According to the WWF: "Australia has one of the world's largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 6.6 global hectares per person."

I agree. At present Australia has a grab off the shelf, use and throw away approach to living. As we continue to increase our population through immigration - from people who come from well off countries, we only make the situation worse.

People can undertake a ecological footprint quiz online at:

http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/footprint_calculator/

Excellent, Nathan:

Your friends from the WWF managed to convince me that I am a bad person, living on the resources of 3 planets: I will therefore need to suffer more colds this winter.

Nathan, have you considered that about two thirds of our country is dessert!

Have you also considered our population per Ha is minuscule.

I agree we need to suspend immigration, but not for your reasons.

I did the survey, and what a load of bollocks.

Nathan, I did the footprint calculator

If everyone lived like me, we’d need 2.9 planet Earths. To support my lifestyle if takes 5.2 global hectares of the Earth’s productive area. ( :>(

Ah but, there are important things that this calculator doesn’t take into account:

I haven’t had any sprogs. This in an enormous factor affecting one’s consumption. In fact, it is about as big, and potentially a whole lot bigger, than everything else put together regarding one’s lifestyle, consumption patterns and overall footprint.

I am not sitting back and letting our national ecological footprint get rapidly larger by way of rapid population growth. I am having a lot to say about the enormous folly of our huge immigration intake and worship of never-ending rapid growth. Again, this is enormously important. WWF seems to miss this altogether. They are NOT addressing the footprint issue in a holistic manner unless they do this, with at least as much fervour as they do for the personal consumption side of things. In fact, if they are not being very vocal indeed about continuous population growth, then they are not addressing the footprint and sustainability issue AT ALL!!

One has to consume stuff at a level that is in keeping with their society. If an individual reduces their consumption as far as possible, they put themselves at a considerable disadvantage within a culture where everyone else is consuming much more. And they would be achieving nothing if they were one of very few individuals who did this, while everyone else continued on as per normal.

There is a much more important thing to do than to reduce one’s personal consumption to the bare bones. This is to SPEAK OUT - to join the voices of concern about our government’s facilitation of a continued rapidly worsening footprint, about the disparity between supply and demand of all basic resources, and about our society heading in the WRONG DIRECTION as far as sustainability is concerned.

An interesting angle on the issue.

I am not convinced that my personal ecological footprint - which is apparently less than the Australian average, and less even than Ludwig's - is a justification for lowering our intake of immigrants. In fact, surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case.

My own, relatively smaller contribution is most likely to be the result of my living in a city. I most probably travel less than most, whether by car or public transport (I use both), and share my physical living space with others.

Given that many immigrants find themselves in a very similar situation - i.e. city-dwelling, little-travelling, high-density-living - then it follows that the more of them we have, the lower will be our average ecological footprint.

And reducing our ecological footprint from its present 6.6 global hectares per person would appear, from the tone of NathanJ's post, to be a good thing, yes?

This forum has a sub group. They are called "The Unholy Alliance".

They are the forum anti immigration bigots. They consist of 2 rather separate groups, who have come together as brothers in arms against immigration.

The first group is the six or seven racists and cultural haters on this forum, who base their hate on radical right wing ideological misinformation. The second group is the two or three immigration haters who base their hate on radical left wing ecological misinformation.

These haters have come together as one on this forum.

Haters never change. They will go to the grave that way. Thus it's pointless trying to change them. They are a tiny, tiny minority of hateful Australians who are good at jumping up and down and yelling and screaming. They will eventually die, and hopefully be replaced by people of decency, humanity and compassion.

Nature doesn't do per capita, Pericles. If there are enough people, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low. China is now the highest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, even if you exclude production for export, and consumes twice as much meat as the US. This is not because the average Chinese is living high on the hog.

You also seem to have bought into the guff about boundless plains. Australia is mostly desert, with only about 6% arable. The average quality of that arable land is also very low, apart from some small areas of alluvial soil and over old volcanic hotspots. See these maps of rainfall and soil quality by Dr Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

According to the World Bank, Australia produced an average of 2.2 tonnes of grain per hectare in 2012, with 47.7 million hectares of arable land. France produced 7.5 tonnes per hectare in 2012, with 18.4 million hectares of arable land. Even in a good year, if both countries had planted all the arable land with grain, we would only have been able to produce about 76% as much as France. France has much more reliable rainfall than Australia, so it can count on producing those sorts of harvests every year, but Australia only produced 1.1 tonnes of grain per hectare in 2006. We produce about 3 times as much as we consume ourselves in a good year and 1.6 times as much in a drought year.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-05-06/can-we-feed-“big-australia”

There is also no guarantee that present levels of agricultural production can continue. Apart from possible deterioration due to climate change, we have serious problems with land degradation and urban sprawl covering up good agricultural land. (A lot of people hate the battery chicken lifestyle in dense, crowded cities.) We are also heavily dependent on imports of oil and phosphate rock, which have been becoming scarcer and more expensive, as has food on the world market.

http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

We need to think very carefully before we add any extra mouths.

Divergence, there is not even one tiny figure that you produced that proves that Australia can't sustain a higher population. Your argument is based on ideology and not mathematical, empirical fact.

NathanJ "As we continue to increase our population through immigration - from people who come from well off countries, we only make the situation worse."

Actually more than half of our immigrants are from Medium/Low Human Development countries, and only 31% are from our level (Very High).

And it doesn't matter if Tajik goat herders, who live in a tent, ride a donkey and grow their own veges move here.

As soon as they arrive in Sydney/Melbourne, their rustic low-impact lifestyle will vanish, replaced by high-energy "all mod cons".

Nhoj, if only there *were* an alliance, we might get somewhere!

Unfortunately the greenies want nothing to do with the ethnic nationalists.

The greenies will twist themselves inside out to avoid the racial/cultural ramifications of immigration.

And the cultural continuitists often have environmental concerns too, but this is ignored (along with everything else they say), as they are dismissed as "Nazis".

Neither group is motivated by "hate", but by love, of their people, nature and logic.

The true unholy alliance is between the reality-oblivious flippant, arrogant, pancultural "utopians" who cannot allow their naive faith to be challenged by more sensible perspectives and the libertarians who cannot accept any limits on human choice (even though many immigrants are themselves not tolerant/enlightened enough to embrace those noble ideals).

The panculturalists hate reality, hate their own people (a projection of their self-void), hate the mountain of evidence that says this is an insane experiment that can only end in disaster for all.

And yes, haters never change.

Your naive faith will die.

Unfortunately, only after millions of people pay the price, with the loss of a shared identity/community, loss of living standards and even loss of life.

Good post, Shockadelic, although the cultural factors will be moot if we stuff up the environment badly enough.

Nhoj,

It depends on what you mean by a bigger population and in what time frame. If you are talking about a few more million and not too far in the future, that is one thing, but our growthist elite is subjecting us to 1.8% population growth (60% due to immigration, about a third of the remaining 40% due to births to recent migrants, and the rest due to demographic momentum from the long-standing population). If maintained, this means that our population will keep doubling every 38 and a half years.

Some of us actually care about our children and grandchildren, and about what happens to our friends' children. Some of us even think that other species have a right to live too. From the figures that I have given, it is clear that we won't be able to feed ourselves in a long drought, without even considering other impacts on the environment, if we double our numbers, and it will be even worse if we triple the population. There are a lot of factors out there that have the potential to severely decrease production. We got lucky with the Green Revolution, but it is foolish to bet your children's survival on some marvellous new technology that will come along to save the day.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/australia-faces-prospect-of-being-unable-to-feed-itself-20110713-1hdyn.html#ixzz1S1hsRxuM

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/8896/landdegr.pdf

You might read "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by Prof David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington), as well as "Constant Battles" by Prof Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard) and "War Before Civilization" by Prof Lawrence Keeley (Archaeology, University of Chicago). They will tell you more than you want to know about how societies collapse, because they have trashed their environment or because they simply let safety margins get too thin.

You need to do some reading to open your eyes about the carefully sanitized, Disneyfied, PC version of human history that is spooned into people by elements of the media and the education system, along with big dollops of what Americans call "liberal guilt".

But they are not my measurements, Divergence.

