Kiwiblog

Steve Kilgallon at Stuff reports:

Rather proving Ballingall’s assertion that politicians have steered clear of population debate because it touches upon such sensitivities as immigration, the Greens remain the only party with a population policy.

Theirs is based on New Zealand’s “ecological carrying capacity”, basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. Kennedy Graham says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit.

Graham says the world’s ecological footprint is already 50 per cent over-capacity; New Zealand requires 4.9 hectares per person when we should need only 1.8, making us the 32nd worst country in the world. Therefore, says Graham, you could argue there are already enough of us.

Graham seems to be suggesting we should ideally have 2.8 million fewer New Zealanders. That’s an even more ambitious popullation reduction target than their climate change policy which is to shoot one in five cows  to reduce their methane emissions.

The Greens official population policy states we should have an upper limit for NZ’s population and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions“.

They also are worried not about NZers going to Australia but vice-versa:

With predictions of continuing drought and water shortages it is possible that there could be an increase in immigrants from Australia, who are not covered by the immigration quota.The ability of the environment to sustain the present and future population is not a consideration in current immigration policies. A surge in population could see the population pushed beyond a sustainable level.

No, no, the invasion of the Australians must be stopped!

But the Greens do have hope for us:

By reducing our ecological footprint through means such as more densely clustered housing and a simpler (low meat/ low dairy) diet, we may be able to increase our population levels while remaining within the carrying capacity of the land.

Yes, if we all become vegans and give up dairy then you may be allowed to have children!

The Herald reports:

A population professor has come up with a novel idea to cope with New Zealand’s ageing population – pay a higher pension to those who have children.

Professor Natalie Jackson, the new director of Waikato University’s Population Studies Centre, says the welfare state is “a great pyramid scheme” based on a pyramid-shaped population with only a few old people at the top supported by growing numbers of young people at the bottom.

“Just like a pyramid scheme, you have to have a continuous supply of new people coming in to support the numbers of old people,” she said yesterday. …

She said society would have to give more priority to children to maximise their contribution to the labour force and hence to the tax base that pays for pensions. And it would have to look at linking pensions to producing children.

“The welfare state has to change, and one of the potential things we might look at is limiting pensions to those who have had children,” she said.

Heh, can you imagine trying to pass that one into law. Best response is from Susan St John:

However, the co-director of Auckland University’s Retirement Policy and Research Centre, Dr Susan St John, said linking pensions to having children “doesn’t bear thinking about”.

“How do men get their pensions? Surely not more based on the number of women they happen to impregnate?”

A fair point!

Deborah slays some stupidness:

Last week Sir Jonathan said he was “unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate”.

According to this British toff, we should seriously consider contraception and abortion as weapons against climate change. After all, he reckons, every Pommie child in its lifetime will destroy more than two acres of “old-growth oak woodland”.

I suppose in New Zealand the equivalent would be trashing several hectares of native bush.

I look forward to the reaction from our Family First lobby on hearing New Zealand women, pregnant with a third child, can rush to a certified GP seeking an abortion on the grounds that a nice patch of West Coast beech forest is more important than human life.

Climate change as a reason for an abortion – now that would be a debate!

The Greens, proud champions of regulations for showers, have their brightest and boldest policy – a zero population policy.

In fact it is even worse than that – they want negative population growth so NZ can have room for Pacific Island climate change refugees.

Rodney Hide has the best comment:

Act leader Rodney Hide said it was a first step toward zero-population growth. He suggested that perhaps if parents planted a field of trees, they might be able to have twins.

Yes, you will have to build up enough carbon credits in order to get permission to have a child.

And Tariana:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said it was a case of “middle-class” Greens trying to tell others how big their families should be.

“Tell them to go to China where there is a One Child policy. But don’t start trying to control fertility and social engineering like that here.”

The defence:

Greens population spokeswoman Metiria Turei yesterday denied it was an attempt to discourage people from having large families. She said awareness of the impact their families had on resources and the environment would allow parents to make an “informed decision” about their family size.

For fuck’s sake. Having kids is the biggest decisions parents make anyway. Having Metira tell families they need to make an “informed” decision is as offensive as laughable. What she means is she wants people to feel guilty if they have kids as kids use up scarce resources.

There is a problem with over population globally, but for most of Europe the problem is under population – not enough children are being born to replace those dying.

The replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children per woman. Current fertility rates according to the UN are:

• Greece 1.33
• Russia 1.34
• Germany 1.36
• Italy 1.38
• Canada 1.53
• Australia 1.79
• UK 1.82
• France 1.89
• NZ 1.99
• US 2.05

So NZ already has a declining population growth from fertility, being under the replacement rate of 2.10. And we are at the top end of European countries. So where is the global population growth happening:

• Niger 7.19
• Palestine 5.09
• Tonga 3.83
• Pakistan 3.52
• Saudia Arabia 3.35
• India 2.81
• Libya 2.72

So let’s make sure we have this right. NZ already has a shrinking population from fertility. But in order to allow India, Libya, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan and the Niger to carry on with their over-populating, NZ families should have less children.

The Greens policy even includes:

Facilitate the development of regional population plans, in partnership with local tangata whenua.

So what the fuck will a regional population plan be?

They also advocate:

Support initiatives to raise awareness amongst parents and potential parents regarding the issue of sustainable global population levels.

What this means is taxpayer funded bureaucrats working on pamphlets and seminars to frighten parents off having more kids. Can you imagine every school in NZ having some dour faced do gooder preaching to all the kids they they should not have children, in order to save the planet.

How about a nice pamphlet “About your foetus and save the planet today” – have that in every doctor’s surgery.

The Greens are saying of course it will be up to each family to decide for themselves how many children they have – but nevertheless they want to run education programmes and awareness initiatives to help those parents make the right decisions.

Some nice work by the Government’s population website. They’ve done some pages on 12 common myths about population. A very user-friendly way to get information across:

Myth 1: Half of all marriages end in divorce

Myth 2: There was a surge of returning New Zealanders after 9/11

Myth 3: “The browning of New Zealand”

Myth 4: New Zealand women are now having their first baby at age 30

Myth 5: New Zealand’s population is only growing because of migration

Myth 6: “In 2003 four of every five pregnant Asian women aborted their babies”

Myth 7: The average life expectancy of males is 6 years less than females

Myth 8: New Zealand has 3 million people and 60 million sheep

Myth 9: The Brain Drain

Myth 10: There are at least 1 million New Zealanders living overseas

Myth 11: “There are more people alive now than have ever lived”

Myth 12: “New Zealand is in the midst of a baby boom”

I should point out that not everything here is a myth per se. For example the increased migration home after 9/11 is inconclusive – with it likely there was some impact but that otehr factors are at play. Also one can dispute their brain drain arguments as they do not look just as NZ citizens migration in and out but also new immigrants. Just because our migration policy brings in skilled persons doesn’t mean we are not losing skilled persons. They would be on better ground if they looked at migrations flows of NZ citizens and non citizens.

Also it would be useful if they provided links to source material. But none the less still a good effort.

Hat Tip: Miramar Mike and Llew