@Yuyutsu,

What do you know about anything like Apartheid or even segregation?These kinds of events weren't apart of Australia's history like they were for African Americans or black South Africans. I don't know why these words keep coming up.

I could understand an African-American using it,because theres something in common like Nelson Mandela and the Great Dr.Martin Luther King jr.True black African Heros nobody like them,truly before their time.Assasinated and jailed for the cause of our race.

The word Apartheid like many other words for African blacks is not a 'light term', it should not be thrown around or played with.

Response to Fester:

Let me quote from your last post: "Australia with 1.2 million immigrants would produce less GHG emissions".

Eric never said this. I never said this. Sofar it has taken you six posts to become totally confused about both Eric's argument and my critique of his argument.

If it makes you happy, have another go. Seventh time lucky perhaps.

Try to defend Eric's idea that one less migrant would save 28 tonnes of GHG's each year, OR try to defend the idea that Australia, with the world's worst per capita GHG emissions, is in a place to give the world a "lesson" by rejecting migrants because they don't pollute the atmosphere as profusely as us.

And be mindful that the sky over Australia is not seperate from the sky elsewhere AND the melted icecaps will flood Australian coasts in the same way as they'll flood the other continents.

David Latimer

To quote you again, “....and claims that we [and EC was very clearly referring to Australians here] 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.......”. This clearly shows that you understood EC's article to infer that with fewer immigrants, Australia's GHG emissions would be lower. Yet now you say “Eric never said this. I never said this.”. You might have fairly criticised EC for not considering the world picture, but to conclude “As this is wrong, the rest of the article, its arguments and claims are equally flawed.”, is illogical. For example, if I accepted the truth of your conclusion, I would logically conclude “we would (not) save 34,000,000 tonnes per annum if those immigrants were not accepted.” Is this what you are claiming?

I think my repeated replies have more to do with your failure to understand logical arguments at an elementary level.

Amel,

Yes, I have lived for a couple of years in South Africa when it was still under Apartheid, but this is completely besides the point:

I did not introduce this word - it was in reply to Fester, and all I wrote was that a certain situation "may seem to be like Apartheid", not that it actually is.

To put it all in context, I stated that:

A. every creature has the right to live where they want on this planet.
B. it is not a moral obligation to share the results of our efforts with all others.

and the conclusion was:

C. if, for whatever reason, we do not wish to share our resources with all others, we must make a separation between the right to live in the continent of Australia and the right to become equal citizens of the country of Australia and enjoy its infrastuture.

If this implies that some people (eg. uninvited immigrants) will not have the same rights as others - so be it and we have no reason to be ashamed about it.

Response to Fester:

Seventh time unlucky.

What you wrote in your 6th post on the same topic: "Australia with 1.2 million immigrants would produce less GHG emissions".

Have a careful read of your post:
- Australia
- With 1.2 million immigrants
- Less GHG emissions

Now regarding your 7th post: "we would (not) save 34,000,000 tonnes per annum if those immigrants were not accepted".

That is true, without the brackets, at several levels.

Firstly do not assume a migrant arriving in Australia will produce the average Australian quantity of GHG's. Secondly, to restrict immigration would continue the emission of GHG's in other countries, and about half of our migrants are from developed countries.

In Eric's article he says "reducing immigration to reduce greenhouse emissions" and "[r]educing immigration by 1.2 million people would save the full 34 million tonnes of greenhouse gases every year..." It uses the words "reduce" and "save" while you are altering it to say "emit". These are unqualified statements. The only way Australia can unqualifyingly save GHG's is when its actions (or inaction) does not cause GHG's.

Finally and most importantly, you assume "we" to mean "we Australians". When it comes to solving global warming, the "we" means "we humans."

Fester, I do pick up on how assumptions, pronouns and minor word changes are used to prop up silly arguments or trick genuine views. But the reality is that immigration is not relevant to climate change. That's the reason your posts can be so easily refuted.

David Latimer

Okay then, you would agree that Australia with 1.2 million fewer immigrants would be responsible for less GHG emissions, but the rest of the world, as a consequence of those would be immigrants still existing, would be responsible for more GHG emissions. Your difference then seems to be with the accuracy of EC's calculations, and his use of the terms “save” and “reduce”, instead of “emit”. So if EC had been less specific about the actual amounts and referred to “less” or “more” GHG “emissions”, you might still have criticised him for not considering the rest of the world, but you would have agreed with EC's claim. To be honest, I took less interest in the specific calculations, but was more concerned with the local environmental damage that could result from 1.2 million extra people living in Australia. To suggest that reducing immigration wont stop global warming might be true, but an overpopulated and environmentally damaged Australia may find adjusting to the change far more difficult.