Commenting on the story: Criticism over site works for SA nuclear waste dump

The Barngarla Traditional Owners for the Kimba area are in court with the federal Minister for Resources. I find it puzzling that when a response is sought from a government agency or another organisation involving matter of an ongoing court case, the invariable reply seems to be: “No comment, the matter is before the courts.’

Yet in this case, not just words but as acknowledged by the Minister in this article, an actual activity is going ahead – court case or no court case. Puzzling indeed. – Michele Madigan

It is quite extraordinary that the Federal Labor Government are pursuing a deeply flawed plan inherited from the previous federal government, against the SA Labor position, the position of many SA unions and very likely against the wishes of the majority of Eyre Peninsula farmers and the majority of South Australians.

And they are spending up big on legal costs fighting against the Barngarla Group. It makes any claim to acknowledge the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament appear entirely fraudulent. – Andrew Williams

Quoting the Minister: “It is part of our international obligations to manage this safely and securely, and a consolidated facility is international best practice”.

In this case, “consolidated” means gathering all the country’s nuclear waste together, including “legacy” waste dating back 50 years up to what is being produced today, so it can all be managed in one place.

That is not what is planned though. Low level waste will remain, permanently disposed of, at Kimba but the Department has said intermediate level waste will not be disposed of there. With its 10,000 years of toxicity it will only be held there in temporary storage before being shifted once again to an as yet unknown site somewhere else, where it will be permanently disposed of.  This new disposal facility means there will be two facilities, not one.

International best practice misses out on two counts. Temporary storage of intermediate level radioactive waste is not world’s best practice and nor is having two separate disposal sites. – Greg Bannon

Commenting on the opinion piece: Eight billion humans and counting

Since rapid population growth is the main “driver of inequality between nations”, it is oxymoronic to claim that drawing attention to it is a distraction from addressing inequality.

Countries that got birth rates down are catching up to the West. Lowering fertility lowered poverty, not the other way around. Countries with fertility above four children per woman are not keeping pace, are getting poorer, more dependent on imported food they can’t pay for and more unstable.

Poor countries could get ahead faster if you stopped suppressing family planning efforts with false accusations of blaming, distracting, racism and eugenics. Population growth impoverishes. It’s not all about carbon emissions.

Take your last chart. Suppose we redistributed Earth’s resources equally today. In twenty years, sub-Saharan countries would have half as much per person as Europeans or Chinese. Not because anyone took it from them. Would you then advocate another redistribution? – Jane O’Sullivan

This article is yet another piece of pro-growth propaganda that the world has seen over the last decades. It tries to provide hope and logic for growth and disregards the global indicators that show environmental disasters are increasing rapidly, due to global population growth and consumption.

The authors comment that there seems to be no need to worry about population as fertility rates are declining. Even though the world fertility rate is dropping (currently it is 2.5), due to momentum the world’s population will continue to rise to a projected 9.8 billion in 2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100.

While it cannot be said exactly what the planet’s carrying capacity is, at current population levels, we are using up 1.7 earths per year in resources.We also have no guarantee the population will stabilise, as that depends a lot on policies and programs implemented in the meantime.

A theme in this article is that if you discuss reduction or stabilisation of population growth, you are racist. This accusation is untrue. A stable population relieves the pressures which drive racial and social division.

Lastly, it is not about telling anyone else what to do, but about human rights. Where women are educated and have control over their fertility, they choose to have fewer children. Population stabilisation is a vital lever for achieving equity, security, environmental restoration, and sustainable development.

I would love to see an article in your normally interesting and informative Opinion piece giving an alternative view to that just published. Let’s have a calm and reasoned discussion on these issues based on evidence. – Stephen Morris

We need more articles like this to ensure that population growth doesn’t remain the elephant in the room that no one wants to tackle. It is inexorably linked to the unsustainability of our way of life as a species. – Christopher Saint

This analysis falls far short of sense. Having made the point that the profligate consumption of the West is the planet’s main environmental challenge (and the one most open to mitigation) – no rejection here of the blame game otherwise eschewed – the article finishes with a suggestion that those in the developing world ought to have free and easier access to the higher paying jobs of the developed world. All written without a hint of awareness that this is, already, part of the problem we are facing!

What do our authors think has been feeding the voracious appetites of the developed world’s economies, other than immigration from the developing world? This has been their main source of growth. Here are two practical solutions that are very much better than those being peddled here: Little or no economic migration (ie. population growth) into the developed world, free and universal access to contraception everywhere – developing world and developed.

Most people who are emphasising the enormous environmental impact of population size and growth don not focus on the developing world but realise it is a problem everywhere, yet it is a straw man constantly being trotted out.

And, yes, they understand that volumes of consumption are important too! So they are not about growing. it while demanding its reduction, as these authors appear to be. We do not make the world a better place by growing the economies of the developed world. Ideology and agenda are always tedious when they get in the way of common sense. – Graham Clews

Commenting on the sponsored business piece: How good would it be if we had the people?

What a load of nonsense. Everyone knows that population growth is just another Ponzi scheme. Doing more of what has caused the problems we are face is never going to solve those problems. – John Matheson