Collected letters

Some recent newspaper letters (none mine).

The Age, 16/12:

Sorry, the eco-tooth fairy is not coming

Climate change is happening. Ask anyone in the bush. It seems as if only idiot politicians insulated from reality think that you can escape it.

I live about 100 kilometres from Melbourne on eight hectares. February taught me that I cannot rely on the CFA to come to my rescue.

I have installed sprinkler systems on my house and on my workshop, which with time, materials, and two petrol fire-fighting pumps cost about $15,000. I built myself a fire tanker from an old four-wheel-drive, with a new pump, $2000. I spent a couple of months clearing trees, undergrowth and ground litter from the fire-zone directions, which meant loss of working time. I installed a photo-voltaic electricity system, which will cost me a further $3000, after the rebate.

I drive to Melbourne, and I see the McMansions on the way. No verandas, not even eaves, relying only on cheap electricity to power their air-conditioners. I think: “I hope the price of power goes through the roof to show these fools that stupidity is not free.”

I see that these people have representatives, on both sides of the parliaments of this country, who believe in the eco-tooth fairy. I despair.

– Wolfgang Rebien, Welshmans Reef

Climate change; forget it. Population of the world in 2000, about 6 billion. 2050, about 9 billion; end of story.

– Stuart Young, Sorrento

Until politicians begin to ask how the environment can accommodate economics, rather than how economics can accommodate the environment, a sustainable future will never be realised.

– Will Hardiker, Thornbury

17/12, on the immigration scam disguised as international students:

Admission on visas

The straight-talking Indian consul-general seems to have settled in well to her life in Melbourne (“The joy of the envoy”, Insight, 12/12). What unsettles me, and I find insulting and undiplomatic, is her open admission that Indian students are here to gain permanent residency, rather than a skill.

No Australian politician seems to want to address this issue or look at the real long-term value to Australia. These trade courses do not come up to our own apprenticeship standards (even if all the colleges were well run). Thus, by definition, we are not producing skilled migrants - one of the factors on which permanent residency is based.

What is in it for Australia, apart from the course fees? Given the number of college collapses, you have to wonder how much of these fees actually remain in the country. Isn’t it about time we ended this hypocrisy?

– Graham Hogarth, Melbourne

H-S, 28/12:

Population growth bad for state

May I add to Brian Rockliff’s dismay (December 24) at the Brumby Government’s performance.

The core of Victoria’s problems comes down to the fact that the Premier is a very strong advocate of a massive population growth in the state (up to 2000 a week), and the serious side-effects this is having in unprecedented urban sprawl, traffic mayhem, water shortages, expensive housing and so on. No minister ever accepts responsibility. The most galling thing about this is that the coterie of Brumby ministers will eventually leave Parliament and be very handsomely rewarded by tax payers for the dreadful mess that this Government has created.

– Tony Davidson, Glen Waverley

Housing greed

Letters from the Herald-Sun, both concerning housing, 7/12:

Why have our regulators allowed the building of suburbs full of large homes without eaves and with no room for shade trees? These homes require air conditioners and those coolers consume energy while pumping hot air into the small gaps between the buildings. The same developments have no associated energy-efficient public transport. Contact your local councillors and representatives and demand answers and accountability, followed by the appointment of planners who know what common sense is.

– Paul Worden. Portland

I suspect such poor planning is because of corruption and influence from property developers, who can bribe councilors and politicians in developers’ favor.

16/12:

Overseas buyers swoop on homes

The decision by Kevin Rudd to eliminate any residency requirements when purchasing Australian real estate has propelled prices into the stratosphere. Even 24-hour junkets are now being organised to purchase property and then fly back over seas, particularly from China.

Any auctioneer would have noted that since March this year, when any form of residency requirement was lifted, the successful buyer was almost inevitably from overseas. How does the PM expect every day Australians to compete with a plethora of multi-millionaires? Prices have become obscene. A million dollars, or close enough to, has now become an everyday benchmark. On the basis that real estate doubles roughly every 10 years, our children can look forward to paying at least $2 million for that same property.

– Lou Coppola, Hawthorn East

I wonder if this baffling and counterintuitive decision to make the housing market even more unsustainably competitive is because the Prime Minister has contacts in China? It makes being a citizen rather pointless – why bother, when non-citizens are given the same privileges?

“High property prices should be a warning for Singaporeans”, Asian Correspondent. Singapore also has a housing affordability crisis, brought on by both inflation and overpopulation. The only people who benefit are investors (a dishonest way to make money, in my view). As pointed out, one’s house might be worth a million dollars, but it is not the same as having money in a bank that can be accessed (unless you sign up for a dubious “reverse mortgage” scheme). High property values also mean council rates go up, making life even more difficult for home owners who don’t have a high income of real money.

And as for the “net worth” of property owners going up – well, yes, that’s true. But it’s not much use to home owners, who don’t actually get that money unless they sell their house and don’t need to buy another one. The only people who really benefit from houses rising ahead of inflation are those with investment properties, and they do it at the expense of those trying to enter the market to buy one single home.

A house should first and foremost be a place to live in. The property market is corrupted by greed and is out of control, and if the government had any sense of social justice, it would abolish investor-favoring schemes such as negative gearing – and also, of course, reduce population growth so housing demand falls.

“Melbourne property market bounces back”, H-S, 21/12. I am sick of seeing articles exulting over rising house prices, this being one. The spokesperson quoted in the article is from the Real Estate Institute Victoria:

Homebuyers would face rising costs if the industry failed to build houses at a rate that matched the population growth, Mr. Larocca said.

“We would like to see an increased rate in construction of housing.

“Unless that occurs, we’re likely to see next year that prices will continue to rise,” he said.

“It really is supply and demand. While the population continues to increase unless more houses are put on the market, the demand will continue to be more pronounced.”

Well, duh, reduce population growth and you won’t have to smother more land with unsustainable housing estates?

“Homing in on the big decisions”, H-S, 1/12. Articles like this make me despair; Melbourne is on its way to becoming a nightmare megacity.

But the days of larger homes may be numbered as new home seekers are pushed farther from the city in search of affordable land. Infrastructure – public transport, schools and hospitals – are incredibly expensive and cannot keep pace. Aside from those who are willing to put up with a commute to the city of more than an hour each way, our rising population will be increasingly squashed into existing urban boundaries aided by government polices that promote higher-density living. Developers will continue knocking down existing homes to make way for multiple units, to the anger of existing home owners, who will be forced to sit back and watch as the character of their neighbourhood changes. Our way of life is about to change dramatically in the next couple of decades thanks to higher fertility rates and the government’s drive to boost our population through migration. Australia’s current population of 22 million is expected to reach 35 million by 2049. To fit everyone in, someone’s dream will have to be shattered.

“Houses too big, say Greens”, SMH, 1/12. Houses built since the 1990s have become obscenely oversized behemoths, as the Greens political party point out.

The Government should consider “putting the brakes” on developers who are building ever larger houses on relatively small lots, he said. He also believed it was time to discuss imposing limits on how large new houses could be.

Of course, some will snipe that this is “Government interference” and “social engineering”, but regulations are necessary in any society. My parents’ home – the one I grew up in (family of 4) – would be tiny by today’s standards; it was built in the late 1940s. I am not sure how many squares it is, but it is a 1-storey weatherboard with: 3 bedrooms (originally 2, before the previous owners added an extension), a hall, 1 bathroom & toilet, 1 kitchen, 1 dining room, 1 laundry, 1 living room. Admittedly an extra room or two would be nice (not to mention another toilet!) as possessions accumulate! The Google Maps image below shows the house (at bottom of picture) beside a newer (1-storey) one built a few years ago.

Freeway mania

“Frankston Bypass to bury historical remnant bush at Westerfield”, Courier-Mail, 10/12. I can only feel disgust at the Brumby Government for its obsession with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways, and this particular freeway will cut through an ecologically-significant piece of remnant bushland. No amount of compensation will make up for the loss once that ecology is gone. As it is a compulsory aquisition, the old couple who own the land appear powerless to do anything to stop it – though surely they could take their objection to court? I can see why people rebel against governments out of sheer frustration when all else fails (I am wishing for civil war against the current one). The environmental credentials of the State Government are a joke; it only cares for growing the economy and population, and placating developers and the building industry.

“Expert calls for freeway projects to be scrapped”, The Age, 3/12. No more freeways should be built until there is a comprehensive transport plan in place, and money should instead be put into rail lines. That’s a forlorn hope, however, with the current Government.

“Victorian prep classes to be at bursting point as ‘one for the country’ kids start school”, H-S, 15/12. Former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello’s stupid remark in 2004 is unfortunately becoming reality as the birth rate has increased, no thanks to the baby bonus. We don’t need any more children.

China and India are, not surprisingly, among the highest source of immigrants. Both countries have such unsustainably huge populations that many have to go to other countries to find work. But they can’t expect to keep exporting their surplus people. The UK has a similar problem with its high immigration; there is a “spillover” of its citizens coming to Australia because the UK is so overcrowded. What happens when Australia in turn becomes unliveable because of growth? There is nowhere else to go.

