You can't really blame them: vague but hysterical claims of environmental naughtiness have worked so well for politicians and 'green industry' for so long. It's inevitable that others will seek to adopt the same tactic. After all, there isn't ANYTHING we can say or do that will not have SOME impact for better or worse on the lives of future generations: so by depicting present-day conditions as a Golden Age of complete perfection, critics can turn any change whatsoever into a negative to be resisted.

I look forward to the critics of gay marriage explaining why it will be an environmental disaster. It can't be long now.

Everybody in all times and places has sought to both protect and improve the quality of their living circumstance. It seems to me that that is what these people are doing using the means available to them. Unlike the peasants who all over the world get their modest ramshackle dwellings bull-dozed by the powers that be. And/or live in the conditions described by Mike Davis in his book Planet of Slums.

The very rich protect (and extend) their turf by using all kinds of devices including fancy accounting and off-shore tax havens. And by using outfits such as ALEC in the USA to dismantle whatever provisions that exist which, to some degree at least, protect the health and well-being of ordinary people. The same people also use so called "free"-trade agreements to extend their turf and privileges, more often than not by privatising everything including water.

Meanwhile what people actually recquire is a small scale essentially natural environment in which to live and over which they can exercise some control in cooperation with others. But this is exactly what the capitalist world-machine has all but destroyed, and is in the process of destroying whatever such circumstances that still remain on the planet.

The usual city is essentially a pattern of chaos, a random collection of people who are glommed together for no other purpose than to pursue their own narrow self-interest. It is a place where emergencies both large and small inevitably arise on a daily basis, in which the quality of life inevitably (despite all the outward bright-lights) gets worse and worse.

The usual town is caracterized by noise and all the chaos of what you have to put up with because of whatever your neighbour, or some predatory outside corporation with no links to the community, feels like doing. Somehow, in the smallest space which you get to call your own you may get to create a temporary haven of sanity and peace and quiet (as long as you remember to wear your ear-plugs. Everyone is wandering around doing his or her own thing and disturbing everyone else.

Again find myself unreservedly agreeing with Jon J.
Malcolm, if you think you have problems with so called greying greens in Adelaide. Then try living in Queensland, where these inordinately obtuse and recalcitrant eco-fascists have presided over the closing down of quite massive swathes of our marine economic zone!
Why?
Well because it might hold a veritable bonanza of hydrocarbon products.
Their theory goes, if we find more hydrocarbons, then we will burn more!
Ignored is the fact that our own indigenous hydrocarbons produce four times less carbon pollution, from well head to harvester, when compared with fully imported double refined petroleum products. Or the tanker traffic their stance literally forces through the reef!
Our own sweet light crude is traditionally sulphur free, leaves the ground as a virtually ready to use diesel, (as is) needing only a little insitu, chill filtering, to produce a vastly superior product, when compared to the fully imported sulphur laden product!
What threatens the reef and has killed off around half of it already, is Co2, not a few holes we might make exploiting much much lower carbon producing petroleum products.
Given those very fuels, would produce in use, four times less carbon pollution, you'd expect those with some semblance of working grey matter, to dig their heels in and refuse to use any other liquid fossil fuel; given how much of the reef we have already lost to Co2 pollution.
And what about, those armies of tourists, we were promised, would replace the forgone potential hydrocarbon sourced wealth!
There is no doubt in my mind, that these people have just about cost labour almost any seat in Queensland; and younger voters will give them the bird in South Australia, come voting day!
Albeit for different and alluded to affordability reasons!
Rhrosty.

you bet Rhosty, Queensland has the greying greenies in spades. I worry about the poor old Croweaters who seem to be drifting back in to some backyard boomer reverie when in fact, it was never that good in the first place in Adelaide. Lovely people though and fab wines.

It appears that a collection of ageing boomers have formed a mass collective of like minded boomer groups who are intent on 'saving things' and who have pretty much have given the finger to their kids re developing land and units close to the city. They have become prime 'cuckoo' material for the anti-population lobby.

I wonder what the real environmental groups think of having their movement co-opted first by boomers blocking building developments left, right and centre and then by anti-population groups who have no environmental credentials.

