For most humans, particularly those who live in affluent communities of our planet, they would probably find it impossible to imagine a time when the cost of living was not measured in currency but in life expectancy.

The general consensus of opinion, amongst scientists who study the evolution of humans, is that humans started to diverge from the great apes, about 5 million years ago.

They say the great apes we evolved from, were those living in Africa.

Somewhere in the vicinity of between 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, the product of this evolutionary journey started an exodus from the African continent, into what we now call the Middle East, Asia and Europe, reaching the extremes of those borders about 150,000 years ago.

For the first 130,000 of the last 150,000 years of the expansion period, the human species lived a nomadic existence, extracting the necessary energy to sustain daily activities directly from opportunistic food sources and protective shelter, available in their immediate environment.

The average lifespan of humans during this period is professionally speculated at being in the vicinity of 27 years

Then, we are told, something really remarkable happend, instead of wandering from area to area, seeking the essential resources of life provided in that area, some humans started to plan their futures. Prime amongst that planning strategy was to make provisions for managing their food resources and provisioning shelter - by their own personal intervention.

This period of history scientists labelled the agrarian age.

Fast forward to the earliest graphic records we have of the developing agrarian society’s, starting about 8000 BCE in the Near East, and then 6600 BCE in China and 5300 BCE in Europe leading up to highly developed system by the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, around 3400–3100 BCE, who were also first at detailing the developed behaviours of a agrarian social environment - in writting.

The reason for this huge evolutionary step is one of the most debated topics in archaeology.

A popular theory is that there was no single factor that caused this development, but rather a convergence of environmental, demographic and cultural pressures

The Last Glacial Maximum ended between 20,000–10,000 BCE, bringing warmer, wetter conditions in the Fertile Crescent, which it is speculated, expanded habitats for plants as wild cereals like, wheat and barley and delivered more predictable seasonal growth possibilities, resulting in the production of food resources over and above immediate needs, thus stimulating behaviour to engage in the process of planning storage and for repeat performanc.

This in turn led to an increase in population for those civilisations, in the fertile areas, who adopted a lifestyle which had then had a reluctance to ongoing regional migration.

For most hunter gatherer groups who rejected this life style change, this eventually led to their demise by the vagaries of dependent on natural nutritional resources, or they succumb to territorial ambitions from groups with inflated human resources as a consequence of the benefits derived from agrarian practice.

Also, with the development of sedentary settlement, came the opportunity for domestication of animals, as a much more viable proposition.

Both of these circumstances, however favoured humans with the capacity to adopt long-term planning abilities and consequently led to a shift in the type of population dynamices in a region..

But what has this got to do with the 'Cost of Living' debate in 2025? - I hear you say.

Well, obviously a little more background material is needed.

So press the pause button on your eagerness to know the answer, while we fill in more of the picture.

The population of humans on the planet, at the time thought to be the initial transition from hunter gatherer to agrarian practice by a group of humans, is estimated at 50 million - worldwide.

As a consequence of the spread of the 'agrarian option' by human communities throughout the planet, the population, at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Europe (19th century), is estimated to be 1000 million- a growth rate of 5.4% per century for every century over the period since 4000 BCE. (By not so in 'Australia' - as it was rebranded in 1901- More on that elsewhere)

And now get this, the population growth of the planet in the 19th century was 60% above that of the 18th Century but the population growth in the 20th century was 287% above that of the 19th century. The number of humans added to the human population last year is 69 million. That is 15 million people more than the total added to the population of the planet for the whole of the 17th century.

BUT this is not the only growth that you need to understand.

Average life expectancy globally, has risen from 27 years in 10,000 BCE to 72 years in 2025 and while the measurement of the standard of living (and the impact it makes upon the resources of the planet) is far too complex to arrive at an accurate and meaningful figure, but clearly, it is off the charts

Show me the money

So, for those of you born after 1980 you may probably be aware of the movie starring 'Top Guns' Tom Cruise in Jerry Maguire and this above quite popular expression - drawn from that movie.

Now to avoid having to endure a long explanation of the quite convoluted and exhaustive factors that underpin the function, that money plays in our current agrarian community, you are just going to have to trust me when I say that the standard of living of humans in 2025, global wise, comes at a huge cost.

