Environmentalists must confront population problem

Fresh from shamelessly pumping mass immigration propaganda, The Conversation has published a more balanced article calling for environmentalists to confront the world’s bulging population:

Brown recently declared the world’s population must start to decline before 2100, telling The Australian newspaper:

“We are already using more than what the planet can supply and we use more than the living fabric of the planet in supply. That’s why we wake up every day to fewer fisheries, less forests, more extinctions and so on. The human herd at eight billion is the greatest herd of mammals ever on this planet and it is unsustainable to have that growing”.

Research suggests our species has far exceeded its fair share of the planetary bounty, and Brown is right to call for the global population to peak. It is high time others joined the chorus – not only other environmentalists, but those concerned with international development and human rights…

In 1900, the world’s population was about 1.6 billion people. By 2023 it’s expected to hit 8 billion. According to the UN, it will reach 9.7 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100…

Why is the population growing so fast? Much of it is due to advanced fertilisers and intensive farming practices, leading to higher crop yields that can sustain more people. Health care has improved, and people are living much longer. And many parts of the world have historically had high fertility rates…

In recent decades, many conservationists, politicians and scientists have been reluctant to talk about population growth.

When The Australian approached Greenpeace, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Wilderness Society regarding Brown’s remarks, the groups said they did not comment on population growth. Brown told the newspaper environmentalists avoided the issue because they were “frightened” of being targeted by News Corp.

In an address to the National Press Club this month, Greens leader Adam Bandt reportedly wouldn’t say whether he is concerned about population growth, saying “my priority is getting energy at running on 100% renewable. That makes much more of a difference than […] population size”.

Bandt wouldn’t be the first environmental advocate to avoid the topic. But why? I believe there are three main reasons.

Most obvious is the fear of being accused of racism…

Second, the Catholic Church has played a big role in suppressing the topic…

Third is the ascendancy of free-market economics. High population growth in low-income countries is convenient for capitalism, because these populations depress wages worldwide…

As Brown said, we should be “having a mature debate” about population growth…

Good article, although there is no mention of Australia’s own population problem.

Population multiplied by units of consumption equals total environment impact. It’s not rocket science.

Environmental groups of all persuasions have timidly skirted the issue of overpopulation and in so doing have utterly failed the environment. World population growth of 80 million per annum is unambigously disastrous for the environment.

Environmentalists also frequently claim that climate change is a global problem. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where people live.

As such, they usually claim that slowing Australia’s population growth would do little to stop global over-population. This is true; although exactly the same argument could be made that reducing Australia’s emissions would do little to lower global carbon emissions. And yet they want Australia to take tough action on climate change.

Ultimately, Australia can only control what happens within its own borders. And growing the population so fast via mass immigration is unambiguously negative for Australia’s environment, water security, liveability, housing affordability, as well as meeting our emissions reduction targets. So why go down this path?

While climate change is a global problem, most commentators (myself included) believe that Australia should act locally. The only difference is that, unlike me, many of these same commentators do not believe that Australia should act locally on population growth, even though it too is a global problem. Spot the contradiction?

Environmental groups need to stop the hypocrisy and confront the population problem, both in Australia and abroad.

Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)

Comments

  1. Environmentalists “confront” the population problem? They’re too busy pleasuring themselves with “net zero emissions” and the “green new deal”. Which conveniently defer the problem for at least another generation.

  2. “Environmentalists also frequently claim that climate change is a global problem. Therefore, it doesn’t matter where people live.”

    This is wrong, a person born in India or Rural China will have a much lower carbon foot print than someone from a western country.

    People moving from a third world lifestyle to a first world (big house, car, airplane travel, consumerism etc) is massive. I am sure someone has done the maths but it wouldn’t surprise me if 1 person in Australia consumes as much as 100 Africans in the Conga.

    The left want to bring up the third world into the first world without consideration for the consequences, what will end up happening is the middle class will be slowly dissolved until everyone is living in a new second world country. Something similar to the movie Elysium. People will be able to have jobs in factories, access to hospitals but at severely reduced capacities with 0 safety net. In this world the real top 1% will continue living the high life in their enclaves with no middle class but a weird middle ground for the rest making a living just to scrape by.

    So, to avoid this future the middle class of the first world countries need to mobilise and unfortunately pull the ladder up. It is their only choice.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      Bangladesh to Australia. 40 times.

      The bogus environmental party are the biggest hoax in Australia’s political history.

    • Alternatively, the first world could lower it’s take of the worlds rescources .
      Interestingly this is the outcome of the NeoLiberal Capitalist model, as we are seeing in Australia,
      lower wages, casual employment, lesser govt services.
      Australia tops the world standards of living table,
      If all the world lived like Australians we need 5.2 planet Earths
      USA 5 planets
      UK 3
      China 2.1
      India 0.6

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Yeah right. Have you seen any evidence whatsoever that’s ever going to happen?

        We’ll soon go and take more and more and more.

        Can I ask you a question?

        If 25m greedy Westerners consume a combined 100 units of each resource how many will 50m greedy Westerners use?

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        Did you know new migrants emitt 4 times the carbon than the locals?

        Maybe it’s time for a rethink?

      • The idea of attacking Westerners for “taking up 5 planets worth of resources” if everyone lived like us, is racist nonsense.
        1. What do Africans, Asians and Indians of equal means (wealth) use? Wouldn’t surprise me to see a figure much higher than our own – meaning we actually already restrain our consumption relative to non-westerners of equivalent income.
        2. Why let other groups off the hook for the second part of the environmental equation? Over-breeding.
        Indians and Chinese may use less per capita than the West, but include their choices made regarding allowing their population size to bloom and the equation is more than equalled. USA is not the world’s largest polluter, China is. Why should the impact of Chinese breeding themselves to that point be ignored? Both population size AND consumption are choices made of equal environmental import.

    • The third world is moving to a first world lifestyle, and on the order of a billion of them in situ make a few tens of millions emigrating to the west basically irrelevant, especially when a sizeable chunk of them are already middle class.

      It is impossible to make any meaningful impact on climate change, or most other environmental problems, with a sole – or even primary – focus on reducing population. Even ignoring the ethical issues, it simply takes too long.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        …..”It is impossible to make any meaningful impact on climate change, or most other environmental problems, with a sole – or even primary – focus on reducing population”…..

        Humans, particularly rich humans, need lots and lots and lots of resources. Not just carbon rich fuels. The more of us there are, the more fish stocks we’ll consume, the more vegetation we’ll decimate to farm, dams we’ll build etc etc etc..

        …”Even ignoring the ethical issues, it simply takes too long”…

        With 50m Australians you’ll get to see the real nature of humans when what you helped do, we go and take the resources from other countries.

        Grow up smith. You think like a 4 year old.

    • Popliteal fossa

      It’s a global problem (climate change and population) and requires a global response. Notably lowering the third world total replacement rate.

    • I do not agree with the consumption of Africans by Australians (or any other nationality). #blacklivesmatter

    • It would be interesting to quantify it
      (Third world migrants when in a western economy create additional climate threat)
      And it’s significant, the PR & TR/SCV non Australian migrants currently in Australia create an extra 57 million additional tonnes of Co2 emissions compared to if they were in their country of origin.
      (57 million tonnes of CO2 is over a third of our 2030 Co2 emission reduction target)

      And so the question is : why aren’t the climate alarmists and environmentalists addressing this issue?

      By any measure, bringing millions of people of third world low Co2 emissions into an Australia high Co2 emissions lifestyle dramatically raises both Australian and global emissions.

      Our migrant intake in Australia directly adds over 57 million tonnes of CO2 emissions globally.

      Firstly a fact check.
      https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/australia?country=~AUS
      It’s a handy reference of country average yearly Co2 emissions.
      You can compare multiple countries at once (Australia 16.5 Tonnes per person, China 8 tonnes, India 2 tonnes, Nepal 0.2 tonnes etc)

      Australian non citizens migrants.
      Stocktake.
      1.9 million PR as non Australian foreign nationals. 93% are of third world origin.

      2.1 million TR TV on pretext visas & 670,000 NZ SCV. Remove the 320k genuine NZ born SCV… and that’s another 2.4 million TR & TR of third world origin.

      Total third world foreign nationals onshore.
      👉🏾4.2 million.

      The average Australian (including the 4.2 million non citizens) C02 emissions yearly is 16.5 tonnes.

      So the combined non Australian PR, TR and non NZ born SCV of third world origin when living in Australia emit 69.3 million tonnes of Co2. Say 70 million.

      By country as comparison. (See link above)

      1.1 million Chinese mainland born sole Chinese passport holding foreign nationals on a PR or a TR. in Australia!
      The average China Co2 individual emissions are 8 tonnes yearly.
      If they were in China their emissions would be 8.8 million tonnes of Co2.
      But by being here in Australia they emit 17.3 million tonnes.
      So just the 1.1 million foreign Chinese nationals here emit an extra 9 million tonnes of Co2 by being here.
      Over double.

      Then we have 660,000 Indian foreign nationals, 220,000 as ‘PR’ & 440,000 Indians as TR / SCV also on pretext visas to also live and working here illegally.
      The average Indian Co2 emission in India is 2 tonnes. If they were in India, they would emit 1.3 million tonnes of Co2, here they emit 10.9 million tonnes. So an extra 9.6 million tonnes of Co2 by the Indians being here.

      Then over 440,000 Middle Eastern, 390,000 North & South East Asians, 105,000 Bangladeshi & Pakistani, 89,000 Nepalese villagers (0.2 tonnes of Co2 if in Nepal), the African war criminals who paid the UNHCR bribes, the spawn of Brazilian San Paulo criminal class, and so on.

      Sum it all up and the 4.2 million third world migrant average Co2 emission in their home country is 3.1 tonnes annually or a total of 13 million tonnes.

      But by living here it is 70 million tonnes of Co2 emissions (4.2 million x 16.5 tonnes)

      So these 4.2 million non Australians create a direct global warming impact of 57 million tonnes.

      👉🏾57 million tonnes of migrant caused global warming.
      That’s a 10% reduction
      We would achieve half of the 2030 emissions reduction target just by rounding up and deporting these third world migrants who are here on pretext visas anyway.

      And by returning these non citizens back to their third world country we would achieve a GLOBAL reduction in Co2.

      Now there are also many other benefits.

      👉🏾Over 2 million jobs stolen by the third world migrant TR working illegally in the foreign criminal run black economy would be returned back to Australians.

      👉🏾Over 600,000 modest Australia dwellings occupied by these 4 million third world migrants would be returned back to Australian citizens/ we have 116,000 Australian permanent homeless and another 400,000 Australians without affordable housing.

      🔹The overload on our dams / water & power grid reduced. More environmental savings.
      🔹There would be massive reductions in traffic & public transport congestion. Same.
      🔹Vast swathes of migrant only slums in Sydney & Melbourne could be disinfected and then ‘environmentally’ rehabilitated.

      🔹It will arrest the migrant caused degradation of Australian living standards, particularly the cost of living in housing and services by removing non Australian migrant contention.

      🔹Recover our wages by some 6% (that has been the migrant intake impact)
      🔹Recover our GDP per capita by 8% (less people same overall GDP)
      🔹Remove the migrant overload on our health care and Medicare.
      🔹Remove the migrant overload and burden on Centrelink.
      🔹Recover our education system that had prostituted itself as a migrant guestworker alibi back to be as an entitlement for Australian youth.

      What’s not to like?

      Why aren’t the left wing & climate alarmists behind this?

      • And so the question is : why aren’t the climate alarmists and environmentalists addressing this issue?

        Because even if it weren’t rubbish, like pretty much everything else in your smorgasboard of unreferenced numbers and l0gical fallac1es, it’s basically irrelevant in the global context.

        • A childish denial of facts and a “it doesn’t make any difference globally anyway”.
          The Facts.
          The facts are all there. You have big problems accepting facts and reality.
          Work it out for yourself then. Convince yourself.
          Use the link given to the relative Co2 emission per person per country : select Australia, China, India, Nepal etc.
          Apply the non Australian migrant onshore statistics (which are correct and have been verified many times again including by MB articles / easily checked)
          -/-
          Fact 1.
          The simple mathematical equation is the 4.2 million third world migrants who are currently in Australia would average 3.1 tonnes Co2 emissions annually in their country of origin – or a total of 13 million tonnes.

          But these non Australians migrants living in Australia create 70 million tonnes of Co2 emissions (4.2 million x 16.5 tonnes)

          So these 4.2 million non Australian majority third world migrant PR and TR create a direct global warming impact of an extra 57 million tonnes.

          👉🏾57 million tonnes of migrant caused global warming.

          Fact 2.
          We in Australia would achieve half of the 2030 emissions reduction target by rounding up and deporting these third world migrants – who are here on pretext visas anyway.

          And by returning these non citizens back to their third world country we would achieve a GLOBAL reduction in Co2.

          Now as to the additional benefits of exiting the 2.5 million TR / SCV.
          That would recover over 2 million Australian jobs being stolen by these non Australian migrants,
          Over 600,000 Australian modest dwellings occupied by the 2.5 million migrant TR / SCV (where do you think they all live?), returned back to house Australian homeless. Rehabilitating the vast fetid migrant guestworkers slums that infest our 2 main cities, back to Australians.
          Reducing traffic, transport, power, water, health care and public services overload,
          Recover our education from prostituting itself as a visa alibi for migrant guestworkers, to instead be an affordable entitlement for Australians.
          That is all self evident.

          Then you say “it doesn’t make a difference globally”..

          It does actually.

          Australia has one of the highest third world intakes from third world low emissions countries into an advanced high emissions economy.

          By stopping that intake – and reversing the damage by sending millions of these third world people non Australians foreigner nationals back to their country of origin Australia is making a significant national and global contribution to lowering Co2 emissions.

          So good environmentally good for Australia
          And good globally.
          Every climate alarmist should be on board with this as a simple practical good thing that Australia should do doing.
          Saving the planet by sending the 2.5 million TR & scv third world migrant guestworkers (many who are here illegally anyway in visa/COe/funds breach) – back to their country of origin.

          • None of your “facts” are easily verifiable, nor have they ever been.

            And the last time I wasted a couple of hours trying to verify them they were almost all wrong or subject to absurd assumptions.

            A few million third world immigrants don’t matter in a global context because they are utterly dwarfed by the hundreds of millions of third worlders elevating (or have already elevated) their lifestyles and consumption in their home countries.

            Trying to tie this to the hopelessly inadequate Coalition targets is even more laughable.

        • As you block any reply to your comments, this is to my reply to your original.

          As others comment here in this article and to your comments in general – ‘smith – you really are full of it’.
          A UQ open borders migrant socialist / full of it.

          Facts.
          We have 2.5 million non Australian TR / SCV migrant foreign nationals onshore. We have taken in 1.9 million as PR. The vast majority are of third world origin including a large percentage of the NZ SCV trafficked in via NZ. MB has repeatedly outlined those stats for years as have others. The DHA and ABF provide those stats. VisaSure and others provide those stats. Many other sources validating the migrant intake numbers, origin and the pretext visa & corruption provide overwhelming validation.
          So you are lying when you say they are incorrect.
          -/-
          And the simple maths is that the 4.2 million NON Australian foreign nationals do emit 70 million tonnes of Co2 whilst in Australia whereas they would only emit 13 million tonnes of Co2 if in their country of origin.
          That link was given. The maths are simple.
          -/-
          Then you say.
          “It doesn’t matter when tens of billions of the third world are moving to a higher emissions anyway”
          Sure. That’s true.

          So why bother having any Australian targets at all?
          Why should the western world make futile token effort in emissions reductions, when billions in the third world and their inevitable increased emissions will totally overwhelm the planet.

          But what’s your answer then?

          That the western world enforce third world primitivism & poverty & denied these third world billions the opportunity of a more advanced living standard?
          Are you advocating mass sterilisation & introduced disease to cull the tidal wave of third world billions that are the real threat to global climate?

          My comment was simply that the Australian migrant intake do create ‘additional global emissions’ (compared to if they stayed in their home country).

          And that if the non Australian foreign migrants, particularly the TR here on pretext visas, in breach of those visas & COe, living & working illegally, if they were deported back to their country of origin, then we would achieve real global climate change outcomes in emissions reduction.

          And it’s not just about climate change.

