The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Living off our capital > Comments

Living off our capital : Comments

By John Coulter, published 5/10/2010

The assumption that Australia can continue to grow its GDP and population is putting us on a collision course for collapse.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
People with your brand of politic should remember that Aussies of European decent will descend to the minority if your ideas prevail , perhaps you should examine the mothers dressed in their nondeplume fashions walking to their mosque trailed by up to ten kids.
Perhaps you should examine the wonderland they came from , known almost forever as the promised land , why would anyone escape from the promised land to breed like flies in Australia ? Anyone fancy being the minority in our own country governed by the Islamic majority whose respect for Democracy is userped by Muslem Fundementalist's and their failed philosophy from the Promised Land? Not for me Thanks I did my bit for our Country 5 beaut Kids .
Posted by Garum Masala, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:25:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moving one from Garum Masala's outburst, Coulter makes a few useful points but fails to get the debate any further. Assuming that we can agree that we wish to curtail population growth, how are we going to go about it? Cutting back on immigration quotas would seem like a useful place to start, but despite decades of complaints about rising quotas and governments, and senates, of various political leanings they always seem to increase - never decrease.
As a former senator, all Coulter has to offer as an explanation is a half-baked conspiracy theory covering part of that time. I was under the impression that Howard blamed the Senate for not approving cuts in quotas put forward by his government, but no matter. As noted, the quotas always seem to increase.. so never mind yet another article on wny immigration is bad. "Please explain" Coulter.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 1:00:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum Masala,

It makes more sense to cut mass migration, which is currently supplying about two thirds of our population growth, than to engage in a environmentally and socially destructive breeding competition with migrant groups. Our fertility rate is below replacement level and has been since 1976, so the population will ultimately stabilise without it. In the very long run, we might even need a modest level of net immigration or to encourage people to have a few more babies.

Curmudgeon,

It doesn't require a half-baked conspiracy theory to imagine that people will pursue their immediate economic interests, regardless of any damage they cause to others, or even to themselves in the longer term. Consider tobacco advertising, for example. The current population policy gives the business elite bigger markets, higher profits from real estate speculation and development, and a cheap, compliant work force, with an unlimited supply of skilled workers already fully trained at someone else's expense. The business corporations donate heavily to the major political parties. It is not that hard to connect the dots. John Coulter is not saying anything different from the Productivity Commission or another conspiracy nut (from your viewpoint), Ross Gittins, Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. See

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/stop-beating-about-the-bush-and-talk-about-big-australia-20100803-115bg.html

The solution for the rest of us is obviously to put growthist politicians last on the ballot paper, particularly if they have a realistic chance of winning. Kevin Rudd's embrace of "a big Australia" was a major factor in his loss of popularity. Once the politicians learn that fostering high population growth is electoral death, regardless of how many donations they get, they will stop doing it.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 2:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John Coulter has at least been consistent - when he first raised the need to cut migration quotas he was in the senate but at that time the 'ethnic vote' seemed a tangible reality for both sides of politics and any cut in migration threatened that vote.
The notion of a coherent ethnic vote was then and is now illusory (I was working with migrant communities and the Ethnic Communities Council at the time and their political views reflected the Australian mainstream) nonetheless ethnic leaders did a good job in persuading politicians that they had a constituency that would do as they were directed.
Today the problem is that cuts in migration are easily seen as xenophobic and racist hence an ongoing reluctance to address the problem.
If one adds to that the fact that 'skilled' migration has been an effective tool in keeping downward pressure on wages you cannot help but feel that politicians fear that cutting migration quotas may impact adversely on them at the ballot box.
Ideally what is needed is for people from all sides of the political spectrum make the obvious point that we live in what is by and large a desert so we cannot keep on adding yet more people to the mix.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 2:39:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have not been looking at one of the points, " For example according to ABARE, Australia’s black coal reserves amount to 39 billion tonnes and our rate of increase in exploitation is 2.3 per cent per annum. At that rate the reserves will all be gone just after 2050 when, on current rates of population growth, our population will be of the order of 40 million.The implicit assumption that Australia can continue to grow both its GDP (based on mineral exploitation) and its population is putting us on a collision course for collapse." ...If we won't have any coal, we won't have a lot of electricity, we won't have any industries, so why worry about anything else, just make sure that our stupid mob of politicans both state and federal, don't get back into power, but remember, that both parties, Labor and Liberal/National or LNP, stay out of power. If this means creating a new party, and I think it does, let's get into it quick, but no lawyers, they seem to be the main problem.
Posted by merv09, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 3:01:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author’s use of statistics is misleading.

