Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 09:24:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: What do you think of this idea?
#1
Good idea
 
#2
Bad idea
 
#3
Looney tunes idea
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 15

Author Topic: Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy"  (Read 3781 times)
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


« on: December 10, 2007, 01:51:19 PM »

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.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2007, 09:10:33 PM »

The left will never run out of nuts.

No shortages there eh.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 11:27:46 AM »

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.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2007, 08:37:05 PM »

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.
Logged
David S
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,250


« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2007, 02:24:47 PM »

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.

Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 13 queries.