Outspoken federal Labor MP Kelvin Thomson wants immigration slashed on the basis that rampant population growth is worsening urban congestion, harming the environment and exacerbating the water shortage. But his leader, PM Kevin Rudd, is a “big Australia man”, with the Federal Government predicting the population will grow to 35 million by 2050.

Could Kelvin Thomson please run for PM? He would definitely get my vote (I certainly won’t be voting for the Rudd Government again, and the Liberals are just as bad).

“Wake-up to the opportunities in population growth”, The Age, 11/12. An utterly inane opinion by columnist Julie Szego, who believes that Australia has some moral duty to import more people because other countries have high populations.

Changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness, the NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) ethos writ large. It would not help make cities more dense and habits less wasteful – quite the reverse. Lessen the pressure for change and the danger is complacency. Go down the misanthropic path and tomorrow’s suburban protesters (what, a new housing block /school/skate park? In my street?) are emboldened today.

People are NIMBYs because they want to retain their pleasant surroundings of gardens and space, not be crammed into high-density developments like battery hens. The article got a lot of scathing comments, including mine:

More people are an “opportunity”? Yes – if you don’t mind competing for dwindling living space, jobs and resources. European countries are facing social unrest from their massive immigration (remember the riots in France?). If you think population growth is a good thing, you are seriously deluded.

12/12:

Expect a backlash

Julie Szego (Comment, 11/12) provides little information as to exactly what the opportunities are in population growth. In fact by references to congestion, water shortages, fraying social fabric and greenhouse gas emissions, she gives examples of how our lifestyle will be diminished.

She holds up Spain as an example because it absorbed 2.5 million immigrants, but fails to mention the impact it had as development ran amok, corrupting local councils.

In Europe there is hardly a nation that has not experienced a backlash against immigration. Right-wing extreme parties have proliferated and violence against minorities has escalated, often because migrants have a disproportionately high level of unemployment and are forced to congregate in slums.

– Don Owers, Dudley, NSW

14/12:

Can’t cut footprint if adding more feet

I would like to correct four points in Julie Szego’s argument (Comment, 11/12) in favour of a 60 per cent population increase.

First, that “changing course now would represent the triumph of selfishness”. It is the exact opposite. We should be less selfish, and share this country with our wonderful wildlife, and keep it intact for our children and grandchildren. It would be utterly selfish to ruin our country for the sake of a bigger corporate bottom line now.

Second, that my proposal to scrap the baby bonus means “the future’s no longer worth nurturing”. Wrong again. I am in favour of nurturing the future, but you do that far better by putting money into educating and training young Australians.

Third, at no stage have I proposed a Chinese-style one child policy. My plan also involves a net 70,000 migrants each year.

Finally, that “climate change is a red herring”. Nonsense. Cutting Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent or more by 2050 is made much harder by population rising by 60 per cent during that time. It’s hard to reduce your carbon footprint when you keep adding more feet.

– Kelvin Thomson, federal member for Wills

Monument to greed

Graham Reilly (Insight, 12/12) said it all. Local residents with limited resources are obliged to be the custodians of the very “soul” of each local area while developers are given free rein to push the envelope as far as possible – and beyond – to maximise profit. They’re on a “search and destroy” mission called “planning by arithmetic”.

Meanwhile, the Planning Minister happily endorses every plot to curtail the rights of residents and the already limited powers of councils, so that the “soul” of Melbourne is forever dammed to a car-packed, grey, concrete monument to greed.

The unique qualities of our suburbs are lost to what is euphemistically known as “urban renewal”. Just what is the minister renewing? He is being handed unprecedented powers over our way of life.

– Ann Reid, Malvern East

15/12:

Weight of numbers

The world’s human population is anticipated to rise quickly to at least 9 billion, but is likely to go higher if sufficient water and food can be found to sustain more people. This is easily the biggest crisis confronting humanity. All over the planet ecosystems are collapsing under the weight of human populations and species are being made extinct at cataclysmic rates.

My ancestors came here from Europe because it was overcrowded and without opportunities. They dispossessed Aboriginal populations who were living sustainably. That process continues. Why humans should decide to cram as many people on to the planet as conceivably possible is strange, given the history of overcrowding, environmental collapse, resource wars, and famines past and present.

The least we might expect is rational debate on this most important issue, not dictum from on high. Let’s think about where increased overpopulation might take us.

– Jim Walker, Caulfield

My published letter – 9/12

This was in response to a real estate ad in the previous week’s local newspaper. My letter got edited a bit.

Original version:

The full-page real estate ad in the 3/12 [local paper] that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become. Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. Population growth means overcrowding and overdevelopment, making life ever more stressful for residents. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live in. No government so far seems to have the will to implement these measures, however, by curtailing population growth.

Edited for print version:

The full-page real estate ad in the [local paper] on December 2 that gloated over rising house prices is an example of how warped by greed the market has become.

Increasing property values also mean council rates rise, thus the cost of living goes up. The housing market is out of control, favoring greedy investors and developers, and it is time this trend was reversed back in favor of those who simply want a place to live.

Population overload

“Population overload”, BBC Focus, issue 207. This article provides an overview of the population growth issue, and the problems facing campaigners trying to bring attention to it, noting that fewer people means other social and environmental problems can be alleviated. It also notes that even if reduction measures were put in place soon, growth would still continue for decades due to momentum:

Provided all populations reach a fertility below-replacement level, the UN projects that the world population could peak late in the 21st century, and then begin declining for the first time in hundreds of years. But to achieve that we have to put the brakes on population before 2050. The trouble is, population increase until mid-century cannot be avoided. High fertility in the past, especially in the developing world, has built an inevitable momentum that fuels population growth – like a car braking at high speed, it’s going to take longer to come to a complete stop. There is still a high concentration of women of child-bearing age alive, so even if global fertility rates suddenly dropped to replacement level, it would take ageneration or two for the population to finally stabilise.

Articles from The Age:

“Most back immigration”, 1/12: this only involved a survey of 2000 people; hardly representative. “Migration numbers at record high”, 4/12. Alarming statistics on the yearly immigration rate (500 000!) and high birth rate. This is also making housing impossibly expensive, much to the delight of greedy investors and developers, but few others.

The federal and state governments have strongly supported the surge in immigration, arguing that it adds to Australia’s skilled workforce, diversity and economic strength. Without it, the Australian economy certainly would have gone backwards in the year to June.

Never mind the damned economy, what about keeping Australia liveable?

“Giving women a choice key to family planning”, 3/12.

The key to preventing a near-doubling of global population by 2050 is to enable women in developing nations to choose the size and spacing of their families, according to the United Nations population chief. Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, who heads the the United Nations Population Fund, said research showed about 235 million of the world’s women would like to cap their family sizes but had no access to family planning. Rejecting approaches such as China’s One Child policy, she said that slowing down future population growth could be achieved only through voluntary means.

Nonetheless, the world environmental situation is so dire that limits on the number of children allowed should be considered by governments, no matter how draconian this seems.

“Population control best way to cut emissions”, 4/12. A proposed scheme by the Optimum Population trust to provide contraception to people in poorer countries.

The cost-benefit analysis commissioned by the trust claims that family planning is the cheapest way to reduce carbon emissions. Every £4 ($A7) spent on contraception, it says, saves one tonne of carbon dioxide being added to global warming, but a similar reduction in emissions would require an £8 investment in tree planting, £15 in wind power, £31 in solar energy and £56 in hybrid vehicle technology.

But clueless religious groups oppose this: “But it would be misleading if it was spent in this way. It should go to things like disaster risk reduction, food security and water.” Fewer people competing for food will mean more food and water available to go around.

Collected letters

A collection of other people’s letters on overpopulation and overdevelopment, from since the last time I wrote.

24/11:

It’s no fun living in a concrete jungle

Paul Mees (Comment, 23/11) provides logical thinking about Melbourne residential densities, transport systems and trees. Single-dwelling lots take far too much blame for our transport congestion and overpopulation problems, when they actually offer many positives socially, health-wise and environmentally.

With the past 15-plus years of increased dual-occupancy and multi-unit development of former single-dwelling lots, we have witnessed a substantial loss of large trees (up to 50 per cent in places) throughout the metropolitan area. This is leading to increased urban heat island effects and severe strains on stormwater systems and electricity demand for summer air-conditioners. We need to retain our trees and gardens (with real trees – not urban-designer toy specimens) and sanity while creating more job opportunities near our regional activity centres to reduce demand for freeways and public transport.

We might also learn to grow our own fruit and vegetables again, avoiding the greenhouse emissions and higher prices associated with buying them in supermarkets. Otherwise, “the garden state” will become “just another hot, crowded, concrete jungle”.

– Dennis Williamson, Glen Waverley

Three cheers for Mees

Suburban garden lovers and supporters of the big backyard – that Australian institution – will cheer when they read Dr.Paul Mees’ article.

Dr.Mees, Melbourne’s transport guru, turns the tables on those muddle-headed urban planners who wrongly blame our gardens and backyards for low suburban density, which is in turn blamed for poor public transport and overuse of cars.

He says that, rather, Government should tackle our dysfunctional privatised public transport.