First, it’s not clear why the recently released population data are relevant to his calculations, as the most recent GSP data are for the 2008-09 financial year, with 2009-10 data unlikely to be published until late November or early December. So either he’s picking his population data from a different time to his economic growth data, or he’s not using the latest ABS GSP estimates.

Second, the relationship between population growth and GSP growth, if any, is hardly instantaneous. So comparative analysis of population and output growth rates such as this is conventionally presented as showing growth rates over a number of years, not in a single year.

This is especially so when that single year selected happens to be the one in which the world suffered its worst global recession since the second world war – hardly a representative year, but perfectly picked if you want to spin your story in the most negative possible light.

If we take growth rates in population GSP and per capita GSP over a longer and more representative timeframe, we get a very strong positive correlation between population growth and per capita GSP/GDP growth. States and territories with above-average population growth enjoyed above-average per capita GSP growth (Qld, WA, NT) and those with below-average population growth recorded below-average GSP growth (NSW, Tas, SA).

1998-99 – 2008-09:

Population growth:
NSW - 10.5%
Vic - 15.1%
Qld - 25.2%
SA - 7.9%
WA - 20.0%
Tas - 6.0%
NT - 15.9%
ACT - 12.0%
Aus - 15.0%

Real GSP/GDP growth:
NSW - 22.6%
Vic - 37.5%
Qld - 57.6%
SA - 30.5%
WA - 50.0%
Tas - 28.6%
NT - 52.1%
ACT - 39.6%
Aus - 36.4%

Per Capita GDP/GDP growth:
NSW - 11.0%
Vic - 19.5%
Qld - 25.8%
SA - 20.9%
WA - 25.0%
Tas - 21.3%
NT - 31.2%
ACT - 24.6%
Aus - 18.5%

Source: ABS Cat. 5220.0 - Australian National Accounts: State Accounts, 2008-09
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/ABS@Archive.nsf/log?openagent&5220001_annual_gross_state_product_all_states.xls&5220.0&Time Series Spreadsheet&D98A7832C01FA586CA2576930014081D&0&2008-09 (Reissue)&22.12.2009&Latest
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 3:32:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian/BAYGON - interesting posts.. good counters.

Divergence - I think you've almost entirely missed the point of what I was saying. Coulter is the one with the conspiracy theories not me. I was not, in fact, saying anything for or against large populations as such. What I was asking is that if you're agin' large populations what can you do about it? More specifically I was asking how immigration quotas can be cut. This business about putting gorwthist populations last in the ballot isn't going to work.. even the greens are, in their way, for growth, just that it has to be balanced growth. Any other solutions?
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 4:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The anti-people faction must be worried that the population issue is slipping off the agenda. They've wheeled out The Prez! Read the following line and tell me if this isn't straight out of the freewheelin conspiracy theories of the 70s.

"powerful vested interests in property development, real estate and sections of the retail industry. Commercial media drew income... blah, blah, blah.

Chuck in Rupert Murdoch and the American Defence industries and the CIA and whacko!

Look, I'll admit that I've been tough on the SPA. It's just that almost all of their misanthropic theories about trade, resources, economies, labour, etc are bull dust and have been blown to pieces so many times in this forum and others as to be completely void of meaning. Coulter's interpretation of statistical variables is laughable and he does no service to serious issues such as labour and productivity in Australia or elsewhere.

It's hard to judge whether the SPA is trying to be a realistic voice in the polity by denying the efficacy of trade, technology or capitalism. Unfortunately, until they reconsider some of their outlandish ideas they will always remain a sideshow of 20 or 30 people nestled in the Adelaide hills
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 5:27:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hooray John Coulter.
We are under the impression that digging up iron ore and coal and selling it to the Chinese is “making money.” In fact it is taking money out of our savings account. None of that coal or iron ore will ever help our children unless we start building infrastructure with the money and planning for the future instead of just trying to cram as many people into Australia as possible. We need to develop sustainable businesses rather than be slaves to the whims of the miners.

