...] Nourishing the environmental debate Skip to content « Energy Efficiency Groundhog Day [...

Generally, environmental impact is seen as a factor of affluence X technology X population. Population is something we can affect over time – generally quite a long time. Affluence, obviously, moves quite dramatically over time and over regions (and I acknowledge that this is your point about immigration). Technology choice is something we can change radically and very fast, particularly with things like energy efficiency – the subject of this post.

Certainly, we need to discuss population and move towards a coherent and sustainable global population policy. But the urgency of this issue is such that we must deal with technology choice fast. It is our only short-term way of buying time to prevent runaway climate change.

Although limiting our immigration level might reduce Australia’s emissions it would not reduce global emissions. In fact it might make them worse.

The fertility rate of a person who shifts from a developing country to a developed one is reduced. If this does not happen in the first generation it certainly does by the second. Whilst, per person emissions are certainly less in developing countries at the moment, large families are the norm. And remember, the people who are the product of these large families will be still around when their country’s per/capita emission levels rise due to the country’s development.

This is a global problem which requires a global response, stopping people shifting countries will not solve the emissions problem only a fundamental restructuring of the way we all produce things and the way we all consume them.

Great post. I hope COAG is better able to deliver on this than they have at any point over the last 13 years on the Murray Darling.

We’ll see. Keep the press on them. Well done.