Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing rapidly though. At least two different sources (http://www.mnforsustain.org/australian_population_19992101.htm and http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/as.html#People) put the growth at about 1.0% per year, and the first also considers that it will most likely drop well below that by the middle of the century. That's hardly growth that's out of control.

With good planning, there's no reason why that should be any sort of problem in this country. We produce more than enough resources to handle that, it's just that often, we don't manage them well enough (eg. we don't collect rainwater or use water several times). As Perseus has pointed out, de-centralisation would be effective because you wouldn't get unwieldy population centres with massive radii and circumfrences. This doesn't have to be draconian at all. All it would require would be good planning and the right incentives to get people to move to the right places in the right ways. As I keep saying, a large part of why the big cities in this country are getting to the point they are is because all the different activities in people's lives (work, school, play, shopping) are so spread out and no one thought about them. There's no reason we couldn't build employment hubs ringed by residential suburbs with all the other facilities people need and desire fully integrated into such communities and slash congestion. Instead, people travel long distances all over the place. That's the problem, not the number of people or cars.

Interestingly, there was an article in today's Age about how Vancouver has knocked Melbourne off its perch for World's Most Liveable city. Decades ago, all the local councils in Vancouver got together to plan things sensibly, and they also keep developers and architects on a short leash. Vancouver has actually experienced a reduction of travel times over the past decade.

“Sydney's congestion costs are very very high”

Of course they are Perseus, in both monetary terms and quality-of-life terms. But on a per-capita basis, the rate of increase in these costs is relatively small. You quoted the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics figures on this.

“I suggest you drop down to the intersection of Silverwater Road and Parramatta Road and tell the guys that commuters in Townsville have it worse.”

Go on twist it around Persy. You are the one who said that “The difference was that Sydney already has a lot of congestion” The fact is that congestion has got worse in Townsville overall in recent years while it hasn’t changed that much in Sydney. But of course it is not as bad overall in Townsville, by a long way.

“Your capacity to argue in favour of some sort of economies of scale in respect of traffic congestion, based only on the changes in costs, not the total cost, demonstrates that you understand nothing of the concept.”

I had a good laugh over this. So are you suggesting that there are no economies of scale involved and that the effects are the same everywhere? If so then what’s the point of decentralisation?? Methinks you shoot yourself in the foot again!

“And your waffle about regions not being able to take up the population slack makes it clear that you are looking for any pretext to oppose a solution that is outside your own draconian preference.”

It is not a matter of regions not being able to take population “slack”, it is a matter of the effects of this on those regions and towns and the ability for this population movement to relieve pressure on the big cities. You know what we are talking about here Perseus, so who do you think you are trying to mislead?

It seems to me that your desire to get people to move to smaller cities and towns to the extent that you desire is a lot closer to a draconian policy than anything that I have ever espoused.

continued

“Regional Qld is still 1/3rd of the total population so an increase in regional population of the same rate as the SE has recorded to date, will really take the unsustainable edge of the growth of SEQ. But, of course, numbers were never your forte because they actually have to add up.”

An increase in regional Qld that is sufficiently large to really take the pressure off the SEQ growth rate would have to be very considerable…on top of already rapid growth rates in many coastal towns, which will be exactly where the vast majority of people would head, if a policy of discouragement to settle in SEQ was implemented. Only with a policy of much tighter regulation would people be forced or ‘strongly encouraged’ to move to smaller centres away from the coast.

You are saying the current growth rate I SEQ is unsustainable. But in our various previous exchanges you have repeatedly poo-pooed this very notion!!

Anyone who just accepts that the overall number will continue to increase with no end in sight simply hasn’t a clue about the basics of arithmetic.

Perseus you now use that word ‘sustainability’ quite often, and talk about economies of scale – two things that you didn’t appear to have any concept of a short while back. And the extreme insults have dropped right away too. So I think we are on the right track!

.
“Ludwig: Australia's population isn't growing rapidly though.”

