<Weipa was quite an eye-opener, for example. They managed to find a sustainable 64 GL p.a. supply. Not bad for a small town. Especially as that's pretty much what they use to keep Canberra going.>

Pericles

I congratulate you for mentioning some numbers instead of assuming the water to be there. So what population might such a supply support? According to this data, you need about 1000 GL per annum per million people, with about 30% of that needed for utilities, domestic and commercial use.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/indicator/334/index.html

So on this basis, you might guess that a population of about 64, 000 might be possible for Weipa. For 10 million people, you would need 10,000 GL of sustainable annual water supply. To do this you would require a much larger storage, for the aforementioned reasons of flat topography, high evaporation and fickle rainfall. A real example is Lake Argyle, with a storage capacity of over 10,000 GL. The net annual inflow, streamflow less evaporation, is 2730 GL.

http://www.travelling-australia.info/InfsheetsO/Ordriverscheme.html

The standard deviation for streamflow is 2930 GL.

http://portal.environment.wa.gov.au/pls/portal/url/item/FA2985AA6ED484F1E03010AC6E05653F

A previous thread on OLO included a discussion of Lake Argyle. The data available to me then suggested that the water could sustainably support about a million people, and the data I find now gives me no reason to change my opinion.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=521&page=0#10252

How many sites for Lake Argyle sized dams are there is the North? Ten? You would need ten if you wanted to support a population of ten million there. I think that if you want to claim that water supply is not a problem, you need to point to where it will come from. Just saying it is there and alleging conspiracy amongst scientists and Government makes little sense.

The "conspiracy" is all in your head, Fester.

>>Just saying it is there and alleging conspiracy amongst scientists and Government makes little sense.<<

I'm personally in favour of Hanlon's Razor as a better explanation.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"

Or the Silberman variation, that applies more closely to your allegation:

"Never attribute to a conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence"

>>So what population might such a supply support?<<

As previously noted, Canberra runs quite satisfactorily on these sorts of numbers.

http://www.actewagl.com.au/water/facts/annualConsumption.aspx

>>How many sites for Lake Argyle sized dams are there is the North? Ten? You would need ten if you wanted to support a population of ten million there<<

Who said anything about supporting ten million people in the North?

I simply pointed out that where there was a benefit (in Weipa's case, bauxite), previous generations have found ways to build the infrastructure necessary to exploit it. Today, we seem to be permanent nay-sayers. It's all too difficult.

This attitude is highly convenient for those people who would prefer that our wilderness stays untouched.

Those who subscribe to the view that "wilderness values include those of remoteness, few or no people, an absence of human made objects, traces, sounds and smells, and untraveled or infrequently traveled terrain".

http://www.austlii.edu.au/nz/journals/NZYbkIntLaw/2005/13.html

These people are vocal, and influential. They even describe visitors to their own particular wilderness (Tasmania is a great example) as "a threat".

http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=667

They don't even want visitors, let alone (shudder) "development".

Unfortunately, their vehemence that "none shall pass" is also a handy excuse for those people who would rather we closed our borders and allowed nobody else in.

Sooner or later we must recognize that the concept of "fortress Australia" is neither attractive, nor feasible.

Pericles sends some interesting examples illustrating how it is that Norway has achieved higher per capita economic growth than Australia while not having a high rate of population growth but all are beside the main point made by Chuk Berger in his article, namely that it is possible to have good per capita growth with low or even falling population.
Australia has many of the advantages cited by Pericles but is not exploiting them so as to achieve the long term advantages that the Norwegians clearly recognise. For example, we are spending rather than saving our mineral wealth. Moreover it is quite possible for Australia to put in place many other Norwegian advantages Pericles mentions such as good public transport systems.
The fact is we are not doing it.
Chuk's article is excellent and should be compulsory bedtime reading for every pollie in this country - every night until he or she accepts its wisdom.
JohnC

Fair enough, JohnC. And thanks for dragging us back on-topic.

>>...it is quite possible for Australia to put in place many other Norwegian advantages Pericles mentions such as good public transport systems. The fact is we are not doing it.<<

Exactly. The article somehow makes it appear that we can prosper, even though we don't have these "advantages".

Now if the article had said "we have all these advantages, just like Norway, so we can also mimic their low-growth strategy", it would have made some sense.

Instead, it tries to suggest that the parameters that allow Norway to exist without population growth, would be possible to put in place here in Australia.

The reality is, that to change our society to mirror that of Norway, and in doing so justify the "if they can, we can" claim, is beyond the scope of our political system to achieve.

We have private industry firmly entrenched in the cornerstone revenue-earning industries, and there isn't a snowball's chance in hell of any government being elected on a nationalization platform. Is there?

Forget even partial nationalization. The government wouldn't get close to instituting a tax regime that creams off industry's profits into some kind of "Future Fund". One that isn't dedicated to the comfort of public servants in retirement, that is.

I'm just trying to bring a little realism into the discussion.

Also to point out that if we were able to create a Norway-clone here in terms of fiscal management and forward-thinking investment, and to reap the rewards in terms of international competitiveness and low domestic transaction costs, guess what?

We'd have room for a lot more people.

Ironic, eh?

The argument that Australia requires high immigration for its prosperity is no more than a scaremongering dogma based on circular arguments. The scaremongering is very evident in comments like this one:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/more-people-does-not-equal-trashing-our-environment-20100113-m6uh.html

"Russia faces the greatest demographic collapse, with its population predicted to shrink from 140 million to 100 million by 2050. All these countries face disastrous economic consequences."

Sounds scary, yet a Wiki of Russia reveals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia

"As of April 2008, the International Monetary Fund estimates that Russia's gross domestic product (nominal) will grow from its 2007 value of $1,289,582 million to $3,462,998 million by 2013, a 168% increase. Its GDP PPP is estimated to grow from $2,087,815 to $3,330,623 in the same time, which would make it the second largest economy in Europe in terms of purchasing power."

Wow, dont be fooled by all the gdp growth, Russia is headed for the can because its population is in decline. Somehow I doubt the economic consequences of falling populations would be anything like the disaster Mr Danby would have you believe. It is even debatable whether there would be a disaster at all.

In contrast, there is no trouble seeing the real and unfolding disasters in countries with high rates of population growth. the hopelessness, the corruption, the total lack of education and infrastructure, and no hope of catching up to the growth. There is no need to tell scary stories about what disasters these countries will become in another forty years. They are disasters today, and will be bigger disasters for as long as their population growth continues.

And what of technological advance? I am very optimistic about technology improving our lives and living standards. It will do so for everyone, but it isn't hard to see that the technical fixes for an aging or declining population are far simpler to fix than the vast problem posed by an overpopulation.

The irony is that those for or against population growth believe they are promoting a policy that will help Australians and arguing against a policy which will bring harm.

Your economic analysis is not comparable to that of the son of a farmer who asks himself; “What am I to do if my parents will have another child, when our farm can hardly sustain the five of us?” Now there is only one farm Mr. Berger. It‘s name is planet Earth.

I hope that your next article will make better sense