A further reading of the "Australian National Greenhouse Accounts" confirms that reductions in land clearing and thus reduction in CO2, over the period 1990 to 2004, have offset almost all the Co2 emissions growth from the energy generation.

Thus an increase of about 100MT (+43%)of Co2 from electricity generation over the period 1990 to 2004, was offset by 93MT (-72.5%)savings from reduced land clearing.

So to meet the Kyoto target of 108% of 1990 levels by 2010, all the Government has to do is phase out all land clearing by 2010, which would be the situation anyway, as all land that can be cleared will have been cleared.

Thus Australias committment to meet" its internationally agreed target of constraining emissions in 2008-12 to 108% of their
1990 level." is really a pea and thimble trick.

The governments greenhouse measures are a sham.

So the question arises, what will be the effect on emmission targets after 2010, when there is no land clearing offset? ie no camoflaging our true emissions.

It will then be obvious just how out of control our energy use really is; this can only be excacerbated by a rapidly increasing population.

Response to Fester:

No, I do not agree that Australia with 1.2 million fewer immigrants would be "responsible" for less greenhouse emissions. No evidence of this has been provided and the attribution of responsibility is unexamined. The notion of Australia vs The Rest of the World is silly. This is a world problem, not a local one.

No, my problem is ALSO with the methodology, the claims and especially the conclusion. The whole article amounts to nothing and there is no relevant relationship between immigration and GHG.

Response to Last Word:

There is nothing wrong with measuring the impact of land clearing. I am sure this was worked out as per international agreement. It's quite OK that the easy to implement solutions are enacted first. That provides a breathing space to design and implement the more challenging solutions. If we were signed up to Kyoto, we could be making money from planting trees (carbon sinks).

Very glad you are looking at the AGO report (http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/stateinv/pubs/states2004.pdf)

What an excellent debate ! I could only skim through so many posts but it seems that by far the majority are, like me, in favour of limiting immigration. I personally would prefer only to invite refugees, for humanitarian reasons.

I have had an outback childhood and now live on a bush block on the rural fringe and I find that first or second generation migrant friends, urban dwellers, are entirely uncaring about the environment outside the cities,never noticing the effects of droughts and global warming, and when I suggest to them that we must limit immigration I am accused of being racist. (I once joined a group called Australians Against Further Immigration but left it quick smart because I thought it was in fact racist).My migrant friends (highly intelligent people from Iraq, England and Greece) are keen on expanding immigration hugely,partly I think because they have no affinity with the country.

I say the one thing we have going for us in Australia is space, and I think we should be selfish and protect this advantage. After all, in the days of my convict ancestors no-one much wanted to migrate here - Australia was regarded as low and uncultured and we were despised. Now we've built a bit of wealth thanks to minerals etc. everyone wants to come and to hell with the effects of a rapidly growing population on the environment. Every time I drive back home from the city I see another grassy hill taken over by another mushrooming housing development.

If so many of us are against the overpopulation disease, why don't the pollies take heed ? More important perhaps, why isn't there a non-racist anti-immigration movement that we could join ? Oh yes, I'm all for living more sustainably too, as a matter of urgency.

With several adjustments to his argument, David Latimer has finally arrived at a consistent position. Well done.

If immigration does make no difference to GHG emissions then only question worth considering is “What is the environmental impact of immigration in Australia?”. Controlling GHG emissions is an important part of dealing with climate change, but so is coping with the environmental impact. Now if immigration has no environmental impact then it is immaterial. If not, then immigration will make it harder for Australia to cope with climate change. So the question of interest is then, “Will immigration bring sufficient economic benefits to cope with the extra environmental damage?”. The Productivity Commission Report on immigration suggests not. And the ballooning current account deficit, brought about in large measure by high immigration, hardly gives more comfort either.

I understand what David Lattimer's saying, but it doesn't make sense. Immigrants coming to this country mostly come from what we call deprived lifestyles, having to fend mostly for themselves with little infrastructure or energy supplies. When they come here, every thing's given to them, power, food, money. They use much more energy than in their homeland, which means we produce more GHG's, their old country continues to use the same amount. Its just simple logic and observation.

Add the amount of resources needed to establish these people and bring them here, the ongoing energy support far above what they are used to and its seems ridiculous to say immigration doesn't increase GHG's. As most immigrants are English illiterate and used to handouts, they naturally go to cities and contribute nothing but waste. In Tas, virtually all refugees and migrants that come here, leave within the year and move to Melb or Sydney where their ghetto's are growing. More than 80% are unemployable.

David, “The notion of Australia vs The Rest of the World is silly”.

Not so silly if you can realise providing an example to the world is a positive approach. If you don't get your house in order, how can you expect anyone else to.

Big cities and large populations lead to degradation of life and the environment. I know most don't really know what clear deep blue skies full of native birds and the bush full of animals is like, so its understandable you think the dirty grey blue sky is normal. As a country that has such a high personal GHG output, any improvement will relieve the planets stress a bit, leading to less damaging effects.

David Latimer please help me better understand your views on immigration, population, greenhouse gas production and sustainability.

Is the Australian Government wrong to fund the Australian Greenhouse Office since they only concentrate on reducing greenhouse emissions in Australia? Are international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol a waste of time and energy, because they put limits on individual countries greenhouse emissions, rather than considering all nations together?

Does the 100 million tonne increase in greenhouse gases from electricity generation from 1990 to 2004 have anything to do with the net 1.3 million immigrants that arrived during that time? Does it have anything to do with the net 2.7 million immigrants who arrived between 1960 and 1989? Does it have anything to do with any immigrants who have come to Australia? Does it have anything to do with any of the children of those immigrants?

What recommendations do you have for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in Australia and all around the world?

If Australia reduced its per capita greenhouse emissions by 5% but raised its population by 5% wouldn’t that negate the improvements made in per capita emissions, in terms of the greenhouse impact to the world?

Is it easier to become sustainable in resource use and environmental protection with a larger population or a smaller population? How can Australia send a message to the rest of the world that we are trying to live sustainably and we believe that the rest of the world should try to live sustainably as well? Is this a message that we should try to send to the rest of the world?

Is the example regarding the desalination plant in Sydney pertinent to immigration?

Thanks for your help David and thanks to all the other contributors for helping shed light on this subject.