The basic premises of this paper are that:

[i] Ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is unattainable without some major means of adjusting resource use to the productive capacity of the planet;

[ii] In circumstances of free capitalistic trade between nations, there will always be a tendency to compete by sacrificing environmental standards and cutting down on the costs of labour;

[iii] Care for natural resources will be greatest where resource use is undertaken by those who depend upon them for survival and well being. When communities are solely dependent upon their own resources, the destructive pressures of demand by distant resource users will be eliminated.

Environmentalists have traditionally tried to prevent the degradation of the environment in their country by means of policies designed to determine what needs to be kept. At their most sophisticated level, an attempt is made to define general standards and to have these integrated into government policy and legislation. Other measures favored by environmentalists include the internalising of the full environmental costs into prices and

educational work designed to show the benefits of retaining various environmental attributes. Efforts to deal with the causes of adverse demands and pressures on the environment has mainly been of a hortatory nature, with the emphasis being placed on change in consumption and lifestyle.

Such approaches do not work if there are features in economic philosophy and policy which are inherently degrading by nature. For instance, the internalising of external costs will not work if a government gives highest priority to export success since the policy simply prices the commodities out of the market. Similarly, natural resource accounting is a very useful educational tool (showing the depletionary effects of policy) but it is likely to be little more than that if a country is committed to competing successfully on the international market.

This is not to say that these measures are not useful but rather that they are of limited value without a fundamental change in policy concerning the economic system. They will be of greatest value when the system is not inherently resource depleting.

Neither the fundamental capitalist nature of the economy nor the policy of unrestricted international trade favored by Australia and other nations has been challenged by environmentalists.

Environmental groups do generally recognise that the national approach to standard setting is inadequate. They believe that there is a need to extend the concept of national environmental standards to the world stage. They argue for global uniform standards and their implementation by means of treaties. The prime efforts to discuss a comprehensive international effort has been at the Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992) conferences.

Theoretically, this approach could be used to prevent countries from competing at the expense of their environments and communities. However, such methods

could not be made effective without world government and stringent enforcement and even then there are problems.

There are several difficulties with relying entirely on the standards approach. First, it would probably be decades before world government and comprehensive environmental regulations could be secured and by then much further damage would have been done. Second, regulation on an international level still removes the control of resources from citizens living in the country where they occur - those with the greatest stake in their care. From their point of view, world government is probably not a good idea. There is also doubt about the quality of the standards which can be set at this global level.

Work for uniform international environmental standards must go on but the more serious problem of the effects of a competitive regime operating globally must be tackled.

Conservation, whilst it provides sustainability and stability does transfer potentially exploitable resources in the direction of the future and therefore can provide a short term handicap for a nation competing in a cut-throat international trade situation. If two competing nations are more or less evenly matched in terms of ability to produce a product at a particular price (that is, in terms of the combination of factors affecting the price - quality of resources, labour costs, efficiency of infrastructure etc) there will be an inevitable tendency to try to undercut the price by lowering environmental standards and lowering labour costs. In other words, with regard to these two factors relating to price (degree of environmental regulation and labour costs), competition will tend to operate at the level of the lowest common denominator.

Evidence of this is not difficult to find. In Australia today we see virtually all governments supporting lowering of wages so that industries can compete overseas more effectively and we see industry continually opposing any environmental regulation which seriously affects

their activities and lobbying strongly for a lowering of standards. How effective this lobbying against proposed new controls is difficult to measure, but it is obvious that Australia could have had much higher environmental standards by the early 1990s if these forces had not operated so strongly over the last twenty years.

The most dangerous time is now. Although present world trade is still subject to restrictions resulting from the continued existence of protective tariffs in many countries and special trade arrangements between neighbouring countries, the world is moving towards a situation of total freedom for market forces. These efforts are focussed on the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which, being premised on the superior value of the market as a resource allocator, is working for maximum free trade.

