Peak Everything? NZ needs a population policy.

I spent a good chunk of this evening trying to get to the bottom of the growing food shortages.

Biofuels have come under fire for shifting grain grown for food into use as fuel. That means less food to go around so prices go up. The US farmers who were persuaded to grow corn for biofuels are happy about being paid well for a change and are moving to defend their new-found incomes. The "National Corn Growers Association" says "corn is not the culprit" and points the finger at higher oil prices and the big margins added to food prices by processors, distributors and retailers after it leaves the farm gate. They use an almost comical example of a box of corn flakes to illustrate the point. Yes, that must be it. People all over the world can't afford boxes of corn flakes any more. Admittedly, their press release is intended for domestic US consumption. In a global context, it comes across (to me) as myopic and self-serving.

There is a spider's web of side-effects and unintended consequences radiating out from almost every measure related to food or fuel. We could spend all day fascinating ourselves with how growing more corn in the US has reduced soy production there, creating opportunities for Brasilian soy farmers who are themselves displacing cattle in the Mato Grosso. The owners of the displaced cattle are felling more rainforests and the cycle repeats. Up to a point. Two years after the trees are cut down, the rain seems to stop falling. No more rain if there's no more rain forest. Not just in Brasil, but everywhere downwind of the declining forest cover. Apparently, those forests seeded rain clouds for places as far away as Europe. The effects of human activity cascade on and on, touching pretty much everything because we are now numerous enough that almost anything we all do can and does have global consequences. We have scale, as they say.

This very brief vid on human population growth and the role oil has played is well worth watching.



What does all that mean? To me, it sounds like the feeling you get when you hit a sharp curve driving at too high a speed. You have reduced your margin of error to a razor's edge and almost ANY perturbation or pebble on the road can turn your finely balanced transit of the corner into disaster and see you through the guard rail and over the edge. Ooops. No 'replay' button in the real world. We have grown used to not being prudent.

Except in our case, speed is actually the increasingly intense pressure our growing population is placing on every system we touch. Water, air, soil, forests, fisheries, energy....all of it...and more. On one level, the core problem behind most others is staringly obvious. There are roughly 70 million more mouths to feed each year than there were last year. The human population of the world continues to rise and that is affecting everything one way or another. We need more food every year this remains the case.

Problem. Soils are degrading. Energy and fertiliser to produce food are rapidly rising in price. Demand is outstripping supply. Water is becoming insufficiently available in more places as rains stubbornly refuse to fall or there just isn't enough of the stuff to grow people as well as their food.

The whole picture adds up to a level of human activity that isn't sustainable. The core reason is human population, with a supporting cast of myriad subsidiary effects that are in turn causes of other effects.

Kelpie Wilson of Truthout.org has written an excellent article ("More food is not the answer") on the the present situation. The article is prompted, in part, by a recent United Nations report by the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development).

Ever heard of "Peak Phosphorous"? Read the article.

New Zealand doesn't have a population policy that I'm aware of. If it does exist, it is rarely talked about. We should begin that debate as soon as possible and take the time to have a real debate about it and let people think on it. How many Kiwis would be enough? Almost everyone I've talked to says somewhere between 5 and 6 million. Is that reasonable?

As it is, the issue of population rarely comes up and when it does some idiot or other automatically assumes any move to look at population consciously will lead to forced sterilisation or other nonsense. Another idiot will then tell you to "off yourself if you're so worried about it". Not much rational debate to be found in that sort of atmosphere. But it does need to begin.

A Real Headful.....

The most challenging part of trying to be a good, attention-paying citizen, is the sheer volume of stories and information streaming past every hour in the news-stream.

Last night I was reading about how the property market in the UK is tanking. The story there is the same as in many other jurisdictions. Housing prices that rose to giddy heights atop a market awash with cheap money for the first time in ages. Many banks were prepared to lend up to 100% of the value of the house to almost anyone. More careful banks are exposed to loss if they dealt with the less careful banks. No one knows how rotten the mortgage portfolios of any given institution might prove to be. The Economist sees it as the beginning of a bust and details several factors - UK local and global - that have brought matters to a head. NZ's own Bernard Hickey
of interest.co.nz, has made a series of very watchable and informative videos looking at how this plays in our local market.

There are some very large variables operating that could make economic developments in the next few years very different to previous years. Here are just a few. Not in order of priority.

Assuming climate change is underway and gathering pace, what will the effect of that be on food, markets, economies - people? There is plenty of room for global downside unlike anything seen since WW II in simple human terms.

Everyone is waiting for the lethally incompetent George W Bush to finally leave office in the US so we can all get back to running the world on a more sane and cooperative basis again. Fingers crossed. But will it be soon enough?

China will play a huge role in the years ahead. One they have not played before in global history. In earlier times, China was a world unto itself, at times the ruler of a huge chunk of the world's people. Later, China was a broken empire of feuding warlords and easy prey for empire-building European and Japanese colonisers. Now, China is neither insular nor weak.

