*Okay compared to Australia's domestic use figures of 176m3/p/y South Africa's is 82, Egypt is 70, Iran is 24, Israel, the dirty guzzlers, are 92, Jordan is 37*

But Csteele, we are neither South Africans living in squalid camps
there, nor are we Egyptians etc. In fact we export food to all
these countries, because we can, due to our lower population levels.

What you are implying is that we need to divide up global resources
equally amongst the world's population. In that case I will put to
you that we should then divide up creating babies, who use resources,
based on your logic.

Based on your logic of equal resources, I, who haven't had 11
children or whatever, as is common in the third world, can clearly
use alot more then a third world man who leaves babies everywere
amongst his four or more wives.

My point is that we are Australians, using our resources to our
best advantage, which includes feeding millions around the world.

Now if you want to start allocating resources, you cannot justify
it without allocating babies. It would make no sense at all.

Dear Yabby,

Got a little lost in your post I'm afraid.

My wife and I are both from families of 5 children. My wife's mother was one of 17. My two children have have 18 first cousins just on my wife's side. We are not third world where having 11 children is quite uncommon nowadays. Iran has a lower fertility rate than Australia.

In 2008 Australia was ranked 15th in wheat producers. We harvested 13.4 million metric tonnes of the stuff. China, the top producer harvested 109.9 (7 times that of Australia), India was second with 74.9 (over 5 times us). Some of the other countries that produced more than us included Pakistan at 23.4, Germany at 21.4, Turkey at 17.7, Iran at 15 and even the UK at 13.4. The majority of countries are obtaining yields well above ours.

Yes the drought has had a little bit to do with it by we are hardly top 5 stuff any more. The EU was an importer until 20 years ago now it exports well above Australian quantities.

Both Iran and Pakistan have lifted their production by 50% in the last decade. Russia has plans to do likewise over the next ten years.

I'm not sure that we are feeding millions around the world as overfeeding millions in certain select areas. For instance in 2008 our agriculture sales to Africa were less than one tenth that of what went to three countries, US, Canada and Japan. Now that is certainly using our resources to our best advantage. Just not maybe the world's.

I do not think food production will be a problem any time soon. Where I do see possible food issues happening is in countries without the means to purchase on the open markets.

Csteele,
You point would be valid if the Chinese had not let their
population grossly exceed the carrying capacity of the country.
I am not sure if the subsidy will be applied on a prorata basis or
per country.
It cannot even be guarenteed that the subsidies will just not reappear
in Swiss Bank accounts.

If we have cleared too much land then that is our problem and we should reafforest the country.
>'All we are asking is for parity for our citizens.'
Is a nonsense. How about parity of oil consumption ?
Their population is so large for the country that it distorts every
way that you can look at the problem.

Csteele

In an effort to bring this thread back to the topic.

Are you saying that the intention behind the government's large scale immigration policy is part of an effort to share Australian resources with the rest of the world?

If so shouldn't they be honest about it?

How do you think the Australian electorate would react to such a proposition?

So far as water use goes, yes we certainly could improve our water use efficiency. I am amazed at how lackadaisical we've been. The amount of water lost through evaporation from open irrigation channels in Victoria used to be about 2 – 3 times Melbourne's annual consumption.

We are improving tho'. Still, I agree with you. A lot more could be done.

Some of your responses to Yabby make no sense. For example, China produces 7 – 8 times as much wheat as we do. But it has 60 times the population. PER CAPITA we produce about 8 times as much as China.

Per capita we also produce a lot more beef than China. Beef is an especially water-intensive source of protein.

To put Australia's per capita "water footprint" in context see:

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/waterfootprintcalculator_national

NB: This does not show how much of our water footprint is exported. It does however show that many countries import "virtual water" which is why their water footprint may APPEAR to be low.

For example Germany's per capita water footprint is actually greater than Australia's but more than half of it is imported.

But, please csteele,

how do you think the Australian electorate would react if the prime minister explained that large scale immigration was not for their benefit; it was to help share the burden of the population bubble?

I really would like to see you reply to that question.

Dear Bazz,

You wrote; ”Your point would be valid if the Chinese had not let their
population grossly exceed the carrying capacity of the country.”

Now that is just 'silly talk'.

These are the poor lot that instituted the one child policy and who kept their rate of increase over the last 50 years under Australia's. What they should have focussed more directly on was pulling their people out of poverty as the best way to lower fertility rates.

As to China feeding itself, in 2007 Australia and the US were complaining about Chinese wheat EXPORTS! With the low currency rate for China the others were claiming it was 'dumping' wheat on to the world market.

Dear Steven,

Of the G20 countries Australia has the second lowest proportion of our GDP made up of manufacturing at 10%. Only Saudi Arabia is worse with 8%.

China is 32%.

This is one area we need to dramatically improve. Nothing wrong with the mining and farming sectors but we are stripping our country dry to achieve our wealth through these means.

Our government needs to be far more focussed on manufacturing for our long term security and this will take people.

That would be the argument I would be taking to the Australian people if I were in the government's shoes.

So I am not saying “the intention behind the government's large scale immigration policy is part of an effort to share Australian resources with the rest of the world” but it is one that should be considered in the debate.

The fact that our nation has been open to immigration and refugees in the past has shown a willingness to share the world's burdens, so if framed properly with the correct amount of statesmanship then I think the argument could be made.

However I do not think our current crop of politicians have anywhere near the required level of statesmanship do so.

BTW sweet link, thanks.

China does export some food, there are even some vegetables on sale in
the local fruit & veg supermarket.
Never the less, China is scouring the world for resources at present
and to quote their premier, "We will burn all your coal and then burn ours".
No, any form of per head accounting balancing is going to be almost
impossible to administer and impossible to police.
By the way, our birth rate is below replacement level.

Water usage in Sydney has fallen very significantly.
My own bill has fallen 30% according to the Sydney Water bill.

After some recent rains our damns went above 60% but are again falling.
We just do not have sufficient water for a larger population in
Sydney, otherwise the damn levels would never get to be as low as
the 30% they last fell to.
The desal plant under construction is an attempt to fill in the low
level and might work if there were very severe restrictions in place.
Seven million would need a fleet of desal plants along the coast
and an expensive pumping operation.
Water alone rules out Kevin's dream of glory.