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.