Population is the issue underlying most others. Climate change is dangerous precisely because there are so many people living in places that may be in danger due to change. If the worst happens and their crops don't grow along the drying Ganges or their land is submerged as the seas invade Bangladesh, where do these people go? What water will they drink? If there weren't so many people, we could just move to the places that became better due to climate change and abandon the places that got worse. Our children would be looking at land along the coast of the Arctic Ocean for the best places to build the beach baches of tomorrow for our grandchildren and beyond. We'd move endangered species to new places and enjoy a warmer, wetter future for all. No problem. Lots of space to go around.

Nice dream. But we aren't that smart or generous.

My brother told me this week about a young Canadian woman in Cuba a few weeks back who thought she could win an argument with the Cuban staff of a charter air operator. They would not let her on board the jet without either paying for the 10kg her luggage was overweight, or removing the excess weight. He says she argued with them for a long time, citing market forces, public opinion, the tiny size of her 10kg....everything. They said they took Visa or MasterCard or cash. They pointed to a nearby ATM machine. She insisted she had NO money. Ok, so they said she would have to remove the excess weight if she could not pay for it. They looked weary and finally suggested she document her concerns and send them to the Cuban embassy in Ottawa. Her boyfriend finally told her to shut up. The other 500 people waiting to board the two jets were with him. She went to the ATM, got the trifling amount of money required and paid for her extra 10kgs.

We'll see similar scenes when it comes time to pay for excess carbon emissions.

Trying to evade the rules and then lying about the money aside, she clearly thought her 10kgs was more important than the rules she had agreed to abide by as well as all the other people there, waiting to board two flights.

Everywhere is the evidence that we doesn't realise how small we are compared to the world around us. We don't understand scale.

It's a common story. It's like happens all the time. Last year, I was involved in a campaign in Ontario, Canada. We had a committee in each electorate and their job was to run the local campaign. Each electorate had roughly 100,000 voters in it. Some committees clearly knew what was required and scaled up to do the job and reach the 100,000 voters. Some others, bless their hearts, thought that holding a public meeting at the local library every week (or two) and inviting the local newspaper to cover it would be enough to get the job done. Attendances were in the dozens, at best, and the other 99,950 were blissfully unaware.

On YouTube, people with 200 subscribers have fun. People with 20,000 subscribers are stalked and go into hiding.

I see this again and again. We have built this big complex world full of millions and millions and millions of people. Meanwhile, most of us behave as though we were part of a bus tour with our friends and family along for the ride. The other people are just part of the scenery. The few who do understand the real scale of things are too often shouted down by the "bus riders" who block any change to the way things are on the basis that they don't see it a necessary. Mainly because they don't know. Ignorance is too often their shield from both change and responsibility.

These experiences shape one's assessment of what the future may hold. So far, any effort to actually deal with global problems has instead seen the wrong problems focused on and the solutions to those wrong problems have been spectacularly wasteful, wrong-headed and counter-productive. Iraq has been very instructive in that regard. Wrong problem. Wrong solution. Spectacularly counter-productive and wasteful.

The lemmings are running. The cliff is that-a-way. I hear their siren call: "Prosperity and success through endless consumption and growth this way! This way!"

Excuse me while I stand aside and avoid the rush. I hope you'll join me. There is so much for us all to learn and think about while we try to rescue those among us headed for the edge, riding their buses, besotted by the call of the siren who promises something out of nothing.

Are you cashed up, holding tangible assets and debt free? It would appear to be the best place to be if times are about to get rough and deflationary in real terms while being inflationary in nominal terms.

Weekend Grab Bag: MAXX, Zimbabwe, Women and Babies

Lots of things to think about today.

Zimbabwe

What about Zimbabwe? In a few hours we'll know whether or not Mugabe cheated. Part of me thinks he has. Part of me thinks maybe this election is a face-saving exit strategy for him and a chance to demonstrate Zimbabwe is a real democracy and always was.....ahem. We'll find out soon enough. I'm hopeful but not optimistic.

Population

Kiwi women not having babies? Interesting that the first comment after that is from the usual demographers who appear to argue in favour of the pyramid scheme that sees population never able to shrink because we might have too look after each other until the eldest generation passes....and then those who come after enjoy the benefits of a smaller population and more resources to go around. They don't talk about that. In my view, the world actually needs to produce fewer people and we do have to wear the temporary inconvenience of looking after the elderly in each generation for the relatively brief time (for the the vast majority of them) they would need looking after....if at all.

The alternative is an ever-growing population and that isn't sustainable. Why go the way of the UK and make NZ into a South Pacific ant hill where the quality of life is considerably degraded as compared to the present? I don't want to and few Kiwis will disagree with that, I suspect. Interested in your thoughts.

MAXX Redux

After noting on Thursday the sudden disappearance of the public forums on the revamped website, Friday saw the MAXX issue come up again.

Let's start at the beginning. I support public transport. It makes sense. I've used public transit only (no car) in getting around cities like Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, London, Hong Kong, San Fransisco and Singapore. As far as I know, all those cities have a single, operator providing services and the services, while not always perfect, are generally very good.

Auckland: I like MAXX. It's a worthy attempt to overcome the serious obstacles created by having regional transport services operated by a diverse set of competing private operators. MAXX is an attempt to herd cats and as such will only ever meet with limited success. I've been measuring that success from my own point of view since arriving in Auckland in early December. While there some good bits in places, I find MAXX's overall services expensive, slow and poorly integrated. One is frequently required to walk half a km or more to move between services offered by different providers. Each way. Plus a walk at either end that may be a few hundred metres or a lot more than a few hundred metres. The suitability of MAXX services for a family of four to go anywhere is more the exception than the rule. The family car is almost always BOTH cheaper and faster. That is not how it should be. It could be a lot better.

I've had a few problems with services where I live (north shore) and I've been trying to deal with them in a positive and constructive way: Call MAXX. Report problem. Await feedback and result. This can work and work very well. Several situations have been effectively resolved this way. The bus driver who refused to drive down our street, forcing my wife to walk 1/2km home, has been told he must drive down our street as it is part of his route.

But MAXX has some serious issues where children are concerned. You'd think they would get this right, given they are the future of public transport and they are among our most vulnerable citizens. Unfortunately, at least for Birkenhead Transport, they have not got it right.

I've had a query about MAXX's policy regarding child fares recorded with MAXX since late January. The first query was on January 30th. They said they would come back to me in 7 working days. At most. When I called back a month later, on March 4th, that query had mysteriously disappeared. I opened another. Well over 7 working days went by and no word, so I called again on the Wednesday prior to Easter. The matter had not been touched. After speaking with the supervisor, the person I was speaking to said I would be called back within 24 hours.

I waited a week and heard nothing. So I called back on Thursday this past week, got another 24 hour commitment...and by 5pm Friday had not been called back. That is four (4) failures in a row to abide by the service expectation they had given me with respect to my query. Not good. Total system failure.

What's my query? Very simple. MAXX's policy on child fares is that children aged 5 to 15 ride for a concession rate. That's it. Policy complete. Any child on earth who finds themselves in Auckland can ride on MAXX services for a concession fare.

Except that isn't how it REALLY works if (at least) Birkenhead Transport is your local bus company. They require kids to be in school uniforms or have student ID to pay the concession fare. So the first time my 14yo daughter got on a bus, having never attended an Auckland school, she found herself in an argument with the bus driver over her fare. Welcome to Auckland public transport, young lady. What was happening was not consistent with MAXX's stated policy.

Given MAXX's stated policy on child fares, what ID is required to ensure a child can ride for the correct fare? Remember the child concerned could be from anywhere in New Zealand or around the world. The question appears to defy any attempt to get an answer.

Then, on Friday a new wrinkle appeared. My daughter has been coming home from school telling me that bus drivers on Birkenhead Transport are not allowing school kids on "adult" buses in the morning. A child standing at a bus stop at 08:20am is refused entry to the bus AT ANY PRICE and instructed to get the school bus...which left at 07:41AM (40 minutes prior). They then have to walk. This is clearly contrary to MAXX's policy on children riding buses. It leaves school kids walking 40 minutes plus to school while their parents may have reasonably expected them to be quickly - and safely - conveyed to school on the bus, having paid the required dollar.

What will happen if a 14yo girl who was forced to walk to school, by a bus driver / company ignoring MAXX policy, is later run over, raped or worse? I can just imagine the anger and anguish that would produce. Why go there?

Just to confuse things, my daughter has had no problems because she uses a 10-trip rather than buying a single ticket. I can only assume this is some confusion with the tertiary student policy. Or maybe some bus drivers favour girls and refuse rides to boys. Who knows? As it is, bus drivers are reportedly sailing past stops with school kids waiting on the basis they should get the school bus.....tomorrow as today's left 40 minutes ago.

I then called Birkenhead Transport and asked what was going on. They tacitly admitted the policy was a company policy, not just bus drivers behaving badly. The (unnamed) person I spoke to said that children were filling the adult buses at peak times while the school buses were empty. So they are, as a matter of policy, refusing to carry children on normal buses. Clearly a violation of MAXX policy.

I logged another query with MAXX over it and I think this one will see a quick response. But we'll see. As it stands, the people who are the future of public transport, and arguably among the more vulnerable bus patrons, are being taught that arbitrary refusal of service is their lot. Capricious authority strikes again. Death to petty bureaucrats....etc..etc. Not good for them....or public transport in Auckland.