Sustainability has become the most abused word in the English dictionary.

There's nothing wrong with sustainability, just the vague interpretations that come with the word.

In fact many government and corporate entities confuse it with the word 'sustained'. Thus 'sustainable mining', in the eyes of the mining industry, means 'sustained mining'.

All strength to those who are working for genuine sustainability but beware of those using the term to rationalise what they always intended to do - albeit with a slightly different language.

Meanwhile, academic bodies pragmatically switch program titles towards sustainability because that is where the money is. They would be silly not to if they want research money.

The most important - yet totally ignored - area of sustainability is population, both world-wide and in Australia.

Our first responsibility is to Australia. Unfortunately, Australian politicians have a totally irresponsible attitude to population: both Coalition and Labor Governments have encouraged a steady, alarming increase in immigration and are still providing a breeding bonus.

The optimum population for Australia is said to be between 10 – 13 million. If this is the case, the problem is now out of control with a 20 plus million population and still growing. An estimated 3 million increase in Australia’s population annually is borne out by a 400,000 increase last year, due mainly to immigration.

Australia is now suffering serious housing shortages because of high immigration.

The main areas of population are experiencing water shortages.

Australia has an unemployment level of 5%, and an under-employment level of 5%.

People thinking that Australia can be another America, taking in people, are sadly mistaken. Australia’s ancient and impoverished soils; its knife edge environment and overall lack of water mean that two thirds of the country is uninhabitable.

We need politicians who actually care for the country and not for unsustainable growth and greed.

We need a population policy.

Right on Mr Right.

^^^^

There might be a fadist aspect to the new push for sustainability studies. But more significantly, there is no doubt that the concept of sustainability is pretty flimsily or even totally bodgily associated with some of the studies that purport to be sustainability-oriented.

And more significantly again by far; there is still far too LITTLE overall effort being put into the sustainability of our society, environment, country and planet!

There isn’t really anything wrong with fads per se. If it is trendy to be involved with sustainability, then fine.

But I would think that a whole lot of purported sustainability studies are not in themselves sustainability-oriented at all! They are geared to improving energy and resource efficiency, the minimisation of waste and pollution, etc, which all sounds good, but for as long as we maintain the absurd continuous-growth-with-no-end-in-sight paradigm, it is only going to serve to prop up society more or less as we know it and foster continuous high population growth….which will take us rapidly further away from true sustainability!

continued

Most people involved in these sorts of studies would argue that they are doing their bit and that it is up to our government to manage the overall arena. I’d argue strongly that this is not the case, and that every single person who is involved with anything sustainability-oriented (or every single person who is alive and breathing actually), should be very mindful of the whole picture and be lobbying very hard to make sure that their work is effectively used in the effort to achieve a sustainable society, and not misused to prop up the continuation of a strong antisustainability momentum!

There is far too little true sustainability research and adaptation by industry and society. In fact, I could argue that there is precisely NONE going on….and there won’t be until such a time as we realise that an end to population growth and continuous human expansionism is by far the single biggest sustainability factor of all…and in Australia, is one that could very easily be addressed…. and MUST be forthwith!.

When immigration gets greatly reduced and the baby bonus gets throttled, then we will be able to say that this country has actually launched itself at the very start of the long road to true sustainability.

Sustainability – OLO here has chosen a timely article.

On the other hand, during June it published twenty articles by nineteen authors on the issue of adequately sustaining Agriculture.

The articles were all structured around enhancing agriculture in order to sustain increasing population. Not one of the authors chosen for publication thought fit to incorporate the fundamental driver of un-sustainable agriculture – unimpeded population growth.

*The articles were all structured around enhancing agriculture in order to sustain increasing population. *

IMHO a few of those articles were written by some of the scientific
community, clearly worried about the future of their jobs.

They have reason to be concerned, agricultural research has been
put on the back burner.

OTOH none of them addressed the issue of agricultural sustainability.
Agriculture is little more then mining, unless you put back the
nutrients removed by crops.

One cannot keep removing more and more nutrients, with ever
increasing yields, unless they are returned to the soil.

That is where agriculture is facing a crisis. Whilst the price of
oil has doubled in a short time, the price of potassium and
phosphorus has increased by up to 800%.

