Ah yes Mr Cook a pully paid up member and propagandist for Opus Dei with their obnoxious claim to be doing "gods" work in the world. And their sado-masochistic "holiness" rituals.

And also via Mercator, a fellow traveller of the all the usual "right" thinking American think tanks, and their "right" thinking Christian culture war warriors who subscribe to the ideas that the white christian USA is part of "gods" plan for the entire world and that it, the USA, is, as part of "gods" plan bringing "freedom, "democracy", "markets" and "jesus" to everybody else---with capitalism being the vehicle for doing so.

The logic being that "god" is creative---capitalism is also "creative", therefore it "obviously" is "gods" gift and mandated/anointed vehicle for bringing all the above fruits to one and all. Even via shock and awe as in Iraq or via the Shock Doctrine altogether as described by Naomi Klein,

The proposal is really just a variation of Hardin's classic essay "The Tragedy of the Commons" (http://dieoff.org/page95.htm). It notes that there are common costs that arise through individual action and these will be paid for in some manner. Interestingly, Hardin apparently decided on a variation of land-tax as the means to ensure that people at the very least minimise their use of scare environmental resources.

Sounds fair to me. Australia's population is anticipated to double over the next 50 or so years due to both migration and an increasing birth rate. World population is now above 6 billion and predicted to reach 9 billion before leveling out. Mother breast feeding associations, religious zealots, and the Catholic church better start looking after the future for their children rather than making stands on the their right to unlimited procreation. If population is not a fundamental part of the problem in the climate change debate we have surely lost the plot.

“…instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment”

That quote from David Attenborough is the most sensible thing yet said about climate change. It emphasises the hypocrisy of the self-appointed ‘climate change scientists’ who keep telling us that it is human activity that is causing climate change. They make no mention of the world’s obvious over-population.

As we in Australia run out of water and, in the foreseeable future, lose the ability to feed ourselves, no political party has the guts to come up with a population policy. It’s all more immigration and more home breeding that is called for. This is total, suicidal madness.

Birth control as mentioned in this article is probably politically impossible, but the total cessation of immigration and the removal of all non-citizens are definitely possible. While this wouldn’t alleviate the problem of world over-population, it would give us breathing space to attend to the damage done by too high immigration to Australia

I suggest Howard's departure is a sign the public mistrusts the goal of relentless economic growth. Apart from skilled immigration he wanted more people in Australia through baby bonuses and Section 457 visas. Globally however oil production is in decline and we have less grain per capita than in the 1980s. On the other hand we need future taxpayers and aged care workers. Already Generation X is saying the baby boomers have appropriated too much real estate wealth. It seems to follow that today's children will blame future restrictions to water and energy on 20th century excesses.

However I doubt there is any formula for the 'right' population except that we certainly have more than enough now. Worker shortages evaporate when booms finish. We must aim towards a comfortable population that can cope with temporary imbalances without finger pointing.

According to Britain's Optimum Population Trust

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.release07May07.htm

a decision to have an additional baby (beyond replacement level) is the same, in greenhouse gas emission terms, as a decision to take 620 round trip flights across the Atlantic. Since our carbon footprint is 19 tons a year in contrast to 12 tons in Britain, an additional Australian baby would be equivalent to 982 such flights. The mandatory abolition of incandescent light bulbs would produce a trivial improvement in comparison to the baby tax.

Yes, there may be technological solutions to some of our problems, but we are experiencing serious problems on a number of different environmental fronts. Human societies do collapse instead of finding a way out through human ingenuity. Witness the Irish Potato Famine of 1848 and what happened in Rwanda in 1992. It is hardly the mark of an intelligent species to do an uncontrolled experiment on your planet's atmosphere, so it is arrogant in the extreme to think that we can go on growing our population and consumption forever. Globally, we already have so many people that it would take the resources of 3 Earths to give all of them a Western European standard of living and 2 Earths for an Eastern European standard, even if all the wealth was divided equally. We are experiencing massive loss of species. According to the last Measures of Australia's Progress report, the number of Australian species on the extinct, endangered and vulnerable lists has increased by more than 40% since 1996.

It is about time the Catholic Church started preaching responsible parenthood and respect for the rest of creation instead of "every sperm is sacred".

“The daft proposal for a baby levy would kill the very hope which sustains and drives our society.”

What a load of BS!!

Thankyou Michael Cook for bringing this article to OLO. It is a very important subject indeed. But gee, what a pity you came out against the concept.

Of COURSE we need to need to link population growth directly to greenhouse gas emissions, and to overall sustainability.

Of COURSE we need to very directly address methods of stabilising, if not steadily reducing population.

Of COURSE we need incentives to significantly and quickly reduce the birthrate, in most countries across the world.

We can look at China’s experience with their one-child policy and work towards mitigating some of the negative aspects. But for goodness sake, we must not let it put us off striving for the implementation of at least world-wide two-child policy.

“Julian Simon’s optimism about harmonising the environment and population growth has again and again been proved right.”
In order come up with such a statement has the author been constrained to a cave for almost a generation – excommunicated from the real world? If anyone has been proved right it certainly has not been Simon.
Those of us getting sunburned with reality are acutely aware that population has grown while environment has diminished: harm rather than harmony, because population health is dependent upon environmental health. Lousy water, lousy human health and all that stuff.

“The ultimate resource is people”, “children create hope, not problems”. A filtered view of the real world as any decent parent knows.
Children bring both hopes and fears; problems and joy; and challenges certainly, to nurture them in a caring atmosphere towards their full potential. The costs in time, money, and resources, to adequately nurture from birth to adult independence vastly exceed those required by the elderly component. This latter weighs heavily only in the last few years of life.

If all women were eventually to average 2.1 births each, at appropriate total human numbers, populations would stabilize – a fundamental necessity to sustain a society living in harmony with the environment - which fundamentally underpins society.
What antediluvian thought dictates that Homo sapiens keep increasing its numbers? Australia’s present numbers are living beyond the means of their environment. The same could be said for almost all other nations. Of those, the most dire might be East Timor, with an average of 8.1 live births per woman. As a result 36% of its population is 0-14 years of age, twice that proportion for Australia. What hope for East Timor while its children reach adolescence poorly educated, prospects for social enrichment and gainful employment woeful? With over-stressed parents, they are prey to mentoring by elder peers steeped in hate against other competitive groups.

Let every child be a wanted child, hopefully with parents aware of the human flood which has already arrived. Other parents - let them leap aboard their Ark and head for Mount Ararat.

If there is going to be such a tax to reflect footprint, then lets at least discuss making it a means-tested tax. Only families with a joint income of more than say $150,000 annually. These incomes and above are more likely to spend on unnecessary consumer goods, travel etc, and each person has a higher footprint.

Perhaps though instead of a baby-tax, we look instead to additional consumption taxes. This consumption tax would need to be directly put into environmental offset activities and not dumped into general revenue. It could be set at particular amounts of particular classes of goods, and adjusted for suppliers that complied with set environmental standards. Eg once determined, an environmentally friendly factory in northern europe would get a credit based on its production techniques, and a smoke-bellowing factory in china would not. It would go someway towards encouraging environmentally friendly consumption, as the price-benefit of buying cheap goods from developing countries would disappear.

