Bigger is better even if it’s top heavy and somewhat false.

I got those Big Australia blues. Pic: AP

Carbon tax or not, Australia’s carbon emissions will keep rising, driven by rapid rates of population growth (A Bigger Australia) and increasing affluence. Most of the carbon is domestic but we also own the carbon that China and other manufacturers emit when they make stuff we purchase from our malls and big box stores.

The ‘Bigger Australia’ much loved by Kevin Rudd and the top end of town surfaced again in the last federal election when both major parties scrambled for a ‘right-sized Australia’ driven by disenchantment in marginal electorates where services are tight and solutions oft promised.

Unseen in the election dog-whistling was a science-based population futures report, Long-term physical implications of net overseas migration: Australia in 2050, researched and written by Dr. Jonathon Sobels of Flinders University and Dr. Graham Turner of CSIRO and other authors. This was an update and elaboration of CSIRO’s 2002 study, Future Dilemmas.

The new Physical Implications study highlighted the many resource and environmental challenges that come with rapid rates of population growth, in the absence of revolutionary changes, in how Australia conducts its business of day-to-day living. By 2050, these challenges include a doubling to a tripling of greenhouse emissions, a looming oil dependence, increased traffic congestion and critical water shortages in three capital cities.

This is bad news for the legions of corporate suits who see rapid population growth as the only way to maintain their cash flow in an economy based on house building, personal consumption and mining.

The news was so bad that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) chose Christmas Eve of 2010 to release the report with a frontispiece demeaning the science-based modelling as contested, and not to be believed. As judged by a lone economics reviewer, the physical-economy analysis did not conform to the assertions and beliefs of an economics-centric world.

However the three components of the study, while strongly related, were independently sourced thus ensuring greater robustness than if they relied on a single analytical idea. The middle tier or regional scale of analysis in particular gives the key insights for national population policy and the consequences of a bigger Australia. As most inbound migrants ended up in discrete areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, the report found that if things were already partially crook in those areas, it could only get crooker under the rapid population growth that a bigger Australia requires to gather steam.

As most Sydneysiders know, the geography that gives its beauty and attractiveness is also a beast when several million more people have to be settled by 2050. Unless the multi-billions that are promised at each election time are spent quickly, and over and over, the city function and economic product will stall in a gridlock of disgruntled ratepayers in the far-flung suburbs. In western Sydney where most population growth occurs, water and soil quality and biodiversity resources can only trend downwards given the experience over the last twenty years of development.

As cost and time over-runs on its Wonthaggi desalinisation plant dominate the media headlines for Melbournians, they might ponder how many more engineering projects they’ll have to pay for with another two million people. The green wedges, meant to buffer biodiversity losses in the face of development, have been discarded by an incoming government intent on bettering the previous bunch. Still, Melbourne has easier topography and better public transit that its arch rival Sydney and with strong ongoing investment, might just retain its liveable city status.

Perth’s long-term future is here now as its second desalination plant nears completion, its surface dams receive trickles rather than floods and its groundwater aquifers approach their extraction limits. The region’s sandy soils transmit sewage and farming nutrients easily and promise increasing eutrophication and algal blooms in its rivers and estuaries. Set in one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots, rapid increases in land clearance to indulge the suburban dream will pressure nature’s diversity even more than in the recent past.

But this future is not hardwired, provided public policy is built on three cores.

The first is to stabilise national population to a 26-28 million level by 2050.

The second is to be as mean as possible to each Australian by introducing an integrated carbon-water-land taxation base that penalises profligate use of critical resources and provides the funds to refurbish and make anew.

The third is to do what we must do and quickly. Ten-star houses, nearly independent of power and water grids, are here now. All cities need fluent transport in an oil-lean future, so why not rapid transit for all now? Our households are bulging with stuff we don’t need and don’t want, our bodies also. So why not a lifestyle where enough is enough, rather than more being our common mantra?

Today’s population policy is driven by the Dolly Parton syndrome, where bigger is better even if it is top heavy and somewhat false. Using science to explore Australia’s future gives the view that we’d probably be better off, leaner and smaller. However, if Australians want the quality of life we now enjoy, then the challenges are already daunting and we’d better start the grand transition today.

Most commented

31 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      06:22am | 09/03/11

      We should take time out right now to reconsider our position on population growth.  Due to the global economy, our manufacturing businesses are moving offshore without any government intervention, and the ‘level playing field’ isn’t ‘level’.  We need a progressive approach to decentralisation which would grow our country towns.  If policy is overtly influenced by people with a ‘townie’ mindset, we could be doing Australia a huge disservice.  Being paranoid about population numbers is stupid.

    • james says:

      07:06am | 09/03/11

      The NBN will encourage decentralization.

