Population growth is the main driver of greenhouse gas emissions according to Dr Bob Birrell.

“It is a puzzle as to why the Rudd Government has made no reference, nor its advisor Professor Garnaut to this factor”

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2311605.htm

Runner shows that population growth advocates leave AGW zealots for dead on the scaremongering scale. There are several countries decades ahead of Australia in the age race. Surely then, if these countries a seen to be suffering a calamity, we will have decades to find solutions wont we?

I am also amazed at the differential appraisal of technology by population growth advocates: For the vast problems created by Australia's population, technology is our guiding light and Saviour. Yet for dealing with an aging population, we are in the stone age. Surely technology has something to offer here?

And perhaps a healthy population is of far greater economic relevance than an aging population. Maybe there should be some studies of the economic benefits of better health. e.g. How much damage does the deplorable standard of fast food do to the nations health, and consequently the economy? Yet when do I read about national industry groups lamenting the economic damage caused by mass marketed transfat laden stodge? Never!

Then there is the enormous potential of medical science: In fact the two could be combined, with economic analysis giving an idea of the cost of various afflictions, so suggesting a potential value for developing a treatment.

The argument that more people are needed to pay taxes to keep an ageing population is complete and utter mythology - they were using such tactics in the 1950s and giving dire warnings of an ageing population then!. The mathematics of this argument don't stand up to scrutiny - there is a vast cost to the State to keep any new citizens and children in education, health, pensions, housing and infrastructure etc etc. Taxes paid today by people who will be retiring tomorrow.
The real situation is that governments are spending the money paid today in taxes which should be funding tomorrow's old age pensions if it was wisely invested, on these other increased services when they should be investing it on behalf of the current taxpayers to fund their retirement. So the mythology has been created to hide government misuse of taxes.

ChazP the situation is nastier than you describe, not only are taxes collected squandered on short term pork barrelling like baby bonuses, Mersey hospital, more freeways, NT intervention. There is no planning for a future of high fuel prices, mobile medical graduates migrating to the US, global warming, drier south eastern Australia.

Studies done in 2007 show that if there were 100,000 migrants the average Sydneysider will take 21 minutes longer to travel to work and would have to work an extra 41 minutes a week not to fall behind. Many environmentalists believe that Australia can sustain a population of 13 million. The current practice of exporting food in leading to rapid desertification of the food bowl areas of south western Asutralia and the Murray Darling Basin.

The Australian Financial Review says that the new retirement age will be 70, meanwhile people in their 50s are still falling prey to diseases of old age like osteoarthritis, cancers, blindness. A self funded retiree is no strain on the public purse whilst a baby born will require childcare for 5 years, schooling for 13 years which the tax payer pays and for about a third of all kids the taxpayer pays a single parent pension, rent subsidy and an allowance for each child. People make half their demands on the health system in their final 2 years of life whether they die at 5, 42, 75 or 91.

Meanwhile we have an employment culture which retrenches workers in their 40s, makes workers pay compulsory super which can only be accessed after the age of 55 or 60 and denies them unemployment benefits if they have money in superannuation.

Fester

'Runner shows that population growth advocates leave AGW zealots for dead on the scaremongering scale.'

You obviously have not read any of the scaremongering from the likes of Flannery, Garnaut or Gore or you choose to be ignorant.

Some quotes from an article on “Human Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

“The world’s population has doubled since 1965 and is currently growing by nearly 80 million people per year. Demographers at the United Nations project this growth will continue and for world population to be in the range of 7.8 billion to 10.8 billion by 2050.”

“The overwhelming majority of this growth will occur in the developing world. As developing countries continue on a path of economic growth and industrialization, their contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions will increase. Due to the sheer volume of world population growth, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from shifts in energy use and sequestration will be partially offset by the increase in human activity resulting from an increase in population.”

“Varying assumptions about population growth, economic growth, and technological change are included in the IPCC’s “emissions scenarios.” Not surprisingly, the scenario that results in the smallest temperature increase by the end of the 21st century (1.8 degrees Celsius) incorporates the lowest population growth projection (7.1 billion people in 2100)”.

7.1 billion people in 2100? That seems rather optimistic considering that by 2050 the “UN Predicts 12 Billion if Family Planning Falters” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

An extra 5 billion would have quite an impact on emissions and other environmental damage…

And yet the current climate change agreement only seems to focus on fossil fuel emissions, and doesn’t properly address the impact of continued population growth.

Given the impact of continued population growth, it is shocking that the “benefits of family planning remain out of reach for many, especially for those who often have the hardest time getting the information and services they need to plan their families.” Apparently, the US is withholding funds for international family planning programs for “domestic political reasons”. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/Human%20Population%20Growth%20and%20Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions1.pdf

I suggest that if the new climate change agreement continues to ignore the impact of population growth, as did the Kyoto Protocol, it will be a failure. It’s about time consideration of the impact of population growth was put high on the climate change agenda.