According to the WWF http://tinyurl.com/5cbbbb Australians are consuming four times as much per capita as we should.

"So Australians are among the biggest consumers of the world's resources.

"The sustainable average round the world is probably about two hectares per person. So we're using about four times more resources than we should be."

But when you look at the map in the Living Planet Report, which is produced by WWF and is the basis for these comments http://tinyurl.com/5mfqoy you find that we have 50 to 100 percent more biocapacity than we need. Canada does even better 100 to 150 percent more. However the Mediterranean, India and China do much worse having less biocapacity than they need.

This suggests to me that rather than using too much biocapacity, we aren't using enough. Someone has to take up the slack to feed these other countries.

The concept of an ecological footprint is a good one. But its quantification is extremely difficult. There are just so many factors, some of which are highly variable or just about impossible to confidently quantify.

A figure of about two hectares per person on average around the world is just extraordinarily fuzzy.

But one thing is certain; it is well and truly time to stop the human impact on this planet from forever increasing.

If we were to take up any biocapacity ‘slack’ in Australia in order to feed other countries that have overstepped their mark, we would be highly irresponsible as we would just be feeding the growth of the continuous human population and thus the continuously increasing ecological footprint.

If we could implement population stabilisation measures forthwith around the world, then it might be appropriate for countries with under-utilised biocapacity to increase their output. In other words; if increased output improved the quality of life for millions of people that are desperately poor and malnourished without facilitating any further population growth, then considerably increased ecological damage in some biocapacity-rich countries might be a reasonable trade-off.

But its not really worth thinking about, because we aren’t going to deal with the population issue.

So therefore we should not be increasing our output in Australia, at great ecological expense, in order to feed overcrowded nations. We should be looking after this continent and striving to limit the ecological damage and achieve a sustainable society.... and helping other countries to do the same.

Ludwig, I'm not sure that we have that moral luxury. Forcing a proportion of people to starve because someone else's population is increasing doesn't sound like a defensible proposition to me.

Graham, it may not sound very nice, but he really is right.

Flying food, & aid into a starving, overpopulated country, or region, so they can increase the birth rate, even more is not very smart, or kind.

Increasing the number due to starve next time, when you know a next time must occur, is not any more humane, than doing nothing, it just makes you feel better.

It's like saving a joey from its road kill mother, in an area where roos are being culled because of overpopulation, it's kind of stupid, & you know it is, when you do it.

It's only in the last 50 years that we have almost eliminated mass human starvation events, all round the world, & just may be, we shouldn't have. It has always been natures way of controlling the population of all things, including us.

*Forcing a proportion of people to starve because someone else's population is increasing doesn't sound like a defensible proposition to me.*

Graham, its not about forcing a population to starve, but the
question arises, how far do our obligations go, if people refuse
to be responsible for their own actions?

You are really trying to go against the laws of nature here.

Let me put it another way. If I have 11 children, is it your
responsibility to feed them all for me?

Now if you were prepared to offer some birth control and family
planning for my wife, that might just be the more sensible solution
in the longer term.

*Graham, its not about forcing a population to starve, but the
question arises, how far do our obligations go, if people refuse
to be responsible for their own actions?*