For those of you who dabble in a little bit of mathematics, from time to time, you will have an appreciation of the concept of 'exponential expansion'. or See here

For those who don’t, I'm sure most would be familiar with the 'avalanche concept', where it may start off with a modest volume but there comes a point at the bottom of the mountain where it gathers more snow in the last 20m then it gathered in the first 500.

Whether we like it or not, we are living the last 20m.

Still Not Convinced

Property

In 1968 I bought my first property a modest, 15 year old, two-bedroom 110m² house sitting on 600m² of residential land. At the time I purchased the property, it cost me 4.7 times my gross income as a labourer.

The land was valued at $1500.(30%) The house at $3500.(70%).

The property was serviced by a septic tank and rainwater system. It did have a bitumen road with grass swales. There was no curb and channel, concrete footpath, with landscaping and ornate street lighting.

The house was set on low concrete blocks, sheeted with a painted fibrous cement sheeting inside and out and contained two bedrooms, a kitchen with a sink and a cupboard underneath, a small lounge area , and under a skillion roof at the back of the house, with concrete floor at ground level was a laundry, comprising a set of wash tubs, and a shower with a water closet and no covered car accommodation

The interest rate was 8% on a borrowing of $4000. (Yes we needed 20% Deposit) There were other suburbs which I could have purchased property in that would have provided a higher standard of comfort and facilities, but at 8% and a combined family income of $1800, that was as much as I was prepared to gamble.

The 2025 equivalent should cost $245,000. The house is currently valued at $428,000.

So where does the difference in parity come from?

Well second hand houses are priced at a relationship with the cost of an new equivalent.

BUT, there is a snag. You can’t get an equivalent - new house that is.

The average size of houses built in Australia in 2024 was 242m², 2 ½ times the size of this house.

A modern client purchasing a new house would not tolerate the situation described above.

The new house would have to come with a fully functional and impressive kitchen with all mod cons, equivalent also would be the bathroom standards. The design standard is slab on ground with tiled or carpeted floors and a double car garage, fenced and on a landscaped property fully equipped with mains, underground power, water and sewerage and located in a development serviced by a local shopping centre.

In providing the "service land" a developer would be required to meet all the costs of delivering the lot to current standards, plus a contribution (donation) to the local authority towards supplying dedicated community infrastructure, including local parks, community halls and the costs of adding extra capacity into sewerage, water and road infrastructure. Such gifted costs could easily represent $100,000 per block

Then if that’s not enough, the builder of the house will also have to make a capital contribution to the same local authority to cover community infrastructure. (For what you may ask?) - Standard costs would be somewhere in the vicinity of $35,000 per building approval.

As well as the cost of labour and material to construct a house, a potential owner’s would expect the property to be landscaped including any retaining walls, to a standard upon delivery where no additional work would be required by the owner.

The consequence of this reality is that an average new property (house land package- closest to the equivalent) going to market today would most likely be in the vicinity of $700,000

Given that every second-hand house sold, is measured against the current cost of the new housing, a person who wished to pass on a house built to historic standards and should be worth $245,000, 2025 equivalent, but who would, not surprisingly, be quoted by a realestate agent at a price as above - the price of $428,000

Land Use Planning

It is less than 100 years since the first land use planning schemes in Queensland was gazetted in 1934 for the Brisbane City Council and the City of Mackay area, marking a significant step in urban planning and development for the state and introducing a profound impact on urban development in the local government areas across the state by introducing zoning regulations that organized land use, into separate zones of residential, commercial, and industrial areas.

This improved the functionality of urban spaces and enhanced the quality of life for residents by reducing conflicts between incompatible land uses.

However the schemes also introduced guidelines for building heights, setbacks, and land subdivision.

While attempting to ensuring a more orderly and aesthetically pleasing urban environment, what is not readily admitted, is that it drove up the cost of land, becuase, in the absence of planning legislation, subdivision was more liberal and more competitive.

Residential zoned land become more valuable and as is relevant to any legislative obligation that require the expenditure of fund, the costs involved are inevitably passed on the end user.

