Ludwig, I'm 100% with you but I don't think what Peter was saying is that he considers never ending population growth as "realistic." More likely what Peter failed to say is that although there are many of us who fully understand the folly of continual growth simply to prop up company and shareholder's investments, while rampant consumerism and corporate greed runs unabated, there's little hope of stabilising or reducing population growth. Even if by some miracle we could turn back the population figures to, say, 1950 levels, other countries would soon realise Australia is ripe for the picking due to their low population and simply take us over. I suspect America's corporate heads would be first in line. Through Globalisation and industrialisation, we've started a jugernought we can no longer control. Nature will eventually take care of the situation, but until she does, you may as well run with the wolves. I really believe that realisation of what's in store at the end of this madness is what drives and greases the corporate wheels. People are becoming increasingly aware that we're fast running out of essential resources and/or ways to provide them and so are grabbing all they can for themselves before the crunch comes. Call it greed, call it human nature, but piping water long distances is akin to adding more freeways in a World of reducing oil supply. It will actually hasten our demise.

This is a refreshingly interesting article. It illuminates one of the many prospective solutions to what is all so obviously seen as a huge problem for Australia's population as presently distributed: water supply. Could I qualify this last by saying DEPENDABLE water supply. In this context of prospective dependability of supply I have to observe that the proposed source of the water lies in what is presently a foreign, even though friendly, country. Not a good basis for the securing of the supply of a commodity upon which Australia may come in large measure to depend.

Should it be that in the future this prospective problem should be resolved as a consequence of a mutually agreed move (return?) to a different political status of New Guinea vis-a-vis Australia, then it would seem Australia could come into a situation wherein it would share a land border with another foreign country: Indonesia. We are in large measure an island people in an island nation. We don't do land borders. There would thus appear to be pretty significant hurdles for a scheme such as this so far as proposing supply from a catchment not within Australian jurisdiction is concerned. There may well remain merit in schemes of this nature for relocating water from catchments within Australia to regions of current or impending shortage. No doubt large turn-key contractors will be salivating already at the prospect of such a large project. The question remains, of course, as to what cost and subsequently what benefit for ALL Australians may be expected, and whether this project is the only or most cost-effective solution for those who have to pay the bill.

Slightly off-topic, Ludwig, I note you have started new topics and I see you have had to have such approved. How does one initiate this process? I don't seem able to find instructions on this anywhere on the site, but then again I've only had a boy look - they certainly aren't in front or on top.

"Drought proofing SE Queensland" in regard to the increased population which is forecast for 2026: what happens after 2026 - gear up with the next "drought proofing" scheme? What new options will then be available, having already lessened available opportunities quite considerably?
Maybe population growth will have mysteriously, and abruptly, stabilised at that date? It would have already commenced decelerating but for growth promotion by the Property Council, Mayor Ron Clarke, and other such-like helmsmen of Regional direction. They seem determined that population growth is essential for their particular purposes - and, consequently, regional inhabitants will have to put up with it. Just until 2026?
What might have transpired at (or by) this magic date? Anyone who makes a confident prediction needs counseling, but yes, there are possibliites for such an eventuality:
1. Life might have deteriorated so miserably due to population pressure that no inducement will lure more people there.
2. The geohazards for the place, as published by Geoscience Australia, might have manifested sufficiently in re-forming the region's centre of attraction as to appall prospective newcomers.
3. The most likely climate change scenarios of the IPCC and CSIRO etc. could have had sufficient effect in that time to have impacted severely on the rather similar plans of mice and men regarding unimpeded increase in their species' numbers.
4. The afore-mentioned captains of regional direction might have been replaced by men/women of stature: ones with sufficient savvy to see the problems underlying the symptoms - with an affinity for the real world, rather than for make-believe.

PeterJH illuminates an interesting aspect of this at least pen-ultimate pipedream when he mentions the prospect of a water resource in the Northern Rivers region of NSW being piped to satisfy present or projected SE Queensland demand. Ironically, he illuminates it in the process of dismissing it, with his statement "....(and without getting into the spurious notion that states own 'their' own water)....". Inasmuch as States exist within the indissoluble Federal Commonwealth that is Australia, they do, in a sense, own their own water, the Tasmanian Dams decision notwithstanding.

The aspect PeterJH illuminates is, of course, the over-riding Constitutional one, and Section 100 sets it out: "The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation."

The population growth in SE Queensland is in large measure due to an internal migration within Australia. Could it be that this region is seen by these internal migrants as the 'real' Australia? Are they voting with their feet in an attempt to leave 'multicultural' Australia? I suggest that the image the internal migrants have is that of Joh's Queensland, one of common-sense responsive government. To the extent that it imitates the Bjelke-Petersen government, to that extent is the security of tenure of the Beattie government likely to be maintained so far as it depends upon the genuine electoral will of the people. The State of Queensland could negotiate direct with NSW for water supply from the northern rivers, and there is nothing the Commonwealth could or should do to stop it.

It is important to keep a sense of perspective in these very important considerations of growth and, as Ludwig so wisely reminds us should be the other side of the coin, demand management. Whether this 'pipedream' is seen by the Commonwealth Minister for Water as a pipeline for water, or a pipeline for constitutional change for other purposes, will remain a matter for judgement. Watch this space.

I stand accused of not fully expressing my views. To this I say: Guilty so here are some further thoughts.

As much as population growth is an ideal, how is it enforced and, moreover, how so without creating artificial land shortages and pushing land/houses prices into silly regions? The idea comes to mind that on one side of the line on a map a hectare of land becomes 10 to 'x' times more valualbe than on the other side. I doubt this would be tolerated.

I'm aware that under the Constitution the states and the Commonwealth have restrictions with respect to who 'owns' water. I don't see the Constitution as an impediment: it's possible for governments to work together when the time comes. The gun laws prove this.

To pump water that far would be an expensive exercise.
The writer mentioned the gas pipeline sending liquid natural gas or
water, but that would not be an option.
I didn't think the gas pipelines transported it in liquid form.
How would they keep it cold ?
Sending gas down long pipelines is no problem.

I suspect without really knowing that a desalination plant would be
cheaper to build and run. If powered by a windfarm the desal plant
would not generate any CO2 either.
The pipeline could be powered by a windfarm also which could be anywhere
on the grid.
So it just comes down to cost, but for reliability I think the desal plant would win. I wouldn't know about cost.