The posts are getting easier to refute.

I'll remind Fester that the article is about "reducing immigration to reduce greenhouse emissions. Reducing immigration would be a far more effective way to provide 'a lesson to the rest of the world,' ". The article is NOT about reducing population. Population is not once mentioned in the article. Furthermore reducing immigration does not reduce world population.

As I am able to restate, the article is based on the flawed assumption that one less migrant = 28 tonnes saved of greenhouse gases (GHG). As this is wrong, the rest of the article, its arguments and claims are equally flawed.

This erroneous proposal is no better than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

-- o000o --

Ludwig says Eric's concept is "most immigrants would produce much more greenhouse gas in Australia than they would in their own countries." Firstly, this is not stated in the article. Secondly, there’s no evidence that migrants produce more greenhouse gases just by arriving in Australia. Thirdly, if such evidence existed it would simply show Australia to be an irresponsible polluter.

Ludwig likes to play with the numbers, but not very good at it.

If Australia (28 tpy) adopted better practices and produced GHG's on a per-capita annual basis like the United Kingdom (14 tpy) or New Zealand (14.4 tpy) then GHG would be reduced by 280 megatonnes per year. To achieve the same result via depopulation so we maintain our excessive usage of 28 tpy as Ludwig imagines, Australia would need to somehow loose TEN MILLION people! And we'd still be considered irresponsible by world standards.

(typ = tonnes per year per person. Statistics provided by Eric.)

So adopt practices in other developed countries: 280 Mt/y saved
Compare to Eric's low-immigration claims: 34Mt/y (article) 23 Mt/y (revised*)

*Revised claim assumes Australia continues to be the world's highest per capita GHG producer. BTW this is no honour.

Finally, coal exports are not affected by Australia's population levels -- which allows me to repeat and remind that global warming is a global problem. It requires a global solution.

David

Firstly, what does it matter whether Eric mentioned the issue that disagree on in his article or one of his posts? Why did you mention this?

Secondly, where are you if you cannot see the evidence, which Eric went to pains to demonstrate with a breakdown of immigration and GHG production in immigration source countries?

Thirdly, this evidence clearly shows more than just Australia being an irresponsible polluter.

Fourthly, you say that I like to play with numbers. Fascinating, given that I didn’t mention a single number (apart from the dates of your comments) but did allude to possible ‘woolliness’ of the figures that Eric researched.

Then you quote a few figures in order to compare “better practices” with population effects on GHG reduction. But it is not one or the other, it has to be both! Besides, Australia would be doing extraordinarily well to lower its per-capita GHG production to anywhere near that of NZ or UK, countries with which we share a very similar lifestyle, for one major reason – vastly bigger distances over which the vast majority of our goods need to be transported.

Coal exports are very much a part of the story of Australia’s GHG production, and I would have been remiss not to have mentioned them in my last post. The fact that that part of our greenhouse story is only very poorly correlated to population size or growth rate is inconsequential.

It defies understanding as to how you cannot see the role of immigration here. David, what do you want? Do you desire Australia’s immigration to remain as high as it is, or higher? Do you think it is fair and reasonable to have an ever-increasing number of overconsumers and waste-producers in this country? Do you really believe that stabilising or reducing the number of consumers is not an important part of the greenhouse issue?

One point that hasn't been considered yet is the effect of liberal immigration policies on population growth and therefore, indirectly, greenhouse gas emissions. People who expect some of their children to emigrate tend to have more of them. This has been shown in a number of studies of Welsh villages or Caribbean islands that did or didn't have high immigration (see Chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's 'Population Politics' for references). Similarly, Third World migrants in a developed country may now believe that they can afford the very large family size idealised by their culture. Mexican migrants in the US have a total fertility rate of around 3.5 children per woman compared to around 2.5 for Mexicans in Mexico.

Eric Claus:

All the kafuffle over Nuclear Power as an alternative to fossil fuel as an alternative to immigration as an alternative to your schandanfreude secret agenda ?

If only, you would take off your blinkers.

This topic has been raised countless times on Forum. Predictably, the gist of your text can be condensed to two words.

Gratuitous baloney !

Reminds me of the proposed Traveston Dam brouhaha presently raging over the Mary River. No one wants a Dam in their backyard. No one wants a NP Plant in their front yard. Everybody wants to use a hose on their gardens, 4WD and Tinny ? Without Dams we may die of thirst ? It seems we are people who want it all our way. Opinionated, selfish, red-necked, rah-rah ockers who perceive ourselve's as Numero UNO. What has become of ' mateship ', as if there ever was such a myth ?

It is common knowledge the vast cattle and sheep herds Aust and NZ nurture, and ten's of thousand's owe their living to, produce more greenhouse gas, then the entire Human race, given we ban the car, ship, aeroplane, and other consumers of fossilised fuels.

Your presumptuous claim " aussie's produce about 28 tonnes of greenhouse gas per person per year " defies research by the CSIRO. Our two-pot screamer Andrew Bolt emphatically writes there is NO scientific basis for such mindless hysterics - that Global warming is a figment of disgrunted Enviornmentalist. The Kyoto Protocol an urban myth propogated by Bin Laden.

More freckle-furphy's, if we cull our birth rate, we wouldn't have to worry about Level 3 water shortages, desalination, geosequestration, all Society's visceral ills..in short, if we reduce the numbers of elderly. The sick, mentally retarded, and non-productive, there will be less emissions for Herr Klaus and his xenophobic jack-booted coterie to enjoy. The Fatherland to themselves - the rest of you bugger off.

Analyst from the ONA have wax lyrical on publications regarding our INABILITY to defend ourselves mainly, because of our lack of numbers in the ADF. Millions have been spent on advertisements on

continued..

recruitment. Resignations, dismissals, War psychosis/neurosis, post-traumatic-stress-disorder's, and a rejection rate of 85 %, firmly establishes we don't have the manpower to scratch ourselves, much less repel errant Indonesian fisherman and a new batch of Papuan refugees. With 5 theatre's of conflict to attend to, Howard's Deputy Sheriff-ship is looking decidedly wonky - largely unsustainable. Some Regular's have been on rotation in Iraq, three times. Their wives and children bearing the burden no less.Divorce, suicides and wife-bashing is par-for-the-course.Brenden Nelson and Coy admit the Army is deficient by at least 15000 personnel.

Limiting migration, would exacerbate Aust's reprehensible Labour predicament. Dire skill shortages are highlighted each day when Tradesmen from Ireland, Spain, Germany, Fiji, Philippine's etc take up vacancies in possibly every occupation imaginable. As the Resource's Boom kicks into high-gear, tradesman are like hen's teeth. The Mining sector ( where Our Economy thrives )is one area where demand out-strips supply.

Kids are leaving school in droves without Education, work experience or Apprenticeship's to fall back on. We have a generation of School-leaver's who are illiterate, lack work ethnic, prefer to surf, spine-bash, smoke pot, commit petty larceny, or beat up defenceless geriatric old women in shopping Malls.

This permanent underclass of dysfunctional dropout's couldn't work in the proverbial ' iron-lung '. It's unlikely, the Army would accept this flotsam, cleaning dunnies, let alone subject them to discipline / basic training they couln't comprehend ?

It's a vanilla theory whether Aust embraces Nuclear Power on the strength of Howard's/Blair's reappraisal of Energy sources.The Guardian reports there are fatal problems in 20 ageing NP Reactors in the UK. Hickey Point. Somerset, where cracks in graphite bricks enclosing the core was recently discovered. Structurally defective, these plants are scheduled for decommissioning in 2020. In Scotland, AEC Review recommended more alternatives - wind, wave and power projects. Energy efficient measures to curb wasted Resources and save 4 times the power generated by going Nuclear !!

The Institute Public Policy Research - Think tank rejected NP as a tried, tested and failed technology with higher costs involved then in renewable alternatives. Need convincing ?

Ciao,

David Latimer's ease of refutation relies less upon strong arguments than it does on corrupt ones. He states “The article is NOT about reducing population.”, yet EC considers a scenario where Australia would have 1.2 million fewer people.

In commenting “The article is written as though there was a giant glass dome over Australian airspace.”, DL acknowledges that EC's analysis is reasonable for Australia. He argues that reducing immigration would make no difference to GHG emissions worldwide, and is correct if you assume that the immigrants would be responsible for similar GHG emissions elsewhere. But in concluding “As this is wrong(EC's calculation of GHG reduction), the rest of the article, its arguments and claims are equally flawed.”, DL contradicts himself, as his argument is based on assuming the truth of EC's claim that Australia with 1.2 million fewer people would emit less GHGs.

Perhaps the lesson from Ec's article is that by pursuing high immigration, Australia is simply importing a problem from the rest of the world. DL's choice of the Titanic for an analogy is most appropriate, as your best chance of survival was in a lifeboat. The Titanic sank as I recall.