The Australian Government Minerals Atlas says there are 27.9 billion tonnes of iron ore and in 2013-2014 ABARE says Australia will be mining 504.9 million tonnes per year. Assuming an increase of 1% a year that will leave 44 years of iron ore and at 2% per year 38 years.
http://www.australianminesatlas.gov.au/aimr/commodity/iron_ore_10.jsp

The Australian Coal Industry Association says there were 72 billion tonnes of black coal in 2006 and 438 million tonnes were mined in 2008-09. Assuming 2.3% /year growth we have 67 years not 180 years like it says on the website as if there won’t be growth in production.
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-resources.aspx
http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-production.aspx

Maybe more economically available coal and iron ore will be discovered. Maybe oil increasing in price will make us use coal faster. Either way they won’t last forever and it isn’t a good way to plan an economy.

Curmudgeon - You seem to be saying there is nothing we can do, because we have always had increasing immigration numbers and we always will. Go back in history. People have always said, There is nothing we can do _______________ (fill in the blank)
a) There will always be slavery
b) There will always be apartheid in South Africa
c) Eastern Europe will always be dominated by communism
d) Women will never vote
I don’t think there is a magic bullet and I agree it looks bleak, but I can’t believe that we are just stupid primates who will only change our ways when millions of us start killing each other.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 8:13:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ericc's point about change is well made. In many ways politicians tend to follow from the front - the examples that Eric cites are evidence of that - they will adopt a trend once they see that it resonates with the electorate.
There is no ideological impediment to rejecting the growth paradigm admittedly there is an entrenched economic position but even there the Chicago school is increasingly being discredited by all sorts of economists: Axelrod, Stiglitz and Krugman to name but three. In the main it is treasury that is still dominated by people whose training was in that school and who find it most difficult to let go.
If we want to get a snapshot of the future all we need to do is look at countries which have the Dutch Disease - ie countries which were dependent on the wealth of minerals for their prosperity.
If we wait for the politicians to change then we will be waiting for ever - instead we need to start with mobilising public opinion as we do that the strident protestations of the likes of Cheryl will be drowned in a chorus of dissent just like those who protested that women ought not to be treated equally were eventually silenced by the sheer weight of public opinion.
Posted by BAYGON, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 8:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.opendemocracy.net/openeconomy/peter-johnson/double-trouble-again
Posted by Matt Keyter, Tuesday, 5 October 2010 10:11:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Population growth in my view is not the main problem. Supporting the growth, without changing our ways, is.

You see, I liken our country to a mother pig, with 12 teats, only, she is feeding 20 piglets, and there in lies the problem.

I am 50, and I feel that in order for us to survive the next 50 years, we must stop the hand outs and waste that occurs on a regular basis.

You see, for every 100 people who are born and grow up to enter the workforce, only 52 of them will pay positive taxes,assuming all stays the same, which means, there is another 42 who don't. Plus, there are those of the 100 who won't have work at all, yet, expect to be supported, along with their familes as well.

Now it is all well and good to want a large family, but, the simple answer is, if you can't afford them, then don't have them.

So long as we continue to adopt the old 'no worries, someone else will pay the bills', then we are doomed.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 6:30:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Satelite photos of Australia taken at night
http://www.unisa.edu.au/barbarahardy/research/electricity.asp show most of Australia’s population concentrated on a sliver of land along the east coast.

There are few other places to live, because there is not enough water.

Anyone wanting a further increase in population must be able to put forward workable plans to somehow find more water, and not just coal.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 7:46:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Anyone wanting a further increase in population must be able to put forward workable plans to somehow find more water, and not just coal. Posted by vanna”

But, “Australia has more water per head of population than Europe” as cornucopians are pleased to (correctly) point out. And this issue they bang-on about, quantity/person, is misleading to say the least.

It is not simply the quantity of water in Australia imposing restriction on long-term prospects for a viable and expanding population. To demonstrate parallel ridiculous comparisons:

Antarctica is the continent with the greatest reserves of fresh water, yet it has the lowest precipitation. It also has the lowest rate of evaporation.

Comparing Europe v/s Australia - overall Annual Rainfall is about 600mm/500mm, Annual Evaporation about 500mm/2050mm.
For Australia, vastly fewer opportunities exist for capture-and-storage of rainfall for distribution to places of need; and those that exist have already exceeded the capacity of the landscape to accommodate them.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 10:41:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

I didn't accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist, just said that it is quite reasonable to suggest, as did John Coulter, that rich and powerful people who benefit significantly from population growth might be able to exert some influence on government policy, especially considering the amounts they donate to political parties. Of course, you and Cheryl can always claim that corporate donations are only made out of a pure, disinterested love of democracy (even though this would be in breach of fiduciary duty).

Rhian,

Your statistics might be more representative, but don't necessarily demonstrate causation. Booming economies might just be attracting more people. Numbers 1-10 on the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) (with population growth rates) are Switzerland (0.276%), Sweden (0.158%), Singapore (0.998%), United States (0.977%), Germany (-0.053%), Japan (-0.191%), Finland (0.098%), Netherlands (0.412%), Denmark (0.280%) and Canada (0.817%). We are number 16. The latest ABS figure for Australia gives us 1.8% population growth for the year to 31 March 2010. It was 2.2% for the previous year. These figures are consistent with no correlation between economic performance and population growth.

"The GCI is based on 12 pillars of competitiveness, providing a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world at all stages of development. The pillars are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation."

http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20News%20Releases/NR_GCR10
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 11:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If the Federal Treasury used quadruple bottom line reporting and enaged analysts that had good peripheral vision, then their Red Book briefing to the incoming Gillard government may have reached some of the same conclusions in John Coulter's excellent article.

Sadly, Treasury is unashamedly a high population growth supporter, totally lacking long term strategic vision about the perils of living off our capital or the unsustainable consequences of constant population growth in the most arid continent.

It's true, Treasury qualified their pro-growth recommendations with a provision that infrastructure investments are necessary to accommodate a burgening population.

That condition looks like a pipe-dream given the enormous national infrastructure maintenance backlog identified by the Australian Local Government Association.

Our Australian governments cannot even maintain the assets they have. Why else would the States be flogging off railways, ports, energy providers, airports, lotteries, roads, etc, etc, on the advice of State Treasuries to reduce and eliminate deficits racked up by high operational costs, waste and exorbitant parliamentary overheads. The solution?

1) Establish an independant body like the Reserve Bank that sets population growth limits based on sustainable living, quality of life guidelines.
2) Establish a parliamentary committee to examine structural change required to deliver more cost-effective and better governance of Australia.
Posted by Quick response, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 1:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence

I agree, correlation is not the same as causation, and if you read what I said I didn’t claim any causal link. The article, however, DOES claim a causal link, using spurious statistical analysis to support its claim that “These figures clearly indicate that far from improving the lot of ordinary citizens, population growth by exceeding economic growth is, on average, making each citizen worse off.” This is completely wrong.

For what it worth, I also agree that if there is a causal link between regional population growth and per capita economic growth in Australia, the direction of causality is more likely to be from economic conditions to population growth, as interstate and overseas migrants flow disproportionately to States with strong economies. This is clearly not, however, making residents of the economically stronger states “worse off”. It may also make a positive contribution to growth in per capita GSP where there are skills and labour shortages, as we currently have here in WA.

The world competitiveness index is not a measure of economic welfare, and is largely determined by policy settings and institutions, so I’m not sure why you think it’s relevant. Its identifies the six main impediments to competitiveness in Australia as (in order):

- access to finance,
- restrictive labour regulations,
- tax rates,
- inadequate supply of infrastructure,
- inefficient government bureaucracy
- tax regulations.

None of these appear to me related to population issues except perhaps infrastructure, and I’d argue that our low population density contributes to the problem of providing adequate economic infrastructure.

http://www.weforum.org/documents/GCR10/index.html

Correction: in my earlier post I should have written “...with 2008-09 data unlikely to be published until late November or early December” not 2009-10. GSP data are woefully out of date by the time they are published.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 1:47:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

Mass migration was cut off in the US between 1921 and 1965. See the graphs in

http://www.cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

Some of the restrictionist sentiment that led to the cut-off was based on racist ideas, but a lot was due to economic fears, both from workers worried about immigrants driving down wages and from the upper class worried about radicalisation of people lower down on the food chain. This was the era of Anarchist bombings.