Thanks Malcolm for a good article. You make some excellent points, especially about self-interest masquerading as virtue, and mistaking consultation for a right to impose vested interests on the majority.

And I always wince when I hear baby boomers complain about Gen Y’s “sense of entitlement”. Talk about pots and kettles!

I take issue, though, with your comment that “they have hijacked the language of the environmental movement and used it as a reactionary battering ram.” In my experience, large parts of the environmental movement ARE reactionary. It’s no coincidence that the words “conservationist” and “conservative” have the same root. Many share suspicion of change, antipathy to social mobility and economic development, a romantic and sentimental view of nature but a pessimistic view of human nature, and disdain for the enlightenment value of progress (even some who call themselves “progressive”). Reactionaries aren’t “hijacking” the values of the environmental movement; they share them.

A reality check is needed on Malcolm King's "excellent" article. It is amusing to see ordinary suburbanites concerned about the amenity of their neighbourhoods and thus perhaps their property values classed as "special interests" rather than the business elite who benefit from population growth. In fact, poll after poll have shown that majority opinion in Australia is that population growth is too high. If South Australia were losing people, as Malcolm King tries to suggest, then there would be no need for the extra development. In fact, its population is growing at 1%, according to the latest ABS figures.

<Stop Population Growth Now [SPGN] and the Stable Population Party [SPP] ... want to meddle in women's reproductive rights, slash the immigrant intake, boot out international students, evict the Kiwis while returning Australia to trade protectionism.>

Both of these parties have websites giving their policies. Neither has anything to say about trade protectionism, purely a figment of King's imagination. They don't advocate deporting anyone, New Zealanders or otherwise, and they say nothing specifically about international students. So far as women's reproductive rights are concerned:

"We do not favour any coercive strategies for family planning such as the Chinese one-child policy but we do not believe that couples should be encouraged or rewarded to have families of more than 2 children through baby bonuses." (SPGN)

"We do not support restrictions on family size - we simply support the withdrawal of government incentives to have large families." (SPP)

Hardly coercive.

<It is bizarre that Community Alliance SA has aligned itself with economic illiterates who want to reduce the number of people in the community.>

SPP advocates stabilising Australia's population at 26 million. Hardly a reduction, as we have 23 million now. I checked the World Bank Figures on GDP per capita and averaged the growth rates in GDP per capita from 2003 through 2011 for Australia and Germany, which actually has a slowly declining population. The averages were 1.5% in Australia and 1.4% in Germany. (Germany didn't have a mining boom of course.) It is a pity that the Germans are economic illiterates.

Divergence, it has been a long time since I've heard the term 'business elite' used in modern commentary. The last time was the early 70s in a now long faded sociology text.

What is curious is that you defend anonymous political parties who have no track record or form on economics yet they want to meddle in Australia's social, economic and immigration policies. They've got no track record on publishing articles or journals on population either.

Quoting from their website is pointless as it changes from day to day, depending on which way the wind blows or who is attacking them. Half of their reason for existing - the baby bonus - has disappeared. Kanck has gone on record calling for a one child policy (which she quickly retracted), Mark O'Connor called for world population to shirk to 2 billion and Tim Flannery reckons Australia's pop should shrink to 16 million. Absolute shocker - and these people want us to elect them a Senator. They need to find their moral compass first.

The sociobiological foundations of the SPP can be found here:

http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

Cheryl,

You falsely accused SPGN and SPP of advocating certain policies. Now you are saying that they may not have them now, but had them in the past. If this is true, then you can easily go to the Wayback Machine and find past iterations of their websites to prove your case. If you can't, perhaps you will admit that you made it all up. It is easy enough to find an individual who has any views that you like, but that is different from attributing them to a whole organization without evidence.

I have already given one example of an economically successful country with no population growth. How many more examples do you need? There are demographers who agree with us about population growth, such as Bob Birrell, and even some major party politicians, such as Kelvin Thomson and Nick Minchin. Others have ties to the property development industry

http://www.stoppopulationgrowthnow.com/LardelliEssay.html

http://www.democracy4sale.org/

Hardly wise philosopher kings.

