Bernie I totally agree that the solution to climate change and sustainability issues has to be a marriage “between government and industry/business”.

But it is a matter for governments to see that the necessary regulations apply…and to implement them often in opposition to the wishes of big business, which holds very powerful influence over government decisions. Therein lies a very large part of the dilemma – working with the profit motive, but mitigating its downside.

“Population growth may be something that industry/business wants to happen but it's simply not happening in most of the developed countries…”

It sure is happening in Australia and USA, and in China with an increase of nearly 7 million last year.

In Australia at least, it is being pushed along by the business lobby, via their promotion of high immigration, with the assistance of a government that should be implementing regulations that specifically counter this factor and bring immigration down to net zero.

Bernie, You are probably correct, the market forces will do just as you say and the world population will decline post 2030......but the whole planet will look like the Middle East by then.

A strip of grass, a few goats and millions of starving people fighting each other for what is left.

I would like to stop it now while we still have a measure of control over the situation. I would like to see every African, Asian and central European have the same standard of living I enjoy if they wish, and why shouldn't they? The trouble is it can never happen with the population as it is, let alone if it keeps rising.

Pie in the sky?..maybe, but that is what I am working towards, a better future for everyone.

Bernie, population growth is happening – not only in the developing world, but also in the developed. For instance, in Europe, the total fertility rates may be low, but with the age cohort of women in their fertile years the numbers increase. Above that is the increase due to immigration. Predictions are that populations will decrease substantially in the future. Almost certainly correct if there is no great inflow from a flood of migrants.

Yes, predictions are for world population stabilisation – but that it will occur when total numbers have increased by about 50 per cent from the present. How “green” are those clamoring for action against human-induced global warming if they do not factor this increase into their equations? How blinkered, when they side-step around the Australian Governments’ (both Keating and Howard) freezing the $130 million that Australia used to spend, prior to 1993, on family planning programs for the under-developed nations?

It is time for us to get back to assisting the dis-empowered women in developing countries – empower them to limit their fertility. Population increase is the great multiplier of all the issues around growth of consumption and waste, and consequent de-greening of the planet.

Way too many of you, just the right amount of me.

Bernie

Your comment "Governments that lead in advance of public opinion run huge risks that the public will reject them through ignorance, so I personally have no problem that Howard is only now acting on GHG emissions and climate change." implies a belief that the ONLY role of national leaders is to 'set policy'. Another thing that they can do is to 'lead'. And knowing that they cannot (as you rightly point out) lead us into change ahead of public opinion, then their responsibility is to lead us by shifting public opinion. By providing information, facilitating open dialogue and assisting the public opinion to catch up with the better researched scientific opinion.

So where is this fundamental thought leadership coming from within Australia? Certainly not from our elected leaders. They are too concerned with the retention of personal power to focus on the needs of society. So thought leadership must come from outside of politics until it builds up sufficient momentum and volume for the politicians to catch up.

Its a different level, a higher order of thinking. The type that Clare Graves and Beck & Cowan have introduced us to, if we want to listen. But we should not expect politicians, trapped in their narrow world view (economics and power reigning supreme) to have a concern for the true sustainers of humanity: society and the natural environment.

Greenlight: thanks for those comments which make a lot of sense. I must confess that I'm a former politician, 8 years in the WA parliament. The Liberal Party dumped me in 2004 for a number of reasons but one of them was because they didn't like my leadership on environmental issues (I was the shadow environment minister at the time). In summary, I spend many years prior to getting into parliament trying to influence policy, then 8 years as an MP trying to provide the type of thought leadership you are talking about. It didn't work too well for me, hence my statement that governments which lead ahead of public opinion run enormous electoral risks.