Population Statistics Thread

[tower_dan]

Originally Posted by Kelli

I agree with you, but it is a vicious cycle. It has everything to do with economic sustainability and nothing to do with ecological sustainability.

thje article doesnt say that we NEED a large population, it says that it is effectively innevitable, the point of the article was to point out that GROWTH is not the problem, the way the population LIVES is the problem. and i totally agree.

tens of thousands of homes being built on 5 city fringes in this country only leads to more cars, more polution and more thinly spread resources.

australia has some of the larges cities (by area) in the world for the population contained within them, people in australia today want the governmetn to do everyhting to make their lives better/easier like pt to every part of the city, more money invested in infurstrure, tax breaks...

a growing government wallet due to more people and therefore more tax dollars does no one any good if those same tax dollars have to be spread around ever so thinly to cover teh sprawled population of our cities, australians want a high standard of live, their own home, access to everything but are not willing to comprimis,

in my opinion, a sustainable australia isnt a big or small one, its an australia where people are willing to comprimise and give a little for the sake of the whole country.

[Duideka]

Originally Posted by JayT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10600464

Interesting article in the BBC news magazine - why the Brits are choosing Brisbane. Makes for 'fun' reading even if some of the facts are wrong.

I thought Perth was the fastest growing capital city? or maybe that's what you meant about some of the facts being wrong.

[deranged]

Originally Posted by Duideka

I thought Perth was the fastest growing capital city?

It is.

[Orfeo]

yes, that's right - though looking at the growth in first 2 qrts of the financial year it may not continue.

[Kelli]

Originally Posted by tower_dan

thje article doesnt say that we NEED a large population, it says that it is effectively innevitable, the point of the article was to point out that GROWTH is not the problem, the way the population LIVES is the problem. and i totally agree.

tens of thousands of homes being built on 5 city fringes in this country only leads to more cars, more polution and more thinly spread resources.

australia has some of the larges cities (by area) in the world for the population contained within them, people in australia today want the governmetn to do everyhting to make their lives better/easier like pt to every part of the city, more money invested in infurstrure, tax breaks...

a growing government wallet due to more people and therefore more tax dollars does no one any good if those same tax dollars have to be spread around ever so thinly to cover teh sprawled population of our cities, australians want a high standard of live, their own home, access to everything but are not willing to comprimis,

in my opinion, a sustainable australia isnt a big or small one, its an australia where people are willing to comprimise and give a little for the sake of the whole country.

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I'm coming at it from the perspective of a biologist, I hate the sprawl more than anyone. I agree with his argument that it is the way we live that is a large part of the problem.

To imply that a higher population will help solve our sustainability issues is just a stupid thing to say though. For a start, whether 20 million people fit into a place the size of New York or a place the size of Australia, they still have to be fed from food grown on land somewhere on the planet and transported in. No matter how efficiently or well it is done, natural systems have a limit somewhere. Plus, I’ve said it before on here, the global economy and the global population is the real problem, we’re caught in a cycle by it.

[Matt B]

Originally Posted by Kelli

To imply that a higher population will help solve our sustainability issues is just a stupid thing to say though.

In Perth's case for example I simply don't agree.

[Kelli]

Originally Posted by Matt B

In Perth's case for example I simply don't agree.

You made it to the nationals .

I think that what you were saying about infilling forcing more efficient use of services is right as a compromise. You can't really negotiate with nature though, it is pure cause and effect, so a compromise is meaningless if you are aspiring to ecological sustainability.

Also, there are not even any early signs that sprawl will be reigned in around Perth. Land developers own virtually all the land up and down the coast and they always get their way by bullying their way through the assessment process. Even when a very few people in departments do make a stand, their decisions get overruled by ministers toadying to their business mates.

The Plunkett land near Guilderton for instance. The planning department during the last Labor government said no to urban development there, on the basis that the public purse could not possibly be expected to meet the expense of providing services and infrastructure to a suburb that far out. One of the first things the Liberals did when they got in was to overturn the department decision and approve the development.

Anyway, it is all academic probably, things will work out one way or another.

[Matt B]

Originally Posted by Kelli

You made it to the nationals .

I think that what you were saying about infilling forcing more efficient use of services is right as a compromise. You can't really negotiate with nature though, it is pure cause and effect, so a compromise is meaningless if you are aspiring to ecological sustainability.

Also, there are not even any early signs that sprawl will be reigned in around Perth. Land developers own virtually all the land up and down the coast and they always get their way by bullying their way through the assessment process. Even when a very few people in departments do make a stand, their decisions get overruled by ministers toadying to their business mates.

The Plunkett land near Guilderton for instance. The planning department during the last Labor government said no to urban development there, on the basis that the public purse could not possibly be expected to meet the expense of providing services and infrastructure to a suburb that far out. One of the first things the Liberals did when they got in was to overturn the department decision and approve the development.

Anyway, it is all academic probably, things will work out one way or another.

This, however, I agree with 100%

[jpsolarized]

Greater Tokyo Area has:

36 million people in 13.800 km2, roughly 1.000 km2 more than Sydney

[Derek40]

Originally Posted by jpsolarized

Greater Tokyo Area has:

36 million people in 13.800 km2, roughly 1.000 km2 more than Sydney

Reduce the number of significant figures for all the dummies here, and this translates as 1km2.
When you read populations like this in a city, there is no reason why the whole of Australia cannot sustain double this.
Tony Burke (Minister for Agriculture and Sustainable Population, and my boss) - take note.

[LanceDriver]

^ but where does the food come from? i'm guessing it's not all from downtown tokyo.

[Lightness]

Yeah good question, where does the food come from? Surely you've got to grow your own carrots in the backyard!

If they can feed a nation of 120 million in their mountainous country then we should be able to feed our 20 million from our fertile continent.

I think you could fit around 15 million people in the Coffs Harbour alone and still have room to grow carrots somewhere in this beautiful land.

[Blindfold]

Originally Posted by Duideka

I thought Perth was the fastest growing capital city? or maybe that's what you meant about some of the facts being wrong.

Perth is the fastest growing capital city in percentage terms. I read the BBC article and thought for the most part it was tosh. To my knowledge Perth is still the biggest drawcard for Brits moving to Oz.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by Lightness

Yeah good question, where does the food come from? Surely you've got to grow your own carrots in the backyard!

If they can feed a nation of 120 million in their mountainous country then we should be able to feed our 20 million from our fertile continent.

I think you could fit around 15 million people in the Coffs Harbour alone and still have room to grow carrots somewhere in this beautiful land.

Actually, Tokyo is one of the biggest farming areas for daikon (Japanese radish). There are a number of small farms throughout the Tokyo metropolitan area. Just look on Google Earth and you'll see huge areas devoted to urban farming.

[BSD]

Theres an article in North Coast thread about Ballina's population will be doubled in next 11 years from 44,000 to 88,500.

[tic]

Originally Posted by Blindfold

Perth is the fastest growing capital city in percentage terms. I read the BBC article and thought for the most part it was tosh. To my knowledge Perth is still the biggest drawcard for Brits moving to Oz.

The BBC is such a trashy source of news/opinion. Almost as bad as The Wall Street Journal.

[AndyGM]

Originally Posted by Blindfold

Perth is the fastest growing capital city in percentage terms. I read the BBC article and thought for the most part it was tosh. To my knowledge Perth is still the biggest drawcard for Brits moving to Oz.

Not sure if this is still true though. Perth certainly has the highest Brit born population but I think more new arrivals go to Queensland than WA now. Not sure how much of that is in Brisbane though. I would be tempted to think a pretty big proportion are in other areas of Queensland.

Edit: Nup, I'm wrong. WA is still most popular state for poms (8,500 in 2008-09 vs 7,500 to Queensland).

source: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publica...s-chapter8.pdf

[jarden]

There was discussion on the news the other night about the Australian population could reach 42 million by 2050

[Derek40]

Originally Posted by BSD

Theres an article in North Coast thread about Ballina's population will be doubled in next 11 years from 44,000 to 88,500.

Ballina is heading to become the next Gold Coast at that rate.
Are there going to be high rise?
Ballina joins onto Byron Shire, and then Tweed Shire, and then Gold Coast City Council, I believe.
Richmond Valley is at its southern end, then Clarence Valley.

[ross_the_man]

He's talking crap, he probably wrote the article.