Eric

Thanks for participating in this discussion. In my experience this is rare among Online Opinion writers, and I admire the willingness to test the rigour in your arguments by debating them here.

1. Your article is about reducing immigration. It doesn’t state that we must learn to live sustainably. You’ve made some comments in this forum about working hard on conservation, but I was commenting on your article.

2. We have a moral obligation to take refugees (often fleeing from problems caused directly or indirectly by overpopulation). Commercial demands for skilled and semi-skilled labour, and our international agreements will probably dictate that we need to continue accepting migrants.

To re-phrase your question: “Why should their mistakes be our problem?” A valid question, but the simple answer is because we all share this space, it’s impossible to put up a wall and refuse to get involved. This goes for people as well as pollution.

It’s all very fine to “set an example” on population growth, though not if it’s at the expense of becoming exemplary isolationists. In any event, with our very low birthrate, I would argue that the example is already being set.

3. Your “modelling” posits 1.2 million fewer people in Australia, because of reduced immigration. According to your proposal, these people will be somewhere in twelve years' time, just not here. There will still be carbon emissions attributable to them, and we will continue to be affected by those emissions.

I’m not proposing that Australians shoulder the responsibility for those carbon emissions, any more than I am arguing that we are responsible for other countries’ overpopulation. However we are affected by both, and keeping them at arm’s length doesn’t relieve us of any obligations to act.

4. You’re the expert on environmental issues Eric. When I don’t like what my doctor is suggesting, she doesn’t expect me to come up with an alternative treatment plan. Rejecting your advice places me under no obligation to come up with better advice. What’s required is a second opinion.

Nice article, thank you.
I am not a physicist nor involved in alternative energy but I have read sites like www.rmi.org the rocky mountain institute and some of the British and European material.
Arguments remain as to whether alternative energy can provide. Many are optimistic particularly when new technology and efficient energy use is combined with some population reduction, equating with the ecological carrying capacity of the world than reduction of energy.
The positive people list so many possibilities. See housing standards www.basix.nsw.gov.au and each state has similar. Although these do not rech those of the Rocky Mountain house in Colorado, nor the German no energy houses, it is a start.
For the 65% GHG due to transport etc there are hybrid and soon hydrogen cars. Hydrogen from electrolysis using the sun, 35 % efficient solar cells, the new ways of using semiconductors with lower energy needs etc etc and of course sequester of coal gas.
Many of the alternate energy gimmicks are in prototype but then I suppose with some oil fields already pumping gas down the bore holes and a small coal plant in the US producing clean electricity one might think the future even is with us. After all in the 1970’s oil shock GDP growth and energy use in the US, Lovins, was decoupled.
I have not even mentioned wind.
Do we need growth because it is the current paradigm, entertains and controls the youths, no purpose left if we can’t buy and show our latest gadgetry, being one up is necessary to unchangeable human nature, (it is unchangeable is not it?) An economic paradigm in which education enables competition of the minds and those common enjoyments not needing high tech production or would we all die of boredom?
I am confused is the debate all about selling a commodity balancing the current account or as suggested a Christian feel good exercise like Iraq? Devising a means of continued affluent style measured by possessions (and one upping) or leading armies (even when surrogate minor party), or ?

As is usual in my disorganised way I forgot one thread, proof that paranoid outlook is absent?
I just wonder if as with the war with Iraq the media and of course the poli’s are conning us.
Such conning can be exemplified by the tomes written on the subject, in America! See The Record of a Paper Howard Friel and Richard Falk.
Now so far as I know there is no leak similar to the Downing Street Memo showing at least the intelligence, and was not the war based on this, to be skewed to suit the purpose of war, concerning misinformation by the media. Maybe someone knows better?

Anyway the debate is headed only nuclear, excluding alternative?
Lots of sums at least in the net and of course Julie Bishop showing the wonders of nuclear and its safety, but nothing on alternatives. Except of course those wretched parrots who not being imbued with the Spirit of Australia can’t, it is said, avoid the turbine blades.
Oh well it was just a thought

The thrust of the article doesn't really discuss a manner of reducing greenhouse emissions per person. These numbers stay static, and we shall not have progressed on that front at all. The article simply discusses the *local* non-creation of additional greenhouse emissions. The problem is, reducing immigration doesn't help, and the downsides are significant.

