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".