So far as elections are concerned, not all major party politicians are growthists. Kelvin Thomson certainly isn't. His 14 Point Plan is excellent. The Greens aren't ideal, but are unlikely to be as bad on this as the major parties. It is always possible to hold one's nose and vote for the Far Right, as more and more people have been doing in Europe. If all candidates are growthists, a protest can be made by putting the sitting member last. This may well make him or her lose the election in a marginal seat, hopefully before he qualifies for Parliamentary superannuation and other perks.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 2:07:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the more unusual aspects of the anti-people lobby is that apart from having no idea about how economies run or notions of trade, value adding in production, R&D value, or even basic stuff about capitalism and market economies that a 10 year knows, is the preoccupation with growth. I can't work out whether they are naive anarcho- syndicalists or reconstructed Pol Pot style socialists.

Does it not strike others as peculiar that we have a former Democrat Senator who spends much of his time driving his tractor on his 40 acre farm in the Adelaide hills paid for by our taxes, telling us that capitalism is evil and that we need to throw the economy back to 1931 - with about the same amount of people?
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 4:31:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anyone wanting a further increase in population must be able to put forward workable plans to somehow find more water, and not just coal.

Liquefied natural gas mining is one answer.

There are literally millions of litres of water coming out of the ground during this mining process, as it is the water that holds the gas underground.

Treat it and place in in huge reserves.

Now I would go further and say that a ban should be placed on the development of use able farm land and switch development to semi, or even, unsuitable farm land. We have millions of acres of the stuff.
Posted by rehctub, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 7:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK. Here goes. The anti-pops thinking only works if you believe the end of the world is nigh and the most persistent end of world scenario is that we're going to run out of 'stuff'. Guess what? We've known one day/year or a 1000 years from now, that we're going to run out of stuff.

But the anti-people lobby use this proposition in a teleological way (arguing from final causes). They say we can only survive if we stop using so much stuff now and for them, that means less people. People are the problem. Consumption is the problem.

But the world is going to end one day so it's not going to make much difference. No mention by the anti-pops of the voracious robber corporations. It's you and me who are the problems - and especially fertile women and terrorist Muslims who like-wise want to procreate here.

And here's the kicker - the anti-people faction don't believe in human agency. Science is crap. We have no free will. We're lemmings, etc. Technology is dangerous and it's too late anyway.

Bollocks.

Here's snap shot as of now of Oz'd pop. It's in free fall, with net immigration slumping 37 per cent year on year in the March quarter to its lowest level in years.

The Bureau of Statistics states that immigration plummeted from 98,138 in March 2009 to just 61,780 in the same quarter this year. It is the lowest figure for a March quarter since the bureau adopted new definitions in 2006 - which actually caused all the yak about population in the first place. They changed their basic assumptions which blew out the top end projections thereby creating an OH MY GOD type headline..

Total population growth for the year to March fell by 15 per cent, from a record 471,475 in the year to March 2009 to 403,082 a year later. Australia's population growth rate dropped from 2.2 per cent to 1.8 per cent.
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 6 October 2010 7:52:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One problem we face is that of being to fussy.

We have vast areas of non, or semi populated areas which we simply don't wish to use as they are considered either to be, to dry, or boring.

As it turns out, many of these less populated areas are also rich in minerals or gas.

So, what is needed is to use these resources to our advantage so that these regions can support communities and for that to happen we must create jobs, and not just mining jobs.

LNG produces huge quantities of water. So if we were to treat this water we could then look towards relocating industry that are large users of water. Golden circle comes to mind with millions of litres of water used each day, just to wash fruit, only to be dumped afterwards.

Then, once these industries are finished with the water, it can be piped to the power stations, or nuclear stations for re-use.

Government could buy vast areas of semi-arid land, develop it and provide affordable housing, but only when there are jobs available.

This land sells for about $200 per acre, compared to $200,000 per acre in the suburbs.

Now the real problem we face, is that if we don't do something like this, someone else most likely will, and they will do it in a hostile manner.