    • ZSRenn says:

      07:28am | 09/03/11

      I’m going back to bed. I must be crook. Now I find myself agreeing with actorel. Rural Australia offers great potential to absorb this extra population. We need to be talking about new cities where adequate water supply exists rather than trying to fix the problems we have getting water to the old ones.  The population is going to grow and being paranoid about it and trying to stop it is just going to leave us unprepared.

    • marley says:

      07:30am | 09/03/11

      The problem is, I think, that we don’t have, and never really have had, a meaningful policy on population growth.  We talk about taking x hundred thousand migrants a year at the national level, but the rationale for setting the figures at that level is more to do with short term economic demand than any medium, never mind long-term, vision of the sort of country we want to create. 

      And with those kinds of numbers, we’re always playing “catch up” at the local and regional level - trying to get infrastructure in place that was needed five or ten years ago.  Sydney can’t cope with its current population, never mind a steady influx of 20 or 30 or 40000 people a year. 

      Can we develop a regional development strategy?  Possibly, but we need to plan for it now, and start the process of building infrastructure for those who will arrive in five or ten years time (and I suspect the new arrivals will not be migrants, but Aussies moving from the capitals).  And of course all of this will require a leap of faith - investing vast amounts of money to improve facilities in Bendigo or Townsville is a bit of a gamble, after all….

      Still, I do think it’s time we started.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:05am | 09/03/11

      James
      ‘‘The NBN will encourage decentralisation’’ 
       
      No, it won’t. i wrote a paper for my Masters many, many years ago on telecommuting. It relies on people changing, not technology.

    • Silly old man says:

      11:58am | 09/03/11

      Yes Tony
      Nothing ever changes in the conservative world. The best things are those that existed many many years ago.
      The NBN is not an enabler for anything
      You are a Luddite.
      Don’t be afraid of technology

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      01:53pm | 09/03/11

      Silly Old Man

      I work in the field; have done for ages. I use cutting edge technology at work and fairly up to date technology at home (multiple servers, VLANS, routers etc and even software you won’t see on the shelves for a while yet).  I swapped from Electronic Engineering to IT because it appeared to be moving more rapidly. 
       
      So, no, I’m not a luddite. That’s how I used to describe Richard Alston, in fact. 
       
      And I have studied this area. Nothing will change unless people change. You need to inculcate management with the idea that productivity can and will rise. It is the big unknown on their spreadsheets. As yet, they have no way to measure it, no formula. So it is less risky to say no. Hell, I’ve worked for organisations that wouldn’t even install videoconferencing between different buildings in the same city, preferring people to walk or cab, losing an extra hour for every meeting, because ‘nothing beats a face-to-face meeting’. 
       
      And decentralisation *is* the way to go. No-one who has lived and worked in Toowoomba, Bendigo or Bathurst would want to give it up and fight the Ipswich Motorway, the Calder/Tullamarine Freeways or whatever they have passing for roads in Western Sydney these days. 
       
      So you are preaching to the converted. Try talking to those who supply the jobs.

    • Shifter says:

      02:36pm | 09/03/11

      @Tony - given the paper was written many years ago, could it be possible the advances in technology allow people to go through changes easier? If that is possible, would this not promote more telecommuting, and by extension, decentralisation?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      03:36pm | 09/03/11

      Shifter

      that is an interesting theory and certainly the environment is a *little* different. I had proposed that as the next generation of managers came around, they would be more worldly, ie more up to date with what technology could do for them and the company’s bottom line and therefore more enthusiastic. Guess what? I was wrong. Maybe it will take the publication of success stories or for the concept to be expressed positively at Harvard Business School. I guess no-one wants to be first and have it fail. That way lies perdition and damnation for CIO and CEO alike. Of course, if it becomes the next buzzword (cf ‘‘the cloud’‘, or even ‘‘outsourcing’’ from years ago) every bastard will do it whether it makes sense or not.

    • Shifter says:

      05:35pm | 09/03/11

      It takes a certain business attitude to promote new uses of technology. iiNet, although I hate the CEO, are a fairly forward thinking company and already have staff telecommute mainly to save on office space.

      The roles tend to be minor, call centre staff and team leaders, critical staff are generally required in the office.

      You’re right though, it will take a big push, or a balls to the wall company to jump out there and decentralise it’s staff (provided the staff actually want to).

      Or maybe it’s the realm of the up and comers, IT companies who exist online and have no need for centralisation and an office.

      Decentralisation has it’s problems, the obvious advantage is it takes pressure away from major city infrastructure. Who is to say there is adequate infrastructure away from the city? Does it then become cheaper to build facilities to cope with decentralisers away from major cities?

      Obviously there is a brewing problem, but if we just move it to the country it doesn’t make in any better.