Forget all the research, unless farmers can afford to return to
the soil, what their crops remove and we export.

Long term it is just not sustainable and if its not sustainable,
then long term it will crash.

We ignore nature at our peril, be that in terms of plant nutrients
or be that in terms of the global human population.

Yeah. SUSTAINABILITY has become nothing more than a marketing tool. Another abused hype word that I despise is ORGANIC. Somehow these two words are often used together and completely out of context by really dumb people. Oh and also ECO- as is ecosystem or ecology or ECOSUSTAINABLEORGANIC processes that were employed in the development of this post.

"The optimum population for Australia is said to be between 10 – 13 million".

This would make the sustainable population of the world about 1bn. What do we do with the other 6bn.

Australia with the lowest population density per arable hectare is more suited for immigration than anyone else. This can be demonstrated by the massive surplus in food production despite the low intensity of the farming.

Mr Right has not only got the unemployment wrong, but has sucked out the 5% underemployed from a left wing mouthpiece. In order to justify his xenophobia.

Democritus,

Australia does have a lot of arable land per person, but there are serious issues with the quality of the soil and the availability of water. There is very little land that is both highly fertile and well watered. We had to import grain in 2007 because of the strong drought conditions. I believe that even in a good year we don't produce as much as France. This map shows wheat production around the world

http://www.gramene.org/species/triticum/wheat_maps_and_stats.html

Yabby, who is a farmer in real life, raised some very important issues about the sustainability of continuing this production with global supplies of potash and phosphate running out, let alone supplies of oil to run the farm machinery and make into pesticides and fertilisers.

There are also issues with current and past unsustainable farming practices, which are effectively mining the soil. If the politicians from the 1920s had insisted that the natural vegetation had been left on half the land near the Murray river, we wouldn't have the current salt problems.

You are also ignoring future risk from climate change.

Obviously Australia could support a larger population at a Bangladeshi standard of living. Not wanting that doesn't make Mr. Right xenophobic.

As other posters have pointed out, there is no point harping on about sustainability until the issue of population growth has been addressed. Until our political and business leaders recognise this elephant in the room, sustainability will remain a pipe dream.

As it stands, Australia's population is growing at a rate faster than that of most Third World countries, largely due to record high levels of immigration. This population explosion is occuring in a deceptively large country, where the vast majority of its residents are essentially crammed into a few coastal strips, the ongoing expansion of which is destroying the best remaining arable land. In terms of its natural resource base (fresh water, fertile soil), Australia is already living beyond its carrying capacity. Yet our population continues to grow, driven by an immigration intake two to three times higher, in per capita terms, than that of the USA.

Despite this, some (such as Democritus) believe that Australia can and should hold a significantly larger population, even if it means degrading the natural, social, cultural and economic environment for present and future generations.

My question: Why? What is there to gain from overpopulating Australia and ruining our environment, our society and our quality of life?

Some questions for the Rudd Government about its recent decision to dramatically increase Australia's already high immigration intake:

• How does increasing our population by more than a million every three years make our climate change/greenhouse emission problem easier to solve?

• Every city in Australia is water stressed. How does increasing our population by an additional 5% every three years make our urban water problem easier to solve?

• It is doubtful whether in a climate changed, post peak oil world Australia can maintain water supply to its farmers. How does such rapid population growth make it easier to maintain our rivers, soils and food production?

• Australians have one of the highest per capita environmental impacts in the world. An increase in the Australian population has a larger global impact than the addition of a person just about anywhere else in the world. How does the Rudd Government morally justify increasing Australia’s demand on the global environment at the expense of many peoples far less well off?

• Australia has an acute housing shortage. More and more Australians cannot afford the rising price of a house or rent. One of the main drivers of this situation has been clearly identified as our already high immigration intake. How does Kevin Rudd justify making this situation even worse for ‘working families’?

• Australia has approximately 5% unemployment and another 5% of under employment. How does the Rudd Government justify bringing in unskilled workers when there are Australians unemployed and underemployed seeking work?

• There is a rapidly growing global food shortage. Increasing Australia’s population is leading to more and more high quality, well watered, food producing land going under housing and related urban infrastructure. Where is Kevin Rudd’s much advertised Christian morality?