Just remember, they have much less space than we do.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 7 October 2010 6:03:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article John.

This huge subject is now getting some of the attention that it deserves in political circles, thanks first and foremost to Kelvin Thomson:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVhRsq_WpFI
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 7 October 2010 7:03:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl

You say:

"The Bureau of Statistics states that immigration plummeted from 98,138 in March 2009 to just 61,780 in the same quarter this year. It is the lowest figure for a March quarter since the bureau adopted new definitions in 2006 - which actually caused all the yak about population in the first place."

Would you be kind enough to post a link to these ststistics; I can never find my way ariound the BOS web site.

At first glance I suspect a bit of skuldugery here, ie statistical manipulation, for example are Kiwis included? But I am happy to be proved wrong.
Posted by last word, Thursday, 7 October 2010 7:49:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rehctub,
"liquefied natural gas mining is one answer"

Much of what you are suggesting depends on an energy equation.

How much energy would be used to pump the water, and where would the energy come from.

It is similar to ethanol production from sugar cane. To increase ethanol production, it would require large amounts of energy expenditure in the form of burning diesel to build dams, irrigationa projects, rail lines and also clear more land for extra sugar cane production.

Eventually it becomes uneconomic to increase ethanol production because too much energy has to be used to get any energy back.

With the looming peak oil and a decline in our own oil and natural gas reserves, it is near stupidity to want to vastly increase our population. We simply won’t have the resources to maintain that population.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 7 October 2010 12:09:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rechtub, over-use of underground water is living off our capital. The Great Artesian Basin was first punctured by a bore in 1878. By 1912, when the first Interstate Conference on Artesian Water was held, it had become evident that the maximum rate of extraction had probably been reached the previous year (As noted by Qld Geologist F. Whitehouse in 1954).
Capping of bores has been a project in the basin for some years. The Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee has concern for the drawdown of water in the Basin, and its effect upon natural communities dependent upon the natural discharge of water where it occurs (or did at one time).
Eventually, and hopefully, the rate of water extraction from the Artesian Basin might be decreased to equal the rate of rain-replacement through the intake beds in the exposed strata to the east: those within which the open-cut-mined coal seams occur. Re-charge of the Artesian Basin is a slow affair - perhaps taking 3 million years for water to reach the western extremity.

In 1878, Australia’s population stood at approximately 2.1 million; 1911, 4.6 million. The rise to today’s 22.5 million has been enabled, to a greater extent than any other, by more effective means of diminishing our capital resources - be they soils, fisheries, minerals etc..

Destroying those resources at increasing rates, rather than matching rate of replacement, for the sole purpose of squeezing more people onto the landscape, is hardly rational. Yet the lobby groups having the Governments’ ears are voicing concern over any lessening of a population growth rate of the present 1.8% - one which will produce 45 million by 2050, with no end to the rate of increase. Squeezing more water out of the basin just to please them does not please me.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 7 October 2010 1:58:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl,

It is ludicrous to suggest that Australia's population is in free fall. It is growing at 1.8%, implying that it will double in 38 and a half years if this rate is continued.

As Vanna and some of the others have been trying to tell you, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. Globally, we are experiencing losses or shortages of arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our agriculture and other technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. A well known paper from Nature talks about these issues in terms of 9 thresholds

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

It says that we have already exceeded 3 of the thresholds, relating to climate change, loss of biodiversity, and interference with the nitrogen cycle, so that we are no longer in a "safe operating space for humanity". We are rapidly approaching 4 more thresholds. This is Nature, probably the world's most respected peer reviewed science journal. You are arguing with the mainstream scientific community, not just a few Deep Green people-haters. Some of these problems will impact on us directly and others through their effects on other countries, much as the Great Depression spread around the world. Why should we believe that you know more about any of these fields than a pig understands about opera, much less that you understand more about all of them than the scientists who have been studying them for decades?

