Chinese Whitewash

Agamedes wonders, What was it about Stern Hu that concerned the Australian government?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

From The West of Friday April 9 2010: Hu decides not to appeal to spare wife. In the story we are told that, "Last night's decision by the sacked Rio Tinto iron ore salesman [Stern Hu] not to appeal against his 10-year jail term closes one of the rockiest episodes in Australia-China relations."

First, Stern Hu has been sacked?! So Rio Tinto has written him off. Before the Chinese court found him guilty. So there were no complaints by Rio about the way that Hu did his job -- until he was caught. Then they threw him to the wolves.

Now Hu is in jail. For ten years. And this closes the matter for the Australian government!? Is Hu suddenly not an Australian citizen? Does our government suddenly believe that Hu's trial has changed from closed, predetermined, against all principles of justice, to... fine, if that's what the Chinese want to do...

If the trial was somehow "not right" while it was happening, how can it be anything other than "not right" now that it is over? What has changed? Not the trial, as far as we are told...

No. What has changed, is that the Chinese government has given Australian politicians free meals, free publicity and strong support for Australian-Chinese trade. In other words, the Australian government has been bought off.

And, by the looks of it, Hu's employer, Rio Tinto, is also quite happy to forget about possible failings of justice. Possibly because Rio, also, can be bought off with promises of better trade deals in the future.

Australian government supporting Australian citizens in China? rofl. Big business supporting its employees in China? lmao. Putting the individual before profits? No way.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Data Collection and Loss of Privacy

Agamedes wonders why nightclubs collect customers' personal data. It seems to be pointless and unnecessary.

When you enter a pub or nightclub, you may be asked to provide personal identification details. It would seem that this is done so that management may keep out the riff-raff, the troublemakers. The data may be held securely -- but it would be better if it were not held at all.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

According to The West Australian, there have been "Privacy fears raised over ID scanners" (1 April 2010). There is concern over "identification scanning methods used in many of Perth's pubs and nightclubs".

What data is collected?

One system scans a patron's ID card, takes a photo, records a fingerprint. Another system stores ID card, photograph, fingerprint, full name and date of birth. All of this data is stored. Most of it is both redundant and a very weak basis for identification.

A typical ID card will include photo and full name. It may also have date of birth, address and various other unique identifying details. A typical ID card is easily faked. If there is no photo, you can borrow a friend's ID card. If there is a photo, borrow from a friend who looks just a bit like you. If you have good contacts, you may be able to get the Israeli secret police to knock up a very good -- but fake -- passport.

If the nightclub believes that your ID card is real -- why do they also need an extra photo? Why do they need a fingerprint? Why do they need anything other than a scanned image of the ID card? If today's scan of your card matches the scan held on file -- then you are who you say you are.

Full name? Date of birth? Why does that need to be stored? "I am Jane Smith, born yesterday... are you saying that I'm a liar?!" The extra information adds nothing to the identification value of an ID card. Except, perhaps, to test your memory.

Then there's the fingerprint.

A fingerprint -- according to every police story for the last umpteen years -- is a unique identifier of every person. A fingerprint is attached to a hand which is attached to a person, so the fingerprint uniquely identifies the person. (Unattached hands are easily spotted.) A fingerprint is never forgotten, never accidentally left at home, never lent to a friend.

If you record and store a fingerprint -- there is no need to store any more personal information.

Store the fingerprint. That's all.

A patron arrives at a nightclub.

"Please put your finger here, so that we can scan your fingerprint," says the polite doorkeeper.

The finger is scanned. The fingerprint is recorded and, if that's the way the system works, encoded. The fingerprint is compared to all fingerprints recorded previously.

"I see that your fingerprint has never visited here before," says the polite doorkeeper. "Welcome to our establishment. Have a free drink voucher. Please enjoy yourself."

Or... "I see that your fingerprint has been banned from this establishment. Since you are inextricably attached to your fingerprint, both you and it are not allowed in. Have a nice day, and goodbye."

Or... "Welcome back to our fine establishment! Have a good evening!"

See how it works? All you need on record is the fingerprint. No need to record redundant, possibly fake, information such as ID card image, name, address... Just the fingerprint, with a note to say whether or not the owner of that fingerprint is welcome inside.

Underage? Banned?

Okay, there are other uses for an ID card.

There is a lower age limit for entry to licensed premises. The ID card "proves" that the card owner is old enough to enter. Once the age has been proven -- there is no further need for the card.