Our great-grandparents, who left overcrowded tenements in Britain and Europe for a new life in Australia, would never have dreamt that the Government would try to get us to abandon our suburban gardens and force us into high-rise units on tram lines or next to train tracks.

– Elizabeth Jackson, Fitzroy

27/11:

Cut tax breaks

Perhaps, Ric Battellino (The Age, 26/11), the reason for the decline in first home ownership is more financial than anything else. It’s only since the reintroduction of negative gearing and the halving of capital gains tax that Australia has experienced unprecedented increases in house prices. These tax breaks, worth billions annually, perfectly suit the interests of real estate investors and speculators (who already own a home). But they have created record unaffordability for first home buyers.

– John Mason, South Melbourne

28/11:

Growth is dirty word

Tony Brittingham and Sue Packham (Letters, 25/11, 26/11) expose the core truth about our “civilisation” – limitless growth. “Changing our lifestyles” and “adjusting” to a low-carbon world means valuing a healthy global environment more than a “better (material) life” for our kids. Indeed, such an environment is a must if all kids are to live securely.

Few believe conventional “progress” is possible without economic growth. Yet this is exactly what pressures the planet, through consumption of more and more resources and energy per person.

We all need to get our heads around the psychological, existential and economic challenge symbolised by deleting growth from our list of policy, and lifestyle, assumptions. Then we might get some real leadership in confronting our dire situation, way beyond fiddling with a farcical ETS.

– Ken Blackman, Hampton

Population push

Negative gearing and the halving of capital gains are not the sole factors in rising house prices (Letters, 27/11). An increasing population also drives demand, while the cost of borrowing plays a great part in determining house prices. During John Howard’s tenure the cost of money fell substantially, which in no small measure pushed up prices.

– Tibor Majlath, Greensborough

2/12:

A stand on migrants

I was dismayed to read the article about immigration (“Most back immigration”, The Age, 1/12). There was admiration for those who are happy with high rates of immigration and an implication that those who think we have too much are racist.

I am opposed to high levels of immigration because a higher population will cause some misery to our way of life and country. I am not racist – my antecedents migrated here during each of the past three centuries – but Australia has reached a point where it has suffered enough from man.

The best and worst intentions of an educated democracy are unable to prevent further population pressures from smashing up our beautiful country. Of course, there needs to be some migration flow and refugee resettlement here. More than that may make more profits and jobs in the short term, but wither our fragile land, Australia.

– Benedict Clark, Cape Paterson

SMH, 24/11:

Breaking point

Alan Garrity’s suggestion (Letters, November 23) that Australia is underpopulated compared with North Africa is spurious. Even our small population has strained the resources of this land to breaking point, largely because of how we live and how we exploit the land to feed many more than those who live here.

I dread to think what will happen to Africa when its people raise their standard of living and start exploiting their continent the way we have exploited ours.

– David Emerson, Woolloomooloo

Herald-Sun, 30/11:

There wouldn’t be any argument about climate change if we were honest about the real threat to the planet. The world is overpopulated. But of course, fertility control is taboo.

– Peter Boardman, Frankston

Too popular

“Melting pot set for population boom”, ABC News, 19/11; “South East Queensland: beautiful one day, now a building site”, The Age, 20/11. Queensland, long a popular destination for immigrants from other states, is full to bursting, and long-time residents are understandably fed-up with the influx, continuing construction projects and community tensions that ensue. But Queensland Premier Anna Bligh seems paralyzed with apathy towards the problem, saying all her government can do is try to accomodate the population surge. A government could halt such growth if it really wanted to (immigration border and quota controls, scrap the baby bonus, etc.) but none seem to.

Bligh acknowledged this week that south-east Queenslanders are beginning to think the lifestyle costs of population growth outweigh the economic benefits. “But population growth is a fact of life in Queensland. We cannot put up the barbed wire fence at the border, we can’t stop people having babies, so we have to find a way of coping,” she said.

More articles from The Age:

“Salad days under threat as sprawling city comes knocking”, 15/11. Housing development will cover much of the fertile farmlands (originally volcanic plains) surrounding Melbourne, threatening the city’s future ability to feed itself.

“How to feed the 7 million”, 17/11. Yet another opinion that regards the growth toward 7 million as inevitable, rather than something that should be prevented.

“World population growth slowing”, 18/11. Good news – but the momentum of growth means that it will continue climbing for decades yet. Also the VECCI chairman proves how addicted to continuing growth business is:

VECCI chief executive Wayne Kayler-Thomson said the average Victorian now retired at 60, and federal and state governments should aim to lift this to 65 by using sticks and carrots to make people put off their retirement, and get retired people to return to work part-time. But with Melbourne’s population expected to swell by 60 per cent in 40 years, he backed population growth, warning the alternative was to go backwards like Detroit and other cities in the US mid-west. “Can we afford to shut the gate strategically, economically or morally?” he proposed to the VECCI summit. “Sydney has also stumbled since the 2000 Olympics as it makes up its mind about the desirability of a larger population.”

If you want to keep Melbourne liveable, then we most certainly can afford to “shut the gate”!

“Perish the thought that we can handle a bigger population”, 19/11. Opinion piece by former NSW PM Bob Carr.

Tanner suggested people in high-density countries would consider strange our reservations about high immigration. The implication is that every last place on this battered planet should cheerfully sign on for the population explosion. I think other countries can understand that Australia has a narrow fertile coastal strip and the rest is arid and semi-arid. We resemble North Africa more than North America. Curious as we are, I think Australians don’t want to be packed tight, and remain attached to space, air, the natural world. And instead of more coastal suburbs they may even prefer the glimpse of waves breaking on golden sand through the branches of a eucalypt. Funny that.

The Age letters roundup: 14/11:

Waiting in vain for water projects

Lindsay Tanner (“Population fear is nonsense: Tanner”, The Age, 13/11) scoffs at fears of population increase but admits that one major barrier to sustaining a bigger population is the availability of water. But he is confident that “it could be overcome through desalination, water recycling and storm water harvesting projects”.

Victorians have been waiting in vain for water sourcing projects other than the desal plant. If it’s not a PPP (public private partnership) project with profits going to private operators, it seems the Government does not want to know about it.

In 2005, the City of Melbourne proposed a “sewer mining” project in Princes Park, which would have supplied recycled water for inner city parks, Melbourne University and the Zoo. It was to be funded jointly by the state and federal governments, with contributions from the City of Melbourne and City West Water.

Water Minister Thwaites refused to contribute Victoria’s share (from memory a miserly $13 million) and the project lapsed. The excellent proposals made by Monash University for stormwater harvesting at a 2008 parliamentary inquiry also do not appear to have been adopted.

– Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria, Parkville

Counted like cattle

How can Australia be compared with Bangladesh? Lindsay Tanner is measuring the validity of a country in people per square kilometre, as if they were livestock!

Australia is deceptively large. However, it is the driest continent, with a limited “green” coastline. These areas contain fragile and unique ecosystems, and support a rich range of unique biodiversity. Australia’s spectacular coastlines, rivers, wildlife and vegetation is what we cherish.

Our carrying capacity should be assessed by independent ecologists, agriculturalists, climate change analysts, demographers and environmental scientists. Such an important issue cannot be left to ad hoc decision makers and business groups with conflicts of interests.

– Vivienne Ortega, Heidelberg Heights

Such vandalism

The famous demographer W. D. (Mick) Borrie remarked that when growth rates are high we tend to overestimate population growth, and when they are low we underestimate it. And so now, egged on by urban transport chaos and high immigration rates, forecasters are predicting that Australia will contain 35 million people, and Melbourne 7 million, within 40 years. The history of forecasting suggests this is an overestimate, massive climate-change-induced in-migration notwithstanding.

Yet some have seized on it to advocate policies regarded as a bad idea, such as the proposal to line tram and bus routes with five-storey buildings. It is doubtful whether settlers who live there will be convinced to forgo their cars, which they will then drive through our leafy suburbs, thereby ruining their amenity along with that of one of the world’s most liveable cities.

More sober and carefully managed responses to our urban amenity problems would seem wiser than misconceived, environmental vandalism on a scale that future generations might regret.

– Dr. Ray Wyatt, University of Melbourne

Captive to business

Minister Tanner shows the extent to which government is the captive of big business, property developers and construction unions. Aspiring to the population density of either Dublin or Bangladesh is nonsense. The issue is not one of population density, but human impact on the environment. Craven supplication to vested interests in business and unions is not what we expect from elected representatives. While we cannot control world population, we can at least exercise some control over our own population to minimise further environmental degradation.

– Greg Angelo, Balwyn North

Population

What point is Lindsay Tanner (The Age, 13/11) trying to make with his comparison of our population to that of Bangladesh? Is he also going to compare the standard of living, education and health care?

– Pauline Ashton, Maribyrnong

Lindsay Tanner argues that Australia is not overpopulated and points to Bangladesh as an example of how many more people could be squashed on to our island. There’s a compelling case.

– Graham Parton, Stanley

Why does Lindsay Tanner stop at Dublin when comparing potential population density? If more is better, we should be aiming for densities like Mexico City or Shanghai!