Of course it matters when the "stuff" runs out. The more quickly resources are used up on supporting enormous populations at subsistence level, the less time and resources that we will have to do the research and development to come up with alternatives, such as getting access to space resources. Nor do technological solutions come along to order just because they are needed. After all, 14th century Europeans desperately needed antibiotics that would kill the plague bacillus, and the Irish in 1848 desperately needed potato varieties that would resist the late blight.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 7 October 2010 2:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian,

The GCI is a measure of good management of a country's economy. Among the top 10 countries on the UN Human Development Index, 5 are among the top 10 on the GCI, and another 3 are among the top 20. The point is that the mass media and the government, most recently with the Treasury Red Book, have been trying to convince us that population growth is essential for good economic management, but if this is so, why is there no correlation internationally?

Of course infrastructure is related to population. From my earlier Ross Gittins link:

"Why doesn't immigration lead to higher living standards? To shortcut the explanation, because each extra immigrant family requires more capital investment to put them at the same standard as the rest of us: homes to live in, machines to work with, hospitals and schools, public transport and so forth.

Little of that extra physical capital and infrastructure is paid for by the immigrants themselves. The rest is paid for by businesses and, particularly, governments. When the infrastructure is provided, taxes and public debt levels rise. When it isn't provided, the result is declining standards, rising house prices, overcrowding and congestion."

Infrastructure Partnerships Australia says:

"It is now an accepted fact that Australia faces a substantial infrastructure deficit, most recently estimated at some $770 billion over a decade which, if not addressed, will impact on the nation’s future economic growth and productivity, and have severe detrimental effects on quality of life for all Australians."

http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1862/PDF/Infrastructure_Partnerships_Australia.pdf
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 7 October 2010 3:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I sometimes wonder where this streak of Milton Freedman supply side economics comes from with Divergence and the anti-people lobby. Immigrants are suddenly not OK because we build houses for them? How about all those we housed from post war years to now? Are they suddenly disenfranchised because they're 'alien consumers'?

Divergence makes an elementary mistake by confusing industrial first world consumption of raw materials with what you and I consume. Its astounding to think that we can blame the poorest of the poor in India and Africa who consume bugger all with the industrial consumption of North America. There is no comparison.

It's equally ridiculous to equate individual consumption with the energy consumption required, for example, to make steel. That's where the anti-pops pigs are squelling. Why aren't they talking about new forms of energy?

It's because they are fixated on reducing the raw number of people. They are basically functionalists who want to turn us in to measurable units, much like ants, to create a sociobiological paradise. How are they going to reduce the number of people?

Ah, reducing the number of people. Four legs good. Two legs bad.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 7 October 2010 4:20:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LNG is real and is already happening, in fact, it has been tipped to be the next 'gold rush' in this country.

Also, the water is also already there as it comes up with the gas and, by laws of the EPA, it must be treated. So, why not treat it and place in reserves.

As for pumping it, well, that's also simple, just use the natural gas to power the generators that can power the pumps.

The pumps that pump the gas up are already fired by natural gas and it costs next to nothing.

Now there is some fairly good land around these arid areas, mostly along the flats of dried river beds. Now if these flats were provided with a regular supply of water, who knows.

Now as for anti population, this really is not a viable option as who will be there to fund the taxes we need to continue life as we know it if we don't continue to at least replace those who perish.

I still feel populating the bush is an option worth consideration.
Posted by rehctub, Thursday, 7 October 2010 8:17:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehtcub,
Where will all the energy come from to build the houses and roads and establish new towns and new farms. Most of our current energy fuels are non-renewable.

We could very well be using up our energy reserves to increase our population, and then when our energy reserves run out, we have to quickly reduce the population.

All for nothing.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 8 October 2010 9:46:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
vanna

Nuclear power would be one option.

You can't tell me that a misshsp that occurred some 25 years ago can't be avoided, or better handled nowdays.

How long are we going to continue to bury our heads in the sand.