>>Nature doesn't do per capita, Pericles.<<

They are the measurements sanctioned by the WWF (not the wrestlers, the other mob) as being appropriate to beat developed countries around the head with guilt. As stated in the opening post:

"Australia has one of the world's largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 6.6 global hectares per person."

So please, take your per-capita complaint to them.

>>A lot of people hate the battery chicken lifestyle in dense, crowded cities<<

Except, it would seem, many of the immigrants who are the subject of NathanJ's whinge. Thus you should thank them for slowing the "urban sprawl covering up good agricultural land" that concerns you.

And Shockadelic, as we have come to expect, waxes lyrical in his justification of the stance of all the dog-in-the-manger Little Australians:

>>The panculturalists hate reality, hate their own people (a projection of their self-void), hate the mountain of evidence that says this is an insane experiment that can only end in disaster for all.<<

Not entirely sure what is meant here by the term "panculturalists", but most of my acquaintance embrace the reality of the privileged position in which we find ourselves, love their country and its multifaceted population, and do not in any way think of them as an experiment, insane or otherwise.

But perhaps that mindset is also the result of my battery-chicken city existence. Life might be very different for those enduring the back blocks of Woop Woop.

Many people who have commented don't realise that every person living in Australia has an ecological footprint. It doesn't matter if it comes from a person living here now, children living in the future or by increased immigration of any type. Yes there will be impacts from people from middle class countries to consider re population and environmental impacts. I'm not denying that.

People from more financially well off countries, should be targeted first - after all they can afford to live in their own home. Other populations decided individually.

With Australia's limited natural resources and environmental issues we face at present - we must keep Australia's population at a sustainable level.

Some believe technology will fix all of Australia's population related problems - like rubbish, car pollution, basic housing and lack of energy efficiency - but where is the evidence? Technology? Sorry - it is just a belief.

Bigger population numbers do not leave Australia better off environmentally - and it is not helped by increasing population numbers.

Nhoj, I do not consider myself racist.

I love my country but I do hate anything that threatens our peaceful nation, such as certain religions that harbor hate and violence against it's people, which we are one of their targets as being one day considered their people.

Also I don't like lazy layabouts who cry fowl yet receive what is generally unconditional support yet refuse to better themselves.

As for immigration, MY ONLY CONCERN with regards to immigration, IS JOBS, NOTHING MORE other than a certain religion as previously mentioned.

Now if by me thinking this way makes me racists, then I am PROUDLY guilty as charged.

On the other hand, if this makes me racist to the likes of you, then your opinion of me does not occupy enough of my SPARE TIME to warrant a care factor, as your opinions are simply not on my radar.

Now I recall you referred to me as retired. Sorry to inform you that I am not retired, simply semi retired and only earning about $120K these days. It's tough at times, but I do manage. I so miss the land lords, the creditors, the debtors, the staff, the compliance red tape. NOT!

<< I am not convinced that my personal ecological footprint… is a justification for lowering our intake of immigrants. In fact, surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case. >>

Wow Pericles, that’s a strange piece of reasoning.

Maybe immigrants do have footprints a little less than the Australian average. But it is not about average footprints, it is about the total footprint. Obviously a whole lot more people, even if they do have below-average footprints, are going to make the overall footprint considerably larger.

As Divergence says:

<< Nature doesn't do per capita >>

Yes WWF’s position seems lopsided to say the least, being focussed on per-capita footprints and not on the total footprint. But that’s no excuse for your very odd pro-high-immigration and per-capita-footprint-with-no-consideration-of-the-total-footprint stance, which after all our discussions on population/immigration/economy, you must surely realise is fundamentally flawed.

<< The greenies will twist themselves inside out to avoid the racial/cultural ramifications of immigration. >>

Not sure about that Shocka.

The greenies just avoid the issue of immigration / population growth like the plague!

That’s what makes greenies very different from true environmentalists / sustainabilityists!

What Ludwig is "trying" to say is that he's a greenie without a backbone and without a conscience. Ludwig will NEVER criticize the immigration racists on this form ..... he's in alliance with them.

Nhoj.....Its your planet....

Kat

Where's the racisim in wanting to save jobs for our own Nhoj?

Kat .... it's your human race.....

Nhoj.

Rehctub .... here's where it is = "for our own". I'm so glad I could finally clear that up for you.

Here we go again. "Black is white" Ludwig strikes again.

>>But it is not about average footprints, it is about the total footprint.<<

Please refer to the opening line of the opening post:

>>According to the WWF: "Australia has one of the world's largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 6.6 global hectares per person."<<

I expect even the WWF would agree that Australia's total ecological footprint is somewhat less than, say, China's or India's.

I don't quite understand what makes you come out with these counter-factual statements, but they don't tend to form a very sound basis for your arguments.

>>But that’s no excuse for your very odd pro-high-immigration and per-capita-footprint-with-no-consideration-of-the-total-footprint stance<<

The point being made, since you clearly missed it, was that the "remedy" of a halt to immigration proposed by NathanJ was entirely unsupported - even refuted - by the evidence he presented. Much as your claims of growing hardship are gainsaid by the evidence of per capita GDP.

Good morning Pericles.

Thanks for the laugh:

<< "Black is white" Ludwig strikes again. >>

( :>)

As I said previously, WWF’s very unbalanced perspective is no excuse for you to be very unbalanced as well.

I’ll remind you of what you wrote:

<< I am not convinced that my personal ecological footprint - which is apparently less than the Australian average, and less even than Ludwig's - is a justification for lowering our intake of immigrants. In fact, surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case. >>

Well…. where’s the sense in that??

I mean; if we are going to be talking about footprints or ecological impacts or sustainability in Australia in any way, then our population growth is going to be a very large factor. And for you to uphold our current immigration rate is just completely nonsensical and counterintuitive to any comments you make in support of lowering per-capita footprints.

What’s the point in talking about per-capita footprints if the number of ‘capitas’ is going to continue to rapidly increase?

if we are truely overpopulated then we should shoot a few more roos, knock a few more snakes over the head and kill all the sheep. The wwf are a bunch of religous zealots. They along with other alarmist open 'science' up for the mocking it gets. To think that so many gullible believe this nonsense. It shows that the public schools have won the propaganda battle by dumming people down so much.

I sometimes wonder whether you actually read stuff before jumping on your high horse and charging at the windmills, Ludwig.

(And I don't really consider that metaphor to be mixed. More blended, wouldn't you say.)

>>"...surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case" Well…. where’s the sense in that??<<

If you had bothered to follow through and read the justification for my somewhat contrarian position, you would have seen:

>>Given that many immigrants find themselves in a very similar situation - i.e. city-dwelling, little-travelling, high-density-living - then it follows that the more of them we have, the lower will be our average ecological footprint.<<

It is indeed all about averages, Ludwig. The overall ecological footprint divided by the population gives the average footprint - which is the apparent evil to which the WWF was directing our attention.

>>WWF’s very unbalanced perspective is no excuse for you to be very unbalanced as well<<

So, if it is the WWF's perspective that you disagree with, why aim your barbs at me? After all, One of the results of my thought experiment was to point out just how dumb their measurement is, when put into its proper context.

Given that, it is just as likely that this WWF is the wrestling version after all.

Oh, I nearly forgot, Ludwig.

You asked:

>>What’s the point in talking about per-capita footprints if the number of ‘capitas’ is going to continue to rapidly increase?<<

Because, quite simply, the lower the individual (per capita) footprint, the better. And conversely, the higher, the worse.

In much the same way as the higher is our per capita GDP, the better. And conversely, the lower, the worse.

It's that simple.

Unless you can provide examples of how the opposite of these is true, of course. Care to give it a try?

Pericles, "dog-in-the-manger" applies to people holding onto something they don't want to stop others getting it.

Are you saying Australians *don't want* their own culture, identity, territory?
As if!

"Not entirely sure what is meant here by the term "panculturalists"

It's a more accurate term for multiculturalist.
There are no ethnic restrictions, no?

That means *all* cultures are potentially being introduced into Australia and other Western countries, and you are well aware what the prefix pan- means.

"Multi" sounds easy enough.
Most countries in the world have more than one resident culture.
Spain has, Russia has, even "homogenous" Japan has.

