In a previous post I said: "Australia's population is projected to be 35.5 million by 2056, which will place increasing pressure on the natural environment and its resources - these are ABS figures."

I was close. The recent Intergenerational Report put out by Australia's Treasurer Joe Hockey - says that our population will grow from about 24 million today to 40 million by 2055.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4192199.htm

After my post, my comments were written off by some. However now will these people accept that population growth in Australia WILL occur to around 40 million people by 2055, will they support the Liberal party or will they simply write off this report as a scare campaign?

Of course not!

Like Kevin Rudd, I want a big Australia. But unlike the Liberals I want good infrastructure to support it.

Aiden said:
But unlike the Liberals I want good infrastructure to support it.

Ahh well, but you are in SA ?
That explains it, otherwise that statement is inverted.

We need a larger population but we do not need a large population of people who expect the taxpayers to support them, welfare for lifers.

I also believe one large problem is the wages are proportionally to high from the top down.

We have a Prime Minister who gets more than the American President, lawyers, doctors etc fees are too high making the lower wage earners demand more and more.

Things need to be more even worldwide otherwise there is no intensive to manufacture anything in Australia where wages are much higher than other countries.

There are more factors that need to be considered to make the larger population sustainable without massive tax hikes and wagers blowouts.

Aiden Infrastructure is a very important part we do not have the water resources in the right locations for 40 million people, infrastructure is labor intensive so adds to prices especially at the wages demanded by workers.

Just look at how high water and electricity have risen since privatization.

Bazz, I was referring to the situation federally rather than in any particular state (although I am happy to discuss any state and have started a thread about transport infrastructure in NSW (in the elections section).

Neither major party is much good on this issue – they both seem to have an irrational fear of debt that often prevents anything from being done, and when they realise that they must do something, they tend to opt for expensive inefficient megaprojects without properly considering the alternatives. But the Liberals do seem to be far worse at the moment – and Tony Abbot's undoubtedly not an Infrastructure Prime Minister!

____________________________________________________________________________________

Philip S, you're looking at the problem the wrong way round. Rather than whinging about welfare, we should be bringing opportunities to the people.

And if the Australian dollar were lower, the problem of wages being too high would no longer exist; conversely there's no amount of wage restraint that a higher dollar can't destroy the benefits of. So rather than worrying about wages (which haven't been rising very fast lately anyway) we should concentrate on producing genuinely high value products and services.

We will need, and indeed are building, more water infrastructure. That includes desalinators, so it's convenient that a large proportion of the population lives on the coast.

Infrastructure is usually labour intensive to build but less so to maintain, and the benefits are likely to increase in future. So it makes sense to spend money on infrastructure instead of mindlessly chasing surpluses.

The current growth rate, can be very much related to existing population growth of people already living in Australia - that being people of child bearing age, and their children who are yet to reach child bearing age - will continue to have children.

So in essence - it's realising that people in Australia, will not stop having children.

So the question should be Australia's population will keep growing, what do we do about it? Some examples include:

1. Reduce business immigration, lowering costs of this immigration
2. Limit the use of water, including poor upstream irrigation
3. Reducing environmental impacts - which taxpayers pay for
4. Existing citizens living more environmentally (as per above)
5. Better economic policies to improve employment and taxation income

We should be working towards reducing the impacts of human beings not making the situation worse.

NathanJ, I think to most people of the younger generations it would go without saying that We should be working towards reducing the impacts of human beings not making the situation worse. But reducing Australia's population growth isn't the answer. And reducing business immigration is likely to result in a bigger lowering of immigration's benefits than its costs.

Upstream irrigation is usually where the water's been used most inefficiently. Drought is forcing us to use less water anyway, but the objective shouldn't be just using less water, but making better use of the water we get.

Reducing environmental impacts is absolutely essential. But it shouldn't just be taxpayers footing the bill; the environmental cost should be included in the cost of everything sold.

We certainly need better economic policies to improve employment and taxation income. But the thing we most need to do is to stop considering problems in isolation, and instead let the solution to each problem solve other problems rather than creating more.

No need to worry
When all our current 3rd generation unemployed youth reach 40 in 20 years time they automatically become our Doctors Teachers Police etc
Its all just numbers

Aiden, OK you were referring to Federal. In NSW the Liberals are
making a lot of noise about infrastructure that they ARE building and plan to build.
Labour is taking a much lower profile on infrastructure no doubt
because they would have to borrow much more.

Unfortunately I believe the infrastructure planning is not being
realistic, but that is not unusual because the politicians either do
not know about the energy crisis we face or just refuse to believe it.

It affects everything.
You can see it in defense spending.
Having had our oil production decline by more than 50% our now
uneconomic oil refineries are closing. So we will import 100% of our
petrol & diesel.
So we buy diesel submarines ? Duhh !

You can see it in transport spending.
We undertake 30 year financing of motorways built for $1-50 / litre
petrol. So when petrol reaches say $4 a litre what then ?

You can see it in immigration planning.
More More More shout the politicians and businessmen.
Shut down the mines and power station shout the greenies.
They want more people and less energy, have they gone stark raving mad?

Aaaarrrggghhh !

Bazz,

In the future people will buy more efficient cars and some will drive less, but synthetic fuel is likely to limit price rises.

Even the greenies want reliable electricity; it's just that they want solar and wind to supply it.

NSW Labor's infrastructure policy is likely to lose them today's election despite NSW Liberals having an infrastructure policy that should lose the election to any decent opposition (hence my starting the other thread). If you live in NSW I urge you to vote for the minor parties. Strong governments are a bad thing as they inevitably go feral; state governments work far better when they're forced to justify every single decision they make!

Aiden, no synthetic fuel yet developed has a sustainable eroei.
In the US it is law to use a percentage but thay cannot achieve that.

Likewise solar & wind cannot do the job, they cannot even build themselves.
Much as I am a fan of electric cars I think there are a few catch 22s
on the way to changing to 100% electric.

I think it was you that flagged solar cells that are up to eroei of 60.
Well that would change everything, but we must work on what exists not
what might exist in the future.
If they come good well we can change course then and nothing lost.

Bazz, what counts is net energy return, not EROEI. The Catch22 claim is a myth, and a particularly stupid one at that – I'm still amazed that so many people fell for it.

It would be stupid to assume that what exists in the lab today won't exist in the field in the future. But there is no good technical reason why normal solar cells couldn't do the job.

Aiden,

Every person currently living in Australia has an environmental impact. In terms of our ecological footprint Australia has one of the world's highest. The WWF has found Australia had the 13th largest ecological footprint per person in the world, mostly because of carbon emissions and the amount of land required for crops and grazing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-30/australias-ecological-footprint-on-the-improve-wwf-says/5777482

So the Australian Government needs to do what it can to reduce the impacts of humans in Australia - but a lot of these have no solution (say like a disease or illness).

The reality is that the majority of people living in Australia, will not change their lifestyle - and this will be passed on (in terms of values) to any future children.

So (in essence) the only way to reduce the impacts of humans in Australia, re Australia's environment, in which we have currently a poor economic structure, which includes a very high "buy, use and throw away" approach to living (which is very much entrenched in Australia) - is to limit the level of business immigration.

I can't be forced or policed to turn of my tap inside, throw out less rubbish, buy less junk, be stopped from buying a polluting car or use less electricity.

So having more people living in Australia, when our population is going to reach 40 million people by 2055 - our population is increasing by itself. Australia physically does not need more people (with high unemployment in some areas - as high as 25% youth unemployment) and cannot keep taking in more people based on environmental grounds.

All issues we have need to be assessed as a whole and I support that - so my questioning was why has this intergenerational report come out with population growth mentioned - but when I raised it, some who seemed to be Liberal party voters, simply wrote this off?