In a global context, the idea of a reduction of immigration to reduce greenhouse gases doesn't actually work. Immigrants don't appear from thin air, immigrants are people and whether they immigrate to Australia, another country or stay where ever they are they will generate pollution. The problem with the idea of reducing immigration as a greenhouse gas reducer is it doesn't really *reduce* emissions in an absolute terms. It simply makes it another country's pollution problem.

The value of immigration, and the contributions of immigrants to the nature is simply beyond reproach. To suddenly reverse immigration would have a negative effect on our ability to innovate in business, sport, science and whatever other arenas one could name. It would be extremely short-sighted, not to mention small-minded to implement such a policy. The fact that it doesn't actually work is quite transparent as well. From a world perspective, we shall simply be seen as a mean-spirited, racist nation unwilling to be open to the world.

Do we want to become a world pariah as the years go by? Other countries will be intelligent and aim at reducing the emissions output per person or household. By taking on a simple policy of low immigration, we do nothing to reduce emissions on an absolute level and Australia, as a power consumer, remains, and increasingly so, backward & inefficient in its power generation.

We cannot be a leader by example by going backwards. The only way we can lead by example is to innovate & become more efficient in producing our energy, and more efficient in our consumption of energy.

There is a good reason the idea isn't being raise in public forum about sustainability & reductions of emissions: Its a total non sequitur that doesn't work.

Whilst I do not disagree with the options put formward centered around a reduction in immigration as a solution to the environmental issues and the general energy debate, one must also consider the effect of zero immigration combined with near zero population growth in a country as large as Australia.

The decision to increase the number of 'productive' immigrants, that being skilled and semi skilled adult migrants is an attempt at a short cut solution to a very long term problem.

Since the iron curtain fell and the Chinese became voracious capatilists and consumers along with India we became a powerhouse of production but at a very basic and a primary level at that. We could not afford nor could we deliver a more sophisticated input into the world's new economies of value adding to our resources base without the manpower to do it.

The result is the accelerated immigration programme of willing and able workers with different objectives producing an effective and desirable outcome for industry. Motivated workers from third world countries prepared to work longer hours for less than what we call the average wage meets and usurps the unionised workers challenge as a monopolist in labour domestically.

The problems though with achieving such economic targets and outcomes is that we have infrastructure in cities and towns for services unable to cope with such a rush in demand . Thats the social cost to a quick economic victory.

What needs to be done is to relocate or to locate those who come from abroad for these jobs particularly at the mines to move out there and to compel the mines to make a larger contribution towards affrodable housing, education and other amenities in these areas complete with suitable infrastructure. A bit of the Railroad barron mentality of the USA in the 1800's.

Stopping imigration totally is disasterous. It will mean that we will continue to have to wait before the current generation with kids are able to bring thm up to the level of being competitive workers in the future. Thats unrealistic.

I've heard of many reasons to prevent foreigners coming to our country but this one is as shallow as they come. Every problem has a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.

"Let's blame the immigrants" I thought was a cry that died out yonks ago but there are many such as the author who feel this way and yearn for approval; all the usual suspects above have queued up to oblige.

I don't buy into the argument we need immigration to support our expanding economy, since eventually we'll simply outstrip our resources. Developing a revolutionary energy source or managing what we have are pretty much our only options.

"The lesson [of Australia looking into nuclear options] would be that Australia is starting to get serious about tackling climate change and living sustainably." Ya reckon? The government's looking into nuclear energy because with India going nuclear and the US urging us to get involved THERE'S MONEY IN IT. Investigating nuclear options makes sense since there's no way we could sell uranium yet ban the technology onshore, without facing up to the obvious hypocrisy of that position.

It's also a debate we need to have anyway. We know peak oil production can't be too far away, whatever OPEC representatives say. In all of this though what the f*ck has immigration got to do with it?

Let's blame foreigners. It's heaps simpler than a little introspection.