@ Lugwig... Your not thinking holistically at all, the population issue is global and that makes it Australia's buring our head in the sand and ignoring it won't help.

I would love to see Government help promote population reduction strategies; eg stop family allowances, eliminate baby bonusus and child care subsidies, (phased out over say a decade), free vasectomies, the pill etc available over the counter for free... we can lead the way and show others in the World how to do it but limiting immigration is one of the worst things to do. We need to bring people to Aus, show them the way and let them disseminate that back to their home lands.

None of that will ever happen and the Worlds population will continue to grow.... and if we don't feed them and utilise the resources we have (and keep destroying the environment in doing so,) they will just come and take it. After we have depleted all of their resources (70% of our fish is imported for example because we don't invest in fish farms to replace wild caught stock) where are they going to turn ?

Prompete, the global population growth rate could be reined in without draconian policies, if governments could just get it through their thick heads to promote family planning and implement incentives to have fewer kids.

Iran is a shining example… except that they are now reversing these policies:

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

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iran+population+growth

Ludwig. I completely agree with you, informative links, thanks.

When you refer to 'draconian policies', I read that as policies that have an element of coercion, as opposed to a parents free will choosing how many children to have.
So, in a pragmatic world, how do we persuade parents in say Bangladesh, Pakistan, the Congo or Ruwanda to have fewer children?

Children can be seen as an 'insurance policy' for our old age, the more you have and the more that survive to adulthood, the more you are assured that you can have a tolerable life past your 'productive' period of life.

Several elements need to be in place to assure your average Bangladeshi that they will be ok in old age. First, a health system that reasonable assures you that the children that you do have will survive and prosper to the extent that they will have the excess resources available to feed you.
Second, in the likelihood that they may not have the resources to feed, clothe and house you, the backup assurance that the state will have the resources to do the same, as well as having a health infrastructure with a degree of geriatric expertice.
Third, an education and communication system that drives/facilitates the 'planned parenthood' programs needed to implement such policies.

The above, somewhat simplisically listed factors, disregards the cultural drivers of large families, tribal norms and other deep inbuilt factors working against a two or one child family norm.
I think that when and if we can encourage and assist those countries in achieving the resources as evident in Australia, US, Europe, Japan and other 'wealthy' nations with Close to ZPG, we are fighting a loosing battle.

I do not wish to deride or belittle those expressing frustration with world population anxieties, but wish to illustrate that achieving a stabilization in population, without draconian impost of the state, is a complex generational task requiring considerable wealth; hence my stance on assisting to provide healthy abundant food, the mechanism to move and trade it and abundant cheap energy.

I agree with Ludwig, trees store carbon whether horizontal or vertical! Moreover, Indigenous populations have been selectively harvesting their forests for millennia, with no hurt or harm to their forests/flora or fauna.
In fact, very selective harvesting is usually beneficial, allowing new and vastly more robust forest growth to emerge, and in so doing, within a comparatively short period of time, to begin to absorb far more carbon, than the old growth they replaced!
However, the misunderstood point I was making; was, our oceans create two thirds of the planets oxygen and are the lungs of the planet; and therefore, deserving of at least as much care and concern as say, over-harvested or clear felled forests?
There are a number of reasons for preferencing many small upland dams.
Firstly, they force massive water into the landscape, where as an envelope of fresh, they force salt to sink deeper, to where it does little or no harm.
Well positioned upland dams, stop erosion and trap the alluvium that usually clogs downstream flows; and or, covers both reef and sea grass, killing great swathes of both in the process.
And sure, both of these systems are far more robust than usually depicted and seem to recover, time after time, from all manner of damage.
I mean, they've survived considerable climate change, and conditions far worse than are common today, for millions of years.
Because many small dams quite literally force water into the landscape, they mitigate far more effectively against rapid stream rises/flash floods, than much larger and fewer dams.
And when the wet season is replaced by a dry one, many small upland dams continue to allow the massive landscape stored, cleaner water, to gradually release back into the system, extending environmental flows for years beyond what is normal now.
Or, as was normal before white settlement and the quite massive deforestation that followed.
They also improve the fertility and production outcomes/possibilities of upland pastures.
Also, vastly extended and far more reliable flows, would allow many new modest hydro schemes, where none are currently feasible!
Rhrosty.

I stand by the term tree hugging eco fascist, but reserve it for a very few, who replace reason with manifestly manufactured rage?
Like those globe trotting, jet-setting, carbon creating, so-called Canadian activists, who with great song and dance, trampled/trespassed over our tiny shale oil pilot plant! All while Canada was busy/busy, developing its mind-blowing, massive, Middle East sized, tar sands hydrocarbon reserves?
Hydrocarbons, which due to the number of, from deposit to tank, processing requirements, produce four times the carbon of our own virtually ready to use, sweet light crude or NG.
Which poses the greatest threat to the planet?
I'm also minded of a visit from a high profile, female American marine biologist, who counselled us not to mine our reef for its possibly massive low carbon hydrocarbon reserves?
It seems the Lady scientist was not all she claimed? Given her principle funding seemed to come from a very large oil company?
I apologise to my many conservationist friends, if they thought they were included in my terminology?
Please, if the eco-fascist cap doesn't fit, then simply don't wear it!
I agree, we need to rein in population growth! We can as others have suggested, do that; via, shining successful example.
That example is as simple as recycling everything; and or, growing your economy/discretionary spending sustainably, through attacking and removing poverty in all its forms and guises, wherever it is found; and, ensuring that education is universal, rather than gender biased or privileged!
These three, almost alone, are the non population growth examples, that will still produce sustainable abundance and "enough" wealth creating entrepreneurial examples for the go-getters; or, for others to emulate.
I've always thought the very best way to put the high carbon producing oil enterprises out of business, was to flood the market with far lower costing, lower carbon producing alternatives!
If you see the inescapable logic in that; then you will also see; that mining the reef for its possibly massive, much lower carbon producing products; is the only realistic means, currently available to us, to save it!
Rhrosty.

<<@Lugwig… Your not thinking holistically at all, the population issue is global and that makes it Australia's buring our head in the sand and ignoring it won't help. >>

What a strange comment, Valley Guy!

Of course we need to address global population, as well as Australia’s population growth rate!

Now, you seem to be saying something entirely contradictory here:

You say that we could lead the way in showing the world how to implement population-growth-reduction strategies. But then you say that limiting immigration is one of the worst things we could do!!

So, if Australia is going to continue to have very high population growth via immigration, then why should we bother at all about reducing our fertility rate?