Dear Belly,

Thanks for that.

Here's another link that may be of interest:

http://theconversation.com/australias-population-what-is-sustainable-2476

Suu you on another thread.

Lexi, thanks again.

I will keep an eye on that sustainability conference. I note they already have 62 speakers and panelists lined up, so it sounds like rather large event. I see that one of them is Robert Hill, professor in sustainability and former federal environment minister in the early 90s. Hmmm, I don’t remember him fondly in that role. I wonder if he’s learnt anything about sustainability since? ( :>/

From your other link - The article by Don Clifton; while I agree with it in general, is a little unfortunate.

He writes:

< …before we even start asking, “what is a sustainable population for Australia?”, we need to ask “what is a sustainable lifestyle?” >.

Well…. No!

It is clear from what he is saying that the smaller our population, the better. And we should therefore head strongly towards a stable population. A stable population, as low as we could achieve it, is as close to a sustainable population as we could get, within the reasonably short term. At the same time we have to work like buggery on all the per-capita energy and resource consumption issues and renewable energy and resource issues to make sure that it is a sustainable population.

< The inconsistencies here are obvious – adding more people while trying to bring the overall ecological impact down makes a hard job that much harder. >

Yes, absolutely.

Thanks Lexi, good link.
I got to see the whole debate, the one mentioned in my last post.
Dick Smith was concerned but my reading is most think any fast stop in population growth would be bad.
It was mentioned some limits would introduce very bad things like financial break down.
I see we all, in our DNA think limits should be imposed, but most understand it is for the future not now.
Remember, try to see from Ludwig eyes, this thread targets the ALP, now in truth, on many fronts you could find a wrong.
But in this area Labor is clean, all sides share its direction, a bigger Australia.
Of most interest was the thought we must raise the tax pool, or pay more tax, just to continue the services we have now.

This is indeed old ground we are covering, Ludwig.

>>I want to see us head towards a stable population. As part of this, I’ve always advocated a zero net immigration policy<<

What you invariably fail to explain is how you will achieve this, and what the economic impact of your policies are likely to be.

With a "zero net immigration" policy, our population will slowly decline, our industries will suffer, imports would cost more thus posing a direct challenge to our living standards, and we will enter an era of permanent recession. As house prices steadily fall, the number of families exposed to the challenges of negative equity will rise, creating our very own version of the GFC - the AFC, if you will.

If you are advocating a policy of "zero population growth" - for example, one that allows immigration to the extent that it "tops up" our existing numbers - you will achieve pretty much the same result, only it might take a little longer. In the latter case you would also have to be a little careful how you count inbound students in your plans, and how you would simultaneously prevent a brain-drain of talent. Your ideas would most certainly make pursuing a career overseas extremely attractive.

Simplistic solutions such as this have a habit of turning out to contain multitudinous traps for the unwary. There is absolutely no realistic benefit to your "zero net immigration" idea, unless you are able to clothe it with a great deal more restrictions and qualifications than to date you have shared with us.

Got to keep the economy running ever faster through more and more migrants. Big, bigger and never a biggest Australia as far as population goes. Yes, got that image,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHu8LAWSKxU

How many know that Gillard has migrant numbers running highest since 1945?

Again, the Greens are in favour of 'solving' the world overpopulation by taking the overflow here. BUT, and it is a very big 'but', the Greens are utterly opposed to young Australian couples having children. They call them 'breeders' and worse.

So, it is back to the caves (your lifestyle is unsustainable), no more Aussie children and euthanase the old, so that Australia can solve the world's population problems. Imagine another hamster wheel, but filled with Green Lemmings.

onthebeach,
Australia already has a low natural birthrate so there is no need to limit children that couples may have. Just lower the immigration numbers.

For those interested in the world picture, birthrates can be lowered by governments promoting family planning. Iran and Thailand both lowered birthrates from above 6 per woman to less than 2 per woman.

One can compare the economies of Thailand and the Phillipines, where they are similar countries, one promotes family planning and the other does not.