Technological possibilities certainly exist but they need to be paid for. For example, the Prime Minister’s Science and Engineering Council found that between 50% and 70% of existing agricultural producers may not have the financial resources to make the fundamental and far-reaching changes necessary for sustainable production.
Reducing per capita consumption is another big ask because it is rising sharply, not falling. For example, in Sydney since 1970, per capita consumption of water, energy and food has risen by 25%, 37% and more than 70%, respectively (SoE report).
To promote an ecologically sustainable future, the SoE report recommended a decision-making model that recognises the economy as a subset of society which in turn is totally constrained by the ecology of the planet. But these constraints are not accepted by the boosters who consider ever more economic growth the holy grail. Growth is even claimed to be necessary for funding environmental protection. Social economist Ted Trainer says this is like an obese person needing to eat more chocolate cake to raise the energy to go jogging to lose weight.
Advertisement
The boosters’ position depends heavily on undocumented assertions that population growth is good for our economy, security and independence. Environmental and other problems can be solved or, as economist Glenn Withers recently claimed, are either ‘wrong’ or ‘myths and frights unworthy of a young, clever and vigorous nation.’
To be credible, the boosters need to support their claims with evidence rather than assertions. They need to show why a much larger population would be sustainable rather than accelerating our well-documented ecological decline. Those in doubt would do well to read Mark O’Connor’s recent book This Tired Brown Land. Sifting the evidence, it offers, in Bob Carr’s words, ‘a robust demolition job on all the arguments for population growth.’
This issue is no trivial matter; the future of our children and the natural environment is at risk. It is they who will pay the price for of all this long-term destruction for short-term gain. Managing this risk demands our best scientific assessment, political commitment and informed debate. If you believe the growth boosters, we need at least 50 million to be influential and secure. If you believe the scientists, 50 million of us will blow that future away like eroded topsoil.
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.