– Ross Tanner, Clifton Hill

It is hard to be optimistic about Australia’s future when the Liberals deny climate change and Labor cannot see the contradiction between increasing our population and reducing emissions.

– Don Garden, Kew

I can’t remember seeing any of Bangladesh’s cities mentioned in the most liveable list.

– Neville Garner, Blairgowrie

How convenient, shifting the blame on to immigrants for the unsustainable lifestyle of those of us already here.

– Akhdur Maruan, Brunswick

16/11:

What madness

As Labor’S Lindsay Tanner points out, Australia could indeed house more people than Bangladesh (The Age, 13/11). All you need to do is cut our rations of food, water and space.

Doubtless our precious GDP numbers will increase as fast as our unmeasured quality of life and environment deteriorates! But who will vote for this madness? Oh I forgot, all the parties support population growth so it doesn’t matter who you vote for.

– Alan Ide, Murrumbeena

While he’s at it perhaps the Prime Minister could say “sorry” to the nation’s wildlife for its shocking rate of extinction since European settlement. Nah, let’s forget the apology and do something about it.

– Jill Barclay, Murrumbeena

17/11:

Just nonsensical

Once again we see a senior Government member with his head in the sand over Australia’s population growth (“Population fear is nonsense: Tanner”, The Age, 13/11). Lindsay Tanner’s comments comparing Bangladesh with Tasmania show remarkable and worrying ignorance. Size says nothing about the population-carrying capacity of a land; Mr. Tanner is comparing one of the most arid countries on earth with one of the most fertile. This fertility has led Bangladesh, and many of its neighbours, to vast over-population that relegates many of its citizens to abject poverty.

With climate change, millions more are likely to starve to death as wells dry up and Himalayan glaciers retreat. Or, perhaps he knows this, but like most of our State and Federal Government representatives, he is also prepared to subject Australia to unsustainable population growth in the name of political self-interest.

What’s the bet that history will eventually show this stance, and the Labor and Liberal governments’ underwhelming response to climate change, to be the biggest leadership failure in Australia of all time?

– Andrew Verlei, Patterson Lakes

SMH, 14/11:

Plan now for a sensible limit to our population

I read that the Labor backbencher Kelvin Thompson has launched a 14-point plan to contain Australia’s runaway population (“Here’s looking at you kids: NSW leads a boom in babies”, November 12). At last someone in the Federal Government has recognised the stupidity of setting an ever-increasing population as an essential goal.

The economic benefits are far outweighed by factors such as the rapid depletion of water, food and building materials, and urban infrastructure such as transport that is already at breaking point.

The Federal Government’s population targets will make it impossible to reach any decent carbon reduction levels. Each immigrant from a non-industrialised country will, on arrival in Australia, become a carbon dioxide polluting unit at a tenfold increased level.

It will be hard for visionaries such as Thompson to convince Australians their wasteful lifestyle and hedonistic “quality of life” will need to be curtailed. But failure to do so will result in a rapid diminution of both.

– Mike Dibbs, Port Macquarie

Lindsay Tanner is a powerful voice in Government and to have him call for “substantial population growth” has to be taken seriously (“Tanner backs call for growth”, November 12).

He should travel to Wilcannia to see what our “inadequate” 21.5 million, with its demand for irrigated produce, has done to the once-navigable Darling River. There is a limit to population growth in Australia: water. Population planning should be based on our physical limits, not aspirational comparisons with Bangladesh.

– John Warren, Annandale

Lindsay Tanner shouldn’t send mixed messages about Australia’s population. Is he saying that Barry Jones, David Suzuki, Al Gore and Ken Henry are all laughable when they talk about the need to address population issues here? Does he really think we can continue to engineer our way out of overpopulation and climate-change problems such as water shortages?

I am happy for Tanner to reassure countries such as Bangladesh that we can take many more climate refugees. But we are going to have our own problems with poverty, pollution and starvation in the coming decades if we don’t urgently start planning for a slowing of our birthrate and a smaller intake of skilled migrants.

Europe’s slowing population and lead role to reduce emissions don’t appear to have had any dire economic impacts. We need smarter leaders to start planning now for an ethical slowdown in our population. It’s time to rewrite the economic textbooks and prepare for the likely millions who will be on our doorstep as climate-change refugees in the next 20 to 80 years.

– Ngaire McGaw, Seventeen Mile Rocks (Qld)

Peter Garrett deserves congratulations for rejecting the Traveston Dam (“Garrett decision to stop dam lauded as a triumph”, November 12). As a biologist, I appreciate having an Environment Minister willing to base decisions on the best available scientific information.

While headlines now shift to the controversy on locations of possible desalination plants, I suggest we first need to debate the human carrying capacity of the Australian continent.

As the science-literate Mr Garrett would be aware, the root cause of most, if not all, environmental degradation is the rapid growth in the population of our own species. We urgently need to determine how many people different parts of our country can sustainably support. Mr Garrett and his department should lead this debate.

– Tim Curran, Malanda (Qld)

20/11:

Growth catastrophe waiting to happen

Bob Carr draws attention to the lack of thought behind the call by Kevin Rudd and Lindsay Tanner for greater growth, more population and, consequently, more demands on our limited resources, such as water (“Perish the thought that we can handle a bigger population”, November 19). We have introduced a new category – “catastrophic” – to warn of impending bushfire danger. Do we need a similar scale to warn of the results of unplanned and self-stimulated growth? Societies have collapsed from outgrowing their resources. Let us plan an escape route now while we are still at the danger level.

– John Warren, Annandale

My published letter, 13/11

In response to “Shut the door on Kiwis to curb growth says MP”, Herald-Sun, 12/11:

Migration ruining land, wildlife

Thank you, Kelvin Thomson, for giving concerned political constituents a voice on the issue of overpopulation (“MP wants to slash Kiwi migrant influx”, November 12).

For years, this festering issue has been taboo on both sides of Parliament and rampant population growth has been regarded as a fait accompli.

But as we all know, this growth is the direct consequence of government policy, or lack of it.

At the moment, our population destiny is being driven by excessive immigration and ridiculous baby bonuses, the result of smart lobbying by the big end of town who will profit handsomely from this population bonanza.

Yet we are watching our environment being destroyed and our wildlife decimated as record levels of land-clearing and habitat loss occur, all in the pursuit of more humans.

– Tony Smith, Burwood

People explosion damages nation

Thank you, Kelvin Thomson, for speaking out on the problems caused by excessive population growth.

If this growth is not restricted, the quality of life Australians have taken for granted will continue to decline and the environment will be destroyed.

– Suzanne McHale

This isn’t just a New Zealand thing. We need to restrict immigration from everywhere. This obsession with population growth is killing our country.

– Ang

The Age, 13/11:

Growth unstoppable

An important element that appears missing from your welcome coverage of the projected population increase is the innate momentum of growth. If our population is to grow to 35 million by 2050, it will not stop there, but will continue for at least another 30 to 40 years.

This is well illustrated by Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on Australia’s present rate of growth. Even though the fertility rate is below replacement rate, our population would continue to grow until the mid-2030s even in the absence of net immigration.

– John Coulter, Scott Creek, SA

Silly boat people. If only they had said they want to do a course in English, not classes. Then they would be fast-tracked into the country for a lead role in the great immigration scam: the international student rort.

– Tricia McDonald, Malvern East

But there are also deniers: “Population fear is nonsense: Tanner”, 13/11. Finance Minister Lindsay Tanner believes the idea of Australia being overpopulated is nonsense, as other countries have far higher population densities. He does not take into account that much of the Australian continent is desert and its soil is old and infertile, thus it cannot support a high population. Even if it could, a high population density is not desirable as crowding people together is an unpleasant way to live.

Growth isn’t good

“The big leap”, The Age, 10/11. Residents of a seaside town, Torquay, are experiencing the unpleasant aspects of population growth.

Monash University demographer Bob Birrell says the entire world is ageing and the massive numbers of migrants needed to increase the ratio of workers to pensioners could be more of a catastrophe than the problem it seeks to overcome. “It is not sensible policy to commit ourselves to building a new Canberra every year for the next 40 years,” he says, citing Canberra’s population of about 390,000, which is less than the 439,000 population growth this year. “To go to 35 million, it’s dumb growth. It diverts our scarce capital…to building more shopping malls and extending suburbia rather than increasing the productivity of our existing workforce so we can make more and export more.”

Former NSW premier Bob Carr says Australia is choosing to “play Russian roulette with water security” by encouraging such high population growth. He is incredulous that almost every development today is subject to an environmental impact statement except for “the most fundamental of all, a decision to ramp up immigration”. Carr, who launched Mark O’Connor and William Lines’ book Overloading Australia earlier this year, says people mistakenly think Australia is like North America, which has “serious rivers” and a fertile inland. “We are like North Africa – a fertile coastal strip and, a short distance inland, an arid zone where the soil blows away and the rains fall erratically. But people project the North American experience on to Australia and there are powerful business interests behind high immigration. The housing sector loves it. I don’t think the Australian people want it.”

