The Generator is founded on the simple premise that we should leave the world in better condition than we found it. The news items in this category outline the attempts people have made to do this. They are mainly concerned with our food supply and settlement patterns. The impact that the human race has on the planet.
Posted
The final count in the federal election campaign shows the Government has won the two-party preferred vote.
The Australian Electoral Commission says after preferences Labor has 50.12 per cent of the vote compared to the Coalition’s 49.88 per cent.
Labor has a lead of 30,490 votes.
Leaving aside the sea change factor, people have been drifting from country to city for the best part of a century. Why? Because of the increasing mechanisation of agriculture. There is unceasing pressure for farmers to use more and better machines to replace human labour. Our farms produce more than they ever have, but need fewer people to do it.
With the increased use of expensive machinery there’s continuing pressure for individual farms – including dairy farms – to be bigger to better exploit economies of scale. That is, for farmers to sell out to their bigger neighbour and find work elsewhere – in the nearest regional centre or in the state capital.
The pressure comes in the form of their bigger neighbours being able to operate profitably despite falling real prices for their produce – prices at which smaller, less efficient producers can’t survive. Real prices fall not so much because of the rapacious behaviour of Woolworths and Coles but because market forces – competition between producers – cause the benefit of economies of scale to be passed on to end consumers (via the much traduced Woolies and Coles). In a well-functioning market economy it’s not the producers who win, it’s the consumers.
Country people don’t enjoy seeing people leaving the district, and small farmers don’t enjoy being forced off the land. But are these long-standing trends a bad thing? They’re the product of the capitalist system (you’re not a socialist, are you?) and the technological advance it fosters and exploits (nor a Luddite?).
The notion that the regions should be given a fair go is appealing, even to city slickers. But what is fair? Country people are convinced they’re being ripped off: they pay all this tax, but the city people spend most of it on themselves and send only a trickle back to the regions.
One small problem: it ain’t true. For a start, on a per-person basis country people pay less tax than city people do. That’s because incomes in rural areas are generally lower and they have a higher proportion of retired people.
What would be a fair distribution of government spending – equal amounts per person in country and city? Actually, governments spend more per person in the country than they do in the city. According to calculations by a government agency, spending on hospitals is 7 per cent higher in moderately accessible regions than in the highly accessible capital cities.
In remote areas the cost differential per person rises to 14 per cent and in very remote areas to 44 per cent.
For schools, spending per student is 12 per cent higher in moderately accessible regions, 34 per cent higher in remote areas and 60 per cent in very remote. The story for spending on policing is similar.
But how is this possible when it’s so clear the quality of these services in country areas is less than the quality people receive in the city? It’s possible because the cost of delivering services in the regions is so much higher relative to the (small) number of people for whom the services are being provided (and relative to the number of country taxpayers).
It’s much cheaper to deliver services to people when they’re all crammed together in a big city. Citysiders have economies of scale working for them, whereas country people have scale economies working against them. That’s no one’s fault, it’s just a fact of nature.
When governments install some new and expensive facility in the big city, tens of thousands of people are able to take advantage of it and so reduce its cost per person (and per taxpayer). Were such a facility installed in some small town, the cost per person assisted would be remarkably high. Even if it were installed in a big regional centre, the cost per person would still be a lot higher.
So now you know why facilities are so much better in the cities than in the region: hard economics. If you say that’s not fair and people in the country deserve equality in the quality of services provided, you’re saying you want city taxpayers’ subsidy to country taxpayers to be even greater than it is (so you are a socialist, are you?).
Most Australians crowd into big cities and they do so for good reasons: more and better-paying jobs, plus better services, both public and private. They put up with the drawbacks of city living: much higher housing costs, unpleasant commuting, congestion, tar and cement, and less feeling of community.
Country people prefer living in the regions for the opposite sets of reasons. It’s a free country and that choice is up to them.
Ross Gittins is economics editor.
Ecologist
14th September, 2010
Activists have criticised the World Bank for effectively ignoring the harsh reality of land grabbing being faced by local populations and instead, showing the way for investors.
The World Bank’s long-awaited report on the controversial issue of land grabbing in less industrialised countries looks at the scale of the situation and the risks to local populations. It also makes recommendations for how investors and governments should act in the future to ensure more responsible investments.
As part of its detailed analysis of 14 countries, the report highlights Africa’s ‘large amounts of suitable but currently uncultivated land’, together with its history of weak governance.
It states more than half the land that could potentially be used for expansion to meet commodity demands is in just ten countries, of which 5 are in Africa – making it a potential target for investors.
Campaigners said the World Bank was effectively promoting Africa as a ‘quick win’ for investors and that there should in fact be a moratorium on all land grabbing.
‘What we are already seeing in many African countries is Neocolonialism; the land is being carved up,’ said Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Food Campaigner at Friends of the Earth.
Chandrasekaran said local communities were not benefiting from land grabbing and the report showed there was no sustainable land model. She also accused the World Bank of ignoring the importance of strengthening governance and protecting the rights of local populations.
‘A lot of people are losing land and their means of livelihood with no compensation… It’s illogical,’ she said.
While the report does stress the importance of respecting land rights it doesn’t appear to state how this should be enforced, nor how best to approach those local populations or farmers who are without, or who are unlikely to be aware of, such rights.
Jodie Thorpe, Policy Advisor at Oxfam said it, ‘glosses over what needs to be done in order to ensure rights of local populations.’
‘Laws on paper can be good but the ability or capacity to enforce these laws is often lacking,’ she added.
Useful links
World Bank report ‘Rising Gobal Interest in Farmland’
Friends of the Earth’s report ‘Africa up for grabs’
FIAN’s campaign to ban land grabbing
This victory has proved that when we mobilise in numbers, we can demand far more from unsustainable Australian companies.
Right now we’re considering what more GetUp could achieve in the next few years. If you haven’t already, can you help us map out GetUp’s future direction by taking a few minutes to answer a few questions in our post-election survey?
http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/NextSteps
When we can demonstrate that the community’s attitudes are ahead of those of our decision makers we can create major change in our nation – and you are an integral part of this process.
Thanks for being a part of this movement,
The GetUp team.
P.S. Informal talks between the forest industry and the environment movement are happening right now in Tasmania. We could be on the precipice of big change. Is forest protection still a priority for you? Let us know in our member survey: http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/NextSteps
GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you’d like to contribute to help fund GetUp’s work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here.
Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5, 116 Kippax St, Surry Hills NSW 2010
And farmers and fishermen on the mouth of the Murray say the floods have brought them back from the brink of disaster.
The mouth of the Murray River has been a series of stagnant pools and dry, cracked earth for years, but fisherman Henry Jones says recently he has seen a big change.
“We’ve come from almost at the point of disaster to almost back to normal. Water is in the wetlands, birds are nesting, fish are breeding. It’s just unbelievable,” he said.
“Not only the fish and the animals, but the people are walking around as though they’ve won a million dollars.
“I feel sorry for the people in Victoria that are being flooded, but as far as we are concerned down here, it is just a godsend.”
Mr Jones says he believes at least 200 gigalitres of water are going to flow over the barrages into the Coorong, returning the parched land into an estuary.
Australian Wetlands and River Centre director Professor Richard Kingsford, at the University of New South Wales, says wetlands along the Murray have been parched for so long that it is difficult to predict just how much water they will soak up.
“It’s a big flood. We haven’t seen one of this size for probably 15 to 17 years,” he said.
“There are some very important wetlands on the way – internationally significant Ramsar sites.
“We are talking here about the Barmah-Millewa forest, the Koondrook-Perricoota forest, the Hattah Lakes, Chowilla floodplain and eventually of course the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, which is where the Murray eventually goes out to sea.
“Each one of those wetland systems has been drying, particularly with the drought, and also not getting as much in the way of flooding through those intermediate years as a result of over-allocation.”
The water is good news for many, but in northern Victoria the flooding has caused a lot of damage to farming areas.
State agronomist Chris Sounness says there are predictions of widespread waterlogging in crops.
“Farmers I’ve been communicating with – while no-one likes to lose any crop – have felt the flooding [has] created a very positive vibe in a lot of the community as we have been through a number of years with little water,” he said.
“They are looking at the glass and seeing it half full.”
The Murray Darling Basin Authority announced this week that it is expecting the flood waters will reach the mouth of the Murray by mid-October.
First posted
“Premier Keneally and her ministers will need to sort through the same arguments that their predecessors went through a decade ago when indoor diners were finally protected from side stream smoke.
“Local governments have led the way with bans within a number of municipalities. The NSW government must now come to the table and ban all smoking in outdoor dining areas.
“The Keneally government must be strong enough to stand up to those elements of the restaurant industry who will argue that it will damage their business.
“Just as the indoor dining ban increased the number of customers, an outdoor ban will help boost summer patronage.
“The total cost of smoking to NSW is $6.6 billion a year, including health services expenses of $476 million.
“Without a ban on smoking in outdoor eating areas, enjoyment of al fresco dining on a warm summers evening is often limited by other people’s cigarette smoke.
“The Greens join with the Cancer Council in calling for a ban across a wide range of outdoor venues including sporting stadia and grounds, children’s playgrounds, outdoor entertainment areas and venues, crowded beach locations, taxi stands, bus stops and within seven metres of public building entrances,” Dr Kaye said.
For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455