“A problem well stated is a problem half solved.” — Charles Kettering

How many ways are there to explain that shit stinks? Well you might ask. Climate change is caused by:

• Lack of emissions reduction measures
• Continuing rapid emissions growth

Which one of these must be urgently addressed to mitigate the impacts of climate change? If you can eliminate all emissions within 40 years you might suggest concentrating on emissions reduction measures only. If you know this can't happen for many reasons, like multi billion dollar oil and gas projects which are likely to continue for at least that long even if coal is eliminated from the energy mix, then focus equal attention on the fact that global population could double within the next 40-60 years. Most of that increase is happening in places where current per capita energy consumption is low and aspires to be high. The icing on the cake that results from considering both is that you won't have to ignore every other anthropogenic environmental impact of population growth, as the current strategy does. A common reason for denying population growth is the assumption that it is inevitable and should not be challenged. The one child policy in China was a totalitarian policy, just as Australia's mass migration policy is a totalitarian policy. Yet in many parts of Africa there is currently a 6 child policy in the same regions that include high infant mortality and shockingly low living standards. What WE can do is recognise that population growth in all countries must be stabilised one way or another. If we seek to reduce emissions while we use a policy of mass migration to drive GDP growth we are not being reasonable. Population growth is arguably as manageable as, or more manageable than, emissions per capita. The UN is currently predicting a world population of between 9 and 24 billion by 2150. In Australia we address neither because the focus is solely on money. All the statistics show that wealth creation over the last 100+ years has been driven by energy consumption and population-induced demand growth. The model is wrong and switching to alternative energy in isolation is not the solution. Economic models are no longer working in Australia. All the KPIs are heading downwards despite continued rapid population growth. But the Government desperately clings to its historical belief in using population growth as the fuel to drive GDP growth. Until this belief that an economy can only "grow" if its population grows is subjected to critical review it will be extremely difficult to make a government in economic trouble switch resources into alternative energy. That Government reduced foreign aid by $4.5 billion in 2013 and $7.5 billion in 2014.