But *all* cultures in one place?
A number (multi) of similar/related cultures/peoples might work, but *every* culture/people?
Preposterous!

Your friends are not the "insane experiment".
The whole radical, sudden social transformation is.
No one individual person is the problem. It's the total sum.

Why must you play these pathetic games?
Oh that's right, it's all you've got.

Nhoj "Rehctub .... here's where it is = "for our own". I'm so glad I could finally clear that up for you."

How is "our own" racist?
Are all the people in Australia one race?

I'm sure rehctub means those already living here (700,000 of whom, of various ancestries, are unemployed), but like a true fanatic, you see racism everywhere.

You probably see it in Hundreds and Thousands.
Where's the black and brown ones?

Shockadelic, by "our own" rehctub is *NOT* referring to all current Australian citizens. He's referring to 1850 to 1950 style white, Anglo culture.

Rehctub in a recent post referred to a family that "in his opinion" were dole bludgers, and he immediately pointed out they were not white.

Rehctub (and about 6 or 7 other people here) is a racist through and through. It's a basic fact. And I should point out that calling a racist a racist is not abuse. It's stating a fact. Racists very rarely, these days, admit their racism.... it's always "I'm not a racist ... but .....".

Nhoj and Shockadelic,

I'm still trying to find out if both yourself and many others on this topic have sat down in the classroom and tried to 'take the test' re your ecological footprint: http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/human_footprint/footprint_calculator/ to see how you live and can save the environment.

It doesn't seem like it.

This is the problem. Being a person who is also vegetarian (around 2% of the Australian population) it is quite clear a lot of Australian people don't want to change how they live, throughout their whole life - for environmental and more sustainable lifestyle benefits.

Maybe both of you however - could start a movement and get more people enthusiastic about "taking the test" and lowering your ecological footprint - and then taking the message out to your neighbors, friends, family and other people living in your street.....?

NathanJ my boy, my ecological footprint is likely FAR lower than your's. I don't drive or use cars, don't use planes/trains/buses, I live in a small house and never use heating or cooling (owing to my superb geographical location), have not eaten animal flesh for over 20 years, grow 80% of my own food, my house is 100% solar powered.

Population increase is *NOT* the problem. The problem is inappropriate use of resources.

When people oppose immigration on the (false) grounds of future sustainability, a VERY ugly thing often happens. What happens? They become aligned with the racists/culturalists/bigots in our community, and my experience has been that both groups have one thing in common *NO IMMIGRATION*. This results in people who base their no immigration policy on sustainability only, NEVER criticising the anti immigration bigots who want our country to be ONLY of Anglo culture and white skins. It's an unholy alliance of convenience. Racism should have NOTHING to do with sustainability.

Pericles, you feeling alright? Your sense of logic is a bit warped at the best of times, but today it appears to have disappeared completely!!

I wrote:

>> What’s the point in talking about per-capita footprints if the number of ‘capitas’ is going to continue to rapidly increase? <<

You replied:

<< Because, quite simply, the lower the individual (per capita) footprint, the better. And conversely, the higher, the worse. >>

<< It's that simple >>

My goodness!!

So if we had a population five times bigger than at present, with an average per-capita footprint 0.8 times as big as at present, we’d be doing better would we??

I could address each statement in your last double post. But I see no point if you are going to make such a totally off-the-planet assertion as this.

Incidentally, we have an unfinished discussion here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6365&page=0

Ludwig wrote, "Pericles, you feeling alright? Your sense of logic is warped at the best of times, but today it appears to have disappeared completely".

The Ludwig modus operandi = personally put down people who don't agree with you.

Likening someone to a monkey or cannibal because of their race is undeniably racist. Questioning the economic value of high immigration is not. One prominent colonial was outspokenly racist when he had a monopoly of convict labour. When the convict ships stopped coming he quickly became a convert to multiculturalism as his prosperity was dependent on cheap labour.

A question of great complexity and complicated further by one's motivations and circumstances. I have yet to see an accepted estimate for the per capita cost of Australian infrastructure.

Nhoj......Australia has the capacity for more people, common-understand will grant you that insight.\, however, Overpopulation of any country at this time...well...I guess the horse has bolted on that one world wide( its like the first fleet, and rats and other vermin have plagued this country like the cane toad) Bigots...even the word racism...I can barely type it....but!.....since the great lands of ours IS in the greatest geographical position for a huge amounts of reasons, it pays to let in( a fee, yet to be discussed)...of how we manage the future of Australia and its diversity.

We have only one chance to get this right....there wont be another.....

It's critical we save Australia, and watch the rest do it wrong.

Education on all levels "on this issue" is for the greater understanding, so all can see truly.

Kat

Nhoj,

It's not as simple as inappropriate use of resources as you put it. That's the easy way out. When I decided to go vegetarian I did so as part of a high school project. Why, because I wanted change.

However if I was to ask you, would the majority of people in Australia - want to go vegetarian - the answer would be no.

I also currently live towards a zero waste, zero packaging lifestyle - after watching a documentary on waste in poor countries and the environmental impact. I also now live so differently environmentally across the board.

However this message is very difficult to get across to the 'day to day person' when "Australia is the second highest producer of waste per person in the world at approximately 650 kilograms per person - and:

"The average Australian family of four people makes enough rubbish in one year to completely fill a three-bedroom house from floor to ceiling." Where does all of this rubbish go? Somehwere, nowhere?

At present with no solutions to address the above - technology or better use of resources are just a belief - that's it. Question: Where are these resources? Do they exist forever? Look at poor countries and their resources.

As for playing to the race element 100% wrong. I support reducing Australia's population to a more sustainable level and increasing our humane obligations re refugees and asylum seekers.

You do persist in grabbing the wrong end of the stick, Ludwig.

And, not content with that, you then proceed to wave it about mindlessly like a Collingwood fan at the SCG.

When the Swans are playing Carlton.

>>So if we had a population five times bigger than at present, with an average per-capita footprint 0.8 times as big as at present, we’d be doing better would we??<<

That would make us the twelfth largest population in the world (we are presently 51st with a third of a percent of the global population), and is also 60% higher than the highest ABS estimate for our population in the year 2101.

So, not the most realistic of examples, eh?

But since you ask, it is not outside the bounds of probability that if we were able to cater for that number of people (a tad short of Mexico, incidentally) without lowering our per capita GDP, and at the same time reduce our ecological footprint to that of Macedonia (which is conveniently 0.8 of our present number), then yes, there is a high likelihood that we'd be "doing better", as you describe it. In fact, if we could do all that, we'd be champions of ecological management.

But a simpler way to look at it would be to examine the position where a) the population stays the same, but the per capita ecological footprint increases, and b) where the population decreases, but the average ecological footprint stays the same.

Would we, in your opinion, be "doing better" in either of those situations?

>>I could address each statement in your last double post. But I see no point if you are going to make such a totally off-the-planet assertion as this.<<

Now you have a better perspective on it, perhaps you can have another shot?

>>Incidentally, we have an unfinished discussion here<<

Only in your imagination.

Pericles,

You are assuming that a lower environmental footprint is always better. We can certainly reduce the component of our footprint that includes senseless waste, but there are limits to how far you can cut consumption before you start seriously interfering with human well-being. The following link is to the Global Footprint Network 2010 Atlas. The graph on page 21 plots environmental footprint against rank on the UN's Human Development Index. All of the very high ranking countries and nearly all high ranking ones have environmental footprints well above the average and, according to the Global Footprint Network, well above what the Earth could sustain if everyone lived like that.

http://www.uky.edu/~tmute2/GEI-Web/GEI-readings/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf

There is also the issue of supplies of certain key resources, such as fresh water, and to what extent it is politically realistic to force down living standards and personal freedom to make room for more migrants without provoking widespread support for Far Right parties such as Golden Dawn in Greece or the National Front in France, in other words, fostering the very racism that Nhoj hates. Nhoj may be prepared to live a vegetarian life of self denial to make room for more people, but most of us wouldn't. Public opinion is not as much on Nhoj's side as he thinks. This was the reaction to Rudd's Big Australia speech

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html

When I remarked to some Iranian scientists that I was surprised so many migrants were against Big Australia, I was told, "A lot of us come from countries that are overpopulated. Why would we want to duplicate it in Australia?"

