Fester, you still got me slightly wrong:

Both individuals and their countries may protect their wealth if they wish - but for that it needs to be theirs. There is no moral issue if we are unwilling to share our infrastructure, such as schools and hospitals that we worked hard for, with others who did not work for it. But the planet and its continents is not ours - it was here before us, so we have no moral right to deny others the right to walk this earth.

Why would we be making ourselves more vulnerable by making ourselves wealthier? isn't that obvious? By driving an old car (model 1979) I suffer no anxiety: I am confident that I'll always find it where I parked it!

Perhaps David Latimer did not read the quote in the opening paragraph, “‘presumably as a lesson to the rest of the world, not in fact, to save the world’”. The inference was that an action taken on a world scale was perhaps world changing. But when done on small scale, like Australia, such an action could only serve as an example.

David Latimer could at least address the argument in its entirety rather than in part. Does he, for example, agree that a stable world population would have more success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than a rapidly growing one, all else being equal? If so, then what heed would other nations take from a country telling them to reduce their populations in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst it actively encouraged the growth of its own population? Now that is nonsensical if you are looking to set an example.

Yuyutsu

Thanks again for the clarification. As I now understand things, you believe that people should be free to come here in any number but the existing population would have no moral obligation to give them the same rights and access to infrastructure. So it would be morally acceptable for part of the population to have greater rights and access to infrastructure than another part. But wouldn't this be like Apartheid? Now I know you cannot think this because the existence of such a system would bring far more anger from other countries than would arise from envy. I am also still a bit uncertain about what you mean by nobody owning the land. Do you mean by this that you should be able to live wherever you please, provided that it isn't covered by some sort of infrastructure or someone else's property?

Nice cars can inspire all sorts of thoughts, from a desire to steal or damage, to indifference or as a responsibility easier avoided, to perhaps even a motivation to improve your circumstances.

Response to Fester:

In your post of 6 July you said "David Latimer should read the article again". I obliged by reading it again. In your post of 7 July, you repeat, "Perhaps David Latimer did not read the quote in the opening paragraph". If I read it two, ten or ten thousand times, the evidence for the argument remains flawed.

Eric’s article is not about a "stable world population" (your post). Low immigration to Australia does not produce this. Do not expect me to respond to what YOU imagine the article is about. I am not going to comment your internal thoughts. I am not as psychiatrist.

You use the words "all else being equal" (your post) without justification. Are you saying this article presents a theoretical proposal?

Your quote about "lesson to the rest of the world" is originally from Tony Jones, on ABC Lateline. It’s critical to point that out, because those words were used in reference to the government nuclear inquiry, just commencing. The terms of that inquiry are not comparative and that is made clear by Ziggy Switkowski, its chair.

You can read a transcript of that interview here:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1657941.htm

The full quote of Dr Switkowski in response was "I think that's a fair conclusion, yes. Although -- ". The dashes indicate he was cut-off. In my view, Eric had a responsibility to tell readers of his article that there is an unknown qualification missing from this quote.

Personally, I have no problem with trying to make a connection between population and environmental issues. The problem is that central to Eric’s article is a flawed calculation which says 1 less migrant = savings of 28 tonnes of Greenhouse Gasses/yr is wrong. As that is wrong, so the resulting value of 34,000,000 tonnes/yr saved is wrong. The article is written as though there was a giant glass dome over Australian airspace.

David L

I interpreted the article the same way as you - written as if Australia was another planet.

I believe we need to live sustainably; in terms of population, nonrenewable resources, energy production, land management, water catchments and so on.

I am always amazed that so many people think that there is a single answer for every question. In this case "just stop immigration"; so simplistic and naive. We will need every possible resource, technology and combined effort if this planet of ours is to support human beings into the future.

It is not about immigration it IS about population density and sustainable resources.

David Latimer,

“Should the Queensland government take action to stem the flow of migrants from other states?” (4 July)

Most definitely. Transmigration is a huge part of the issue when it comes to environmental pressure in different regions of the country. But it does not mean passing “a law preventing people from moving house at all”, nor anything like it.

You insisted that immigration doesn’t affect greenhouse gas emissions because “Failed migrants would use fossil fuels in their own countries and the gasses would be distributed across the atmosphere.” (5 July)

No matter what how correct or woolly the figures quoted by Eric might be, the concept is clear – most immigrants would produce much more greenhouse gas in Australia than they would in their own countries.

Then your message gets very confusing. I interpret it as an attempt to divert the argument off-track in order to not concede that Eric is indeed right. You write; “The only ‘meaningful message’ from these statistics is that Australia is the most polluting nation (per capita) on Earth, as it's the per capita statistics that will be unaltered under your low-immigration proposal.” (7 July)

This is quite bizarre. Obviously, if we continue to allow population growth while we have such a high per-person emission rate, we will be highly irresponsible, and if we progressively reduce our per-capita emission rate while maintaining high growth, we will just as irresponsible, for as long as our total emissions keep increasing and the average per-person emissions are higher than the average from the countries from where we draw our immigrants.

“Australia IS making a genuine contribution to solving climate change, and doing it properly by identifying wasteful practises, investing in efficient systems and through the initiatives of ordinary Australians and businesses.”

What? Efforts towards improved efficiency are nothing compared to our ongoing rapid expansion of consumption….including booming coal exports.

Let’s not kid ourselves. One of the vital ingredients is for Australia to stop expanding fossil fuel usage. And that means population stabilisation, or at least lowering the overall growth rate to a minimum.

“The article is written as though there was a giant glass dome over Australian airspace.”

With these words I think that David Latimer is coming closer to understanding the article. In science, an experiment is usually conducted under controlled conditions and on a small scale. The results of an experiment can often be extrapolated to make predictions for a larger system. And so far as I am aware, observations made outside the system under study are irrelevant. So to quote Eric Claus:

“And if Australia can do it, and we are the world’s best country to live in, then maybe the rest of the world would take a lesson from us and start to try to live more sustainably too.”

Now, the only change that Eric Claus has emphasised in his article is a reduction in Australia's population. So what other lesson might David Latimer suggest the article is referring to? If he can offer no other lesson then my question is quite valid:

“Does he, for example, agree that a stable world population would have more success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions than a rapidly growing one, all else being equal? If so, then what heed would other nations take from a country telling them to reduce their populations in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions whilst it actively encouraged the growth of its own population?”

And to clarify, by “all else being equal” I mean that all other efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be the same.