As Dr John Coulter, President of Sustainable Population Australia notes, the Rudd Government's decision to ramp up immigration has exposed the hollowness of its claims to be concerned about environmental sustainability and social equity. The Rudd Government is running the biggest immigration program in Australia's history, at a time when our environment and society can least cope.

http://www.population.org.au/

Divergence,

Your map shows that Aus does not produce as much wheat as France, but more than Germany with populations 3x and 4x as large respectively.

Considering that Aus has no agricultural subsidies and far fewer farmers that is not bad.

With more intensive agriculture, production can easily be increased. In 1950 India had a population of 400m and had to import food. Now it has a population of 1100m and exports food, thanks to technology.

Great post Efranke. We need to demand answers to all of your questions from KRudd, Garrett, Nelson and Hunt. In fact, an article or a new general thread on OLO doing just that would be in order.

This stuff is of vital importance. The hypocrisy in the promotion of high population growth while espousing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and all sort of other environmental improvements is just extreme.

*With more intensive agriculture, production can easily be increased. In 1950 India had a population of 400m and had to import food. Now it has a population of 1100m and exports food, thanks to technology.*

Demo, you seem to forget that intense food supply relies on cheap
petroleum based fertilisers. Take away cheap oil and your food
production starts to hit a major snag. Our ever growing Western
cheap food is directly related to oil. Take away the oil/gas
and the whole thing falls into a heap and is not sustainable.

The population issue is a global one. We still add 80 million a
year to the planet. Yet hundreds of millions of women in the third
world still don't have access to family planning. The beloved
Catholic Church still protests against every condom. Its crazy
stuff, it really is.

Ludwig, I wish I could take credit for those questions, but, alas, they were from a press release by SPA's Dr. John Coulter. I posted them because I believe they are vitally important questions that need to be asked of Kevin Rudd and Chris Evans.

Their reckless decision to ramp up immigration to an obscene 300,000 p.a. in the midst of the current environmental and housing affordability crisis staggers belief. I believe we, the Australian people, deserve some answers as to why our quality of life is being sacrificed at the altar of immigration-driven population growth.

Coulter's full press release is here:

http://www.population.org.au/media/mediarels/mr080519.pdf

Of course, most of the population growth fanatics don't care if ordinary Australians are worse off as a result of sustained mass immigration. Take Democritus, for example. He completely ignored the point Divergence and myself made about the negative correlation between a larger population and quality of life. Like most mass immigrationists, all Democritus cares about is maximising the number of people that be crammed into this arid continent. His warped sense of charity to foreign peoples blinds him to the damage mass immigration is inflicting on his own people and country.

Mark O'Connor, conservationist and advocate for immigration reduction, put it nicely:

"In short, for those emotionally committed to immigrationism the optimum-population debate is a morass. It involves issues many of them are either not expert in or simply don't care to think about. Many immigrationists prefer to see their creed simply in terms of human charity, of helping people. Yet, like the Unjust Steward in the Bible, they try to give away what is not quite theirs to give. In a more modern analogy, the would-be charitable immigrationist is a bit like someone who writes a check to the Salvos [Salvation Army] on someone else's account - and without even finding out if the account has the required funds."

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc0402/article_318.shtml

Yabby,

Ammonium nitrate, and phosphates are not petroleum derivatives (the main ingredients of fertilizers).

Pesticides are.

Demo, you will find that ammonium nitrate, in Australia anyhow, is
mainly used for explosives. Sulphate of ammonia, urea etc,
come from natural gas. MAP, DAP, all use gas. Yes phosphates
and potash are mined, mining uses oil.

In fact the whole Western food chain relies on cheap oil, every
step of the way, to the consumer. If you want to go without
it, go back to permaculture.

1. Thomas Barlow is right in his implication that every use of the word ‘sustainable’ should include a definition. Other concepts that always need definition include ‘economic growth’ and ‘prosperity’.

2. But you need to ask why is population growth promoted by governments? A Victorian State Labor MP told me that Victoria is losing its industries, so in order to prosper it has to rely on constantly increasing land values and the building industry. (Politicians don’t have to worry about the sustainability of the country in the future. They can and do resign and walk away.)

3. To be sustainable, Australians will have to return to the earth what they take from it. Hence the recent article on sewage (http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7572)