Back in the real world, the Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit to our population. This was back in 1994 when the evidence for our various environmental and resource problems wasn't as strong.

http://www.sciencearchive.org.au/events/sats/sats1994/Population2040-section9.pdf

The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a Key Threatening Process under the Environmental Protection Act. The submission gives their reasons

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

The 'footprint ' dogma. Its horrible having running water, heating in winter and cooling in summer. Yea its horrible being able to drive to the beach ( we can't all be overcashed Greens living next to the ocean having sucked the public purse). Its horrible having buildings for hospitals and schools (much better wandering aimless like the first people). Yea its horrible this 'footprint'. You dirty rotten humans. Its horrible you are all planet wreckers except for the Green ferals who are white as snow. Its horrible playing in all the parks created by humans who destroyed that frog in danger of extinction. How dare you breathe!

The best way for Oz to reduce its footprint would be to stamp out all the NGOs bleeding the taxpayer of the cash earns to try to reduce his living standards.

Without these leaches bleeding us, we would not need to harvest so many resources to keep our heads above water.

NathanJ, thank for being so presumptuous, but my footprint is just under HALF the Australian average (3.1 hectares/1.7 Earths).

The test is ridiculous anyway.
What does my hairstyle matter?

Nhoj "Racism should have NOTHING to do with sustainability."

It doesn't.
But since when does that mean people can't agree on a common goal?

Feminists and conservative Christians both wanted pornography banned in the 70s.
I bet they didn't agree on much else, but they worked together on *that* issue.

It seems to me *you* are the racist, since you seem to see the existing predominantly White population as a "problem" that needs a "solution".
Do you feel the same about Japan or Nigeria?
Must they be ethnically dismantled too?

Pericles "That would make us the twelfth largest population in the world [as if other countries won't also increase in size over time!]... 60% higher than the highest ABS estimate for our population in the year 2101.
So, not the most realistic of examples, eh?"

So our population will magically stop growing in 2101?

Maybe it won't be 5 times as large in 2101, but in 2578 or 3129.
When is it going to be acceptable to stop immigration, Pericles?
If it never stops, the size increases *forever*.

"reduce our ecological footprint to that of Macedonia (which is conveniently 0.8 of our present number)"

And inconveniently 40% of our HDI and 7% of our GDP-per-capita.
No thanks.

Ladies and gentle!.....Tonight on our show...we have Runners corner. A specialist in his own right, an eco-analyst with decades of experience in every field concerning tonight's topic:)

So put your hands together for runner.

So runner, Australia's ecological footprint?

Take it away Runner:)

PS...Yes...we quite like our view of the ocean:).....Thanks for asking:)

Ka

Pericles, that’s the most off-the-planet obfuscatory post you’ve ever written.

You’re all over the shop. All sorts of blither. Anything to avoid addressing the very simple point that I put to you:

It is NOT just about the average per-capita footprint; it is about the TOTAL footprint.

In Australia, where the population is rapidly increasing, even a really significant reduction in per-capita consumption and impact on the environment and resource base (in other words: our footprint) is going to be seriously diluted if not cancelled out, if not completely overwhelmed by the ever-increasing number of ‘capitas’.

This is a very simple point Pericles.

Your assertion that:

<< quite simply, the lower the individual (per capita) footprint, the better. And conversely, the higher, the worse. >>

… is quite simply wrong.

Perhaps you could actually address this point in your next post?

And yes, we do indeed have an unfinished discussion here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6365&page=0 …where it is looking as though you have been trumped and simply cannot answer the questions that I have put to you.

Yet again more personal abuse from Ludwig towards Pericles.

It's ok Nhoj.

>>Yet again more personal abuse from Ludwig towards Pericles<<

It's the only way he knows, and I'm quite used to it.

And this time, he has got himself into a right muddle.

My position is that the case made by NathanJ in his opening post is entirely nonsensical. We contribute an almost infinitesimal amount of ecological damage to the world, yet somehow we are made to feel guilty - "Australia has one of the world's largest ecological footprints per capita, requiring 6.6 global hectares per person."

It escapes his notice - and that of Ludwig - that on the basis of the wwf calculation, our population "requires" a total of 180 million hectares. And the total landmass of Australia is... wait for it... 769 million hectares.

Clearly, the wwf measurement itself - which is calculated per capita - makes absolutely no sense, for this exact reason. It tells us nothing whatsoever about reality. As I pointed out, very carefully, in my first comments on this thread.

What confuses Ludwig is that on this occasion, we are arguing on the same side. He is finding it very difficult to come to terms with this, which is why his posts are nothing but waffle..

Dear Divergence,

<<Back in the real world, the Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit to our population. This was back in 1994 when the evidence for our various environmental and resource problems wasn't as strong.>>

Yet all these years the Australian government keeps paying people for having babies.

Well congrats Pericles on again completely not addressing the simple point that I put to you.

Of course in doing so, you have actually very effectively addressed it. You have effectively admitted that you had indeed made a completely incorrect and totally silly statement when you said that it is all about the per-capita footprint.

And wow, have you ever stooped to a lowest level in acknowledging Nhoj’s support. That really is very telling of the desperate state that you find yourself in.

For all the times that Nhoj has supported you on other threads, you have not even mentioned him previously, because you quite frankly must have been embarrassed to have such an irrational person, who writes post after post of abuse while adding nothing to the debate, supporting you.

If you hadn’t been embarrassed by him, you would have engaged him ages ago.

Well Pericles, what can I say. You’ve been a great sparring partner over the years. Our conversations have been spicy but personable. But I’m afraid you’ve completely blown it this time.

And as for the other long-running thread that we have been conducting, it is as clear as day to anyone else who reads it that you have reached the point of being unable to address my simple and straightforward final question. You’ve been completely trumped on that one by all accounts. And consequently your support for GDP and continuous economic growth has been shown to be critically flawed. I’ll chock that one up as resounding win.

continued

Now surely you see another great flaw in your last post:

<< …our population "requires" a total of 180 million hectares. And the total landmass of Australia is... wait for it... 769 million hectares. >>

Excuse me, but a very large part of that 769 million Ha is… wait for it… unproductive desert or very lowly-productive semi-arid rangeland grazing country.

I wonder if we actually have 180 million Ha of productive land in Australia (equivalent to global hectares in the WWF footprint calculator)?

We also need to be mindful of the sustainability of that productive land (and sea). It is a very reasonable assumption that the level of productivity that WWF used to calculate the average productivity of a global hectare does not take into account the fact that the productivity is not constant, and may either decline, for example: as soils are depleted or lost, or perhaps increase as higher-yielding crops are developed. But almost certainly decline on average.

You really are searching desperately for a defence, aren't you, Ludwig. It seems as though you feel it is imperative that you disagree with me at every turn, instead of tuning into the argument and offering something relevant.

>>You have effectively admitted that you had indeed made a completely incorrect and totally silly statement when you said that it is all about the per-capita footprint.<<

Not so. Here's the reality:

>>I am not convinced that my personal ecological footprint - which is apparently less than the Australian average, and less even than Ludwig's - is a justification for lowering our intake of immigrants. In fact, surely the opposite would seem more likely to be the case<<

Personal footprint in this case is a one-person per capita. And "Not convinced" is my polite way of saying "load of cobblers". The implication being that I consider measurements of this kind to be utterly meaningless.

But wait. What's this? Ludwig weighs in with...

>>WWF’s position seems lopsided to say the least, being focussed on per-capita footprints and not on the total footprint<<

Which is one way of saying "I absolutely agree with what you say, Pericles".

So why all the tantrums? Having agreed with me, you immediately go off on a complete tangent:

>>But that’s no excuse for your very odd pro-high-immigration and per-capita-footprint-with-no-consideration-of-the-total-footprint stance<<

Apparently, it is all about my use of logic and mathematics, when I pointed out that:

>>Given that many immigrants find themselves in a very similar situation - i.e. city-dwelling, little-travelling, high-density-living - then it follows that the more of them we have, the lower will be our average ecological footprint.<<

So you found yourself between a rock and a hard place. You agree with me that the wwf measurement is a loopy way of looking at the problem, then get all antsy when I prove, mathematically, that it is indeed loopy as a... very loopy thing. (Thanks Baldrick).

