I think this is a case of Pot calling another kettle black, but the post is sitting on a mound of black coal dust.....

The environmentalist philosophy is synonymous with sustainibility. You would have to be either an idiot or partisan to make a thread like this.

Their slogan could be summed up as, "I told you so" in this respect.

“Population is a tough issue and one very difficult to legislate.”

Judy, I don’t think so.

Firstly, it is surely one of the most fundamental purposes of governments to strike the balance between pressures on our environment, resource base, society and quality of life that are rendered by way of ever-more people…and the advantages of facilitating population growth.

No government can shirk this duty without being grossly irresponsible. Again, this balance sits right at the core of the role of government.

What right has the Qld Govt got to not only tolerate but actively encourage very rapid population growth into SEQ…into areas that are suffering critical water problems, congestion issues and all sorts of other population-growth-caused quality-of-life reductions?

The government has no qualms at all about advertising Queensland and presenting it the best possible light in order to attract both tourists and residents. But it is entirely loathe to say, ‘no, please don’t and live in this or that place until the water, health or road-congestion issues are remedied.

What right does the government have to add to the pressures upon residents who are already suffering from these things by pushing a few thousand more people into their areas?

Mike Berwick, ex-mayor of Douglas shire in far north Qld, espoused a population cap. He was re-elected numerous times with this as his most prominent policy.

Mayor Bob Abbott espoused the same thing in Noosa Shire. He easily won the mayoralty of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council ahead of the mayor of the neighbouring and much bigger council when they were amalgamated in the recent statewide local govt mergers.

So, policies of population stabilisation are NOT political suicide. Ordinary people want population caps! If local governments can do it…and they are under enormous pressure from developers and other vested-interest lobbies to not go for population caps….then so can state governments…..with the backing of their constituency.

What a nonsenical little piece of straw man burning.

The Greens as a party can certainly do things better, but it is simply silly to accuse them of a "continued failure to engage in any debate about Australia’s future population", just because their views on population don't concur with the fundamentalist opinions of the author.

How an earth is it an "affront to the reality that Australia has the highest per capita carbon footprint in the world" for the Greens' policy to include the factual assertion that “our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live”? It is an affirmation of reality, not an affront to it!

It is also a reminder that pretending population is the problem is an easy excuse for diverting attention away from the real problem, which is the grossly profligate way that we live.

The argument about whether or not the Greens are "a party of the extreme Left" and how 'Left' they should or shouldn't be is a worthwhile one to have, but it has nothing to do with population policy. From what I've seen they have a reasonably balanced approach in this area - there might be others issues where they could be accused of extremism or fundamentalism, but population certainly isn't one.

I read a report a few years ago where they
mentioned the fact that Australia could
only sustain a population of 20 million.
That has already been reached.

Now, they're predicting that our population
will reach 50 million by 2050. That's an enormous
jump.

The country won't be capable of sustaining that growth,
and logically, something needs to be done. Preferably
sooner, than later.
Yet politicians in general, don't seem to want to discuss the issue
of population control.

Being concerned about climate change, and carbon emissions, is
important, but you'd think that population control would be
where you'd begin in solving the problems.

Foxy,
I agree with you on this. We should have a population policy so at least we know where we are heading. It is not only about climate change as people are the biggest threat to our enviroment and having spoken to some Greens members about this, they know it.

The reason the major parties do not have a population is because big buisness wants high immigration to sell more consumer goods. Big business is prepared to buy the favours from the major parties, by way of large donations.

We should be looking at our sustainability and that means being self sufficient wherever possible when need be.

I think the Greens don't push this because they are courting the preferences from the major parties to retain their Senate positions.

Someone once cynically said that we get the politician we deserve and in this case I think that’s so. Democracy at its best honestly achieve consensus at the lowest common denominator.

The Greens are simply a single big issue movement that is trying to broaden their base to become a political party.

As Col obliquely implied (I think) that the greens have taken their constituent base of the more left end of politics and are trying to move into the centre. The Family First is trying to move from the more right. Leaving the Libs and Labor to fight over the centre (the majority of voters).

The differences that determine government is usually down to a comparatively small number of voters either side of the ‘mean’.

Both these minors believe (mistakenly) that they will gain government one day. To do this both parties need to amend their founding policies to appeal to more people in fact ape the majors.

The now ‘defunct?’ Democrats came into being on the premise of “Keep the bastards honest” ( a voters insurance policy against the excesses of either party. They were ‘safe’ appealing to the absolute centre leaning slightly left constituency. All they had to do was put out was reasonable policies that wouldn’t frighten the horses, women and children. This they did this for 30 yrs. Where they went wrong was that some members forgot why the public put them there.
Subsequently they were deserted by those nervous centrists. Now the public has put the Greens in this insurance role. For obvious reason this will fail.

Part of this “towards the centre push” means they have to reinvent themselves shedding their more green focus. They have to come up with centralist policy. Compromise will force them to ape the two big parties.
The average voter won’t accept giving up their right to procreate and business wants evermore workers. No mainstreamer will drink of this politically poison chalice.