PIGFACE POINT TOUR PICTURES; Set 3.

Outside the second chicken area.  Moving them stops parasites building up in heir pen.  They free range in the paddocks and the small orchard here.  In a good Permaculture design they find much of their own food, enjoy a more varied diet, fertilise the trees, and eat the fruit fly lavae in the fallen fruit.  Poultry enrich the leisure resources of the area; they are nice people to talk to.  We don’t eat them, or any other of our friends.

The chicken house, an example of wattle and daub earth building.

The feed shed, an example of mud brick building.

The energy problem.  The top line shows where world demand is heading.  The thick line represents how CO2 emissions will have to be cut,

according to the IPCC in 2007 But it is now likely that we will have to completely eliminate these by 2050.  For the argument

that we cannot replace our dependence on fossil fuels by renewable energy sources, see http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/RE.html

This is not an argument against renewable energy; we must move to complete dependence on renewables as soon as we can, and we can live well on them — but not in an energy-intensive society.

 

How we must crdeate commons within suburbs and towns, by digging up some of the roads, planting parks nd beside raileways, to enable cooperaive supply of many goods and services, independent of the monetary economy. In a highly localied economy using little liquid fuel we will not do much travelling and so will not need many roads.

The partly obscured map lower left is a normal suburb, the bigger picture represents the kinds of communal facilities we could locate in that area, especially on the dug up road space.

 

A bamboo, the other side of a new mini-orchard - chicken pen. Bamboo is a valuable, fast growing resource, good for building, eating, mulch...

This is a "clumper' so will not run, but runners can be put on islnds in ponds.

This display explains the distribution of global resource use.  The white blocks represent resources spread evenbly across 6.8  billion people.  But they are not distributed fairly like this. 

The second picture shows the blocks rearranged to represent the rich few countries getting 80% of them at a per capita rate that is about 18 times

that of the poorest half of the world’s people. 

So we in Australia can have speed boats and jet away holidays while more than one billion people do not have clean safe water to drink and 850 million are hungry.  If they got a fair share of the world’s resource output they could solve these kinds of problems.  The reason why they don’t is because of the way the unjust global economy works, in allocating most wealth to those who are rich in the first place.

Could our present per capita resource consumption be extended to all people?  The next picture extends the base line to 9 billion, and shows that such a goal is totally impossible.  World output of resources would have to be about 8 times as great as it is now, yet just about all resources are becoming more scarce.

World monetary wealth and income are distributed much more unevenly than resource consumption. The red colunmns on the right show that Rich world per capita income is more than 80 times the average for the poorest 20% of people.

The footprint concept is rpresented on the left above. The amount of productive land needed to provide for one Australian is about 8 ha.  By 2050 the per capita amount available will be less then .8 ha.  This means we are living in a way that requires 10 times as much land as will be available for all.  This is an extremely important point, showing how grossly unsustainable the rich world way of life is, and leaving no doubt that we must move to radically dfferent lifestyles and systems. The reduction in resource use required is far greater than any plausible technical advance could achieve.  

It is obvious from these well known facts and figures that, as Gandhi said long ago,

THE RICH MUST LIVE MORE SIMPLY

SO THAT THE POOR MAY SIMPLY LIVE.

There is no possibility of the Third World rising to satisfactory living standards unless the rich countries stop hogging most of the resources and allow them to have a fair share.  This cannot be done unless we accept far lower per capita use, in stable economies…and changes like that are not possible in this economic system, or culture.

End of Set 3.

For Set 4.