A clear indication of the attitude of GATT towards environmental regulation is given by the associated Multilateral Trading Organisation which removes the right of any country to use sanctions against another for environmental reasons. Sanctions for other reasons such as human rights and politics are not affected, a telling fact! Any environmental restriction whatsoever (international or domestic) goes right against the free market thrust of the philosophy embodied in GATT.

The most sure way of tackling the problem is to replace international free trade with universally applied national self-sufficiency. National self-sufficiency means that resources of a community are used only by those living in it and a community lives only on those resources. There are no outside demands and no pressures to sacrifice the environment and workers' living standards to gain an advantage in trade.

There would, of course, still be internal demands and pressures but these would be smaller. Of even greater importance for the control of degradation is that people who live in a country and directly depend upon its resources have a greater stake in their care for their

own use and for their descendants than do foreigners. In relation to this principle, the elimination of foreign ownership is an important complementary objective.

With national self-sufficiency capitalist endeavours would continue within each nation and there would still be a tendency for regions to compete in a manner similar to that presently operating at the international level unless there is a complementary development of bio-regionalism.

Clearly though, the means for the control of resource depletion, unlike the situation internationally, already exists in Australia. There are weaknesses at the Federal level, but this is an obstacle that is capable of being overcome.

National self-sufficiency is an economic system in which the people of a country live on that country's resources without imports or exports. It is advocated here on the basis that this confers important environmental benefits. Since it is care of resources which is at the heart of the matter, what is recommended is not a total form of self-sufficiency. Exceptions are made for the exchange of ideas, communication, technology, expertise and experience (through travel). A crucial factor in the eventual success of this approach is that it be used world-wide, with Australia acting as the pioneer. The extent to which self-sufficiency will be practiced at any one time, or in any one country, will be determined by the people of that country but obviously the concept will not secure its objectives if it is not applied to natural resources and goods manufactured from them and if a country (in the long term) continues to rely upon resources from outside its boundaries (imports). Most services would also be covered by national self-sufficiency controls.

What is proposed here for Australia is ultimate total reliance on local natural resources and goods for all needs other than those specifically mentioned above.

Most territorial boundaries are not ecologically sound in that many do not contain a sufficiently wide range of resources to meet the needs of the existing population. The present populations in numbers and distribution in most countries are the result of past and present engagement in international trade. In some of the exporting countries populations are lower than they might otherwise have been and concentrated near ports. The major problem relates to the relatively high populations of manufacturing nations such as England and Japan which are based on commodity imports from distant countries.

The main adjustments which will be needed are to national boundaries to ensure availability of a range of resources and to populations, adjusting (downwards usually) to a smaller resource base. Achievement of sound ecological boundaries will usually be possible through regional economic and/or political unions.

Australia has environmentally sound boundaries and a relatively favourable population - resource ratio although the case for economic union with New Zealand and Papua New Guinea is worth close examination. This situation is the result of the export-orientation of this economy over the most of the last 200 years, as is the degraded state of its environment.

Because of these factors it is in a good position to be an international pioneer of national self-sufficiency.

Globally, such a change might take 20 to 50 years. It is envisaged that whenever national self-sufficiency becomes an avowed goal, it will be introduced slowly. Therefore there will be a transition phase during which the approach will be only partially applied.

Whilst self-sufficiency is proposed only as a means to an

end of ESD, there might be situations during the transition phase of introduction in some countries where it conflicts temporarily with this objective. This would apply where the existing reliance on a support base of imports or exports is withdrawn too rapidly. An example would be the disruption to a workforce which would occur if its industry was no longer viable as a result of the sudden withdrawal of either the raw materials used for manufacture or the income from exports. In such instances, the overriding objectives of ESD (including social justice) must be paramount and self-sufficiency applied gradually and with due warning allowing adjustment measures to be applied (this includes consideration of alternative sources of raw materials for use by manufacturing countries).

