If SPA and SPP actually embrace "Tanton's racist philosophy", then why don't they call for a discriminatory immigration program in their policies? After all, both organisations want zero net immigration (about 70,000 a year), not no immigration, so without a discriminatory policy, some of those brown people or Muslims are sure to get in, maybe quite a lot over a number of years. SPP in their policies: "We are opposed to discrimination of immigrants based on race or religion." SPA in their objectives: "•To advocate low immigration rates while rejecting any selection based on race."

While population growth is far from the only cause of environmental problems, Andras' view that population size or growth has nothing to do with them is right up there with holocaust or tobacco denial.

Some of the organizations that disagree with him include

The Sierra Club (foremost US environmental organization)

http://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/program/documents/0720%20Pop%20Program%20FactSheet%2003_low.pdf

The Rand Corporation (leading US think tank)

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB5045.html

The World Bank

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/social/pgr/index03.html

The United Nations Population Fund

http://www.unfpa.org/pds/sustainability.htm

Our own Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act

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

Amazing that Tanton's reach extends so far.

Have you done one of John Tanton's writer workshops?* :)

Distort, misquote and misunderstand research then make false and subjective claims like 'Australia's best demographer' does (according to Bob Carr)?

One is not arguing unlimited population growth, but understands the evidence that population growth has already stalled or slowed in much of the world, including the developing world (ex sub Saharan Africa).

What's the problem for SPP, if there is not runaway population growth (only if data is presented with headline figures and not explained) but a qualitative issue of ageing population, decreasing tax base etc., which both permanent immigrants and temporaries can ameliorate through 'churnover'?

Of course SPP etc. don't lurch (making dubious links or correlations) from quantitative or headline statistics to perception of -ve qualitative or social issues, nor did Dick Smith preface his population doco based on O'Connor's book with image of large numbers of brown people in Asia while SPP apart from stopping 'immigrants' have no domestic solutions?

Sierra Club is a case in point, Tanton and allies including Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson attempted a takeover in their 'greening of hate' campaign http://grist.org/article/nijhuis-sierra/

From The Nation 'Greenwashing Nativism' and the pushing by John Tanton's FAIR of xenophobia as good eco politics http://www.thenation.com/article/38036/greenwashing-nativism

As Hitler and the Nazi regime knew in their media propaganda re. Jews, Gypsies etc. , it's the putative lie (in cooperation with media), it does not need to be true but repeated often so it is believed and accepted as 'truth'......

* Using links to research or reports without specific references..... SPP used to quote a Curtin University report as evidence that 'population growth' from 'immigration' was impacting 'infrastructure'..... yet there was not a single mention in the report (assumes most people will not download a .pdf file and read it)?

Luckily for SPP most 'educated' Australians seem to lack the most basic critical thinking and analytical skills..... if they did more may question why 'right on' environmentalists use neo con media and communication tactics? Or do Australia's traditional 'progressives' have some deep seated old colonial beliefs too?

What's worse is they have recently watered down all of their policies (such as they were), realising they were anathema to Australians. The SPP dodge and weave. One of the very worst I've encountered. At least with the hard line right, you know what you're getting.

If the SPP were extremist you'd condemn them.
If they "water down" (i.e. are not extremist) that's a problem too.

If you're concerned about sustainability, you're a racist.
If you're openly racist, you're a Nazi mass exterminator.
Everything gets turned up a notch or seven.

Typical Orwellian twisterama from the Loony Left.