by frog
Dr Dennis Meadows, one of the authors of Limits to Growth, spoke last year at the World Resources Forum in Davos. Reading Limits to Growth was what set me on the path to becoming a Green.
Despite many false and ad hominem attacks on the research, it stands up very well in its forecast for humanity’s situation in this century. As Dr Meadows says in this video, we know 100% for sure that this growth trajectory is going to come to an end, we just don’t exactly when.
Hat tip: The Oil Drum
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare by frog on Fri, March 5th, 2010
Tags: Dennis Meadows, growth, Limits to Growth
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
It doesn’t seem as if the greens are worried about NZ’s population despite the projected growth of Auckland and Christchurch dumping it’s sewage in the sea (of course what we call green and they call green may be different—- to some people green means gardens , parks etc):
Anti-immigration feeling has no place in the Green party Immigration and Population policies released today, Green MP Keith Locke says.
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy
“Mr Locke” is more of an immigration Father Christmas?
Like or Dislike:
4 
5 (-1)
Note that a “stable” population does not meant a “static” one, and that no research I have seen indicates that New Zealand’s population is anywhere near the limits of either the carrying capacity of useable land or its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions.
Yes, we make some stupid urban planning decisions, and yes, we score a fail on offsetting and minimising greenhouse gas emissions, but these are policy rather than capacity issues.
Like or Dislike:
8 
2 (+6)
Our policy expands on this:
Like or Dislike:
10 
1 (+9)
Like or Dislike:
6 
0 (+6)
so the greens position is that we shouldn’t be worried about immigration yet?
and the triggers will be:
2. A self-sustaining population cannot be increased beyond the carrying capacity of useable land available.
— as measured by???????
3. The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions.
4. The population must not be increased beyond the capacity of the local environment to provide essential ecosystem services such as clean water, air and soil.
but Christchurch is at present building a pipe to dump sewage in the sea,
&
what about the old villas of Merivale, infill housing, the subdiving and infilling of Sumner (“Pomna”), the over development of Queenstown, the general worstening of the urban environment for all but the richest NZr’s etc these are just “stupid urban planning decisions”?
6. Informed decisions about family size and spacing will be made by the parents concerned.
having made those decisions taxpayers will be required to guarantee “health, housing, education (for every child) the same as everyone else”
Like or Dislike:
3 
4 (-1)
So your not a “Quality of Life ” party your a “Take it to the Max” Party?
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
Should I take it from your response to point 6, jh, that you share Michael Lhaws’ and David Garrett’s position that the state should have a coercive role in family planning?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
— as measured by???????
From the intro of the population policy:
What’s your magic number and what’s it based on?
but Christchurch is at present building a pipe to dump sewage in the sea,
&
what about the old villas of Merivale, infill housing, the subdiving and infilling of Sumner (”Pomna”), the over development of Queenstown, the general worstening of the urban environment for all but the richest NZr’s etc these are just “stupid urban planning decisions”?
Yes, and many of those things need to change regardless of immigration policy. When we’re in charge they’ll start to change. In the meantime, I hope at least you’re on the Nat’s blog giving those who completely disagree with you even half the grief you like to give us who in great part do.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
I’m enjoying this debate almost as much as the video in the post. Population and immigration are both important perameters in the debate. I might argue though, as I did in the post, that in some respects these are just symptoms of the real problem, and that a significant behaviour change on the part of humans is what is required to address all these symptoms, including climate change. We keep talking about treating the fever, but often forget that it’s a symptom, not the cause of our troubles.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Agreed, Tony.
That doesn’t necessarily mean we need to address immigration as a singular response; it means we have to adopt policies over a range of areas that promote ecological sustainability.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
3 
0 (+3)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Greens Launch Petition to Control Foreign Ownership
The Green Party launched a petition at the Canterbury A & P Show on November 10, calling on the Government to make it more difficult for foreign investors to buy New Zealand land, buildings and businesses. On the same day the Labour Government tabled their bill to encourage even more foreign investment.
“New Zealanders are paying the price for the foreign buy-up of Aotearoa,” said Green Co-leader, Rod Donald. “Kiwi families are paying higher rents, the dream of owning your own home is rapidly turning into a nightmare for even middle-income earners and young farmers can’t afford to buy land.
“Labour admits that over the last few years 2,720 hectares of offshore islands, 57 kilometres of coastline and 157,000 hectares of high country leasehold have been sold to overseas buyers. And that’s just the tip of the foreign ownership iceberg.
“Most residential and commercial land sales under $10 million are not scrutinised or recorded now. The sell-off is only going to intensify because Labour plans to remove that threshold altogether.”
Rod said it was estimated that foreign corporations and individuals already owned more than one million hectares of New Zealand’s commercially productive land area.
“And land sales account for only a fraction of what’s being hocked-off overseas,” said Rod. “Most of our economy is now controlled from the boardrooms of London, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo and New York.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0411/S00228.htm
However “Anti-immigration feeling has no place in the Green party… (says Mr Locke)” >>>they can sell off their house in their crowded city, put their finger higher than the resident Kiwi and the greens don’t care (as long as carrying capacity isn’t breached—- box apartments, hydroponics and all that)
http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-counter-peters-welcoming-immigration-policy
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
people change as circumstances change as when the cast aways of the Essex drew lots and ate each other (unfortunately too skinny to do much good though).
