Those who mindlessly advocate further population growth on this dry continent (whether for claiming to be motivated by altruism or unapologetically callous greed) should contemplate the dire predicament that residents of the western regions of the United States face thanks to the past efforts of similarly reckless and irresponsible growth merchants over there.

COVER STORY: Water Woes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/sunday/main13562.shtml

The Colorado River is the water source for 27 million people in seven Western states. But years of drought and increased demand have cut the water supply in half, leaving the river at risk. Environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls the Colorado "a train wreck at this point," and scientists are predicting that the Lake Mead Reservoir along the Colorado could be a virtual dry hole by the year 2021. In our Sunday Morning Cover Story, correspondent Jerry Bowen looks at the water crisis in the West, and how farmers and city dwellers are addressing the very real possibility that there won't be enough water to go around. He talks with Kennedy, with the water planner for Las Vegas, with an avocado grower in California forced to stump nearly a-third of his avocado trees, and with the scientist whose research sounded the alarm about the Colorado.

For more information on the IMAX film, "Grand Canyon Adventure: River at Risk", go to http://www.grandcanyonadventurefilm.com

For more information on the book "Grand Canyon: River at Risk", go to
http://www.earthawareeditions.com

For more information on the Scripps Institution of Oceanography study,
go to http://www.sio.ucsd.edu

(Information provided by http://www.populationmedia.org mailing list)

As a Greens member I've always agitated for the party to develop a more explicit population policy, rather than the current compromise position that seeks to accommodate both sustainability and human rights concerns, but ultimately satisfies neither. It's not so much that the Greens have "lost the plot" on population issues, but rather that we are an increasingly mainstream political party with comprehensive policies that cover the full gamut of issues, rather than the single-issue environmental party that some people would like us to be.

As such, humanitarian concerns must compete with ecological sustainability when the Greens develop policies, which we do via consensus processes that tend to work against the adoption of extreme or radical policy positions - such as those who wish to impose absolute population caps etc would have us promote. In defence of the Greens with respect to population issues, at least they acknowledge that population and sustainability are closely related, and that current per capita consumption levels of energy and resources would be unsustainable even if Australia's population was capped at its current level.

I think that the Greens are the only mainstream political party that incorporates even this relatively obvious position within their policies - unlike, for example, Ms Spence's ALP or what passes for their Opposition.

I would like to see the population issue treated in the same fashion as climate change by our policy makers.

For climate change, there is the requirement for very compelling scientific evidence before taking action. In contrast, the justification for population growth is on the same scientific level as water divining. What is needed is policy which is strongly supported by the evidence.

Draggett and others.
I wonder if we haven’t wandered off the objectives of this article are by some of the responses.
To me there are only two valid response objectives:
1. To explain the apparent hypocrisy of the Greens stand on Population control.
I suggested that the answer to this issue lie in the different perspectives of the two entities involved.
• The greens their origins and ultimate expectation of Government in their own rights, which will require political compromise.
• And the public’s trying to shoe horn them in the “Keep the Bastards Honest “ role. (The” Power [personal egos as opposed to public demand] tends to corrupt …” dictum applies well).

2. To discuss the Population Control issue.
The whole population issue was a red Herring, an excuse to blame others or do nothing because “my” consumption/ children are reasonable!
Suppose that tomorrow visitors from Andromeda came and convinced 1.5 Billion of our population equally chosen, left with them for other worlds.
Our problems would remain. The residual effects. Now lets say that because things would be cheaper the remaining people all started to consume the over supply with its accompanying waste .They would rapidly make up for the migrants. The Result: We would still have the problem. Hence the Population is vector the problem is the consumption/waste (profligate behaviour).
The current models are set to ASSUMPTIVE rates of consumption, waste, technology and should be understood as such.
We would agree population control is (too hard, too slow ) . I suggest with this Problem Based perspective offers better more achievable options like behaviour modification, technology and political change (?) come into the mix.
One of the impediments is self interest coupled with that the status Quo of existing parties and power structures.

My point to Col was intended to show that current definitions are part of the problem not the solution. i.e. All the current systems are generalizations (the ideals are corrupted by their implementation.) and hobble appropriate thinking and imagination. Both Factors that humans excel an and models can’t reasonably allow for.

Examinator,

I think it is to be expected that the discussion should wander into the more general issue of population and immigration, particularly as only one avowed Green has entered this discussion so far.

I personally don't see why the Greens should have to make any compromises in order to make a far greater impact than they are now. All they would need to do is simply take on board the decent policies once held by Labor - opposition to privatisation and the dogma of neo-liberalism, setting up a Peoples' Bank and government owned insurance companies, spend on sustainable infrastructure projects, redistribution of the wealth stolen by Australia's wealthy elite in recent decades back to ordinary people etc. etc., in addition to genuine environmental policies including the stabilisation of our population and the Greens would rocket up in the public opinion polls.

I don't completely understand the point of the rest of your post. Clearly stabilisation or even reduction of population in and of itself is not going to solve the problem and will only buy time. Of course, we have to find ways to curb our consumption of resources and make our society more efficient. A good step forward would be to ditch the ideology of 'free market' neo-liberal economics.

However, anyone who thinks that we can solve the serious social, ecological and economic problems we face without stabilising our population has no grip on reality.

---

I note that most of the normally strident population growth advocates seem, of late, to have been unable to find their voices. Could it be that they have found Fester's challenge that they provide EVIDENCE to support their case too daunting?

Dear friends....

ultimately politics is about survival and if you don't have power, your policies, no matter how good don't mean squat.

The Greens reluctance to talk about 'population' in my view is based on their appositional eagerness to bring "refugees" here and migrants with a predisposition to vote for those who waved their flag for them.

Those who helped.. have them indebted now... how do you payback? with your vote of course.

It doesn't matter that the numbers seem insignificant.. the Greens depend on MARGinal seats.. they know.. fully that a handful of people can actually make the difference.. and give them power.

Then..instead of the blood soaked killing fields of Camodia we will have the economic and environmental killing fields of Australia, where the possums rule and we need to get the green wombat Oracle's planning permission for our little humpy (which by now is all we can afford)