I notice a lot of talk about sustainability, where, or where not to build houses, dams or no dams, finite resources and such.I notice a lot of finger pointing at mainstream parties but never a reflection or examination by greens of green policies - either by themselve, or other parties, in a rigorous, as opposed to, political manner.
However, doesn't the earth's ever expanding population stretch the need for resources and put pressure on all the things the Greens say should be preserved?
Is it fair that the Greens want to deny developing countries the kind of life the west enjoys for the sake of sustainability and preservation of species which get in the way of growing populations?
So, why so little talk of population policy and population control? This is something one only reads about in the nooks and crannies and never in the form of a full-blown debate. Perhaps it should become a mainstream issue worthy of serious discussion and debate.

bonmot,
If you read the thread or even my individual comment carefully you will see that I am not opposed to China's development. eg. I said, " Like it or not (and I like it) we will need more much more energy in the future."

The questions you ask of me should be directed to Ken Fabos, whose opinions you support but apparently without understanding their implications for China and the rest of the developing world. At any rate, China will go ahead with their development full steam and so Green thinking will only serve to hold back development in Australia and other developed countries, to the extent to which it gains a toe hold.

byork, in response to your request for more information about Traveston Crossing dam, unfortunately there is limited information available on the net. The best that is available is http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/traveston%20dam/MRCCC_TCD_Hydrol_Analysis_EIS%20Jan%2007.pdf If you go to Figure 21 it shows some of the data that was provided in the EIS. This 1999 event is the only event for which flood mitigation was modeled. In this case the modelers had the benefit of hindsight so to speak and were able to tweak the releases from the dam so as to obtain the best possible scenario. This of course is never possible in reality. The modeling itself was limited for several major reasons including the fact that it did not take into account the contribution of significant downstream tributaries to the water level in Gympie. Therefore this prediction needs to treated with caution and not be over interpreted. If you want to know more let me know.

billkerr
Of course we will need more energy in the future - the problem will be the way it is produced and its prolific abuse.
China does accept that mitigation is required (they are well into nuclear, solar, wind, etc) but expects nations like the US and OZ to also do their part - we're not.
You seem to think China scuttled Copenhagen, many others say it was the the 'developed' nations.

Just build the bloody dams. For heavens sake, it will take years to complete them but make a start and get it happening.
The population is increasing but there is no infrastructure to go with the increase.

What's so wrong with making Australia more efficient by having water stored and at the same time a means to check flooding in times of heavy rainfall.

I am over hearing all about the greens and their attitude of playing god, by wanting to control the environment rather than considering people who also have a place on this earth.

BUILD SOME DAMS SOMEWHERE.

Barry York,
what a hotch-potch of bilge. And I love the way you turn the Left into "reactioanries". As for the Chinese, they're in the process of beating the West at its own game. Just watch the politics change when we're the vassals!
You want to go on building damns, but can you spare a thought for our limited river systems and the biodiversity they support from the inland to the sea?
Why can't we live sustainably in this or any country? That is adapt to the conditions and curtail our population and infrastructure to be in harmony with nature?
Because of the growth monster. We have to have eco(nomic) growth at the expense of eco(logy).