Letters, 11/11:

Winners grin, but losers left to cope

Torquay residents’ concerns about water, amenity and environmental impact in the face of exponential population growth are entirely reasonable. (“The Big Leap”, Focus, 10/11). As residents see all these factors deteriorate, they may well wonder what benefits they are getting from huge changes to their town.

A footpath here or there, or a conveniently located supermarket, would not quite compensate for the lost tranquillity of a town that has tripled in population in three years.

To see who benefits from population growth, look at who advocates it. To see who pays and loses, look at who is forced to accommodate it and live with its consequences.

– Jill Quirk, president, Sustainable Population Australia, Victoria, Frankston

The disappearing people

I suppose now that Torquay has blocked a proposed housing development, those who would have lived there will just vanish. A population of 35 million people will demand housing, not the other way around.

– Edward Sainsbery, Eaglemont

From sleepy to dusty

Tina Lee of Torquay feels anxious about her part of heaven being transformed from a small hamlet into a big city-like coastal suburb. It’s also like that in the suburbs of Melbourne. Port Melbourne, where I was born some 73 years ago, was a sleepy hollow 10 years ago, with a population of about 7000. Now, on every corner, we have apartments, some on the beach as high as 16 storeys, and a population of about 16,000 – and climbing.

We also suffer from dust due to demolition, filthy streets, blocked drains, traffic disruption and no footpaths at all during building. We are in the midst of Melbourne’s new main sewer being installed, which will possibly take two years – more dust, more noise, more upheaval.

It is all happening due to the growth of Melbourne, for better or worse.

– Lois Daley, Port Melbourne

Following a path to ruin

Mary-Anne Toy has done a great service to the residents of this part of the world. However, she failed to note that we in the Surf Coast Shire pay virtually the highest rates in the state, with annual increases several times the rate of inflation.

The council is now hell-bent on erecting a $25 million-plus new chambers, together with sundry sports fields. This antipodean Taj Mahal is the wrong building at the wrong time in the wrong place, sited a few hundred metres from the shire’s northern extremity – making it much closer to Geelong than Anglesea, let alone Lorne.

Mayor Libby Mears maintains she cannot afford to pay for all the infrastructure to cope with the population boom, yet trumpets the wonderful (and unnecessary) splurge on the new chambers and associated facilities. She and her co-councillors seem to have forgotten that less than a dozen years ago the then council “lost” many millions of dollars.

An exhaustive inquiry seemed to come to the conclusion that no one was to blame. Many of us are waiting, fearful for a repeat of that disaster.

– Michael Muschamp, Torquay

“That’s it for sprawl: Madden”, 11/11. The incompetent oaf of a Planning Minister promises the urban growth boundary will not be moved again in his lifetime.

Planning and environment academic Michael Buxton, of RMIT University, said he had heard similar promises before. “This is the third time they have made this promise, originally it was made by [former premier] Steve Bracks,” Associate Professor Buxton said. “And it was made when the Government expanded the boundary in November 2005 and they just keep rolling out the same promises and the same inadequate solutions. “The promises are designed to try and fool people into accepting their inadequate solutions.”

“Growing population calls for big-picture focus”, 11/11. A rather unfocused editorial, saying that growth should be planned for, and that Australia can’t close its borders to the rest of the world. But if we don’t want our cities to evolve into the hellish megacities in the countries mentioned, we will have to put up restrictions.

“Shut the door on Kiwis to curb growth says MP”, Herald-Sun, 12/11. MP Kelvin Thomson, seemingly the only politician concerned with, and outspoken about, population growth, says that immigration from New Zealand should be cut, as well as immigration generally. (I thought NZ had a good quality of life – are things so bad there that people want to leave?)

Mr Thomson called for annual net immigration to be slashed from more than 200,000 now to just 70,000. This would stabilise the population at 26 million by 2050, instead of the 35 million predicted by the Government. Under the Thomson plan:

• Skilled migrant numbers would be cut from 114,000 to 25,000 a year and refugees would rise by 6000 to 20,000.
• The baby bonus would be abolished and family payments cut to lower the fertility rate.

Growing like a cancer

Everytime I see that Victorian Government Transport “Plan” ad on TV (YouTube parody version), I want to throw something at it! “Victoria is growing” the voiceover man cheerily says – well, that’s not a good thing, is it? Life is getting very stressful for those living here. The Govt. merely seems obsessed with scarring the landscape with yet more freeways.

“Labour has been ‘maladroit’ in immigration policy, admits Home Secretary Alan Johnson”, Daily Mail, 2/11. A politician somewhat grudgingly admits that the U.K.’s immigration rate has had negative effects.

“Backyard blitz puts Aussie lifestyle under threat”, The Age, 15/4. An English professor is dismayed by the reduction of backyard size of Australian homes. Backyard vegetation also provides shelter for local birds.

“City’s population explosion threatens urban devastation”, The Age, 5/11. This article only concentrates on how to accommodate a large population, rather than trying to prevent such growth. It is not inevitable if governments have the will to combat it!

“Time to take in hand the birds in the bush”, The Age, 5/11. Native birdlife is diminishing rapidly in Victoria, due to land clearing and urbanization, both caused by population growth. The Brumby Government’s thoughtless approval of vegetation clearing around properties is not helping.

The Age letters:

1/11:

Perish the thought

In response to Peter Munro’s article “The big squeezy” (25/10) – do we really want 35 million Australians by 2050? There was a time when our nation’s leaders cried: “Populate or perish!” That cry is now public policy at state and federal level. The planet is racing towards the tipping point for oil reserves, potable water supplies and unstoppable climate change. We live in a society so accustomed to having it all we should update our national pledge to bring it in line with the logical outcome: “Populate AND perish!”

– Michael Virant, Kensington

That article portrays a grim view of Melbourne’s future, assuming that population growth is inevitable. Its liveability will be destroyed if this becomes reality.

Herald-Sun letters:

7/9:

I’m 32 and lived in the one street in Croydon for 31 of those years.

I remember thinking as a child that there was so much space in Croydon. Not so now.

In the past few years I’ve seen townhouses popping up everywhere. I’m starting to feel hemmed in, in my own street.

Croydon, I love you. But you’re changing, and I don’t believe it’s for the better. I think it’s time I left.

– Nola Wernicke, Croydon

Unfortunately, the problem of overdevelopment is afflicting all suburbs, so moving is not really a solution, unless you go somewhere in the country – but then there is the problem there of lack of transport and facilities (such as medical care).

24/9:

We need more people pointing out the impossibility of reconciling increased population, current affluence and a healthy environment. Something’s got to give.

– Beverly Broadbent, East Brighton

3/11:

Hidden agenda on migrants

Australia’s population has been growing and growing over the past decade, and all we hear from our political leaders is either silence or what a great thing population growth is, never mind the environment or the cost of building new housing and infrastructure. The Labor and Liberal parties pretend to make a fuss about a few hundred boat people, but at the same time they are opening the door to hundreds of thousands of so-called skilled migrants. Their tough stance against asylum seekers is really just a way of disguising from the public their pro-immigration and pro-population growth policies.

– Lynne Skinner, Kangaroo Flat

6/11:

Get off the fake grass

The idea that fake grass is better for the environment than real grass is a myth that continues to be enthusiastically promoted by people with vested interests. The logic goes that synthetic turf doesn’t need to be watered or mown and is therefore the obvious choice for ecologically aware gardeners. However, fake grass is a petro-chemical product that takes a long time to break down – unlike real, living, organic grass. In addition, the manufacture and transportation of synthetic grass creates carbon, whereas real grass absorbs it. Artificial grass also damages the soil underneath it and creates an inhospitable environment for the life that thrives in and around real grass, such as insects, worms and birds. While real grass may not be perfect, it is surely a better option than synthetic turf.

– Virginia van Engelen, Port Fairy

Perfect storm

“Australia faces famine, expert warns”, ABC News, 29/10. The idea of Australians facing famine seems unthinkable, but this could be a real prospect in the future as the “perfect storm” of population growth, water shortages, land degradation and climate change converge.

Treasury head Ken Henry this week said that Australia’s population growth is the biggest challenge to Commonwealth and state governments since Federation.

Professor Cribb agrees it will cause problems, and says governments must not forget future famine goes hand in hand with population growth.

“They have grossly underestimated the potential for population growth in Australia,” he said.

“If you get a major collapse in food supply in an area like the north China plains or the Indo-Gangetic plains, there will be hundreds of millions of refugees cut lose so we could easily see 20 or 30 million refugees arrive in Australia over a couple of years.

[…]

He says a range of issues have sparked current food production problems.

“Apart from the obvious things going on in the world food markets, there’s a colossal shortage of water emerging because cities worldwide are pinching the farmers’ water,” he said.

“There’s land degradation that’s proceeded unabated for about 30 or 40 years now. We’re losing land at the rate of 1 per cent of the world’s farmland every year.

“We’re running into energy shortages, we’re running into shortages of fertilisers, and on top of that you’ve got climate change. All of these things are making the agricultural environment much less certain.”

The main problem with increasing the food supply is that the population invariably expands to consume it. This was one consequence of the “Green Revolution” after World War 2. Perhaps one (rather draconian) solution is to demand that people either be sterilized or limit their children to two, in return for access to food.

“Rudd touts plan for better cities”, The Age, 28/10. PM Rudd regards population growth as a good thing and a “challenge” (yet another word I have come to detest), and is prepared to hold the states hostage to his demands.

“Perils of a bigger footprint”, The Age, 29/10. Australia cannot afford to avoid the population debate any longer.

A selection of letters from The Age and SMH. Incidentally, the newspaper sites are even more irritating to use and are badly-formatted; not all letters are put online. The papers themselves (like nearly all publications now) are almost worthless in terms of information.

24/10:

Free at what price?

Chris Berg seems to suggest that Australia should allow global free movement of people just as we allow free global trade – for economic growth. Yet free trade has resulted in many Australian industries going offshore and our exposure to world financial losses. Free people movement in Europe is a cause of serious social problems as governments attempt to accommodate a flood of uninvited immigrants. Economic growth is a goal for Australia, but not the only goal. Regulation recognises that.

– Janine Truter, The Basin

26/10:

We must put the serious questions ahead of profits

Peter Munro’s comprehensive examination of Australia and Melbourne’s population growth (“The big squeezy”, The Sunday Age, 25/10) was commendable in terms of getting comment from both sides of the debate.

Some opinions carry more weight, however, than others. When Treasury secretary Ken Henry asks if Australia’s natural endowments, including water, are capable of sustaining a population of 35 million, it’s a serious question. When Bob Birrell warns that a cost will be the loss of access to established detached houses for all but the affluent, we have to ask: is this a cost worth paying? When Ian Lowe says that adding another 4 million to 5 million people by 2020 could raise Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 per cent, we have to wonder how we reconcile that with Australia’s commitment to reduce emissions by up to 25 per cent by 2020.

On the other hand, when economists and business people clap their hands because of population-fuelled increased profits, it smacks of self-interest topped with profound environmental ignorance. Ian Lowe deserves the last say: “There is no prospect of solving our serious environmental problems…if we are committed to having the most rapid population increase of any developed country.”

Without an environment, there is no economy.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Do it for the children

In 1965, leading urban economist Max Neutze tentatively suggested that the optimum population size of a major Australian city was about half a million. Melbourne now has 4 million and is heading for 7 million by 2049.

In 2006 I invited the audience at a meeting on population growth to vote on what they thought Australia’s optimum population to be. Responses ranged from 5 million to 20 million, with an average of 10 million to 15 million. We now have 22 million and are headed for 35 million.

In a recent ABC interview, Kevin Rudd welcomed this growth, but gave only national security as justification. No mention of economic or environmental effects. If national security is the motive, does his Government have a plan to achieve this, such as for the geographical distribution of the population? Would 7 million for Melbourne and Sydney be part of that plan? Does it have a realistic assessment of the economic and environmental sacrifices such growth would entail?

Our political leaders need to pull their fingers out and face up to their social responsibilities, and get business lobbyists out of their pockets. Our children and grandchildren deserve better.

– Robert Braby, Eltham

The prognosis is grim

It seems that the growth fetishists are among us again, this time advocating unsustainable population growth for Australia, Victoria and Melbourne.

In Listening to Grasshoppers, Arundhati Roy skewers their argument with forensic accuracy: “The higher the rate of this kind of growth, the worse the prognosis. Any oncologist will tell you that.”

– Jim Spithill, Chadstone

27/10:

35m-person question

The Age is right to consider Ken Henry justified in questioning how this nation intends to support a growing human population (Editorial, 26/10). What appears to be missing in the cant about how this nation will cope with 35 million people is whether Australians want, need and must have such high population growth. The high immigration-fuelled population growth, comprising 63 per cent of net annual population growth, is calibrated by the Rudd Government and can therefore be revised downwards, giving Australia a different set of future projections. It is not enough for the Government, and special interest groups, to simply tell Australians that they must have 35 million or more citizens by 2050.

So far the bipartisanship of the major parties has kept the issue of high immigration-fuelled population growth and population policy out of the electoral arena. This is not only an affront to democracy, it takes no account of the precautionary principle concerning the impact of 35 million people on the built and natural environment.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

SMH, 24/10:

If human numbers boom, resistance will be futile

With our unprecedented and growing human population we have brought the natural environment to the brink of collapse. We search for life on other planets while we decimate complex species here. We are wealthier now than ever, but less happy and less optimistic.

Massive efforts are dedicated to “protect” nations from growing hordes of desperate people fleeing homelands ravaged by the wars and famines that inevitably result from the combination of limited resources and the growing number of humans.

We offer foreign aid to help improve survival rates (a good thing) but provide almost nothing in the way of family planning and access to contraception. Consequently, the populations of many poor countries are so numerous now, they will be forever dependent on aid. We do this while paying Australian women to produce babies.

If we insist on perpetuating the obsession for population growth, let’s open all our borders. Let people live wherever they like. It makes no sense that some can live on good land while others cannot.

If we are going to lay waste to the environment, let’s do it together to the short-term benefit and long-term detriment of everyone equally. Let’s end the protracted misery we have brought on all the other life struggling to share this planet with us.

– Larry Tofler, Tea Gardens

Keep talking, Dr. Henry (“Treasury chief and PM differ on growth”, October 23). Kevin Rudd’s response of welcoming population expansion is of deep concern. Can he really be oblivious to the limits on water and food in our arid homeland, let alone the difficulties of providing adequate education, transport and housing? We can only hope his intelligence will overcome his shallow political response.

– Andrew Scott, Pymble

Let’s be consistent. Kevin Rudd espouses the benefits of population growth, yet talks about the effects of global warming and environmental devastation. As the world’s population grows, land suitable for food production declines and demand increases, with hunger an obvious consequence.

It’s time Australia took a lead on issues other than global warming. Perhaps population growth fails to provide the international forum and media coverage politicians seek, but it is fundamental to so many problems. Reducing or eliminating it should be high on our agenda.

– Arthur Gates, Armidale

So the Association of Consulting Engineers has joined business and property interests and megalomaniac politicians in spreading the myth that Sydney’s population must reach 10 million by 2050 and there is nothing we can do about it (“Abolish councils, make drivers pay”, October 23). On the same day farmers tell us we must all live in high-rise apartments (“Food for thought: suburbs save farms”).

And what happens after 2050? More of the same, only more so, presumably. Animal liberationists must be chortling into their beer. Having forced chooks to live in great conglomerates inches from their neighbours, we are hell bent on visiting the same fate on ourselves.

– Norman Carter, Roseville

27/10:

Profit or peril?

It seems mystifying that the property supplements in the Herald and elsewhere continue to celebrate the “good news” that Sydney property prices and rental returns are still very high and will keep rising in the foreseeable future. The reason the boom will continue, we are assured, is that increasing population, largely through immigration, will outstrip the supply of housing.

Yes, it is good news for speculators, developers and landlords. But it is bad news for most people entering the property market to get a roof over their heads. Home owners are told it is good news for them, too, but if your inner-city terrace is now worth $1 million, how does it profit you if all other houses cost the same?

One wonders if the happy smiles of the people pictured will be shared by their children when they enter an even more unaffordable market and in an even more crowded city.

– John Mahony, Avalon Beach

Fear the future

“City to top 7m people”, The Age, 23/10. More grim predictions of Australia’s population growth, with Melbourne reaching the nightmarish status of a megacity, and Australia climbing to 35 million. One politician expresses concern as to how the environment will cope with this (it is devastated already), but Prime Minister Kevin Rudd remains oblivious to such concerns.

Last night Prime Minister Kevin Rudd strongly disagreed with his Treasury chief on the merits of population growth, telling the 7.30 Report: “I actually believe in a big Australia. I make no apology for that.

“I actually think it’s good news that our population is growing,” Mr. Rudd said. “I think it is good for us, it’s good for our national security long term, it’s good in terms of what we can sustain as a nation.”

Words fail me.

“How many is too many?”, Herald-Sun, 30/9. Opinion piece by radio broadcaster Neil Mitchell, focusing on the taboo subject of restricting immigration.

It’s time to grow up. It’s time Australians were trusted to seriously debate what type of country they want and how many people they want in it.

It’s time to drop the political correctness that for years has meant anybody who questioned immigration levels was labelled racist, or a half-witted supporter of Pauline Hanson.

This is not about race. Australia does and should welcome people from anywhere provided they can add something to this one. This is about numbers, and the future.

[…]

It is predicted the population will be 35 million by 2050. Is that sensible? Will it be sustainable? Will an arid, underdeveloped country be able to cope? Or will it destroy living standards and create environmental disaster?

All this must be tackled. Long before climate change was a theory, let alone a political force, Australia was short of water. Where do find enough for 35 million people?

Roads are clogged, cities are sprawling and governments are struggling to keep up with the medical needs of the ageing population.

