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!