In the long run, because of the benefits, there should be no exceptions to the ban on resource and manufactured goods traded internationally. It is suggested that some items now traded would be beyond the means of production of a country such as Australia. The items most frequently cited are large aircraft and certain medical equipment. These may be examples of the kinds of exceptions mentioned above but it would be against the principle of self-sufficiency for such exceptions to be made without careful adjustment and assessment.

Tourism in the form of visitors from overseas is usually regarded as an export industry. In terms of its educational effect it has the potential to contribute to ESD. In my view, international tourism and long term exchanges should be encouraged.

Whilst there are still many variants virtually all national economies are moving towards a policy of involvement in an international trading system in which market forces have total freedom of operation. Countries are at different stages of liberalisation of their trade,

the most obvious differences relating to the slow conversion of the former eastern bloc countries and the protection of the agricultural sectors of France and the United States.

Australia has been removing protection of its industries for the last 20 years. Initially, the aim was to overcome a current account surplus but over the last decade the policy has been persisted with in spite of adverse effects on the agriculture and minerals sectors caused by a downturn in commodity prices on the world market and the effects of imports on the domestic manufacturing industry.

The theoretical underpinnings, sometimes referred to as 'economic rationalism' represents a basic faith in the market as a means of allocating resources and meeting human needs (see footnote). The policy also reflects a view that Australia can do best through success as an exporter of materials (either raw or with value added) and that Australian prosperity in the long run hinges on this.

The elements who benefits most from exports also have political influence beyond their numbers. They are relatively well organised and benefit from the lack of any clear exposition of an alternative view by the elements (mainly urban intellectuals) which have the potential to mount a challenge.

The benefits of free trade are said to result from allowing the operation of the principle of 'comparative advantage'. At first sight these are benefits from this approach in terms of efficiency in resource use and hence conservation since comparative advantage refers to the fact that certain places and countries can produce goods more efficiently (and more cheaply because of such factors as better soils, climate, higher grades of mineral etc). In the case of processing this includes such factors as energy availability, water supply, labour supply, supply of investment capital, research and development capability and economies of scale relating to

the domestic market.

Such an approach leads to division of labour, specialisation in production, monocultures and pressure for growth in the number of consumers. As already mentioned proponents of this laissez faire approach also resist environmental regulation which would otherwise restrict and distort its full operation.

Australia has long felt that its winning assets are its primary industries. However, until recently, the terms of trade for these exports were such that there was no feeling that its manufacturing had to be exposed to competition from imports. Now, the aim is to concentrate more on the traditional exports with value added if possible, and on the export of selected 'niche' manufactured goods.

Growth is sought for these more specialised industries and also on the grounds that it is necessary to limit unemployment caused by the destruction of manufacturing industries and the reduced employment in government services.

In the long run, involvement in exporting requires involvement in importing to balance the books so that in this sense the home manufacturing industry is seen as a necessary sacrifice for the priority given to exports. Also, some imports, such as imported mining equipment at prices cheaper than the home product, are seen as benefits from the import side of the equation.

Entering into the full spirit of the international trading system approach, both of Australia's major political parties are seen as being committed to the removal of protection over a relatively short time span, regardless of the poor prices received for our commodities, the burgeoning foreign debt and the increasing control of the country by foreign owners.

The price in terms of the community is seen in the demise of the manufacturing industry, in the high rates of

unemployment and in the decline in the quality of the health, education and transport systems.

The impact on the physical environment is hard to gauge because of the lack of assessment of the relationship between the evident decline and economic policy. It seems possible that the recession of the last 2-3 years has removed some of the pressure otherwise exerted by the mining, agriculture and forestry sectors. However, as resources such as native timber have been run down the 'relief' felt from such recessions has diminished.

One of the obvious features of our present economic system is that it is cyclical. The causes of the cycle are not known but through international trade they are felt worldwide regardless of natural cycles (such as drought and natural disasters) which affect individual parts of the Earth. In this 'boom and bust' type of economy, pressure on the economy has generally been greater during the boom periods and human suffering greatest in the bust periods. Some argue that there is more income to cope with both during boom periods. Their frequent fluctuations create instability and a lack of certainty. The global scale of the problem makes planning at the national level very difficult.