Actually, Julian Simon got it very wrong. Being an economist
who understood nothing about biology, he tried to put a $ value
on biodiversity. What he forgot of course, is that without
biodiversity, you won't have a humanity, so your $ won't mean
much.

Whatever we do, if its not sustainable, its bound to fall over
eventually. Its fairly pointless worrying about climate change,
unless we address the issue of another 80 million a year being
added to our planet each year, mostly in the third world.

What these two fellows have done is hopefully brought the
population question back into the discussion arena.

Its high time that the Catholic Church got real about population.

If it was up to me, the pope would be charged with environmental
degradation :) I guess they just want to make sure that their
chuch outbreeds the muslims, so those poor women in the third
world have to keep popping out babies, or they won't get their
promised Catholic ticket to heaven.

Today the world's entire population can stand each in a square metre, in greater Melbourne. Yes that's right folks, all 6.5 billion people in Melbourne, each on a square metre.

So the world is not even remotely over populated, and can support a population many many times greater than it is.

It was interesting to hear these baby-taxers on the air the other day: one academic in WA, and mysteriously, another academic in Canberra at the ANU. Amazing how these guys can network so that they both appear on the air-waves on the same day, in the same news item.
That is, there is definitely a highly-networked, highly-financed organisation pushing this global warming agenda. Conspicuously, it has become almost frenzied in the last few weeks, JUST WHEN THE IRAQ WAR AND TERRORISM HAD STARTED TO BECOME OLD HAT AND BORING.

It would be interesting to be able to trace the source and connections (and phone calls and emails) emanating from these control freaks. I think if we delved deeply enough, we would find an integrated network dedicated to socialism. The recent global push by anyone and everyone, is probably unprecedented in world history with regard to coverage and comprehensiveness. Such collusion and control of the media takes an incredible amount of money and organisation. For we are being bombarded with the bogus scenario every day, on every media outlet, in every country, including this forum.
It is as though someone very high up has commanded to start pulling strings. Even political parties, with all their media experience, cannot manage campaigns as effectively and universally as this. There is definitely a conspiracy occurring at the highest level, and I am quite certain that many of the global-warming contributors on this forum are low-ranking co-conspirators.

Put another way, if it were indeed a conspiracy, how would it look any different? And the answer of course is: "it wouldn't".
Therefore by virtue of the philosophical axiom which states that two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, we derive that the current global warming scare campaign is a conspiracy.

Surely it would be much more politically feasible to impose a carbon tax on immigrants (who are going to generate warming gases) rather than on babies. In addition, a carbon tax rebate could be given to emigrants, for the same reason.

Crap,

Go and get other nations to pay per kid. we dont have a problem here with overpopulation or a high birth rate and we do not effect the worlds population.

People who concieve these ideas are idiots

An after thought.

Simon's (and hence Cook's) use of language is interesting.

They refer to human beings as a resource, which implies that living-breathing-feeling human beings are just another marketable input into the whole production process. And hence to be bought and sold, and discarded just like any other item.

And they thus end up in the vast holding camps described by Mike Davis in Planet of Slums.The numbers of people living in such slums is growing every day.
And how many tens of millions of refugees are roaming the planet right now. They have no where to go. And again, the numbers of which are increasing every day.

Meanwhile this reference gives a disturbing picture of the future awaiting us all when infinitely expanded "consumption" rules the day.
The word consume means to destroy.

1. http://www.truthout.org:80/issues_06/121307EB.shtml

BTW, I would suggest that before criticising Simon, you actually go and read what he had to say: http://www.juliansimon.org/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

Most of it makes a lot of sense, and I say that as someone who is highly skeptical of his economic-libertarian ethos, and someone who is highly concerned about the world's natural limits and the extent to which we appear to be running up against them.

It is true that he really didn't have the necessary scientific understanding to appreciate the danger of destroying biodiversity, or of accepting that we can never except to truly manage nature entirely for our own benefit, due to fundamental limits imposed by the laws of thermodynamics among other things.

However, in one sense he is right - that population growth itself isn't necessary a problem, provided that we are able to continually reduce our per-capita ecological footprint. The challenge is being able to do this without reducing our quality of life (even though it may well mean stabilising our material standard of living, which probably can't keep growing forever - cars and fridges and TVs can only get so big and fancy after all).

FWIW, a specific carbon tax on babies is silly. By all means, restrict the baby bonus to the first two children (with exceptions for multiple-births), but as long as the actual cost of living correctly embodies environmental cost, via whatever means, then parents can make a decision as to whether they can afford the cost of bringing up a third or fourth child.

Wizofaus,

This graph from Wikipedia shows the problem with blithely claiming that all we need to do is cut consumption

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Highlight_Findings_of_the_WA_S0E_2007_report_.gif

It is a plot of environmental footprint (a measure of consumption) against rank on the UN Human Development Index (a measure of human well-being). As you start from the left where the poor countries are, you can see that well-being rises with consumption until you get to a European standard of living. After that, the correlation breaks down, so even more consumption doesn't necessarily make you better off. It is thus reasonable to say that the US, Australia, Canada, and a few other countries are indeed overconsuming. However, if the US population disappeared entirely and its resources were shared out among the rest of the world, the benefits would be erased by global population growth in about 20 years.

Of course you can support more people if the only criterion is the bare minimum necessary to sustain life, but giving everyone that optimal European standard of living would take the resources of 3 Earths (see Oct. 6, 2007 New Scientist, article by Daniele Fanelli on p. 10).

Liberty,

You need a lot more land than is occupied by you or your house and garden. If we can support many, many more people, then why are species going extinct in a big way? Why is carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere? Why are there problems with getting enough fresh water? Why did grain production per person peak in 1984? Why are world grain supplies at their lowest in 34 years (in terms of days of supply)?

Realist should take a look at the MAP reports on how our environment is deteriorating, if he thinks that everything is rosy and we aren't overpopulated, at least for our present level of consumption.

I'm not "blithely claiming that all we need to do is cut consumption".
I just happen to believe it would be more feasible to concentrate on technologies and lifestyle modifications that allow us to reduce our ecological footprint, rather than attempting to reduce our numbers.
Indeed, there's really very little that could realistically be done to stop our numbers ballooning out to 8 billion - even if you were able to convince most of the world of a need to restrict themselves to no more than 2 kids each immediately. Given the huge percentage of the global population that is in the 0-35 age group, that would mean at least 2 billion more kids are going to be born in the next 20 years, and another 2 billion in the 20 after that. So allowing for 2.5 billion deaths in the next 40 years (which would require a significant increase on the current death rate), that's 8 billion easily before 2050. More realistically, current fertility rates are only going to come down slowly, adding at least another 1 billion.
With the right technology, and sensible lifestyle choices, I don't see why the planet can't support 9 billion of us. And there's good reason to believe that after that point, population will plateau and perhaps even start to decline eventually (which, mind you, brings its own problems).

"At the heart of this hostility towards new life is a lack of faith in the capacity of humanity to solve its problems."

Mr Cook, that's a silly statement, is it not?

Humans are now having to confront the biggest problem ever and they have not yet found a solution.

It is "humanity" and the uncontrolled population explosions which have caused the problem and humans have not yet found any firm solution to correct the environmental monster they have created.

And as in 17th- and 18th-century Britain, peasants in the Third World are kicked off their land by foreigners (including Australians) and the local ruling elite, who then use the land to produce cash crops and mineral resources for export while their fellow country people starve.

The starving millions lack education and continue breeding thus exacerbating the problem, a result of the Western philosophy to exploit the poor by having the peasants do their dirty work for a pittance.

Is your article not a strategy for distracting people from the root-cause of both ecological destruction and population growth: namely, the capitalist economy and hierarchical social relationships it requires?

Australia's carbon footprint remains among the largest per capita in the world. Official documentation reveals that CO2 levels are rising each year, not diminishing and we Australians have an insatiable zest to continue polluting.

I would advise you Mr Cook to "think globally but act locally."

After all should our own population become inadequate to sustain economic growth, we can always second a few million from other nations to do our "dirty" work so we can continue in the style to which we've become accustomed.

Hopefully they won't arrive without an invitation!

Men want one thing from many women and women want many things from one man.

Put another way men want sex and women want children.

Women learn this very early and men probably only after their second divorce. In an ovverwhelming majority of cases men assent to have children just to keep their partner and keep her content. Only an idiot or conspirator would have the gaul to ask for peer-reviewed-proof!

Its just the way nature ensures survival-of-the-fittest within the species. If women were dumb-animals they wouldn’t care about the consequences. But they aren’t and they MUST. The time for survival-of-the-fittest, except in technology, is OVER.

At a time when new generations are merely evolvng to obese morons, we all must forego certain rights and privileges in order for civilisation to survive the next 20 years over PEAKOIL and climate changes.

To say that YOUR children are more important than anyone elses and to say that your right to have more than one child is incontrovertable, is as big a monstrosity as Adolph Hitler saying Germans were the master-race.

As petrol rises towards the magical 5$/litre, having more than one-child-per-individual-woman will no longer be a sacred cow. There will be consequences for women. The overwhelming mood of people on this planet is that we have the technology to avert a population meltdown. We can continue to progress. Eschewing a number of heretofore basic rights, some for men, some for women, is long overdue.

For the UN to continue espousing controversial carbon emissions targets and ignore the implications of the increased carbon footprint of EVERY child born is as unsustainable as the human habits they are trying to curb.

Its time the UN got a bit braver IMO.

BTW in developing nations: for all the modernisation of Indian women, its population is growing unsustainably, while China’s with its one child per woman policy is stabilising and prospering. Chinese women are NOT complaining. To wit, paying SOME women more, making then independent like in India isn’t solving and won’t solve unsustainable growth. Only a one child per individual women policy will.

By thirty-one-thirty A.D., Humans had finally reached the other planets of our solar system. Almost at once there followed the discovery of hyper-drive, through which the speed of light was greatly surpassed. At last, the colonization of space bagan. But on the planet that was their nursery, a new but ancient confrontation was emerging..

Adams:What’s the ‘Castle’ Handsome?

Handsome: Castle!Castle!Castle! It’s an obsolete term, I’m afraid, once used to describe the elementary basis of the subconscious mind.

Adams:Monsters from the Castle . . . Monsters from thesubconscious. Of course! That’s what KAEP meant. The big machines..powered by 8000 cubic miles of underground oil..enough power for creative geniuses operating almost to remote control.

Handsome:To what purpose?

Adams:Like you, Humans forgot their own greed and subconscious hate and lust for sex&destruction

Handsome:The beast. The mindless primitive. Even we Humans must have evolved from that beginning.

Adams:And so those mindless beasts had access to OIL, a fuel that they THOUGHT could never shut down. But it did! And every woman on the planet felt the urge to have baby-bonused-children. And politictians their immigrant power. The thermodynamic population system became exponential, the energy-input suddenly declined by 70% and the chaotic grip of thermodynamic-decay commenced as the second-law-of-thermodynamics unravelled the house-of-cards called 20th-century-civilisation.
The secret devils in every one was set free to loot and road-rage and take revenge and kill!

Handsome:My poor Humans! After eighty years of shining sanity, they could hardly have understood what power was destroying them. All very convincing but for one obvious fallacy. The last human war was in 1940,and not everyone died.

Adams:Your mind refuses to face the conclusion.
That thing out there . . . it’s you, it wants OIL for 9 billion people and there is none.

Handsome: You’re insane!

Adams: You think you're immune? We are all thermodynamic machines and respond to energy input levels. ENDPOINTS Handsome. In 1900before OIL there were 2 billion and soon the BEAST will make it 2 billion again. 6 billion will DIEOFF.

(The monster tears down the door)

Handsome:Don’t let it in, Pentagon! Stop it! Kill it!

“BTW, I would suggest that before criticising Simon, you actually go and read what he had to say.” (Wizofaus). Have done that years ago, but visited the website.

Unchanged fundamentals. And I also suggest it be visited by those who have not already done so. Amazing stuff – aggressive erudition built upon foundations of biology and mathematics which are at schoolboy-howler standard. Confidence in his dismissive concept of the finite would need more faith in religion than knowledge of maths. He is indeed leaning towards infinity.

There is a high probability that this planet will not be tested in supporting 9 billion people. For quite a number of reasons the death rate might increase until well above the birth rate. Such dying, as occurred during the Black Death, could itself foster procreation – beginning a spiral in which death will predominate until depopulation matches numbers to circumstance. We are in the process of an interesting experiment. I do not subscribe to Julian Simon’s ratbaggery and enthusiasm for testing this experiment to its limits.

The assistance of technology is needed. But there is a limit beyond which it can't squeeze more from environmental capacity. This point has already been over-stepped.

Society needs to take responsibility for its own fecundity – unlike plague mice and lemmings. Minimising unavoidable problems is the best we can do. Things are going to be tough. The population supertanker can not be turned around in an instant. Putting on reverse thrust now might soften the iceberg-bump in the near future

Dismissing the finite is only for the fundamentalists while we live on a finite planet. Immediate assistance, encouragement, education is needed for women in this direction. And males, have a vasectomy earlier rather than later – you are not rabbits (are you?).

In the words of that immortal gold miner played by Lee Marvin - 'I'll double that'.

CountryGal,

You've pretty much got it right. However;

There's no need to means-test this. A frugal family with a high income can leave a lower ecological footprint than a low income family who's into disposable plastics.

The general principle is to incorporate external costs internally to ensure that each and every good or service includes the public as well as private production costs. Difficult to do, and imperfect, I am sure but also quite necessary.

The pitter patter of not so tiny carbon footprints, place a substantial impact upon the environment, not only in the ubiquitous disposable nappies, but in the SUV's that parents inevitably buy, and the toys, cloths, etc, etc, etc, etc. So these sweet little feet are already have a huge impact upon the environment - we won't even go there for the financial impact children have in child welfare upon the economy. I think the old adage of two children only is more than enough children for any family to raise with the extra demands on schooling, sports etc.

http://snazzybum.freehostia.com/Carbon_Footprint.html

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20071706-16008.html
These are just a couple of websites showing the affects of disposable nappies.

Cloth Nappies, 570kg, purchase cost 360 pound, nil landfill cost, cost to tax payer none


Disposable Nappies, 650Kg, puchase cost 1000 pounds, 1000 tonnes to landfill, cost to taxpayer 38 pound per baby

carbon footprints

I see a lot of posts expressing views similar to mine.

Can anyone still be in any doubt about what “carbon trading” is all about. It is about money, carbon credits purchased to offset carbon emissions. The question is who pays for those carbon credits?

Well the consumer does, Industry will transfer the expense through increased prices facing some reduction in market demand for their products and services. However, that will not be enough to achieve the reductions possibly being signed up to by our fearless Prime Minister, Krudd.

So that leaves the taxpayer to fill the deficit.

Most taxes are based on “user pays”, particularly things like GST.

It is reasonable that those who choose to procreate should experience a similar “user pays” principle.

RE “What Walters and Egger fail to take into account is that children create hope, not problems.”

Tell that to all the bums and stiffs who neglect contraception and their kids and expect society to pick up the tab for their irresponsible coupling.

We have to do something about population growth. Whilst many would suggest the Chinese “model” is draconian and I might agree, it would also be true to say, the Chinese are actually “doing something” and the outcome is.. birth rates of around 1.9 per family, instead of 5 a few decades ago.

For myself, I had 2 children followed by a vasectomy, easy and responsible.

(I received no federal funding, tax relief or acknowledgement from government for being so responsible)

I see no merit in family payments being used to encourage couples to sire more children than they can afford. Better the benefit of lower taxes be left in the pockets of the responsible members of the community, instead of being diverted to subsidise the profligate breeders.

"There's no need to means-test this. A frugal family with a high income can leave a lower ecological footprint than a low income family who's into disposable plastics." Lev, you are correct in theory, however its pretty safe to assume at least for 95% of the population that the higher the income, the higher the consumption. And our society works off the basis that consumption needs to grow.

Zahira, your link ignores the impact of additional water to wash cloth nappies (up to 12 a day), plus the cost of the detergent and its impact on the environment in terms of waste water and in its packaging and manufacture. Also, cloth nappies are generally cotton, and according to some, that's a crop that has a terrible impact on the environment. As to disposables, the impact is heavily related to the brand. A baby may go through 6 or more of the cheaper low-absorbency nappies a day, whereas the more expensive brands will generally only require 3-4 changes per day. The impact of this on landfill is significant. The more expensive ones may have more impact in their manufacturing process though - this I dont know enough about to comment on, so I just raise it as a point.

There are 100% biodegradable disposal nappies, though I admit I haven't tried them yet.

Ultimately, once all manufactured consumerables are made from largely from recycled, non-toxic materials, and fully biodegradable, and once all our energy sources have minimal negative ecologicaly impact, the average ecological footprint of even the wealthiest of us should be quite manageable. The question is how quickly can we get there, and to what extent can we rely on the consumer demand to push it there, as opposed to requiring government intervention.

hi there
if you would like to buy gifts for Christmas that are respectful of the environment & workers in developing countries check out www.moralfibre.com
making organic & ethical choices easy

It would seem that the educated people birth control themselves out of existence while the not so educated continue to reproduce. Myself, I will procreate in the knowledge that this country has a declining birth rate, and will not really impact on the environment. Overpopulation is a problem caused by a few countries in Asia and Africa.

"Myself, I will procreate in the knowledge that this country has a declining birth rate, and will not really impact on the environment."

Don't kid yourself Davo. Already human faeces' plumes are contaminating our oceans and waterways affecting humans and marine life including our oysters where consumers have contracted hepatitis.

Australia's live animal exports see thousands of dead and diseased animals dumped overboard annually, along with tonnes of animal faeces and urine waste which I understand is also dumped into the oceans, contaminating marine life, depriving them of oxygen and creating algae blooms which are desecrating the eco systems.

Oceans now have 200 "dead zones." This number has doubled since the '90s. This "civilised" nation must take some responsibility.

Residents in the south-west of Western Australia have one of the largest ecological footprints in the world. WA alone has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

And whilst we, the consumers, endeavour to find solutions to reduce our carbon footprint, the uncontrolled, third world regulatory standards permitted for pollutant industries allows this industry to maintain the status quo and increase carbon emissions each year where whole towns are encroached upon, are contaminated or bought out to satisfy this nations zest for economic "progress."

Those who believe we live in a "clean and green" environment and believe we can sustain an increase in population in this arid and parched country remain in La La Land.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4MH8BRR-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=39ea67875b18b3e4a9c48b69bcb20d86

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:JtZ1m6c77m8J:www.savingiceland.org/node/928+yarloop+contamination&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VnnHil1dx6IJ:www.wabusinessnews.com.au/en-story/1/56510/Esperance-Port-apologises-for-lead-pollution+esperance+lead+final+report+criminal+negligence&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RRe9rnNjuYcJ:www.sprol.com/%3Fp%3D323+kwinana+pollution&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:8iO1qL6E11gJ:www.abc.net.au/stateline/wa/content/2006/s1671815.htm+underground+toxic+plume+bellevue&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au&lr=lang_en

“Myself, I will procreate in the knowledge that this country has a declining birth rate, and will not really impact on the environment.” (Davo).

Actually Australia’s population will increase by about a million in the space of four years. With the present 1.8 fertility rate and current immigration, we are scooting along with a population increasing at about world average - over 1%. The component of the female population currently at breeding age plus politicians’ attitude to immigration combined, dictate that this will carry on for almost a generation – or more, perhaps.

And the rate of flogging our land to death in order to cater for the needs/wants of current numbers is greater than that of the genuinely beaut agricultural/technological tricks being devised to overcome degradation.

So Davo, there is no need to rush into unnecessary wear and tear on your sexual organ.

As the greatest cause of population growth in Aus is immigration, the easiest way to control growth is to further restrict immigration.

The existing population has a negative growth rate, so a zero growth rate is easy to achieve.

The problem with population explosion is not to be found in Aus and applying a birth tax here is at best purely symbolic and would do to the gov what work choices did to the liberals.

This proposal is very reactionary and a little naive. I agree with the journalist in that if we really wanted to reduce our carbon footprint we could, without taxing babies (incidently if it were to happen id just pay the $, but make my child pay it off in installments from the age of 10... ;) ). How about curbing the carbon suburbs like caroline springs and all of the gold coast? How about a million other things we could legislate to do... This idea would just serve to potentially make parents resent their children even more than they might.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2228284,00.html

This is exactly why we need biodiversity, for humanity to survive.
Cram more and more people onto the planet, nature will sort it
out for you.

But of course thats way over the heads of the religious and
the economists, who don't understand basic biology.

“As the greatest cause of population growth in Aus is immigration, the easiest way to control growth is to further restrict immigration.”

Yes Democritus, the easiest and most significant step towards population stabilisation is to reduce immigration way down. I would suggest that it should be reduced to at least net zero. At net zero, we would still have an annual intake of some 30 000.

“The existing population has a negative growth rate…”

No it doesn’t! The individual fertility rate is about 1.8, but the national fertility rate is about 2.2 or something of that order. This is due to a large number of young reproductive people in the population - a considerably larger number than there would be in a stable population age-distribution structure.

This is one of the great misunderstandings, happily promulgated by our highly unillustrious former treasurer (and baby bonus pusher), and supported by our equally unillustrious former PM.

“…so a zero growth rate is easy to achieve.”

No it is not. Even with net zero immigration and the current birthrate, our population would continue to grow for many years. If we really wanted to achieve zero population growth, we would have to go close to absolute zero immigration, and even then we would need to implement considerable incentives to lower the birthrate.

In fact, with zero immigration and an emigration rate of about 30 000 per annum, we would still have a growth rate in the order of 70 000 pa (I haven’t gone hunting for the correct figure, so if someone who likes to do a bit of on-line research can find it, I’d be grateful).

“The problem with population explosion is not to be found in Aus and applying a birth tax here is at best purely symbolic”

You could say the same about climate change. But most people agree that Australia needs to do its bit towards climate change and that the principle involved and the example set is vastly more important than the magnitude of improvements that we could achieve in this country. Similarly so it should be with population stabilisation.

Why delightful young footprints eventually contribute to devilish hoofprints.

From Australian Bureau of Statistics data.
Australia has past the 21 million mark.
More babies were born in the year to June 2007 than ever before.
There were an extra 315,000 people in the three months to June 30.
Immigration accounted for 56 per cent of Australia’s growth, while 272,900 births minus 134,800 deaths made up 44 per cent of the increase.
The 272,900 babies born in the year to June is the highest ever annual number of births.
The fertility rate climbed to 1.85 births per woman, the highest rate in 14 years.
One new citizen (after allowing for deaths) added, every one minute and 42 seconds.
Australia’s population growth rate (for the full year, not the final 3 months) was 1.5 per cent.

World average population growth rate is 1.1. More developed regions 0.2%; Less developed 1.3; least developed countries 2.3.
While we are on track to add another Sydney or Melbourne to our population in the space of the next 12 years, are we being responsible?
Maybe we should fix a few problems like water supplies, deteriorating health, education, and social cohesion, before increasing the numbers in order to fix the problems created by numbers (following the philosophy of an eminent demographer). If we did, it might indicate that we really want to retain a place in the statistics as a member of the “More developed regions”.

Yabby, I don't disagree with your point, but I'm not sure that article is the best evidence: after all the Ebola virus is part of the Earth's biodiversity. Further, the worst disease breakouts that history has ever seen occurred with much lower populations than today.
Biodiversity is obviously important, but ultimately as a species we do have to look after own first and foremost: after all, that's what billions of years of natural selection has programmed all species to do. The danger is believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere. One day we might be, but we're a long way off it yet, and worse, even if we were able to kill off every other species on the planet and survive ourselves on 100% synthetic food, I don't think it would a planet much worth living on.

Wizofaus / dnicholson wrote the following (above) “but ultimately as a species we do have to look after own first and foremost: after all”

On the “Marketing Global; Warming” thread he wrote

“Col, yes, because if we don't place modest restrictions on the amount of CO2 emissions we emit now, then we place enormous restrictions on future generations who will not have the freedom to enjoy the advantages of the temperate climate and manageable sea-levels that we have now.”

I doubt it is only me who can see the obvious contradiction of these two statements.

But to assist those who might miss it, on the one hand we “individuals” have to surrender our freedoms to comply with some dubious theory of “global warming” because the likes of Gore and the IPCC demand so,

Whereas

According to wizofaus/dnicholson we, as homo-sapiens are fully entitled to “look after own first and foremost, after all”

My response

I consider me looking after my “own”, first and foremost as an individual, is far more important than pondering if the species will survive.

Then “The danger is believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere”

So what is the IPCC “climate science agenda” all about if it is not about

“believing that we're somehow capable of controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere”

More self “contradiction”!

Many find my views contentious, I make no apology for that. My views support the individual and see "government" as the servant of the individual.

At least I am consistent.

Lack of consistency leave you exposed as a dual personality writing both for and against the "common good" ("global warming" versus "sustainable population") all I know is you are postulating opposing views between the two threads and thus can be considered as either

A dimwitted dullard

Or

An inconsistent hypocrite.

Either way, you do not warrant the multiple logons with which you inflict your inconsistent jingoisms on us.
GY should resttrict you to one logon and allow you the same quotient of posting space as the rest of us mere "homo-sapiens".

"Men want one thing from many women and women want many things from one man.

Put another way men want sex and women want children.

Women learn this very early and men probably only after their second divorce. In an ovverwhelming majority of cases men assent to have children just to keep their partner and keep her content. Only an idiot or conspirator would have the gaul to ask for peer-reviewed-proof!"

Kaep, I am neither a idiot nor a conspiracy theorist but, instead, a woman who likes sex a hell of a lot more than children and I have thankfully dodged breeder-men for most of my life and will continue to do so.

As such, I really do have the temeirty to ask for peer-reveiwed proof of your motherhood statement

What on earth is the contradiction between accepting that as a species we should put ourselves first, and accepting that as a species, if we want long-term survival, we should ensure that future generations are left with a planet worth living on?

Indeed, there's no essential contradiction with believing that the individual always comes first, and that making small sacrifices now will be better for future generations. Personally I couldn't think of anything worse than lying on my death-bed realising that I hadn't done all I reasonably could to give my children, and my children's children the best sort of life they could hope for. I fully support carbon taxes out of purely selfish motives, even though I know they might mean my electricity bill goes up - but I don't measure my quality of life based on how much electricity I use.

The IPCC's "agenda" is simply to examine the effect of human activity on the earth's atmosphere, and predict the likely long-term consequences. Currently our emissions *are* on a course to be slowly "controlling and taking over the Earth's entire biosphere", hence the point of Kyoto is avoid taking that path, and reduce the degree to which we're meddling with natural systems that are still beyond our ability to fully comprehend. Fortunately it's not necessary to fully comprehend them to understand that we're getting dangerously close to putting them in jeapordy.

If anyone is the contradictory one, it's you Col, by apparently claiming to be both libertarian and in support of population control.

Miaouw!

Othello. You're not a cat. You define yourself as a fox.
Nothing wrong with that. There are all kinds of women ..& men.

But your insinuation that the majority of women-are-foxes and men- are-breeders, when probably less than 1% of people fit that category is just narcissistic.

If you want peer reviewed proof get out of your townhouse and into the burbs and have a good look.

General Note: If the world were to remain at 6.5 billion people till we had the SPACE technologies to leave this rock, we and our environment would all be better off. OIL companies clearly disagree. They MUST transfer their wealth and power OUTWARD from their incestuous interference in global demographics and politics to SPACE.
Only people power can make them.

How do they interfere? They know women are up to 5 times better CONSUMERS than men if they are single(competetive) and if they have more than one child. Everything from beauty products & lawyers to SUVs & nappies boost markets that oil revenues depend upon. And Guess what? Media advertising is almost exclusively aimed at women as sex objects(foxes) to promote a division between the sexes and a net increase in divorce rates (now approaching 50% in most democracies). Women aren't stupid. Certain sections of the female population are on a roll. You can't blame women for copping it sweet, blindly accepting the uglier consequences of that and taking ever more drugs to cope(peer reviewed research backs this).

Hopefully, precisely because women are not stupid they will eventually reject this false adornment of power for what it is, not equal rights but a global corporate CON(Con the breeder man?). I am certain that then women will push for population stability and achieve it, as ONLY they can.

The Chinese can achieve population control with enormous individual & community benefits & without any fuss. Why can't western democracies & its women do the same?

'The Chinese can achieve population control with enormous individual & community benefits & without any fuss.'

Actually, Kaep, this is patently not true. It creates enormous fuss. It is implemented in a most ugly fashion and presently there is an about 4:1 men to women ratio because girl babies are more likely left to die than boy babies.

In case you don't realise, protest, public or private, is not tolerated in The People's Republic of China.

Nevertheless, climate change, global warming, whatever, cannot be honestly discussed without first and foremost addressing population growth.

It is immaterial whether Australia can still have more people. There are parts of the planet which are bursting at the seams. Australia may be an island, but it is still a part of this planet.

A baby tax is unlikely to have much effect as those who pay taxes are more likely to have a limit of two children anyway.

The ridiculous baby bonus should be scrapped immediately. That is a criminal waste of tax payers money. And perhaps no further child benefits after baby number two. The only thing with that, is that it will be difficult to manage with the blended families that are about.

People will have fewer children when there are no financial benefits to having them. Unfortunately to quite a few having children in the house means money going into an account.

I have children, but think it would be preferable and fairer if money paid for the benefit of children is actually spend on them, like hot lunches provided at school. Maybe even breakfast. School uniforms and school shoes are allocated per vouchers, attending doctors and dentists fully covered, etc.

You might be amazed at the birth control effect that money being paid directly to schools or in the form of specific vouchers could bring about.

Incidentally, ditto for non custodial parents paying for their children. I don't want to sound nasty, but that would also severely decrease the 'fights' over who gets to have the kids between separating couples.

*we do have to look after own first and foremost: after all, that's what
billions of years of natural selection has programmed all species to do.*

Wiz, clearly we have evolved to think a bit, but not enough for not
to wipe ourselves out.

Biodiversity actually creates a species barrier, which has huge
advantages. Cram more and more chooks, ducks, pigs, people
or whatever, ever closer together, the result is that viruses, bacteria
and other things will have a field day. Don't forget, the earth
can do without mammals. Mutations happen every day.

AFAIK, both hiv and ebola have come from us eating our closest
relatives, bonobos and chimps, in Africa. When it comes to pig
and chicken diseases, they often mutate in China, where these animals
are crowded together with people.

This version of ebola is interesting, as its latent for 3 weeks.
If some person carries it into Hong Kong or a similar airport,
the proverbial crap would really hit the fan. The more we cram
more people together, the larger will be the problem when something
nasty does mutate, as the species barrier applies less and less.

You think 9 billion humans is fine. IMHO you are asking for more
trouble, as every extra billion makes things even less sustainable,
so in the end nature will sort it out with a thud. I guess we humans
learn the hard way, it seems we need pain to learn alot of the time.

wizofaus/dnicholson “If anyone is the contradictory one, it's you Col, by apparently claiming to be both libertarian and in support of population control.”

If you had the capacity to understand my posts you would have read a single recurring theme common to all of them.

I support libertarianism ideals but I accept and further expect personal accountability and responsibility for that libertarianism.

As I said, I expect, that to mean the peoples of the world who cannot afford to support their children should adopt contraception as the alternative.

There is no human right to breed.

When I look around at some children who my daughters went to school with who, because they can get some baby bonus, go out and get banged up by the next dropkick dick-hanger then expect the state to tend to their every future need as an “under-privileged family” and compare that to the responsible attitude of my daughters. One of my girls was so disgusted by one of her old class mates who came back to school briefly before getting knocked up for the second time.

Libertarianism is the desirable way for the future.

Gone are the repressive orders of class and theology.

We could have such a fabulous future.

However, it all hinges on people accepting responsibility for the freedom to be.

btw concerning “believing that the individual always comes first, and that making small sacrifices now will be better for future generations.”

I have always made “small sacrifices” I call it “being responsible”.

However, being responsible does not mean acquiescing to propaganda of a non-representative international agency, a carpet bagging snake oil salesman, and one time US VP or the likes of you whose notion of democratic representation is to use two logons instead of following the ethical course of using but one, like the rest of the OLO posters.

I note you have avoided comment

“GY should restrict you to one logon and allow you the same quotient of posting space as the rest of us mere "homo-sapiens".

There is no acceptable repost available for you to excuse yourself with.

Col Rouge, I think you fundamentally mis-state the nature of Libertarianism. If you genuinely believe in Libertarianism, then other people's choices (providing they don't interfere with your choices) are none of your business. "Personal accountability" is not a Libertarian concept. You're accountable only if you infringe someone else's freedoms, otherwise you can do as you please. Free to choose, free to worship (or not), free to starve, free to procreate (with whomever chooses to procreate with you). Sounds a bit like that old John Lennon song?

I think you're confusing Libertarianism with Conservatism.

I have 7 children - sorry, I can feel the outrage already, however, we didn't have children to get the baby bonus, it was just the result of a natural monogamous relationship - again, I feel the outrage.

But, the money we have received over the years has been put to good use. We removed the air conditioners and put in better insulation; we installed water tanks for the 30m sq vegetable garden and several large trees (including a Bunyah Pine) and we only have one vehicle that averages 4 passengers or more per trip.

According to the utility suppliers, our 9 person household uses less water and electricty than the average 4 person household. So, depsite our errors, I think we are managing our footprints pretty well so far.

With any luck, one of our children will major in geriatrics and we shall live happily ever after for a long time.

Col, that additional account was removed the day before you complained about it.

Yabby, I don't think 9 billion is "fine", I'm just not sure we can do anything to avoid it. Reality Check's post is an example of what I'm talking about - if 9 people in one household can have less ecological footprint than 4 in another, with no significant loss of quality of life, then 9 billion people can have a smaller ecological footprint than 6.5 billion.
And RC, I'd much rather see 7 children with a decent sense of environmental responsibility than 2 with none. You needn't feel guilt or worry about "outrage".

Australian political leaders have yet to spell out their vision for a truly sustainable Australian lifestyle.

How do we achieve dramatic reductions in GHG, reversing the upward spiral?

Cap and trade for all businesses is a good first step but clearly no where near enough to seriously address the drastic cuts that need to be made. Reliance on the good-will of Australians is simply unfair and bad public policy.

We need financial incentives and disincentives related to our personal carbon footprints linked into our personal income taxation.

Could we make the necessary changes to our life-styles so that we have strong financial incentives to steer us towards becoming carbon neutral or close to it?

Our electricity bills show now us how much gas we emit with our energy consumption.

It's not such a big leap or logistical exercise for our taxation system to be redesigned to reward taxpayers with the smallest carbon footprints with rebates whilst surcharges are imposed on selfish people who remain heavy gas emitters.

Wasteful and excessive consumption patterns can be targeted with smart policy choices that put the pain of re-adjustment where it should be – decisions on family size will find its own equilibrium.

One of the clever marketing tricks of the global warming scam is to use visual pseudo-science words:

1. (Carbon/ecological/environmental) FOOTPRINT<<(visual)

2. GREENHOUSE<<(visual) effect

These buzz words appeal to the normally ignorant lay person, and make him feel intelligent. (In the past he has never been able to get a grip on science, but now he can run around with words like "footprint", and "greenhouse" and sound knowledgeable.)

Similarly, American preachers often used to visit churches I was brought up in, and talk about credit cards and marks on your right hand adding up to 666. These also made the simply folk feel intellectually exulted, and so they believed everything.

I have never seen or heard a more stupid idea than global warming.
Apropos are the words of Winston Churchill:
"Never have so many been conned by so little evidence".

The con is world-wide, relentless, and well-networked. It is also impeccably timed. Included in the con is the silencing of thousands of scientists who know the whole thing is rubbish.
It takes enormous amounts of money and energy and personnel to mount even the most modest of local political campaigns. But turn on your morning radio, and almost the first thing you'll hear is a reference to climate change. No matter what Western country, you'll hear it, on any station. And remarkably, when there is no climate change occurring (the weather is the same as it always has been).

It is therefore inconceivable that this scam is being pushed by anything other than a conspiracy at the very highest level. Someone or some group of people who have an incredible amount of money and networking ability, are behind it. No doubt about it.
And they are very good and using leverage: they have all of you working for them for free.

Poor gullible proletariat. Always willing to do the work of the big boys. Now they've even got you worried about breathing. Goodness me. All of a sudden we shouldn't breath, or at least should breed less babies who will breath.

And of course the politicians don't really care who is behind the conspiracy. These pseudo-scientists can now enjoy creating new bureacratic kingdoms: they love creating kingdoms and being able to tell us all how to live, and how fast we can breath. You will probably need a permit down the track to go jogging as you'll be expelling more CO2 than Mr Couch Potato.

God made the world self regulating. More CO2 means more plant growth. Less CO2 means less plant growth.

In the beginning God said "Be fruitful and multiply". In this He implied we were not to worry about breathing and heating up the earth. God has made the earth for man, and it will do the job very well for as long as He has planned to have us here. When He destroys the physical realm, you won't have to worry about it anymore: you'll be a spirit. You might, however, have to worry about a much hotter place than the earth. (It's always a good thing to think about the eternal rather than your puny 70-year statistical blip on earth.)

God bless.

We continue to overlook the major obstacle to reducing CO2.

These are the irresponsible big polluters who have not yet prepared for or implemented any technology to reduce hazardous emissions.

Whilst some responsible, large polluters have long ago invested in pollutant control technology to reduce their emissions, many have not.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/18/2122182.htm

These are the ones pumping it out with gusto from industrial stacks and from digging holes. The National Pollutant Industry (www.npi.gov.au) will confirm my assertions, though the NPI's estimates, I believe are seriously under-estimated.

Despite the fact that industrial polluters are breaching every EP Act in the country, regulators fail to enforce these Acts.

Australia is seeing a massive expansion in the resource industry. Massive increases in carbon and other pollutants are here to stay.

A carbon credit scheme for the big boys is not going to work. Those who are cashed up will simply buy credits to continue polluting.

A workable strategy for pollutant industries is for a "Command and Control" regulatory system. Nothing else will work. Forget about this country tipping in a couple of hundred million to cease deforestation in some far-away land. Facing up to our own unethical dilemma is just as essential.

Had the "Polluter Pays" principle been enforced decades ago, or the "Precautionary Principle", when they were incorporated into the Acts to mitigate pollution, Australia would not have the ignominious title of the largest polluters per capita in the world.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-4MH8BRR-3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=39ea67875b18b3e4a9c48b69bcb20d86

Nevertheless if Mr Cook realises his dream of rapidly increasing the pitter patter of little feet, we should have sufficient numbers to fill the positions vacant.

However, can one claim on permanently fixed gas masks, protective clothing and oxygen tents these days?

"Of course", said someone whose name I've forgotten. "It's the economy stupid."

So be prepared folks for our State and Federal governments to run up another huge ecological debt then throw the burden back on the taxpayers who have dutifully succumbed to the industry aligned governments' propaganda.

"These buzz words appeal to the normally ignorant lay person, and make him feel intelligent. (In the past he has never been able to get a grip on science, but now he can run around with words like "footprint", and "greenhouse" and sound knowledgeable.)"

Err...Liberty. May I recommend a text book for you to peruse?

It's titled:

"An Elementary Guide to Environmental Toxicology!"

Yvonne,

Thanks for your frank assessment. You are thinking about the overpopulation problem and I like your ideas. I believe it is in the interests of most women to get behind population control. That's true equality. Helping solve problems that face us all.But women need to develop a healthy cynicism towards media, global corporations and governments. These groups pretense to gender equality but in reality see women as a profit focus group provided they are single and have children. Media subtley seeks to divide stable relationships for this reason particularly in areas like TV soap scripts (despearate housewives etc). The $stakes are high here. You are courageous to be so honest.

However, one point: the chinese population can't be 4:1 M/F. I think(last I read) there is an excess of 16million males over a population of 1.4 billion. That is 16/1400*100 or 1.1% and is not that big a big deal. 16 million males would be in the army, gay or otherwise ineligible for relationships anyway.

Ludwig,

The mean birth rate per child has spiked to 1.86 from 1.75. As the long term rate is not likely to exceed 1.8, this indicates that for zero population growth an immigration of 90 000p.a. is required.

Population control is not required for Aus.

Tied to the correlation between high incomes and declining birth rates, a baby tax is a tax on the less well off and likely to be counter productive.

I say use all third children for medical experiments

Democritus

Even with a birthrate of 1.8, and net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow substantially. The individual fertility rate and national fertility rate are quite different, simply due to the large proportion of women who are having babies. If our age-distribution structure was typical of a stable population, the two fertility-rate measures would be about the same. But with high immigration that is strongly biased towards young people, the measures are quite different.

About one third of our current population growth is made up of births in excess of deaths, and two thirds from immigration, very roughly speaking.

So your assertion that we would need significant immigration to make up numbers in order to stop population decline with our current birthrate is fundamentally incorrect.

“Tied to the correlation between high incomes and declining birth rates, a baby tax is a tax on the less well off and likely to be counter productive.”

A baby tax would affect those who are less well off more so than the wealthy. But would that be a bad thing? Those who are less well off are less able to provide for their kids, yes?...very broadly generalising.

Why aren’t you strongly opposed to the baby bonus? This awful piece of bribery provides one-off payments, which are much more significant for the less well off. These payments only go a short way towards providing for the child, and indeed they don't have to be spent on the child at all.

The less well off then have to provide for a child, or an extra child or two or three extra kids that they wouldn’t have had otherwise, on a low income. This is surely much worse than financial incentives to have less kids.

Quick response “It's not such a big leap or logistical exercise for our taxation system to be redesigned to reward taxpayers with the smallest carbon footprints with rebates whilst surcharges are imposed on selfish people who remain heavy gas emitters.

Wasteful and excessive consumption patterns can be targeted with smart policy choices that put the pain of re-adjustment where it should be – decisions on family size will find its own equilibrium.”

I would have thought, when I look at the social resources consumed in employing public servants to supervise the upbringing of neglected children that the “Wasteful and excessive consumption patterns” was a result of decisions on family size in the first place.

“Decision” is maybe too strong a word, usually it is the lack of conscious “decision” and more a momentary response to unbridled lust accompanied by a desire to avoid responsibility for the consequences (procreation).

Hence, my suggestion that tying social support to some form of “unavoidable” (cannot be circumvented) contraception is in the best interests of the world, especially the children whose experience of life is so limited and blighted by the in-attendance of their parents or inability of those parents to properly support them.

So unless you can think of some way in which the “challenged”, indolent and or neglectful, despite having limited resources from lack of income are taxed for their irresponsible procreation and absentee children (being removed and made wards of the state) I think it is wholly inappropriate for you to presume all “blame” be placed at the feet of the responsible folk who use extra electricity to bathe their own kids (instead of the kids being bathed in some remote and unaccounted for foster home).

That is the problem with a “Quick Response”, it often fails the test of scrutiny compared tp a suggestion based on fuller consideration of the real issues.

Ludwig,

Obviously maths isn't your strong point. A birth rate of 2.1 is needed to replace the population. An average of less than this over an extended period will without fail mean a drop in population.

As the average in Aus for the past 40 odd years is in the order of 1.8, the population excluding immigrants has dropped. Aus does not need birth control.

As for the tax on the poor, I can see that as a real vote winner in any country.

Democritus, consider this;

The population growth rate in Australia is considerably larger than the immigration rate.

So, how could this be if we had a below-replacement-level national birthrate?

Once again, the individual birthrate rate and the national fertility rate (or whatever names you want to give these two measures) are quite different things.

So I’ll leave it up to you to go research this, and to either confirm your belief or discover that I am right.

I’ll might also call on

**Colinsett

or

**Divergence

to explain this better than I have apparently been able to and to provide a link or two, as they are probably more inclined to spend time on this sort of thing than I am lately.

Ludwig,

The population growth figures on the dept of immigration website would tend to disagree with your statement. The figures show that immigration numbers approximately the same and for the last few years exceed the births in spite of the baby bonus.

If the natural population was staying constant the total growth rate would be in the order of 1.8% and that is not even including children born of immigrants. That the growth rate is about 1.2% would indicate that the natural population is not even sustaining itself.

A small investment in research would prove enlightening.

“The figures show that immigration numbers approximately the same and for the last few years exceed the births…”

Exactly!

Immigration was for a long time about the same as the natural population growth rate, that is; births in excess of deaths. Lately it has pulled away from it, as it has increased more than the birthrate, despite the increase in the birthrate spurred by the baby bonus.

So our population growth was for many years composed of about 50% immigration and 50% domestic births. Now it is more like 70/30.

How could that possibly be if we had a national birthrate that was below replacement level?? How could there be any component of our population growth due to births if the birthrate is below replacement level?

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (as for 24/9/07) reported that there were 273,500 births and 135,400 deaths.

So we are still chugging along with population increase from our own Aussie efforts apart from any outside help.

That will continue to be the case until the present bundle of females at breeding age get beyond it - something like a generation to go yet.

Net overseas migration (arrivals less departures) at that date provided about another 162,600 people.

Ah, it all adds up to being enough to bring joy to the heart of Peter Costello and similar antediluvian troglodytes unwilling to come out from their caverns and into the glaring light of the real world.

The major reason that the population is growing is that the life expectancy is increasing. Australians are not replacing themselves but rather living longer. The problem is not with the present batch of females, but with the present batch of over 65s who are inconsiderate enough not to croak.

The average births per women of 2.1 is a zero sum game. If the number is lower than this the population will eventually shrivel, increasing life span will only temporarily distort the figures.

Democritus

The following is from Dr David Kault, President of Sustainable Population Australia, North Queensland Branch;

Fertility as measured by TFR (total fertility rate) dropped below replacement in Australia for the first time in modern times in 1976.

Replacement TFR, given the slight imbalance between male and female births and the slight mortality before reproductive life is slightly above 2 and is regarded as about 2.075. Australia is now at 1.81, though a couple of years ago, before the baby bonus it had declined to 1.72. Therefore according to this measure, we are about 15% per generation below replacement and if we take this TFR at face value this would cause a halving of the population over about 150 years in the absence of migration.

However, there are a couple of important factors which mean that a below-replacement TFR may not correspond at all to a population that is declining in the absence of migration. Indeed, at the moment, even without migration, Australia's population is rapidly increasing as shown by the Australian Bureau of Statistic's population clock site: http://tinyurl.com/27ubgr.

The population growth can be crudely summarised by stating that every 4 minutes in Australia there are 2 births, 1 death and 1 immigrant (actually now closer to 1.5 immigrants).

We have a situation with twice the number of births as deaths despite below-replacement TFR.

This excess of births over deaths reflects the fact that there is a relative excess of people in Australia in the age range 20-60. Those in their 20's and 30's are in the middle of reproducing, but they are not counterbalanced by a proportionately large population in old age who will be dying. To explain this another way - consider a population made up solely of 20 year olds who all wanted just one-child families - those families to be created by the time they were 30. TFR would then be 1.0, well below replacement of 2.07, but because almost no one would die, in 10 years the population would have increased by 50%. This effect, with births greater than deaths despite below-replacement TFR,

continued

is expected to persist for about 30 years so that births are not predicted to fall below deaths until the 2040's.

Sometimes the effect here can be referred to as the first and second echoes of the post WWII baby boom (the creation of the grandchildren and later the great grandchildren of the large numbers born in the 1950's - and these numbers will be large because of the size of the 1950's generation).

There is another lesser known effect. The TFR is a cross-sectional measure - adding up the number of babies had by 15-20 yr olds, 20-25 yr olds, 25-30 yr olds, etc..., in any one year. It will be an accurate reflection of the number of babies women will have in their lifetime if today's 15-20 yr olds have exactly the same number of babies in 30 yrs time (when they will be in the 45-50 group) as today's 45-50 yr olds.

If the average age at reproduction is rising, as in Australia at 15%-16% per year, the TFR underestimates number of babies per woman by 15-16%. With a correction for this effect, Australia may well not be at under replacement fertility.

To explain the effect, consider a society in which all the women decide to postpone having babies for one year. At the end of that year the measured TFR would be zero, but if the babies are only postponed but not forgone, the number of children to be born to each woman would be unchanged. Now say the postponement was for half a year - but with catch-up for the postponed babies being not at the end of the half year, but by extending the reproductive period by half a year, then the TFR would capture only half the number of babies that women would be having in their lifetimes and so TFR would underestimate reproduction by 50%.

With maternal age at childbirth increasing by 15% per year in Australia over the last 23 years or so, this effect indicates that the TFR is underestimating babies per woman by about 15%.

As the effect of postponing births would deflate the birth / child figures in one period but inflate them later, this is once again only a temporary distorting factor.

I also note that in the quote Dr Kault was only giving it as an example of possible causes of errors in the calculation of the birth rate and not proposing it as reality for the following reasons:

As women have been getting involved in careers since the 60s and the birth / woman has been below 2 since 1976, the tail end of this effect would have been apparent by now unless the suggestion is that suddenly in the last few years some women have taken advantage of the baby bonus whilst even more have decided to postpone pregnancy even further.

Combined with the correlation between later births and smaller families, I would think that this would be an extremely tenuous proposition.

I would concur with the conclusion that he made previously that the population without migration would decrease. The distortions he mentioned would only change the amount slightly.