIRO, over 90 per cent of land degradation is caused by animal industries. Over farming and over grazing will inevitably result in erosion and loss of habitat, and nearly half of our continent is used for grazing. As a result, our forests are cleared and topsoil is lost.

In addition to this, the amount of water used to produce a kilogram of meat is twenty times the amount used to produce a kilogram of plant food. And most plant food grown here and in the rest of the world is used to feed livestock.

According to the UN report we grow enough plant food (edible grain, soy etc) to feed 50 per cent more than is needed for every person in the world. But most of it is used to grow animals which has driven up the price of grain to where it is affordable only in affluent countries.

The report states  “Livestock now consume more edible protein than they provide. In fact, livestock now consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feed stuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition, whereas only 58 million tonnes of protein are contained in food products that animals supply.”

Some simple maths thus tells us that in terms of providing protein nutrition, growing livestock results in a large net loss, sufficient to feed the world.

Another factor that affects the world population is the diseases and the parasites contained in animals and in particular the dense crowding of animal populations jammed into small spaces. The occurrence of various worrying pandemic influenza strains have invariably been traced to such situations. On top of that, the pollution, even in advanced countries, of waterways due to livestock is a major concern.

The UN report stated that even in the United States, livestock is responsible for 32 per cent  of nitrogen, and 33 per cent of phosphorus loads going in to fresh waterways, and 37 per cent of pesticides are used for growing livestock.

The impact of such factors on world health and hence sustaining human life is worsening as this industry continues to grow.

They also point out that the loss of biodiversity and extinction of species that is caused by livestock agribusiness also detracts from the potential for poorer countries to benefit from other livelihoods such as eco-tourism.

The UN report does attempt to supply a few answers to these major problems. It recommends that livestock only be grown in such a way as to be environmentally sustainable.

With respect to the use of the planet’s grasslands for livestock, “It  must adjust itself to deliver landscape maintenance, biodiversity protections, clean water and eventual carbon sequestration rather than only production of conventional livestock commodities…Mastering the political will to implement these steps obviously hinges on the question: what relative value we assign to the environment, compared to other objectives such as the provision of livelihoods or the cheap supply of animal products?”

The report does see some hope for the future in the growing tendency to seek organic produce and the rapidly increasing trend of vegetarianism and healthier diets in developed countries. And there is a quiet, but steady movement in such initiatives as co-operative permaculture gardening, “meatless Mondays” and in the admonishments by the medical establishment that we all need to increase our plant consumption and reduce animal protein.

Professor Lowe’s speech led me to read the UN report and other facts about the negative influence that meat eating is having not only on our environmental health, but on that of the world’s population in general. I would encourage you to do the same.

You can find it at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations website, and it is a startling but edifying read.

So go green and go veg!

Illustration by: Ryan Stevens

Our solutions to water shortages and climate change have, to date, focused upon consuming less. Reduce water consumption during long dry periods and use less carbon-based energy resources. Reduced levels of water use are quickly achievable after some reasonably minor behavioural changes and a greater understanding of its rarity.  However, carbon-based resources such as coal, have become a political football, as it’s so readily available, especially in Australia.

The solution in southeast Queensland to the lack of drinking water? “Build more dams,” we hear the politicians cry out.  A political chorus heard most profoundly by residents of the Mary Valley. Criticised as being similar to buying another wallet and then expecting that it would in some way create more money, the proposed dam is an example of bad policy. Live on tank water and you quickly realise water’s value and limitations.

The alternative to increasing water storage areas, according to scientific reports? More efficient use of our current water supplies. In simple terms — use less water — consume less.

To date, it is the high consuming nations, and not simply the most populous ones, that use the largest amount of carbon-based fuels. Our love affair with these fossil fuels is not a new one, and as with any long romance, it’s a hard thing to walk away from.

As Tim Flannery pointed out in his book The Weather Makers, extraction of coal from British underground mines was the motivator for the invention of the steam engine. Coal-powered steam engines ironically, were initially used to pump out water from the deep coal-mine shafts, so that more coal could be extracted. Such was the desire to use the rich carbon resource while it was still available. We have now — well most of us have, recognised the need to reduce its consumption.  As we have noticed with large cities and excessive car use, or with the hole punched in the ozone layer, pollution does accumulate in the atmosphere, and it does have an impact, no matter how the sceptics try to convince us otherwise.