Major features of this economic system are the way the 'open' market results in resources being exploited to meet the needs of distant (and often larger) populations and the flood of imports destroying local industries and the related employment. Such difficulties would seem to be temporary, requiring only adjustment until the next 'boom' and so there is tolerance of them. What is ignored though is the comparison between the conditions of the environment and society in the two types of economy (protected versus free trade).

The most serious disadvantages of subjugation of economic policy to the world-wide competitive regime are the loss of independence and the lowering of environmental and social justice standards as the lowest common denominator effect takes hold.

In the present system, the fate of each nation is linked to the fate of the system as a whole. But the adverse effects are not only related to the common experience of 'boom and bust'. More serious is the trend of universal resource depletion and degradation. Whilst the danger signs are evident in environmental statistics, the fact that there is still in most places natural capital to use up insulates the system from many of its immediate consequences. Except with some resources, which have been virtually eliminated outside of conservation reserves (e.g. old growth forests in Australia) these effects are felt foremost by the poorer people and particularly people in poor countries who have no power or influence. The rich members of the political and industrial elite who generally have a vested interest in exploitation are little affected. There is no-one to speak for those who lose from this process (e.g. the native inhabitants of rainforests and the as yet unborn), except for conservation groups, often from another country. International conservation efforts based more on the notion that it is global capital that is being lost than concern for displaced inhabitants, have so far had little effect on the larger problems of soil erosion, desertification and loss of rainforest.

Associated with all these trends are other cultural factors which are clearly evident in Australia at the present time. Advocacy for the free market economy includes the development of a reinforcing language, with key phrases such as "world best practice" and "international competitiveness", "structural adjustment", "downsizing" and "deregulation". At attempt is also made to change fundamental perceptions on geography as in the assertion that "Australia is part of Asia". Another part of the mythology being created to support the move is the claim that Australian manufacturing industry is inefficient and that therefore competition from cheap imports is necessary to make it more inefficient. Trade union organisations closely allied with the ruling Labor party support this myth regardless of the implications for Australian workers and with no apparent concern for the near slave-labour conditions and environmental rip offs which help to make some of the import prices so cheap.

Deregulation, introduced because of a desire to go all the way with the theory of economic rationalism and with a hope that investment will help Australian industry, simply works to deliver more of Australia into foreign ownership and to upset the financial stability of the country. The latter then becomes a convenient excuse for much of the country's woes. The problem is seen only in terms of adjustment. Much attention, for instance, is paid to dealing with the human disruption caused by the introduction of these policies by means of social welfare programs. Some assistance is given to education in an attempt to limit the statistical evidence of unemployment and training programs are conducted even though both the trainers and the trainees know that with the continuation of the present economic regime the jobs for which people are being trained will not exist. Such a sub-culture of hope is hard to maintain.

The sum effect of internationalisation on the mental state of Australians is something akin to living in a colony. There are strong feelings of dependence or, at best, interdependence. Cultural and economic independence is being systematically diminished. While the terms of trade for our chosen industries remain poor the call is to try harder and to cut costs further. Export success is the only significant aim and the dollar result at the bottom of the line the only yardstick. Pride in doing a job well and in the quality of the product is seen as nothing if it does not enable successful competition with imports.

Perhaps, Australians were preconditioned for the present all out move towards near total immersion in the international free market by their recent colonial past and by longstanding experience of an export dominated economy. If so, this may explain what would otherwise be a remarkable product of culture - the absence of any opposition. By the 1993 federal election, despite near record levels of unemployment, no party had emerged to offer an alternative to the basic world free market based economy. On tariff cuts, the only basic differences concerned the speed at which protection was to be removed. The major issues were concern about a new tax and the extent of the safety net (e.g. fate of Medicare). A frightened electorate was in no mood to lift its eyes and consider the larger issue of fundamental economic policy options.

