<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2722" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>[see paragraphs marked in red. Jenny]</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT size=3><STRONG>Perspective 4 October
2005 - Jenny Goldie</STRONG> <BR></FONT><BR><FONT size=-1>[This is the
print version of story <A
href="">http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1474533.htm</A>]</FONT>
<BR><BR>I’m often asked how big Australia’s population should be. 25 million? 30
million? 50 million?<BR><BR>“Ten million,” I reply. To fill the inevitable
silence that follows I add: “…at current levels of consumption.” In an effort to
resume dialogue I say: “We could probably support the current population of 20
million if we cut consumption and energy use in half.” <BR><BR>“But what about
the economy?” they ask, assuming a bigger population is needed for economic
growth. They seem unaware that in the world rankings table based on GDP per
capita, Australia lies 17th. Of the 16 countries above ours, all but two – the
US and Canada – have populations smaller than ours. There is simply no
correlation at this end of the table between wealth and population size or
wealth and population growth. At the other end of course, there <I>is</I> a high
correlation between poverty and high population growth rates. Timor Leste, for
instance, has the double distinction of being the world’s poorest country and
having the highest fertility rate of 8.3 children per family.<BR><BR>I often
wonder why the people who advocate large families and high population growth
rates want to kick us down, not up, the wealth rankings table.<BR><BR>But wealth
is not the fundamental issue here. A population can only grow as big as its
resource base allows. Australia is a big country geographically and has some
significant mineral reserves. But it is largely arid, has poor thin soils and
variable rainfall, subject to both droughts and flooding rains. It simply cannot
sustain the same kind of population that the continental US has, which is about
the same size but with 14 times the population. And while Australia is doing
well economically, almost all its environmental indicators are in decline. Most
significantly, we are losing biodiversity along the coast where population
growth is greatest – where urban development is cementing over natural habitat
of other species. And it is just as bad on farms. We have already lost half our
bird species across the grazing and cropping lands of the southern half of the
continent. <BR><BR>In Australia, water is the resource in least supply, and thus
the one that determines how big we can grow. During the prolonged drought of
recent years, all our southern cities have been subject to water restrictions.
Yet we are now warned that climate change will make droughts more severe and
frequent. Water restrictions may become a permanent feature in many places.
Perth seems to be in the grip of climate change already, with run-off declining
by a third over the past 25 years. While it seems to be getting wetter in the
north and centre of the country, all our southern cities are likely to be drier
in the future. <BR><BR>But water is only one aspect of it, temperature another.
Environmental scientist Tim Flannery forecast recently that a temperature
increase of three degrees by the end of the century may push Australian
agriculture, already marginal, to the wall. <BR><BR><FONT color=#ff0000>Another
factor that may push Australian farming over the edge is a decline in the
availability of cheap oil. Our industrial-style agriculture is heavily dependent
on oil and gas for running machinery, producing fertiliser and transporting
products to market. As demand from the two emerging economies, China and India,
increases, at some point soon we will pass global maximum production, or Peak
Oil, and demand will exceed supply for ever after, eventually pushing up the
price to unaffordable levels. The ramifications for agriculture, our ability to
feed ourselves and to export to others, are enormous. <BR></FONT><BR>In
answering that question about what size population Australia can sustain, the 10
or 20 million I cited before only really applies in a world with an abundance of
cheap oil. It does <I>not</I> take into account the need to reduce carbon
emissions by 60 per cent globally by mid-century to stabilise the atmosphere.
<FONT color=#ff0000>The two emerging catastrophes - climate change and the end
of the oil age – demand that we rethink our future. We must ‘power-down’: move
away from a carbon economy, travel less, grow food locally, have fewer
children.</FONT> We may even have to contemplate a non-coercive one-child policy
for a couple of generations.<BR><BR>What then should the answer be to the
question: what population can Australia sustain? Once the oil runs out, and if
indeed Australian agriculture is no longer viable by the end of the century, the
honest answer may be as low as two or three million. It is almost too hard to
contemplate; yet we must consider it as a serious possibility and plan
accordingly. <BR><BR><SPAN class=subheading>Guests on this program:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=info><STRONG>Jenny Goldie</STRONG> <BR>National
President<BR>Sustainable Population Australia inc <A
href=""></A></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><SPAN class=subheading>Further information:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=info><STRONG></STRONG><BR><A
href="">http://www.population.org.au/</A> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><SPAN
class=presenter></SPAN><BR><SPAN class=presenter><STRONG>Producer:</STRONG>
</SPAN>Sue Clark <A
href="mailto:jgoldie@snowy.net.au"></A></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>