“House prices to rocket by 20pc, forecast leading experts”, Herald-Sun, 14/10. The media always portrays such rises in a positive tone, but this means that people who simply want a home to live in (not an investment) will find this task even harder. The property market in Australia is out of control, and it is time to stop favoring investors (and, of course, restricting population growth would also help remedy the situation). Not helping matters is that the Federal Government recently removed restrictions on overseas non-residents buying residential property here. A relevant letter, 22/10:

Negative gearing heats up market

Increasing interest rates to curb the housing market is akin to using Roundup to kill the crop and the weeds. Although rates have been at 40-year lows not all segments of the community have benefited. Many credit card holders are paying about 20 per cent interest despite official rates being less than 4 per cent, while overdraft and business loan rates remain high.

The market is overheated for three reasons: generous negative-gearing laws, across-the-board first home grants and the opening-up of residential property to overseas investors.

The solutions are to restrict negative gearing so investors only enjoy tax advantages if they build low-cost housing; closing the residential market to overseas investors; and only providing first home grants for that section of the community that earns a combined weekly income of less than $1500.

Such measures would prick the housing bubble without putting in jeopardy what is at best a paper recovery.

– Joseph Toscano, Fitzroy

The Age letters roundup.

Exasperated with the increasingly autocratic Labor Government, 6/10:

An amendment too far

The Brumby Government has finally become more arrogant than the Kennett government in its treatment of the Victorian people.

The Planning Minister has gone too far in his handling of changes in the positioning of the new ring road to appease his developer mates. The lack of open government is appalling, along with the lack of consultation with the people adversely affected by their decisions.

Living in an urban growth area, I have experienced first-hand the lack of consultation and misinformation from this Government. It took a long time before Justin Madden was prepared to meet members of Taxed Out, the lobby group opposed to the Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution (tax). I don’t think he had realised just how organised we are.

There needs to be an independent inquiry into the powers wielded by this Government. It is a law unto itself and does all it can to help big business, at the peril of anyone who gets in its way. The Brumby Government is more Liberal than Labor; it is completely out of touch with its grassroots members. John Brumby may well go down in history as the best Liberal premier that Labor ever had. Hopefully, also, the Premier who never got elected.

– Heather Holtham, Officer

Get off the grass

Only part of the land featuring in Evolve Development’s proposed precinct plan was included in a desktop flora study done by the Government’s consultant as it was not intended to be included in the new urban growth boundary. This area contained many precious grassland remnants before the recent clearings.

There are grassland reserves that are to be used as offsets for grasslands lost. Unfortunately these reserves will be set up after clearing is done, so there is no guarantee that they will work. By then the higher quality sites will have been cleared.

These grasslands support species that are critically endangered. These animals are suffering the same fate as orang-utans and pandas. However, it is happening on Melbourne’s doorstep and nobody seems to care.

– Giorgio De Nola, Caroline Springs

Population growth, 8/10 (the “elephant in the room” metaphor is increasingly overused, though):

Courage from Kelvin

To hear an MP bravely pointing out the elephant in the room is refreshing. I refer to MP Kelvin Thomson (“MP blasts planning ‘failure’ ”, The Age, 7/10) calling for a halt to the state’s population growth, as it underlies the pressures to expand Melbourne.

Debate about Melbourne’s future focuses on how to accommodate its projected population growth, by increasing housing density and/or building more suburbs. Both approaches degrade our quality of life.

Furthermore, these approaches are only temporary measures: they buy time until the new homes, roads, and other infrastructure are filled. They kept steering us away from the goal of a sustainable city. Thank goodness one MP has the courage to point this out.

A growing population is simply and clearly unsustainable. By ignoring this, this State Government is grossly negligent. Its policies of accommodating (even encouraging) population growth are akin to a doctor advising his patient, concerned that he is gaining weight, to buy larger clothes.

– Ian Penrose, North Warrandyte

9/10:

We’re all lemmings

Peter Garrett is considering the Queensland Government’s Traveston Crossing Dam proposal. Like the majority of our parliamentarians, he is a lawyer. We can only hope that, unlike most, he will listen to the scientists. The proposal, to drown thousands of hectares of our best agricultural land, is Queensland’s response to unabated urban sprawl.

NSW has become a governmental basket case; Victoria’s population growth has sprawled Melbourne over its most fertile land. Supplying water to these burgeoning populations is their governments’ worst nightmare. Queensland is following the lemmings over the cliff.

Why are we burying our best land under houses? Because no government, state or federal, has heeded the warnings of the CSIRO in its 2003 Population and Sustainability report. Instead, the lawyers who govern us are heeding the siren song of the economists who are luring the ship of state on to the rocks.

The proposed dam is symptomatic of the fact that we have reached the tipping point in population growth.

– Joy Ringrose, Castaways Beach, Qld

12/10:

Holding, we’ll cut back when you do

A study has revealed that an extra million people living in Melbourne will “end in chaos” (The Age, 10/10). It appears that Melbourne’s roads will not cope with the increase in population.

Then there was the article about water needs (“Spring rain a fillip for dam levels”) and Tim Holding’s intention to extract 10 billion litres from the Thomson River. He went on to implore that households cut back on water consumption.

I find this rather disingenuous, given that Mr Holding is a member of John Brumby’s pro-population growth Government. Water savings by Melburnians are being squandered by the State Government’s profligate approach to population growth. Any surplus saved water should be used to conserve Melbourne’s parks and gardens.

Instead, the amenity of our urban and suburban environment is diminished by the growth-at-any-cost attitude of the Brumby and Rudd governments.

Victorians do their best by saving water, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and recycling. These efforts will prove futile when measured against an increased total use of resources due to population increase.

Tim Holding’s exhortation that households cut back should be matched with an appropriate policy on population.

– Nicholas Howe, Malvern

19/10:

Only one Earth

Well, James Jenkins (Letters, 16/10), those 14 out of 25 people who wrote letters to the editor about the environment understand something you do not. Without a healthy environment, nothing else matters. If we are unable to live in an environmentally, economically and socially responsible manner, then human beings are heading for extinction.

Yes, perhaps poverty and torture are important, but worrying about them is useless if we don’t have clean water, breathable air or food. We only have one Earth – so our greatest concern should be looking after it.

– Sandra Weller, Ballarat

Published letters

A collection of letters from the last week or so about population growth. I did not send one in as I felt I couldn’t add anything more to the discussion.

SMH, 18/9:

It’s not just paying pensions; population growth is bad news all round

Business groups will no doubt welcome the news of the runaway growth of the Australian population, but it is bad news for the country (“Population boom prompts pension fears”, September 18).

The article discusses population growth only from a financial point of view. The Treasurer will announce a forum of officials from Treasury, the Reserve Bank and the author of the pension review. No mention of town planners, transport planners, water or health experts.

Economic growth, driven by population growth, will make a few richer, but for most it means higher prices, degraded countryside, more crowded, dysfunctional cities, pollution and problems with transport and hospitals.

The Government should review population policies, not from a simplistic economic viewpoint, but looking at the total impact on the nation.

– David Knowles, Chittaway Bay

Population growth raises many challenges, but providing services to retirees is a minor hurdle. More important are the challenges of environmental impacts, the impossibility of carbon emission reductions, infrastructure overload and water and food security.

Barry Jones’s 1994 parliamentary report recommended a formal population policy be adopted. The Government said no. It said then its policies would result in an Australian population of about 23.5 million by 2051.

The submission of the Australian Academy of Science to that inquiry concluded a population of 23 million by 2040 was politically feasible and desirable. The academy must be dismayed at the 50 per cent population overshoot now being considered.

– Gordon Hocking, Oyster Bay

I’m confused. Kevin Rudd says it would be reckless not to introduce a trading scheme to reduce carbon emissions. But it is apparently appropriate to increase our population by 65 per cent in 40 years.

– Alan Taylor, Kirribilli

Tom Keneally is still writing fiction. He says our lack of will to decentralise, not immigration, is to blame for “the parlous condition of our environment” (“Our door should always be open”, September 16). You cannot put people in a desert and expect them to thrive. Efforts to grow cotton and rice in the Murray Darling basin have met with disaster. I don’t recall Frank Lowy, Harry Seidler, Frank Knopfelmacher and the others Keneally cites champing at the bit to move west of Bourke.

To produce food you need fertile soil and water, commodities of which Australia has a very limited supply. A sustainable population is one that can survive comfortably on what is available.

– Joe Gritching, Terrey Hills

20/9:

Immigration won’t keep us young

Your editorial recommends that Australia prepare for a much larger population (“Congratulations – it’s a boomlet. [But now the fun starts…]”, September 18-19). Among the reasons is to ensure there are sufficient people of working age to support older Australians. You say 13 per cent of the population is over 65, but this is projected to rise to 22 per cent. That, apparently, is a problem.

If there were no immigration, and the number of births each year matched the number of deaths, 23.1 per cent of Australian females would be over 65, as would 19.7 per cent of males. That is, the high ratio of elderly folk is a consequence of this being a healthy place.

To avoid such a proportion of elderly people by encouraging immigration is an interminable quest. When the population does get to 35 million, someone will alert us that the only way to avoid having too large a proportion of elderly is to encourage more immigration.

The editorial mentions “a growing global population in a world of finite resources”, yet somehow neglects to mention that Australia is part of that world. Australia’s resources are also finite. Would it not make more sense to encourage senior Australians to continue to contribute, as the evidently good health of this nation allows?

