The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Taking the sharp edge off our fears > Comments

Taking the sharp edge off our fears : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 27/1/2006

Andrew Bartlett argues Australia needs to put some serious resources into multiculturalism and migrant settlement programs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 33
  7. 34
  8. 35
  9. Page 36
  10. 37
  11. 38
  12. All
WHERE ARE YOU ANDREW?

Been a busy week I know with parlt sitting etc but would REALLY like to know if you've had a chance to check out Al Bartlett at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461, and if so what you think of the points he makes?
Posted by Thermoman, Saturday, 11 February 2006 8:12:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, it appears as though Andrew is not going to partake any further in this thread, or the other one that he has been involved with; ‘Refugees – we’d like to help but…’ (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4101).

I hope he proves me wrong.

We are just left completely unenlightened as to why he promotes high immigration or wants a population 50% bigger than the current level in Australia.

We completely don’t understand why he fought to eliminate John Coulter’s policy of zero net migration, which is an essential prerequisite for real sustainability. Dr Coulter certainly didn’t hide his feelings before he was leader, so he must have had a great deal of support from his party. Then along comes Andrew, with a completely different outlook and succeeds in radically overhauling the fundamental sustainability policies of the Democrats.

One has got to ask, why did he join the Democrats in the first place if he had such a different viewpoint? Why not the Libs? And how come the Democrats let him join? Did he hide his desire for high immigration until he was in a powerful enough position to reveal it?

I feel very strongly duped. I have always thought of the Democrats as reasonably environmentally friendly and sustainability-oriented – until Andrew posted his article that is. Even despite then leader Natasha Stott-Despoija’s extremely one-sided stance over the Tampa incident and even despite personally turning away from them before that because they weren’t green enough for me, I still held them in high regard compared to the Libs and Labor.

But now….. well! I will go as far as saying that I think the majority of Democrats voters have been gravely misled into believing that the Demos are an environmentally friendly party, when they are in fact just a third or fourth pea in the pod of the grossly unsustainability-promoting incumbents and opposition.

No two ways about it, I am appalled
Posted by Ludwig, Sunday, 12 February 2006 9:49:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thermoman

Yes, I read the piece by Dr Bartlett.

Firstly, migration doesn't add to population growth, it just shifts people from one place to another.

Secondly, global population growth is not exponential, and with better social and economic policies it can be made even less so.

Thirdly, even with a net migrant intake around about our current level, Australia's population growth not only won't be exponential, there won't be any growth in our population at all by mid-century if fertility rates continue on their current trend.

Fourthly, whilst most resources are finite, the efficiency with which we use them certainly isn't.

In my view, pro-environment policies should not mean elitist or anti-people policies. If people wish to promote such an approach they are entitled to, but don't expect me to support it. A view that sees the Democrats' approach (which was strongly supported by the whole party, not just the then Leader) at the time of the Tampa as "extremely one sided" pretty much says all the needs to be said. It is absurd, at best, to imply that there was any significant sustainability aspect involved in the Tampa situation.

The zero net migration policy was pushed through the Democrats membership by a committed minority in the early 90s - forced to reballot repeatedly until they got what they wanted. They were entitled to do this of course, but I don't believe it was what a majority of the membership believed. It was certainly never supported by any Democrat Senator at the time or later, except John Coulter.

The policy was brought in after I became a member. I presume the Democrats 'let me join' because they never saw or held themselves out to be an anti-migration party. I fought to overturn the anti-migration policy because it was unjust, unsustainable and unworkable - the more aware I became of migration laws and policy and how it operated, the clearer this became, and the clearer it was to me that it was also against fundamental Democrat principles.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Sunday, 12 February 2006 11:23:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Firstly, migration certainly does add to population growth in Australia. With your way of thinking Andrew, why don’t you advocate a much higher immigration intake? As far as I was aware, the Democrats supported the idea of ‘think globally, act locally’. I thought it was obvious to them that we must strive for sustainability at home!

Secondly, It doesn’t matter if growth rates are actually exponential or not. As Al Bartlett points out, even seemingly small rates of increase add up very quickly. These apparently small increases in population or demand for resources have the power to greatly dilute if not completely cancel out and overwhelm even seemingly big improvements in efficiency in all sorts of resource usage.