          There are immediate and tangible benefits for both reducing the migrant intake as well as round up and deportation of the 2.5 million TR / SCV foreign nationals currently in Australia.
          Over 2 million Australians are now unemployed and another million or more on government handouts.
          Yet over 2 million jobs stolen by the migrant TR / SCV with many (studies cited) working illegally.
          We have a deepening Australian homeless and housing affordability crisis, over 600,000 ex Australian modest dwellings now foreign owned/ dirty money / converted into migrant only sublet cash in hand bunk share. That’s why we have 116,000 Australian permanent homeless and another 340,000 Australians without any affordable housing.
          We have a totally corrupted foreign student industry. Shutting down the foreign students who are a net negative economic and social disaster would be good for all Australians as well as restore our education to what it should be / for Australians as an entitlement.
          It would immediately reverse the Australian wafesand gdp per capita decline.
          And we could rehabilitate the vast non Australian migrant guestworker fetid slums and repopulate that with Australian homeless (it’s clear you don’t live in Sydney or Melbourne)
          It would fix Power water and infrastructure overload
          Remove the migrant vice & criminal industry.
          And remove the migrant bio hazard threat to Australia.
          The migrant slums in Melbourne and Sydney as expected were the virus incubation hub and the community transmission vector (via migrants working illegally – from faux security guards to the bed pan and cleansers in nursing homes) to infect and kill elderly Australians.
          There is every reason to deport / repatriate the 2.5 million migrant TR.
          They are an unwelcome economic, social, climate change and bio security risk to Australia.

          • As you block any reply to your comments, this is to my reply to your original.

            No, champ, I don’t do anything. The threading only goes down about three levels on MB.

            Your copypasta remains unsupported and unverifiable, and the rest of your screed is just standard bigoted rhetoric.

            So why bother having any Australian targets at all?
            Why should the western world make futile token effort in emissions reductions, when billions in the third world and their inevitable increased emissions will totally overwhelm the planet.

            But what’s your answer then?

            Because:
            * One way or another, emissions reductions will become internationally enforced. Better to be in front of the curve rather than behind it.
            * Following on from that, the potential to develop technology and skills that could be exported.
            * Doing the right thing.
            * Following on from both of those, a real reason for having some national pride.

            I don’t know if we can address climate change, but I do know that sticking our fingers in our ears and going lalalalalala by trying to pretend kicking a proportionate handful of people out of Australia will do precisely fvck all towards that goal.

            That the western world enforce third world primitivism & poverty & denied these third world billions the opportunity of a more advanced living standard?
            Are you advocating mass sterilisation & introduced disease to cull the tidal wave of third world billions that are the real threat to global climate?

            LOL.

            Don’t try and project your ideas onto me. I have never even vaguely suggested either of those and argue against them here at least once a week.

  3. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    There’s a core reason, among many, that bringing migrants to Australia increases global population.

    If elites can abscond to Australia, they have no reason to push population controls in their country, or encourage the UN to do the same.

  4. Do I detect a touch of NIMBYism, but at a national level?
    Unless people in the poorer parts of the World think they will be as well-off by staying where they are, they will want to move to the wealthier countries such as Australia.
    Two ways to even out the standard of living. One is to bring the rest of the World up to rich country levels, the other is for us to sink/stagnate back to theirs. I will put money on the second one not being a popular option.
    So, even if we stop population growth now, we will still either have to trash the environment more or find some really clever ways to maintain a high standard of living while not polluting the place too much.
    Conclusion? We have to halt/reduce population growth AND get rid of all the bad stuff like CO2, plastic, nitrogenous fertilisers and the Murdoch Press.

  5. SnappedUpSavvyMEMBER

    The water issue in Australia is where they come completely unstuck, there is no level of whataboutism that can answer that

  6. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    Greens are beyond a joke. Yet, no one in MSM can outline why, because that exposes the scam on us all.

    They’re all in on it, LNP, Labor, Greens and MSM. Lathering themselves in privilege while handing our kids futures to the elites.

  7. Living on a finite planet with finite resources it follows logically it can also sustain a finite number of people comfortably. Agricultural practices can be improved to some extent, but pollution wise intensive farming already reached its limits in Western societies and oceans are depleted of fish already (e.g. South China sea).

  8. Environmentalists claiming its a global problem are globalists along with Gates etc, Issues start with the granular, the specific. Armidale running out of water. Sydney due to run out next May but unexpectedly averted by clearing of chinese pollution cloud which normally sucks moisture carrying air from the Indian Ocean and monsoonal and el Nina up north away from eastern aus, Aust has a carrying capacity of 22 to 23 million. Visiting persons are part of that. Natural growth kept us safe, immigration means we can’t feed and water and transport and provide for us all. Already importing wheat from Canada.

  9. I agree that population growth has environmental impacts – but both you and Bob Brown have obviously not kept pace with developments. A belief in overpopulation is factually incorrect. Humans are not cockroaches or bacteria. We do not reproduce exponentially until the food runs out. Instead, as a nation becomes richer and more developed, people naturally have fewer children, choosing to invest more of their time and resources into raising one or two children instead of ten. That’s been the pattern in every rich country around the world – and the results are clearly on show in many places

    https://ourworldindata.org/global-fertility-has-halved

    https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth-past-future

    https://www.acsh.org/news/2020/08/05/overpopulation-myth-new-study-predicts-population-decline-century-14953

    What is required for this trend to continue is not some Malthusian simplistic calculation such as the one you espouse (which is fundamentally flawed) “Population multiplied by units of consumption equals total environment impact. ” – because as societies increase their prosperity their population growth slows and thanks to decoupling not all economic growth results in consumption of limited resources.

    What is required is the empowerment and education of women everywhere and continuation of the trend (interrupted by the pandemic) of global economic growth everywhere

    No – it’s not rocket science – but it does require some nuance in understanding which appears to be generally lacking

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      This a joke?

      Educated people are richer, richer people consume more resources.

      Don’t be scammed by the wokesters. They’re completely and utterly wrong. They are liars.

    • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

      ….”We do not reproduce exponentially until the food runs out.”….

      lol. Yeah we do. Or we take more land or resources from others.

      You making this stuff up or read it somewhere? Is it based on logic, ecology and facts or is it woke fantasy?

      • It’s apparent from your comment that you have not read any of the links I posted – and are clearly evidence immune and incapable of updating your ill informed opinions – so dialogue is futile – have a nice day

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          Yet, you can’t answer my questions.

          .”We do not reproduce exponentially until the food runs out.”….

          Honestly mate, that’s the most naive baseless comment I’ve read on MB.

          You are in a fog of lies. Now you’ve found an echo in smithy.

          Be honest. Answer the questions. BTW, I’ve got a degree in science and I actually know what I’m talking about.

          You? Degree in woke?

          Reading comments such as yours highlights to me what we’re up against, why the planet is utterly doomed. You are the problem.

          You don’t understand what you’re talking about but put yourself out there as an expert. Like smithy, like the Greens.

          • That you even think you asked one (as in made an inquiry as opposed to poorly expressed rhetoricals) simply confirms my view that dialogue with you would be just feeding another troll – IF you were interested in being informed you might actually look at the data in the links I posted – but I suspect the Cognitive dissonance would be too much for you 😉

    • I think you underestimate both the ramifications of the global human population overshoot that is upon us, and secondly the similarities between the rate at which bacteria reproduce and a lot of humans are doing so today in certain vast continents on earth.

      The feedback loop of when whole populations of vast primative continents realise they’ve overshot on the human baby front, to the time where they are able to effect any material change to the rate of births is far too slow to be able to provide the fanciful ‘cruise control’ dynamic that you describe in your utopian wet dream

    • agree that population growth has environmental impacts – but both you and Bob Brown have obviously not kept pace with developments. A belief in overpopulation is factually incorrect. Humans are not cockroaches or bacteria. We do not reproduce exponentially until the food runs out. Instead, as a nation becomes richer and more developed, people naturally have fewer children, choosing to invest more of their time and resources into raising one or two children instead of ten.

      This is actually Brown’s view. His belief is that we should be trying to get the rest of the world to this point ASAP (high wealth, women’s education and rights, access to contraception and abortion) to address population concerns.

      Unfortunately, the continuing Conservative shift across the western world means the opposite is more likely.

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        What are you talking about?

        Everything you say has been shown to be wrong again and again and again.

        What are you specifically referring to here? Humans are actually not resource using animals?

      • Thank you – that’s a good point – I have a lot of respect for Brown – thank you also for the only intelligent and evidence based reply to my comment – the others are just ill informed DK card carrying members lol

      • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

        “the continuing Conservative shift across the western world means the opposite is more likely”

        Earth to Smith. The conservatives, or elites are right behind the woke bringing as many into the consumption world as possible.

        Why? Money.

        Why do the woke help? Because they’re too stupid to understand what they’re doing.

    • “…as a nation becomes richer and more developed, people naturally have fewer children, choosing to invest more of their time and resources into raising one or two children instead of ten….”

