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

Water wars

Another week of population articles, the first few from The Age:

“Our population explosion: more people, more damage”, 23/9; “Let’s think twice about growth by immigration”, 28/9. Opinion piece by Ross Gittins, on the wilful blindness of politicians towards the negative effects of population growth.

“Migration waves”, 26/9. Australia has a high rate of immigration, but is poorly-prepared to deal with the consequences of this.

“Australia’s population fairytale”, 28/9. Australia’s efforts at reducing greenhouse emissions are made futile by its high population growth.

While the Prime Minister was away, figures were released by the Treasurer in Canberra, and by the Population Reference Bureau in Washington, which showed Australia had the fastest-growing population in the industrialised world, and it is projected to reach 35 million in 40 years.

“Water wars loom in a nation of parched fields”, 26/9. Water shortages are already happening in parts of the world, and India is one such place – failed monsoons have farmers fighting over what water supplies are left.

According to Vandana Shiva, water shortages could split Indian communities along deeply entrenched divisions of caste and religion. “What we will start seeing is localised conflicts over water,” she says. “As livelihoods evaporate, along with water, you will see all sorts of cracks opening up in society.” Conflict is also possible between India’s majority rural population and its bursting cities. “People with power live in cities and, as the water crisis is deepening, what remains is being increasingly delivered to the cities,” says Shiva.

[…]

Scientists say the annual monsoon, on which about 40 per cent of India’s farmers depend, is likely to become more unpredictable. At the same time, the Himalayan glaciers that feed great rivers of the subcontinent upon which hundreds of millions of people rely are receding at a worrying rate. The World Bank says climate change alone could reduce the subcontinent’s crop yields by 30 per cent by the mid-21st century. Meanwhile, India adds more than 20 million new mouths to feed every year.

The predicted future of environmental disasters is here already, but most people go about their daily lives unheeding. Another grim article is “Animal Extinction – the greatest threat to mankind”, Independent, 30/4/2007, on the sixth great extinction of many species that also goes mostly unnoticed – much of it due to human activity.

We now understand that the majority of life on Earth has never been – and will never be – known to us. In a staggering forecast, Wilson predicts that our present course will lead to the extinction of half of all plant and animal species by 2100. You probably had no idea. Few do. A poll by the American Museum of Natural History finds that seven in 10 biologists believe that mass extinction poses a colossal threat to human existence, a more serious environmental problem than even its contributor, global warming; and that the dangers of mass extinction are woefully underestimated by almost everyone outside science. In the 200 years since French naturalist Georges Cuvier first floated the concept of extinction, after examining fossil bones and concluding “the existence of a world previous to ours, destroyed by some sort of catastrophe”, we have only slowly recognised and attempted to correct our own catastrophic behaviour.

New Scientist magazine had a population-themed issue for its 23/9 issue, the articles accessed at “The population delusion” link. The population problem is described as “complex”, in that it is not merely due to numbers of people. One writer, a “techno-optimist” believes that a population of 20 billion could be supported using technological advances. I suppose that would involve cramming millions into megacities like caged battery hens – no thanks! Even if that is possible, it doesn’t mean it should be done. The “technology can solve everything” mentality is dangerous, and is no substitute for simply limiting population growth.

Garden-hater

“Deceptive green of suburban gardens”, The Age, 19/9. Opinion piece by a Robert Nelson, who thinks that suburban gardens are environmentally-unfriendly because they take up space and encourage urban sprawl. So his “solution” is, predictably, to do away with planning regulations and cram housing together as much as possible.

With fewer private gardens, less water would be used and the streets would have people in them, with shops and cafes at ground level rather than the great Australian emptiness of our suburbs, where – as Baudrillard said of Los Angeles – you feel like a delinquent if you aren’t in a car.

Australians speak fondly of preserving the established character of their neighbourhoods and jealously guard against the alien aesthetics of large edifices occupying the full block. Their defence of the leafy ambience is an understandable NIMBY reaction; but it’s also a parochial immaturity that we must grow out of.

