Kulu wrote: "The perception that population growth leads to economic growth is probably erroneous."

Immigration increases GDP (how could it not?) but there is no evidence that it increases GDP per capita. In fact, David Coulter of SPA recently found that despite figures showing economic growth in some states, per capita GDP has fallen in every state in Australia, due to the population growth rate outstripping the GDP growth rate.

Coulter noted:

"They confirm calculations I have made over many years comparing OECD countries. These calculations repeatedly show no statistically significant correlation between population growth and growth of per capita GDP. They parallel the conclusion of the Productivity Commission report which showed that, despite excluding many of the environmental costs of a larger population, there was no demonstrable link between increase in immigration and per capita economic growth."

Read more here:

http://candobetter.org/node/1123

Senator Bartlett, by using phrases such as "intellectually bankrupt", is trying to imply that Michael Lardelli is some sort of second-rate maverick scientist on the fringes. In fact, his opinions are absolutely mainstream among scientists in the relevant fields.

The UN-sponsored Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) including the contributions of 1360 scientists found that: "The bottom line of the MA findings is that human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital, putting such strain on the environment that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted."

In a talk yesterday, as reported in the Guardian, John Beddington, the UK Chief Scientist, said: "Our [global] food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we will need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy and 30% more fresh water." He clearly flagged population growth as a major cause of the problem.

Here are some eye-opening graphs on food production from the Earth Policy Institute:

http://www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update72_data.htm#table1

Here are the results of a poll of earth scientists from the journal Eos on climate change.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So far as Australia is concerned, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has found that Australia has the worst record in the world for species extinction. Destruction of habitat for the growth Senator Bartlett wants is a major factor.

Senator Bartlett admits that there are global environmental and overpopulation problems, but acts as if Australia's policies could be divorced from them. In fact, he and other growthist politicians have been contributing to the global problem.

According to the UK Optimum Population Trust, the decision to have an additional baby there is equivalent (in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) to a decision to take 650 round trip flights between New York and London. Our equivalent would be 980 such flights. An additional person in a developed country puts far more strain on the environment than an additional person in the Third World. According to the Australia Institute, the average migrant to Australia doubles his greenhouse gas emissions compared to what they would have been at home. In the US, with more immigration of poor people, the average migrant quadruples his emissions. The Center for Immigration Studies (www.cis.org) has found that if the extra greenhouse gas emissions due to to immigration to the US were assigned to a separate country, it would be the 10th biggest emitter in the world.

There are a number of studies showing that people who expect some of their children to emigrate tend to have more of them (see refs. to chapter 3 of Virginia Abernethy's Population Politics"). Migrants from some ethnic groups have much bigger families in developed countries than they would have had at home, because they now believe that they can afford the very large family idealised by their culture. Just compare Mexican fertility rates in Mexico and California.

Money spent on infrastructure for population growth cannot be spent on giving Third World people the same family planning choices we take for granted, providing them with clean water, vaccinations, etc. so there is more child survival and less pressure to have extra children for insurance, giving women education and economic opportunities to increase opportunity costs for childbearing, etc., etc.

Reyes;

I’m not sure why you can’t respond to what I say, rather than inventing things I didn’t say and ‘responding’ to that.

You can call me a liar all you like, but I didn’t even mention Kevin Rudd – you did. The final figure I quoted was public opinion at the time of the 2007 election, before Rudd assumed office.

And the simple fact is – as shown by the numbers I quoted – that the majority of Australians either supported current migration levels at that time, or wanted even more. This was at a time of then-record migration intake.

Selectively quoting figures that "those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%” ignores all of those who supported existing levels – all of whom obviously disagree with those such as yourself who not only argue for lower migration, but dramatically lower migration. Not to mention that fact that the 45% is from 1998, and that dropped to 35% by 2001, despite big increases in migration occurring in that time.

You and your fellow anti-migration advocates are the ones claiming majority support for your position when then is no evidence that it exists.

And please don’t expect me to be swayed by the fact that a person from Sustainable Population Australia, who support cutting net-migration into Australia to zero, has just happened to deduce that there is no economic benefit from migration. If you don’t mind, I’ll take my analysis and data from a slightly more independent source. Although as many SPA people deride the goals of ‘growth economics’, if they applied the economic logic of their alleged findings, they’d be calling for more migration so per capita GDP would shrink even more, thereby sparing us from the economic growth that they believe is so harmful.

In any case, my reading of the relevant Productivity Commission report doesn’t match that assessment. Despite it taking a very narrow and short-term measure of what constitutes economic and social benefits, it still found a small net gain from migration.

Divergence – firstly I am not a Senator anymore (which I’m sure you aren’t too distressed about).

Secondly, Mr Lardelli may well be a highly accomplished in the fields of genetics or peak oil. But your links to the “mainstream opinions among scientists” relate to global population growth. They are views I also agree with, and they have nothing to do with migration.

I totally agree that “human actions are depleting Earth’s natural capital” and that global population growth is a major problem. My point is that it is you, not I, who seem to think that “Australia's policies could be divorced from this.”

Dramatically reducing migration into Australia does absolutely nothing about the problem of global population growth. Nor does it do anything about the extremely profligate approach of Australian society and economy – if anything trying to pull up the drawbridge will just encourage those already here to think it leaves more resources for them to consume and they can continue on with business as usual

Regardless of the many economic, social and cultural benefits from migration, I think environmental issues should be given at least as much consideration. Which is why I think it is important for much more attention to be given to the significant environmental impacts of global population growth and to significantly reducing the profligate lifestyles of most people in the wealthiest countries. Migration has no impact on this. Focusing on migration just distracts from the real problem and seeks to shift the blame.

"Dramatically reducing migration into Australia does absolutely nothing about the problem of global population growth. Nor does it do anything about the extremely profligate approach of Australian society and economy"

Perhaps Malthus's hypothesis should be modified to that of human consumption in conjunction with population increasing to the limit of resources? Perhaps Australia's profligacy has more to do with our capacity to consume than our morality? Would Australians be any more moral with a tenfold population and a tenth the per capita consumption? Are Bangladeshis or Indians more moral for their poverty?

Surely the most moral thing that Australians can do is to join with other nations in developing technologies which reduce the impact of our consumption? Surely this is better than than the neoludditism that portrays consumption as the path to oblivion?