NathanJ, I agree with your first paragraph. However you seem to be overlooking two crucial points:

• It's not just a case of damage limitation: humans can actually improve the environment.
• Even if people won't change their lifestyle, technological change can have the same effect.

And people's values aren't the same as their parents'. Boomers and GenX tend to regard cars as symbols of freedom, but GenY don't; their phones are more important!

You can't be forced or policed to turn your tap off inside... but you can be charged for the water you use. You can't be forced or policed to use less electricity, but you can be encouraged to get solar panels fitted. And I understand California restricts polluting cars, so that's not impossible.

High unemployment is a solvable problem: the government can employ people – there's plenty of work that needs doing. And once people in the area are employed, they'll start spending money, which will attract businesses to the area.

And the assumption that business migrants will have a greater ecological footprint if they come to Australia than if they remain overseas is increasingly likely to be incorrect.

Aidan,

Putting it simply - more people equals more impacts on the environment. So less of this or more of that, is irrelevant - when more people "use" something - and this flows on environmentally.

"The United Nations is working to solve global environmental problems. As an international forum for building consensus and negotiating agreements, the UN is tackling global problems such as ozone layer depletion, toxic waste, loss of forests and species, and air and water pollution. Unless these problems are addressed, markets and economies will not be sustainable in the long term, as environmental losses are depleting the natural capital on which growth and human survival are based."

http://www.un.org/en/un60/60ways/envir.shtml

So environmental protection is a global issue. The United Nations also believes that natural solutions are better. Human based schemes based on technology are very expensive (like water desalination) and can cost around $2 billion dollars to put in and with a poor economic structure - this is not going to improve employment numbers.

That being a high retail element, too much expectations on manufacturing, a constant higher public service or areas like construction (like roads and housing) and re central Australia, a constant reference to mining, despite the fact mining is financially and environmentally unsustainable.

Many of these areas are mentioned to address employment - yet major alternatives are needed via intellectual assessment - as around 80% of people who undertake training do not end up in areas of work, in which they had undertaken studies. So Christopher Pyne I believe, needs to take up this matter, with the education sector.

In fact some very poor overseas countries are losing very skilled people (to Australia), leaving citizens worse off, without essential services as these skilled people are being enticed to live in Australia.

Look for: Government Population Policy: Interview with Sandra Kanck at: https://radioadelaidebreakfast.wordpress.com/tag/sandra-kanck/

NathanJ, I agree that more people equals more impacts on the environment. But they don't have to be adverse impacts. They can be, but it's up to us.

Environmental protection is a global issue, and it is an issue that Australia should be a leader on. Instead the slightest adverse economic impact and the government decides that we shouldn't have to do anything! Abolition of the carbon tax is one example of this; another, screened on ABC news today, is the continuing use of methyl bromide (one of the most powerful ozone destroyers around) in strawberry farming despite it being banned for this purpose five years ago according to a treaty Australia signed.

Natural solutions tend to be cheaper, but what's better depends on the effects.

We do not have to retain a poor economic structure. Most of the claims the politicians in Canberra make about the economy are simply false.

Whether mining is financially sustainable depends on the mine. Likewise whether it's environmentally sustainable (unless you're referring to running out of the resources themselves, but there's plenty down there and most of them can eventually be recycled).

If 80% of people who undertake training end up in some other field, that doesn't necessarily indicate a problem with training. It could also indicate that the training gives people lots of transferrable skills. Or it could be that the government is simply failing to either provide the jobs or create conditions where the private sector will provide the jobs.

Poor countries being unable to afford to pay highly skilled workers is a serious short term problem that's likely to require foreign aid. But in the long term those countries benefit when they're a source of highly skilled workers, as not all will leave, some of those who do will return, and many of those who leave will send money back.

Meanwhile internationally there's still plenty of highly skilled workers doing work of much lower value than they're trained for, thanks firstly to the breakup of the USSR and secondly to the GFC.