"I see that your fingerprint has never visited here before," says the polite doorkeeper. "May I see your proof of age? Thank you... I shall now record 'age is okay' against the fingerprint record. Welcome to our establishment. Have a free drink voucher. Please enjoy yourself."

And then, next time you visit, "Welcome back to our fine establishment! Have a good evening!"

Simple, isn't it!

Similarly, if the police ban a certain person from entering licensed premises, they send a copy of the fingerprint to all licensed premises. No need for the embarrassment of saying, This particular person is banned. If they want to keep quiet about it, they simply avoid licensed premises. No-one is the wiser.

There may be a dispute at the door. You're banned! No I'm not! ... Then ask for an ID card, phone the police, ask if that named person is really banned. Record the correct status (banned or not banned) against the fingerprint. End of story.

Simple, isn't it.

There is no need for privacy fears

There is no need to record personal identification information other than a fingerprint. The fingerprint is a unique, personal identifier -- with the additional benefit that it is, in fact, anonymous. Nightclub records contain an encoded fingerprint, a flag to indicate underage or not, a flag to indicate banned or not. No more, no less.

Steal a fingerprint record and you get -- almost nothing. This fingerprint is banned... Whose fingerprint is it? Don't know... can't tell.

No embarrassment. No loss of privacy. No fear of theft of personal details. No worries.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Populate and Perish

Agamedes considers "Big Australia" -- and shudders.

Why are politicians afraid to see uncontrolled population growth as a threat?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

A few weeks ago Paul Murray wrote in The West in support of agricultural development across the north of Australia. The prime minister of Australia happily announced that our population is set to grow enormously. Statisticians say that the population of Perth will more than double within forty years.

We all sit back, shake our heads sadly, and say, Oh deary deary me, how will we cope?

The question should be, How will we control rampant growth of population?

As population grows, lifestyle suffers. As people spread, the rest of the environment is destroyed. Still, as a senior Alcoa manager was rumoured to have said, "No-one actually visits a jarrah forest. Just give them a photo of a tree and chop it all down."

You may be able to guess: I'm in favour of ZPG, Zero Population Growth. Have been for years. With no expectation that it will ever happen.

So how should we cope with rampant population growth?

Where will we grow?

Today, Paul Murray looks at one view of "Big Australia" (Imagine all the people, The West Australian, 2 April 2010). It's a bland article, mostly about the failure to actually discuss population growth. The point of the article is neatly summarised near the end: "We need to talk about the size of Perth." A very good point.

Unfortunately, Murray ends with a clear bias. He accepts uncontrolled breeding and immigration. He just worries about where it will happen.

Back in February, Murray argued that we should develop agriculture across the north of Australia. Lack of data, he wrote, implies support for development. Okay, he was writing nonsense (see Conserve & Protect, or Develop & Destroy for my views on that article). I am worried that Murray can look at the disasters of Murray-Darling exploitation -- and suggest that we do the same in our north.

For today, I am worried about Murray's final words, under Imagine all the people: "And if we are irrevocably on a dramatic population growth trajectory," -- we are, but only because we are afraid to discuss the alternative -- "we need to talk about how to direct that growth to the regions."

Direct that growth to the regions?!

We are destroying the natural environment of Perth, as quickly as we can. We are growing fast enough to affect our lifestyle -- for better or for worse, depending on your viewpoint. Now, without solving any of Perth's problems -- Murray wants to give more of the same to the regions!

Here's a better thought

The population of Perth is growing. If we do nothing, the population of Perth will continue to grow, possibly beyond our capacity to maintain an adequate standard of living. This is a problem.

Let's solve -- or at least discuss -- this problem.

We need to discuss our view of the future of Perth. Will we accept dramatic population growth? If not, how will we curb population growth? Or, how will we cope, with double the current population of Perth? We need to discuss these issues. If we can solve the problems -- current and future -- so much the better.

Once we have solved the problems of a growing Perth population, then -- and only then -- will we be ready to pass those same problems on to regional centres.

First, learn to deal with population pressures where they already occur. Then apply our solutions to regional areas. Encourage regional growth -- if regions really want it -- and apply the solutions in advance. Find solutions first. Spread the problems around later. Spread the problems around, but only when we know that we can solve them.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Motelling for CHOGM: Problems Solved

Agamedes wonders if he has published this solution earlier. And offers apologies, just in case.

CHOGM is coming to Perth. Why? Surely there is a far better option... And here it is!

