So we need some extra infrastructure, That is no excuse for declining population growth. Australia is grossly under utilized. Get some of that northern water, and put it on the "desert" and the desert will disappear. In Au we use enormous acreages to do what other countries do on small acreages. It's like our building blocks. The sea is a great supply of water, it takes a drought to bring the infrastructure about. Weather the drought breaks or not, these jobs should never be abandoned.

Olly wrote: "That is no excuse for declining population growth. Australia is grossly under utilized."

Are you serious?

As the author of the article pointed, Australia is not just an empty land waiting to be populated. In terms of essential natural resources such as fresh water and fertile topsoil, Australia has already surpassed its optimum carrying capacity. Much of Australia's existing population is already crammed into a few coastal metroplexes. Given that the overwhelming majority of immigrants head directly for these areas, ongoing large-scale immigration will only exacerbate this crowding problem and result in our best remaining arable land being consumed by runaway urban sprawl.

Another important point to make is that a larger population will inevitably have an adverse effect on Australia's trade balance. As it stands, Australia relies heavily on non-renewable mineral and agricultural resources for its export income. The only reason Australia has been able to maintain a First World standard of living with an export profile of a Third World country is because of its relatively small population. In other words, there is currently a substantial surplus between what can be produced and what is needed for consumption in Australia.

The problem with ongoing immigration-driven population growth is that there is no positive relationship between a larger population and the scale of mining and agricultural output in Australia. Rather, a larger population means more domestic consumption, leaving Australia with less resources to export. Furthermore, an immigration-fuelled population increase has a direct relationship with the level of imports, in the sense that imports will rise at least as fast as the population increases. This will consequently make Australia poorer, at least in per capita terms.

[Continued from above...]

There are many reason why Australia should be reducing immigration and looking to stabilise its population. Even from a purely economic perspective, mass immigration provides no long-term economic benefits to the country at large.

Sure, real estate developers, businesses that are labour intensive, and some other sectors of the economy benefit. However, as Divergence noted, the average Australian is no better off in terms of per capita wealth. In fact, they are worse off when you consider the host of problems caused by immigration-driven population growth - among them unaffordable housing, overburdened infrastructure, strained public services, urban congestion, ethnic and cultural division, and the redirection of capital investments away from programs that benefit people already residing in the country.

We do not need an ever-expanding population in this country, as the growth ideologues believe. Our long-term prospects for environmental sustainability, social and cultural cohesion, and a high quality of life will be much improved if our population were stabilized at current levels, instead of doubling during this century, which is what will happen if immigration continues at present rates.

Efranke,
You certainly must have a lot of time, and patience, to explain to Olly why we do not need a higher population. You did it very well, but it could all be wasted on those like Olly.

Me, I would just like some of whatever it is he smokes. I beats reality hands down.

There are two levels to the question of Australia's capacity to take more population growth:

1. Could Australia significantly increase its population as it is now without unacceptable social, economic and environmental costs? and

2. Could Australia, if it made better use of its land and other natural resources, significantly increase its population without unacceptable social, economic and environmental costs?

The answer to (1) is clearly 'no' and until such time as our Governments and business leaders can demonstrate that population can be grown furhter without the quality of life in our major cities being further degrade and can demonstrate that they know how to bring housing costs back to what they were a generation ago before population-driven demand sent them to the stratosphere (precisely as the land speculators in our midst anticipated and welcomed), we are entitled to put our collective feet down and insist that our population be stabilised.

Perhaps it can be demonstrated (as one person put to me a few months ago) that with clever decentralisation and the nurturing of our environment we may be able to make rainforests grow where we now have deserts. In that case we may be able to accommodate a significantly larger population assuming that we are all prepared to live in a pre-industrial fashion.

However, nearly all other scientists are sceptical that that is possible and until we see that happen it would be reckless and irresponsible not to heed the reasoned and evidence based arguments of scientists such as Tim Flannery who have that we already greatly exceeded this country's carrying capacity.

Fifty six percent of total population growth for WA was from overseas last year. WA and the NT took first place for the highest population increases in the nation.

However, the intake for 2008-2009 for the nation, is estimated at 300,000 – the highest in sixty years.

And in WA, it matters not that:

At a national level, Western Australia has 8 of 12 Australian biodiversity hotspots.

At a global level, the South West is recognised as one of the world's most threatened biodiversity hotspots.

WA currently has 362 threatened plants, 199 threatened animals and 69 threatened ecological communities.

Recovery plans have been developed for less than one-third of threatened species and ecological communities.

There is ongoing loss and degradation of biodiversity in WA.

Mining and service industries are encroaching on communities with impunity. Thousands of native birds and animals have been killed due to the slack restrictions on these activities.

The resource boom has seen an impotent Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC), directly responsible for these deaths. The operations of one company alone saw the demise of 6.5 thousand native animals where the DEC admitted they failed to enforce regulations.

Companies, incompetently regulated, occasionally receive a slap on the wrist for spilling millions of litres of cyanide and dumping mercury over communities whilst leaching chemicals onto other small prospecting leases.

These penalities are merely a PR exercise set up by DEC's senior bureaucrats - captured by the big polluters.

The Swan and Canning rivers are constantly on life support with oxygen “tents” placed around the river banks and the extinction of fish occurring at an alarming rate.

And while successive governments boast of their "achievements," salination and extreme poverty of the soil is rife and worsening while WA governments and regulators feast from the same poisoned tree as developers, lobbyists and mining giants.

Our masters, fixated on the economy, believe democracy can only be held in check by continued growth and continued mass immigration.

Are our "leaders" incapable of committing to anything beyond themselves?

"Erin Brockovich - where are you girl?"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/activists-tip-a-bucket-on-big-companies/2007/08/15/1186857593122.html?page=fullpage

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/WA-defends-its-environmental-record/2007/07/02/1183229007335.html

http://steve-kwinana.blogspot.com/