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.