"embarrassed to be an Australian"? Why now, for the past 200 years there has been no shortage of reasons for embarrassment. Don't filter history - acknowledge unsavoury elements ; and the many which were excellent.

"Climate refugees" is just the most ominous of a host of categories. It is not new, having been around since Homo sapiens expanded from Africa; a historically notable lot were the Germanic tribes that were forced into confrontation with Rome.

Awesome! But "climate refugee" should not currently be the pre-eminent concern. Rather, consider it a subset of the exponential growth phenomenon. How does humanity expect to survive as a species when it disregards mathematics - That developed from building blocks assembled by our Arab brothers? We live in a finite world, yet do not face up to the impossibility of exponential growth forever.

The planet suffered the imprint from less than a quarter of a billion people at the time of the Roman Empire; two centuries ago it was 0.8; one century past, 2.5; today about 6.5 billion and rising fast. Such expansion has been at the expense of the very environmental resources upon which we depend: So starkly evident in those areas from where social tensions, malnutrition and outright starvation, and disease, currently manifest themselves distressingly. Yet those are the very areas where populations are increasing most rapidly.

We can best help climate refugees by assisting them confront their own problems of population expansion within their home nations. It would be an act of compassion that is effective. Hopefully even the 10,000 people on little Tuvalu might refrain from doubling their numbers in a generation or two. Trying to devote our entire resources towards an Australian refuge for all them might provide a warm inner glow for some here, but would be a futile gesture at the expense of everyone's tomorrow. And we should face up to our climate obligations.

The sad problem of "Climate Refugees" has to be viewed in the totality of Frank Fenner's Guest Opinion in today's Canberra Times, titled "Humans can survive but not at the current rate".

In this whole debate there are two points that are so fundamental that I am surprised they are not acknowledged.

The first is that unless the problem of population growth, mainly in the undeveloped world, is addressed, ALL other responses will be futile.

The second is how fortunate we are to have a sea boundary. This means that we will be able to stop the flood of refugees more easily.

Australia has a carrying capacity of about 20 million people. 25 million if we decentralise away from major cities to even out water usage concentrations.

New zealand has a carrying capacity about the same as the UK, 60 million, due to it's mountains and consequent fresh water supplies.

The laws of thermodynamics as applied to human populations predict that allowing climate refugees to enter Australia will result in consumption outstripping resources in an unmanageable way. That is the definition of chaos and no matter whether we are afflicted with
soft hearted, thick headed weakness or with uneducated, we have the knowledge to break the laws of thermodynamics and physics, hubris, the results will still be the same. CHAOS. And the losers in chaotic situations are not 'tough as nails' refugees. The losers are always the weak, soft hearted and hubristic do-gooders who haven't got the intelligence to know the difference between kindness and true intellectual and physical strength.

In the meantime, New Zealand will need to structure a management plan if it chooses to accept up to 50 million refugees. Even though that country can support that number, the ramifications of such a massive change in culture and power will be difficult to control and effectively manage.

Might I suggest that before people who get that warm cosy feeling at the prospect of inviting climate refugees to Australia voice their opinions that they visit the local abbatoir and see what it is, thermodynamically speaking, that really makes our society kick along.

Funny that - in my little town the local abbatoir employs several former refugees in the production of halal mutton.

While colinsett is of course correct that exponential growth of the human population (and by implication of production and markets) is unsustainable, I doubt that - short of some kind of global Armageddon - growth will slow appreciably in the short to medium term.

Instead, we will witness an inevitable increase in the movement of people around the globe, as those who are displaced by climate change, warfare and the other detrimental effects of economic globalisation move to more opportune places. I see it as a case of chickens coming home to roost in the West, actually.

And of course we in Western nations that have routinely exploited the developing world to further our own economic and social development will bemoan the fact, and try vainly to stem the tide.

Well let’s hope climate change (as distinct from specific human induced climate change) continues in the way it is where the increased glacier melt is offset by the increasing thickness of the East - Antarctica ice sheet, which holds 80% of worlds water in ice form I think that is the right figure. That is from a recent report using NASA satellite measurements. In fact since global dimming reduced sun light reaching the Earth surface and pollution in the west is being addressed (Europe is currently seeing now a rise in sunlight) more evaporation from more sunlight will lead to more snow-fall and hence potentially offset sea level rise. That is a guess based on my limited knowledge.