Thirdly, I and a number of other contributors on this thread vehemently disagree that with current growth rates our population will stabilise by mid-century. I continue to feel that you have been badly misled on this, by looking only at fertility-rate and age-structure projections and not immigration. Please recheck this with your staff or supporters, because you are wrong with this Andrew.

Fourthly… efficiency certainly is finite – we can only refine our methods of utilising resources up to certain point.

I did not imply that there is any sustainability aspect in the Tampa incident. My point was that Natasha’s (and Bob Brown’s) stance over the Tampa was something I found extremely unfortunate (see my views on this under Opening Australia’s borders - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3838#22156) However, as you mention it, there certainly would have been a sustainability aspect if the asylum-seeker issue had been allowed to escalate uninhibited as it was threatening to do at the time.

Finally, net zero immigration is by no means anti-immigration. It is a good balance between striving for sustainability and maintaining some humanitarian and skills intake, along with associated family reunion.

I would love to know why you consider net zero immigration to be “against fundamental Democrat principles”.

O by the way, I am pleased that you are still with us Andrew.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 13 February 2006 12:40:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The sentence, which began "I would also be interested ..." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4099#30884) was incomplete. It should have read:

"I would also be interested to know how you think that the water needs for the additional 1 million, that the NSW and Federal Governments plan to cram into the already hideously overcrowded Sydney basin in coming years, will be met."

My apologies for my carelessness.

---

Andrew, whilst I also greatly appreciate your continued participation in this forum, I note that you haven't responded at all to any of the points made in my last post.

Now the Brisbane City Council is to spend $30 million to drill in the hope of finding underground water aquifers in the southern Brisbane. Brisbane's Courier Mail reported on Friday 10 Feb :

"Liberal spokesperson for water water Jane Prentice yesterday admitted that the region was now in a perilous situation and the council would invest millions in the aquifer project to ensure that southeast residents had adequate drinking water.

"'We're at a crisis point now,' she said 'We've got about three weeks left of the wet season and we have to start drought-proofing this city'."

So, in order to cope with continued population growth which economists (read 'mouth-pieces for property developers and land speculators' (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4006#25957)) insist is necessary to save our economy from collapse, we have to obtain massive volumes of water from underground aquifers with unpredictable environmental consequences or we have to burn non-renewable global warming coal in order to obtain fresh water from the sea.

How you could seriously maintain, in the light of this and all that has been written above by myself and others, that a further 50% increase in Australia's population, including a further 1.1 million in SEQ is 'pro-environment' is beyond me.

Could I suggest that you and the whole Democrats organisation give consideration to these questions? A good place to start would be at the forthcoming conference of the Queensland branch of the Australian Democrats on 25 February (see http://qld.democrats.org.au).
Posted by daggett, Monday, 13 February 2006 9:25:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andrew Bartlett

Do you honestly believe that “migration doesn't add to population growth, it just shifts people from one place to another?”

Do you believe that people are not affected by the things that happen in other parts of the world? If all the prosperous countries in the world were stabilising their populations and living sustainably and poor countries were starving, don’t you think the poor countries might get the message that stabilising your population helps increase the standard of living?

Don’t you think that if Mexicans, Afghans, Turks and Vietnamese could not migrate to other countries to have a higher standard of living, that they might be more likely to stabilise their populations at home?

Since the one child policy in China, the economic growth rate has been 9% per year for 25 years. The UN estimates that there are 300 million less people in China than there would have been without the one child policy, and all those 300 million would have been living in poverty. Is that an anti-people policy? Why does the general population in China say “Yes it is a difficult and painful policy, but we know we need to have it for the good of everybody?” Don't you think that the success in China has had a big impact on reducing fertility in many countries around the world?

Do you believe that you can tell poor countries “You should reduce your populations, by reducing your fertility, but we are going to increase our population because we get short term economic benefits” and expect them to say “Oh great idea we will lower our population and you go right ahead and increase yours and take our best people to help you increase your standard of living, while we starve.” Why are there more Ethiopian doctors in the United States, than in Ethiopia?

1. If you honestly believe that the world population should stabilise, and
2. that the best policy for getting the world population to stabilise is to have high migration to Australia,
then you must not have thought about it very hard.
Posted by ericc, Monday, 13 February 2006 9:35:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 33
  7. 34
  8. 35
  9. Page 36
  10. 37
  11. 38
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy