The Australian Conservation Foundation now tacitly supports pro population growth extremism?

Does the ACF show contempt for refugees by ignoring the way mass migration denies them access to Australia? Refugees, migration and population growth management are three different issues, yet the ACF acts as if the third cannot be addressed as a separate issue - despite being directly relevant to its definition of "Who We Are". All the scientific and economic evidence points to unscientific contempt by the ACF for Australian population growth management as a key driver of adverse humanitarian and environmental outcomes, both domestically and globally. If this is not true, why has the ACF been repeatedly emailing members with a Climate Change message but no Population Growth Management message? Australia can manage its population growth if this is shown to deliver both domestic and global humanitarian and environmentally sustainable outcomes.

To deny a responsibility for due diligence and prioritising this issue makes no sense.

"The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) stands for ecological sustainability. We get to the heart of environmental problems by tackling the underlying social and economic causes. We work across society to influence urgent, transformative action to deliver lasting change on the scale required to secure a sustainable environment. We bring people together to champion the true value of our environment and its critical role in sustaining all other systems and in achieving human wellbeing." The ACF keeps emailing the Climate Change message but has nothing to say on the following equally important issues which are directly correlated with Population Growth:

• 2014-15: Migration program set at 190,000 places; humanitarian intake 13,750 places. (SOURCES: Department of Immigration; ABS)
• Compound Federal Budget growth roughly 8% per capita per annum for over a decade. (SOURCE: ABS)
• Compound population growth less than 1% per capita per annum for over a decade. (SOURCE: ABS)
• Compound unemployment growth per annum at least 60% above population growth for over a decade (SOURCE: ABS)
• Reduction in foreign aid of $12 billion in the last two years alone. And what lies ahead?
• Eternal Carbon Tax debate and eternal Federal Budget debate with no mention of the potential link between these issues and extreme population growth?

The ACF recently refused a request to circulate a petition seeking public policy debate on the humanitarian and sustainability impacts of Australia's unique form of pro population growth extremism: Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth

Soon after the new CEO arrived, she started circulating emails about Climate Change to the ACF email list of over 10,000 members, but she wouldn't address population growth which is the primary underlying social and economic cause of Australia's adverse humanitarian and environmental impact; both domestically and globally. This was despite the work of ACF President Ian Lowe AO, who for many years has highlighted the population problem.

Is the new President, Geoff Cousins, forming an autocratic double act with Kelly O'Shanassy pumping out Climate Change emails, but nothing on population growth management? Have the members of the ACF ever been consulted on this? Does Geoff Cousins think he can walk into what is effectively a mutual society and act like he owns it? Does he need to be reminded that the ACF is not "his" corporation and that he has no right to dictate its priorities based on his personal opinion or agenda setting bias? Even if a majority of council members vote to suppress the population growth issue, where is the due diligence for such an important decision for all members to see? Why wasn't this issue on an agenda of issues for members to vote on?

Just like every other NGO, Government Agency and major political party, the ACF effectively endorses, by its actions, pro population growth extremism in Australia despite evidence of its unhumanitarian and ecologically destructive consequences. Stabilising population is mentioned somewhere in the ACF "fine print". In a recent email the ACF devoted resources to showing us that most of the 10 major emitters are companies mining or using fossil fuels. This seems rather obvious don't you think?

The ACF appears to remain silent on the potential link between extreme population growth and the following socioeconomic KPIs:

• Australia has one of the highest emissions per capita on the planet
• Australia has one of the highest rates of population growth on the planet
• The first two points, in combination, make Australia a truly unique example of contempt for humanity and the environment
• Between 1991 and 2011 Australia's fossil fuel based emissions rose by 32% and population rose by the same amount
• Australia's Federal Budget has been growing by roughly 8% per capita per annum for over a decade
• Australia's GDP has been growing by less than 1% per capita per annum for over a decade
• The above two point ring alarm bells about economic sustainability. The per capita numbers tell the story
• Australia's foreign aid has reduced by $12 billion in the last two years alone. And what lies ahead?

All of the above suggest a correlation between unsustainable extreme population growth, unsustainable extreme emissions growth and unhumanitarian reduction in foreign aid. It is the growth in demand (aka population growth) which diverts resources into chaotic expansion of a high cost per capita carbon based society. It is harder to spend money on both expansion and renewable energy simultaneously. Renewable energy alone will not achieve the objectives of the ACF. So why pretend that population growth can be ignored either in Australia or globally?

This is not just about carbon footprints. It's about deforestation footprints, fishing footprints, human conflict footprints, sixth great extinction footprints and more.

Autocratic hi-jacking of the ACF as the tool for population growth denial makes no sense. This has occurred by treating the over 10,000 ACF members, many who had an interest in the ACF Charter long before the President and CEO arrived, with contempt. A majority vote by the ACF Council to suppress the population growth issue for political reasons (if that is what has occurred) needs to be revisited in the interests of due diligence and common sense.

Given that population growth is out of control and one UN forecast sees it reaching 16 billion on a rapidly escalating trend by 2100, it would seem more than reasonable for the ACF to outspokenly campaign for moderating Australia's extreme population growth and supporting the developing world in achieving the same. This is called humane leadership by example. Don't do what I say, do what I do. This is as relevant to the ACF's Charter as Climate Change. Burying the issue is illogical and in contempt of the membership (of both the ACF and Planet Earth).

This link provides a clear example of the reason this cause should be championed by the ACF:
Lima Climate Talks fail to identify the common cause linking the Developing and Developed Worlds