That has probably confused you even more. But do tell: are you in favour of a larger, or smaller, per capita ecological footprint?

Purely theoretically, of course.

Oh, by the way Ludwig, in case you hadn't already worked it out, when I said...

>>…our population "requires" a total of 180 million hectares. And the total landmass of Australia is... wait for it... 769 million hectares.<<

...it is yet another way of my saying "this method of measurement is a load of old dingo's kidneys".

Who benefits from larger pop Big business definitely not average australians

@Yuyutsu, Friday, 6 June 2014 12:44:45 AM, "Yet all these years the Australian government keeps paying people for having babies"

The thread is about 'population intake'. Rightly so after so many complained about Kevin Rudd's personal goal of a 'Big Australia'.

Australians achieved zero population growth many decades ago. The over-enthusiastic population growth that some here are complaining about is due to new immigration records being set year after year. Not something that governments have ever asked Australians about of course.

In fact government reports say that young Aussie couples are not having the children they want and that is likely because they are so burdened by the taxation to pay for welfare and infrastructure for those thousands of migrants who arrive each year. That is why Aussie women must defer children whether they want to or not, and may later require IVF and other expensive medical interventions.

As reports by a committee of the UK House of Lords and other reports since have found, migration benefits migrants but not the host country - unless of course one is referring to the CEOs of big business who depend on population growth to boost their own pay bonuses.

This "ecological footprint" tool is not an empirical, mathematical ecological tool, it's a *POLITICAL* tool. Two types of politics use this tool for their *POLITICAL/CULTURAL/IDEOLOGICAL* purposes.

One group, traditional "old time" greenies (who reject technology wherever possible) use it as a warning that population growth in Australia is bad and unsustainable ( based on "current" land practices). The more advanced, intelligent, informed greenies are not of this "old time" ilk.

The other group is the racists/culturalists in our society who use these types of "ecological footprints" as a tool to campaign to stop migration. They don't want black people here(or those of Asian/middle eastern appearance) based on racial/cultural grounds.

The *FACT* is that land use has, for 200 years to this present day, has been incredibly inefficient and badly planned. It's not the lack of land, lack of arable land, lack of water, lack of resources that's the problem ... the problem is the shockingly bad way these resources are managed. Fix up this problem, and Australia can prosper magnificently with 10 times the current population (done gradually over 100 years or more). That's actually what WILL happen over the next 100 years or more, and it will be VERY successful indeed.

*THAT'S* the real solution in the "real" world.

Banning migrants just panders to the racists/culturalists/xenophobics amongst us with their *POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL* dogma of Fortress Australia.

Dear OnTheBeach,

I understand Nathan's initial post, but I agree only partially.

Given that population is too high, we should want to reduce all new arrivals, whether by boat, by plane or by womb. Not only should population-levels stop increasing - they should come down.

However, you may well be aware of my repeated position, that while we want things in life, possibly many things, we have no right to forcibly impose our desires on others.

So while we should not outlaw new arrivals of any kind, all we can and should do is to avoid encouraging it, especially by not providing any economic incentives at the tax-payer's expense.

<<young Aussie couples are not having the children they want>>

So what? I also don't get all I want, that's life!

<<and that is likely because they are so burdened by the taxation to pay for welfare and infrastructure for those thousands of migrants who arrive each year.>>

And am I not burdened by that same taxation? You don't need to offer migrants welfare and you don't need to allow them into cities either, where infrastructure is a problem. You have no moral right however, to deny them entry into the whole of one of earth's blessed continents (as opposed to admitting them as equal members into Australian society, which you have every right to deny).

<<That is why Aussie women must defer children whether they want to or not, and may later require IVF and other expensive medical interventions.>>

Women should receive medals for doing the responsible thing and deferring having children. I would inscribe there in gold "V/I" - "Victory over Instincts". While it would not be proper to deny/criminalise IVF services, they should not be subsidised by the tax-payer either.

Nhoj,

It's not about people "who reject technology wherever possible" - I'm using a computer right now - I'm asking directly about where these technological solutions are now - and how these "resources", that do exist - will be managed in the future.

Then of course there are the flow on effects that come from from no solutions and the impacts of increased population. From the ABS website: "Taking too much water out of Australia’s river and groundwater systems can have detrimental economic and environmental consequences. There is added pressure on the system due to climatic conditions, which affect native animal and plant populations, agricultural production and water availability for human consumption."

At the present moment there isn't any real technology or solutions that addresses the serious impacts of human overpopulation worldwide - so I don't see how Australia is suddenly going to come up with something - but I'll change my mind if people can provide me with any real, scientific, facts based evidence.

Western world countries in terms of a throw away society are the worst - and you obviously seemed to ignore my figures on the average waste per person in Australia. This is easy for people who are not part of this policy, as you have stated previously, and that is why many like you do not face up to the realities of other people. Their literally "junkifying" our planet! You are not thankfully.

Visit a webpage like: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-23/close-up-of-rubbish-in-a-canberra-landfill-generic/4028576 to see what is happening junk wise. We don't want Australia filled with it.

The world is quite concerned as they should be.

The equation is quite simple.

The words…..”Smaller and smarter”….means to concentrate the wealth.

Kat

NathanJ, the "technology" is already there. It's been there for the past 100 years. Solar power, dams, electric power, wind power, tidal power, battery power, ships, cars, trucks, trains, steam power, machines of all sorts etc etc etc... the list is virtually endless.

The problem is NOT lack of technology.

*THE* problem is mankind itself, shown by it's utter inability (to date) to correctly manage (1) itself (2) the planet's finite resources.

(1)"Itself" ... mankind CONTINUALLY fights, murders, tortures, invades, expels, hates, imposes, dictates, harms etc etc. This happens REGARDLESS of population numbers and is *THE* major cause by FAR, of famines, starvation, distress etc etc.

(2)"The planet's finite resources" ... mankind continually mismanages the planet's resources. It ONLY makes major changes when directly THREATENED by lack of change. For example, certain cities in China are now blighted by horrid air pollution, and China is now *FORCED* by necessity to plan changes. The same applies to every single form of resource management. Mankind exploits, makes it's profit and moves on ...... Why? Simply because it can. Over the next 500 years or so, mankind will more fully realise it can't do that and have a sustainable Earth at the same time. Mankind will slowly *CHANGE* itself, because it has no choice. Change will be forced, because survival will depend on change ....that's mother nature doing her job.

So, *THE* problem is absolutely *NOT* migration as you claim in the first post.

Conclusion: *THE* problem is the "current" intellectual biology of mankind, that dictates that mankind will not act until it feels threatened. Population number, in and of itself, is not the actual "problem".

OK Pericles, I must say: you seem to be really squirming and struggling to explain that what you said is not what you meant, replete with a lot of put-downs of me for assuming that it was!!

Alright, I’ll assume then that the way I interpreted what you wrote, on at least a couple of occasions in your recent posts, is not what you intended and indeed was close to the opposite of what you intended.

I do find that very strange, as I am intimately familiar with your writing style. But so be it.

So then, I take it that you DON’T believe that it is all about the per-capita footprint and that the number of ‘capitas’ is indeed a major factor in determining the overall footprint of Australians or those of any other nation or of all humans on the planet.

And indeed that a reduction in our average per-capita footprint if accompanied by continued high population growth is not going to get us very far at all.

And that any realistic attempt to address our per-capita footprint MUST be accompanied by an attempt to reduce the rate of increase in the number of resource-consumers and environmental-impacters and to bring the total number to a stable level at some point not too far into the future.

So, if you really do think that we are on the same side of the argument here, regarding the need to reduce our average per-capita footprint, then you should also be on the same side as me regarding the slashing of immigration in Australia and the stabilisation of our population.

However, our past discussions have shown that you are certainly not of this view.

So could you please clarify your stance. Thankyou.

Ludwig wrote, "you seem to be really squirming and struggling".

Yet again, Ludwig starts with personal abuse (as usual).