Current planning schemes requirement provide a plethora of obligations inevitability (apparently?) driven by public demand

Here they are:

Configuration of roads and other transport corridors, the setting of the site within an urban or non-urban context; address any environmental values or natural hazards present on, or adjoining the site, any places of cultural heritage significance or character areas present on, or adjoining the site; any important landmarks, views, vistas or other areas of high scenic value present on, or able to be viewed from the site; any economic resources present on, adjoining or near the site; and sustainable design principles including the orientation of lots, the provision of water cycle infrastructure and the incorporation of landscaping within the subdivision. and infrastructure configuration that:- provides for an efficient land use pattern; effectively connects and integrates the site with existing or planned development on adjoining sites; provides for the efficient movement of pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and private motor vehicles in that order of priority; incorporates a multi-function road network that facilitates separation of incompatible land uses, provides enhanced public access to the open space network, minimises edge effects on retained vegetation, and creates fire breaks and evacuation routes to assist in hazard management; creates legible and interconnected movement and open space networks; provides defined edges to public open space and avoids or minimises direct interface between public open space and freehold lots; avoids narrow pathways and/or drainage reserves between lots; provides for the creation of a of accommodating a mix of housing types and other uses required to support the community as appropriate to the zone and, where applicable, local plan area; promotes a sense of community identity and belonging; provides for a high level of amenity having regard to potential noise, dust, odour and lighting nuisance sources; accommodates and provides for the efficient and timely delivery of infrastructure appropriate to the sitersquo;s context and setting; provides for a grid or modified movement network which avoids or minimises the use of cul-de-sac; and avoids the sporadic or out-of-sequence creation of lots. dimensions and orientation of lots to:- be appropriate for their intended use; be compatible with the preferred character for the zone and local area in which the land is located; in the case of land included in the Rural zone, maintain the productive use of rural lands; provide suitable building envelopes and safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access without the need for major earthworks and retaining walls; provide for the efficient use of land whilst including sufficient area for suitable and useable private open space; and take account of and respond sensitively to site constraints. consolidation and housing diversity, development may provide for small residential lots to be created where:- they are within easy walking distance of an activity centre or public transport stop; the development will be consistent with the preferred character for the zone and local area in which the land is located; and the land is fit for purpose and not subject to significant topographic constraints. across a development in a configuration that:- promotes variety in streetscape character; and avoids an area being dominated by a particular lot type. accordance with a plan of development which demonstrates that:- the majority of lots are provided with a north-south orientation to optimise opportunities for passive solar design; the development is efficiently that optimises the use of public streets by pedestrians and minimises pedestrians/vehicle conflict points; an appropriate building envelope can be accommodated; any building contained within the building envelope is unlikely to impact adversely upon the amenity of adjoining premises as a result of overshadowing, privacy and access to sunlight; and landscape planting can be accommodated in deep soil zones to soften built form elements, improve micro climate and contribute to the quality of the public realm. be created only where:- the lots are not likely to prejudice the subsequent development of adjoining land; it is not desirable nor practicable for the site to be reconfigured so that all lots have full frontage to a road; the siting of buildings on the rear lot is not likely to be detrimental to the use and amenity of the surrounding area; uses on surrounding land will not have a detrimental effect on the use and amenity of the rear lot; the safety and efficiency of the road from which access is gained is not adversely affected; and vehicular access to rear lots does not have a detrimental impact on lots adjoining the access strip due to excessive noise, light, dust, stormwater runoff and the like. Development provides for irregular shaped lots to be created only where:-the creation of regular lots is impractical such as at a curve in the road; safe access to and from the site can be provided while not adversely impacting on the functionality of the surrounding road network; and Rearrangement of lot boundaries. Development provides that the rearrangement of lot boundaries is an improvement on the existing situation. Development provides that the subdivision of space above or below the surface of land facilitates efficient development in a manner that is consistent with the overall outcomes for the zone and local plan area in which the site is located, or is consistent with a development approval that has not Development provides for lots to be created in locations that:- are adequately buffered to prevent potential adverse impacts on future users of the lots; separate the lots from incompatible uses and infrastructure; and do not create “reverse amenity” situations where the continued operation of existing uses is compromised by the proposed development. infrastructure, services and public utilities, including sewerage, water, electricity and communication services that:-enhance the health, safety and convenience of the community; -does not adversely impact on the continued operation, viability and maintenance of existing infrastructure or compromise the future provision of planned infrastructure; minimise adverse impacts to the environment (including the amenity of the local area); and minimise risk of failure or damage during a natural hazard event. drainage of lots and roads in a manner that:- maintains and restores the natural flow regime; effectively manages stormwater quality and quantity; and ensures no adverse impacts on receiving waters and surrounding land. No acceptable outcome provided. Development achieves sufficient stormwater and water quality outcomes during and after the construction phase The subdivision provides for appropriate landscaping and streetscaping within proposed road reserves and other public spaces that:- creates a high level of comfort, safety and visual attractiveness; has a design and configuration that provides for ease of maintenance and access; is consistent with the nature and location of the subdivision; and where practicable, retains and integrates existing significant vegetation within the landscaping concept for the proposed subdivision Development provides for public parks and open space infrastructure that:- provides for a range of passive and active recreation settings and can accommodate adequate facilities to meet the needs of the community; is well distributed and contributes to the legibility, accessibility and character of the locality; creates attractive settings and focal points for the community; benefits the amenity of adjoining land uses; incorporates appropriate measures for stormwater and flood management; facilitates the retention of native vegetation, waterways, wetlands and other ecologically important areas and natural and cultural features; facilitates the retention or enhancement of ecological corridors and connections to surrounding areas of open space; is cost effective to maintain; and is dedicated as public land in the early stages of the subdivision. including or adjacent to a major waterway provides for continuous public access along the full length of the waterway in addition to any requirement for public park and open space. Hydrants are located in positions that will enable fire services to access water safely, effectively and efficiently. Road widths and construction within the development are adequate for fire emergency vehicle to gain access to a safe working area close to dwellings and near water supplies whether or not on-street parking spaces are occupied. Hydrants are suitably identified so that fire services can locate them at all hours. New lots that are of a size or shape capable of further reconfiguration are designed so the further reconfiguration will achieve:- sufficient area and dimensions to accommodate the appropriate intended land use; the provision of a safe, efficient and effective infrastructure network; and limited proportions of rear allotments.