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

CHOGM -- the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting -- is coming to Perth. Why? Possibly because Perth is a friendly, safe place which welcomes visitors. Especially those with money to spend. More likely, because the Australian prime minister wanted to big-note himself by inviting all his powerful wanna-be friends back to his place. But didn't want to upset a Labor premier by dumping them with the huge costs and headaches of CHOGM.

Today (3 Apr 10) The West announces that Diedre Willmott has resigned from her job as coordinator of the CHOGM preparations. Not that the job is too hard (I'm sure that the pay is high enough for any free-loading political lackey), it's a conflict-of-interest issue.

So we're going to have a new person in charge of CHOGM organisation. Perhaps we could also have some new ideas?

Meanwhile, back at the coal-face...

Meanwhile, at WA's equivalent of the coal-face, iron ore miners have rejected an attempt to dehumanise their living conditions. By "miners" I mean the people who actually do the work at the iron ore mines. The workers, who fly in, work hard, then fly out again.

Several months ago, mine managers decided to implement "motelling". That is, the miners' accommodation -- supplied by the mine company -- would become a motel rather than a home. While working at the northwest mine site, a worker would stay in a donga. When they left, the donga would be available for another worker.

The effect of motelling on the miner is, that when they "fly out" -- fly away from the mine site -- the worker would need to clear out their donga and take all personal possessions with them. When the worker flies in again -- when they return to the mine site for another couple of weeks work on site -- they would bring essential clothes, etc, plus any personal items which they required for a comfortable life beyond work.

For the mine owners, motelling would allow each donga to be kept at full capacity. As soon as one worker left, another would move into that donga.

For the mine worker, motelling would mean that their life outside work would be completely depersonalised. How many workers would bring books, hobby material, sporting equipment with them, on each fly-in, every third week? For the workers, motelling would ensure that there was no life outside work. Eat, drink, sit, sleep. There is no life beyond work. We pay you to work. We own you, 24 hours of each day. You are workers, not humans.

Which brings another bonus for the mine owners. You want to organise a union? Let's see you bring papers, books, references, personal laptops... back and forward, every three weeks. Sooner or later you will forget something; your out-of-work efforts will become just that little bit harder. We can dehumanise the workers. We can disadvantage the union organisers.

Motelling has many advantages for the mine owners. The mine workers rejected motelling. Owners replied, But these dongas are great! We provide excellent accommodation! We just want to be able to re-use each donga rather than leave it empty for one week in three!

Is a Donga good enough for CHOGM?

Here is an obvious solution for the CHOGM organisers: run CHOGM at a northwest mine site.

• The CHOGM organisers are already planning on isolating areas of Perth. This will be done for "security". It will also keep the hoi-polloi from disturbing the partying of CHOGM delegates. Rather than creating chaos in Perth -- move CHOGM out to the bush.
  
• Book an entire mine-site for the duration of CHOGM. Book every donga for CHOGM accommodation. Use mine-site facilities for meals, meeting, and so on. In between CHOGM work (meals and meetings) the delegates can just sit around. Just like the miners: they're here for work, not to enjoy their personal time.
  
• For the duration of CHOGM, the mine-site stops work. It may even be possible to keep one or two shifts going -- depending on the work hours expected of CHOGM delegates. But it would be simpler to just close down the actual mine.
  
• Pay the mine owners for accommodation, plus compensation for lost production. The total cost (to CHOGM organisers) will still be less than the exhorbitant cost of "motelling" CHOGM delegates in every expensive hotel in Perth. Especially when the hotel owners realise that theirs is the only room left in town...
  
• Pay the mine-workers to stay at home. Tell them that they can think of it as a strike against motelling, but with no adverse impact on themselves nor on the mine owners.
  
• Dongas are excellent accommodation units. They must be, the mine managers tell us they are. I've stayed at a mine-site donga -- for one night, using it as a motel -- and it was fine. Clean, comfortable, compact. All that a CHOGM delegate would want, if they are really here to do some work.
  
• Food can be provided by the mine-site mess. You can bet that the food would be good. (Have you ever seen a malnourished miner?) The mess is set up to feed hundreds of hungry workers -- exactly right for CHOGM.
  
• Security will be simple: a roadblock on the one road in and a sniffer dog at the local airport. There may even be a fence around the whole site. There will be no risk of delegates putting themselves at risk by disappearing amongst the crowds of partying locals -- all the "locals" will have been flown home.
  