    • Mother Love says:

      07:23am | 09/03/11

      Biger is not better.  And a high standard of living is slowly killing us.  So let’s stop the absurd Baby Bonus after the second child and make contraception free to the whole world.

    • bleD says:

      08:09am | 09/03/11

      Removing any baby bonus would accelerate population stabilisation, if not decrease. Such a policy would need to be adopted worldwide of course but we could make a start in Australia.

    • Nigel says:

      07:36am | 09/03/11

      I can only say - Here Here.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      08:07am | 09/03/11

      Australians are breeding fairly slowly and we can sustain that. What we cannot sustain is the influx of migrants and the way they breed. Why should we accept a lower standard of living so that some bunch of foreigners can come in and improve theirs?

    • marley says:

      10:11am | 09/03/11

      The birthrate of migrants isn’t all that much higher than the birthrate of dinky-di Aussies - and it drops within a generation.  It’s not the issue you think it is.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      10:49am | 09/03/11

      2.6 children per adult female is apparently the number required for maintaining constant population. But different countries have different population profiles so that number is different for each country and it varies over time. We’re a baby boomer country like Europe and the US. My guess is our population bulge is behind Japan but in front China. I also speculate that different age groups have different energy requirements.

      Of course a constant or declining population ain’t good for the Federal Government’s plans for keeping all those retiring boomers happy.

      When will the pollies ever learn to ease back on promises they can’t keep.  I was hoping the Greens would be better.  But they’re not and will go the way of the Democrats and the downward pressure on our Labor and Coalition behaviour will continue.  Gotta stick to your guns or get wiped out.  And Milne was on Punch spinning for Labor with promises to compensate working families. The cracks are starting to appear in the Greens story.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      11:05am | 09/03/11

      Marley
       
      you can’t look at decades old stats. Immigration has changed recently, as you will no doubt have noticed. By the time the ABS gets around to collecting, correlating, tabulating, seasonally adjusting, bastardising and generally fart-arsing around with the figures in true public service style, the information is not relevant to what is happening now. They should call it the Australian Bureau of Ancient History.

    • marley says:

      12:52pm | 09/03/11

      Tony - the birth rate in Australia is 1.9.  That’s as of last year.  The Muslim birth rate at the last census was 2.5 (I assume it’s Muslims you’re worried about).  The Buddhist birth rate was 1.6 and the Hindu birth rate was 1.9.  Given that Muslims comprise less than 2% of the population, I don’t see much reason to worry about those figures.  And Muslim birthrates are dropping in most Muslim countries - including our neighbours. And in countries like Canada.  As prosperity and education comes, birth rates drop.

      As for migration - sure, it’s changed over the years.  But guess what - the vast majority of migrants do not come from Muslim countries.  The only Muslim country in our top ten sources last year was Malaysia, and it ranked down at 6th (7th if you include NZ).  North Africa and the Middle East are all pretty minor sources of migrants, compared to the UK, China, India, the Philippines and South Africa.  And those aren’t decades old statistics, those are figures for 2009/10.

    • JB says:

      02:45pm | 09/03/11

      Tony of Poorakistan:
      in response to this post: “you can’t look at decades old stats.”

      in response to an earlier post:
      ‘‘The NBN will encourage decentralisation’’ 
       
      No, it won’t. i wrote a paper for my Masters many, many years ago on telecommuting.”

      hmmm…. your masters paper from “many many years ago” is still relevant, but stats used by a pro-immigration poster (that you claim are old) aren’t? trying to have it both ways there a bit there aren’t we?

    • Tony of Whackystan says:

      02:50pm | 09/03/11

      @tony,

      dey toooooook ourrr jeeerbbs.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      08:59am | 09/03/11

      The carbon debate must not be about gross national emissions but per capita emissions. (This includes the international emissions)
      The population limitation debate must be international ie Australia blatantly undermined China’s one child policy by giving Chinese parents of multiple children asylum status.
      Economic activity might need to be assessed on sustained replacement and not growth. Growth does not equal sustainabilty. There is no such thing as sustainable growth - A complete rethink of economics is necessary.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      09:27am | 09/03/11

      One thing the West can’t knock China about : being open and honest about population.  Unlike the duplicious West.  BUt that’s how one gets ahead eh: by being duplicious.  Man who speaks with forked tongue.

    • Jon says:

      10:51am | 09/03/11

      The population debate will not happen because our politicians don’t want one.

      Labor wants a bigger population because they can increase the tax base to build a bigger bureaucracy. They also like high immigration when in government, so as to import people to vote for them. This makes big business richer. They then have the money for Labor to get for more votes.

      Liberals want a bigger population because it drives down wages and ups the supply of cheaper workers and ads to consumption. This makes big business richer.  They then have the money for the Liberals to get for more votes..

