No room to be smug as population peaks

A PRESUMABLY well-meaning environmental group says Australia should have a population of only 7 million.

THERE has been a recent suggestion from what I am sure is a well-meaning environmental group that the preferred population of the Australian continent should be 7 million.

The population at present is 21 million.

This means 14 million would need to be wiped out (by attrition, I am sure) to achieve what is claimed to be a sustainable population for the continent.

I see real merit in this concept. Not because I agree with its crazy objective but because it raises the issue of a long-term population policy for Australia.

The world population is 6.7 billion and this number will rise to breach the 9 billion mark in about 2050 and will continue to rise before it subsides in the 2080s.

At the end of the 21st century, planet earth is projected to contain 9.1 billion people.

The real pressures in terms of access to water, food and energy to feed and sustain this humanity will not come late in the 21st century.

By the 2080s, world dominance, trading blocs and alliances will have been established in the Resource Wars 40 years earlier.

In other words, three decades after reaching peak population, the planet's component interests, let's call them countries, will have sorted out how to divvy up the world's resources.

Sounds all very civilised but the fact is this need not be a fair and equitable divvying process.

The real pressure for resources will come as the world transitions from 6 billion to 9 billion and quite possibly during the final and tumultuous decade of this 50-year process.

Imagine: our planet is 4 billion years old and humanity reaches peak population during the lifetime of more or less anyone under the age of 50 today.

The bottom line in this equation is that the world will add 3300 million people over the next four decades.

In this time, the Australian population is projected to rise from 21 million to 34 million. Our share of the global population increase will be 13 million out of 3.3 billion.

My argument is that a world approaching peak population and with limited resources will be a dangerous place.

Australia's interests in such a world are undoubtedly best served by snuggling up to the prevailing superpower.

But then this is what we, Australians, are really good at.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Australia was inextricably linked to Britain, our great protector.

This changed in December 1941 when, fearing Japanese invasion, the Australian prime minister made an impassioned plea for US support "free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom".

If China is the dominant global superpower in the 22nd century, will Australia dump the US and sidle up to the Chinese? I think "probably, yes we will".

And if this is the case, then Australia will do whatever it takes to remain "on side" with China over coming decades.

In either case, the global situation by the 2040s will be dire.

The world population will then be close to 50 per cent greater than it was at the turn of the century.

In this environment, what advice do you think the Australian nation might have for the rest of humanity?

"I understand that things are tough where you come from and we'd really love to accommodate a high level of immigration to alleviate the pressures. However we are terribly concerned about the quality of our environment and so we would really rather you lot stay where you are."

At this point it would not be unreasonable for the rest of humanity to consider Australia's "lot".

Australia is the only nation on the planet to claim sovereignty over an entire continent.

We claim also the land (and sea) resources of numerous offshore territories to the east, west and south, including a suspended claim to more than a third of the Antarctic continent.

Not a bad ambit land grab for 34 million people at a time when much of the rest of humanity is scrambling over dwindling resources.

Maybe, just maybe, there will be a view, somewhere, that the Australian nation should accommodate a far greater share of the world population.

This might come from those who envy our lot. (Hitler justified expansion into Poland as the pursuit of lebensraum or living space.)

It might come also from our allies who, bowing to pressure from other interests, might suggest it is a tad unrealistic to want moderated levels of immigration at a time of peak global population.

There is a case to say that before the middle of the 21st century, global geo-political forces will compel the Australian nation to accommodate a much higher rate of overseas migration, regardless of the environmental impact.

In fact, the notion of Australia wanting to be some special "green refuge' might even pique the ire of those who envy our resources and space.

Why wouldn't our enemies say at this time "the white Australia policy has been replaced by a green Australia policy; after all they are both designed to prevent the sharing of resources".

Sovereign Australia must navigate the next 30 years carefully and part of this process involves laying a foundation of accepting overseas migration from a wide range of countries.

This is as much an investment in the politics of our future as it is an investment in the skills and taxpayer base of our country today.

Bernard Salt is a KPMG Partner; [e-mail]; www.twitter/bernardsalt