Mate, you’ve got it wrong – gardens provide habitat for birds and animals, help cool the microclimates surrounding houses and streets, absorb CO₂ and make the urban landscape pleasanter. The solution to urban sprawl is containing population growth – then residents do not have to endure high-density living. There is nothing “immature” about opposing high-density developments.

Some letters from today’s The Age in response (also to the population growth prediction articles):

Balancing green with buildings

Robert Nelson’s piece (“Deceptive green of suburban gardens”, Comment & Debate, 18/9) is welcome. An alternative theme came to me: gardening in the leftover land between monstrous houses and their boundaries.

When I was growing up in the 1950s, the aspirational house was 12 to 14 squares (110 to 130 square metres) for the family of five. Now it is something like 22 to 40 squares for three to four people. Monash University, where Dr. Nelson teaches, once reinforced that “green dream” when the attraction of open space was a reason why people enrolled there. Now its Clayton campus struggles to “green” the leftover bits between its building ambitions. Unfortunately, the market has not embraced the inspirational approach of balancing green with buildings. How long does it take to change culture?

– Paul Thompson, landscape architect, Mooroolbark

Urban deserts only add to social stress

Robert Nelson’s proposal for saving the planet by abolishing suburban gardens is misguided. It takes no account of the environmental and social benefits of gardens, especially those with native plants. Even inner-city gardens provide habitats for native birds, lizards and insects.

They help provide cooler environments in summer, especially when houses are shaded by trees. They can be used to grow fruit and vegetables and keep poultry, thereby reducing reliance on the air-polluting transportation of food. And they encourage healthy outdoor activities that are less polluting than energy-powered indoor pastimes.

Turning our suburbs into urban deserts will only add to social stress, causing more of us to move to the countryside. Better technology, urban planning and a smaller human population are the solutions.

– Jason Foster, Mirboo North

Preserving our link to the land

Robert Nelson’s critique of the suburban garden lifestyle is shortsighted. He rightly draws our attention to the high cost of our low-density suburbs in the form of massive use of cars and the pollution they cause, but fails to consider their role in the future. In a no-growth society, the journey to work will be greatly reduced and much of it will be by public transport, foot or bike. Gardens will come into their own, not only as pleasant places to be but where we grow a substantial portion of our own food.

It is true that the creation of the suburbs had an aesthetic motive, but it involved a deep-seated reaction to high-density living based on thousands of years of living more closely with the land. Surely that relationship is worth conserving.

– Geoff Mosley, Hurstbridge

So many ways to reduce emissions

So, Robert Nelson wants to abolish the setbacks and sun-lit gardens of Melbourne, still one of the world’s most liveable cities, to make it more like London, New York and Seoul – far from the most liveable cities. Amazing. The reason he gives is that sprawl generates car travel, which produces greenhouse emissions. Yet such brutalising of Melbourne’s cherished green areas will take decades to strongly affect the world’s climate.

Dr. Nelson seems blissfully unaware of the plethora of suggestions to reduce emissions more quickly and with less damage to our city’s wonderful, hard-won features. These include appropriate public transport, transit lanes, reducing the number of children driven to school, green cars, incentives for employers who hire workers living nearby, harnessing the solar, wind and water recycling potential that exists within suburban backyards, local food, staggered working hours, telecommuting, high-standard bike paths and urban forestry.

A little more open-minded, lateral thinking and less vandalism, please.

– Ray Wyatt, Balwyn North

Curbing the sprawl

The editorial, “35 million Australians? Start preparing now” (19/9), provided an insightful overview of a looming catastrophe. Melbourne 2030 provided a sustainable alternative to the relentless urban sprawl. It had the potential to address congestion problems, facilitate public transport and encourage people to be less car-dependent, as well as enable the development of vibrant and dense communities. But it involved significant change.

Unfortunately, rather than engaging with the community, providing leadership and comprehensive back-up, it was delivered as a fait accompli. As a result, it was easy for powerful, single-interest groups and local government to scuttle the changes. In this instance, all parties must work together to find solutions. The problem is that there are no robust public forums where urban change can be debated and resolved. The Age’s intention to lead the debate is welcome.

– David Rayson, Albert Park

High-risk approach

Your editorial perpetuates the myth that an ever-increasing population is required so there will be enough workers to support retired people. However, its premise is false.

We have educated, skilled workers aged over 45 who are deemed “too old” by prejudiced employers. Proportionally, there are more older people than in previous generations, because they are living longer. Many are willing and able to work after a retirement age suitable for life expectancies a century ago.

Real wealth per head has doubled in the past 40 years and will probably continue on this trajectory. We will be able to afford a larger non-working population and still indulge in the waste of mass consumerism. Industries such as construction advocate increasing our population because it profits from building more sprawling suburbs and related infrastructure. The money would be better spent providing first-class housing, schools, hospitals and transport for the current population and investing in high-tech export industries. Taking 30 million immigrants from Asia, Africa or Europe will have no significant effect on those massively populated continents but would devastate Australia’s fragile ecology.

– Philip Shehan, Brunswick

The coming collapse

Australia’s population growth expectations have been revised; Federal Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday revealed a prediction of 35 million by 2049. Most of the articles in the links below regard this as a good thing; a “challenge” rather than a concern. 35 million may seem small compared to the populations of many countries, but take into consideration that most of the Australian continent is desert, fresh water supplies are scarce and its soils are ancient and infertile.

From the Herald-Sun, 18/9:

“Higher fertility and migration triggers Aussie population boom”.

“Population boom ‘a recipe for tragedy’ ”. Senator Bob Brown seems to be one of the few politicians who does have a clue. Short article reproduced below:

Australian Greens leader Bob Brown has taken issue with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for expressing enthusiasm for a growing population. The Federal Government has released revised estimates showing Australia’s population will increase from 22 million at present to 35 million by 2049, boosting 2007 estimates by more than 7 million people.

Mr. Rudd said “it’s great” from an economic perspective that Australia’s population was growing as other nations experienced a decline. But Senator Brown said Mr. Rudd needed to explain how population growth would affect economic prosperity. “This population boom is not economic wisdom, it is a recipe for planetary exhaustion and great human tragedy,” he said.

The environmental campaigner pointed out that when Mr. Rudd was born in 1957, the world’s population was three billion. “There are 6.8 billion now. There will be 9 billion by mid-century,” Senator Brown said, adding economic growth needed to coincide with a steady population.

From The Age:

“Millions of reasons for celebration – or concern”, 19/9. MP Kelvin Thomson is another of the rare politicians who find growth a concern.

But as anyone in Melbourne knows, there are drawbacks to rapid population growth. Labor MP Kelvin Thomson is worried: “We are sleep-walking towards environmental disaster.”

Mr. Thomson says 30 per cent of Australia’s bird species are already under threat, and wildlife habitats are falling victim to increased urbanisation and food production. And trying to cut carbon emissions by 60 per cent while raising population by 60 per cent, he says, is “trying to fight with both hands tied behind your back”.

“Another 13 or 14 million people will not give us a richer country, it will spread our mineral wealth more thinly and give us a poorer one,” he says. He wants the Government to aim for population stability, not growth.

“35 million Australians? Start preparing now”, 19/9. This editorial treats such predicted growth as a “challenge” and says we must adapt to it. I say, bullshit!

Many Australians will respond to all this with a deceptively simple question: why not cap the population? Closing borders to a growing global population in a world of finite resources would be problematic, but the main reason that is not a good solution is a demographic one. The forecast proportion of people aged over 65 has been revised down slightly to 22 per cent in 2049 – it is now 13 per cent – but that still means a much smaller proportion of Australians will be of working age. Migrants are significantly younger on average than the general population, so their arrival improves the ratio of workers to non-workers. Immigration is needed to ensure the workforce is big enough to fund and provide the services that all of us require.

