By Emma Webb
There is a view amongst a section of the green movement that Australian immigration levels must be slashed. The idea that solving Australia's environmental crisis means closing off our borders from the rest of the world is a particularly selfish twist to the slogan "Think globally, act locally".
A long letter by Pete Johnson in Green Left Weekly (March 2) claims that the organisation Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP) offers "real and workable solutions" to the environmental crisis. He quotes their brochure, "The damage to our continent can not be arrested or reduced while governments pursue growth of population and per capita consumption".
But what exactly is an "ecologically sustainable" population? Is it, as AESP says, simply a smaller population which consumes less? Arguing this position puts the impact of people on our environment purely on the level of a numbers game — as if we all had the same impact on the environment. It also assumes that we all have a negative impact on the environment because the standard of living of the population in general, not just a small section of society, is too high.
These notions ignore the vast disparities in the distribution of society's wealth and the lack of access to political and economic power by most people. The green movement cannot ignore the fact that a minority of people make all the decisions about what and how things are produced. It is this minority — not the average person — which has by far the greatest impact on the environment through its drive to maximise profits.
In fact, lowering population would not necessarily make any difference to the "affluence"of Australian society. Much of this affluence is concentrated in the hands of a few.
For instance, Victoria's production of greenhouse gases is very high by world standards. Yet even if all Victorians burned candles, its overall electricity use would hardly be affected. The electricity consumption of the aluminium industry alone equals the total private consumption. The times when carbon dioxide emissions have risen the most have coincided with a decline in living standards for Victorians.
We live in an irrational and wasteful society because goods are produced to make profit rather than to satisfy human and environmental needs.
AESP's view of achieving an "ecologically sustainable" population in Australia through fewer people and less consumption inevitably impacts on how it views Third World population growth. The logical conclusions are:
(1) Immigrants from Third World countries take on First World consumer habits and so should not be allowed into countries like Australia.
(2) The raising of the standard of living in the Third World would have a similarly negative impact on the environment.
(3) We have to find ways of controlling population growth in the Third World without raising the standard of living there to the level of the First World.
It is impossible to analyse or find solutions to population growth or the environmental crisis in general, in isolation from the social and economic factors that shape our society.
The green movement has to face the reality of the world we live in. Even the United Nations has recognised that we do have enough food, resources and technology to provide for everyone, yet millions of people live in poverty.
AESP's lack of a social analysis is the main reason it fails to address the real causes of population growth and environmental destruction.
Its members often criticise the left for supposedly not taking the environmental crisis seriously. In fact, any serious struggle for the environment necessarily involves taking on the struggle for democracy, freedom from poverty, against racism, sexism, unemployment and similar social evils.
An ecologically sustainable population is not just a number. It is a society of people who have a decent standard of living, including access to education, health care, housing and so on, who have democratic control over all spheres of society, including the economy, and who produce to satisfy human needs — including the need for a pollution-free, sustained environment — rather than for profits.