This writer considers that the tax payers of Australia should be prepared to support another 65 million who are likely to end up looking for a new home.
Given say another three generations , how many more will that lot total? I do not think the small body of tax paying Australians will absorb that amount happily.
The newcomers then could sue us for not keeping them in the comfort to which they feel entitled. After all , everyone else does, there are plenty of hungry lawyers who would help them.
Perhaps some of the countries in trouble would do better if they used birth control to keep the numbers down, refrained from ethnic wars and generally made a proper effort to be self sustaining.
The Australian tax payer has already got an enormous amount of needy people including our own homeless, Aboriginals and those "asylum seekers" who are here now. Give it a rest.

"Estimates of the likely numbers of environmental refugees in the Asia-Pacific region vary but a common figure cited by many, such as Professor Norman Myers of Oxford University, is of the order of 65 million people." From which sources? Over what period? From what causes? This is vastly greater than the Pacific island population, presumably mainly Bangla Deshis from low-lying coastal areas, who might (or might not) be displaced in a 100 years or so IF sea water levels rise in accordance with some estimates. Surely you can find more pressing issues to address? Such as clean water supplies in poor countries?

What a depressing piece.

Targets are selected almost at random, sniped at with a few statistics, but reach no intelligent conclusion.

Our ODA "remains at an embarrassingly low level" compared to other countries. This is like saying "Rolls Royce make an embarrasingly small number of cars" compared to Toyota. Without an understanding of the destination of the funds and the use to which they are put, this remains a pointless comparison. Detail, please.

And please try to understand a little more the nature of money: it has no value when it sits in a Bank somewhere, only when it is used. If the local economy is dead, investing that money in international trade can actually be the best possible outcome. When the Middle East suddenly became awash with funds in the mid-seventies, they spent a good proportion of it in construction, the majority of which was contracted to European companies. If they had insisted upon spending it only within their borders, there would have been too much money chasing too few goods and services. Economics 101 tells you that delivers hyperinflation.

And of course Australia "remains deeply committed to the ideology that believes development flows from economic growth", because that is where the weight of evidence lies. Sure, there are exceptions. But the chances are that those are countries also disadvantaged by a corrupt government.

But the overwhelming question that was carefully left unanswered was who will pay for all this, if at the same time you want to hobble industry with impossible restrictions on what they can and cannot sell or buy, and a whole new set of regulations that will cost our economy... what?

Lots of give-aways. But carefully not, I notice, added up anywhere.

Everyone talks about us giving foreign aid. What foreign aid?. Listening to them you we would think we had foreign exchange to spare that we could give away. The fact is that we are so short of foreign exchange that we are currently borrowing $1 billion a week from foreigners (mostly Chinese and Japanese). I believe that our foreign aid should be limited to what we can supply, and that would be young teachers who could go out into the third world and help to educate the people, particularly the women.

As far as refugees are concerned, public opinion will not permit any sizeable number of refugees to enter the country. Countries who have permitted their populations to rise above sustainable levels will reap the whirlwind in the near future. Many people consider that we have already exceeded our environmentally sustainable population level. There is, of course, an extemely simple, understandable solution to the whole immigration problem, which is to bring back the dictation test.

Thank heavens we have a sea boundary.

It is so strange in Australia that the word refugee only has to be mentioned and the ranting starts.

What if 65 million human beings are in danger of drowning in our filth? We are one of the world's worst polluters yet when the tiny population of Tuvalu ask for our help to re-settle them if their island sinks we say piss off. It is a few thousand people and New Zealand has come to the rescue.

I haven't heard or read anyone claim that Australia should take all 65 million environmental refugees but mickijo and others need to ask a simply question - should the world let them drown because we are fat, stupid and increasingly selfish?

Why is there this assertion that we have no money for foreign aid and anyway we should help aborigines first? Costello gloats about $11 billion sitting around to pay nothing - we give $1 per year per person for the poorest people on the planet and squander $6 million per year to keep one man locked up on Nauru.

Ridiculous, knee jerk, reactionary - that is Australia today with people who would rather 65 million people drown than to accept responsibility for anyone at all beyond their own backyards.

let them in,

why not, they will work and they will work hard

At the end of the day, I guess the government of Australia is responsible first and foremost to the people of Australia. After all, we pay for its existence. We do need to take into account the future impact of our actions - including our pollution - and we do need to address the issue of environmental refugees. But I think the first thing we need to do is ensure that we are prepared as a nation.

Already we are looking for sustainable sources of water. The Gold Coast is turning to the ocean, Toowoomba is turning to its toilet bowls and other cities are coming up with their own solutions. Our farmers are looking for more effective uses for their dwindling natural resources.

What good is taking in refugees - presumably to conserve life and give them a shot at the good life - if we can't be sure that we can maintain our own population indefinitely?

I'm not suggesting that we turn our back on our neighbours - just that, before diving into the region's problems head first, we ensure that our own problems are under control.

Plerdsus, when the money sits in the bank somewhere, others are using it, & you gain the interest at what rate it is set according to the market. I for one believe we have already exceeded our environmentally sustainable population level here in Australia. The new settlers have been directed to Melbourne & Sydney,Highest Density areas, so those with forethought& the money to move have found South East Queensland A Mecca up until now. The lack of substantial rain in the catchment areas has given the Urban Dweller a taste of drought.