“Congratulations – it’s a boomlet. (But now the fun starts…)”, 19/9. Much the same: population growth will do wonders for the economy; it is a “challenge”, blah, blah.

From The Australian, who are even more clueless: “Population is destiny”, 19/9.

Meeting the needs of millions more Australians will also demand realistic investment in much-neglected infrastructure, especially dams and transport. It is clear the national interest is best served by growth. In a region where our neighbours are increasing by hundreds of millions, economic and population growth are essential for our long-term survival. The post-World War II axiom populate or perish should be updated to “populate and prosper”.

The usual argument of “demographics” is given in all articles; we must continue to encourage a high birth rate and import younger workers to support an ageing population and to further economic growth. But that is merely delaying the inevitable; both groups will age too and will require even more young people to support them. Where does this insanity end? Such a policy in a world of finite resources is ultimately unsustainable and environmentally devastating.

Some published letters in The Age from the last few weeks on these topics:

2/9:

It’s no business for big business

Senator Chris Evans’ claim that immigration should be the nation’s labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants, especially younger, skilled workers, is absurd (“Migration rules set for revamp”, The Age, 31/8).

The Australian population should be our normal source of workforce. Decisions about who comes to Australia should not be left to employers. Big employers have a long history of making bizarre ambit claims about the numbers they propose to employ. Often the real aim is to create a surplus of job seekers and thus bully governments into giving the go-ahead for short-sighted projects to create jobs.

The livability crisis should be a higher priority than importing “skilled and willing” (read “temporarily more docile”) workers from elsewhere.

Senator Evans bizarrely claims that his “attempts to have a more sophisticated debate about the topic have totally failed”. What efforts?

The book Overloading Australia documents him claiming in May 2008 that net immigration was less than half what the Bureau of Statistics says it was. Recently he claimed immigration had been “slashed”, when it was soaring. Now he admits we have “an unprecedented, unplanned migration wave”. He should resign and be replaced by a minister who serves the Australian electorate, not vested interests.

– Mark O’Connor, co-author, Overloading Australia, Lyneham, ACT

It’s time to debate, people

I agree that it is “time for a reality check on immigration policy” (Editorial, 1/9). I would go further and say it is time for a national population policy. Tim Flannery, in his Australia Day address in 2002, indicated that a population policy was vital for Australia to have an environmentally sustainable future.

He said the way to achieve such a policy was for the nation to engage in a truthful, vigorous debate, together with a government inquiry charged with setting an optimum population target. Once the target had been decided we should determine our immigration policy in light of it. This, Flannery believed, would take most of the hysteria out of the immigration debate.

In my view, the bipartisanship way the major parties have kept immigration policy debate out of the public arena is an affront to democracy. I believe an appropriate forum for debating a population policy would also act as a prophylactic in keeping irrational ideologies out of the debate.

– Arthur Bassett, Blackburn South

Questions about the boom

The boom in immigration, resulting from the wholesale granting of permanent residency to international students on the basis of skill credentials obtained here, is at last being reviewed.

The demographic distortion from this influx may have resulted in increased unemployment and disaffection among migrant and native young people.

Any net benefit from the “education industry’s “export” earnings might not withstand examination, with the money cycle involving repayment of loans from Australian earnings, plus huge long-term costs to Australia. Issues include the diversion of educational resources to service this trade and the downgrading of the perceived value of Australian qualifications.

– Forbes Sprawson, Hampton

11/9:

Mad Max future

I suggest David Spratt relax (Comment, 10/9). Federal and state governments are looking far beyond the coming decades when our country runs out of natural resources, and have formulated a long-term plan to base our economic and social future on the film industry.

Decades ago they tested the waters with Mad Max. Our response to the notion of living in a barren wasteland, killing for petrol to run obsolete machinery and drifting into extinction was enthusiastic. Now, thanks to our politicians, our descendants can all look forward to becoming permanent extras in an apocalyptic wasteland dystopia.