Until someone else desides to take it I would suggest!
Posted by rehctub, Friday, 8 October 2010 8:01:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Populating the bush - there but for the heat, dust, and flies go I; and most others.
Actually, I came from there and have great affinity for it. It is already populated; and people of regional areas deserve more supportive services to induce them to stay in their role as custodians.
But calls continue to reverberate for pouring people into regional centres, echoing for decades:
Glenn Withers (Professor of Public Policy), with impeccable numeracy declared that a patch of sod the size of Queensland could accommodate the world’s population in quarter-acre family blocks. Paul Davies (a “Thinker in Residence” for Adelaide) favored city life, sprinkling Australia with new cities the size of Adelaide to overcome burgeoning population problems. Federal Minister Tony Burke sees regional Australia as a pressure valve for ever-increasing numbers. Feral Independent Bob Katter wants regional numbers boosted. And Rehctub.
Tugging the forelock to this accumulated wisdom, in the knowledge that more than 50 per cent of people in the world choose city life, Paul Davies’ proposal gets the nod: Leave Australia’s exisiting cities to catch up on their shortages of houses, schools, roads; build a new Adelaide to accommodate the population increase.
Start with Shepparton, add a million. Then head north along the great inland plains - providing modern city infrastructure linked by roads, rail, and broadband. Build one every three years - Hay, Bourke, Longreach, Normanton: Five new Adelaides, drawing upon the natural capital from those regions and from outside of them; and providing for population increase to 2025.

But perhaps Doug Cocks, in his book People Policy (1996), might have been onto something: “the population question is important -- the consequences of getting it wrong could be quite unpleasant. --the resource arguments -- suggest that Australia should not set itself a long-term population target much outside the 18-36 million range. If Australians do not want to pay increasing real prices for basic services nor to be increasingly rationed for their access to unique natural resources, the target will be much nearer 18 million than 36 million.”
Doug Cocks recognized natural resources as capital.
Posted by colinsett, Saturday, 9 October 2010 7:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, put together the suggestions from rehctub and colinsett with the following. Nuclear power has indeed taken great leaps forward; and, much as I still don't like it, may well be the only way forward for the immediate future (i.e. the next generation or two). Google the term 'thorium reactor' or go here for more:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

Instead of doing the traditional Aussie thing and buying in the technology - probably from a Third World country like India, the way things are going, thereby proving that we're actually a Fourth World country - we could open up some new regional centres devoted to researching and developing the technology in the environment in which it would be deployed, rather than in the comfort of a capital city university. If the new broadband network lives up to even a fraction of what is promised, if Australians truly are free-thinking innovators, and if the Federal Government is actually prepared to back Australian R&D instead of kowtowing to the TNC's, this plan would create immediate real employment, establish some REAL indigenous R&D and new industry, and set a course for a future energy solution.

Of course, it wouldn't be easy. Much simpler to turn on the telly and crack another stubby ...
Posted by Beelzebub, Monday, 11 October 2010 8:40:00 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those that advocate population growth I have but one question - at what point do you recommend we stop growing our population?

Or do you intend that we keep growing until we are all standing cheek by jowell with our neighbours?

The Foundation for National Renewal advocates aiming for a population of around 20,000,000 distributed over our country more evenly than at present.

In other words, we can't keep growing so why not stop now when there is a reasonable chance of that 20,000,000 enjoying a reasonable quality of life and while there is still room for all the other creatures equally entitled to survive?

Charles S Mollison
Posted by charlsmol, Monday, 11 October 2010 11:03:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
charlsmol,
We could actually stop growing our population and maintain the present number, however, for this to work we would have to stop people being reliant on the minority who pay positive income taxes.

You see, there are simply more who don't pay positive taxes, than there are who do pay them, and there in lies the problem.

Now there is one way being tossed around, and that's a 'transaction tax', however, big business simply doesn't want it.

Now until we address these serious issues, along with 'real job creation', we simply have to continue growing due to our diminishing tax base.

So many of our jobs today are government funded, either directly, or indirectly and, that's actually spending our taxes simply to create employemnt. Much like the recent stimulus.

However, if we still had a strong manufacturing industry, these jobs would be creating jobs that in effect also create jobs, like servicing cars, manufacturing consumables for cars and industry.

Unfortunately, those days are all but gone.

Who knows just how many 'IT' jobs will be at risk when we get the NBN.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 11 October 2010 9:10:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I had a number of choices when it came to selection of a construction company for my new facility. Being a business owner, I could hardly take out time to observe the work at construction site. So, I was actually looking for a service provider that could monitor everything from start to finish and deliver great results. A friend advised me to opt for Morcon Construction. This organization helped me realize the building of my dreams without any difficulty!
Regards,
Corwin
http://www.morcon.com
Posted by Corwin, Saturday, 30 October 2010 9:48:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy