NZ | Population Statistics Thread

[jarbury]

Nothing wrong sounding like a greeny. Over-population is like the elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to environmental issues.

[ZEALand]

Originally Posted by jarbury

Nothing wrong sounding like a greeny. Over-population is like the elephant in the middle of the room when it comes to environmental issues.

Yeah I agree and if people think 6 Billion people can live a middle class life they are dreaming.

[Nicco]

I am a greenie

Jeez you guys. How can you want the population of NZ to increase? The environment comes before the economy and urbanity!! We should actually be thinking of ways to reduce the human footprint on the earth's natural resources...Thats why NZ's population is perfect the way it is People should just focus on making Auckland a better city.
image hosted on flickr

This?

or this?

image hosted on flickr


I like both actually

[Nicco]

Double Post

[deepred]

My personal view - enough people for a sense of vibrancy and decent economy of scale, but not so many people that we become a walking sardine tin like Mumbai.

Here's an interesting chart of density vs petrol use below. There are some surprises here, and the data is out of date, but the overall pattern is obvious.

Petrol use vs urban density (Newman & Kenworthy, 1989)

[Nicco]

I can imagine lol
image hosted on flickr

[NZ1]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

or this?

image hosted on flickr

Looks like there's an algal bloom problem in that river!


But beautiful none the less!

[nthbeach]

I have always wanted the NZ population to increase significantly. To what figure, somewhere between 5-10 million, what I would like to see is an increase in population density, currently we have a density of about 15per sq km, the OECD average is 33. The United States is the closest with 31per sq km. Out of the 30 OECD countries NZ is ranked no. 26 ahead of norway, canada, iceland and australia (remember these countries have vast areas making human habitation very difficult). In terms of land area NZ is ranked 15th. So somewhere between 20 and 30 per sq km would give us a population of somewhere between 5.5 and 8 million and a similar density as sweeden and the usa.
Some things to think about. NZ has traditionally been pretty well self sufficient with food. If our population were to nearly double, this would put a lot of pressure on the economy I believe as imports would continue to smash the value of our exports, which is pretty much primary products and tourism. So we need some smart farmers.
I would be keen to see population growth in the regional cities. I believe that half of NZs population live from Taupo going north, this would be a good trend to continue around the cities of Whangarei, Auckland, Hamilton, Tauranga and I believe that New Plymouth is primed for big growth. The majority of our best not great but best infrastructure is in this area and looks set to get also the majority of govt funding. Chch will be the South Island capital (hmm a South Island state, anyone keen for a thread) that continue to focus on agriculture and tourism, and who knows maybe one day; oil.
Enough for now.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

We would actually be better off if the entire world population is reduced. We won't be facing huge spikes is food and petrol prices, as there will be less people to share our food and petrol with.

Definately, urban problems associated with large populations can be alleviated with decent planning and foresight. As some have pointed out, places like Germany, UK, Japan etc all have similar land areas to Auckland and are well off. However, assuming that the entire world can be well off with the same population densities as these countries is a mistake.

If you put 100 bacteria in a dish full of sugar, they will last longer that 10000 bacteria in the same dish. Similarly, in an Earth with finite resources, 6 billion people will be able to be sustained longer than 60 billion can be.

I sound too much like a greeny.

Year, but we're not talking about Global population, we're taking about NZ population, and NZ with 4million, 6million or 10million wouldn't affect the planet in the slightest.

By the way, sudden population decrease also has massive implications, especially economical.

[whizz_pat]

Definately, I am not for a sudden decrease in population.

While 6 or 10 million will make no difference in terms of the planet, it will make us more dependant on imports to support a larger populations, and will make as have less surplus agricultural products for export.

If there was a global food shortage, a low population will definately work to our advantage.

[Justme]

Originally Posted by BLUFFMASTER_Auckland

I am a greenie

Jeez you guys. How can you want the population of NZ to increase? The environment comes before the economy and urbanity!! We should actually be thinking of ways to reduce the human footprint on the earth's natural resources...Thats why NZ's population is perfect the way it is People should just focus on making Auckland a better city.

Actually, to be honest, I find Frankfurt to be cleaner than Auckland with the exception of air pollution, but that also has a lot more to do with it's location inland without the prevalent sea breezes clearing things up. (An NZ example of this can be seen that ChCh had more air pollution than Auckland despite being much smaller)

Yes, greater population can mean more pollution, but it doesn't always have to mean that, and you could double NZ's population without noticing anything different. Environmentalism is more to do with people's actions than to do with population sizes. A tiny communist country back in the cold war days had far worse pollution than most larger democratic nations, and Germany today for instance with 82million people is not 20x more polluted than NZ despite 20x more people. In fact, Germany is far more environmentally aware than NZ in so many ways.

[jarbury]

I think there are advantages and disadvantages of New Zealand's population growing. Further reliance on imports is a clear disadvantage, which definitely makes me think we need to reduce that reliance before we got about significantly increasing our population.

In the longer-term, as oil becomes far more expensive and transportation costs in general become more significant, a relocalisation will mean that we will have to become more self-reliant. Though one again that's a moot point as to whether that would make us more or less able to support a bigger population.

I think the Germany example shows that it's not simply the population numbers which affect the environment, but how they are contained. If our cities grow big enough to support fantastic public transport and a more sustainable way of life, then a bigger population may not have negative environmental effects.

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by Justme

Actually, to be honest, I find Frankfurt to be cleaner than Auckland with the exception of air pollution, but that also has a lot more to do with it's location inland without the prevalent sea breezes clearing things up. (An NZ example of this can be seen that ChCh had more air pollution than Auckland despite being much smaller)

Yes, greater population can mean more pollution, but it doesn't always have to mean that, and you could double NZ's population without noticing anything different. Environmentalism is more to do with people's actions than to do with population sizes. A tiny communist country back in the cold war days had far worse pollution than most larger democratic nations, and Germany today for instance with 82million people is not 20x more polluted than NZ despite 20x more people. In fact, Germany is far more environmentally aware than NZ in so many ways.

True that. Lifestyle and government policy can have more impact on the environment than population. But, given that government policy and lifestyle remains the same, and doubling the population will double the polution.

For example, if the global population was 6 million rather than 6 billion, we could all drive around our sexy SUVs 100km to and from work, and not have to worry about the environment. It is because of an increasing population that we have to be careful.

So in NZ's case, in order to keep the environment in the same condition as it is now, we can either:
a) keep our population constant, and keep our lifestyle the same
b) increase our population, and change our lifestyle

[Ironmanfood]

Hell Yes, NZ's population needs to double.

There are no disadvantages that I can see unless they all want a 1/4 acre and a Pajero, oh hang on ......

[LanceDriver]

I think NZ could easily handle 10-20 million people without too much impact on the environment if it chooses densification over sprawl.

[jarbury]

Originally Posted by Ironmanfood

There are no disadvantages that I can see unless they all want a 1/4 acre and a Pajero, oh hang on ......

Yeah too true. The NZ culture is built around having a lot of space to do what you like, so it would be difficult to get around that. It's hard enough to convince the NIMBYs that intensification does not mean ghettos.

[Nicco]

EXACTLY! The New Zealand culture has always been about living in your quarter-acre section with a couple of SUV's to drive around in...It will take a couple of decades to change that. It is SLOWLY changing in the cities though...
Again, as I said, the culture in Europe is different. People have been living in dense urban areas for centuries whereas in New Zealand, which is a new world country, the way of living is significantly different.

[nthbeach]

Where exactly are the largest number of immigrants coming from at the moment, I assume Asia and Britain. These people are all use to dense urban living and wouldn't surprise me if they found it more comforting. Also, to make a dramatic increase in population natural increases is a very slow way.
If new zealand wanted to change its population dramitically then migration has to play a big part, that would change your defitiion of a new zealander with a quarter-acre.
The other option is bringing ex-pats home, this could be done quite succesfully, just needs to be more incentives to bring them all home.
Out.

[Nicco]

Thats a misconception that many people have. Immigrants dont come here expecting to live in apartments in the middle of the city. Okay maybe Asian students who are only going to be here for a couple of years. However, many of the people who come here with families want to live in the newer suburbs because thats the essence of living in a new world country. Just because they were used to living in dense environments in the UK or Asia, doesnt mean they would find it more comforting here. Large McMansions with huge highways and shopping malls etc. are what a large proportion look for. No wonder the Northern and Eastern parts of Auckland are full of recent immigrants who prefer these suburbs. Look at the North Shore-full of South Africans, Britons and Koreans. Same with Botany Downs-many Europeans, Saffas, Indians, Asians...

[nthbeach]

oh dear thats not good, then more immigration will lead to more sprawl therefore more roads and more motorways, more schools, more hospitals and back to more imports and less exports, where is NZ heading? That sprawl continues to take up productive farming land too.