Yabby
I agree with you. Thats why we disagree on shipping off our raw materials and our jobs to ME and China.

```*So now you agree its our place to prodive our own food in Australia.*```

That good. I take it you have now changed your mind about Australia being the largest supplier of live animals in the world and relying on bringing it back in through China etc.

I am very pleased to see that Yabby because the milk scare is just the start.
Good I can go to sleep now knowing you will support producing our own milk and meat products to feed our own people and export the rest which creates jobs for Australians.

Very good Yabby.

I am so pleased Graham opended this thread.

Glad you finally see the light.

PS btw they now make birth control for men too.

You should tell your wife when you find her:)

*Thats why we disagree on shipping off our raw materials and our jobs to ME and China.*

Gertrude, nowhere did I state that I disagree with shipping off
raw materials to other countries. In a market economy, its really
up to consumers and investors to decide on where things are processed
and where there is a comparative advantage.

Frankly, one of my biggest nightmares would be the very thought of
being married to any of the posters on the animal welfare threads,
as I have seldom experienced such a lack of rational thinking,excluding all else.

All emotion and no ability to reason, invariably lands up in disaster.

IMHO, let some other male sucker put up with those crazy females, I certainly would not :)

Aust (and the developed world) may be using a disproportionate level of resources, or producing a disproportionate level of pollution, but it/they also produce a disproportionate level of solutions:
-As Graham noted , countries like Aust make up much of the shortfall in food supplies and, not a year goes by without us be implored to bail out one or other, poor country.

And it is also worth noting that:
-It is highly likely that any vaccines, for new or existing maladies will come from the developed countries
-It is highly likely that new developments in alternative energy will come the developed countries (the others may beg, borrow or steal -but few will develop it - much of the solar power technology now being exploited in China was developed at the University of NSW)
- Many of the underdeveloped worlds best and brightest will be given free or subsided education at developed world institutions ( even sometimes it seems at the expense of locals)

Pollution does not confine itself to national boundaries-nor does population.
Our neighbours excess population today, will be our refugee intake tomorrow.

Groups like WWF which run the argument that -Aust is using more than its
per capita share- and don’t push population controls/reduction with equal vehemence, are running a racked , not far removed from the Nigerian letter scam.

“Groups like WWF which run the argument that -Aust is using more than its per capita share- and don’t push population controls/reduction with equal vehemence, are running a racked (sic) , not far removed from the Nigerian letter scam.””

YES!

One of the most perplexing things for me over the last couple of decades has been the extraordinarily biased effort conducted by most so-called environmental organisations, that just completely miss the issue of continuous population growth and the resultant ever-increasing rate of resource consumption and waste production.

“Pollution does not confine itself to national boundaries-nor does population. Our neighbours excess population today, will be our refugee intake tomorrow.”

Mmm don’t know about that Horus. Air pollution doesn’t confine itself to boundaries, but various others sorts of pollution do, more or less.

We’d better hope that population is boundary-dependent and remains so to a very high degree, or else we may as well all give up right now in Australia. Other country’s excess population today will increase pressure for us to take more refugees tomorrow. But hopefully by the time that the pressure really mounts, we’ll have cottoned onto the concept that population stabilisation is an essential factor for sustainability and a half-decent quality of life and we’ll be able to resist taking in huge numbers.

YES
Well said Ludwig.
It might be also very interesting guys to trace some of the funding from these err, environmental groups.

Yabby
Wrong Again ( but you should be used to that by now.)

Gertrude’s, here

Gee that’s not very nice Yabbs+ just as I was about the propose too :)

Well ``GOllie`` Gomma, why am I not surprised to hear your not against exporting our raw materials ah.

You know you can’t have a shilling either way Yabb`s.

At times you say, you have written 'long' letters, to voice opinions to Government that they should stop blocking plants with red tape through MLA to reopen abattoirs.

You claim the biggest problem for farmers in Australia is lack competition to fletchers. I agree.

Then you say there is nothing wrong with sending off all our raw material.

Well how on earth do you propose we fix the problem that (you pointed in the first place) if you then turn around and support the people shipping off our raw materials. Huh.

Correct me if I am wrong but to me that’s counter productive.

Are you sure your not a poly wearing sheep’s clothing and hiding behind a cowboy hat.
Of course the WWF report is based on zero so I won’t even comment on that. Where are the facts and figures- based on what? All products produced etc... Cant be bothered to even try to go there.

Except to say that if their claims were true it might be a good example of how Australians regional areas are mismanaged.

Perhaps someone ought to start to listen to Peter Anderson.

http://www.halakindmeats.com/aussiehero.html

This man Environment scientists Dr Annabelle Keene and Dr Richard Bush from Southern Cross University have been testing Peter Andrews' theories on Gerry Harvey's property as part of a research project. They say the change in short periods of time has been "mind blowing".

Speaking of mind blowing the massive erosion of value adding in this country and employment opportunities given to overseas certainly must be hiding under your hat as well.

Ecological footprint indeed. More like Ecological disaster.

If Australia is blessed with biocapacity isnt it a tragedy that we have chased the orinial landowners off their land,and set about to ravage and destroy the land we have.... even seeking the help of non Australian (ie American and French multinationals)...even provided grants to encourage their efforts!! Wake up Australia...support our country! Thanks Graham for bringing this to our attention!