– Ray Leung, Elwood

“Jared Diamond on Australia’s overpopulation problem”, (We) can do better. The chapter “Mining Australia” from his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive make for alarming reading; some paragraphs below:

The fallacy behind this policy of “filling up” Australia is that there are compelling environmental reasons why, even after more than two centuries of European settlement, Australia has not “filled itself up” to the population density of the U.S. Given Australia’s limited supplies of water and limited potential for food production, it lacks the capacity to support a significantly larger population. An increase in population would also dilute its earnings from mineral exports on a per-capita basis. Australia has recently been receiving immigrants only at the net rate of about 100,000 per year, which yields an annual population growth by immigration of only 0.5%.

Nevertheless, many influential Australians, including the recent Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, the leaders of both major political parties, and the Australian Business Council, still argue that Australia should try to increase its population to 50 million people. The reasoning invokes a combination of continued fear of the “Yellow Peril” from overpopulated Asian countries, the aspiration for Australia to become a major world power, and the belief that that goal could not be achieved if Australia had only 20 million people. But those aspirations of a few decades ago have receded to the point where Australians today no longer expect to become a major world power. Even if they did have that expectation, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Singapore provide examples of countries with populations far less than that of Australia (only a few million each) that nevertheless are major economic powers and make big contributions to world technological innovation and culture. Contrary to their government and business leaders, 70% of Australians say that they want less rather than more immigration. In the long run it is doubtful that Australia can even support its present population: the best estimate of a population sustainable at the present standard of living is 8 million people, less than half of the present population.

[…]

As for freshwater itself, Australia is the continent with the least of it. Most of that little freshwater that is readily accessible to populated areas is already utilized for drinking or agriculture. Even the country’s largest river, the Murray/Darling, has two-thirds of its total water flow drawn off by humans in an average year, and in some years virtually all of its water. Australia’s freshwater sources that remain unutilized consist mainly of rivers in remote northern areas, far from human settlements or agricultural lands where they could be put to use. As Australia’s population grows, and as its unutilized supplies of freshwater dwindle, some settled areas may be forced to turn to more expensive desalinization for their freshwater. There is already a desalinization plant on Kangaroo Island, and one may be needed soon on the Eyre Peninsula.

[…]

To those of us inclined to pessimism or even just to realistic sober thinking, all those facts give us reason to wonder whether Australians are doomed to a declining standard of living in a steadily deteriorating environment. That is an entirely realistic scenario for Australia’s future—much more likely than either a plunge into an Easter Island-like population crash and political collapse as prophesized by doomsday advocates, or a continuation of current consumption rates and population growth as blithely assumed by many of Australia’s current politicians and business leaders. The implausibility of the latter two scenarios, and the realistic prospects of the first scenario, apply to the rest of the First World as well, with the sole difference that Australia could end up in the first scenario sooner.

Fortunately, there are signs of hope. They involve changing attitudes, rethinking by Australia’s farmers, private initiatives, and the beginnings of radical governmental initiatives. All that rethinking illustrates a theme that we already encountered in connection with the Greenland Norse (Chapter 8), and to which we shall return in Chapters 14 and 16: the challenge of deciding which of a society’s deeply held core values are compatible with the society’s survival, and which ones instead have to be given up.

Immigration debate

Yesterday The Age had some articles focused on immigration:

“Migration rules set for revamp”. There are a huge number of temporary residents (600 000!), competing for jobs with citizens.

“Want job, will travel”. Australia has one of the highest population growths (1.9%) in the world, a disturbing exception to most other developed countries, and much of it attributable to immigration.

Graeme Hugo, professor of geography at the University of Adelaide, says Australia faces a dilemma. “It is clear there are significant population constraints and we’ve seen that with water issues in recent times and the discussions about climate change,” Hugo says. “But on the other hand, 42 per cent of our workforce are baby boomers and over the next couple of decades they are going to be exiting the workforce.”

Migrants are needed to replace those retiring workers, he says, but whether the migration program needs to be as big as it has been is another question.

