Population growth in general is inimical to meeting the challenges of an increasingly overcrowded world. Australia should not only limit immigration but also contribute to population planning outside of Australia.

The average Australian leaves a much bigger environmental footprint than the average Bangladeshi. However, if the Bangladeshi comes to Australia his or her life style will change and will leave an Australian size footprint.

Thanks,Charles,for a well reasoned article expressed with clarity.

The fact is that we have so far overshot our sustainable population level that only (apparently) drastic sollutions are left to us.

I propose Zero Immigration as the best way to start on a remedy.

Good to read an article that provides more disclosure of the options.

It diminishes the value and confidence in politicians and report authors when they are not prepared to offer the full picture and all options.

It’s not a case of governments ‘might not’ be able to provide enough water and infrastructure; it is a definite will not.

Governments have failed to provide enough water and infrastructure for 22 million people.

As the author says, the idea that a population of 36 million, or some other wildly irresponsible number, is ‘inevitable’ is wrong. Politicians just want Australians to get used to such an outrageous figure so that they can bring it about – in the hottest, driest continent in the world, where only one third of the land mass in habitable.

Unfortunately, Australia is blighted by the ‘big Australia’ attitude of bothof the only two parties currently capable of forming a government. There is no correlation between a large population and prosperity as is evident in over-populated countries now, and with countries with smaller populations than ours who have not allowed their manufacturing industries to be taken over by the Third World. The idea of Barry Jones’s ‘smart country’ has been ignored by both parties in favour of the cheaper option of over populating Australia.

Charles Berger is to be congratulated on bringing to notice the good performances of countries with much lower populations than Australia’s. Many of us have always wondered why Australia needs more people than other countries doing as well, if not better than, than we are.

It comes back to the same old story: Australia is badly served by its political class, which has always taken the eas yway and, ultimately, the worst way of doing things. They are gluttons for people because they are captive to big (international) business interested only in the sale of IMPORTED consumer goods and housing.

Australia has been over-populated for many years. All the sneers of people who don’t live west of the Great Dividing Range will not change that fact.

The article asks the question "If Norway can prosper with a stable population, why can’t Australia?", but fails to point out some of the key reasons for their prosperity.

It appears that Norway is by nature a thrifty country. It has a...

"...$400 billion wealth fund that holds surplus revenues from North Sea oil and gas exports, turning petrodollars into a hoard of stocks and bonds... worth some $85,000 per citizen."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14460362 (Subscription required)

The country has a population around one-fifth of Australia. It has a pragmatic view of the source - and duration - of its wealth.

"even Ibsen might concede that it is easier to stand alone when your nation has benefited from oil reserves that make it the third-largest exporter in the world."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/business/global/14frugal.html

It has other natural advantages (also from The Economist)

"98-99% of Norway’s electricity comes from hydroelectric plants"

But is also less than a model citizen in other areas.

"Norway is also a prodigious polluter. Its greenhouse-gas emissions have grown 15% since it adopted the carbon tax."

Nevertheless, there are other structural issues that they seem particularly good at:

"There is an extensive public-transport system, with trains between the big cities, ferries along the coast and buses that call at many of Norway’s remote hamlets. There are cycle routes galore, and not as many new roads as drivers would like."

To select Norway as an example of a country that can "prosper with a stable population" is highly expedient.

To fail to point out that there are many more reasons for its continuing prosperity than simply a stable population is, I would suggest, highly tendentious.

The sheer superficiality of the author's analysis is contained in the one sentence:

"The Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Finland … with so many intriguing examples of countries with stable or low-growth populations that somehow continue to enjoy vibrant economies, it’s a pity the report didn’t take a more lateral approach."

Even the most cursory glance at the reality of these countries' economies exposes the shallowness of the argument that population control is a factor.

C'mon CJ where are you? There's lots of racists here to be pulled into line.