In Australia, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, for example, is designed (albeit not very well) to curb consumption of fossil fuels. But, we are tackling climate change by focusing on consumption and yet the world’s population is expanding, including within the highest-consuming nations. So do we ever hear voices calling for less people?

We do, but most notably these occur in letters to the editor, online comments and rarely from former or currently serving politicians. At a government level, there is a strange silence except for the odd rant about so-called illegal immigrants.  More often for state and federal governments it is a catch-cry reminiscent of the post-war slogan of “populate or perish”.

In 2004, the then Treasurer Peter Costello urged Australian couples to have “one (baby) for your husband and one for your wife and one for the country”. It is well documented that during his time in government Costello strongly supported increasing the country’s fertility rate. It is clear therefore that many of our political leaders feel the need for a higher population (we grew by 2.1 per cent over the last year), perhaps in the belief that it will feed a somewhat strange formula for economic growth.

As pointed out earlier this year by Andrew McNamara in his Queensland Conservation Council speech, The problem is us, most of the wealthiest countries, such as Luxembourg, Norway, Singapore, Switzerland and Sweden have populations under 10 million people.

Robert Engelman, vice president for programs at the Worldwatch Institute, wrote in the Scientific American in June this year: “In an era of changing climate and sinking economies, Malthusian limits to growth are back—and squeezing us painfully. Whereas more people once meant more ingenuity, more talent and more innovation, today it just seems to mean less for each.”

Less space, less resources to share and then we have the dangerous evolutionary situation of increased competition — and that’s without even mentioning the sorry plight of our rapidly disappearing fellow plant and animal species.

Engelman’s solution is in line with UN agreed strategies. It is not population control, as this stirs up images of a Chinese “one child policy”. Rather it lies within education of, and freedom of choice for females.

“Mostly ignored in the environmental debates about population and consumption is that nearly all the world’s nations agreed to an altogether different approach to the problem of growth 15 years ago, one that bases positive demographic outcomes on decisions individuals make in their own self-interest. (If only something comparable could be imagined to shrink consumption.) The strategy that 179 nations signed onto at a U.N. conference in Cairo in 1994 was: forget population control and instead help every woman bear a child in good health when she wants one.

“That approach, which powerfully supports reproductive liberty, might sound counter-intuitive for shrinking population growth, like handing a teenager the keys to the family car without so much as a lecture. But the evidence suggests that what women want—and have always wanted—is not so much to have more children as to have more for a smaller number of children they can reliably raise to healthy adulthood. Women left to their own devices, contraceptive or otherwise, would collectively ‘control’ population while acting on their own intentions.”

Engelman uses the surprising example of China. It is not the coercive policy of allowing only one child that has helped reduce fertility rates he wrote, rather it was family planning via industry and farming collectives put in place before the 1979 policy, that did the trick.

Thailand, Colombia and Iran, “have experienced comparable declines in family size by getting better family-planning services and educational opportunities to more women and girls in more places”.

But for some, focusing on population levels, reeks of western arrogance. As UK journalist and author Fred Pearce puts it, “over-consumers in rich countries can blame over-breeders in distant lands for the state of the planet”.  This statement is being echoed by many countries leading up to the Copenhagen climate-change talks.

In his online article Consumption Dwarfs Population as Main Environmental Threat, Pearce wrote: “ Stephen Pacala, director of the Princeton Environment Institute, calculates that the world’s richest half-billion people — that’s about 7 per cent of the global population — are responsible for 50 per cent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions. Meanwhile the poorest 50 per cent are responsible for just 7 per cent of emissions.

“For a wider perspective of humanity’s effects on the planet’s life support systems, the best available measure is the ‘ecological footprint’, which estimates the area of land required to provide each of us with food, clothing, and other resources, as well as to soak up our pollution. This analysis has its methodological problems, but its comparisons between nations are firm enough to be useful.

“They show that sustaining the lifestyle of the average American takes 9.5 hectares, while Australians and Canadians require 7.8 and 7.1 hectares respectively; Britons, 5.3 hectares; Germans, 4.2; and the Japanese, 4.9. The world average is 2.7 hectares.”