[…]

He says stopping population growth in itself is not a magic bullet to solve environmental issues. “It’s complex and it hasn’t been addressed in a comprehensive way in Australia. If we do have to have significant numbers of migrants, we have to have strong environmental policies.”

But stopping growth will certainly alleviate a lot of these issues.

“Workforce ripe for the picking”. Some employers prefer to employ immigrants as they are a source of cheap, compliant labor (the immigrants daren’t complain about inappropriate working conditions).

The consequence of so many temporary overseas workers and students seeking PR visas is that employers have a compliant labour force at their disposal. It also means more competition for a shrinking number of jobs, and more risk of the undercutting of Australian wages and conditions by this desperate workforce.

I am not anti-immigration as such, but anti-excessive immigration, which Australia – and many other countries – are having huge problems with (and inciting citizens’ resentment). Ideally, the immigration and birth rate should not outpace the death rate, as in a steady-state economy, but governments and businesses are obsessed with growth, and refuse to admit the negative consequences of this.

Published letters from the last 2 days. 31/8:

This is not planning, it’s pressure

Population growth and urban sprawl are out of control around Melbourne (“Housing estate pushes urban sprawl limit”, The Age, 29/8).

The decision to situate a large housing estate ostensibly belonging to Melbourne but outside the proposed new urban boundary 50 kilometres from the city at Wallan, to avoid infrastructure taxes, makes it clear that planning is not remotely to do with ensuring that Melbourne and its suburbs work well now and into the future.

“Planning” in Victoria is a misnomer. The Brumby Government’s pursuit of increased population for Victoria places immense and increasing pressure on Melbourne and its environs and is irresponsible.

– Jill Quirk, East Malvern

More of everything

Like Tony Jones (Letters, 29/8), I was taken aback by John Brumby’s interview on ABC radio, where he expressed actual enthusiasm for continuing population growth. So much for the once “most liveable” city and our “garden state”.

Now, as most people realise, overpopulation is at the root of almost all of Melbourne’s major problems, from water worries to road rage. Government and business interests may welcome the hordes of new arrivals, but our quality of life deteriorates quite dramatically, almost by the day. Gardens become concrete. Green becomes grey. What we lose in trees we gain in traffic lights. Commuting time doubles. Parking is a hassle. Air quality decreases and, across the bay, the horizon is, more often than not, a smoky blur. Violent crime is out of control. Depression and stress are common afflictions. We have a real sense of being hustled along in the proverbial rat race. Bigger, faster, greedier, richer.

Is this what we really want? Do economic imperatives really condemn us to this? Even if we have no choice but to cope with a burgeoning population in our once fair city, do we have to actively encourage it, as Mr Brumby seems eager to do?

– Vivienne Player, Beaumaris

1/9:

Think environment, then population

I am pleased to hear that Immigration Minister Chris Evans wants to have a “a more sophisticated debate” on immigration (“Migration rules set for revamp”, The Age, 31/8). Excellent. So let’s not worry about where they come from but with where and how we are going to house them.

What we do need is an environmental impact assessment. In light of climate change, does it make sense to grow our population at all?

We also need to debate what sort of society and built environment we want. Do we want a sea of buildings as far as the eye can see, as in New York and New Jersey? The State Government’s population growth-at-any-cost policies are leading to the disappearance of coastal caravan parks. Why? Because councils need to keep a 10-year land supply for housing. Where, then, can those less well off have their beach holidays?

Unfortunately, these issues will not get discussed because we see immigration through economic eyes. Immigrants are resources we use to further stuff up an already stuffed environment.

– Mark Axton, Somers

It doesn’t add up

Now that Melbourne is beginning to realise that it suffers an increasing problem of overpopulation, it seems ridiculous to seek to “solve” the problem by trying to overpopulate rural and regional centres.

Regional mayors trumpet how good it is living in their towns exactly because they don’t have the crowding that cities have. Then in a spectacular twist in logic, they advocate for a higher population. Meanwhile, the Federal Government insists that what we really need is more immigrants.

– Graham Parton, Stanley