• No worries about CHOGM delegates disappearing from meetings, to turn up as "political refugees" seeking asylum in Australia. If they try to slip away from a mine-site in the northwest... where will they go?!
  
• We may even be able to reduce the number of non-essential CHOGM attendees... How many sycophantic political hopefuls will follow their masters to a mine-site in the middle of nowhere? This is a Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Invite the Heads of government and hope that the hangers-on stay home.
  
• Journalists, of course, will be welcome to stay at spare dongas. Those who really believe that CHOGM deserves full-time coverage...
  
• Protesters can stay wherever they like. They can even protest on site -- if they can get past the road block and the sniffer dog. Though they will have to bring their own tents and supplies.
  
• End CHOGM with a survey of delegates: Is motelling an effective way to organise a week's work? Did delegates feel that they were restricted by the one-small-kitbag limit to luggage? Did they appreciate the environment of work, work work?
  

Motelling? We will have an independent survey of its effectiveness. CHOGM? Over and done with, with minimum disturbance to the people who want to live, work and play in Perth.

Problems? Solved! No worries.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

The Role of our Political Masters

The Minister takes full responsibility for the Agency... Agamedes wonders if this is a serious mis-use of the potential abilities of a politician.

What is the true -- or best-value-for-money -- role for a political minister? With the recent stuff-up of insulation installations there were calls to sack the minister. With the blow-out of Perth Arena project costs, there are calls to direct blame at the minister. Who should really be made to carry the can for failed government projects?

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In Saturday's West (20 Mar 2010), Zoltan Kovacs continues the theme of blaming political ministers for the failings of their agencies:

"However, there is a powerful argument that if there were significant failings in the department, these were also the failings of any minister whose job it was to supervise it on behalf of the people. Otherwise, what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?" (The peril of the buck that will never stop anywhere, The West, 20 Mar 2010)

At first glance, that makes sense. The minister runs the department, the department stuffs up, the minister should have prevented the stuff-up. But is that right?

Politicians -- including ministers -- come and go. They are not selected for their managerial ability, nor even for their knowledge of an agency's area of responsibility. A politician is elected as an indication of support for the policies of a political party. A politician may then be selected to be a minister but the selection pool contains only politicians -- none of whom have been elected on the basis of their ability to manage an agency.

How can we expect a politician to have the ability to manage a government department?!

A politician represents a party which has, or makes, policies. A minister has a department which is managed by career public servants. The minister should set policies and leave departmental management to the paid public servants. If departmental management -- or project management -- is stuffed up -- it is the public service management team which should carry the can.

Of course, that doesn't really work...

A minister sets policy; public servants implement policy. Public service promotion should be based on ability... If a departmental employee stuffs up then the public service promotion process is at fault.

Yet when the minister interferes in the public service selection process -- by parachuting in their own political ally -- the minister is taking responsibility for the work of that ally. If the ministerially-appointed ally stuffs up, the minister is to blame. If a minister appoints an incompetent project manager then that minister should wear the blame.

The minister also has power. A departmental head may upset a minister; that minister may force a change. Is that true? After all -- we've all watched Yes, Minister and seen the public service ignore the minister... We also all know, that mud sticks. If you disagree with the minister, you will lose favour with all of your boot-licking fellow workers. More importantly, your disagreement will be noticed -- and remembered -- by managers. You will be identified as "an independent thinker", " a trouble-maker". Your promotional prospects will be reduced.

It is in the interests of every public servant, to be seen to agree with the minister.

With that sort of boot-licking mentality -- perhaps reinforced by an ignorant and short-tempered minister -- no-one wants to disagree. No-one wants to be the bearer of bad news. Worse yet: no-one wants to be associated with a "bad" decision.

If you are asked to make one hundred decisions, the odds are that at least one will lead to negative consequences. It is best to make no decisions at all. Pass all decisions to someone else. The easiest direction for decisions is up.If the public service wishes to protect all of its members -- every decision must be made by a minister.

So who is to blame for a bad decision? "Definitely not me..." "Not me..." "Not me, either." "My manager..." "My manager's manager..." "The minister agreed..." Aha! The minister "agreed".

Amongst the hundreds of decisions passed up to the minister, the minister failed to see what no-one else will admit to having seen, that this one particular decision could lead to a stuff-up. So sack the minister!

Here's a better answer

Be clear on the relative responsibilities of the minister and the public service. If there were "significant failings" in the department -- talk to the head of that department. Talk to the CEO. That person was selected for their alleged ability to manage a department. If they are incapable -- sack them.

The minister has been elected to implement government policy. Let's look at an example:

The government policy is, to pay for houses to be insulated. (Policy? Tactic? Decision? Wish? Whatever...) This is what the minister says must be done: Pay to have houses insulated.

The role of the public service is, to make it happen. Is it not possible? Say so -- and explain why not. Too expensive? The minister may say, have some more money. Too expensive? The minister may say, restrict the number of houses. Too expensive? The minister may say, okay, don't do it.

If the minister is a total fool, they may simply say, Do it anyway. In which case, yes, the minister is responsible for subsequent stuff-ups.

In a competent world, the minister will set the direction. The public service will suggest limits and caveats. The minister will select a preferred compromise. After that, the public service will make it happen.

Should we expect the minister to say, Don't kill anyone? That should go without saying. Do we expect the minister to specifically say, Only pay people who have actually installed insulation? No, that should go without saying. Must the minister state clearly, in writing, Spend no more than the money that is allocated? Again, that goes without saying.

If the department has no person who understands the points which go without saying -- then they are not competent to manage the project. So hire someone! If a public service manager cannot recognise the limitations of their staff -- then employ more competent public service managers.

Employ public servants to do things. And let the minister take care of the policy.

What is the extent of the minister's authority?

Zoltan Kovacs writes, "what is the point of having a minister with overriding authority?"

If the minister does have "overriding authority" -- does that mean that they can hire and fire, promote and demote? Those are the basic rewards and punishments available to a manager. If the minister can hire & fire, promote & demote -- then the only safe option for a public servant is to agree with the minister. Who will then have no time for "policy".

We must maintain the "independence" of the public service -- separate the powers of the minister and the public service. Allow the minister to set broad directions. Expect the public service to perform, competently.

If the policy is wrong -- blame the minister. If the implementation is wrong -- blame the public service.

A minister is elected on the basis of stated party policies. If the policy is wrong -- change the government at the next election. A public servant is selected on the basis of perceived competency. If the perception is wrong -- remove the incompetent public servant.

Give the minister authority to set policy. Give the public service authority to implement projects to support that policy.

Separate the authority, responsibility and duties. And when it all goes horribly wrong -- point the finger at the correct person.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

Who is Really at Risk?

Pacemaker woman banned from boxing ring: Agamedes wonders, Who is really being protected?

Under the headline, Woman boxer banned again, today's West (13 Mar 10) notes that Elisha Buckley has again been banned from competing in boxing trials. Buckley is a champion woman boxer -- with a pacemaker.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

An "independent cardiologist" has said that it is safe for Buckley to compete, to fight against other women in trials for a world amateur boxing championship. So why has AIBA, the Amateur International Boxing Association, reinstated the ban?

I don't really know much about pacemakers but I can read. So I went to that great source of all knowledge -- good and bad -- the internet. Just a quick scan of the first few Google hits on "pacemaker lifestyle impact risk".

For some reason, doctors seem to be concerned about infection... Oh, okay, that may be because the body is cut open to install the pacemaker. And cutting open a body leads to the chance of infection. Heart rate... battery life... aha: lifestyle. This seems to sum it up: "Pacemaker patients can even participate in more strenuous activities such as marathons or scuba diving after consultation with their cardiologists. Any activity restrictions usually result from other medical problems and not from the pacemaker." (Wood & Ellenbogen (*), 2002)

Okay, that's an old (2002) article. But it's the first that I found that covers what I'm interested in: the risk of physical impact on the heart.

Again from Wood & Ellenbogen: "There are some situations, however, that are to be avoided if you have a pacemaker, such as full-contact sports, which may damage the pacemaker." Boxing may not be a "full contact" sport -- but the aim of boxing is to make heavy contact of your fist against your opponent's body. The chest -- containing the heart and the pacemaker -- must be a prime target.

So who is at risk?

Elisha Buckley may want to put herself at risk, to put herself into a situation where an opponent will try to hit her as hard as possible. Buckley is fully entitled to put herself at risk. A cardiologist has evaluated the risk and -- we must assume -- stated that the risk of damage to the pacemaker is low.

What about the opponent? Put yourself in the place of the next person to box against Buckley:

Your opponent is known to have a pacemaker. You can visualise exactly where that pacemaker is hidden. Do you deliberately aim for that pacemaker because it is a point of potential weakness? If you want to win -- of course you do.