Pericles, you asked:

<< are you in favour of a larger, or smaller, per capita ecological footprint? >>

That’s actually a very interesting question. Lots of things come into consideration…

When considering all global citizens: for all those who are really struggling to get by, I would wish them a higher standard of living, which would necessitate having a larger average per-capita footprint. While all those with a very high level of affluence should pull it back quite considerably.

However, it depends a great deal on the size of the population, the rate of population growth and the ability for the environment, resource base and technological regime to supply all the necessities of life as to whether people could have a higher standard-of-living / footprint or should reduce it. It depends on these things at the global level and at national and local levels as well.

These variables are quite different in different countries or regions of the world, and even within countries. So it all becomes a little bit complex.

Suffice to say: we should be working towards a paradigm of sustainability, where the resource base and manufacturing/technological/value-adding systems are capable of supporting the population, in an ongoing manner, with a big safety margin. And the per-capita ecological footprint, along with the number of ‘capitas’ needs to be determined within that framework.

We should be planning for per-capita consumption and waste-production rates, and population levels, to be well within our best estimates of the ability of the resource base to support it and for the environmental to absorb the waste products. In other words, we should be well and truly erring on the side of caution.

Pericles, I presume the WWF "hectares" are useful land, not desert, which is what most of our continent is.

Nhoj, you already did your unholy alliance shtick.

I have no need to use this "tool" to argue against mass pancultural immigration.
All I need is common sense.

Millions of extra people from 6000 ethnicities does not a happy future make.
It makes a mess.
An unlivable, unworkable mess.

"for 200 years to this present day, has been incredibly inefficient and badly planned."

Right, so future eggheads will solve everything we couldn't?

"*THE* problem is mankind itself"

And immigrants are what species?

If mankind is the problem, adding more humans (often from less technologically/educationally advanced countries) isn't going to help.

Mankind's fundamental character is not going to change, so we need to deal with what's real, not hope some ideal "better" humans come along someday with their perfect "plans".

"Over the next 500 years or so, mankind will more fully realise it can't do that and have a sustainable Earth at the same time."

So how can we implement our magical solutions while not restricting mass movements of people?

Wouldn't uncontrolled movement/increase flush our brilliant "plans" down the toilet?

Yuyutsu, population increase "by womb" has been declining in Australia and all Western countries for decades, so that's not really the issue, is it?

"we have no right to forcibly impose our desires on others."

Are not immigrants forcibly imposing their primarily materialist desires on us?

If they desire our living standards, it's *their* responsibility to create that in their own homelands, not parasitically leech of our success.

"not providing any economic incentives at the tax-payer's expense."

And how much are we spending on immigration bureaucracy (and I don't just mean detention centres)?

"I also don't get all I want, that's life!"

And neither should potential immigrants expect to get what they want: permanent settlement, no resistance/exclusion by locals, government funding of minority community activities.
Gimme, gimme, gimme!

"You don't need to offer migrants welfare and you don't need to allow them into cities either, where infrastructure is a problem. You have no moral right however, to deny them entry into the whole of one of earth's blessed continents"

So how can we permit entry (to potentially billions), but make sure they don't live in cities?
Unworkable fairytale nonsense.

To all, it really doesn't matter what the WWF, ABS or anyone else says.
What matters is what *we*, the current population, want.

If we want less/no immigration, no water restrictions, big backyards, meat every day, gadgets galore, then to hell with other people's opinions or desires, or what is potentially "feasible".

This is *our* society, our air, our water, our space, our streets.

Nhoj,

It's not about technology alone - like you mentioned. It is about "technological solutions" in terms of reducing environmental damage from our Australian population - which doesn't exist or isn't sustainable at present.

Example: I know of a town where a large re-zoning of land has occurred for more housing in Australia and a new 'old style' power station has been put in, companies will profit and their system isn't environmentally friendly.

Home generation (like solar electricity) which the majority of people cannot afford - is too expensive. So this large housing estate is not environmentally friendly.

Each country worldwide can only sustain so many people environmentally - and in a range of other areas to properly maintain a good standard of living.

People will not just slowly change, because of no choice. Change simply won't be forced, because of survival or because of mother nature doing her job.

I watch SBS world news and see things worldwide. Our world is not balanced. Australia has its own issues. Our government however isn't helping to "balance our planet" when it aims to cut billions of dollars out of our foreign aid budget. It does not enable countries of a poorer nature to 'balance' themselves to a natural state of living.

We need direct action from our community, real solutions for the future and government policies and we need them now.

Nhoj,

You and Runner are a pair. He denies science because it challenges his fundamentalist religious beliefs (evolution, the age of the Earth, etc.), and you deny it because it challenges your belief in unlimited population growth, at least for the foreseeable future. Why should we pay any attention to members of the Australian Academy of Science, the CSIRO, or other people with PhDs in conservation or marine biology, soil science, climatology, etc., all of whom have worked in their fields for years and are up with the literature. These are the unintelligent Greenies. We have the wisdom of Nhoj!

Before you count on unproven technologies, you might consider how people got it wrong in the past.

“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age.”

Lewis L. Strauss
Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City September 16th, 1954."

Strauss wasn't a science fiction writer; he was the head of the US Atomic Energy Commission. Last I checked, electrical power is still expensive, I am aging at the usual rate, I don't have a flying car, one of my friends is still dying of cancer, and about 1 in 8 of the global population is still chronically hungry.

Yes, we need better management, but if there is an affordable way for an Australian farmer to grow as much wheat per hectare as a French farmer, never mind 10 times as much, without wrecking his land for the future, why isn't one of them doing it? Farmers like money as much as anyone else.

See also why even a free, completely clean, unlimited source of energy wouldn't save us in the long run

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Divergence wrote, "it challenges your belief in unlimited population growth". Ummm, I said no such thing. Unlimited population growth would be a *DISASTER* for planet Earth.

You've totally missed my points, which are "finding suitable technology is *NOT* the problem" and "mankind itself *IS* the eventual solution".

We already possess the scientific knowledge and technology to manage our planet sustainably, even with large overall population increases. So, why is this not actually happening? Because it's not a "technology" problem, it's a *MANKIND* problem. Our species, as I have already pointed out, has behavioural problems .... we invade, fight, kill, intimidate, squabble, comepete, are territorial, we seek domination etc etc etc etc etc. *WE*, via our natural behaviours, are *THE* reason why famines, starvation, poor living conditions etc etc exist.

The problems will continue to exist *REGARDLESS* of whether the Earth has a smaller population or a larger population.

As MANKIND itself is the problem, only MANKIND can be the solution. And the solution is for the behaviour of mankind to alter. I believe that will eventually happen, it's already started, and it will take many, many, many more hundreds of years to complete.

Mankind will only change it's overall behaviours when it's very survival is threatened by those behaviours. That's how the survival instinct works. That's mother nature itself at work. Mankind is 100% bound by the laws of physics and nature.

Nhoj,

I think you might want to read a dictionary.

Sustainable: "Capable of being sustained". So if the majority of people can't afford solar electricity at all, as it is too expensive - at present - how is it sustainable to reduce Australia's environmental damage via solar electricity - with a higher population? It's like saying gold rings exist - and then thinking a person on a low income can afford to buy one. Its not sustainable or real.

If we do have the solutions re population, you still haven't answered my point:

"Australia is the second highest producer of waste per person in the world at approximately 650 kilograms per person and "The average Australian family of four people makes enough rubbish in one year to completely fill a three-bedroom house from floor to ceiling."

You say in terms of mankind changing its behaviour: "I believe that will eventually happen, it's already started, and it will take many, many, many more hundreds of years to complete." How many? It's just your own belief - not a proven fact. So thinking everything will change in hundreds of years - just to make yourself feel better, doesn't apply to me.

Every person living in Australia has an ecological footprint. If you want the levels of rubbish, like mentioned above - you can have that waste put in your backyard. Yes I've started change in my life - but I'm the lone person in the family. We need a balanced population worldwide - and better strategies to reduce our ecological footprint - but I'll be waiting more that a few hundred years for others to take day to day action - in terms of more environmentally friendly living in Australia - unless we change our current 'we must grow' approach to everything.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<Yuyutsu, population increase "by womb" has been declining in Australia and all Western countries for decades, so that's not really the issue, is it?>>

Of course it is: there are way too many people on this earth and guess where they all come from...
(they are not immigrants from Mars)

The rest of your post is adequately summarised by:

<<This is *our* society, our air, our water, our space, our streets.>>

I only half agree:

Yes, it is *your* society, yes these are *your* streets and the part of the water which you invested in collecting is also *yours*.
The air, the rest of the water and space itself - are not *yours*.

