But how “full” is Western Sydney?

Over at Troppo, Don Arthur has taken an invaluable look at stats on population growth, and decline, across Sydney.

His conclusion? Contrary to the established narrative, trumpeted for years by Bob Carr, Sydney is not “full”. Things are a lot more complex than the political predicates for the policy debate would have us believe.

And it’s not surprising there’s plenty of room in Campbelltown. Between 2001 and 2006 , the population of the Campbelltown LGA fell by 2.1% — a net loss of 3,019 people.

As the map below shows, many areas of Sydney experienced population decline between 2001 and 2006 (pdf). Some of the booming new suburbs of the 60s and 70s are slowly emptying out. While the children have grown up and moved on many of their parents have stayed behind. And when these empty nesters own their own home, there is little incentive to move. To pick just one example, between 2001 and 2006, Sutherland Shire added 2,494 new dwellings but failed to arrest the decline in population. With fewer people in each home, the number of residents fell by 1,015 (pdf).

You can see the same pattern in Brisbane. Suburbs once on the city’s fringes, with large houses built in the 60s and 70s, when the average number of kids was still above 2, are now inhabited largely by elderly residents. At the same time, houses are packed, by unscrupulous landlords, with international students and recent immigrants crammed into over-priced properties. Local shops have closed, and activity has retreated to huge shopping centres further out from or closer in to the city. Public transport is minimal, with a few shoppers’ buses wending their way through deserted streets a few times a day.

It’s these areas where the fear of crime, inspired by a populist and irresponsible media, really takes root.

Arthur observes:

In time, the new suburbs on the fringe will go into decline. But if travel to work times rise and petrol becomes more expensive, some may never undergo renewal. In the Atlantic Christopher Leinberger warned that America’s outer suburbs may become the new slums. There’s a risk that some of our new suburbs will too.

In truth, we’re reaping the rewards of decades of poor urban planning, exacerbated recently by the craven obeisance of state governments to the property development lobby.

There are no quick fixes, but we actually need to think about how we live in cities, and that may well entail giving up on the “wide open spaces” Julia Gillard invoked in the leaders’ debate last night.

Nothing in this campaign so far convinces me that a path to resolving problems of growth and decline in our urban footprint are really on the agenda.

The venue was the Hilton Hotel Grand Ballroom, and attendance was about 60% of capacity, that is roughly half the number of people who attended last time I was there, when it was packed to 120% of capacity for the launch of MySpace (remember MySpace? Neither do I…)

At any rate, I am pleased to report that the debate was indeed just that, a real debate, conducted civilly, in front of an attentive and polite crowd, and well moderated by Alan Jones.

It was neither the rabble-rousing denialist circus some feared it would be, nor an embarrassing excursion into Monckton’s many personal foibles. It was instead, a robust, articulate presentation and dissection of the factual content behind Monckton’s denialist propositions. Both speakers were modest, neither hyperbolic, and both approached the question in an open and non-dogmatic fashion.

In two fifteen-minute presentations, each speaker addressed the proposition that “manmade global warming is a real threat”. The substance of the debate hinged, I am happy to say, on a scientific question concerning the degree of climate sensitivity to differing concentrations of CO2. Namely, Monckton has independently calculated a level of climate sensitivity that is lower than the IPCC’s estimate, by a factor of approximately 7-8 times. Dr Lambert showed Monckton’s calculation to be based on a misunderstanding of data provided by a satellite scientist, one Professor Rachel Pinker (2007). Dr. Lambert also showed that Monckton’s thesis depends entirely on the climate sensitivity being a very low estimate, while the other denialist darling, Ian Plimer’s, thesis depends on climate sensitivity being a very high estimate. They cannot both be right, and perhaps both are wrong.

What followed was about 90 minutes of questions from the floor, which again was handled very calmly and coolly by all the proponents. Some of the questions were truly odd, and showed a very low level of understanding of science, and a very high level of paranoia and confusion among the (predominantly old and angry) audience members:

1. One gentleman attempted to suggest that, since a lot of the world’s carbon is in the oceans, it is water vapour evapourating from the oceans, and not fossil fuels, that is causing warming (what is causing all that extra evapouration, he didn’t say). Neither proponent had the heart to tell the gentleman that water vapour is made of, well, water, not CO2.
2. Another questioner thought that the 1976 international treaty banning weather-control devices (anyone heard of this?) showed that nations already had the technology to control the weather, so why aren’t they using it?
3. Another questioner said that our government is being totalitarian about environmental issues, and he lived under Soviet occupation in the former Czechoslovakia, so he should know.
4. Another questioner wanted to know whether Dr. Tim Lambert wanted to stop him from procreating with his wife (ewww).
5. Another questioner wanted to know if continental drift wasn’t the real driver of sea levels.

Contrary to many who worry about functions like this providing a platform for denialists, I think the debate generated far more light than heat (sic). It is a credit to the way both proponents, and the moderator, and indeed the audience, conducted themselves that it was a fruitful and enlightening discussion.

I think perhaps the most important thing that came out of the debate is that it takes a lot of wind out of denialist sails when they meet a real-life supporter of AGW science and realise that we are not trying to drag civilisation back to the stone age, prevent people from having babies, wreck the economy, keep the developing nations in poverty, or any of the other shibboleths that drive the denialist circus. As Tim Lambert explained to the audience, as a computer scientist, he is first and foremost an engineer, and it is an interesting and important engineering problem to work out how to get as many people as possible enjoying a high standard of living, without trashing the planet in the process. That’s all.

It’s also apparent that many denialists have a huge chip on their shoulder about, apparently, “totalitarian” attempts to shut them down or the “refusal” of the media to cover their activities. This despite the fact that they had a full public debate, in a prime CBD location, with media in attendance, moderated by a top-rating radio host. AFAIK, no brownshirts or greenshirts stormed the Hilton and stopped the debate. We all went out for coffee afterwards.

It never hurts to put a human face on one’s opponents, and this forum did exactly that. The denialist audience (and it was about 95% denialist) saw the human face of AGW science: people grappling with data, wrestling with hard questions, and not trying to take away their ability to fly in aeroplanes or have babies. For that reason, I think that today science and understanding were the winners, and so really, everybody won.

That’s so beautifully kiwi. The Brits may be obsessed with hierarchy and deference and publicly displaying their loyalty to the unelected scion of an undemocratic institution – but we have better things to do. Like enjoying ourselves in the sun. The British royal-watchers call this “a distinct pro-republican feeling”, but its more that we just don’t give a damn – the monarchy is simply utterly irrelevant to our lives. Though from a republican view, that irrelevance is a two-edged sword; not giving a damn also tends to mean not giving a damn about getting rid of them. Hence the slow drift to republicanism; no-one cares about them, but no-one cares enough to finally sign the paperwork to get them out of our lives either…

I think that holds true in this Antipodean Colony too.

Our pollies only seem to revive the spectre of Republicanism when there’s a bit of political advantage to be gained.

Kevin Rudd, though, does want to have a beer with Prince William.

The Daily Terror comments:

The hype surrounding his arrival is similar to that of his parents’ visit to Australia in 1983 when hordes of royal fans lined the streets to see Prince Charles and Diana.

Not so far as I can see. It seems, rather, that it’s just a photo op for Kristina Keneally. And maybe KRudd, if he can get himself, uninivited, onto the Prince’s dance card.

<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/2256617555_f87b2474d8.jpg"

Chinese New Year in Sydney.

Image courtesy of yewenyi at flickr licenced under Creative Commons.

Whatever else he did in his long career – as usual, the Wikipedia has more – it’s almost impossible to imagine Sydney without that building. Indeed, it’s almost impossible to imagine an Australia without it. It’s driven Melburnians mad for decades trying to find a similarly iconic building (a quest that has been thankfully abandoned).

Hopefully, the process of renovating the Opera House, which was proceeding with the cooperation of Utzon and his son, will result in a building whose interior – and acoustics – match its astonishing exterior. As a further memorial, perhaps state governments (and this seems to apply particularly to the NSW state government) can find a way to encourage better architecture, not just for icon buildings but across the board. Utzon, whose career also included work on low-cost housing in Denmark, would surely approve.