"One wonders what young people think of this obstructionism. Affordable accommodation close to the city is hard to come by."

It's a mistake to think that younger people all think the same way and that we all want the same things.

I have no desire for unit living, I gave that a good try but I felt like a battery hen. Nearly everyone I know still lives at home, lives in the suburbs in share housing or if they can afford it and have a family, a town house or house with a backyard.

I've only seen property prices rise since our population has grown over the past decade and so has the cost of living.

I don't think demographics can be separated from environmentalism because there's no doubt that a population that grows quickly will soon find itself outgrowing the environment they depend on to survive.

Another issue is how long it takes to get to town these days. Living in the outer suburbs wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for greater congestion on our roads. As the suburbs creep further away and the units keep getting built near town I can't see things will get better, only worse. If I wanted to live somewhere with a bigger population I'd move to Melbourne or Sydney. I think Adelaide is pretty great as it is.

I'm sorry people aren't prouder or more content with what we have because a lot of overcrowded cities have major problems.

I think you might be being a little harsh on the poor old dears Malcolm. All you have to do is Google “Sustainability and Social Justice” to see just how many entities try to get some leverage from this mantra.

A bit of Club of Rome, Agenda 21 and their sustainability, a bit of social justice, social license, all mixed together with a hefty dollop of Peak Everything and bingo, you’re in the mainstream of activism.

As a change manager you will be well aware of how the process works, why pick on them?

We could, with just a few strokes on a keyboard, introduce quantitative easing, and or virtually doubling our money supply.
In the first instance, this would make housing even less affordable.
Along with increasing property prices, would come higher council rates, higher house and contents insurance premiums, higher maintenance costs, higher mortgage costs, higher replacement costs/service fees and higher charges for everything we import, fuel, food!
And the myopically focused, moronic, moribund property owning baby boomers, will think, oh goody, my investment property has virtually doubled in value, along with the future rents I'll be able to charge!?
Justifiable in the face of all those other rising costs, including replacement or repair costs.
And think, some of those heritage listed buildings, (termite riddled ruins) they have often become so enamoured with, would likely cost much more to repair/rejuvenate, than to simply tear down and replace with something brand new.
A miner's cottage in a Sydney inner suburb could cost you more than a million, and probably that much again to fully refurbish?
[Little wonder Sydney now rates as the most expensive place to live, in the English speaking would!]
Whereas, for around the same outlay, one could build six brand new, steel framed homes, with fifty year structural guarantees on six separate acres, near, (but not too close to) a stinger free beach, here in sunny Queensland.
When Adelaide's baby boomers are trying to block every nook and cranny against those chilly winter winds, and hugging the increasingly expensive heater, I'll be "walking" the dog, (mobility scooter) on a sunny warm sandy beach.
And when they're sweltering in yet another record heat wave, I'll be wetting a line or taking a dip in the still affordable, (for now) backyard pool!
There's work for Young people who want it, up here.
All we need is to exchange all our greying greenies, (road blocks in the path of progress) for some of SA's upwardly mobile and progressive youngsters.
Perhaps we could reintroduce punitive death duties/inheritance tax, to start an exodus, back down to Southern states?
Rhrosty.

I’ll tell you a short story in two posts which is typical of what is happening with developments in Australia’s major cities. It’s a curious dynamic involving the ageing Boomers in specific localities, intergenerational tension and how the anti-population parties support division for electoral gain.

Betty is 64, a retired schoolteacher who lives in a ‘nice’ leafy suburb called ‘Boomer Grove’ in a capital city. Her husband Bob has retired and they have plenty of time on their hands to do the things they enjoy. They own their own house, and will never need to worry about money.

Betty has noticed that an old mansion down the road has been sold to a developer who is going to build ten apartments on the land. The old mansion was falling down, had no heritage value and had been inhabited by drug addicts and never do wells. The development had been approved by Council.

But Betty had reservations. A lot more people now lived in Boomer Grove since she was a girl in the late 1940s. There were a lot more foreigners too. Betty mentioned the new development to her friends at Save Our World (SOW), a group dedicated to ensuring that the local community (meaning them) were consulted on all property developments.