The word "immigration" is ambiguous. I make a clear distinction between moving into your society and moving into this continent.
You have every moral right to control the former. You have no moral right to control the latter.

This of course is of no interest to you since you already expressed your contempt of morality by stating:

<<then to hell with other people's opinions or desires>>

So I leave it at that - perhaps others who read this and do prioritise morality over selfish desires, may be convinced.

Quote
“Australia's ecological footprint - we must reduce our population intake”

The argument as put is actually a strawman. It implies a simplistic solution to a highly complex question. It associates a problem with the wrong solution, reducing population intake will not reduce Australia’s ecological footprint in anything other than a minor way, nor is it the primary reason why Australia has such a large unsustainable footprint.

The question as to what is the most desirable size of the Australian population does not have a simple answer. Any person living in Australia is going to have an ecological impact, but due to efficiencies of scale more people does not necessarily mean the impact has to be more severe. For example city dwellers actually have a smaller impact than those who live in the country areas.

If Australia wants to reduce its footprint the following actions would be much more useful and relevant:-
Making much greater use of renewable power.
Providing much better public transport.
Shifting much of the heavy transport of goods to rail.
Stopping the destruction and damage to the remaining natural areas.
Controlling introduced species.
More appropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides.

Where do you get this stuff warmair, you must pull it out of that air.

That high rise or other dense populations models have a much larger footprint than country areas has been proven in many studies.

"Making much greater use of renewable power." Rubbish, Germany, Spain & all but the UK are running away from that mistake as fast as possible.

"Providing much better public transport". Public transport costs more, & uses more power/fuel per passenger mile, than private transport is another fact proven many times over.

"Shifting much of the heavy transport of goods to rail". The double handling required by rail make it impartible for any but long distance bulk goods, & even this is better by sea where possible. Rail is great for wheat to port shipment, but lousy for bread to the supermarket.

"Stopping the destruction and damage to the remaining natural areas". Looking at the trees doesn't feed anyone, & too many of our national parks become overgrown scrub, useless to man or beast.

"Controlling introduced species". Agree completely, but that is an emotional judgment.

"More appropriate use of fertilizers and pesticides". Motherhood statement. Make some positive statements that can be judged.

Which floor of your high rise do you live on?

Nhoj, "Unlimited population growth would be a *DISASTER* for planet Earth."

So what are the limits then?

Whenever people start talking about limits, you start blabbering about unholy alliances.

So what are your acceptable limits, Nhoj?
That can be implemented right now, not in some fairytale future.
Our government can stop or reduce immigration with a pen signing a paper.

"we invade, fight, kill, intimidate, squabble, compete, are territorial, we seek domination etc"

And when is this going to magically stop?
Grow up.

"And the solution is for the behaviour of mankind to alter.... it will take many, many, many more hundreds of years to complete."

So let's stop immigration for 300 years then.
Then reassess. No improvement? Sorry, another 300 years.

Yuyutsu "guess where they all come from"

Not from Australia.
If African and Asian wombs are excessively busy, how is that our responsibility?

Why should we allow their myriad offspring the "moral right" to trample all over our country?

"I make a clear distinction between moving into your society and moving into this continent."

In the real world (join us sometime) there's no distinction.

In you move into this continent, you can't help but impact on the society already here.

"you already expressed your contempt of morality by stating:
<<then to hell with other people's opinions or desires>>"

And how is there a *moral* dimension to that statement?

Being selfish or indifferent to others (without deliberately causing real harm) is not "immoral".

warmair "Controlling introduced species"

Yuyutsu might disagree.
You have no "moral right" to exclude any species from this precious continent.

Hasbeen

“That high rise or other dense populations models have a much larger footprint than country areas has been proven in many studies.”

The studies I have seen say that up to 3000 people per square mile there is a rapid reduction in eco footprint. After that the benefit tails off quite quickly. That works out at about 100sq feet per person which in my view does not constitute country living. The other factor that confuses the issue is the more affluent a person is the greater their Eco footprint. Not surprisingly it is usual to find the richest people living the cities.

"Making much greater use of renewable power." Rubbish, Germany, Spain & all but the UK are running away from that mistake as fast as possible.

There you are on very shaky ground. While it may be cheaper to use traditional fossil fuels, renewables definitely have a lower Eco footprint. Part of the definition of Eco footprint includes emissions of CO2 and regardless of your view as to effects of CO2 renewables generate less CO2 and therefore have a lower eco footprint. The exception is of course nuclear but that is a whole different argument.

"Providing much better public transport". Public transport costs more, & uses more power/fuel per passenger mile, than private transport is another fact proven many times over.

Explain how on earth you think that a bus carrying 60 people uses more fuel per person than one person in a car. Hint a 60 seater bus uses around 25 L/100K compared a typical aussie car at over 12 L/100K.
Continued

"Shifting much of the heavy transport of goods to rail". The double handling required by rail make it impartible for any but long distance bulk goods, & even this is better by sea where possible. Rail is great for wheat to port shipment, but lousy for bread to the supermarket.

A Rail vehicle has some 18 times less friction than a rubber tyred road vehicle. Trains also deliver better fuel economy for other reasons as well. The double handling often occurs on interstate road cargo anyway.

"Stopping the destruction and damage to the remaining natural areas". Looking at the trees doesn't feed anyone, & too many of our national parks become overgrown scrub, useless to man or beast.

The sort of thing I had in mind was the barrier reef where they have recently been given the go ahead to dump millions of tons of dredged material and while we are on the subject fertilizer runoff to the reef could be vastly reduced.

I live in a modest 3 bedroom house in a regional city.

Obviously you are going on ideology, warmair. The average load for a bus is more like 6 than 60, but it would be a pity to let fact interfere with a good bit of propaganda.

Life cycles of wind is worse than coal for emissions, biodiesel & alcohol produce more emissions than petrol when production is included, & solar is a bad joke. Oh, & while we are at it, it appears from satellite observations, deserts are greening from the increased CO2, & the planet is not heating.

You obviously know nothing about the reef, if you actually believe a little dredging around the permitted ports will have any effect.

To start with the tidal currents run along the coast, not from the coast out to the reef. The silt will fall out in the area between the coast & the reef.

This area exists because of the huge amount of sediment expelled by the coastal rivers. The Fitzroy, the Pioneer, the Don & the Berdican are the reason the dredging is necessary. They expel more sediment on a mild fresh than all the dredging in Queensland since settlement, this is the reason the reef is so far off shore in the area in first place.

If you are going to push this green stuff, try getting some facts, & doing some thinking first. Then you might sort the truth from the fantasies your leaders push to the chattering classes. With some truth you might actually get some converts. You will never get them with this rubbish.

Warmair,

As was mentioned in an earlier post of mine on this thread, environmental footprint, even if you are right, isn’t the only thing that matters. Human well-being matters too, and most people don’t want high density forced on them. The demographer Joel Kotkin points out that the vast majority of people around the world prefer single family housing with some privacy and a back yard. High density is also poison for fertility rates.

“High-density environments such as Manhattan, San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, D.C., or Boston invariably have the lowest percentages of children in the country, with Japan-like fertility rates…

“The ultradense cities of East Asia—Hong Kong, Singapore, and Seoul—have among the lowest fertility rates on the planet. Tokyo and Seoul now have fertility rates around one child per family while Shanghai’s has fallen to 0.7, among the lowest ever reported, well below the “one child” mandate and barely one-third the number required simply to replace the current population. Due largely to crowding and high housing prices, 45 percent of couples in Hong Kong say they have given up having children.”

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00806-city-leaders-are-love-density-most-city-dwellers-disagree

A lot of us want a stable population, but not that we should disappear or be completely replaced by migrants.