      The Greens wants open borders and hence larger population so as to help move towards UN world government. Even though the contradiction is obvious as it creates rising consumption and negative environmental effects. People vote for them who want to feel good about themselves.

      In the end this whole globalization/population game is one big Ponzi scheme, unless the world can stop making more people, which seems unlikely because of religious dogma, corporations and politics. The scheme is bound to collapse and this seems ever more likely and possibly sooner than many think.

    • Soylentgreen says:

      11:47am | 09/03/11

      You are forgetting the Stable population party.
      (http://www.populationparty.com/)

      A viable alternative for the voters. The greens are a joke on this issue, therefor the whole premise for the Greens as an environmentally responsible party is undermined. I left them years ago.

      Everyone I talk to is sick of the overpopulation issues we face in Perth.

    • Squeeze the Middle says:

      12:22pm | 09/03/11

      Saw a docco that claimed the Witlam government delayed the arrival of Vietnamese boat people because of the fear that the sort of person trying to flee communism in Vietnam is the sort of person who would vote Coalition.

    • Dr B S Goh says:

      11:41am | 09/03/11

      The No 1 global problem is the continued global population growth. Global warming, famines, social unrests, wars etc are some of the nasty consequences of global population growth.

      We in Australia need to focus on our national interests and STOP worrying about the rest of the World because there is almost NOTHING we can do about it.

      The proposed carbon tax is clearly a STUPID idea because it does practically NOTHING useful towards global warming until the group of nations which produce 60% or more of CO2 pollution get together and do something effective. Worse it may close down some of our industries and send them to countries which do not care about CO2 pollution.

      We should start planning for the worst food crisis within 30 years. We are at the beginning of a serious global crisis but this is not bad enough.

      We should build a NEW NAVY to stop a tsunami of boat people running away from chaos due to a severe food shortage.

    • Brimstone says:

      02:26pm | 09/03/11

      I make almost no money and I want more people. Aussies are scared of culture, scared of change, and scared of the future. Enjoy living in your country towns.

    • loosecannons says:

      03:46pm | 09/03/11

      All western countries are suffering declining birth rates ....the largest demographic (baby boomers) are hitting retirement, social security, hospital and nursing home age. Factoring this with declining tax revenues and labour availability from a shrinking taxation base, leads to an increased demand for immigration within western countries, who will soon be competing hard for skilled immigration. This is an inevitable situation and will be clearly visible in European, US and Australian immigration policies within 5-10 years. We all better get used to the idea soon cause the demographics for this situation are already in place.

    • Razor says:

      03:49pm | 09/03/11

      Dear Barney,

      I am sure you won’t take the time to reply as you are such an important and busy person.

      You claim Perth is “Set in one of the world’s biodiversity hotspots” - wrong.  Perth is built on the sandy banksia scrub plains coastal strip - you even refer to the sandy soil in the same paragraph.  It is not a biodiversity hotspot.  The biodiversity hotspot is in the forests of the SW of WA about 400 km to the south and they are under no threat from the growth of Perth or anywhere else.  Logging of old growth native forest stopped years ago (despite evidence of the resilience of the forest in examples such as the 100 year old forest near Pemberton, which was a wheat field one hundred years ago - it’s beautiful - you should visit it sometime.)

      As for the water issue - yes, we are in a drought - just as the East of Australia was for some time - how are those floods going - MDBA storage +80% and Brisbane at 100%).  It will break.  Our two newest and largest dams have never been filled, yet.  They will one day.  Most of our water comes from underground acquifiers.  We have only exploited the close ones, which are being drawn down due to the drought which will break.  The massive Yaragadee acquifier in the SW has yet to be tapped and this could easily be done as we have the pipelines in place already.  And as you mentioned we have one and will soon have a second desal plant up and running.  We have yet to do anything much about grey water and storm water recycling - and I am happy to drink water recycled from sewarage.  Don’t get me started on the decades of milking the Watercorporation cash cow by WA State governments of both hues leading to under investmnt in our water infrastructure, including replacing old leaking major and minor water pipes.

      There is plenty of water for Perth to grow and prosper.  We just need to invest in more infrastructure and set more appropriate pricing for water and stop the governments taking money from the Watercorporation.

      I await your response but won’t hold my breathe.

    • Edward James says:

      03:59pm | 09/03/11

      Over population is a greater contaminant to the biosphere than CO 2 . We are being twined by our trusted elected representatives who are crowing about non specific carbon. First lets identify what it actually is we are worried about. http://www.skepticalscience.com/  then lets engage with our elected representatives
      Edward James 0243419140

    • Donbeliev da Hype says:

      08:05pm | 24/03/11

      Let’s act wisely.  Stop population growth. Start improving life quality not quantity.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter