If our population is to double by 2050, it doesn’t make sense to be even talking about climate change and controlling emissions.

For starters, two thirds of Australia is uninhabitable, and at least 5 years ago Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year and a person whose professional views are generally respected, advised that 13 million was the optimal population for Australia given the fragile environment and lack of water in most of the country.

That “We have to run just to stay still”, to achieve 50% reduction in emissions even now, as the author claims, is very frightening indeed, and the wild claims of ‘experts’ and politicians for the future become even more bizarre.

Unlike most other commentators, Peter Ridd rightly asks why population is not a factor in discussion on climate change, pointing to the 300,000 annual increase in population. He even spells out the effect of this increase with: “We need to build a city roughly the size of Canberra every year along with the power stations and water supply that goes with such a population increase.”

But will anybody take notice of this simply explanation? No, they will not.

In South Australia where our water situation is desperate, the Government is still insisting it wants to add another 500,000 to the population. The best they can come up with as far as water goes is a desalination plant in 5 to 10 years time which will provide only one quarter of the water needs of the current population.

Population control must be placed high on the agenda for Australia. We can’t do much about the current level, but we can cap it, starting with the cessation of all immigration save that really needed. Added to this, people languishing on the dole for lack of training should be trained and put to work, whether they like it or not. People on disability pensions should be thoroughly vetted; many of them could perform some form of useful work.

Too many migrants; too many bludgers.

Good lord – the nuclear industry has found yet another Doctor Faustus! At least we have been spared much of the hot air which underpins the foundations of its supposed benefits. The article, like the Curate’s egg, is both tasty and smelly - depending on the part.
The author makes statements that are plainly wrong, and others that are in the right ball-park – statistics which can be readily checked elsewhere. All-in-all, that doesn’t do much for credibility of the whole.
The statement “The right wing wants population growth because they believe, mistakenly that it is required for economic growth” is a curious one - what are we to infer from it?
No doubt more people have more needs, and produce more wastes; and that the Property and Business Councils have been leaning heavily and successfully on Governments (of whatever persuasion) to foster increasing population.
But, does the author want us to believe that we can continue economic growth, business as usual, and just not increase the numbers? We get to the same destination with or without population increase – it just takes a lot longer without it. Admittedly we are off to hell in a hand-basket at a fast clip with present numbers, and the more there are the faster the rate of travel.

A good commonsense article. Its time for nuclear power greenies.

Australian Environmental Foundation was set up in 2005. It is a front for the Institute of Public Affairs a right wing think tank headed by Jennifer Marohasy.

This convoluted article does not represent the true positions of the established conservation movement. I was unaware that the Greens think that population is not an issue. Wasn't it Tim Flannery that said Australia's eco-system can support a population of 13 million

There is good case for nuclear power on grounds of health and safety:

From Chap 6 of the Switkowski report.

I quote only direct fatalities per GWe/y.

Coal 0.876
Oil 0.436
Coal
[China Excluded] 0.690

Natural Gas 0.093
LPG 3.536
Hydro 4.265

Hydro
[Banqiao/Shimantan
Dam excluded] 0.561

Nuclear Reactor 0.006

Wind farms have caused at least 37 fatalities in accidents since 1970.

I too classify myself as a Greenhouse sceptic.

Thanks, Billie, for pointing out something that all Australians should know. That is - that the Australian Environment Foundation is a front group for anti-environmentalists and the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies.

The Australian Environment Foundation is Australia's version of America's Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, and other well-funded front groups - the Heritage Foundation etc.

Peter Ridd can join Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine - etc etc - spruiking for those right wing think tanks, such as the Institute of Public Affairs. They all had such a good go in the Howard era.

But the Howard era is over. It's no longer enough to get an environmenty sounding name, and accuse real environmentalists of being "hysterical".

As in the USA, people are waking up to the pseudo-environmentalists - Patrick Moore, Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, etc - so Australians need to pay attention to just where these nuke-spruikers are coming from, as well as to the unsubstantial nature of their claims about nuclear power.
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclear.net