Also I agree that Australia should look at CO2 address but since a small but not insignificant amount of emissions is from the mining/smelting and power generation which generate the raw material other countries i.e. China, India etc use it is obvious end users should pay since there would not be the emissions if others did not buy. I think the lifecycle of the material /equipment must be considered in what portion of emission is truly allocated to what country/region. Or we could let others China, India etc set up their own industry and hopefully use the best environmental and safety practices for their workers to then generate the materials. Hmm!

AND

And Australia should look at the alternative energy generation such as the 10x500 MW Nuclear power stations/50000+ x1MW wind turbines/god knows how many kilometres square of solar panels to help us on the way. And obviously the energy to build those energy generators is taken into account. Including the land used for these.

That’s if Human induced global climate change has a significant part in climate change. I still cannot get my head around the fact most greenhouse gas is in fact water and natural CO2, volcano and biomass generated, and humans have a pretty small portion in comparison? But anyway that is for people with more time on their hands to analyse and theorise.

As to population I think you will find that the UN has recently revise down the population growth and final level to under 10 billion (I think - I cannot find the report on this just yet)

The proportion of the present warming which is anthropogenic is debatable. The Earth is yet to warm to the level it was at the time the Vikings inhabited Greenland.

Big Fish is right in one thing at least, nuclear power is the way to go. Australia's contribution to global warming may be out of proportion to our population, but the contributions of China and India will make ours look ike small beer indeed.

The small island nations of the Pacific have probably been inhabited for only a thousand years or so, around 900AD when Greenland was settled, they would have been underwater. On that basis they could be looked at as "ephemeral" land just like inland watercourses are periodic, too.

Not a climate scientist among you, the level anthropogenic warming is a chat that climate scientist should have (and guess what they have) not oil company spin doctors or conservative think tanks.

As a matter of fact I have a degree in Geography, including Climatology, and work in the field (as a technician)!

There doesn't seem to be much doubt about either climate warming, or the anthropogenic component of it, according to those in the best position to know. Elements of it are debatable, the summation of it is not.
If hopeful straws are preferred to the real thing, botanist David Bellamy's now-discredited statements in the New Scientist would be attractive.
On the other hand there is plenty of material that has stood up to the test, available locally in Australia courtesy of CSIRO.
Ian Lowe, who signed off the first Australian State of the Environment Report, has just published a very readable book on the subject, under the title Living in the Hothouse ISBN 1 920769 41 2

Let's be clear about this - we've had it pretty good, compared to most of the rest of the world. We - and I include the totality of "developed" countries - have been happily consuming more than our share of resources for a while now, and at some point it will have to stop.

It is a fact of our "developed world" civilization that we have a declining birthrate, while the rest of the world still produces as fast as they can. We have plenty of material things around us, which we share with the smallest family unit we can get away with, while the African village-dwellers still produce as fast as they can, just as they have for centuries. The difference is that they now live just a teensy bit longer than they used to (thank you Western countries, for your medicines and Live8), so their population will continue to grow for a while. Ours won't.

But let's be honest with ourselves for once. Sharing is not a particularly prevalent trait of our selfish society, and it will be politically unacceptable in all of our lifetimes for any Australian government to say "come on in, one and all, the water's great". Won't happen. Sorry.

But the variables are simple. Either populations moves towards equilibrium with the economy, or the economy moves towards equilibrium with populations. And it is all long-term, there is no short-term fix for this.

To make a one-generation difference in the poorer countries, we would need to find a way to limit population in peoples over whom we have no legal or moral jurisdiction. That will be very unpopular with all concerned. If we choose to share the world, as in bringing the economy into line with the population, we would all need to learn a subsistence-only lifestyle. That might be popular in Africa, but difficult to sell in Canberra.

Neither is a pretty choice. But imagining there is some kind of magic bullet doesn't help either.

It is one of those situations where there are no real answers, only more questions.

Oh Kenny…

“Not a climate scientist among you,…”

So there is no need to listen to views of others? Gee lucky a certain patent clerk early last century could not listen to you.

I always thought facts, backed up of course, were facts no matter where they come from. Theories get tested and revised continually over time.

To be perfectly honest, I do not care if an “oil company spin doctors or conservative think tanks” presents arguments if they present a valid point. What climate change proponents and opponents have to understand is to accept more open debate forget the person but concentrate about the observations, claims, theories and any evidence presented. As an outsider looking in with interest what I see is that manmade climate change proponents are starting to look shaky (my opinion only). About the climate refugees. Big decisions may need to be made but based on what evidence?