I attended a meeting in our city re future development of our Fitzroy Basin & better management of water, came away disappointed regards the academic attitude to development. Watched, & Listened to the governments of the day knock the proposed dams for the Fitzroy Basin, claiming too costly & too few to benefit. The building always seems to be 20 years behind instead of some forethought to build infractors before you fill the country up with more & more residents.

Realist -

Have a look at the Productivity Commission's report entitled Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth (April 2006). That report concludes that "the effect of increased skilled migration on average living standards is projected to be positive, but small."

The report also says that "existing resident workers" will be worse off and that "capital owners" will accrue the most benefits (page 151). In fact the report says that if we double the number of skilled immigrants by 2025 we will earn 0.71% more money but work 1.18% more hours. In other words we will get a drop in hourly pay by doubling our skilled migrants. If we bring in loads of unskilled migrants, the impacts will be worse. The report also notes that it does not have the capacity to consider environmental externalities but these could make living standards worse. There is a no-brainer conclusion, but at least they admitted that they were unqualified to quantify the impacts.

Everybody -

I agree with the first group of comments. The issue of environmental refugees is important and climate change is important but this article does not do either issue justice. There are already many environmental refugees in Africa where they have flogged the land too hard over many generations and now the land won't support the population. With no food the people move on. When they move the associated social and political problems result in the place they move to. This is an existing problem but not recognised in the article.

Australia produces about 1.2% of the world's greenhouse gases, but this article makes it sound like we are solely responsible for all global warming.

The issue of aid to developing countries is also important but the depth of the arguments made here is not really compelling.

Please "Friends of the Earth," take a little more time to prepare these articles. Maybe cut down the scope and concentrate on just the failings of aid.

Another note-There are a couple typos in the middle of the article:

"Australia effectively subsidies (SUBSIDISES) the activities of Australian countries (CONTRACTORS) operating in recipient countries while very little aid is directed through local non-government organisations (NGOs),

Online Opinion can fix them up if you let them know.

Otokonoko said:,
“Already we are looking for sustainable sources of water…What good is taking in refugees … if we can't be sure that we can maintain our own population indefinitely?”

What he probably meant was:
“If we can’t be sure that we can maintain our own population indefinitely” AT ITS CURRENT STANDARD OF LIVING.

But who says the parties pushing such issues are too concerned about us maintaining current living standards- Haven’t we been told a thousand times that the affluent west is “wasteful” “over indulgent”

It’s only one small step away to say "the west should cut its lifestyle to accommodate the needy”
The cry will be –’Human lives are at stake!’ –

With a lot of belt tightening a refuge meant for 26 million –may accommodate 60 million, & some “advocates” wouldn’t mind standing room only.

And it looks even more likely when you consider
where blame is being laid for “Global Warming”

[ Otokonoko this is not a criticism of you or your post]

Thanks for the correction, Horus. That is what I meant (that we cannot necessarily maintain our population AND living standards) - though with all the fire and brimstone in the media one would think that it may be impossible to maintain our population at all.

And yes, it is true that we are often told that the west is over-indulgent and wasteful - I am even happy to admit that it is true. But the government that tries to stop this for the good of the region would not last long. How many of us are willing to give up our wasteful ways if it threatens our pleasant lives? I will admit that, while I would like to, I don't think I'd go through with it. I am sure there are many like me. So if we are to take a proper role in 'saving the world', we will have to secure our own standards first. Otherwise, it will be a half-hearted and brief effort that doesn't do much good . . .

Anyway, this is just my opinion - I can't speak for Australia!

Seeking a better life will often moves into a place supposed to fulfil a dream either realistically or imaginary. Choice of a destination reflects possibilities to gain a desirable entry on merits of bureaucratic and financial capabilities.

Regrettably, of newcomers’ influx considerations sustaining internationally spread free-land image rather than realistically comprehending the ethical incompliance are the most too often.

Global warming, pollution and calling us selfish beings, now our governments are courting China, thinking they are the answer to our prayers.

China's Dark Clouds

“Large areas of North-Central China have been devastated by the spectacular growth of the local coal industry. Severe pollution extends across Shaanxi Province, where the Wus live, and neighboring Shanxi Province, which produces even more coal.”
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13709

Then add the tons of coal imports from Australia to this list.

“Damage to China's environment is costing the government roughly 10% of the country's gross domestic product, estimated Zhu Guangyao, deputy chief of the State Environmental Protection Agency. China's GDP for 2005 was $2.26 trillion“.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-05-china-pollution_x.htm

More from the size of the corruption, makes the wheat board’s dealings in Iraq
Look like kindergarten children.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/08/27/china.tourism/

“The scandal involved Xiamen Yuanhua Group, accused of smuggling $6 billion worth of cars, oil, luxury goods and cigarettes.

Here they turn it into a profit and encourage the tourist to view. Notorious tourism,
Seven Senior communist officials, including a former deputy mayor and a former police chief were executed earlier this year for their involvement in the case. About a hundred people were tried on fraud and embezzlement charges.

However, the corruption scandal has spawned an unlikely by-product: tourism“.

Suppose we do have our share of gruesome tourism, in Tasmania. We do not hang the prisoners as such, just keep them in small cages & pay people to watch them. Other China attractions that Howard overlooks.

“Include horror stories you won’t want to believe such as, the number of state executions, the Chinese government has actually created a fleet of execution vans invented specially to roam about the country carrying out the sentence on a daily basis.

There are also suspicions that prisoner’s organs are being harvested for sale on the black market adding to the inhumanity of the practice.”

Found at, http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=15637