Or do you -- as a considerate human being -- avoid punching directly onto the pacemaker? Do you avoid that area of potential weakness -- and set yourself up for losing? Or, can you possibly pretend that you do not know about the pacemaker, and fight your normal fight? No way! You either fight to win, or fight to lose. If you want to win, you learn everything you can about your opponent. Then you avoid strengths -- and attack at points of weakness.

On the other hand... Perhaps that pacemaker really is a point of weakness... Perhaps a severe impact may cause it to fail... and the results could be fatal.

Imagine this: You aim punches at the chest. You know that there is a pacemaker. You bypass Buckley's defence and score a major hit -- right over the pacemaker. The force of your punch moves the pacemaker, it stops working, Buckley is rushed to hospital.

Do you feel really bad? Of course you do. But you fought to win, and won.

Will Buckley's lawyers say, oh well, not your fault, just send flowers and we'll forget the whole thing... Oh, sure, like that'll happen!

Buckley is entitled to take any risk that she likes. (No strictly true. After all, we do live in a nanny state. But true enough.) Buckley may accept risk for herself -- but she is not entitled to change the sport, nor to bring extra risk to others.

By bringing a potential handicap to the sport, Buckley would affect other fighters. Do they hit hard at what they hope is a weakness? Or do they weaken their own chances, by avoiding the risk. Either way, Buckley will change the sport.

It's unfortunate that she needs a pacemaker. The pacemaker does not entitle Buckley to make the sport more risky for other boxers.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com

(*) Wood & Ellenbogen, 2002: Cardiac Pacemakers From the Patient’s Perspective, by Mark A Wood MD & Kenneth A Ellenbogen MD, Circulation, American Heart Association, at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/105/18/2136 as at March 2010

Perth Population Policy: Populate and Perish!

Perth rushes rapidly towards a future full of people and cars. Agamedes does his best to support this growth.

Today, I saved my six buckets of water. As requested by Water Corporation, I did my best. Perth is perpetually short of water. I helped to protect our way of life and to protect our state's future, by saving six buckets of water.

Well, not so much "save". But I did recycle six buckets of grey water.

Do you need new -- lateral -- thinking for your own problems? email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now.

In today's paper there is an article headed, "Perth in 2050: full of people and cars" (The West, 5 Mar 2010). Our population "will more than double" by the year 2050. Even before that, by 2020, "Cost of traffic congestion in Perth is tipped to increase 65%". That's just ten years from now.

And in the here and now, "Perth residents are the worst in the country when it comes to cutting their water use". Oh dear. What can I do to save water?

The washing machine was running. I pulled the wastewater hose from its drain and let the "grey" wastewater fill the laundry tub. I poured the grey water onto fruit trees around the garden.

I know that six buckets of water were involved. I used a bucket to shift it all from the tub to the garden. Look at all the water that I saved!

But...

All I did was to water the garden with grey water.

For several years, our small number of fruit trees have struggled. We water only on allowed days, for just 20 minutes per reticulation station. The vegetable garden is a lost cause -- no vegetable can survive our summer heat on that small amount of water. Our fruit trees struggled -- less fruit and what there was was dry.

Having used grey water on the garden -- water which would otherwise have run down the drain -- will I reduce the regular reticulation of the garden? No way! That grey water was a bonus. I will do it again, whenever I have the time.

How to really save water

Due to Perth's perpetual water shortage, our garden has suffered. I like to have a green and growing garden.

Apparently, "Perth is the quarter acre block capital of the country, with the lowest proportion of units and apartments". Perhaps the majority of Perth residents would enjoy a green and growing garden...

For whatever reason, people use water.

More people, more water used.

If we want to really "save" water -- reduce the population.

"Perth's population will more than double..." Will more than double? Do we have no choice in that? If we want to save water -- we could constrain population growth.

If we do nothing -- Perth's population will more than double. If we do not want that -- with all the traffic congestion, water shortages, etc, etc that population growth brings -- what can we do to control our population growth?

Sure, I could live in a dust-bowl. I don't really need to wash. The car... well... I'm already saving water by not washing the car.

But if we want to maintain our standard of living -- it's time to do something. Control of rampant population growth is a place to start. It's not easy.

If we do nothing -- if we just accept that population growth is unstoppable -- then we have already lost. Lost our living space. Lost our cheap water. Lost our standard of living.

All we will have, will be a huge polluting population, living cheek by jowl -- unwashed -- in a concrete environment. If we can still afford the concrete.

It's our choice. And it is a choice.

Independent thinking & independent analysis of your problems by Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com