Picture this. There is an immigrant from Asia, perhaps a refugee from Afghanistan. They came to this country for a better life. Back home they burnt wood or dung for fuel, they used little water, and they walked or caught crowded buses. Their average use of resources was far less than ours, but their life was certainly not idyllic.
In Australia they are suddenly one of us. They use our coal-fired electricity, need a car to get to and from their outer suburban home and more or less become a typical Australian consumer. They now leave a heavier footprint on the earth. They deserve their better life. But, if they had migrated to Sweden or Norway, instead of
Australia, their footprint would be far lighter. This is the crux of the issue.
I’m not here to talk about the right population size for Australia. It’s a meaningless discussion without talking about consumption patterns. The debate needs to be about what people are doing. What sort of lifestyles they have, what sort of technologies they use and what sort of economy they live in.
Advertisement
I don’t believe that we can pluck a figure out of the air and then shut the door.
But I do believe that the old axiom of "populate or perish" does not apply in a globalised world. Population growth is an ‘old economy’ approach to economic productivity.
There is no doubt that increasing Australia’s population under current circumstances will increase our environmental problems.
Australia is an unsustainable country at a population of 19 million, and will only be more unsustainable at any larger population, other things being equal. However, the population debate after the Tampa crisis, and at the start of a new century, is an opportunity to discuss the type of Australia that we want - socially,
economically and environmentally.
While here during the Tampa crisis, Bill Clinton, is reported to have said that he couldn’t understand all the fuss about 400 boat-people when, unless climate change is more effectively dealt with, there will be 400,000 on Australia’s shores.
Many of the countries which will be most badly affected by climate change, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia and the low-lying Pacific island nations, are in our region. Being among the poorest countries in the world they are the least likely to cope. As a wealthy country, with the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions
in the developed world, which has consistently undermined international efforts to slow climate change, Australia is a logical destination for future greenhouse refugees. And the answer is obviously not tougher immigration and refugee laws but doing something effective about climate change.
Advertisement
As a wealthy democratic country with humanitarian principles we have an obligation to do our fair share in taking refugees. If, however, our behaviour is a cause of why they are refugees then our responsibility increases even more. How, in all good conscience, do we say ‘no’ to climate change refugees who point at our profligate
use of energy that contributed to their plight?
Therefore we may well face the issue of population growth whether we like it or not. The only way we can cope ecologically is to make Australia an environmental leader, not a laggard.
Post-war immigration has undoubtedly been socially and culturally good for Australia. With a name like Krockenberger I would say that wouldn’t I? But don’t take my word for it, most Australians would agree.
So should we increase Australia’s population, which primarily means increasing immigration?
If we retain the present economic conditions the resounding environmental answer would have to be no. However, a higher population is possible with less environmental impact than we have now. But this would involve fundamental reforms that would both environmentally modernise and enhance the productivity of our economy.
Let’s look at the current OECD environmental data.
Australia is the highest per capita greenhouse gas emitter.
Australia has the third highest greenhouse gas emissions per unit of GDP behind only the ex-Soviet bloc economies of the Czech Republic and Poland.
These two measures together indicate that we are close to being the least energy efficient country in the OECD.
We are the second highest producer of waste per head behind the USA.
Australia is the driest inhabited continent. Yet we use more water per head than any other continent except north America.
A report to the recent World Economic Forum has shown that Australia lags badly in terms of environmental performance compared to similar countries, and on some factors, with the whole rest of the world.
While we perform very well on a few indicators, especially relating to science and food, we were badly ranked on many.
Of 142 countries Australia was:
- 128th in reducing air pollution.
- 125th in conserving biodiversity.
- 125th in reducing waste and consumption pressures.
- 105th in eco-efficiency.
- 134th in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Australia has a ‘hot, heavy and wet economy’, that is one that uses a lot of energy and water, and produces a lot of waste, to create wealth. It was the model for a successful 20th century economy. But it isn’t the model for the 21st century.
The 21st century requires the opposite, a cool, light and dry economy. That’s the real new economy, based on innovation, knowledge, doing more with less, value-adding, being clever.
Research by the Australia Institute has shown that the average migrant comes from a country with less than half the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of Australia, yet once here they will, on average, become a typical Australian emitter, because they are subject to our public transport conditions, our electricity generation, our
consumption patterns etc etc.
Anyone who advocates a higher population for Australia should also be a vigorous environmental advocate.
From those people I would like support for:
- The Kyoto protocol
- A carbon tax
- Cutting the billions of dollars of subsidies to fossil fuel use.
- Higher water prices for agriculture and industry.
- Investment in land and water repair.
Then we can start to talk about population growth. But it’s important to note that a new economy doesn’t necessarily need a lot of people.
The population debate shouldn’t be about sheer numbers. It’s about what people are doing. And it’s also about where they are doing it.
Australia has seen most of its population growth along the coast. This is a very sensitive area to concentrate people. Growth in large cities has a different impact to growth in the regions. Growth in the Sydney basin may have different impacts to growth in less constrained cities. Growth in areas of good public transport, for
example inner Melbourne, may be very different to growth in areas with poor public transport, for example outer Melbourne.
ACF argues that the complexities of these issues need to be addressed if we are to achieve a sustainable Australia. We urge the following:
- A national population policy.
- Environmental modernisation of the Australian economy and industry.
- Promotion of a low environmental impact society.
Then every Australian, whether born here or a migrant, can tread more lightly than a Norwegian or Swede.
This is a speech given to the National Population Summit in Melbourne on February 25, 2002.