Divergence,

Thank you for alerting me to the fact that much of Australia is arid or semi-arid (receiving less than 250mm in annual rainfall, Köppen climate classification system, BWh or BWk). I rather suspect that living much of my early childhood in Kambalda and Laverton, Western Australia helped me realise such trivial facts at a deeper level.

The population carrying capacity in Australia has already been studied a great deal, indeed the first issue of the Australian Journal of Politics and History (1955) carries such a discussion. More recently there was the government study, "Australia's Population 'Carrying Capacity', One Nation - Two Ecologies" (1994). That report did not specify a particular population, although at the lifestyle levels when the report was written it did imply a limit of 23 million. Note of course, that this did not touch upon incentive structures at all, which I consider critical to any analysis of optimum population.

Professor Peter Newman's paper "Australia's population carrying capacity: an analysis of eight natural resources' (Institute of Science and Technology Policy, Murdoch University, 1994) is probably one of the more comprehensive studies of this nature. Not only does he look at current use, their vulnerabilities, inappropriate technologies (he's big on that) and including a 'Stupidity Factor' (which does have economic relevance. He also discusses how much resource consumption can be reduced vis-a-vis population increases.

Basically the simplistic policy "eco-nationalist" you are suggesting may put some brakes on the local ecological impact growth, zero local economic growth, perpetual poverty for those in the developing world and increased global environmental impact overall.

You'll excuse me if I am not convinced that it is the best or only path to take.

IMO, there is nothing simple about this problem, but nor is it mystifying either. It's an complex, but empirical problem, with a great number of variables involved.

Lev, population discussions are common on this forum. Most people are of the same mindset as Divergence and myself. It is certainly unusual to have someone putting up an articulate argument against population stabilisation. I welcome it.

But I’ve got to say, having read through this thread, that I don’t understand just where you are coming from. How can any possible advantages of having a much larger population close to basic resources be of a greater importance than the increased demand they place on those resources, and all others in this country?

Could you possibly succinctly outline your argument against population stabilisation.

Thanks

Ludwig,

Both the basic points have been previously explained, but I shall repeat them.

a) To reduce a global environmental impact, the ratio of local consumption of goods to foreign consumption of the same must increase. In an export-orientated economy existing rates of marginal consumption make it impossible to achieve this without an increase in population.

b) Reducing population growth and limiting immigration does not change consumption behaviour, especially when there are systematic incentives to use resources inefficiently and when production is punished rather than resource use.

Thus I think there is an argument for a modest increase in population coupled with serious changes in systematic incentives.

HTH,

Lev

So I take it Lev that you are in favour of population stabilisation then, but just at a somewhat higher level than 23 million. What level do you think is appropriate?

Of course reducing population growth does not in itself change consumption behaviour. Both need to be addressed. No one has said that stabilising our population is the whole answer to achieving sustainability.

It is simply crazy to attempt to address per-capita consumption and technological improvement without addressing population growth. In fact, nothing in our political history seems more obliviously stupid than Rudd’s push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while constantly increasing the number of consumers…and at an even greater rate than his predecessor, or for cities and regions with chronic water shortages to continue to get rapid population growth.

How do these two examples fit with the notion that the ratio of local consumption of goods to export consumption needs to increase in order to reduce environmental impact?

Hi Ludwig,

Frankly I haven't done the total sums. It would require at least a PhD worth and whilst I have studied Population, Resources and the Environment and Resource Economics (both courses in my undergrad days) , it's not my area of concentration. Maybe I will dedicate some time to it, but not yet.

Rudd's policy isn't as bad as it sounds. Increasing our population means reducing the population from elsewhere. As I have already pointed out, this can cause a net reduction in global greenhouse emissions and reduce our country's expenses.

Regards,

Lev I think Rudd’s policies of boosting immigration and increasing the baby bonus are absolutely atrocious.

Firstly, increasing our population doesn’t mean reducing population elsewhere. It barely affects the population size or rate of growth in any countries from which migrants are drawn.

Secondly, greenhouse gas emissions and overall resource consumption increase for most migrants, compared to what they were emitting and consuming in their home countries.

Thirdly, while it might improve economies of scale for some resources if they are consumed close to their origin, continuous population growth places greater demand on those resources and all sorts of other resources. The demand for both domestic consumption and export income increases as the population grows. Higher domestic consumption doesn’t necessarily mean a lower rate of export. And for many resources, economies of scale are not improved by local consumption, because overseas consumers are often more frugal per capita and more efficient than us in their consumption of what we provide.

Fourthly, the imperative is for us to achieve a sustainable society, quickly…both for our own sake and as the best thing we can do as a player on the world stage, in order to set an example for bringing the rest of the world into the age of sustainability. Continuous population growth is completely at odds with this.

Fifthly, there is something inherently wrong with drawing skilled migrants from countries that need those skills more than we do or which are better at training people to develop those skills for the good of their own societies than we are.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by population growth reducing our country’s expenses. Thanks