HR said:Labour wil lose the next election.
Albo has no chance.
Just read his media briefing and the dude has no clue.
By the way who owns News.com.au?
Talk about a one eyed supporter. How the Reds lost is beyond me when this site is the largest form of news in Australia.
HR said:Labour wil lose the next election.
Albo has no chance.
TT33 said:Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
TT33 said:Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
Coburgtiger said:Don't you see the issues with claiming climate change isn't a massive and critical factor affecting the world's ecosystems while simultaneously claiming its a factor affecting a massive ecosystem?
I know who owns it Thirty3. 8-TT33 said:Rupert Murdoch owns News.com.au he couldn't be any more in the Libs camp if he tried. If you think he's a lefty. You really are misinformed.
LeeToRainesToRoach said:Climate change brings both positive and negative effects. I don't believe we can do much to influence change, hence we are best to focus on adapting to change. Focusing all our effort on minimising man's 3% contribution to global carbon emissions is an (expensive) exercise in futility.
Overpopulation results in encroachment on natural habitats and is a much greater threat to the environment than climate change, but the United Nations can't harness it to bring about wealth redistribution like it is doing with climate.
Coburgtiger said:In terms of encroaching on 'natural' habitats, any population is overpopulation.
Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
Coburgtiger said:Again, what are you suggesting to do about 'overpopulation'?
Panthera Tigris said:Regarding population growth being the central root cause to all environmental issues. The Sustainable Australia Party is the only one openly talking about it in the context of their environmental policies. Not even the Greens, a supposedly environmentally focused party, will engage in a discussion on it - unimaginatively screaming, "RACIST" to anyone trying to have a discussion on the issue, without even listening to their argument.
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/
If one takes the time to read their policy platform, it is actually very reasonable. I voted for these guys instead of the Greens as my environmental vote on my Senate ticket.
*smile* Smith is a member and donor. Former ALP member for the Federal seat of Wills, Kelvin Thomson, is a member and advisor.
What should we do about population growth? Reduce immigration to our long term average of 70k-100k per year would be a start. 200-240k people per year that we are importing at present is crazy and well above the OECD average. Handing out $$ to breed under Costello was absurdly ridiculous policy too.
Quite rightly, you may comment that this is a bit NIMBY and not looking holistically at the rest of the world. Below provides some ideas on that front.
https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/sustainable_population_global/
I find it bizarre how established environmental parties, like the Greens, are so flippant on the issue. There's a kind of bizarre alliance, or at least, common ground, between neo-capitalists growth at all costs crowd (who stand to disproportionately benefit from rapid population growth) and the Green-left, who are happy to ignore the effects of rapid population growth on the alter of 'diversity'. This is where it's a tragedy that the ability to interpret nuance seems to be lost. It is possible to be concerned about population growth and the particularly high level of immigration, while also respecting diversity. I'm not calling for a stop to immigration, just bringing it down to our historical average, so our natural environment and infrastructure can keep pace.
Coburgtiger said:How does immigration affect global population?
HR said:I know who owns it Thirty3. 8-
I can't believe that you or any others think that the crap rolled out on news.com platform is biased towards The liberals.
Do you think Shorten won any of the debates?
Again, ignoring nuance in a debate.easy said:we all know what these blokes use overpopulation as a euphemism for.
They know it, we know it.
Panthera Tigris said:I covered global population as part of the overall post. You just chose to ignore that bit.
If you want to keep concreting over hectares and hectares of native SE QLD forests, to house an ever growing population - and in the process, sending Koalas to extinction, be my guest. Afterall, "Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue."Coburgtiger said:I read your post. And the link. The only way you covered global population is to say you didn't cover it.
Local (Australian) population size is unambiguously, and objectively not an issue.
We are one of the most sparsely populated countries in the whole world. 3 people per square km!
If you want overpopulation to be a topic of any significance in climate discussions, you need to address any strategies we have to deal with it. Immigration is irrelevant (obviously). I'm all for greater sex Ed and access to prophylactics. That's one of the reasons the average person has had less kids every year for the last 50 years. Let's keep it up. And then address the actual global issues.