– David Arthur, Maryborough (Qld)

It was ironic and disturbing that two articles on Saturday highlighted how badly Australia is handling the population issue (“Populate and perish: Sydney’s time bomb” and “Abortion couple not aware that they had broken the law”).

On the one hand we have evidence that we are in the midst of an unsustainable population explosion. On the other, a young woman has been prosecuted for taking the responsible decision to terminate a birth she did not want. For the past decade we have had excessive immigration and irresponsible fiscal programs rewarding people for overpopulating. It is time for governments to encourage responsible population control.

– Peter Hook, Naremburn

A clueless one who disagrees, 21/9:

Notions on population such as those expressed by David Knowles, Gordon Hocking, Alan Taylor and Joe Gritching (Letters, September 19-20) are neo-Malthusian claptrap. Today, on a percentage basis, fewer people suffer form starvation than in Malthus’s day. Furthermore, the poor and unfortunate can count on a degree of back-up in times of hardship because of stocks of food, medicine and materials available from wealthier countries. It is little known that the relative costs of energy and resources are in decline except when political and social unrest or interference destabilise markets and supply chains.

The Greens would have us believe we are on the verge of ecological and social collapse, because of our numbers. If this is the case, why are lifespans increasing worldwide, child mortality falling, age-adjusted cancer rates decreasing, mortality from many diseases declining, literacy and numeracy rates increasing and agricultural production per hectare increasing? Although desertification and land degradation is increasing in some parts of the world, in developed countries wilderness is on the increase.

This is the old eugenics movement repainted green. Fear and guilt are its stock in trade.

– Tim Mondzheyovsky, Newtown

The Age, 22/9:

Quality control starts with people

I endorse The Age’s commitment to engaging the public in the debate on Australia’s population (Editorial, 19/9).

However, I believe that The Age has been hoodwinked by the arguments used to justify an increase in the Australian population to 35 million.

Wayne Swan believes that an Australian population of 35 million is beyond his control and is unavoidable. Mr Swan includes climate change and an ageing population as “two of our greatest challenges”. As if population increase via immigration will fix the perceived problems of an ageing population. Why isn’t uncontrolled world population growth seen as a challenge?

Wayne Swan is interested in stimulating economic growth only via the most simplistic and least imaginative of mechanisms: population increase. It is unsustainable and he places Australia at risk. A 60 per cent increase in population will diminish the quality of life of current Australians. It diminishes food, water and environmental security.

Australians have a choice: they can either lamely accept a reduction in their quality of life, or they can engage in the debate and influence the future.

– Nicholas Howe, Malvern

24/9:

Endless growth is a dangerous drug

How marvellous. Melbourne hits 4 million and the extra millions just keep coming faster and faster – 75 years for the first, now only 22 years for the latest. Unsurprisingly, the economists are delighted. Somewhere between the basic science they learnt at school and gaining an economics degree, these proponents of perpetual growth must undergo a cognitive transformation. In science they learnt that growth is a temporary phenomenon. Individual organisms grow for a time, and then mature. If a particular species goes through a population growth phase, it will be at the expense of others and there will always be a limit to its expansion imposed by environmental checks such as water and food supply, space or disease.

Then in their economics courses, they learnt this was wrong. A healthy economy must continually expand, fuelled by ever more people consuming ever more resources. This dogma is spread far and wide, so most of us come to believe that growth actually can continue forever. Global warming? It’s a figment of the scientists’ imagination. Ageing population? We need more growth to solve that one too.

Relying on population growth to solve our problems is like relying on an addictive drug. Ever increasing doses are needed to achieve the same effect and the ultimate result can be tragedy.

– Ralph Judd, Blackburn North

People, we must talk

With the revelation that Melbourne is growing by 90,000 a year, and Australia by 500,000 a year (The Age, 23/9), Ross Gittins’ article (Comment, 23/9) was timely. Population policy in Australia is the Rudderless ship (pun intended), careering along without regard to the carrying capacity of the land. Apparently because of the perceived short-term economic benefits of seemingly unlimited immigration (where the individual is reduced to a taxable consumption unit), government policy overrides any serious consideration of a sustainable population figure.

We are all aware of the inability of infrastructure to keep pace with immigration and with climate change, over-allocation of water resources and anticipated reductions in crop yields. It defies logic that we are not having a vigorous public debate regarding population policy in this country.

– Chris Owens, Lysterfield South

An end to business as usual

It was no surprise to read that the Business Council applauds the news that Melbourne’s population has hit 4 million and the country will reach 22 million within days. More people means more demand and more profit for business.

Never mind the thousands facing rental stress or homelessness because housing supply cannot keep up with such demand. Never mind the commuters pushed onto overcrowded public transport because the State Government cannot keep up the supply of infrastructure. Never mind all the other species that lose their habitat because Melbourne expands ever outwards.

This kind of growth is cancerous. It should be deplored. We need to tighten skilled immigration and temporary visas, abandon the trans-Tasman agreement so that we don’t have nearly 50,000 New Zealanders settling here annually, and leave just the refugee program intact, or even enlarge it, as it is a mere fraction of overall net migration. While we’re at it, get rid of baby bonuses. They’re the last thing we need in an overcrowded world.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

Find the equilibrium

Ross Gittins is spot on in pointing out the dream world inhabited by most economists and politicians, who don’t seem to understand the fundamental fact of the ecological limits of our planet.

There is, however, a need for a more fundamental overhaul of the world economic order than just population. We need to look beyond a growth-based economy powered by consumption and debt to strive for an equilibrium between a reasonable level of prosperity and a sustainable ecology. Economic growth should be directed predominantly to the developing world, where it would raise living standards and constrain population growth.

– Michael Hassett, Blackburn

We need more people pointing out the impossibility of reconciling increased population, current affluence and a healthy environment. Something’s got to give.

– Beverly Broadbent, East Brighton

26/9:

Keep it real

The idea that fake grass is better for the environment than real grass is a myth. The logic goes that synthetic turf does not need to be watered or mown and is therefore the obvious choice for ecologically aware gardeners. However, fake grass is a petrochemical product that takes a long time to break down. The manufacture and transportation of synthetic grass creates carbon, whereas real grass absorbs it. Artificial grass also damages the soil underneath and creates an inhospitable environment for the life that thrives in and around real grass, such as insects, worms and birds.

– Virginia van Engelen, Port Fairy

28/9:

Above all, water is a numbers game

Hearts go out to Indians enduring water shortages (“Water wars loom in a nation of parched fields”, The Age, 26/9).

Water is so closely tied up with food production that the possibility of famine looms large.

Farmer Chatan Singh, who is deep in debt because the rains and crops have failed, has eight children. India grows by 20 million people a year. Both exacerbate the growing crisis.

A country can only be sustained if its population and resources are in balance. India was able to sustain a large population for a long time as long as the monsoon came on time and the Himalayan snows melted in spring to feed rivers. Neither of these are certainties any more with climate change.

If your crops fail and you have no capacity to borrow, of course, it matters not if you have eight or two children – they all starve. But assuming Chatan Singh is borrowing to feed his family, we may assume his debts would be less if he had fewer mouths to feed. This principle works at a national level. It is thus vital that nations such as India include population stabilisation in their National Adaptation Programs of Action in the lead-up to climate change talks in Copenhagen.

– Jenny Goldie, Michelago, NSW

29/9:

Keep on growing

Congratulations to Ross Gittins (BusinessDay, 28/9) for pointing out that population growth is not only bad for the environment, but also to our economic wellbeing.

The question is, why do all four major political parties support unlimited population growth for Australia?

– Jeff Triplett, Broadmeadows

Herald Sun, 28/9:

Over-populate and kill quality of life

Congratulations to the Herald Sun for bringing out the full disaster of our state and federal governments’ population push (“Population boom a bust”, September 24).

As the population goes up, our livability goes down. Just ask people in the streets.

People are sick and tired of packed roads, trains, hospitals and a dangerous shortage of water, which we are being forced to share with another 112,000 people each year.

The Government fails to mention that more people means more pollution and a larger carbon footprint. The best way to clean up the atmosphere would be to put a lid on this huge increase of population.

Get migration levels down to a sustainable number.

Our governments obviously are under the thumb of big business, making their millions supplying more and more of us with more and more things.

Demand a population summit.

– Mary Drost, convener, Planning Backlash Coalition

Rudd unhouses the poor

Kevin Rudd, when in Opposition, attended the housing affordability summit and demanded solutions.

Since assuming power, he has increased immigration even further, driven up the price of existing housing by increasing the first-home buyer grant, and now he and Swan make it even easier for non-residents to buy Australian housing.

Surely Rudd must rate as the ultimate hypocrite? He has fuelled the housing bubble at the expense of renters and less affluent citizens while essentially government-guaranteeing house prices for the more affluent.

This is the extreme form of wealth shifting to benefit the rich.

Shame on you, Kevin Rudd, for the socio-economic impasse you are creating.

– Tony Smith, Burwood

Doubly stupid density planning

If the world is going through global warming as a result of demands from world population growth, then why on earth is Australia planning to nearly double its population in the next 40 years?

– Russ Picton, Goughs Bay