Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy"

[David S]

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22897115-5006301,00.html

JEN KELLY
December 10, 2007 01:15am

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.

"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.

But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control . . . is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.

[GMantis]

A proposal that manages to combine a softening of the brain with a hardening of the heart. The emission of CO₂ by humans is insignificant and  as the article shows families with more children are more energy efficient
And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

[2952-0-0]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

[GMantis]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

As far as I know, most settlement is in areas which have an abundant supply of water and even there the population density is rather low. The central deserts are pretty much uninhabited.

[2952-0-0]

Not if the country is experiencing a one-in-a-thousand-year drought and taxpayers in some main cities have been forced to pay for expensive desalination and wastewater recycling plants.

[dead0man]

The left will never run out of nuts.

[David S]

The left will never run out of nuts.

No shortages there eh.

[dead0man]

I figure they like to paint all Libertarians and conservatives with the same giant brush....wait, I didn't really do that did I?  I should have said something like, "see, the left is full of nuts" or something.

[Platypus]

Typical News Limited. He doesn't want it, in fact he would oppose it. He was sayiung that if we wanted to offset the carbon footprint of babies, a $5,000 fee for a third child (or fourth, fifth etc) would be a good place to start. Word of advice: go here for news before news.com.au; its far less sensationalist and often has worthwhile analysis as well.

[Gabu]

The left will never run out of nuts.

No side will.

[Platypus]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

It's not so much drinking it as using it in agriculture and industry that's the problem, but yeah. Theoretically, Australia's max pop is roughly 50 million, but it's optimal pop is 5 million. 25-28 million is the tipping point for sustainability of lifestyle.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I dimly recall reading that Australia doesn't use recycled (right word?) waste-water for domestic stuff and so on. Not sure if that's true or not.

[David S]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

Theoretically, Australia's max pop is roughly 50 million, but it's optimal pop is 5 million. 25-28 million is the tipping point for sustainability of lifestyle.

How do you arrive at those conclusions?
Currently Australia's population is about 20 million and the population density is less than 3 people/ sq km.
By comparison the US population density is over 30.
UK is over 200 and Japan is over 300.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

Theoretically, Australia's max pop is roughly 50 million, but it's optimal pop is 5 million. 25-28 million is the tipping point for sustainability of lifestyle.

How do you arrive at those conclusions?
Currently Australia's population is about 20 million and the population density is less than 3 people/ sq km.
By comparison the US population density is over 30.
UK is over 200 and Japan is over 300.

You do basically understand that a large part of the Australian landmass is essentially uninhabitable to all but the hardest types and neglected aborigionals. At present 90%(IIRC) of the population live near the coast and of those a vast majority are crammed into just 5 cities.

And yes this is a stupid idea. Not neccesarily a left-wing one though; but hey libertarians!

[2952-0-0]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

Theoretically, Australia's max pop is roughly 50 million, but it's optimal pop is 5 million. 25-28 million is the tipping point for sustainability of lifestyle.

How do you arrive at those conclusions?
Currently Australia's population is about 20 million and the population density is less than 3 people/ sq km.
By comparison the US population density is over 30.
UK is over 200 and Japan is over 300.

You do basically understand that a large part of the Australian landmass is essentially uninhabitable to all but the hardest types and neglected aborigionals. At present 90%(IIRC) of the population live near the coast and of those a vast majority are crammed into just 5 cities.

And yes this is a stupid idea. Not neccesarily a left-wing one though; but hey libertarians!

You expect libertarians to consider reality?

[David S]

And why should such a sparsely populated country adopt population control?

The lack of water, maybe? Unless they can design humans that don't require water consumption...

Theoretically, Australia's max pop is roughly 50 million, but it's optimal pop is 5 million. 25-28 million is the tipping point for sustainability of lifestyle.

How do you arrive at those conclusions?
Currently Australia's population is about 20 million and the population density is less than 3 people/ sq km.
By comparison the US population density is over 30.
UK is over 200 and Japan is over 300.

You do basically understand that a large part of the Australian landmass is essentially uninhabitable to all but the hardest types and neglected aborigionals. At present 90%(IIRC) of the population live near the coast and of those a vast majority are crammed into just 5 cities.

And yes this is a stupid idea. Not neccesarily a left-wing one though; but hey libertarians!

You expect libertarians to consider reality?

Typical non-answer from both of you. I asked how he arrived at the conclusion ( 5 million is the optimal population). Instead of explaining in a logical manner you attack me. F--- both of you... and the horse you rode in on too.

[Platypus]

It was a study released about four years ago, I believe by Sustainability Australia.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

It was a study released about four years ago, I believe by Sustainability Australia.

That's right.

The study said that with the available resources, Australia's optimal population would be somewhere around 5-7 million (optimal being the level at which people can enjoy using as much water/electricity etc etc as they can pay for). The absolute maximum would be 45-50million, at that point, serious shortages of water, food and electricity would be normal.

There's a reason why Australia is one of the most urbanised countries in the world. In a country the size of the US, out of a population of 20 million - the eight capital cities house more than 65% of the population (42.5% in just Sydney and Melbourne alone). That doesn't include major non-capital cities. The resources required to make even a more portion of the land able to sustain agriculture (even cattle raising) are enormous, frankly I think we've gone beyond where we should.

[Cubby]

This is a terrible idea. "Experts" like this douchebag wonder why the public doesn't respect them or listen to their ideas. I agree with Christians and the Vatican on this issue. People should be encouraged to have children, not punished.

Declining population growth is a problem in almost every Developed Country and even a few undeveloped ones. You can't have a functioning society if each woman has on average less than 2.1 children for long periods of time. I know this sounds technical and uncaring, but demography is destiny.

Australia of all places shouldn't be complaining about overpopulation. They need to get move people out of the 5 big cities and into the interior and rural parts of the country. I don't care how "uninhabitable" they are now. Its a waste of resources to leave all that land barren. The rights of Aborigines should be respected of course, but there is land outside the Reserves. Canada and Siberia have lots of land available too. Just because its too "cold" is no excuse for those places not to be developed more.

[Platypus]

This is a terrible idea. "Experts" like this douchebag wonder why the public doesn't respect them or listen to their ideas. I agree with Christians and the Vatican on this issue. People should be encouraged to have children, not punished.

Declining population growth is a problem in almost every Developed Country and even a few undeveloped ones. You can't have a functioning society if each woman has on average less than 2.1 children for long periods of time. I know this sounds technical and uncaring, but demography is destiny.

Australia of all places shouldn't be complaining about overpopulation. They need to get move people out of the 5 big cities and into the interior and rural parts of the country. I don't care how "uninhabitable" they are now. Its a waste of resources to leave all that land barren. The rights of Aborigines should be respected of course, but there is land outside the Reserves. Canada and Siberia have lots of land available too. Just because its too "cold" is no excuse for those places not to be developed more.

*blank*

[Gabu]

You can't have a functioning society if each woman has on average less than 2.1 children for long periods of time.

I've never quite understood why society developed such that this statement is true.  It seems to me that it need not necessarily be true of every theoretical society.  Do people have such a lack of foresight that they can't see the problem with requiring every single generation to have more people in it than the last?

On second thought, don't answer that question.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is a terrible idea. "Experts" like this douchebag wonder why the public doesn't respect them or listen to their ideas. I agree with Christians and the Vatican on this issue. People should be encouraged to have children, not punished.

Declining population growth is a problem in almost every Developed Country and even a few undeveloped ones. You can't have a functioning society if each woman has on average less than 2.1 children for long periods of time. I know this sounds technical and uncaring, but demography is destiny.

Australia of all places shouldn't be complaining about overpopulation. They need to get move people out of the 5 big cities and into the interior and rural parts of the country. I don't care how "uninhabitable" they are now. Its a waste of resources to leave all that land barren. The rights of Aborigines should be respected of course, but there is land outside the Reserves. Canada and Siberia have lots of land available too. Just because its too "cold" is no excuse for those places not to be developed more.

Ah ha.

[David S]

Compared to The USA, Canada, Mexico, the UK and Japan, Australia is;
-tied with Canada for lowest population density 3 / sq km.
-has the lowest population per sq km  of arable land
-has the lowest population per sq km of irrigated land.

Compared to those countries Australia is sitting pretty.

Also you guys ignore the possibility of technology improvements which can make things better.

On that logic you could say that Australia can only support 50,000 or so, but that's using hunter -gatherer technology. Using agriculture it can obviously support far more.

Also
Isn't it possible to build nuclear power plants for more energy?

-Isn't it possible that methane ice can be mined from the ocean floor and provide a huge supply of natural gas not only for Australia but the rest of the world too?

- Couldn't Australia's vast areas or arid land provide a great place for solar power.

- Isn't it possible to build solar powered desalination plants to provide more fresh water.

-Isn't it possible to ship runoff water from all that melting ice in Antarctica 2000 miles to Australia.
Or to drag icebergs that far.

Those ideas aren't practical now but with improving technology and increasing demand they may become reality some day. Don't underestimate the ability of humans to develop innovative solutions.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's because most of the land isn't easily arable or irrigated. Like Northern Canada its land is completely unsuited to mass farming and major settlement. Which is why all of those settlements are by the coast; and most of the Agricultural regions border rivers; yet this hardly makes up 20% of the total surface area of Australia. And then there is the Aboroginal problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And the United States has terriority which is entirely similiar to the Gibson Desert or the Northern Terriority. (Perhaps Death Valley would be the closest - but that makes up a tiny fraction of the surface area.). Not to mention that Australia has in recent years had most extreme drought in the past 50 years. Living in such conditions just isn't appealing to anyone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ignoring the possibility that technology actually might be making the situation worse (ie. Global warming contributing to the drought.) have you thought the prospect of something that might happen isn't going to entice many people into the interior?

Most people ignore the possibility of ourselves inventing mass-produced Jetpacks or Rocketships.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Except very few areas are suited to intensive agriculture. (And most of Western Australia iirc is given over to massive ranches which explains partly why population density is so low and why nearly everyone in WA lives in Perth.)

Of course people might invent a better system which might improve all local agricultural systems (but what will happen to the ranchers?) in the same way humans might invent rocketships, which given the ability to colonize space would solve this immediatly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't; but you seem to suggesting that people should basing essential decisions on what might happen.

[Platypus]

Australia is, in realistic terms as an socio-economic entity, Brisbane to Wollongong, then into Canberra and down to Geelong, with pockets in Adelaide and Perth and a few mines. Even then, as a political entity, it's Sydney, Melbourne and southeast queensland. Most of Australia is beautifully useless and unused.