Lev,

I have seen you argue for a change in tax regimes before. If you think that would encourage a reduction in our ecological footprint that I am all for it. But that isn't my issue.

Looking at the ecological footprints graph Divergence helpfully posted, you see we are currently have around twice the footprint of Japan. To me, optimistically that means we could reduce our footprint by 1/2, if we set our minds to it.

But that is only if our population remains the same. If the population doubled, then according your I = P * R, we would have to drop our ecological footprint to a 1/4 of what it is to achieve the same effect. On the graph that is somewhat below Argentina. We are entering 3 world country living standards at that point. I can't see the Australian population stomaching it - certainly I would have a problem with it.

To me, that back-of-the-envelope calculation shows to have a sustainable future we have to keep the population stable. That assumes of course you view our current issues with hitting resource limits on things like water, oil and CO2 as a hint that we are approaching the sustainability limit.

Lev,

Take a look at the country statistics at the CIA World Factbook. If population growth were as good as you think, then this would be blindingly obvious in economic studies and international comparisons. In fact, there is no link between population size, growth rate, or density and GNP per capita among the developed countries. (There is a link between population growth rate and prosperity in the Third World, but it is negative.) Apart from the US and Singapore (a city state), all of the top 10 countries on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index either have no population growth or have growth rates less than half of ours. We don't even rate. Some of these countries have much smaller populations than we do, as well.

There have been a number of economic studies showing that mass migration (an important source of growth) has no significant economic benefits. See the US 1997 Academy of Sciences report, "The New Americans", Australia's own Productivity Commission report last year, and this year's report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the British House of Lords. Some of the studies in the US (see www.cis.org) even find negative effects, because the savings on the cost of goods or services are much less for ordinary people than the extra taxes to pay for the health care, education, etc. of low paid immigrant workers and because the migrants depress wages.

We get a lot of pro-growth propaganda in the media, because folk at the top do benefit. Unless collapse is staring them in the face, as was the case in China, elites like population growth, because it increases their wealth, power, and influence. They get bigger markets, high real estate prices, and a cheap, compliant work force. Total GNP can go on growing, giving them more to skim, long after the environment, GNP per capita, and quality of life have started deteriorating for ordinary people.

Divergence, RStuart

Basically, you're looking at the data in the wrong way. Comparison between growth rates of specific countries and prosperity within a country does not provide information of how that state was reached in the first place or the global results of migration of a population to a source of high productivity.

The more logical approach is measure the correlations between population density, ecological footprint and economic wealth. I suspect you will discover that it is quite possible to have high economic wealth, high population density and a low ecological footprint.

Lev,

Of course it is possible to combine all of those things. China is doing it. Their one child policy shows, however, that they have seen the growthist fallacy for what it is. It is also the case that despite massive improvements, life still isn't all that wonderful for the average person in terms of consumption or personal freedom. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, your right to swing your fist ends where your neighbour's nose begins. The closer people are jammed together, the smaller the arc that is possible.

Finland is a good example of a low-population-density, low-population-growth, low-immigration, prosperous country with high tech industry. They also rank among the top ten on the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index and were first last year. (We didn't rate then either.)

Back to the subject of the article, it is worth considering why the Greens have downplayed population. I doubt if Bob Brown is insincere or too stupid to understand the issues. He may feel that he has to pander to the irrational left, but it is more likely that he is acutely aware of just how long a leash he has from Lev's pals in "Labour" or the Coalition. If he seriously started to talk about population rather than plastic bags, he would graduate from minor irritant to genuine threat, and might end up in a jail cell just like Pauline Hanson's on some trumped up charge or other. He may feel that he can at least do at least some good if he self-censors.

Divergence,

Finland is indeed a good example of what we could aspire towards. It has a population density of 15.69 people per sq km. In comparison Australia has a population density of 2.75 people per sq km. So yes, when Australia starts to approach the Finnish level of population density (modified as per the recommendations of environmental scientists) I will agree with you that a low-immigration, low population-growth model is appropriate.

At the moment I do not, and would suggest that much of the cause of our ecological footprint is the lack of population density and (as mentioned) the wrong incentive structures. At the moment it seems to makes much more sense to reduce global emissions by having more people near the points of high productivity, and that includes more people in Australia.

I disagree with your assertion that the Greens have downplayed population. Rather they have analysed the factors that contribute to global environmental damage in a responsible and balanced manner. They seem to far more aware that local consumption is more enviromentally beneficial than exported consumption. In an export-orientated economy, one of the better things that can occur is to increase the rate of local consumption which reduces both environmental and economic costs. In other words, as I initially noted, better for the environment and better for our country's wealth.

Regards,

Lev

But Lev,

You are forgetting that Australia is mostly desert. In 1996 the Australian Yearbook reported that 83% of the people live within 50 km of the coast, so accepting the CIA Factbook value of our coastline (25,270 km) and a population of 21 million, this implies a population density in this area of 16.6 people per square kilometer, including the very sparsely populated coastal areas in northern Australia. Moving lots of people inland is restricted by the lack of water. We already have severe permanent water restrictions in all our major cities, with our existing population, except possibly Hobart, and in Orange, they are restricted to watering with buckets for one hour a week. There may well be even less water in the future. There MIGHT be some room for development in the far North, where there is adequate water, but no one is going there now. We can desalinate and pump water to where it is needed, but that is extremely energy intensive. We get most of our energy from coal.

While there are some terms in the environmental impact equation that don't depend on population - it only took one fool to introduce the rabbit - as a first approximation, impact is proportional to population times impact per person. Twice as many people, all else being equal, means twice as many cars and houses, twice as much pollution and sewage, etc. There is a limit to how far you can cut consumption without hurting people. The earth can sustainably support, with present technology, about 2 billion people at a European standard of living and about 1 billion if they all live like us. (See the graph on p. 10 of the 7/10/07 New Scientist and the short article by Daniele Fanelli.) You are proposing to bring in millions of people to consume at First World levels. They will want cars, lots of meat, air conditioning, etc. Biofuels for First World consumption have already raised food costs to the world's urban poor by about 10%, according to the FAO.

Stop mystifying something that is quite simple.