High density tends to be bad for the physical and social development of children. See Prof Bill Randolph’s “Children in the Compact City”.

https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/upload/research/centres/cf/publications/cfprojectreports/childreninthecompactcity.pdf

There are also studies showing that urban living dramatically increases the incidence of anxiety disorders and depression, and that it doubles the incidence of schizophrenia.

http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/feb/25/city-stress-mental-health-rural-kind

Is our goal to cram in the maximum number of people on the minimum standard of living or to give our people good, free lives in a healthy environment where the other species can live too? All these things are possible if we don’t let our numbers get too big and apply a reasonable amount of common sense.

Warmair,

If you are concerned about global warming, you should recognize that our politicians' mass migration policy is adding to the global concentrations of greenhouse gases. (Our own fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976.) It is not just a global problem. Unless migrants are already rich or come from other rich countries, they are going to increase their carbon footprint when they come to Australia. The whole point of migration is usually to increase consumption. The Australia Institute has calculated that in Australia, the average migrant's carbon footprint is double what it would have been at home.

The bigger population means that more exports are needed to pay for the imports needed by the bigger population. This issue is discussed in the Australian Conservation Foundation submission that I linked to in a previous post.

Then there are the immediate government infrastructure costs, estimated by Jane O'Sullivan to be $100,000 - $120,000 per person in Australia and 30,000 pounds per person in the UK by economist Ralph Musgrave (in 2008). These factors at least partly explain the frantic asset sales of our federal and state governments and their encouragement of coal and gas mining, regardless of the threats to endangered species and our best agricultural land. The emissions from the coal we export far outweighs the total carbon footprint of the Australian population.

"The domestic emission reduction programs to which campaigners devote much attention are similarly dwarfed by coal exports. For example, if the federal government adopted a 25% emissions reduction target for 2020, implemented an ETS to get there, and tightly limited the use of cheap imported carbon credits so that Australia made its emission cuts rather than outsourcing them, domestic emissions could fall by up to 249mt annually by 2020. Sounds impressive until you realize that the emissions saved are wiped out by the addition of just two new coal mines in Central Queensland."

http://www.guypearse.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Pearse-Climate-Camp-Speech-Final.pdf

So be brave. Talk about population, and regard it as a badge of honour if some migration agent, shill for the property developers, or brainwashed Leftist calls you a racist.

Divergence there is a lot I agree with in your post.

Personally I like Australia under populated but using the eco footprint as an excuse for limiting migration simple does not wash.

The eco footprint is at the best of times not a particularly useful measure other than to bring home the fact that we are exceeding the planets carrying capacity.

For example according to the figures commonly accepted figure Australia has a biocapacity of 14.7 global hectares per person and an eco foot print of 6.8 gh/p which gives us a credit of 7.9 gh/p, which suggests that the ecological limit to our population is around 50 million. So using the eco footprint as an excuse for limiting population is not a good argument.

If the population was 50 million the eco footprint would still be around 6.8 gh/p so there is a fundamental flaw in the argument.

Nevertheless I believe it would be worthwhile to reduce Australia’s eco footprint below 6.8 gh/p. The way to do this is by being kinder to the environment, as in some of the ways I listed previously.

Hasbeen
You obviously have not travelled on a bus in any of our main cities recently, but nevertheless even taking your figure of an average of 6 passengers per trip, the bus is still ahead, as the fuel consumption is only about twice that of a typical Aussie car which an average carries less than two people.

The reef and surrounding areas are suffering from our activities and I am convinced that we could do better.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/great-barrier-reef-facts-tv-ads-ignore-dredge-dumping-risks-20140501-zr2im.html

Warmair,

You appear to be right about the biocapacity, but it only boils down a lot of factors to a single number. I would question how it deals with key limiting resources or future risks. Some of the possible effects of climate change are really nasty, and even a small reduction in average rainfall could result in big reductions in run-off. Scarce and expensive phosphate rock could also have a big impact.

You need to look at how we are actually doing, not how well we could do in theory. The government's own State of the Environment reports have been showing progressive deterioration in a range of environmental indicators apart from urban air quality. See also the Long-Term Physical Implications report

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/physical-implications-migration-fullreport.pdf

If a country really is underpopulated, then mass migration will make the existing population better off. This is no longer the case. The pressures on the environment and the liveability of our cities due to more and more people are obvious, while the per capita economic benefits are very small and mostly go to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/04/rbnz-slams-the-population-ponzi/

We have been acquiring five new people for every new full-time job

http://www.smh.com.au/national/majority-of-new-jobs-go-to-migrants-20130614-2o9p4.html

Perhaps our politicians should show that they can manage the country in the interests of all the people that we have already (not just Big Business and especially the FIRE sector) before they are given more of them to play with.

warmair who told you the reef is suffering. The people who are out there daily, the academics who may spend as much as 10 days a year out in the nasty ocean, away from their computers, or greenie activists.

I once had one of those fool academics tell me the crown of thorns was destroying the reef we used for tourists. Very interesting when I had never seen one, & my staff had seen only 2 in a year.

I averaged 200 tourists, & a dozen divers with instructors taken to the reef 4 times a week for years, so have a little knowledge of it. Previously I skippered overnight fishing trips for 3 resorts for quite a while, as well as years of private cruising here & in the islands.

We hated walk on the reef days. We would go through bottles of mercurochrome doctoring the coral cuts, & would have loved to see it banned. Unfortunately when it was surveyed the marine biologists could find no difference in the few hundred meters we frequented, to the 17 nautical miles of that reef that dried at low tide.

I get so sick of this fragile nature garbage. I spent years wandering the islands of the Pacific war. I visited many of the sites of major bases, both ours & Japanese. The only thing fragile was mans constructions. The remains of many huge bases were almost impossible to find, after just 30 years of jungle regrowth.

I would love to get some greenies out to see the real world, but it is hard to prise them out of their natural environment, inner city high rise.

Hasbeen.

Your right to a point. Its because of our management of our waters which fuels your point.

Of corse Australia is well managed and Thats what your seeing. Rules and regs keeps the mindset in full eye sight.

Have a look collectively, and the picture becomes what the topic is.

Kat

warmair "which suggests that the ecological limit to our population is around 50 million"

So we'll wait until we reach the limit before we do anything?

We'll reach that limit even quicker with 100,000+ immigrants every year and their subsequent offspring.

But you won't support any measures to limit immigration, lest you be inadvertently aligned with the "unholy alliance".

So what do we do when we reach 50 million?

Start turning our criminal population into Soylent Green?
Start involuntary sterilisations?
Legalise infanticide?

Divergence points out (as if it was necessary!) that city living is stressful.
How much more stressful now that we must deal with people from 6000 ethnic ancestries!

You admit both world and local population cannot be "unlimited" so what is *your* solution, at least locally?

Buses may be ahead of cars per-capita environmental impact, but have the unfortunate tendency to not be available when *you* want one.

Like 3 a.m. Saturday.

ORIGINS OF MAN you must be joking.

When I wanted to do an installation on the outer reef, in an area yet to become a marine park, no one would accept responsibility or authority for the area. I needed a safe installation for tourists. The dreadful system in use when I took over the operation was going to kill someone, it was only a matter of time.

No state or federal department would admit authority, or even consider granting approval, even for a mooring. Obviously the marine park people had no authority until the park was gusseted.

Ultimately I did exactly what I wanted to do, advising every department, authority or quango of my plans, complete with drawings & specifications. None even bothered to acknowledge my communication.

Management my foot, it is more avoidance of responsibility anywhere in government. All any of them want to do is keep their nose clean, so do absolutely nothing, positive or negative.

Hasbeen....Lets just say we wipe-out all the rules and regs, sure you'll make a lot of money and this is true..(red tape)...however saying what you feel about our environment, common-sense in the factor of tomorrow for your own off-spring has to take the capital of importance's......or these links of other counties.....

http://tinyurl.com/mv9j4uv is this how you want Australia?

http://tinyurl.com/qdltlgk

http://tinyurl.com/mxjxrth

Hasbeen....Just thank your lucky stars you live in this country.

P/S....I read and listen to everything?....in-clueing where I live:)....just a little hint.....some are lucky I don't jam laws suits down their f..ken throats, but you know the government:)

Ka

Hasbeen....I was out of order with the law suit thing:)

An old sole once said...feed me today, and I'll teach you tomorrow.

http://tinyurl.com/nqu467z

Enjoy.

Kat