The failure of a countervailing force to develop could indicate that people are either satisfied with the wisdom of what is proposed or believe the rhetoric that there is no practical alternative. There seems little doubt that a large number of Australians feel helpless and demoralised. Until they have had the change to examine the options it is, however, not reasonable to conclude that they prefer what they are getting.

The greater the pace of Australia's charge to full commitment to international free trade, the greater the need for an alternative viewpoint. The threat that the current move poses for our independence and biological and cultural diversity are sufficient reasons to justify the discussion of an alternative.

The starting point for the development of a different approach is the phenomena so crucial in natural systems of organisms living within the capacity of the habitat to support life on a continuing basis. Natural self sufficiency is a policy which emulates this relationship. By limiting consumption to the long term potential for sustainable use of a given natural unit, the otherwise difficult to control and inherently destructive pressure of international trade can be eliminated.

The possibilities of the population of a given area ignoring the interests of future generations will still be there, but this will be less likely because of the greater stake which nations have in conservation compared with people who do not live there. This, of course, assumes that the national unit is large and diverse enough to have the resilience necessary to cope with natural fluctuations.

In a self-sufficiency regime, ESD will be more achievable. Consumption can be adjusted to levels which are sustainable in the long term. Resource availability and land capability will determine use.

In the self-sufficient economy, since all of the goods and services consumed would be made by Australians, there would be a much greater diversity of industry, a greater range of employment categories and a greater total labour force (with Australian workers replacing the foreign workers now producing the goods which are imported). With the greater range of employment opportunities and choices, there is every likelihood that job satisfaction would increase. Efficiency in production would come from consumption within Australia and from a renewed sense of pride in working. Efficiency will also be increased as a result of improved economies of scale related to increased market size following the elimination of imports.

An economy based on self-sufficiency would mean that the Australian people would be economically and politically independent. Foreign ownership would also need to be eliminated and when this is done, Australians would be in charge of their own destiny; being in control rather than being prisoners of a system over which they exerted little or no control. They, and the resources of the country would not be at the mercy of people, corporations and governments located overseas. In this situation they would also be better able to seek social justice and equity including the redistribution of wealth and the elimination of poverty.

Self-sufficiency could not be introduced into Australia in any period under a decade. The methodology of phasing in this new economic approach once it was agreed to could be as follows:

Australia is probably capable of producing from its own resources and with the ingenuity and creativity of its own people all the goods and services it needs. This includes specialised electronic, medical and printing equipment and aircraft. Imports could be phased out systematically using quotas combined with an assessment system which examines the cap ability for replacement of each item and the impact in terms of the effect on the achievement of self-sufficiency and ESD locally and the effect on ESD (including social justice) in the country of origin of the import to be replaced. One way of doing this would be to give each present import a quota and gradually reduce the quota to zero as Australian industry systematically gears up to make the substitution. Some imported goods (including for instance some types of fruit) could be given zero quotas almost immediately.

Whilst it is evident that the reduction of dependence on exports will benefit most countries, especially where it is related to monocultures, destruction of environment and bad working conditions, the taking into account of any adverse effects on the nation producing goods for Australia is important. Consideration of this factor might lead to either a slowing down of the otherwise selected rate for substitution or, in some cases (e.g. rainforest timbers) a speeding up.

Australia will need to be involved with exporting for many years to come. This is because many countries have very unbalanced economies, highly damaged environments and poverty stricken communities. A review of all Australian exports in terms of their impact is required. Following this some items can be either reduced or in certain circumstances increased in volume. Increase is more likely to result from the destination of the exports being changed in relation to the objectives of ESD. A 'favoured nation' system could be introduced to facilitate the reduction of exports.

With the purchase of imports being systematically phased out the price of exports can truly reflect the costs of transportation and production (including research and development and provision of infrastructure and training). The resulting income can be used first to eliminate the trade deficit and eliminate foreign ownership and then for the purpose of increasing other kinds of overseas aid. Eventually, exports can be phased out by a similar quota and assessment system as that used for phasing out imports.