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
Toad says:
[6. Informed decisions about family size and spacing will be made by the parents concerned.
having made those decisions taxpayers will be required to guarantee “health, housing, education (for every child) the same as everyone else” ]
Should I take it from your response to point 6, jh, that you share Michael Laws’ and David Garrett’s position that the state should have a coercive role in family planning?
But the Greens want the taxpayer to underwrite health, housing education for every child (and by implication the parents): “the same as everyone else” (even though they could/ should plan pregnancy not to mention the effect on struggling workers whose wages you apparently seek to increase by decree)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
jh folds on the environment and retreats back to race where he started.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
“but Christchurch is at present building a pipe to dump sewage in the sea”
Anyone would get the impression that this pipe was to dump raw sewage into the sea. It isn’t. The pipe will dump the fully treated sewage into the sea, primarily to avoid adding nutrients into the Avon/Heathcote estury. At that stage, it is almost entirely water.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Trevor 29 says:
“Anyone would get the impression that this pipe was to dump raw sewage into the sea. It isn’t. The pipe will dump the fully treated sewage into the sea, primarily to avoid adding nutrients into the Avon/Heathcote estury. At that stage, it is almost entirely water.”
However, Since 2001, average daily outflow has increased by 67,112 cubic metres (51%). and “Christchurch has been having eight overflows a year [wet weather events flooding sewer pipes], and [having] “spent $40 million getting to where [they] are today. [Chch] now says its ratepayers can’t afford another $125 million to get to once every two years.”
these overflows would otherwise end up entirely in the estuary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis Says:
jh folds on the environment and retreats back to race where he started.
====
shouldn’t that be the green party folds on the environment and retreats back to race where it started.
[frog: Ha, feeling Orwellian today, I see]
Like or Dislike:
1 
5 (-4)
“The pipe will dump the fully treated sewage into the sea, primarily to avoid adding nutrients into the Avon/Heathcote estury. At that stage, it is almost entirely water.”
Is the water in the pipe cleaner or dirtier than the Rangitata river?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
I think I win the point about the sewage and the Ocean outfall.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2 (-1)
jh – No.
These overflows will end up in the estuary anyway, as the problem is the sewer pipes overflowing before the sewage reaches the treatment station. The ocean outfall has no impact on this.
The problem is less one of growth of Christchurch as it is of entry of stormwater into the sewage system. However I accept that the growth of Christchurch has increased the amount of sealed surface and thus increased the stresses on the stormwater systems (rather than allowing the rain to be absorbed locally) which has contributed to the problem of stormwater entering the sewage system.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“These overflows will end up in the estuary anyway, as the problem is the sewer pipes overflowing before the sewage reaches the treatment station”
what your saying is the problem of overflow isn’t caused by the size of the sewage system relative to the size of the increasing population (even though discharge from the sewage works has increased 51%). Instead you focus on current building culture (cars and driveways)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
(This relates to Wangarei Harbour):
The Okara Park pump station, located on Port Road, is the largest pump station in the Whangarei sewer system. Raw sewage from Whangarei City and outlying suburbs (excluding Onerahi) flows to the Okara Park pump station from where it is pumped to the Whangarei Wastewater Treatment Plant on Kioreroa Road. The Okara Park pumps have the ability to pump up to 800 litres of sewage per second. If the sewage flow exceeds this rate, which can occur during extreme wet weather events, the excess is discharged into the Hatea River, at a location adjacent to the Okara Park stadium. This overflow during storm events is a consented activity.
A common problem with reticulated sewer systems is the effects of stormwater, which can enter sewer pipes either directly via inflow, such as from illegal gutter connections, or indirectly via infiltration such as pipeline fractures. The volume of sewage combined with stormwater can exceed the capacity of the sewer system, resulting in overflows. A particular site of concern in central Whangarei is Butter Factory Lane, where the back up of sewage and stormwater during extremely wet weather can cause local sewers to overflow affecting shop owners and other people in the central business district.
http://www.nrc.govt.nz/Resource-Library-Summary/Environmental-Monitoring/State-of-the-Environment-Monitoring/8-Coastal-water-quality/83-What-is-the-state-of-coastal-water-quality/
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Infrastructure however is a side issue of growth. Growth, as described with the GDP, is only a measure of obesity, or affluenca. We need to stop this nonsense. GDP growth has nowhere led to improved quality of life or reducing the gap between rich and poor. Still we maintain, we only have to dig deeper to get better results, catch up with even more unequal societies, and wait for trickle-down effects in eternity. Rather than doing more of the same, it’s time to radically change direction.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0 (+5)
Shouldn’t the Greens be emphasizing quality of life more than “carrying capacity” (with its connotations of a stock truck +/or sour crates)?
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Trevor 29 Says:
These overflows will end up in the estuary anyway, as the problem is the sewer pipes overflowing before the sewage reaches the treatment station. The ocean outfall has no impact on this.
====
Is it possible that at times untreated sewage could need to be discharged thru the ocean outfall?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know, but I expect and hope that that would only happen if there is a major equipment failure or a serious flood.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)