Im talking about sustainable in regards to the country being able to feed itself rather than relying upon massive amounts of foreign imports. The green party may not be entirely credible in every way, but the think tanks it drew from in this situation are.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.projection.html
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/men...0418135315.htm

Its not a case of how many people can we have, since its obvious that we could if we wanted have a population of perhaps c.140 million + if we concreted over the whole country and imported all our food. But its a case of how we manage the finite resources of land and food, without overwhelming our resources simply because at this point in time we can. In the future when oil goes down the pan our comfy situation and days of 62 million + people wont seem quite so sustainable. Its a long term issue, not short.
[Rep]

The optimum population projection is based largely on pollution and carbon emissions on a global level. What they do is they assess the sustainable level of pollution in the world as a whole and then distribute it equally across the entire planet. When they say that Britain's optimum population is 20 or 30 million they're making that statement not with reference to Britain's environmental resources, but with reference to the world's capacity for pollution. There are numerous assumptions made in that estimate which I personally disagree with.

Firstly, I'm not a global warming adherent and the issue of global warming is partly the basis for this projection. Secondly, it's an idealist analysis in the sense that in translating optimum populations for each country, it assumes a similar level of development across the entire planet, when in reality we're obviously far more developed than countries in the developing world. Lastly, these figures are only accurate if we assume that current technologies are maintained. If for instance the entire world switched to renewable energy sources, or non-greenhouse gas emitting transport, the projection would cease to be relevant.

When I questioned your figure I wasn't thinking of pollution or global warming, I was thinking of food stocks and energy. If we're talking about energy resources (primarily oil) then there is no sustainable population. Oil is a finite resource, it will run out whether we have a population of 30 million or 60 million or 100 million, the only thing which changes is the timeframe. The only answer to depleting energy resources is to change where we get our energy from. Simply cutting the country's population in half will buy you time, but it doesn't solve the problem.

As for food, there is clearly a finite amount of food which the earth can produce, but arriving at an estimate for that figure is about as controversial as it comes. However, the point I would make is that importing food does not make the country's population unsustainable. Importing food is a necessity, there is no equality in how fertile land is distributed across the planet and renouncing any desire to import food and concentrating populations on areas with fertile land would be disastrous. As it happens though, we live in a part of the world (Europe) which produces more food than is necessary for the present population to be maintained.
[Rep]

Yep, point taken in regards to the sustainability argument and also the 'faux' global warming arguments. On another note however, that note being quality of life, id say we need to draw the line in the sand. Even if continual growth were possible, it is not desirable and economic growth isnt everything. social fabric and actually having a green belt are far more important in my view.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Suthers:
Yep, point taken in regards to the sustainability argument and also the 'faux' global warming arguments. On another note however, that note being quality of life, id say we need to draw the line in the sand. Even if continual growth were possible, it is not desirable and economic growth isnt everything. social fabric and actually having a green belt are far more important in my view.

yet another reason why I support the BNP. everyone else wants an ever-increasing economy, no matter the social and environmental cost.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
yet another reason why I support the BNP. everyone else wants an ever-increasing economy,

If you don't move forwards you'll either regress or get left behind.
[Rep]

or become sustainable!
[Rep]

Originally Posted by bnpforme:
or become sustainable!

Sustainable how? You'd have to freeze everything as it was - imports, exports, population etc, if any of them changed, the economy would too.
[Rep]

There are other parties than the BNP who support limiting economic growth for social or environmental reasons in any case - the loony leftist parties and the Greens for instance. Moreover, virtually every party accepts there are limits to economic growth to a greater or lesser extent, they just don't accept it to the degree that the Greens or the BNP do.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by blank_frackis:
There are other parties than the BNP who support limiting economic growth for social or environmental reasons in any case - the loony leftist parties and the Greens for instance.

You need to look again ... the Greens are in favour of mass immigration, and therefore of the continued bulldozing over the environment. We are already unsustainable. How much more growth do you want? You want the country stripped dry? What happens when Peak Oil and Global Warming put even more pressure on our already overwhelmed infrastructure? But you want to paint the BNP as having the extremist view of the economy ...
[Rep]

Originally Posted by bnpforme:
You need to look again ... the Greens are in favour of mass immigration, and therefore of the continued bulldozing over the environment. We are already unsustainable. How much more growth do you want? You want the country stripped dry? What happens when Peak Oil and Global Warming put even more pressure on our already overwhelmed infrastructure? But you want to paint the BNP as having the extremist view of the economy ...

The Green party are in favour of bulldozing over the environment? I can't say I've ever heard someone level that particular criticism at them. The Greens (in England) are not a nationalist party, they're global looking in terms of their solutions to environmental problems, however a substantial part of their ideology is concerned with the carrying capacity of different regions and maintaining sustainable birth rates.

In any case, we were talking about economic growth, not population growth. It goes without saying that the Greens recognise limits to economic growth, they were articulating that thesis in the 1970's well before the (modern) BNP even existed. The various new left parties which emerged at the same time as the BNP have also articulated that idea - as opposed to the old left which pursued economic growth as vehemently as right-wing parties. I'm sorry, but it's just not the case that the BNP are the only party arguing against continued economic growth, you might disagree with these parties for other reasons (who wouldn't) but they all articulate the same idea with respects to growth.
[Rep]