EG. Early on it was indicated sea levels will rise significantly as the ice caps melted. I read that and worry. Now I read that the Antarctica ice sheet is thickening offsetting the sea level rise. So this was not predicted? The comments come back, well yes it is predicted as the warmer earth will induce more precipitation. Okay so why was this not brought up early on or was the ice cap thickening not predicted? What did the models say? If the models are reasonable either they predicted this OR did not. If yes why not bring it up, maybe some-ones agenda, if not, then models obviously not good enough.
In my career (chemical engineer) we know the good old SISO with computer modelling. The model is only as good as the data inputted.

Now there are probably answers to all these questions somewhere but I have right to wonder about the basis behind these comments/facts? As not a climate scientist I will still ask questions (stupid maybe) and form an opinion. Climate scientists on either side have to convince Joe Public, governments, and me. And that means answering all valid questions

The Big Fish I’m just a lay person with an interest in science so when 8 of the worlds major science academies come out to say human induced climate change is no longer in doubt, and consistently, the quality science publications come out that this is now a mainstream view, my money is on them. The selfsame academies BTW, that the G8 governments look for main science advice. Ok on other subjects but they are biased on GW?

I've just had a look over at Margo K's blog where there has been a debate between the creation science advocates and the mainstream evolutionary view. Seriously there are PhD’s and a Sci Hon arguing that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that humans walked with dinosaurs.

If Big Fish you have time to check ever fact or alternative minority viewpoint that go against the mainstream, be my guest. But first have a go at the CS advocates and see what its like to see people argue against mainstream science and evidence and still think they are on a winner, that evolution isn’t beyond doubt and there is strong evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

Yes I know the problem of an argument from authority but when with something as serious as this isn’t the best bet to go with those most qualified? You want to take the view of 5 doctors who say you have cancer or the Homeopath who says it just chemical imbalance.

It would be nice for a change, to just for the sake of argument take it that, OK we do have GW, it will be a problem, can we find win/win solutions.

I for one am not going to debate whether GW is happening any more, anyone here want to discuss their solutions including the nuclear option, how we respond to GW refugees, and what a rise in sea levels and climate change would mean for Australia

There seems to be no recognition of population growth in the developed countries as a factor in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. US consumption per person of energy and most other resources has actually been flat or declining for more than 30 years. (I refer you to 'Sustainable America', the March 1996 Task Force Report of the President's Council on Sustainable Development). According to ABS figures total household energy consumption in Australia grew by 50% between 1975 and 1995. 24% of this was due to increased individual consumption and 76% due to population growth. The US reached replacement level fertility in 1972. More than half the growth from 203 million in 1970 to 293 million now is due to mass migration, which also accounts for half of Australia's population growth. This population growth has been rammed through by the business elite and its political puppets (with the able help of organisations like Friends of the Earth that have been captured by multicultural ideology)against the wishes of the majority of the population.

Bringing in many more people to emit greenhouse gases at developed country rates is part of the problem, not the solution. Of course we should pay compensation (from the people who benefited from the population growth) and take Pacific Islanders who will drown otherwise, but this is only a few thousand people. The only real solution is reducing population numbers, particularly in the developed countries that account for most of the greenhouse gases. A world population of 2 billion would allow everyone to live decently, but not lavishly, without trashing the environment.

Dear Editor,

Pressing the hidden costs of climate change as exempified is admirable, but we could just wonder whether it will get the main message of climate change to our Prime Minister, as well as the US President and the corporate power which the US so much represents. It is believed therefore, that the groups which should be continually made aware are among our young people who are those who will inherit this ever worsening climate problem.

Our brightest youngsters, especially the femine gender, are no doubt already aware that the corporate-minded groups now running our world, have minds mostly only conscious of monetary profit, treating life more like an exciting dangerous game, either not knowing or having forgotten what true wisdom and understanding is all about.

Climate change hs been a worry since the 1950s, and in the 1970s there was talk of big aluminium companies being charged for the discharge of pollutants. It can still be read in a 1980s economics manual edited by Baumol and Blinder how as industrial pollution could be a burden on the taxpayer in the future, it was suggestd that all offending companies should have charge monitors fitted to their smoke-stacks.

It is no surprise that corporate power had the suggestion by economic editors pushed aside, and just lately there was a talk over the TV media that by 2050 attempts to allay climate change will have been left too late. So who will our inheritors, among our now brightest youngsters, later blame for the climatic disaster now predicted? No need really to say. The blame will be, and rightfully laid at the feet of the types of corporates and individuals who are now trying to run the world.