People are still continuing to take this article seriously, when it is obviously flawed. Why so?

According to Eric, over 10 years we'll have 1,200,000 new immigrants. Australians produce 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per person every year. So multiplying these numbers he claims that we would save 34,000,000 tonnes per annum if those immigrants were not accepted.

This calculation assumes that there is a glass lid over Australia, or perhaps all these migrants have previously lived in a bubble or lived in stone age societies which did not use fossil fuels at all.

Of course, the calculation is utter nonsense. There would be no such saving of 34,000,000 tonnes. Failed migrants would use fossil fuels in their own countries and the gasses would be distributed across the atmosphere.

This flaw has been pointed out the following posts:
- Robg, Tuesday, 4 July 2006 2:53:07 PM
- Rhian, Friday, 30 June 2006 2:38:19 PM
- w, Saturday, 1 July 2006 6:00:12 PM

I found the flaw to be so obvious, I thought I'd make a joke about it and 'w' thought the same, but the obvious is not getting through. Let me be clear: The formula of 1 less migrant = savings of 28 tonnes of Greenhouse Gasses/yr is wrong. The formula is wrong, so the resulting value of 34,000,000 tonnes/yr saved is wrong. This resulting value is wrong, so the other claims and general argument falls down.

Eric's previous article on the subject ("Reduce poverty and sustainability will follow" http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3771) made lots of sense, but only got two comments. Hmmm...

DLatimer,

The Genie-is-out-of-the-bottle. Thanks to this-and-other-discussion threads a Majority-of-Australians now know that immigration-is-weakening-our-economy and our very survival-as-individuals. There are negative consequences for an ageing population and no matter what calculations you do, there is an added burden to an already stressed, fragile environment. There is resentment, social and class division and accentuated levels of corruption as government and big business use immigration as a tool to subjugate the Australian populace, a majority of which resides in Sydney and SEQ. This tort is based on the phoney excuse that it is locking in future prosperity for Australia. The Coming mineral boom in which Australia will play a major part has inexorably locked in our future and a PM that says otherwise is nothing more than a mean and deceitful old man stealing lollies from his children whilst making them work harder for sugar grains. We cannot be fooled into AWAs and overcrowded, unhealthy cities when it clearly is not only a crime but is also unnecessary.

The proof is plain to see:

* A NSW-Italian-state- Labor-Government. The probability-of-this-occuring in a fair-dinkum-electoral-system-is-zero. And then car loads of Leb hoons try to shock and awe Cronulla into Desalination submission at-a-critical-time-in-negotiations. Guess where they come from? The Desal-Premier's-electorate. What's-the-probability?

* Immigrational gerrymanders and branch stacking already pointed out and verified by Cleo7 on this Forum.

* Failure to allow education opportunities for Australians and immigrating people who may only have a several week education advantage over the Australians they are replacing. Australia needs education and leadership to free us from ignorance of a rapidly progressing world. We do not need a PM who has developed such a hatred for his fellow countrymen that he would replace us all with marginally better educated foreigners who destabilise-our-politics-and-make-it-easier-for-him-to-rule.

* A demonstrably-senile-Prime-Minister wanting-to-LOCK-in-Prosperity. Yes, by bludgeoning-people-in-Sydney-and-SEQ with 90% of a 140,000 a year immigrant intake. Immigrants who for-some-unknown-reason-treat-us-like-jackals given fresh meat. Howard seems AFRAID of the Australian people. He feels he can only lead us if he subjugates us with impositions and by-drowning-us-out. We don't have a prime minister, we have-a-bloody-jailer.

Continued ..

The game is up. Australians are going to play hell in future elections with Labor in Canberra and Libs in the states. We will do this till big business understands it has to sign PPP contracts acceptable to the people. That Media interest and pollsters have to be accountable for their ANZ-style BS, good-news housing and interest lies. That Governments realise that they cannot sign SECRET deals with Big Business. That governments learn they NEVER have a mandate to BETRAY their own voters to big businuss by diluting our rights and privileges. That big business understands we will not elect governments that hand THEM profits-to-order via Westfield-Maul-Overcrowding and UNFAIR IMMIGRATIONAL PLACEMENTS. And that Melbourne and Canberra are not national sacred cows and must especially shoulder future immigratiion burdens on behalf of united and single minded Australia.

