The obvious solution is that we don't need to overburden our environment by consistently bringing in record numbers of migrants.

Years ago, Australians responded to demands to achieve zero population growth (ZPG) to protect the environment and ensure sustainability for forthcoming generations. ZPG was put forward as the only viable solution, or have things changed?

Other than it being beaut for the profits of big business and banks, what is the point of rushing towards peak population (a rubbery number) when it is obvious that we do not have the infrastructure and the environment is being trashed? What does the individual taxpayer get out of what is probably the world's highest immigration except high taxes, loss of quality of life, loss of culture and loss of job?

Even one death due to a nuclear accident is one too many of course, But it has already been proved that it is the safest form of consistent energy for base load yet devised. Coal ? well look at the statistics. Thousands killed in coal mines every year in China, and hundreds in the USA alone. Would you ban the motor car because it has cost the lives of literally millions over the life of this mode of transport ? 100,000 are killed in India each year. As I have said in these columns before, nuclear has an emotional connotation because of its connection to bombs and and cancer and people cannot divorce the spectre of an uncontrollable disaster in their minds. Australia could make a lot of money by processing spent fuel and burying it in one of the most stable geological formations on this planet. We are missing the boat on this form of energy when the rest of the world is adopting it efficiently and safely. Technology has moved on a long way from Five Mile Island and Chernobel. At the risk of repeating myself, I would rather live close to a nuclear reactor than a coal fired polluting power station if I had to make a choice. Nuclear should be used in a basket of alternatives including solar, wind and geothermal.

With nothing but true respect for some greens who post here I am afraid, of the greens.
I am without reserve a conservationist.
Want us to plant two trees for every one we cut down.
Recycle all water, no not drink ex sewage, we could ,do, but would have no need to.
I want no demand water tanks on every home, every block of units or flats every factory in our country.
That this water is used for gardens, washing cars trucks and buildings.
But I fear the greens.
A refusal to see such as Nuclear power can be part of a cleaner environment, to even talk about 22 country's in the EU who use it now.
A demand we stop using coal, do you understand they mean now? right now?
I understand Bob Brown has done many good things, equally bad things.
I will not condemn him because he is homosexual, nore will I lionize him because of it.
Because I am conservationist, because they say the greens will win ten senate seats I fear the greens.
Do we want them controlling our country's climate change policy's?
Nuclear kills less than petroleum and coal, less than construction workplace deaths.

Belly,
Catalyst the other night ran a program on coal gasification that allegedly reduces emissions by startling results but it too has problems. salt water on one hand and subsidence on the other. Both of which are technically possible to fix but is it economical? An there in lies one of the flaws in our reasoning. "Is it economical" rather than "Is it sustainable?" profit will be a moot point if we continue to live in our unsustainable fashion.

I note the mental midgets from "Refugee Rangers"& "Migrant Militia" are at it again. Even if successful their limited reasoning wouldn't make a stone in gibber desert of difference.

35 million in Australia is only sustainable if we and the major polluter nations' people change 'lifestyle' (god I hate that word a coverall for ultra extravagance)dramatically. Something approaching 30% reduction world wide makes more sense.

That means ALL of us must sacrifice our excesses. No that doesn't mean primitive living either. It means substantially re-adjusting the fact that 20% consumes 70% of the resources. If we don't we'll al be in boats eventually but going where?

Or better yet, how about BOTH- people should learn to live more responsibly (a standard that merely cuts out excess), WITHOUT having to accommodate the crowding hordes?

To accommodate more people, EVERYONE has to live in a manner outright worse than what they presently have- regardless if they were living sustainably.

Seeing as destruction, clearing and development of new housing estates on natural land (and farmland) is already a big problem- population is an issue that we WILL still have to address (and no, NOT with eugenics).

But for some (I imagine many- including more environmentally sensible people), making these sacrifices for the purpose of ACCOMMODATING MORE PEOPLE is NOT an option.

snake, "Australia could make a lot of money by processing spent fuel and burying it in one of the most stable geological formations on this planet."

That is what the big push is all about isn't it, burying Uncle Sam's waste in our backyard under the rationalisation that the producer should be responsible from cradle to grave? Great spin, but entirely unconvincing.

It was nothing short of amazing how Howard, after being feted by the US State Department and was suddenly lecturing the Canadians (his next stop) on the benefits of nuclear energy. The change was so sudden it wrong-footed his closest cabinet buddies back home. George Bush's 'man of steel' was putty in the hands of the US State Department.

What about all of the scientific B.S. that places like Arizona are the 'solution' to long term 'storage' (read as dumping) of the most poisonous and long-lasting waste on Earth? What is going wrong with that?

The inescapable truth is that no government has come up with a safe way of dumping nuclear waste and the sly State Department realised a heaven-sent opportunity to take advantage of the fawning, ingratiating John Howard. That is one of the features of the (miss-named) Liberal Party, that they would sell the future of our children for a dollar in the here and now and it is a prime reason why the libs (what a joke) will remain in opposition - no-one can trust them with the household silver nor with the deeds of the farm.