So how much does these life style necessities add to the cost of living? About $100,000-$250,000 per-lot

One, is One to Many

This is the fashionable chant from almost every politician, in response to a report of some negative event, involving a single or small group of individual and usually one that while, disproportionate to the frequency or scale of the event, tugs at the heart strings of a significant number of their audience.

This chant, funnily enough, is never thought appropriate to apply to large-scale events such as the outbreak of war (Gaza & Ukraine) or the manipulation by large conglomerates of circumstances to deliver favourable outcomes to them but unfavourable outcomes for a significant proportion of their clients.

The response that follows this statement from politicians is almost always, the generation of new and more laws, because everybody knows, if you bring in a legal requirement, it always solves the problem - Duh!

There is no available knowledge about the amount of legislation that currently dominate our lives, but to speculate that it is a factor of 100 above that which existed at the time of Federation of the colonies of Australia would not be unrealistic.

Legislation significantly affects the cost of living

In 2006 I was appointed to a position to provide advice to a government minister about toddler drownings in domestic swimming pools. The government had already introduced significant pool fencing legislation, the consequence of which, for the economy, was the expenditure of $640 million by the private individuals in order to achieve compliance.

The catalyst for my appointment was that during the previous summer season, 8 toddlers (years 1-5) in Queensland had drowned in domestic swimming pools . Yes 8 was 'eight times too many' the number of acceptable drownings as a consequence of the existence of these lifestyle devices.

Some of the information gathered during my investigation revealed that:

Taking all that data into consideration, it was determined that there was 337,000,000 hours of direct exposure (eh) in a year, for the 87,000 Queensland toddlers with a pool, at 10 hours exposure per day, PLUS 9,855,000 eh for 5,400 toddlers at relative's pools at 50% of the days in a year for 10hr per day and for the remaining 150,000 toddlers is was 3,000,000 eh.

This exposure resulted in a maxium of 8 deaths occurring over that 12-month period, This averaged one death for every *43,700,000 hours of exposure. (All large values are rounded)

And our standard of living was so high that this type of death for toddlers was at that time, the number 1 cause of death.

The budgeted expenditure by the Queensland government on the prevention of drowning by toddlers in domestic swimming pools for that period was $168,000.

The outcome of my investigations was, that it could be possible to reduce toddlers drownings in private pools to zero, with government expenditure of $5 million annually - aimed entirely at a parent awareness program.

My recommendation was not accepted, my services were terminated and the government proceeded to bring in ‘new stronger swimming pool laws’, resulting in mandatory registration of private swimming pools, provisions for routine inspections and with mandatory inspections of fencing, on the transfer of property, adding an inestimable $millions increase in the cost-of-living expense for the community.

And yes, you guessed it, this resulted in zero reductions in private pools, toddler deaths by drowning. [Ref]

I tell the story only as a practical example of the cost to the community of lifestyle choices and the community's demands about lifestyle quality - not about the responsibility of owning a private swimming pool.

It’s about the inability of our society to accept the consequences of lifestyle choices. We seemingly have an unrealistic expectation to have all the upsides of a lifestyle choice - without acceptance of any of its consequences.

Hunter gatherers never ever had to face a rise in cost-of-living expenses, their only cost for that lifestyle was an average life expectancy of 27 years.

Climate Change

Now let’s get to the big stuff, the mammoth consequence of lifestyle that caused climate change.

Every single aspect of the lifestyle of humans, since we decided to burn coal to drive the machinery of the Industrial Revolution and burn liquid carbon to literally drive that machinery around, has contributed and will more so in the future, to the rapidly rising cost of lifestyle.

The table below sets out current changes in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, since we started to use fossil fuels as part of our community lifestyle, changing from 102,440 greenhouse gas equivellent units in the 17th century to 160,626 in 2025

Atmosphere

Roughly 6,000 years ago the global average surface temperature (AGST) was approximately 13.3°C and was cooling. So, about the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.[1830] it was at 12.6°C (A change of 1.7°C in 6000 years) [Ref]

At the end of the 1970s, the global average surface temperature was at 14°C. (A change of 1.4°C in 140 years).

The current 2025 global average surface temperature is 15.1°C. (A change of 1.1°C in <50 years and 2.2°C in 195 years).

GHGs are the primary drivers of our current rising global temperatures, firstly in air, then water, and finally in soils.

RISING TEMPERATURE OUTCOMES:

Rainfall Patterns

GHGs drive changes in rain fall by altering atmospheric temperatures and moisture levels.

Key impacts include:

Consequence for Humans

The human body operates within a narrow temperature range. When the core body temperature exceeds 40°C, it enters hyperthermia, a dangerous state where the cooling mechanisms (like sweating) start to fail. At 42°C vital organs can begin to shut down and without immediate intervention, death often occurs.

Temperature Plus Humidity

A wet-bulb temperature of 35°C (100% humidity) is the upper limit for human survival.

At this point, sweat can no longer evaporate to cool the body, leading to rapid overheating and organ failure. Even healthy individuals can only endure such conditions for only a few hours.

Scientists say that under extreme global warming scenarios, it is possible for certain regions of the planet to experience wet-bulb temperatures of 35°C and greater.

Vulnerable Regions:

Areas like South Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa are particularly at risk due to their combination of high temperatures and humidity.

PROJECTIONS

The scientific consensus on atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHGs) levels by 2100 is projected using a classification system called- Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)

The RCP categories ranges between:

1. Business-as-usual [HIGH emission rate - NO sequestration ) to

2. Aggressive mitigation efforts. [Very LOW emissions - Very HIGH development and use of sequestration technologies]

MITIGATION Scenario

PROGNOSES

While the above RCPs take into account the release of methane stored in soils, known as the Carbon Cycle Feedback phenomenon, when CO2 induced warming causes the thawing of permafrost and the decomposition of it's organic matter it releasing methane (CH4) into the atmosphere.

Methane, as we have seen, is 31 times more potent in adding heat to the atmosphere, than CO2.

However, some past models underestimated the impact of methane release, making their projections potentially conservative.

Under High-Emission scenarios, there will be a significant increase in the rate of generation of GHGs caused by methane release .

The sources for methane release are:

Agriculture

GHG-induced climate changes directly impact agriculture:

Key impacts include:

Climate Models:

Also under worst-case scenarios, scientists project that at global temperatures rise by 4°C or more, certain regions of the planet would experience wet-bulb temperatures of 35°C or greater as early as the second half of 21st century (2050). Studies identify that these region will contain densely populated areas.