      True, to a degree, but this needs context. In Australia this trend of the local population’s fertility saw a declining replacement rate to do just that. It was exactly this phenomenon that saw family size decline – and what was the response of government and industry? Well, that was to invent the ageing “crisis” and ship people in to fit an economic paradigm that does not want populations to shrink. That economic paradigm seeks to turn low resources consuming peoples into high resources consuming people WHERE EVER they are. Each Australian roughly consumes 5-10 x that of the mean global person and this follows GDP:

      https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/2015/global/competition

      It’s time to wake up rather than woke up to the facts. As billions of people increase their ecological and resources footprint with development that last thing the world needs is more Australians and North Americans. Each one of us lives like 10 others and each one of our children does the same. If you give a toss about environmental and ecological sustainability and the basic dignity of not being a mega-hypocrite the place you would start with population sustainability is in a country that has already voted with its gonads to keep fertility low. Otherwise you’re just being a sucker for the spin of vested interests and refusing to see that the tired Malthusian dogma is more to do with the propaganda of an economic paradigm coupled to population growth to make bucks.

      • As billions of people increase their ecological and resources footprint with development that last thing the world needs is more Australians and North Americans. Each one of us lives like 10 others and each one of our children does the same. If you give a toss about environmental and ecological sustainability and the basic dignity of not being a mega-hypocrite the place you would start with population sustainability is in a country that has already voted with its gonads to keep fertility low. Otherwise you’re just being a sucker for the spin of vested interests and refusing to see that the tired Malthusian dogma is more to do with the propaganda of an economic paradigm coupled to population growth to make bucks.

        Or you simply understand maths.

        • Totes BeWokeMEMBER

          Obfuscation 101 Smith style.

          It’s all a problem, saying abc is less of a problem than xyz doesn’t stop it being a problem.

          You are utterly full of it.

    • But you have left out the role of immigration. All of Australia’s recent population growth (rapid as it has been) is the result of immigration. Fertility has been below replacement since 1978.

      • No – I have not. I was taking a more global perspective. Yes, it is empirically true that the bulk of the local population growth has been immigration fueled (a point made consistently here on MB). I think that is a problem because of the strain it puts on local infrastructure and social cohesion, and the environment too. So I support lower immigration numbers

    • Actually- the relationship between income and environmental impact is an inverse U- called the environmental kuznets curve. When first world economies did this, they exceeded the carrying capacity of their own countries and so used developing country natural resources to supplement their consumption. I agree that educating women in third world countries is the answer to reducing fertility and therefore populaiton, but more than that is required, because if left to run its course, developing countries and their massive population (about 4-5x the developed world) will ramp up the same environmental kuznets curve, and there will be no more countries to supplement the natural resources required for their consumption.

  10. Great Article, props to you Colin Butler. I’ll be sharing this one.

    I know it falls short of damning our corrupt immigration ponzi, but perhaps they’re reserving that as a feature of a follow-up article!

  11. Look, most Australians don’t even care about their children (cheering on higher and higher house prices that make it more difficult for their children to buy a house) so why would they care about future generations beyond that? There is no political mileage in this country for parties that want to look after younger generations so the Greens attitude is no surprise really.

    What is going to change these attitudes? In my view, only a recognition that the housing bubble story is false. And that will only happen with some form of collapse.

    • What is going to change these attitudes?

      Colin Butlers article will, if enough educated Aussies can be convinced to take the three minutes required to read it, and perhaps the next few days they might need to absorb everything it declares

    • Correct. They don’t even stop think what their children’s future could be when they decide to have children.

      Anyone that decides to have children is cruel.

  12. Population growth vs mass migration isn’t the only area where greenies don’t know whether they’re coming or going. They believe the nebulous science when it comes to global warming and want clean energy, but don’t believe the hard science when it comes to nuclear energy and also oppose hydroelectric dams. They want more spending on public transport rather than roads, but now want subsidies for private electric vehicles.

  13. Totes BeWokeMEMBER

    We have one option to survive a few more centuries. Stop immigration into the West.

    The rest will overshoot their resources and crash before long. Brought forward by the genius of the left to help the elites bring them out of poverty with no regard to controlling population.

    The woke, with their twisted logic, are behind every problem the world’s got.

  14. Antinatalism is the answer.

    Reduce environmental pressures and reduce the amount of people that experience the crapitude of life.

  15. There will be fewer people on Earth in 2100 than 2000 due to depopulation of China, USA and Europe. The rest of the world will not be able to make up the shortfall, irrespective of migration to the USA and Europe.

  16. AGW is a human entropy problem and not immigration E.g. we could move the worlds entire population to say Texas and survive, not that many would agree to the conditions due to birth biases.

    The only thing that will mitigate AGW is reducing the factors which increases entropy in natural capital and resulting feed back loops outside a non human baseline E.g. design obsolescence, fast fashion consumption, lack of mitigation of extraction and production of natural capital which has long self life detrimental environmental factors, consumption for social status [he that dies with the most toys (property of distinction) wins mentality and not unselfish deeds in advancing human society E.g. respect], and sadly some esoteric writings given interpretations that the tobacco and FF et al industries would die for …

    Seriously some need to get over re-bottling old wine into new bottles too drive a tired agenda based from musings in antiquity, immigration is a factor of birth death rates with a side of staving off social stagnation.

  17. Leith, I don’t think the Greens and other environmentalists are being hypocritical. Rather, I see hard-headed realism. I am not a Green’s member and do not speak for them, but this is my understanding of their position after investigating when it came up on MB last year…

    Start with Adam Bandt’s answer describing what Australia should focus on: “my priority is getting energy at running on 100% renewable. That makes much more of a difference than […] population size”. That is correct. And you already understand that, although you may not have admitted the full implications, as in your own words “Population multiplied by units of consumption equals total environment impact.”. That tells us that a limit on Australia’s population, a “carrying capacity”, depends on the carbon intensity of our economy. If we decarbonise, the carrying capacity increases. Asking the Greens to name a carrying capacity is a pointless distraction when their policy to transform the economy will cause the limit to increase.

    If we are to succeed in tackling climate change, the only avenue for Australia is to decarbonise our economy. If we are successful, then it will not matter that our population is a bit larger. On the other hand, if we start restricting our population and that becomes an excuse to avoid decarbonising, then we will fail. For Australia, questions about population are a distraction from the task ahead of us, and the correct reply is “why haven’t we moved to renewables yet”, as Adam Bandt said at the press club.

    You might suggest that we do both: restrict population growth and restructure our economy at the same time. But the greenies would still be correct to insist on economic reform first before starting a conversation about population as the economic factor is much more significant, and population could easily become a distraction from that. Such as these recent articles in the Australian, The Conversation and MB.

    There appears to be a media push to link Australia’s population with our climate change response, mainly coming from the Australian. Being the Australian, I doubt it is a genuine attempt to advance Australia’s efforts to tackle climate change.

    There are other important reasons to resist linking Australia’s population with our climate change effort. If Australia were to greatly reduce immigration without taking serious efforts to decarbonise, that would rightly be seen as immoral by developing nations. Perhaps even more immoral than our current policy of continuing with a high-carbon economy and having high immigration. Again, only when we are making serious efforts to decarbonise can we talk about population.

    In summary, I don’t see a contradiction. I see a distraction. Why haven’t we moved to renewables yet?

    • 1

      On the other hand, if we start restricting our population and that becomes an excuse to avoid decarbonising, then we will fail.

      And it is fairly obvious that the reason a lot of people become so obsessed with population is because they don’t want to deal with both decarbonising, and with the inevitable lifestyle changes that need to come (eg: meat – at least the stuff that isn’t grown in vats – is going to have to become a lot less common as a foodstuff).

      The other point I’ve made multiple times, is the sheer number of people in the third world who will be elevating themselves to first world living standards (or something reasonably close) utterly dwarfs the number of those same third worlders emigrating to western countries. The idea that some meaningful impact emissions-wise is going to happen by preventing immigration from the third world when an order of magnitude more people are going to be achieving the same thing domestically on those countries, is just silly.

  18. This is wrong. Characterizing environmental problems as a population issue means that those environmental problems will never be solved. The problem is the impact, and finding solutions. It is foreseeable that human impact will be of environmental benefit in the future, which would make population irrelevant. Birth rates are already slowing rapidly worldwide due to the increased education and prosperity of women.

    It is also political suicide, which is exactly why LVO wants the greens to do it. “Here Bob, jump into the teeth of the combine harvester, there’s a good lad…” Groovy