At the present rate Australia will have a population of about 50 million by mid century and 100 million by the end of the century. If this sounds implausible, consider that at the end of World War II, just 64 years ago, Australia’s population was only 7.5 million, i.e. it has almost tripled in that time.

This population growth should be considered an economic and environmental problem of huge proportions. From the economic point of view, Australia relies mostly on mining and agriculture for its export earnings. These industries require a very small proportion of the population to operate (although it is true that due to inadequate training in the technical trades and engineering, they have suffered a temporary labour shortages in recent years).

The growing population in Australia will not increase exports of iron ore, coal or gold and will reduce our exports of food as we are forced to consume more of our output internally. The money that comes to Australia from the sales of our resources presently gets divided among 22 million Australians. When the population doubles the amount per capita will halve.

There are plenty of examples around the world where resource based economies, almost all of which do not rely on a large fraction of their population to produce the export income, are worse off with large populations. Compare the UK with Norway, both supposedly rich from North Sea oil. The UK, with a population of about 60 million, spent the income and will soon run out of oil. Norway, with less than five million people, could afford to save a huge proportion of its income in large government investment funds. Norway’s future is assured.

During the recent resources boom, Australian governments squandered the bulk of the tax revenues generated by the mining companies, at least partially, in building infrastructure for an unnecessary population explosion. As an example of this problem, consider the state of Queensland’s finances which are caught between falling resources income and the staggering costs of providing the infrastructure for a third-world rate of population growth.

In the post war period of immigration there were some sound reasons to expand Australia’s population. There was a genuine, if exaggerated, security concern which was a rational response to the near death experience that Australia encountered in World War II. There was also a concerted effort to expand Australia’s manufacturing industry which, it was argued, needed a larger population to make it viable. In the days of poor transport, we needed large internal markets.

All those factors have now changed. Manufacturing in Australia is on its knees and a growing population will not help. Mining, agriculture, tourism, and the education of foreign students are our biggest export earners and do not need a growing population.

From the environmental side, a growing population is an obvious problem. Currently we have water shortages of varying severity in all our big cities which would have been less acute if we had maintained our population at levels of 20 years ago. Melbourne would not have to contemplate encroaching into its green fringe or building a desalination plant if its population wasn’t growing. Finally, if you believe that C02 causes climate change, Australia’s population growth will make it almost impossible to achieve meaningful emission reductions. We have to reduce per-capita emissions by 50 per cent every 40 years just to keep our total emission at present levels.

Even though the problems of population growth are obvious, it is a political sacred cow that cannot be argued or debated. None of the major political parties will argue for lower immigration because they are scared of being labeled racist. Even the Greens who have a useful population policy are almost always silent on this issue. They should be arguing for lower immigration every time the Australian Bureau of Statistics population figures are released. There is also an unholy alliance between the right wing who want a growing population to feed our housing construction industry and the extreme left who want to allow the whole world to come to Australia on compassionate grounds.

The housing industry is the main beneficiary of high population growth. Every year we have to build a city the size of Canberra just to house our growth. Unfortunately this is not a productive activity, unlike building a factory, a mine, the scientific development of better farming practice, a medical breakthrough or an environmental improvement. House construction appears to be good for us because it employs people in the short term, but in the long run it will get us nowhere because it is not an investment in production. The reality is that Australia has too many people in the industry.

Although the housing industry has always been a big winner from our population policy, there is now another big player that has its snout in the immigration trough. That is our education sector. Presently, applicants who wish to migrate to Australia and have a qualification from an Australian institution get preferential treatment. This has spawned a massive industry in education which could only be described as an enormous immigration scam. In the lobby of a large Pitt Street building recently I noted that half the companies in the building were involved in either immigration advice, or education for foreign students. Many companies were doing both.

It is not only some dodgy colleges which are involved in this cash-for-visa scam. Our universities take in large numbers of students whose main aim is to gain Australian residency. We are prepared to take money from them to smooth their way through the process. Effectively selling permanent residency visas through the education system is neither ethical nor in the best interests of the country.

The population issue is an example of where this country has lost its way and is not concentrating on the big economic, environmental or social issues. We are preoccupied with global warming and the supposed imminent demise of the Great Barrier Reef even though the science on these is far from conclusive. At the same time we ignore the obvious and definite environmental problems posed by population growth: unarguably the easiest and cheapest problem to solve yet underpinning all our environmental problems.

We also refuse to contemplate nuclear power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions because, like population growth, this is another sacred cow that cannot be challenged. Economically we are prepared to sacrifice our future for the short term gain of extra foreign students in our universities and dodgy colleges, and for jobs in our non productive building industry. Socially we are not prepared to pay to train our own kids to become doctors, engineers and trades people to fill the gaps we have in our labour force. At the same time we are happy to take skilled people from developing countries which cannot afford to lose them.

With Canada and perhaps Russia, Australia is in a unique position. We have a small population and a huge country, most of which is agriculturally unproductive and unpleasant to live in. We have a relatively unspoilt environment and an abundance of mineral wealth. We also have a technologically advanced society and a good base in science and medicine. Uncontrolled population growth risks what we have. We should immediately reduce immigration to about 50,000 a year, with the medium term objective of having a zero net immigration policy; and the baby bonus should be scrapped to discourage the present rise in fertility. Because of the pipeline effect, i.e. we have a very young average population, our population will continue to grow to at least 25 million. We can then decide if we wanted to keep the population at that level or reduce it by adjusting immigration to suit.

It really is that easy.

***************

Peter Ridd lives in  Townsville, North Queensland, and is a director of the Australian Environment Foundation.

This article was first published by On Line Opinion on August 13, under the title ‘Population: A Big Problem But Easy to Solve’ and is republished here with permission from the author.

And according to recent Australian government advice there are opportunities for Australian businesses in pollution prevention and control technologies as the country seeks to address air and water pollution.  Current major suppliers of environmental equipment are apparently from the USA, Japan, mainland China and the UK.

“Air pollution is a serious problem, and diesel smoke and fine dust in the urban areas are the most pressing problems, causing health concerns. A number of measures have been introduced that have reduced vehicle emissions by almost 80 per cent.

Major progress:
• Hong Kong became the first city in Asia to switch to ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel
• Over 98 per cent of the 15,000 taxis in Hong Kong have converted to LPG
• Over 80 per cent (24,000 in number) old light diesel vehicles installed particulate trap
• All new petrol cars must be fitted with catalytic converters
• Higher fines are imposed on smoky vehicles
• Introduction of the most stringent Euro III emission standards

Road traffic noise is one of the most pervasive forms of pollution in Hong Kong. Close to a million people live in homes which suffer road traffic noise higher than the minimum acceptable standard (70 dB) in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. The following measures have been introduced to tackle road traffic noise problems:
• Pre-emptive planning based on environmental impact assessments
• Introduction of building insulation to redress the impact on the affected premises
• Installation of roadside barriers and enclosures on existing roads
• Imposition of legislative regulation to control noise from vehicles
• Resurfacing noisy roads with a special porous, low-noise road surface

“Water pollution has increased with urban development. Hong Kong produces more than two million tonnes of sewage every day. The lack of proper treatment for most sewage from the urban area around Victoria Harbour has resulted in poor water quality. The Government has launched the ‘Harbour Area Treatment Scheme’ to tackle the sewage and wastewater pollution. Around 70 per cent of the sewage that flows into Victoria Harbour will pass through chemically enhanced treatment. An international panel completed a review on the sewage system in Hong Kong and made suggestions on the future treatment of sewage.

The total recycling recovery rate in Hong Kong is about 35 per cent of the total municipal solid waste. In the industrial and commercial sectors Hong Kong has a good recovery rate with over 50 per cent of materials being recycled. Local industry reprocesses over 50 per cent of recyclable materials such as waste paper, metals, plastic and glass.

Chemical wastes are treated at the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre by incineration. The government also plans to develop incineration facilities for the disposal of municipal waste, clinical waste, sewage sludge from the sewage treatment plants, and animal carcasses.”

All this in one of the most densely populated countries on earth.

Now that we have left global warming behind us (almost unanimous agreement that it is the result of human activity or rather over-activity, and that its here to stay unless something is done about it urgently) we can concentrate on the real issue, which is, as I believe over population both at the global and local levels.

It seems like the balancing forces of nature, biotic potential and environmental resistance (in the ecological sense), have lost their balancing character in favor of biotic potential. World population has been soaring in the past few centuries in spite of wars, diseases, epidemics and so forth. I have attached an illustrative reference, which shows how world population has increased over the years and how it will reach about 8 billion by 2020. The animation included is really gloomy (Australia does not seem to be effected).

I strongly believe that, unless something is done about human over-breeding very urgently (like having an international agreement on limiting populations on a rational basis) the whole world will be overpopulated in such a manner (like some countries already are!), that the developing countries shall not be able to reach a standard of living of the so called developed countries. Further, because of the continued depletion of resources, the standards of living in the developed countries will reach such levels that severe intra-specific competition (sometimes referred to as “innovation”) will be dominant in every aspect of our lives. Not to mention that present day international conflicts will be much more widespread. So far, we humans have been clever overcoming environmental resistance, it did not work out, let us try to be wise from now on (not wise guys!).

Regards, Haldun

I agree.

He went on to suggest that,

“In the discussion of human impact on the biosphere, two separate but interactive issues are being conflated. These two issues are climate change, due to the emission of greenhouse gases, and the excessive demand for resources, due to overpopulation.”

So far, he’s making a little bit of sense.

But when it came to providing solutions to overpopulation, Dr Reid clearly had no regard for the rights of women in affluent societies.

He suggested that population growth might be controlled by putting,

“Something in the water, a virus that would be specific to the human reproductive system and would make a substantial proportion of the population infertile.

“Perhaps a virus that would knock out the genes that produce certain hormones necessary for conception.

“The world’s most affluent populations should be targeted first. According to the 2006 Living Planet Report, the six populations that have the biggest per capita ecological footprint live in the United Arab Emirates, the United States of America, Finland, Canada, Kuwait, and Australia.”

But hang on John Reid! Many women, in many affluent socieites, are choosing to have none, one or just two children.

Dr Reid stated,

“The urge to procreate and the innate belief that people have the inalienable right, if not the duty, to have children is too strong to be suppressed, just to save the planet.”

But many women like me, choose to only have one child for a variety of reasons, including quality of life, recognising that there are enough people on this planet already.

Perhaps John Reid is conflating “the urge to procreate” with the urge to have s-x.

Modern methods of contraception mean it is possible to have s-x without procreating!

You can read the complete and startling transcript here: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2006/1807002.htm#transcript

I’ve commented at a previous thread that the associated issues, including resource depletion, may become “somewhat redundant” once global population starts to decline which many predict will happen before the end of this century.

A regular reader and commentator at this blog, Pinxi, disagrees. She writes:

“In my worldview, economic growth and resource depletion will remain relevant issues for the foreseeable future. These issues are not about to become redundant, regardless of whether we will achieve a declining (or stable) global population or decreased resource intensity.

I formed this opinion considering:

1) the large gaps in living standards (within & between countries) between the minority ‘haves’ & the majority ‘have nots’

2) the pressures and desires for continually rising living standards

3) that we haven’t decoupled living standards from resource throughput; we haven’t decoupled quality of life from materials

4) that looking at the rich countries with declining (& stable!) populations there is no evidence that economic growth or resource depletion has become redundant

5) MNCs see the huge populations in third and second world economies as massive untapped market opportunities – more sales needs more products & distribution needs more resources

6) more consumption means more resource use, and methods to reduce the linear nature of resource throughput require more energy for reuse, recycling, repurposing etc so there’s more entropy, less exergy

If global population is declining, you could have longterm negative economic growth but that doesn’t make economic growth redundant. Without a paradigm shift, economic growth is still relevant to our socioeconomic mechanics.

Industrialised societies are organised with economic growth at core and now expect continual improvements in living standards (and we get scared of potential threats to our way of life, such as global warming, peak oil, China, and cheap immigrant labour).

The paradigm will still persist unless we have a paradigm shift. What would bring on a paradigm shift (far-reaching disasters aside)? How would such a paradigm shift manifest?

We haven’t managed to decouple economic growth or maintenance of living standards from resource and energy throughputs yet. Until we do so, economic growth and associated resource throughput will remain an ongoing concern.

All those ‘other demanding people’ in ‘the other countries’ though want better living standards & cars, houses, coca cola & Maccas just like us. Meanwhile we still want to get one up on the Joneses, and marketers flog more must have items at us. All this requires resource throughputs.

A decline in birth rates in the third world is linked with education, health, food and women’s rights (self-determination, property, jobs etc) and while in some areas of the Millenium Development Goals we’re making percentile progress, we have huge improvements to make if we want real declines in the number of people living in poverty and dire inequality.

Basic human rights, and reduced risk and uncertainty in livelihoods and survivial, reduce population pressures. But that doesn’t by itself bring people up to speed with our first world standard of living. It simply means meeting bare minimum conditions for life for most people.

So even when/if population growth steadies, there’ll still be massive differences in quality of life and material standards, and bigger markets for marketing more unnecessary stuff that we all simply must have.

That attempt to catch up, and the never ending consumptive drive, will demand more resources.

Thankfully I still have my resource shares!”

————————–
This is a slightly edited version of a comment originally posted here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001779.html at 3.22pm on 11th December.

“There is a thought I had a long time ago when talking with some zero-population-growth advocates, maybe your readership can shed some light on this. They were saying Australia was already near its human carrying capacity, and I remembered reading that Australia has a population of about 100 million sheep. Now granted, sheep are metabolically different from humans in a number of ways, but still, the bare fact that this continent can support that many large mammals in addition to its 20 million humans suggests to me that the human population here could be considerably larger…”

Now I hadn’t got around to putting this information with some information I have some where on numbers of sheep in Australia and how they are a species in decline … so Mitchell took the initiative of posting it at the Wiki:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/wiki/Australian_carrying_capacity .

Thanks Mitchell. You’re hopefully a trend-setter!