DLatimer and other lowy-ife business interests are in the minority. Their chicanery and lies have become rather transparent and drole. No one is listening, least of all governments who are now feeling the heat.

With Australian businesses and their AWB-style morals, who knows, maybe they could get managerial positions in drug sales to schoolkids. Or maybe they could become PERMANENT forum stooges. But one thing is sure they better find another way to make money!

PS Interest rates WILL be double digit in two years. Current fixed 5 and 10 year term interest rate offers are already near double digit so experts have already factored it. That means the housing market can't pick up despite continued corrupt immigration stack-em-in strategies and BS ANZ media releases. ANZ are just trying to rope in more suckers. But when they try to foreclose after interest rates double, it could be argued at court that ANZ OUGHT to HAVE KNOWN they were deceiving clients with their current Media realse and should thus shoulder most of the burden of loss on the foreclosure.

Fester,

please do not turn my words around: I never claimed that it is our moral duty to lower our living standards, but to open our door to immigrants. If one of the side-effects of our moral choice is that our standard of living is lowered - so be it.

Now whether we are "inequable and hostile" depends on our own nature and our own free choice. If you claim that we must be inequable and hostile towards foreigners in order to be peaceful and equal towards one-another, it points at deep personality traits that will not change by mere change of circumstances.

Angelo,

By "new ideas" I did not mean just theories, but also the will to implement them and unwillingness to accept prevailing standards that are corrupt and/or inefficient.

Now if some people are willing to work for $7/hour instead of $14/hour, what difference does their colour of skin make? surely employers will let you do the same job for the same pay even if you are white-skinned Australian-born. Yes, one must deal with the problem of underselling, and in fact I did previously suggest some solutions in these forums, but recognize that immigration is not at the core of this problem.

Ludwig,

it may be nice to have net zero immigration, I just don't believe in selling our souls to the devil to achieve it.

Most participants in this forum take pride in their ability to raise points, discuss and debate without making personal attacks against others.

In KAEP's post of Thursday, 6 July 2006 2:16:03 AM, it is said "DLatimer and other lowy-ife business interests are in the minority. Their chicanery and lies have become rather transparent and drole."

Saying that I am a liar, is a unwarrented personal remark and completely unacceptable. It shows no respect for the rules of this forum, which prohibit defamatory postings.

Quite clearly KAEP is upset with my pointing out an obvious flaw in the article. Even though he/she has no answer to it (as the flaw is real) this is no excuse to behave badly or with offensive accusations.

-oo0oo-

The flaw is where Eric multiplies the following numbers:
- 1,200,000 new immigrants after 10 years
- 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per Australian per year
and claims that we would save 34,000,000 tonnes per annum if those immigrants were not accepted. The calculation is nonsense as rejected migrants would use fossil fuels in their own countries and the gasses would be distributed across the atmosphere. This has been pointed out in several other posts.

The formula of 1 less migrant = savings of 28 tonnes of Greenhouse Gasses/yr is wrong. The formula is wrong, so the resulting value of 34,000,000 tonnes/yr saved is wrong. This resulting value is wrong, so the other claims and general argument fails.

It is not possible to rescue Eric's calculation. Sorry.

Perhaps David Latimer should read the article again. I didn’t think that Eric Claus was suggesting that reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia alone would make a difference on a world scale. Instead, I thought the article suggested that a stable population would find reducing greenhouse gas emissions a simpler task than a rapidly growing one. It is a trite statement, but true.

The real comedy of this discussion so far is the joke that enlightened participants are having at the expense of fools like myself. I would think that with high immigration a policy of all major political parties, it would have a strongly reasoned basis. This great truth must be so obvious as to need no pointing out, yet I see nothing.

I think it time for the enlightened participants to stop their torment and point out the great truth to the fools.

Yuyutsu

I assure Yuyutsu that I have no intention of misrepresentation. I only wish to understand, and welcome clarification. I now understand that Yuyutsu think highs immigration a moral obligation, regardless of its consequences.

Yuyutsu also claims that Australia would be inequable and hostile toward foreigners by not having high immigration. But wouldn’t this infer that an individual with more wealth is inequable and hostile toward those with less?

I also wonder what moral obligations Yuyutsu would place on other countries. Surely Yuyutsu does not believe that it is morally justifiable to invade a country because it does not allow high immigration?