Naturally, such a fundamentally different approach to economic policy if it is considered at all leads to many questions and comments. Some result from belief that the deficiencies of the present system can be overcome by other means, such as international controls, others reflect a lack of understanding of how national self-sufficiency could work. The following are some comments on the main points raised so far.

As mentioned above, GATT is the main vehicle of agreement for smoothing the course of full scale introduction of total freedom for market forces operating internationally. In the regime which it endeavours to protect any restriction to trade is considered unwarranted. The move to self-sufficiency by a country such as Australia so capable of making it work would be strongly resisted by GATT and by the key industrial nations which benefit most from its operation. Environmental restrictions have already been targeted for elimination. Trade sanctions would almost certainly be threatened. But since Australia does not itself in the long run require either imports or exports, such embargoes need have little impact. There are few important imports which it could do without even in the immediate future.

With an internally strong economy Australia would not need income from exports which would be available at reduced cost and increasingly made available as virtual aid. The poorer countries most in need of these would be unlikely to refuse them against their own self interest. They would however be vulnerable to manipulation by the most powerful nations and overseas companies.

The most commonly made point is that reliance on Australian made products would mean that the consumer would have to pay more and therefore the standard of living of Australians would suffer. This opinion is related to the present situation in which imports are frequently cheaper and is unidimensional in ignoring the costs of the cheapness which in the long term affect people wherever they live. However, the still greater obstacle is a failure to understand that the basis of comparison and the whole framework for judging price would change.

What would appear to be lost to Australian consumers would be the price advantages of certain goods which could otherwise be imported where, for reasons relating to the richness of the resource (e.g. a grade of minerals) plus the economies of scale relative to producing for a larger market, there would be no Australian product which could be produced as cheaply. With the exclusion of imports into Australia, this comparison could be no longer made. It would be the most efficiently produced Australian product which would be cheapest. Other factors such as wages and expectations would change and the benefits of ecologically sustainable development would flow through to all aspects of life including prices in the long term. Environmental and social welfare standards would be higher than in the world free market economy.

Returning to the present price comparison with imports, the costs often include the exploitation of environments and people so that the present advantages of imports is often an illusion in every way except for the dollar price tag.

It is frequently said that the self-sufficiency model would not work because the supply of overseas investment capital would dry up. This is because overseas investment is a feature of the present economy and people find it difficult to understand that ultimately this would no longer be either necessary or desirable in the circumstances of a self-sufficient economy. Australia has looked to overseas capital to fund the development of its export industries and infrastructure but much of the capital has in fact been used to buy up Australian companies and resources. This has added considerably to Australia's indebtedness. The investment in infrastructure (e.g. energy systems) has been associated with excessive population growth in the state capitals. All of these things may be of benefit to the investor but they hardly assist ESD.

With our imports and exports being phased out and our population growing at a slower rate, overseas investment will become irrelevant. The small amount that we do require for any larger scale export oriented developments will come from the export industries that will continue to operate during the transition phase. The eventual total elimination of foreign capital from our economy will eliminate a source of outside influence in Australian policy making.

Even though society will reap the benefits of resource self-sufficiency, there will still be a major advantage to be gained from the exchange of ideas (including books, music and art), from technology and from travel.

 There is no reason why such exchanges and exchanges in personnel for training and assistance, should not continue and be increased.

Tourism in particular will benefit from the improved retention of biodiversity and from the increased cultural diversity which will accompany the introduction of self-sufficiency. Such matters can be dealt with by the continued use of a foreign exchange mechanism. It is not proposed that any exception should be made in these fields for the exclusion of foreign ownership. Foreign media ownership for instance works against the achievement of political and economic independence and cultural diversity.

Self-sufficiency if it is introduced around the world will have as one of its main aims the restoration of environmental stability to the planet. Charges that it is a recipe for isolationism ignores this fundamental intent and the fact that it does not imply an end to international cooperation in either healing the planet or regulating future activities in global commons in the interest of environmental protection. Communication and travel between countries would not be affected.

The achievement of ESD through self-sufficiency will improve the capacity of Australia to provide long term assistance to other nations (helping them to achieve ESD). A stronger economy will make Australia better placed to receive refugees. As self-sufficiency spreads around the world under the guidance of major international cooperation initiatives and better balances are achieved between people and resources, economic refugees will become a thing of the past.

So much of the planet falls into the category of 'global common' (the atmosphere, the oceans, the sea beds, Antarctica and migratory animals), that other forms of cooperation will continue to be needed when such ESD directed cooperation becomes of lesser importance. There are, of course, also special attributes of international

importance (eg. endangered species and world heritage areas) within national boundaries and cooperation is needed to protect these also.

Making each country stronger in environmental terms will facilitate international cooperation, not impede it.

It is assumed in this paper that national boundaries have an enduring value for environmental reasons if they can be adjusted in relation to ecologic al factors. This is not to deny though the importance of lesser regions within nation states which can also be based on natural factors.

The principles of self-sufficiency can similarly be applied to these regions to try to achieve the greatest measure of self-reliance. The ultimate parallel development of these two approaches could see nations replaced by confederations of bio-regional communities.

However, there will still be some mechanisms necessary to protect those values of wider than national interest, help prevent adverse interactions between bio-regions and to coordinate activities between neighbouring nations at the, say, Australia-New Zealand level.

Capitalism and the free market create major problems for the environmental conservation and it is clear a strong role is needed for government to ensure equity of access to resources (including those which are of broad interest to society and which the pricing system based on profit making would not adequately secure) and protection of the rights of future generations. However, in this proposal, which is mainly aimed at eliminating the impediments to ESD caused by remote decision-making and hard to control market driven economic activity, it is envisaged that the national economy will continue to operate on the basis of a mix of market forces and government intervention. The type of intervention needed to achieve self-sufficiency itself (regulation of imports and exports) is only one of degree and because of the longer time span will involve a lesser role for government than in time of war. Because of the creation of a greater range of domestic production and the elimination of overseas control there will be greater internal scope for competition which will offset the increased role of government in restructuring movement of goods into and out of the country.

Full self-sufficiency is not likely to be achieved for several decades. At present, Australia produces a surplus of many goods. Ultimately, agriculture and mineral production will contract to meet the needs of the local population alone. Some surplus will be needed to allow for natural disasters and environmental cycles (such as drought). Australia is a big enough country to plan for and cope with such events whilst avoiding environmental damage.

As far as I am aware, there has been no Australian examination of the environmental conservation value of self-sufficiency. For this to continue is to ignore the major obstacle to conservation - a head in the sand approach. Use of the standards approach alone is only staving off the inevitable a little longer. Relying on the development of world government is a highly risk business and will, if achieved, still not meet the desirable end of matching local consumption to long term resource capability.

Historically, environmentalists have made proposals long before their common sense was recognised by the wider community. Not to take action on the fundamental question of the impact of economic policy for the prospects of ESD when our minds tell us that it is important will demoralise environmentalists and make them less effective. Beginning to consider broad alternatives to the present economic system is the first step to working out a basic solution to the world's accelerating environmental degradation.

1. The main concern with the deficiencies of the free market as a welfare mechanism has been in relation to its inability to adequately evaluate so-called intangibles such as the value of amenity and a clean atmosphere, which are hard or difficult to price. It does sort out what people are prepared to pay for and what is profitable. However, resources are largely controlled by capitalists and the political forces related to large metropolitan agglomerations. Capitalists seek a short term return on their investments. They can use up a resource and transfer their capital into another resource industry again to be used up before moving on again. In this system, the drivers of the industrial machines have little or no concern either for the goods from which they cannot derive a profit (such as clean air) or for those who are not yet in the market (the unborn).