The problem with a generic approach to ecological footprint analysis is that ignoring specific biophysical constraints means comparing countries may be as useful as say, comparing Wilson Tuckey with Bob Brown. We obviously have to be sensible with world-wide comparisons, especially if the value of biodiversity is considered lower than intensive crop land.

Australian soil, and the wildlife that effectively feeds off it, is not comparable to British or American soil types. The size of outback stations are not due to greed, instead they reflect a certain capacity of the land — the carrying capacity.  And the value of biodiversity in Australia should never be underestimated.

At the risk of angering many of my fellow Australian environmentalists, I could also say that how we generate our electricity is also based on biophysical issues. A predominance of fast-flowing rivers in high valleys leads inevitably to hyrdo-electricity. An abundance of coal in the ground, and under the current pricing structure — what nation on earth would have previously ignored it?

Finger pointing and blaming each other without understanding the local resources and opportunities available is surely counter-productive and perhaps even hypercritical. Hyrdo-electricity sounds great for carbon reduction but what about the impact on local ecosystems caused by damming rivers? Europeans emit less carbon, but use nuclear power to achieve it, and where does the waste go and for how long does it last?

In Australia’s case we not only have fossilised plant matter under our feet. We have sun and lots of it.  We have a huge coastline and large tidal movements, we have ancient hot rocks and in many regions there are good constant winds. In short, we have great potential opportunities if pricing structures are designed to benefit clean power. Those pricing structures, if designed well, will help direct our consumption towards more sustainable options.

Understanding our consumption patterns must therefore take into account the local conditions and opportunities. Solutions for reducing it are perhaps similar to our Australian wildlife and landscape, where diversity and local adaptation is the key. A single world-wide strategy must consider this.

However, as the environmental and climate sciences have taught us, focusing a question on only one part of an issue without considering the whole, means you will certainly miss the answer.

Reducing overall consumption is not the only solution and nor is simply targeting population levels.  As the earth is a complex beast, so too are the issues surrounding human population growth and development. And any solutions we adopt must consider the well being of individuals in all countries.

• Caloundra South development
• Palmview development
• Exploring the Past – Candle Mountain
• Up Close with Ian Lowe
• Traveston Dam: These will not be forgotten years
• Wildlife: Lock up those cats
• Eco Adventures: Booloumba Creek walk
• Book Review: Overloading Australia
• Print Edition

Caloundra South

A city with the population of Gladstone on the Sunshine Coast’s doorstep. Seven-storey buildings may soon welcome our southern visitors courtesy of the State Government’s growth plans. Read the full story.

Palmview

As with Caloundra South, another open space on the Sunshine Coast has been targeted for intensive development. Read the full story.

Exploring the Past – Candle Mountain

In the 1920s, when Vance and Nettie Palmer, the two significant Australian writers, were living in Caloundra, down on the Passage, deeply interested in questions of the human relationship to the environment, they began to ask questions about the land, the place and how it was changing. One time they climbed to the top of Candle Mountain, where they stayed. The air, Vance tells us, was so clear that he could see as far as the Tweed River hills across the state border, in northern New South Wales. Read the full story.

Up Close with Ian Lowe

Ian Christesen, on behalf of Eco News talks to Professor Ian Lowe about the problems associated with the Sunshine Coast’s ever increasing popularity.  A popularity which arises from having ideal temperatures and a stunning natural environment. With developers focusing their attention on large areas of land, poor planning is perhaps one of the biggest threats facing the Sunshine Coast today. Read the full interview.

Traveston Dam: These will not be forgotten years

…“It reeks of politics, signatures stained with tears, who can remember, we’ve got to remember”. These are just some of the words Peter Garret sang proudly in his song Forgotten Years.  However it’s hard to imagine any Mary Valley resident forgetting the years since the proposed dam was announced. Read the full story.

Wildlife: Lock up those cats

… This glider was dead — killed by a cat.  She had two exquisite little joeys in her pouch.  Though they are viable to rear as furless little babies, these two barely weighed three grams, so it was not a pleasant outcome. Read the full story.

Eco Adventures: Booloumba Creek walk

Rugged landscapes, fast-flowing mountain creeks, waterfalls, cascades and impressive forests are all part of a new walk in the Conondale Ranges, several kilometres south of Kenilworth in the scenic Mary Valley. Read more.

Book Review: Overloading Australia

Greenhouse gases going up. Oil and gas depleting. House prices exploding. Overloading Australia explains why — and how to stop it. Read the full review.

More articles will be added online over the coming weeks. Population and Consumption: reduce one, but what about the other?, The value of floodplains, plus more. Be sure to check back regularly.

Print Edition

Eco news issue 13 will soon be on the streets and available at the usual outlets. Digital versions of the print edition are available online and more will continue to be added over time.

Contribute

We will be starting the final edition for 2009 shortly. As usual please feel free to contribute articles, interviews, book reviews or stories you might think will be of interest to our readers. Guidelines can be found online.

Greenhouse gases going up. Oil and gas depleting. House prices exploding. Overloading Australia explains why — and how to stop it.

Overloading Australia

The press of numbers on this continent affects us all – those living, as well as those yet to be born. To talk of saving the environment or of climate change is meaningless if we won’t address population – a subject some think too hot for public debate. In a score of punchy chapters, authors Mark O’Connor and William Lines challenge the myths, expose the facts, and dent the denial industry.

The authors blow the whistle on population-foolish policies that lead to clogged roads, water shortages, scarce food, and no place for refugees; then provide new and fair ways to think about the issues and to limit Australia’s future population-size.

This is a book that will revolutionise the green debate, and the political debate, on population.

Authors: William J Lines and Mark O’Connor
Published by Envirobook
Price $20 including postage

The book is available in some book shops but Mark says it’s easier to go online to order.

Mark O’Connor will be appearing at the GREENhouse at this year’s Woodford Folk Festival

A great place to stop for a swim on Booloumba creek. Image: Arkin Mackay. stoppress.com.au

The 10 kilometre walk from Booloumba Campsite 3 up to the impressive Booloumba Falls will eventually form the first day of a four- day walking trail, the Conondale Range Great Walk, with walker-accessed camping areas, but this section, constructed last year and opened Christmas Eve, can easily be tackled by itself.

Given the considerable difference in altitude between the Booloumba camp grounds and Booloumba Falls, the recommendation is to start the walk at the Booloumba Falls carpark which means that the bulk of the walk is downhill. Unless planning to walk both ways, it does require a car shuffle.  Drive all walkers up to the Booloumba Falls carpark making sure to leave a car down near Campground 3 for later use. The drive up to the carpark is dry weather only, and has some steep patches.

From the carpark, take the walk to Booloumba Falls, meandering along the creek as it tumbles its way towards a junction with Peter’s Creek, the location of the falls and the stunning rock formation, the Breadknife.

A section of the new Booloumba Creek walking track. Image: Arkin Mackay. stoppress.com.au

After 1.3 kilometres, the new walk heads off to the right and the walk to the falls and Breadknife is an extra kilometre (500m each way) but well worth the trouble. In summer the pool at the base of the falls is a great place to swim and the views over the Breadknife and Boooloumba Gorge are stunning all year round.

The sides of the Booloumba Gorge are very steep so the new walk heads eastwards through higher country. It takes about 3.4 kilometres to wind its way down to the base of the gorge. The first kilometre or so is relatively straight forward (with one particularly beautiful creek crossing) before it gives way to much steeper sections where the walker will probably commend himself for the decision to walk down hill rather than up.

Some of the slopes are quite steep and the track’s construction has made excellent use of the parallel cleavage planes of the local rock to craft some impressive stairs.

When the track reaches the creek, there’s a creek crossing (wet feet, slippery) and a good place for lunch and a swim.
The rest of the walk travels parallel to the northern bank of Booloumba Creek but travelling through a diversity of forest types, from groves of Piccabeen Palms to stands of giant Flooded Gums, with towering Red Cedars and even some rather incongruous Ironbarks. At one stage the track heads to higher country to the base of a tall emergent Bunya Pine. This is the more sedate part of the walk, winding downstream towards the campgrounds.

A sign-posted side-track takes the walker back across the creek (wet feet again) towards Campsite 3 while the track continues on to the Day Use Area 2.

It is suggested that (for experienced walkers) the 18 kilometre round trip up to the falls and back would take six hours. We found the walking part of our one-way trip took us five hours at a very leisurely pace with plenty of stops but be sure to allow time for the initial drive up and the car retrieval trip at the end.

This new walk requires a reasonable level of fitness if done downhill and considerably more if done uphill. It’s a wonderful addition to the existing walks in the Conondales and a great preview of the forthcoming great walk.

(Booloumba Creek campgrounds are accessed from the Kenilworth –Maleny road, seven kilometres south of Kenilworth. The road (a further 6 kilometres) involves two creek crossings which are labeled “4WD only” but can be crossed cautiously by two wheel drive vehicles with high clearance if the water level is sufficiently low.)

We often don’t see what our cats are killing during the day, or night. Image: greghardwick.com.au

This glider was dead — killed by a cat.  She had two exquisite little joeys in her pouch.  Though they are viable to rear as furless little babies, these two barely weighed three grams, so it was not a pleasant outcome.

I was really upset, as I have watched the demise of this species on the Sunshine Coast.  Ten years ago, we would get calls at least each week about gliders.  Now they might be every few months.

Why?  Because cats are the main culprits. Through habitat destruction, the gliders are forced into suburban areas, although this is not a problem if pets are contained.

I still hear incredibly stupid people saying  to me: “My cat is a real killer!”.  It is as if they are proud of it, or can’t do anything about it.    What gives a cat the right to kill even one bird, or one glider?

Cat owners often say: “Our cat doesn’t get any wildlife.”

When in fact we often don’t see what our cats are killing during the day, or night.  They are very clever animals.  I’m sure my last cat (and it was definitely my last cat) knew what to bring home and display and what to leave out of sight.

Yes, a feral mouse or rat is fine, although I wasn’t even terribly happy about that. But then I found a native animal, a bandicoot, and that was the end of the story.

I knew this wasn’t an isolated incident.  Once I let my cat out in the morning, he was still finding wildlife, regardless of bells, buzzers and electronic masterpieces.

Why is it so difficult for people to lock up their cats?   We don’t think twice about putting a bird, even a parrot, into a small cage, yet we won’t even ponder making a cat run.

Cats are introduced high-end predators, so our native animals have to be protected from them.  It is not “Nature” when a cat kills one of our native wildlife.   Sure, it is natural when a native raptor or reptile takes one of our animals.  I would not be happy about it, but that is true nature.

I cannot repeat often enough — cats are not native to the Australian landscape, so it is not natural to have our precious wildlife killed by these introduced animals.  I love cats as I love all animals — well maybe not love them as much as my squirrel and sugar gliders, but I respect all life.

So therefore I would never let a cat free range — day or night!

Why would anyone want their pet to wander freely outside, at the mercy of cars or dog attack?  I would want my cat safely contained on my own property, preferably in a cat run with lots of toys and activities to entertain it.

Please, if you want to do anything to help our wildlife, remind your neighbours and friends as often as possible, about the importance of protecting our wildlife.

My grandchildren are so young yet they are so upset to hear of what their friends’ pets do to our wildlife. Our pets, both cats and dogs, are major contributors to the extinction of native species.

Please, I do care for all animals and have my own pets, but I want to see humans, pets and wildlife surviving together in suburbia.  It is the only way our native Australian wildlife can survive.

***

Cat enclosures: (The list below is not extensive and is meant to act as a guide only. It does not in any way endorse the product)- The editor.

Catnip Modular Cat Enclosures

Catmax

Aussie Cat Enclosures

Advanced Cat Enclosures

Professor Ian Lowe. Image greghardwick.com.au

Eco: Ian, what do think is the motivation for the Queensland government’s fascination with  continuing the mantra of population growth?

Prof Lowe: Well, there’s a superstition and it is only a superstition that growing population means a growing economy which gives the impression that things are going well.

I was at a conference a few years ago in Canberra, in which John Coulter, a former Democrat leader in the Senate, produced some figures that showed that there’s actually a negative correlation between population growth and economic indicators like Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.   So even if you’re so naïve as to think that the GDP is a measure of well being and that its growth means people are better off, places with a higher rate of population growth are doing badly and the places with a stable or even declining populations are actually doing well.

And there’s a simple economic explanation for it — if the population is growing, you need to invest in things that are in economic terms unproductive, like houses, sewage, water and roads. Where if your population is stable and you are only replacing old houses as they fall apart you can invest in having a more productive economy. So even in economic terms it’s just not very smart.

But the point is, of course, if there are more people here, then you need more houses, and more clothes and more food so the overall size of the economy is bigger and the government can say: “The economy is growing at three per cent, aren’t we good?”.

But again as John Coulter pointed out, if you have a rational economic system you would set against the increase in wealth, the decline in natural assets. So for example, if you sell Gorgon gas to China, yes you would have some money but you wouldn’t have the gas which would mean you that you didn’t have an asset for future generations of Australians to use and similarly if you concrete over your best agricultural land to accommodate another 500,000 people living in Queensland, yes you have the asset of those extra houses but you have the negative of having lost that agricultural land.

Eco: How do we overcome that issue, where especially here on the Sunshine Coast we’re almost addicted to growth.  In terms of the economy we are very much dependent upon the housing, construction and development sectors. How do we make the transition away from this and reposition ourselves for the future?

Prof Lowe: Well, what we need is a coherent, long-term economic strategy. Anyone with half a brain can see that it’s not sustainable to have 60 per cent of your jobs in the construction sector because you get this negative cycle that people are coming here because there’s jobs, but the jobs are only here because people are coming here.

Eco: So it’s like a Pyramid selling scheme?

Prof Lowe: Absolutely, yes. Well, you could argue that it’s a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is a particular type of corporate fraud for which you go to jail in which you produce generous dividends for the shareholders by selling the capital stock of the company. We’re running down the capital stock of the Sunshine Coast to provide generous dividends for this generation of shareholders in ‘Sunshine Coast Inc’ and that’s clearly not sustainable.

So if you were serious about the long term future of the Coast, you’d be thinking about which employment sources are genuinely sustainable. Now, local tourism aimed at people within Australia is a lot more sustainable than international tourism and that’s probably an area we can sustain but we should be investing in the knowledge-based industries that are likely to grow in the future, rather than assuming that we’ll always be able to find another wetland to concrete over to build houses for people who have come here to concrete over the wetland.

Eco: It appears, and one of the big discussion points has always been, that we don’t want the Sunshine Coast to become another Gold Coast. But it looks as though the new South East Queensland Regional Plan has basically said that within about 20 years we will have a population equivalent to that of the present-day Gold Coast.  Do you think it’s possible to have a population the size of the Gold Coast on the Sunshine Coast and still retain the sort of values and character that makes the Sunshine Coast what it is?

Prof Lowe: I can’t see how that’s possible. I mean if you look at the Gold Coast, it’s a similar area of coastline and the only way you can accommodate that many people and not damage as much of the coastline, would be to have more of them in the sort of  high-rise developments of the Gold Coast that no-one on the Sunshine Coast wants.

So, there’s a  fundamental conflict if you want to accommodate 500,000 people you either have to have a sprawling low-rise development which in transport terms and carbon terms is not sustainable, which then means you lose all your agricultural land and your natural assets, or you have 20-storey high-rise towers which produces an urban landscape that people see at the Gold Coast and they don’t like.

So, a more rational strategy would be to say we want to keep the target population of the Sunshine Coast at a level that would enable us to maintain our natural assets. And if you think about where all this began, Noosa Shire basically took that strategic decision to limit residential numbers and tourist numbers at a level that would maintain their natural assets. In economic terms, it’s entirely rational because tourism is their biggest industry.

Tourists don’t come to admire high-rise buildings or listen to inspired speeches from politicians, they come because of the natural assets. If we want the Sunshine Coast to continue to have a viable tourist industry, our first duty is to maintain those natural assets rather than concrete the joint over and turn it into another Gold Coast.

Eco: The Sunshine Coast Regional Council’s response to the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan was that they wanted the state to take any population targets out of the plan for the Sunshine Coast until they undertook what they called a sustainable carrying capacity exercise which not only looked at the biophysical constraints but also the character of the Sunshine Coast.  What do you think? What is the sustainable carrying capacity of the Coast? What does it really mean?

Prof Lowe: Yes, there’s no doubt you can cram more people into the same area if you want to have a different quality of life. I point out to people that Brisbane is roughly the same surface area as greater London and greater Tokyo which have respectively 8 and 12 million people compared with the 1.25 million of the greater Brisbane area. So there’s no doubt you can accommodate 5-10 times as many people in the same area but at a very different quality of life.

So, I agree with the principle that we should be looking at the carrying capacity but that carrying capacity is not an absolute number. There are different numbers based on different standards of living, different qualities of social experience. I mean in a sense we had that discussion as part of Maroochy 2025 and those people who were involved voted strongly for limiting the population and maintaining our natural assets. And, I would argue that the mayoral election on the Sunshine Coast was essentially a referendum on the future of the Coast.

The people voted 70/30 for the vision of not extending the Maroochydore/Caloundra approach to Noosa, but extending the Noosa approach to Maroochydore and Caloundra. I suppose what I would like to see is our elected representatives standing up for the platform on which they were elected and saying we were elected with an overwhelming mandate for limiting the population for the Sunshine Coast to a level that maintains our quality of life

Eco: I think it was interesting that when a recent survey was done in the Sunshine Coast Daily in conjunction with the University of the Sunshine Coast, it showed that 77 per cent of people considered that overpopulation of the Sunshine Coast was the most important issue which is almost identical to the current Mayor’s polling. So there is a high correlation, I think, between those two. One of the things that politicians are scared of, I suppose, is that the state government will take over planning powers away from Council and just ram through poor quality development. What’s your view on that?

Prof Lowe: Well I would rather they stood up and had a fight with the state government than adopt what one of my colleagues calls the “pre-emptive crumble”. Rather than have the state government enforce lousy planning on us we’ll do it for them. They were elected for the mandate to stand up to the state government and fight for the Sunshine Coast and I think in the current political climate the state government would be very reluctant to overrule a popularly elected regional council.

Eco: Especially the fourth largest local government in Australia?

Prof Lowe: That’s right. So I would rather the Council stood up to the State government and said we were elected with a mandate to protect the natural assets of the Coast and we’re going to do it. If you want to take us on, we’ll fight you politically and might even think about fighting them legally. A state government has powers over local government but the commonwealth government has powers over the state. Now Kevin Rudd’s probably not going to want to pick a fight with Anna Bligh but there’s no doubt that quality of life is a political issue. I’d welcome it becoming a political issue rather than just accepting that the state government caving into the developers is going to overrule what the people want.

Eco: Exactly. I know you’re a busy man Ian and I would like to thank you very much for your time and sharing your views on this important topic with Eco News.

The Indigenous people from the Undumbi, Nalbo, Dallambarra and Gubbi Gubbi clans have a long, long association with the Sunshine Coast. In the 1920s, when Vance and Nettie Palmer, the two significant Australian writers, were living in Caloundra, down on the Passage, deeply interested in questions of the human relationship to the environment, they began to ask questions about the land, the place and how it was changing. One time they climbed to the top of Candle Mountain, where they stayed. The air, Vance tells us, was so clear that he could see as far as the Tweed River hills across the state border, in northern New South Wales. Can we see so far today?  Vance’s view from the top of the mountain of the changing human habitation is pretty clear too, even as it locates him in the 1920s when he writes of Indigenous traditional cultures.

Original Image by: John Burrows

Looking down from the southern escarpment of the Blackall Ranges, one can see a bare pyramid standing out among the tumbled ridges west of the Glass Houses. It catches the eye by its symmetry. In the olden days, so I am told, when all these hills were well wooded, it stood out in even more striking fashion than it does today. That, in fact, is why it is called Candle Mountain. It served the blacks as a beacon, and when there was need to call the wandering tribes together a fire was lit on its summit – a fire that could be seen from all the broken country around, right down to the Pine River. And the view from the top… But that is anticipating. The first business is to get there.

One approaches it to-day from the little township of Beerwah, climbing up through Peachester and Crohamhurst. There is a new road now to Peachester, with a macadamised surface and easy grades, and it was needed badly enough. The previous road was a painful affair of deep ruts and steep hills and the most pleasant feature of it was a wayside store that had been used as an inn in the old coaching days. It has the atmosphere of an inn still, with its low, shingled roof, its rambling outhouses, and its great pine trees that show deep shadows, even at midday.

At Peachester one gets into flat, dairying country, with green paddocks and the feeling of running water all around. Higher still is Crohamhurst, from which Mr. Inigo Jones used to watch the sun changing its spots in the way that is prohibited to the proverbial leopard. There is a richness about all this country that is very satisfying. You know from the keenness of the air that you are well above the sea, and yet all around are quiet paddocks, with cattle wading knee-deep through the paspalum, little creeks full of water-cress, all the idyllic life of a sheltered, remote valley. And it has the feeling of having been settled a long time. Most of the farmhouses are built solidly, with shingled roofs, gardens full of fruit trees, and the comfortable, weather-worn look of places that were not blown together yesterday by a jerry-builder.

From Crohamhurst it is a mile-and-a half of steady climbing to the top of Candle Mountain. A narrow, twisty road, hardly possible for anything on wheels! From a tree-filled valley, full of scrub scents and the tang of damp earth, one gradually rises to bare mountainsides covered with coarse, stubbly grass. It is not till near the very summit that the view brakes upon one. Then what a brilliant and blinding view. The coast running with its tiny white fringe from Coolum to the mouth of the Brisbane, the Glasshouses lifting from the wooded flats below and looking quaintly surprised at having been taken from the rear, a ring of mountains all around, except for the segment cut out of the circle by the sea. Over everything the shimmer of spring, smoke rising in faint, blue spirals from hidden fires, the roofs of distant farmhouses flashing like bits of broken glass, a pocket-handkerchief of green showing in some clearing. It feels like being up in a balloon, and looking down.

To cap it all there is a little boarding-house perched like an eagle’s nest on the summit, with a roofless look-out on which one can sit and take in the prospect. No, an eagle’s nest is hardly the image, for it is surrounded by about an acre of cool orchard, filled with mandarins, shade trees, all kinds of citrus-fruit. The novelty of finding such a fruitful place on the tip of a pyramid is piquant and delightful. There was always a layer of good soil on the crest of this mountain, I have been told. It grew grass in the old days when there was practically none in the wooded country below, and the bullock-drivers, snaking out the timber, drove their bullocks up to the top for pasture.

Going down from the look-out, it is easy to go back over the history of the north coast and piece some of it together. To the south and east lies what was once the old station of Durundur, once owned by the Archers, a Scottish-Norwegian family, who did such solid pioneering work here, and afterwards went back to Norway, to build the Fram and start Nansen off on his famous voyage. The old Gympie road can almost be traced on the crests of the ridges below. Except for isolated patches of good dairying land it is not rich country, all this vast area lying beneath the Pine River and the Blackall Ranges. It is far from being thickly settled now, and one can guess what a wilderness it must have seemed 40 years ago, when the man who built this home on Candle Mountain came riding up from Brisbane at night, threading his way along the old bullock tracks.

But what a picturesque touch its very leanness and lack of settlement lends it! At night it has depth and mystery, with the dark mountains hemming it in like the rim of a basin, and the few lighthouses winking along the coast like faint stars. In the morning it shimmers in an almost unearthly light, the sun pouring a flood of thin gold over the matted carpet of tree-tops below, and the walls of the Blackalls, the Glasshouses, and the Aguilar ranges standing out with all their contours clearly modelled. The height of Candle Mountain is not great, yet so isolated in its position and clear its air that the eye takes in vast distances – picking out Tambourine, Toowoomba even, the hills above the Tweed.

At the back the Stanley River has its source. It is one of the most delightful little streams, running swiftly over water-worn stones into deep pools, over hung by water-myrtles and filled with cod and cat-fish. No one ever quite accepts fishing stories, but I am ready to believe that there is better sport for the angler here than in many seaside places. And even if the fishing were poor, it would be pleasant to drop a line into such a bubbly mountain stream, and just wait for what turned up.

Thick scrub comes down to the bank in places – palms, bunya pines, a tangle of nameless trees with glossy, enamelled leaves and a wealth of shade. The air is full of the deep, liquid calls of whip-birds, musical as dripping water. Kingfishers flit like gorgeous butterflies among the trailing water-myrtles. And driftwood, high on the banks and in branches overhead, shows with what force this torrent comes down in the rainy season, when a thousand little feeding streams pour down from the surrounding hills.

But night brings thoughts of the blacks again, and the beacon fire on the mountain that once called the tribes together. It is nourishing to the imagination to get these hints of a dark life that went on here within the memory of living men, and yet it is so far away. One can picture answering fires flaring up from the scrubby fastness of Witta, the Aguilar ranges, the fishing grounds along Pumicestone Passage; one can picture the fugitive groups trailing in to come borah or feast of the Bunya. It is a pity there is no memorial on Candle Mountain to show what significance it once held.