Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Every nation needs a coherent business plan that meets the immediate, medium and long-term needs of its community and the environment that sustains this community.

The current business plan for our nation, and apparently many other nations, seems to be based on short-term gain from exploitation of remaining natural resources within a framework of economic and population growth.

Frankly, I can’t explain how anyone can see these to be compatible or coherent.  This duel approach seems to be a recipe for disaster; if we have an economy dependent on depleting resources and growth, it seems obvious to me, a larger population than we have now will not have adequate resources.  The future population will at some stage need to work out how to manage without the resources that it has depended on.

I believe that now is the time to determine how to manage, not when the world and national population is even larger and resources are even in shorter supply.

We should have a policy that there should be no further exploitation of natural resources without plan for phasing out reliance on the resource.  No further destruction of natural habitat should be approved, whether in our nation or the forests of undeveloped nations.  Their prosperity is our responsibility if we are to keep what is left.  The demand for gold and palm oil in the developed world, for example, are driving the destruction of tropical forests in undeveloped countries.

Much of the world is currently dependent on coal and hydrocarbons.  These resources could be extremely useful for the world in future centuries, but we are just burning them.  This is causing climate change, acidification of the oceans and pollution from smog, spills and other contamination.  The world needs to plan to replace these energy sources as quickly as possible.  Renewable and nuclear energy need to be considered as a matter of extreme urgency and utmost importance.

There should be no more exploitation of areas of natural habitat.  It is foolish to continue to build suburbs on prime food producing land.  As a global community, we cannot use our best land for keeping horses.  The community needs to be engaged to see that there are shared problems.

In contradistinction, the current Australian government seems to have a business plan to encourage as much mining and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources as possible.  Exploring for resources is extremely expensive and there much of the effort is unsuccessful in establishing new resources.  It is understandable that the government wants to create a stable situation in order to encourage investment.  This would explain the rhetoric about there being too many national parks and even opening up those that do exist to exploration.

The second prong to the current Australian governments business plan is to encourage economic and population growth.  Immigration is seen as the means to address the issues of an aging population, as though immigrants did not get older themselves and compound the problem.  This is policy driven by addiction rather than reason.

As stated above, I can’t explain how anyone can see these to be compatible or coherent to have a business plan based on short-term gain from exploitation of remaining natural resources within a framework of economic and population growth.

Depending on a perceived economic befit of this model, the aim is to depend on other countries to produce our goods at lower prices.  Our manufacturing industries are sacrificed in this model, but the short-term prosperity of obtaining consumable items is seen as worthwhile, at least for politicians seeking re-election on a three to four year cycle.

Our government needs to be called on to explain and justify its approach.  If they cannot explain, they should re-evaluate and make major adjustments.  If they cannot adjust, it needs to be replaced as soon as possible.

Advertisements