The small greenhouse gas reductions proposed by the Rudd Government will be insufficient in having an impact in drastically reducing our ecological footprint. The longer we wait the more radical and difficult steps will be required.  We have an ecological emergency, which involves making painful paradigm shifts. If we don’t act now, the extent and impact of natural disasters such as fire, wind and floods will be even more painful as our choices will be radically limited.

Investing all hope in strategies to reduce our per capita demands by only investing in green technology is naïve. This fails to confront the limits of a technological fix, our resistance to demanding less, and to relearning to live in community.

We are going to need a wide range of policy changes both social, technical and economic that enable us to demand much less of the earth. These changes, as radical as they need to be, still won’t be enough without also confronting another challenge of the optimum population for Australia and for the Earth. As confronting as it is, there are too many humans consuming too much.

A recent gathering of climate activist in Canberra worked on a vision for making a sustainable society. But they failed, along with all political parties to develop a sustainable population policy. Population stabilization is a taboo subject; it is the elephant in the room hidden by fear of racism. How can we say no to others in need and or who desire to come here to improve their lives, especially when we live so well materially?

Population stabilization as a key step toward sustainability, yet Australia’s population is the fastest growing in the overdeveloped world. Migrants who are encouraged to come here are skilled and therefore most needed in their own countries. When they come here their eco footprint is increased, particularly if they come from the least developed countries. Rather let’s provide aid to help them stay and contribute in their own countries.

How do we say no with compassion and justice? Because it is so hard we don’t, until we are desperate. How do people in an over crowed lifeboat decide who is to slip overboard or be eaten in order to save the rest?

It is because of compassion for suffering people, and guilt over our consumption that the progressive side of politics has been largely silent when it comes to the question of what constitutes a sustainable population for Australia and for the Earth. Many are aware that we are already over the limit and yet remain silent. By being silent we are in effect encouraging the human species to swamp other species’ populations and to denude us of the delights of living as part of biodiverse ecosystems. Our compassion begins naturally for humans, for they are our own kind but this needs to extend to our other species’ relatives in order to take care of our ecology and hence ourselves. Earth care needs to be at the top of our ethical hierarchy.  

Unless the Left and Green’s challenge our population growth now, the voices of the Right will rise again when times become more desperate.  Emergencies breed dictatorship. Such actions are as much about sustaining our democracy and civility as they are to quieten the earth’s rumblings of discontent at our greed.

I would argue for political refugees as the priority, equal to the number of Australians who leave each year (about 30,000). They have the need, the motivation and the courage to make it in this country.

We need more investment in our existing population to reduce our consumption and increase our skills, knowledge and participation in our democracy. We need to empower our citizens to know what changes are needed and their partnership in making them happen. For example, residents should have a more direct say over big issues, such as a direct vote on what percentage reductions in greenhouse emissions are needed.

Only when we tackle both our per capita consumption and the size of the human population will we have a chance to stabilize our climate.

Peter Cock
SLF Council Member