Across town, Tina and Paul, both in their 20s, have spent the last five years scraping together the deposit for an apartment near the city. They knew about the Boomer Grove development and were going to buy an apartment off the plan. Leafy Grove was expensive but it was perfect as it was close to the city for work. Plus Tina was expecting their first child.

(more next post)

Betty and SOW didn’t really want 50 more people moving in to the area. It was hard enough finding a park outside the local butchers and bottle shop as it was. SOW shored up their argument by using information supplied to them by the Stable People Party, which said Australia was ‘bursting at the seams’ with people. Stopping the development now took on the form of a MISSION.

Betty’s experience in heritage research now came in handy. She spent a couple of days at the local library and found back in 1931, a famous pianist had written a moderately renowned concerto there when it was a men’s boarding house. So now the building had ‘cultural value’ and should be preserved. She also noticed in 1975, a small extension had been built which she was sure was asbestos.

That was all that Betty and the SOW needed. They lodged an objection to Council, got a petition signed by 200 locals (what am I signing?), and got a big conflict story in the local media. The environmental line was two fold: probable asbestos and the local infrastructure couldn’t take more people. It was ‘populations’ fault.

Tina and Paul drove past the old mansion one Saturday morning and saw 20 people in their 60s and 70s picketing the building. Their banner out the front said Save Our World. Tina and Paul went home disconsolate, their dreams up in smoke.

end of story - but not for Tina and Paul.

The real reactionaries, Rhian, are the folk who believe that we can go on growing the population and using up more and more stuff indefinitely. Business as usual, forever and ever. Never mind the past societies that collapsed because they drove their environment into the ground or just let their safety margins get too thin. Never mind the Dust Bowl or the destruction of the Aral Sea, or the brown cloud over Asia.

All the scientists who are warning us climate change, ocean acidification, depleted aquifers, land degradation, extinctions, collapse of fisheries, etc. are either fools or are liars and part of some global conspiracy, just like the people who faked the moon landings, assassinated Princess Diana, secretly brought down the World Trade Center for the US government, or are hiding those alien bodies in Area 51.

The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF( has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act but don't be alarmed.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

ACF are just reactionaries with a romantic, sentimental view of nature, and there is no substance to what they are saying. No decent person could imagine that more people could ever be anything more than an unalloyed good.

Cheryl,

Your little scenario is nicer than your wild, unsubstantiated allegations, but you overlook a few things. As Joske pointed out, people of all ages object to crowding, not just baby boomers. High density is particularly bad for young families. The demographer Joel Kotkin has called high density a more effective means of bringing down fertility rates than China's one-child policy, and it is also bad for children's physical and social development.

http://www.news.com.au/money/property/sydneys-dense-housing-a-threat-to-fertility-rates-warns-joel-kotkin/story-e6frfmd0-1226135327168#ixzz1ZVHq6pDO

http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/research/centres/cf/publications/cfprojectreports/childreninthecompactcity.pdf

Bob and Betty and their friends might have reasons besides racism and property values for resisting development: More congestion, forcing people to waste time and money on traffic delays and hunts for parking. Less greenery and open space, and more crowding of what is left. Overstretched infrastructure that was never intended to accommodate so many people. Higher taxes and charges to upgrade the infrastructure and restore the same or a lesser level of service. More noise and pollution. Less privacy. Overshadowing of windows, gardens, and solar panels. More conflict with neighbours as people are squeezed together. More rules and restrictions to deal with the conflict and shortages of resources...

It is the politicians, not the NIMBYs, who are responsible for Tina's and Paul's problems, as it was the politicians who decided to boost the population and concentrate nearly all the development in a few big cities. Australia's fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976. 60% of our population growth (1.7% per year) is from immigration, and about a third of the natural increase is from births to migrant mothers.

(contd)

(cont'd)

Moreover, the NIMBYs are not being hypocritical, unlike situations where a neighbourhood is resisting taking its fair share of facilities that are needed for the whole community, the NIMBYs included. Bob and Betty probably don't benefit economically from the population growth, as explained in the Productivity Commission 2010/2011 Annual Report (p. 6)

"An understanding of the economic impacts of immigration is sometimes clouded by misperception. Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
*immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
*immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

What is really going on here is that Cheryl/Malcolm King is most likely a person who does benefit from population growth. Bob and Betty are throwing a spanner in the works by refusing to wear the externalities.

Indeed, as Divergence stated, there is nothing sinister about older people seeking peace and quiet.

The idea that older people want property-prices to increase is absurd. The more expensive properties are, the more prohibitively-expensive it is to move due to the increased stamp-duty and usually also the land-agent's fixed percentage. That means that one is likely to be, for financial reasons, stuck forever with bad neighbours or in a house which no longer suits one's changed lifestyle.

" Bob and Betty are throwing a spanner in the works by refusing to wear the externalities." That sums up the Stable Population Party's philosophy and yours too Divergence. People are not pollution or externalities. You have sided with a movement that is anti-humanist and which is closer related to Pol Pot's Kampuchea than a liberal democracy.

So far as quoting the Productivity Commission to me - you and your boss at the ACF don't even believe in productivity. You don't even believe in capitalism. Indeed, you and the ACF have no idea about participation or productivity or the faintest notion of how a modern economy works. You've just focused on population.

If a cat's stuck up a tree, it's populations fault. Flat tyre? Population. Dandruff? Population. Population is one of about 30 drivers that contribute to Australia's economy - try Luvox - it will fix that obsession you have.

The ACF became irrelevant 20 years ago when it nose dived into politics and used its tax funded status to become a defacto lobby group.

Not only have Betty and Bob benefited from 30 years of population growth, but they have benefited by 30 years of property price inflation. Now they have pulled up the drawbridge and are using environmental slogans to bar entry of younger Australians in to their suburbs. Why? Profit.

The world must be a terrible place for you Divergence.

The real solution here is very rapid rail.
And the thing could pay for itself, if some of the resumed land, is rezoned as urban and sold to young folks who prefer a backyard!
These areas could be planed as largely self contained towns, replete with a CBD, independent power supplies and industrial estates, surrounded on all sides by green belts.
Green belts that could be recreational parks and market gardens that absorb use and safely recycle all the liquid biological waste, which could be sopped up by profit producing mop crops?
Like say, bamboo groves?
Bamboo has a higher tensile strength than steel, can be harvested trianually, used as scaffolding; or as compressed products, able to replace many building materials!
Populations of around thirty thousand is enough to allow things like competing supermarkets, sporting venues, theatres, cafes, and all one might find in any large capital city, except on a smaller scale.
You also have the added advantage of size, for security purposes, where the odd stranger stands out like a sore thumb.
Moreover, smaller communities seem to coalesce better and are usually more community minded?
I mean, the loneliest place in the world can be a very big city, where almost everyone is surrounded by self absorbed strangers?
Rents are usually much lower in smaller self-contained communities!
Everything is closer, and the residents produce a fraction of the carbon of large city dwellers, who on average, produce 2.5 times more carbon than their country cousins.
The only people who would miss out, in more pragmatic decentralisation, are profit hungry, billionaire urban redevelopers; the multimillionaire architects, who design their high rise towers for them; and the ever present predatory millionaire realtor's, who mass market them?

Dear Cheryl,

I could not understand the following:

<<Not only have Betty and Bob benefited from 30 years of population growth, but they have benefited by 30 years of property price inflation.>>

Does an inflated house grow more rooms?
Does it insulate better over time?
Is it more pleasant to live in?

What's the point of having a more expensive house when all other houses are also more expensive by the same ratio?
Does the nominal amount of inflated $$'s matter, so one can eventually claim to be a millionaire?
One thing is sure - council rates and the percentage-of-value part of water-bills only go higher!

You say that Betty and Bob also benefited from population growth - other than having more neighbours, more cars parked and more noise in their street, do they now have more friends as a result, and more time to enjoy all those friends?

This article is full of the same biases it accuses of green groups. Using rhetoric such as 'heritage huggers' gives the game away from the beginning.

I have yet to see the balance weighted in favour of green groups or those concerned about heritage. There are far more approvals of dodgy developments of which the outcomes have to be endured by those around them with little real consultation. Often the plans are a done deal before the consultation process has been begun as was the case as reported in some of the dodgy deals in Sydney.