Shorbe I answered this point last time. 1%pa is far from a trivial rate of growth.

The question should be, why do we want to maintain any net population growth? Why not put a moratorium on it until we can be confident that we have got our sustainability regime worked out?

“As Perseus has pointed out, de-centralisation would be effective because you wouldn't get unwieldy population centres with massive radii and circumfrences.”

But we already have these.

Building new “employment hubs” or expanding existing towns is just not the answer in itself. But as part of an overall sustainability strategy, it might have a place.

Ludwig: If you looked at the population projections, you'd see that our population is actually tipped to level off (or even drop) by mid-century. Despite what you're saying, Australia simply isn't experiencing massive population growth. One percent per year is nowhere near massive and it's not out of control. The reason some urban areas are out of control is because there are too many vested (short term) interests involved.

As far as limiting population growth, firstly, you can't stop people having children. Secondly, as far as immigration goes, I'm fundamentally opposed to restricting the movement of people anywhere. Just because our ancestors were in the right place at the right time, why do you think that therefore gives us the right to then close the door on others? I think this sort of "I was here first, and why should I have to change to accomodate anyone else?" attitude is central to your argument though.

You keep talking about sustainability as though Australia is on the verge of collapse if we don't deal with the population right now. It's not. We have ample resources of all forms in this country. The problem is that we use those resources, including space and our transport networks, incredibly inefficiently. Sure, if we keep building vast suburbs in the way that we are currently we're going to keep having problems, but I believe we'll have to smarten our act up on this. If someone had the vision to plan sensibly, people would flock to such a place and it would become a model for urban planning everywhere. I'm sure people don't like how things are now, and people generally don't want a decline in standard of living (including more congestion), so there will naturally come a time when all of these things sort themselves out and it won't have to involve Big Brother wielding a big stick, which also seems to be part of your general approach.

Ludwig, the only reason people don't settle in the inland is that the retirees prefer the coast and this, combined with the reverse multiplier effect of governement overheads, means the inland centres are slowly contracting. That is no recipe for attracting the kind of investment needed to make these towns more attractive to all settlers.

But once these government leakages are plugged then the re-circulating money will provide the recipe for further investment and additional growth. A healthy local economy may, for example, make the risk associated with an inland artificial surfing beach with perfect barrels every 30 seconds much more acceptable. And don't tell me that such a place wouldn't be packed with grey nomads who are disgusted with what Byron and Noosa have become.

I understand that you regard the term growth as a negative in every sense and this clouds your capacity to comprehend that a new settler in a small town actually prevents further decline first and then underpins the continued viability of the local community. But your attempts to use entirely self contradictory arguments to support your case are getting a touch pathetic.

Unlike a compulsory population ceiling, decentralisation needs no big sticks. Once the economic fundamentals of a regional economy are restored then all sorts of inducements, incentives and economic carrots are possible. Nothing increases the number, and improves the quality of options like a growing economy.

"Two paths diverged in the woods,
I took the one least travelled by
and that made ALL the difference".

“I understand that you regard the term growth as a negative in every sense…”

Do you now Perseus?

Well in that case you don’t understand too much at all about what I am saying.

Growth in terms of improvements in efficiency of resource usage and all sorts of other good developments is what I’d call positive growth.

Growth in terms of continuous human expansion, which exerts ever-greater pressure on our resource base and environment, and which works against the development of better efficiencies and other technologies, is very much negative growth.

However, growth in terms of expansion in some places is no doubt a good thing, if it helps those communities, helps alleviate growth pressure on other places and helps our society and nation overall, in a sustainable manner.

I have said this sort of thing many times on this forum on threads that you partake in. So I therefore ask…. do you deliberately misrepresent me, as you have been wont to do ever since we first ‘met’, or does your polarised way of viewing everything just lead you straight to the ‘all or nothing’ simplistic and all too often completely wrong impression of other peoples' views?