Duration:

While brief spikes in wet-bulb temperatures may occur, sustained conditions at this level would be catastrophic for human life.

Comment

Currently, global policies and actions align more closely with the Modest or Partial outcomes.

That is, while some progress is being made by some countries, it falls short of the aggressive measures needed to achieve the Constrained outcome.

Which RCP we end up with depends heavily on the trajectory of human behavior and policy decisions.

The current gap between community promises and delivery - remains the critical challenge.

So, I hear you say again, what's any of this got to do with the current cost of living?

Well, putting aside what I thought would be the bleeding obvious, that the impacts of climate change everywhere, is going to make every thing you do more expensive.

Some simple example

A recent upgrade of Bruce Highway to improve flood immunity for Rockhampton had total estimated cost of $1.945 billion.- So expect the cost-of-living component like vehicle registration and taxation to increase by more than inflation [Ref]

Rainfall

Because the air is able to hold more moisture and because temperatures accelerate evaporation, the air is now being extra charged with moisture so more frequent and higher volume, rain events.

On the surface I can hear you say 'Yahoo! that's a good thing right', more rain?

Well, that's just half the story. - The other half is the amounts.

Because there's more moisture in the atmosphere there is more that can be precipitated, resulting in higher flood levels than historically have been experienced over the last few thousand years (although it's only the last few hundred years we have kept reasonable records)

So, the first implication is that more areas will be flooded and the ones that are currently flooded will be at high levels and the implication of that is that some house will be become formally barred from unoccupation and for thosue in know flood zones, house insurance prices will go up relative to water levels, so people in flooded areas will now be required to pay more money for their flood insurance because there will be more frequent and do more damage.

And for those who previously were not flooded they will now join the flooded group and welcome to the high insurance premium brigade.

This insurence cost will however to a degree be spread accross ALL insurence policy holder plus subsidized by governments, from increasing taxation.

Next

Most of the food you eat relies upon rain fall. No better still let me amend that, all of the food you eat relies upon rainfall.

If it is as plants, it is reliant upon water for growing. If it an animal food, it relies for its food as the consequence of plants and if it is fish and crustations it relies upon sediments bringing nutrients into the water systems to feed the food chain.

So, on the surface, again you would be tempted to say 'Yahoo! that's a good thing, right?'

Well let's call it the 'copper conundrum'. Copper is an essential element for the biological functioning of the human body no copper and you're in trouble too much copper and you're dead.

Plants have the same relationship with water.They require the right amounts of water at the right time, because when soil becomes flooded plants drown, when water is applied at the wrong time opportunistic organisms like fungus thrives, the net result of all this is that too much water at the wrong times and the wrong amounts results in the death, not promotion, of plants.

And it's not exclusive to plants recently we had major floods in Queensland 2025 in which there was reported to be nearly 200,000 livestock drowned as a consequence of huge amounts of flood rain and so, what's the consequence for this?

Well, food available will become less relaible and availability governs price.

The era of cheap food has gone, the era of expensive food is just beginning and the era of no food is quite possible, in the not too far distant future.

Bush Fires

Dito to the all above as House insurance prices and government expenditure go up - relative to risk.

And here is the sad story that nobody wants to listen to.

There is nothing that can be done about this situation, because what needs to be done is overwhelmingly unpopular amongst the general population and without popularity, in our system, there can never be progress – and certainly, not even towards resolving a obvious looming crisis for the yet to be born and our own young.

And if by some miracle society as a whole reaches a stage, somewhere in the future, where they understand the enormity of our predicament, I am certain that we will be past the Tipping Point and there will be absolutely nothing that can be implemented that will stop the rolling thunder of climate change, left to run its course for tens if not hundreds of thousands of years to come.

Warren Bolton

Wednesday, 30 April 2025

References

The publication below form the bases on the opinions about the pending impact on the cost-of-living related to climate change presented in this web site:

Climate Change in Australia

Climate Trackers

Copernicus

Science News Today

Springer AGU Publications Online

NCESC

Science Alert

We Forum

The Print NASA Earth Observatory

Federal Government Climate Division