Overpopulation � shifting the blame

A presentation given at Students & Sustainability, Brisbane, July 2000
Sarojini Krishnapillai
Friends of the Earth Australia
National Liaison Officer
July 1st 2000

Explain how proponents of the overpopulation argument tend to advocate zero immigration policies and the racist nature of this. Provide a critical analysis of political organisations such as Australians Against Further Immigration.

For many of us who consider ourselves to be environmental or social justice activists, increases in population and immigration to Australia don't always spring to mind. Woodchipping, water pollution, overfishing, indigenous land rights � these are usually seen as the bread and butter of environmental campaigning. However, population growth continues to be singled out by many people as the primary cause of global environmental degradation. The world's population now exceeds 6 billion, and is expected to almost double to 10 billion by 2050 . 80-95% of this population growth is occurring in so-called Third, developing, majority or, as I will refer to it, countries of the South. For many environmentalists, scientists and policy analysts, these statistics translate into solving the environmental crisis by curbing population growth in the South, and stemming immigration into the Northern, developed, industrialised or minority world. I'm going to canvas some of the spectrum of debate within Australia, and also how some environment groups within the Friends of the Earth International network are dealing with this contentious issue. FoEI is currently active in 61 countries and is particularly strong in Western Europe, West Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Global representation has meant that FoEI's political perspectives tend to be global rather than Northern.

Historical background to the population debate

Population was a prominent theme for the North's environment movement in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This focus was partly driven by growing international awareness of environmental problems, as well as the publication of high profile books such as The Population Bomb by Ann and Paul Ehrlich. This book, a bestseller in the USA and Australia, proved to be formative in the population debate of later decades. Had another publication received equally high public profile which addressed consumption inequality, we may have inherited a different debate in the early 21st century. Terms like 'population bomb' and 'population explosion' have set the scene for a culture of blame that continues today in the Australian debate over immigration, refugees and population growth. Much of the debate draws on the dubious concept of "life-boat ethics", which argues against a more equitable distribution of the world�s resources on the grounds that we would all go under - hence the need for some of us (presumably in the North) to jump into the lifeboat. These theories have drawn on the 18th century teachings of Malthus which saw famine as inevitable and indeed necessary to preserve the earth�s carrying capacity . Malthus, a key early thinker on the issue of population was greatly influenced by a world view that we would now call Social Darwinisn or 'survival of the fittest'. He used historical examples such as the Irish Potato Famine, in which over 1 million people died as a result of potato crop failure, to justify his own predictions. This theory conveniently ignores the political, social and economic power structures surrounding events such as the Potato Famine.

For many people, Ehrlich's arguments confirmed their sense that 'the problem' (environmental deterioration) was something 'out there' in other countries. Although many people do not consciously articulate this, it is a central reason why 'over �population' is considered an issue and 'over-consumption' is not. Dealing with over consumption will require substantial lifestyle changes: blaming 'third world women' for having too many children does not. This approach reduces the complexities of this situation and ignores the myriad of factors affecting population growth and consumption patterns. Life boat ethics and the emotive language of population explosion have fostered the development of racist and sexist attitudes toward those who are considered "to blame" for the pressure placed on our environment and underpin conventional wisdom on population - that there are too many of us in the world. These types of "facts" are rarely challenged and continuously espoused.. The key elements of world trade dynamics and broadscale gender inequity have been overstepped, while over-consumption, and the disproportionate amount of resources consumed by a minority of the world's population is continously marginalised in environmental campaigning worldwide. Groups waving the "overpopulation" flag also ignore the central role that oppression of women has in the population debate. The majority of the world's women continue to lack access to safe, reliable and affordable contraception and abortion, and most are defined more in terms of their capacity to bear children than for their participation in and contribution to the fields of education, politics, arts, economics and community development.

The Australian debate

In recent years there has been considerable public debate about the maximum population levels Australia's landscape could support. This debate has generally occurred between those who believe increased population will lead to increased business activity and economic growth, and those who are concerned about Australia�s ecological carrying capacity. The market analyst, Phil Rithvin, has been a prominent spokesperson for the former group. He denigrates those who advocate reduced population as having no vision and representing a 'fortress Australia' mentality. This represents a third element to the debate: in addition to the (non-racist, but one-dimensional) ecologists and the potentially racist ecologists, there is a growing voice for increased population who are effectively only concerned about increasing economic activity.

While there is a history of racist organisations using the 'population' card as an excuse for their own political agendas, there are two identifiable streams of thought amongst the groups who tend to concentrate on "overpopulation". I will address two groups which demonstrate these two tendencies: The first is more overtly racist - the group with the highest profile in this category is Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI). The second tendency is exemplified by Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP). This group is the most prominent of Non-Government Organisations (NGO's) concerned with the notion of carrying capacity, that is, the so-called scientific evaluation of how many people the Australian landmass can support. Some AESP branches have gone to considerable lengths to limit their discussion to 'scientific' principles and have attempted to distance themselves from more overtly racist tendencies within their organisation.

Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI)

One group which was very prominent for several years is Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) which was founded in NSW in 1989. The politics behind the organisation are not clear although it seems to have attracted many people who are happy to blame immigrants for a grab-bag of economic and environmental problems. The Victorian spokesperson for AAFI stood as a One Nation candidate - and did very poorly � in a recent Federal election and the organisation stood a massive 67 candidates in the 1999 NSW election. AAFI has attempted to use the argument that increased immigration will lead to increased environmental degradation, and hence have used the race card under the pretense of environmentalism.

Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population (AESP)

AESP was established in 1988 to address the fact that overpopulation was being overlooked by the mainstream environment movement. AESP claim that the key difference between them and �conservation organisations� is that AESP seeks to limit the size of the Australian population, whereas environment groups seek only to reduce individual environmental consumption. Their view is that the key factor driving environmental destruction is overpopulation, and over the last decade, the organisation has used this to justify its aggressively anti-immigration agenda . AESP use environmental indicators to 'prove' that our population is too high already, to publicise the ostensible environmental ramifications from Australia's immigration program, and to denounce environmental protection measures as pointless in the battle to reverse land and water degradation. Perhaps in response to criticism from human rights and some environmental groups, AESP now claim to support a "smaller non-discriminatory immigration program with particular emphasis on refugees". While the AESP is less overtly anti-immigrant, AAFI has, with its more overt policies, provided something of a smokescreen for some green groups. Groups can still have conservative or potentially racist population policies but by distancing themselves from AAFI they can be the �good cops� in the debate while not directly opposing the AAFI �bad cops�.

Another contributor to Australia�s population debate is Tim Flannery, author of The Future Eaters. Flannery sees Australia�s population as already too large. He argues that if a scientific study was commissioned to ascertain how many people Australia could support, it would be around 10 million - which is almost half of our current population . Drawing on the scientific drawcard fails to address the cultural, spiritual and other non-material values inherent in this debate.

Unfortunately, we can't just write groups like AESP and AAFI off as fringe groups because they use environmental degradation as an argument. Because the environment movement has not been vocal enough in denouncing the types of arguments that are put forward by these groups, there is the risk of complicity through silence. That draws those of us concerned about the environment into the debate, and imbues us with the responsibility to not only debate the population furphy, but to fight - and provide solutions to - the real causes of environmental degradation.

Environment group approaches to population debate

So what have Australian environment groups got to say about population? Because the mainstream green movement - by which I include the spectrum of international, national, state and local-level groups � represents a vast array of political positions, there is no common position amongst the movement on the issue of population. Some groups have avoided the issue all together. Larger groups, like the Australian Conservation Foundation, will generally have such a diversity of views (from the �cease immigration� argument to strong social justice perspectives) that it can be difficult for them to reach a policy position on the issue. Having said this, it should be noted that the ACF is one of the main groups to have spent considerable time debating the issue. ACF�s policy states that :

"to maintain Australia�s ecological viability our population must be kept to a sustainable level�a government population policy [is required] to stabilise Australian population numbers at a level that is precautionary and ecologically sustainable, and to be administered without discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, colour, sexuality, beliefs, wealth, skills or age" .

A number of the groups have fairly �low common denominator� policies on population: especially amongst the conservation councils which are representative or umbrella bodies at the state level. For instance, the New South Wales Nature Conservation Council (NCC) policy states that "humans must exercise self-discipline and planning to ensure sustainable levels of population on this planet"

While those are just two examples, it would be fair to say that, the Australian green movement has not adequately addressed the issue of population. Overall, the national movement has not had a strong tradition of international activity, links with social movements in other parts of the world, or strong perspectives on global social justice issues. Practical campaign activity is often nationalist in perspective if not in terminology. This lack of social understanding was highlighted during the recent crisis in East Timor. At a gathering of key environmental NGOs in Darwin in September 1999, a number of people suggested the need to jointly sign a statement of solidarity with the East Timorese struggle. Almost half of the groups at the meeting refused to do soon the basis that social struggles were �not in their brief', reflecting the belief of many green groups that their core business is advocacy on behalf of �nature� - wild ecosystems and biological diversity. Somehow this means that social justice issues are simply outside their field of concern. This means that when addressing issues of population, it is relatively easy for them to screen out social and humanitarian perspectives.

Climate change

The population debate took a turn for the worse last year when immigrants to Australia were blamed for global warming. The Australia Institute, an independent research centre, released a report outlining the environmental impacts of population growth in Australia. The report, Population Growth and Greenhouse Gas Emissions claimed that high immigration levels will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions for Australia �already the highest per capita emitter in the industrialised world. The Australia Institute called on the Federal Government to use population policy as a tool to meet Australia�s greenhouse gas emission targets. While encouraging Federal Government investment in renewable energy to offset increased greenhouse emissions resulting from higher immigration, the Australia Institute claimed that higher immigration would require:

"severe restrictions on the [Australian] economy to control [greenhouse gas] emission-producing activities" .

This position was especially disappointing as there had been a flood of so called "boat people" hysteria in the preceding few weeks. Reducing immigration as a 'solution' to environmental problems, obscures the real issue. The Australia Institute's report pointed out that "migrants per capita emissions double upon settling in Australia compared with their country of origin". This simply means consumption increased when they arrived in Australia. Rather than raising concerns about new immigrants entering the country, we should be concerned at the massively disproportionate per capita greenhouse emissions produced by the Australian community as a whole - and promote sustainable energy, production and transport solutions. As the Australia Institute report pointed out, Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions in the world. Over-consumption - not immigration - is the problem here. Average consumption rates of Australians far outweigh those of the developing world - for all resources, not just greenhouse gas emissions. Its worth noting that the greenhouse gas emission from the average US citizen are 269 times those of their Nepalese counterparts. We need to focus on reducing consumption at the personal and national level, not scapegoating immigrants. To do otherwise may play into the hands of racist elements within Australia, and neatly avoids the issue of why our consumption levels are too high, and those in many parts of the world too low. Sustainable solutions to the environmental crisis will only occur with an internationalist perspective - one that embraces both ecological and social justice considerations.

Immigration : looking beyond the hype from an environmental justice perspective

A number of the key groups within Friends of the Earth International (FoEI) have developed an environmental justice framework, which Australian activists could find useful in a number of contemporary debates. The following is a brief summary of some of the tools developed by FoEI to put issues such as "overpopulation" in their context.

Ecological debt

Some of you may be aware of the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which calls for the cancellation of financial debts owed by the world's poorest countries. Many organisations in these poorest nations are now highlighting the ecological debt owed by the North to the South. Ecological debt describes the cumulative responsibility that industrialised countries have for the social and environmental destruction caused by production and consumption over the last few hundred years. The ecological debt is the debt which has accrued because of the economic and political legacy of the colonial era, when the economies of many Southern countries were re-created to serve western Europe and North America rather than domestic needs. Even at a basic economic costing, the ecological debt greatly exceeds the external debt owed to institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Environmental space

Environmental space is the total amount of energy, land, water, forests and other resources which can be used per capita without causing environmental damage or affecting the rights of future generations. This is an important step towards quantifying environmental sustainability. Much of the environment debate in the 1990's was hijacked by corporations seeking a green fa�ade while carrying on with business as usual. This is exemplified by companies such as BHP, Rio Tinto or WMC which may be sponsoring indigenous, environmental and community outreach programs, while simultaneously being the amongst the biggest perpetuators of environmental and human rights abuses. Environmental space is about measurable targets - not generalised and unquantifiable statements like "environmentally sustainable development". Obviously political change and public awareness are also key factors, but having parameters to the sustainability debate is an essential and significantly underutilised tool for Australian activists.

FoEI's Sustainable Societies Program

The underpinning tenet of FoEI's Sustainable Societies Program is that Europe, North America and Japan need to reduce resource and energy usage by up to 90% over the next 50 years if the development of other countries is not going to overload the planet. This overwhelming disparity in consumption - the cornerstone of environmental and social injustice - must be rectified to achieve sustainability. If this injustice is not addressed first, then population policies will just roll another layer of disadvantage onto those least able to absorb it, for whom large families may be their only defence against poverty. The following quote from the US-based Political Ecology Group sums up the connection between refugees, over-consumption, globalisation and world trade � and is a clear indication of why we in Australia can�t reduce the environmental crisis to population issues:

"Current economic troubles are not caused by environmentalists or immigrants but by corporate and government practices that neglect public well-being in favour of short-term private gain. Public policies have bolstered business profits while the majority of US residents face declining incomes, job security, and environmental quality. Downsizing, de-industrialisation and the shifting of production overseas by transnational corporations are consequences of the new global economy. Corporations have more freedom than ever to move capital to places with cheaper labor and less environmental regulation. At the same time, people are criminalised for moving across those same borders".

So while corporations are increasingly free to move between countries, refugees - the people most in need of freedom to escape human rights violations � continue to be targeted by governments. Groups like Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population, Australians Against Further Immigration and the sections of the scientific community which support their theories, define humanity as a negative, destructive force in its dealings with the non-human world. This worldview ignores the real threat to environmental sustainability : the culture of industrial, urban and corporate society - not humans per se. As environmentalists, we need to celebrate the cultural diversity that has survived for thousands of years - and which is under serious threats by corporate monocultures - rather than villify those least to blame for environmental degradation. As we in the North seek out sustainable solutions, indigenous communities have lived sustainably for thousands of years. In Australia, indigenous people have actively managed the land and water ecosystems of this continent for at least 60,000 years � something absent from the arguments put forward by overpopulation zealots.

The population and environment debate is one we cannot afford to ignore. Because some groups play on the environmental sentiment to peddle what is essentially an anti-humanist agenda, all environment groups - from the campus environment group to national organisations - have to address the population and environment debate. Environmental justice is the framework that best addresses the spectrum of gender, human rights and ecological concerns in the population debate, and puts the focus where it should be: on over-consumption in the Northern countries like Australia rather than over-population elsewhere.