'Torrents of abuse', Fester? You wouldn't be just a teensy bit prone to exaggeration, now would you? Look, in two posts I have said all I want to about immigration and its links to urban sustainability. If that's not enough for you, so be it. I am not really interested in engaging in debate with you on it any further. Do you have any ideas about urban sustainability that are not linked to immigration?

Divergence, I don't particularly disgree with anything you say. It's just that I don't see much relevance there to any of my previous posts, so not sure why you opened with a reference to them.

PK

You didn't say anything of substance in relation to immigration and sustainability. What you did do is engage in an attack upon the morality and intelligence of immigration critics. I would think that forming such a generalised opinion of such people on this forum far exceeds sound judgement and embraces all of the hatred and prejudice that you seem to rightly detest.

You have my sympathy.

Environmentalists have been expressing concern for decades about our immigration levels, and for good reason, because these levels are not based on ANY research about what is a sustainable level of population growth. We should question why our immigration levels are where they are, and the "endless growth" philosophy.

Sydney is fast becoming a transport disaster- the last real money that was put into public transport was back in the 1970s. The planned rail link between Chatswood and Epping along with all the other existing rail lines, was originally envisaged by Bradfield in the 1930s. After 70 years, I think it is about time for a new transport plan for Sydney.

And as for decentralising employment throughout Sydney - that was already tried decades ago - it was called the Dept of Planning "Centres Policy" of the 1980s - you can now see the (lack of) progress with that.

Sydney has been described by Professor Ed Blakely (Sydney Uni urban research centre) as 2 cities: a world-class, high amenity city of 1.5 million people with good infrastructure , and a second city of 2.5 million people with poor access to infrastructure, employment etc. The real estate market reflects this.

Without serious investment in infrastructure, starting with public transport, amenity in Sydney is just going downhill. And the "world class" part of the city is not quarantined from this, as the state government's Metropolitan Strategy envisages squeezing more people into the inner suburbs WITHOUT any serious investment in infrastructure. If schools and transport in the inner suburbs are at capacity now where they do they think the new resident's children are going to go to school? how are new residents going to get to work? Answer: by overcrowding existing schools and trains (ie lower amenity for everyone).

“Environmentalists have been expressing concern for decades about our immigration levels…”

Have they?

It has been a pretty muted expression if you ask me.

“We should question why our immigration levels are where they are, and the "endless growth" philosophy.”

Of course. Nothing could be more important.

The most perplexing thing that I have ever struck is the reasonable overall level of awareness of sustainability issues amongst environmentalists and indeed the general community, but this extraordinary lack of concern about the biggest issue of all affecting sustainability: the rapidly growing number of consumers and waste-producers.

This is the ultimate psychological mystery.

Speaking of which, Australian of the Year Tim Flannery takes a guess at Australia’s optimal sustainable population:

"Q: What do you think the ideal population of Australia should be ?

Flannery: Well, my personal estimate is that's probably going to lie somewhere between six and 12 million. But the great tragedy for the nation is that we don't know the answer to that question. We've never asked it sensibly. I may be proven to be wrong, but I don't think I'm going to be greatly wrong. The answer may be 20 million, but it's certainly not going to be 200 million."

That’s between 14 and eight million fewer people than currently inhabit Australia.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/begin_the_cull/

More from Australian of the Year Tim Flannery:

"Q: How would we control our population?

Flannery: Well, the main and easiest thing to control really is immigration levels because that is what's contributing to the major population growth at the moment. We're below replacement level as far as births go, but we do have a very large number of baby boomers having children which is causing a temporary increase in numbers. But really, in the long term, it's going to be immigration which will cause the big change.

Q: Your strong stand on population has earned you the criticism of being a racist. How do you respond to that?

Flannery: All I can say is that I think there's a place for immigration and always will be in Australia's population policy. I don't care in the least where anyone comes from - it's just total numbers that really worry me. My concern as a scientist is simply to ensure that we have a sustainable future in Australia.

Q: If we are to curb our population, Tim Flannery believes we need to change the image we have of ourselves and our country: we must get away from the erroneous view that Australia is a fertile and empty land just waiting to be filled.

Flannery: I think many Australians see themselves living in antipodean United States of America that just needs more population to become a huge southern giant. And that, I think, is clearly not true. The real future of Australia will lie in being a small, stable and affluent, confident country. Not a large ailing giant which we'd become if we tried to follow that option. Things that grow forever in the natural world are called cancers and they eventually bring about the downfall of the system."

http://www.abc.net.au/quantum/info/q95-19-5.htm