Thank you Sancho - a very thorough outline

Thanks david f

There are many different statistics one can use, and it's true that pointing solely to population density doesn't tell the whole story - (although if you are talking about the perceptions of people in other countries, that tends to be one that has some weight).

Some try to use assessments of population density per area of arable land or renewable water resources per person per year. On most of these measures (that I'm aware of anyway), Australia still comes up better per person than the majority of other countries. That's not an excuse for profligacy of course (we do pretty well at that already), but it doesn't suggest we've got less to go around than most other places.

I'd be interested to see the source of your data that Australia has 3% of the water resources of the USA.

The least favourable data I've seen suggests Australia has around 13% of the renewable water resources that the USA has, with about 7% of the population. If you just count the 48 coterminous states of the USA the per capita contrast is even more favourable. These stats are from the CIA Yearbook (3069 cu km to 398 cu km). There are other stats from FAO's AQUASTAT of total renewable water resources which give an even more favourable per capita contrast.

However, there may be other stats, which I'd be interested to see.

We can also be much more efficient in using (and reusing) the water we have. Of course, the growing prospect of major climate change means none of us can be certain about what future water resources will be, which is even more reason to be far more efficient in our water use. However, uncertainty about future renewable water resources applies across the globe.

Fester: "That is unfair, Reyes."

In the case of Bangladesh, yes, many of that particular country's problems can be attributed to overpopulation.

Is it unfair to say that the people and government of Bangladesh should curb their population growth rather than expect other country's to accept their surplus people? I don't think so. If each country acted in a reponsible manner, we wouldn't be facing the problem of global overpopulation.

Andrew Bartlett: " ...the clearer it is how intellectually bankrupt your argument is."

And I see you are truly a master of self-deception and delusion.

You claim that Australia can and should grow its population through immigration without bothering to explain how such immigration-driven population growth would benefit, rather than harm, Australia's environment and quality of life. Please tell us, Andrew, why exactly does Australia need the biggest per capita immigration intake in the world?

I notice that didn't bother to answer my earlier question: If Australia's per capita consumption rates are the problem, wouldn't it be wise and logical to place a moratorium on further immigration until Australia's growing per capita consumption rates have been reversed?

Enquiring minds would like to know.

There is a recent Pew Global Attitudes Survey on globalisation and immigration. Scroll down to the bar graph in the middle and you will find that the overwhelming majority of people in the countries surveyed believe that immigration to their countries should be further controlled and restricted. The only exceptions were South Korea, the Palestinian Territories, and Japan, which has almost no immigration anyway. Unfortunately, Australia was not included, but a great many other countries were.

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=258

The following link is to a People and Place article by Murray Goot summarising the results of previous opinion polls in Australia

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv8n3/v8n3_6Goot.pdf

As the article points out, how the questions in a poll are worded makes a big difference. It also matters whether people knew or were told the actual size of the net intake, including New Zealanders, etc. Although results vary from year to year, it is clear that the people who wanted less immigration always far outnumbered those who wanted more (a response that was often measured in single digits). Attitudes can also vary depending on the particular type of immigration (humanitarian, family reunion, etc.).

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/cib/1996-97/97cib16.htm

Senator Bartlett cannot assume that the people who said they were satisfied with existing levels of immigration in the past would still be satisfied with today's higher intakes. If so, why didn't Kevin Rudd tell people that he intended to increase immigration before the election?

MAKE ME TO YOUR LEADER!

"We can also be much more efficient in using (and reusing) the water we have" .. and the living space, the public transport, violence free streets where you can die in a hail of bullets while your kids munch Mackers etc ..the list grows with each new Julia Shillard skilled (NoDoubt Laborvoting & taxability skills) immigrant intake.

If you just count the 5 true coterminous ambitions blaring out from Andrew's posts:

*Immigrate Presidential size populations who won't rebel or thieve or want to occupy large tracts of prime real estate like junk-yard-dogs ..like REAL human beings do.

*Squeeze & recycle the resource allocations of existing citizens to make room for the new mythically endowed gerrymanderist controllable-immigrants

*There's no excuse for profligacy but Australia is big enough for all the profligacy I can handle.

*Perceptions of people in other countries carry more weight than perceptions of Australians who have failed us politicians under the weight of the GFC.

*Never mind the TRUTH we want to see the STATS

you would see he is just another politician who believes he has a big future in another corrupt Reesesque government system which has allowed itself to become a very precarious pawn in US(UnServiceable?) global corporate politics.

The TRUTH?
1.Humans like all life thrive on (Thermodynamics 101) Entropy gradients that geographically coincide with tall Sierras like the Himalayas, Rockies Appalachias and the Euro-Alps.

2.If Australia had such Sierras, Tamil-Indians would have been in their hundreds of millions before Cook arrived. These Sierras control the hydrology of arable land by gravity .. distributing water&fertile soil equably to large populations while the Murray-Darling dies, not from global warming but from GREED..

3.On this fact alone, neglecting an imminent PEAKOIL, we KNOW Australia can only handle about 20million people, NZ 60million & Tasmania 15million. It won't happen overnight but it will.

What will happen to fat-headed politicians who haven't done their Physics&Geography 101s?

Karma's a bitch!

Thanks to Andrew Bartlett for providing a link. It provides the questions and responses. Here is the link again,

http://assda-nesstar.anu.edu.au/webview/index.jsp

and for those wanting a bit more direction, click on these search headings:

ASSDA-ANU
Australian Studies
Politics
Election and Campaign Studies
Australian Election Study, 2007
Variable Description
Section F: Global Politics

Questions and results for immigration are from f12 to f14. I found it interesting that people believing that immigration was economically advantageous outnumbered those who considered it not so 59% to 11%, or nearly 6 to 1. Those wanting fewer immigrants outnumbered those wanting more 45% to 15%, or 3 to 1.

But is the belief that immigration brings economic benefits supported by recent events? Since the Coalition Government began increasing immigration since 1996, the state governments have racked up huge levels of debt to pay for the infrastructure needed to cope with a growing population. And it happened at a time when revenues were high.

Dear Andrew,

I could not find the source for my statement that Australia has 3% of the freshwater resources of the US. I found "The World's Water" which has a smaller disparity. It listed 3069 cubic km/yr for the US as against 398 for Australia.