Apparently "green" politics is a monolithic, worldwide movement, led by two individuals.

Why did the author choose to set up a straw man conspiracy theory rather than address the real population control argument? Why is the Right [and we all know this is an ideological gambit] so unwilling to engage rationally on this topic? If articles like this represent the standard we can expect, we are justified in believing that pro-populationists have so little faith in their own argument that they won't debate with reason rather than emotional baiting.

We also have to ask why the very idea of responsible breeding is so shocking to some. Personally, I think it's the last gasp of fundamentalism. Religion has been so abandoned, and its dogmas proven to be so harmful, that fundamentalists are now resorting to the defence of overbreeding as a religious pro-life principle.

Here is Kanck's press release - judge for yourself:

http://www.population.org.au/index.php/media/media-releases/media-releases-2009/333-end-population-growth-to-achieve-climate-targets

21 April 2009

If greenhouse gas emissions are to be cut to levels that the Federal Government has promised under the Kyoto Protocol, that is 60 per cent by 2050, then population numbers must be stabilised and then allowed to fall, according to Sustainable Population Australia Inc (SPA).

Speaking on the eve of Earth Day, SPA National President Ms Sandra Kanck says that population growth is responsible for 85 per cent of the growth in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.

"Population now grows in Australia at 1.8 per cent per annum, and emissions at 2.0 per cent," Ms Kanck says. "Clearly population stabilisation and then reduction has to be part of a suite of measures that will ensure the cuts in emissions that the Government has promised.

"Population growth is a major driver of climate change. Forests are cut for farmland to feed an ever-increasing population; there are more cars on the road, more coal-fired electricity generated. It entails more houses and other consumer products. It uses more cement, energy and water which all results in more greenhouse gas emissions."

Ms Kanck says that it is critical that the world keeps CO2(e)emissions below 450 ppm or below 2oC warming.

"Once we go above that we will experience positive feedbacks such as release of methane from the tundra and loss of albedo as ice melts in the Arctic. Yet if we continue with business-as-usual, and that includes continued population growth, we will head for the higher end of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projections of six degrees or more.

"That will ensure the end of civilisation as we know it," she warns.

BRAVO! At last someone gets it down!

The Malthusians are crawling out of the woodwork right now, doubtless cheering on swine flu and any other virus Prince Philip would like to become in another life (in a fittingly Hindu-Karmic reduction of his evolutionary status).

[Cm'on dagget - waiting, waiting, for the umpteenth dictum on "finite resources...thermodynamics...people-as-cattle", etc.]

The population issue is a most interesting one, as it is simply not mentioned most of the time.

This could be because nature has a simple, tried and tested method of solving the problem, and all it involves is four horsemen.

It is an elementary exercise in arithmetic that the only way the world could support a population of 9 billion would be with a substantial cut in first world living standards. Anyone in Australia advocating such measures is not in touch with political reality.

The population of the developed world is essentially stabilised, with almost all of the expected increase of 4-5 billion over the next 30 years likely to come from the third world.

Australia is in the fortunate position that our natural birth rate is below the replacement level, and that any increase in population level is due solely to immigration.

Apart from stopping immigration, which is by far the most simple, humane and effective way of controlling our own population, the main way we can influence the world population would be to target our foreign aid to educating young girls in underdeveloped countries, as the number of children a women bears is closely inversely related to her level of education. We could also join with other countries to pressure third world countries to implement population control measures with the threat of denying them any aid at all if they refused.

As the current economic depression gets worse the government may well emulate the action taken in 1932 when owing to the high level of unemployment immigration was banned for the duration, with all new immigrants being required to sit for the dictation test. If the current depression persists for years, this may solve our problem in a politically acceptable way.

(By the way, it is interesting to note that over the 57 year period that dictation tests were in force, only ONE gentleman, either Chinese or Indian, passed the test in 1909.)

Here's The Kankos story from Australian Associated Press. If you shot yourself in the foot last week, there's no need to shoot yourself in the foot in OLO this week.

But still they come ...

Green group calls for one child policy
Article from: AAP

April 21, 2009 05:07pm
AUSTRALIA should consider having a one-child policy to protect the planet, an environmental lobby group says.

Sustainable Population Australia says slashing the world's population is the only way to avoid "environmental suicide''.

National president Sandra Kanck wants Australia's population of almost 22 million reduced to seven million to tackle climate change.

Restricting each couple to one baby, as China does, is "one way of assisting to reduce the population''.

"It's something we need to throw into the mix,'' the former Democrats parliamentarian said.

The base line paramater for assessing population growth, sustainability, and most importantly, survival is the availability and quality of WATER.

Anyone who does not take this fact into account is self-deluded and hasnt done their homework.

This reference provides a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_crisis