Those who speak out about population growth are not out to control the reproductive rights of women. The strawman approach does not make the author's case very convincing. SA may not have a large influx of population but then if that is the case the development applications are, by that argument, unnecessary.

Cheryl please explain, just what these environmental credentials you talk about are. I see you are only impressed by those who are "publishing articles or journals on population."

From this I can only gather you have some misguided belief that anything of use comes from academics in the field. Those ivory tower dwellers, pontificating from a great height producing useless drivel consumed only by their compatriots.

Well sorry love, but it is the opinion of residents, not self styled experts that matters, & no other.

I don't know where you get the idea that Queensland has "greying greenies in spades", you are certainly out of step with the rest of your brethren. We find oldies are constantly referred to as reactionaries, not greenies around here. Strange isn't It, & doubtful they could be both simultaneously. The ones I know certainly are not greenies, & will tell you so damn quickly.

That people don't want their life stuffed up just to suit strangers is quite understandable, & reasonable.

I am shortly going to find the house keys, not seen for a decade or more. We can still leave things open in our district, but not for long. A 50,000 population satellite city is being developed only 10Km from us.

As with other such small block, dense population developments, this will bring a flood of rental accommodation, which is always accompanied by a drastic increased crime, particularly break & enter.

Insurance companies will force us to install deadlocks, & other such expensive paraphernalia, which of course only keep honest folk out, but make insurance companies happier, & our bank accounts smaller.

It is only the residents desires, & definitely not the opinion of some fool demographer that should control such development.

Just to correct any misunderstandings...

I don't work for the ACF. Cheryl made that one up. No one pays me or encourages me to post here. I do feel strongly about this issue (population growth and distribution), as I believe that it is behind a lot of our other problems (quite apart from cats in trees and dandruff), but I am not obsessed to the point of telling lies about people or deliberately misrepresenting them.

If Cheryl has a problem with the Productivity Commission, she should take it up with them, not try to shoot the messenger.

By the way, what is Luvox? I have never heard of Luvox, but no doubt Cheryl has some experience with it.

< Would you like some sustainability with your steak? Is that person sustainable? I want a sustainable haircut. >

Thanks Malcolm. You’ve done another terrific job in stirring up debate on this issue.

Just about all respondents to your articles on OLO, in the Adelaide Advertiser and on New Matilda, have let you know just how far off the planet you are.

I once said to you that it seems that you are actually playing devil’s advocate and are on the side of us population stabilisers and are trying to embarrass the pro-growth-forever lobby.

You didn’t respond.

I am now convinced that this is the case.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/opinion/letters-population-growth-will-put-pressure-on-our-resources/story-e6freabc-1226659632353

http://newmatilda.com/2013/06/07/stop-breeding-nations-sake

Good to see you again Ludwig, but you remind me of the little soldier who missed the battle by 48 hours. King's major article was in News Ltd on Wednesday and the sociobiological roots of the SPP story was in New Matilda on Friday, ditto the OLO story. You really must keep up.

Did you hear him on radio last week and on the weekend? There was even talkback. I actually feel a bit sorry for your SPP SA candidate. He seemed like a nice chap but he's dead in the water three months out from the election. That's $2K per Senate candidate down the drain. That could have been used to help new immigrants settle in.

I must agree with you that the SPP will get some votes from all of this publicity King is getting. You're doing great with the National Front (who in the main can't read) and who are busy bashing Asians and Pakistani people. You're also doing fabulously well with the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan - but unfortunately they're in Alabama.

Yes, the SPP is doing really well. Any news on those preferences yet?

< You really must keep up. >

Um….. no.

I am doing exactly the right thing and not wasting my time keeping up with the details of your written and verbal outpourings!

Incidentally Malcolm, why DO you refer to yourself in the third person?

Why do you call yourself Cheryl? Although having seen your mugshot in The Advertiser article, I’ve got to admit it does suit you!!

Anyway, it is good to have you on board. We desperately need a new political paradigm that will direct this country towards a sustainable future. So your publicity and prompting of debate is much appreciated.