Renewable Energy Sources vs Fossil Fuels – Solar and Wind Power Ahead in Australia

Australia’s Murdoch led NewsCorp media and Koch Network think tank promote climate science denial talking points, especially the IPA Institute of Public Affairs (founded by Murdoch’s father), with fossil fuel and mining players, have been denigrating transition to renewable sources and their reliability, for decades; now playing the need for nuclear to delay transition.

However, the reality is different, like elsewhere, the take up of renewable energy sources is accelerating (though not as fast) away from fossil fuels, while Australian governments of the centre left following climate science become electorally wedged by the same Murdoch media and think tank talking points.

Fact is, renewable sources whether solar or wind, plus EV’s or electric vehicles, work economically and effectively as has been shown elsewhere, while supporting economic growth. 

From Renew Economy Australia:

‘Renewables hit record high in Australia, as green energy transition rolls on

Renewable energy hit a record high of 72.9 per cent of total generation on Sunday, as a wave of wind and solar across Australia’s main grid sent coal output and operational demand to new lows.

The new peak of 72.9 per cent on the National Electricity Market (NEM), the country’s main grid, was reached for a five minute interval at 12.45pm (AEST), according to data collectors at GPE NEMLog2, beating the previous peak of 72.5 per cent set late last month (October 24).

The bulk of the renewable energy came from rooftop solar from households and businesses, which accounted for around 44 per cent of total generation. Utility scale solar and large scale wind had shares of just over 14 and 12 per cent each, while hydro played a minor role with just over 1.1 per cent.

The new peak for renewables was especially noticed in Victoria, where the share of variable renewable energy (wind and solar) hit a new record high of 95.7 per cent earlier that day (10.10am AEST), well beyond the previous peak of 88.5 per cent set on October 22.

The new peak just happens to correspond to Victoria’s renewable energy target for 2035 (95 per cent), although that will be measured on an annual average basis, rather than a single five minute dispatch period. But the trend is clearly there.

NSW has the biggest fleet of coal generators in Australia, with 8,200MW of coal fired capacity, but coal output hit a new low of just 1633 MW at 9.15am (AEST), more than 100 MW below its previous low, highlighting the assault on its business case and “baseload” assumptions.

It also reflects the fact that one third of its units were out of action for maintenance and upkeep, and the second unit at Mt Piper also wound back to zero on Saturday.  Coal power accounted for just 16.4 per cent of the state’s demand when renewables hit their peak at 12.45pm on Saturday.

Network demand also hit a new low in Victoria (1724 MW), while battery discharge hit a new high in NSW (209 MW), indicating the early but accelerating shift to different forms of dispatchable energy.

On Friday, as GPE NEMLog’s Geoff Eldridge reports, a bunch of solar output records tumbled across the grid, with the gap between solar power and coal output stretching to nearly 10 GW at one stage.

Australia’s target renewable share is 82 per cent by 2030, based around the modelling of the Australian Energy Market Operator’s Integrated System Plan.

Across the last 12 months, the NEM has average 38.7 per cent renewables, so it needs to more than double that share in the next 6-7 years.  Across the last 30 days, the average share of renewables has been a more promising 45.8 per cent.’

For more blogs or articles on Australian Politics, Climate Change, Economics, Environment, EU European Union, Fossil Fuel Pollution, Koch Network, Media, Political Strategy, Science Literacy and Vehicle Usage click through

Libertarian Nativist Lobbying Against EV Electric Vehicles in Support of Fossil Fuels

Posted on September 20, 2022

Not only is Australia out of step with the developed world, including the US, but another example of how fossil fuel, road, traffic and transport lobbies have been effective in avoiding or limiting environmental regulation and standards, using libertarian economic arguments as promoted by Koch Atlas Network think tanks e.g. the IPA Institute of Public Affairs.

What has been missed is the white nativist ecological NGO influence of the US Tanton Network linked to Sustainable Population Australia, with the latter based on and replicating the US fossil fueled ZPG Zero Population Growth, promoted by media and politicians of both left and right, blaming humanity i.e. immigrants and population for environmental issues, to deflect from fossil fuels and climate science.

French Farmers, Truckers and Covid Freedom Rallies Astroturfing vs. Science, Environment and EU European Union?

Posted on March 5, 2024

Farmers protesting in France and probably elsewhere are more about astroturfing by Big Ag to oppose the EU European’s Union Green Agenda, threats to CAP Common Agricultural Policy, pesticides and fossil fuels; does not seem to be a genuine issue of small farmers especially with indirect support of Le Pen?

Further, not only have similar protests occurred on the border of Poland and Ukraine, and other points, with allegations of Russian influence, there seems to be resonance with the US fossil fuel Koch Network ‘freedom rallies’ globally against Covid science, vaccinations and health mandates vs. centrist governments.

Degrowth Economics – Greenwashing Fossil Fuels and Nativism for Authoritarian Autarky?

Posted on March 13, 2024

Is ‘degrowth’ genuine economics theory or astroturfing for greenwashing the status quo i.e. by demanding degrowth that leaves already wealthy or <1% with existing economic and social mobility or status, but precludes upward mobility for 99%> of future generations?

Why? Creates confusion and delay for the economic, industrial and fossil fuel status quo of over a century to transition away from carbon to renewable sources.

Although not cited by either The Conversation or Grist below, the degrowth, steady state and autarkist constructs are not new, see 1930s Italy and Germany, then fast forward to the Club of Rome which promoted the construct ‘limits to growth’; good things like technology grow linearly vs. bad things like emissions and people grow exponentially. 

COP28 Climate Science Denial – Avoiding Transition to Renewable Energy Sources

Posted on December 10, 2023

There were recent comments by the COP28 President in UAE denying climate science around fossil fuels, hence, no need to transition from the same; but no credible support for his claims?

These talking points are very common across right wing media for ageing and less educated voters to support fossil fuel right wing policies, often with ‘Koch Network’ in the background, but simply promoting deflection and conspiracies?

Financial Times: Opinion Data Points. Economics may take us to net zero all on its own The plummeting cost of low-carbon energy has already allowed many countries to decouple economic growth from emissions.

Degrowth Economics – Greenwashing Fossil Fuels and Nativism for Authoritarian Autarky?

Is ‘degrowth’ genuine economics theory or astroturfing for greenwashing the status quo i.e. by demanding degrowth that leaves already wealthy or <1% with existing economic and social mobility or status, but precludes upward mobility for 99%> of future generations?

Why? Creates confusion and delay for the economic, industrial and fossil fuel status quo of over a century to transition away from carbon to renewable sources.

Although not cited by either The Conversation or Grist below, the degrowth, steady state and autarkist constructs are not new, see 1930s Italy and Germany, then fast forward to the Club of Rome which promoted the construct ‘limits to growth’; good things like technology grow linearly vs. bad things like emissions and people grow exponentially. 

Aided both the fossil fuel ‘free market’ Atlas or Koch Network and nativist faux environmental movement related to Tanton Network demanding closed borders, immigration restrictions, withdrawal from trading blocs e.g. EU & multilateral agreements in favour of bilateral agreements, that favour more powerful nations and entities over the less powerful; suggests eugenics?

From The Conversation:

If you follow the degrowth agenda, it leads to an economy that looks a lot like the sickly UK

The degrowth movement has become very popular in recent years, particularly among younger people who appreciate its critique of the endless pursuit of economic expansion. The problem with growth, advocates argue, is that it implies the use of more and more resources and energy, as well as ever larger quantities of waste.

Well, the good news for the movement is that one of the world’s leading economies has offered itself up as a case study. If you look past the debate about whether the UK’s recent technical recession is going to deepen or peter out, the economic situation is pretty dire.

One main reason for the UK stagnation is a lack of investment in productivity, which advocates of degrowth would argue is an essential part of moving away from a resource-hungry economy. So what can we learn from the UK’s experiences so far?

The degrowth perspective

Degrowth has become the latest element in a long line of critiques of economic growth. One leading proponent, the Spanish ecological economist Giorgos Kallis, defines it as the “socially sustainable reduction of society’s throughput”, which is “incompatible with further economic growth, and will entail in all likelihood economic (GDP) degrowth”.

Pursuing GDP growth is criticised, both because of its increased use of resources and for “unrealistic expectations” that technological improvement and productivity growth would allow us to stay within so-called “planetary boundaries” (meaning the limits beyond which humanity will be unable to continue to flourish).

Kallis argues that degrowth implies reduced spending on goods and new technology, while distinguishing “good” and “bad” investments:

We will have to do with less high-speed transport infrastructures, space missions for tourists, new airports or factories producing unnecessary gadgets, faster cars or better televisions.

We may still need more renewable energy infrastructures, better social (education, and health) services, more public squares or theatres, and localised organic food production and retailing centres.

Yet this fails to appreciate that a reduction in GDP implies lower investment in technologies across the board, including those underpinning renewable energy. It also misunderstands that modern economic growth is not driven by accumulating and using more resources, but by innovation through investment. Witness what has happened in the UK…

….Degrowth advocates will not welcome this kind of approach, but technological improvement is ultimately likely to be a better way of achieving their goals than impoverishing people.

From Grist:

How to ‘decouple’ emissions from economic growth? These economists say you can’t.

For nearly 200 years, two transformative global forces have grown in tandem: economic activity and carbon emissions. The two have long been paired together, or, in economist-speak, “coupled.” When the economy has gotten bigger, so has our climate footprint.

This pairing has been disastrous for the planet. Economic growth has helped bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations all the way up to 420 parts per million. The last time they were this high was during the Pliocene epoch 3 million years ago, when global temperatures were 5 degrees Fahrenheit hotter and sea levels were 65 feet higher.

Most mainstream economists would say there’s an obvious antidote: decoupling. This refers to a situation where the economy keeps growing, but without the concomitant rise in greenhouse gas emissions. Many economists and international organizations like the World Bank, the United Nations, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development celebrate evidence that decoupling is already occurring in many countries. 

“Let me be clear, economic growth coupled with decarbonization is not only realistic, it has already been happening,” said Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, or IEA, in a commentary published in 2020.

It’s an alluring prospect — that we can reach our climate goals without fundamentally changing the structure of the global economy, just by swapping clean energy in for fossil fuels. But a band of rogue economists has begun poking holes in the prevailing narrative around decoupling. They’re publishing papers showing that the decoupling that’s been observed so far in most cases has been short term, or it’s happened at a pace that’s nowhere near quick enough to reach international climate targets. These heterodox economists call decoupling a “neoliberal fantasy.”

The stakes of this academic debate are high: If decoupling is a mirage, then addressing the climate crisis may require letting go of the pursuit of economic growth altogether and instead embracing a radically different vision of a thriving society. That would involve figuring out “how to design future livelihoods that provide people with a good quality of life,” said Helmut Haberl, a social ecologist at the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences in Vienna, Austria. Rather than fixating on growth, he argued, “We should engage more in the question of, ‘What future do we want to build?’” 

The basic idea behind decoupling has been ingrained in mainstream environmental thought for decades. The 1987 Brundtland Report — a landmark publication of the United Nations designed to simultaneously address social and environmental problems — helped establish it through the framework of sustainable development. It argued for “producing more with less,” using technological advances to continue economic growth while decreasing the release of pollutants and the use of raw materials.

Decoupling continues to underlie most global climate policies today. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, has spent nearly two decades promoting it under its “green growth” agenda, urging world leaders to “achieve economic growth and development while at the same time combating climate change and preventing costly environmental degradation.” Decoupling is also baked into the IEA’s influential Net Zero Emissions by 2050 policy roadmap, which assumes that full decarbonization can take place alongside a doubling of the global economy by 2050. 

That economic growth should continue is simply assumed by virtually every international institution and government. Policymakers connect growth with more jobs and better living standards, and use it as the primary measure of societal well-being. They also point to growth as a way to keep pace with the rising energy demands and economic needs of a growing global population…. 

….Degrowth advocates say that deprioritizing growth could allow countries to redirect their attention to policies that actually boost people’s quality of life: shorter working hours, for example, as well as minimum income requirements, guaranteed affordable housing and health care, free internet and electricity, and more widespread public transit. 

“Degrowth is as much oriented toward human well-being and social justice as it is toward preventing ecological crises,” Vogel said.

Crucially, degrowth advocates mainly promote the concept in high-income countries, which are historically responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions. They acknowledge that many developing countries still need to grow their economies in order to raise populations out of poverty. Those existing inequities, they argue, put even more onus on developed countries to shrink polluting industries and cut their consumption, in order to balance out other countries’ necessary growth.

Several experts told Grist it was a “distraction” to ask whether decoupling greenhouse gas emissions from economic growth is possible, as this question elides many areas of agreement between green growth and degrowth advocates. Both sides agree that moving off fossil fuels will require a massive buildout of renewable energy infrastructure, and that countries need to urgently improve living standards and reduce inequality.

“The goal is to get to zero emissions and climate stabilization” while improving people’s well-being, said Pollin, the University of Massachusetts Amherst professor. “Those are the metrics I care about.”

They also broadly agree that it’s time to move past GDP as a primary indicator of societal progress. But that’s easier said than done. We are “structurally dependent” on GDP growth, as Raworth put it. Publicly traded companies, for example, prioritize growth because they’re legally obligated to act in the best interest of shareholders. Commercial banks fuel growth by issuing interest-bearing loans, and national governments face pressure to grow the economy in order to reduce the burden of public and private debt.

Making any meaningful shift away from focusing on GDP would require dismantling these structural dependencies. “It’s massively challenging, there’s no doubt about that,” Vogel told Grist. “But I think they’re necessary changes … if we want to avert a real risk of catastrophic environmental changes and tackle long-standing social issues.”

For more articles and blogs on Climate Change, Economics, Environment, Fossil Fuels, GDP Growth, Global Trade, Koch Network, Nationalism, Political Strategy and Tanton Network, click through: 

Limits to Growth – Jorgen Randers – Club of Rome

Posted on April 5, 2022

Reposting a 2012 article from Renew Economy Australia from Giles Parkinson on Jorgen Randers of Norway in ‘Randers: What does the world look like in 2052?’

Randers had been a proponent of the Club of Rome ideas including the promotion of the ‘limits to growth’ (debunked by University of Sussex research team in ‘Models of Doom’), resource depletion, climate and population.

Greenwashing – Club of Rome – Limits to Growth – Astroturfing Fossil Fuels – The Guardian

Posted on July 27, 2021

The Guardian in article following, is a victim of astroturfing again on the environment, presenting the Club of Rome and MIT’s ‘Limits to Growth’ model as science, and resurrected by media as contemporary, along with obsessions about Malthusian ‘population growth’ (and ‘immigration’) by non-scientists i.e. ZPG and other related ‘theories’ such as Lovelock’s ‘Gaia’.

Following is an article written by presumably a non science journalist Edward Helmore highlighting KPMG’s Gaya Herrington (econometrics and sustainability studies, again not science) who is a researcher and advisor for the Club of Rome predicting catastrophe.

Tactics Against Bipartisan Climate Change Policy in Australia – Limits to Growth?

Posted on November 30, 2019

A recent ABC article ‘The day that plunged Australia’s climate change policy into 10 years of inertia’, endeavoured to describe how climate change consensus was broken by former Liberal MP Andrew Robb who claimed he had followed the ‘Limits to Growth’ (LTG) theory via the Club of Rome but changed his mind, hence withdrew support on bipartisan support on carbon emission measures.

Degrowth and Steady State Economy or Eugenics for the Environment Debunked

Posted on June 30, 2022

In recent years with pressure on fossil fuels and the need to transition to renewable sources, now compounded by Russian invasion of Ukraine, has seen renewed promotion of ZPG Zero Population Growth with Herman Daly and Club of Rome inspired ‘steady-state economy’ and ‘degrowth’ as scientific theories; part of a crossover between nativist Tanton Network and libertarian Koch Network.

Anglosphere Triangle – Immigration – Environment – Population Growth – Radical Right Libertarians

Posted on August 4, 2021

While the fossil fuel supported ZPG Zero Population Growth, with Malthusian and eugenics based arguments round the environment, population growth and immigration being mainstreamed, especially by the time of Trump, who were the prime movers of the past?

The following article and excerpts of Berger, looking through Focauldian prism, follows some of the history of this movement including now deceased John Tanton (‘the most influential unknown man in America’), Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb) et al. and organisations that emerged from ZPG including FAIR, CIS, US English, then IRLI and SLLI with their links to the Koch Network ‘bill mill’ ALEC, leading up to the Trump White House.

Malthus on Population Growth, Economy, Environment, White Nationalism and Eugenics

Malthus on Population Growth, Economy, Environment, White Nationalism and Eugenics

In recent years we have observed the reemergence of the British nineteenth century preacher Malthus and his ideas on population, via groups like Population Matters in the United Kingdom, with a focus upon negatives round the supposed direct relationship between increasing population (growth), economic growth or impairment, and environmental degradation.

However, Malthusian population principles have less relevance in the 21st century, especially when presented via scientifically untested ideas or philosophy versus the now available grounded science research and data analysis. Further, there is very limited and sub-optimal data to support Malthusian claims which have returned to become a weapon or political tactic. This leveraging of Malthus includes white nationalism, fossil fuels and environmental degradation, apportioning blame for related issue on undefined population growth, as opposed to the lack of good policy development, on actual causes i.e. fossil fuel pollution, global warming through emissions; used to deflect from inertia of governments and create antipathy towards existing and future ‘immigrants’ including babies, from the non European world.

This article shows that Malthusian population principles are neither valid nor reliable when analysed through science and data, according to credible research, but have become central to political and corporate media messaging, especially the population – environment nexus, as opposed to fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Firstly we will explore the background on Malthus, his theory, impacts now upon politics and society, followed by critique from demographers, science journalists and related, based upon valid research; then future directions.

Malthus Background

Malthus was from an English family of means and although his father was a proponent of the enlightenment, not his son Malthus, who was pessimistic when it came to fertility and economic growth. Malthus released his first edition of ‘An Essay on the Principle of Population’ (1798) then followed by a second version using data in 1803, with more focus upon Europe and data that was available (Avery, 2013 & Dunn, 1998)

The second version also focused less on philosophy and more on politics or the economy, based upon the available data which not only linked population growth with economic growth but with poverty too e.g. insufficient food supply; concurrently Adam Smith and the ‘invisible hand’ of the markets emerged via ‘Wealth of Nations’ (Ibid.).

Later Keynes claimed that economic growth ameliorated negative effects of population growth, to be followed from the seventies by Paul Ehrlich’s ‘Population Bomb’ highlighting dangers, recommending population control, extrapolated from high population growth in the 1930s; replicating Malthus’ pessimism, but with catastrophic predictions (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020).

Malthus was influenced by his upbringing and environment leading to his pessimism on humanity i.e. population growth and the ability to support larger numbers in a less developed world. Whether his theories or principles are valid or reliable have been over shadowed by repackaging of Malthusian ideology in recent times by e.g. Ehrlich via ZPG Zero Population Growth, and presented as liberal, environmental and grounded in valid research theory.

What was Malthus’ Theory?

Malthus presented his findings, as others do to this day, but hypotheses presented as tested theory, are still not supported by science. While Malthus saw (high) population growth amongst his own community without means, he cited the need for ‘preventative checks’ including marriage and contraception leading to lower birth rates, but also supported by ‘positive checks’ including famine, war and epidemics (Avery, 2013).

Malthus also linked population with subsistence and presented as direct balanced relationship, possibly influencing Smith’s ‘invisible hand’, but using U.S. data, claimed population doubling every generation versus agriculture and related technological innovations, the latter being only linear or much slower. Hence, no balance or difficult to maintain balance between population growth and accessible resources, while claiming a correlation between the two factors as the ‘first principle of population dynamics’. (Avery, 2013 & Dunn, 1998).

This led onto Malthus developing the ‘EFP Equal Fitness Paradigm’ for a ‘steady state population’ with each parent producing one child, hence two per couple (Dunn, 1998), which is less than the current recommended replacement fertility rates. Not only was population growth correlated with resources including food and subsistence, but also claiming growing supply of workers would mean lower wages (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020).

Malthus’ theory cited both preventative and positive checks with unclear evidence of correlations for either, then extended further into EFP ‘steady-state population’ to avoid future issues round food supply, wages etc. correlated with population growth. In addition to history of population analysis and demography, what has happened and what will happen according to Malthus?

The Future According to Malthus?

According to Malthus, war was caused by population growth but it also reduces the latter; nowadays Malthus may state that stable global population and no war are imperative (Avery, 2013). On the other hand this was countered by Marx who disagreed with Malthusian analysis, versus supporting science, technological progress and speeding up these supporting factors for human health and the economy (to counter population growth issues) (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020)

Of related interest was how Malthus also influenced Darwin’s ‘On the Origin of Species’ based round good genetic variations being preserved, and unfavourable being destroyed, leading onto formation of new species. However, the same adaptation or evolution has allowed human population to become healthier and grow; resulting in higher birth rates and population growth, over death rates (Dunn, 1998).

Meanwhile, to this day we have observed an unwitting return to Malthusian constructs related to fertility, population growth, immigration, resource limits and the natural environment; presenting politically as being of the centre or left. This is exemplified by the founding of ZPG Zero Population Growth by Paul ‘Population Bomb’ Ehrlich, John ‘passive eugenics’ Tanton and Paul ‘Sea Shepherd’ Watson in the seventies alongside ‘Limits to Growth’ and the ‘Steady-State Economy’ economy ‘theories’, promoted through the influential Club of Rome, with same ideas and organisational offshoots in the UK and Australia (Ibid.).

This has led to rivalry between Malthisian school and those described as ‘Cornucopians’ supporting science, technology and related innovations, to lessen the impact of Malthusian or natural constraints through the ‘invisible hand’ of the free market or ‘natural balance’ (Ibid.).

Although science does not support Malthusian population principles they have become central via Ehrlich et al. in promoting control of population growth through opposing undefined ‘immigration’ in the first world, and fertility in the developing world; as causes of environmental degradation and sustainability.

The Reality of Population and Malthus Now?

With the benefits of modern science, technology and research methods Malthusian population principles can be tested on more substantial and diverse data. Malthus population predictions of doubing every generation or 25 years have not come true i.e. from 800 million to only 7.8 billion in 2020 with fertilty on a continuous decline, annual population increase has continued to slow, now 1%, and population numbers are qualified as estimates by most sources (Worldometers.info, 2021), are often not comparable due to differences in definitions, methodology and data collection.

Malthus’ formula from two centuries ago would have had current population at 100+ billion, and related, none of Ehrlich’s Malthusian predictions have come true either.

Other proxy issues are often claimed or correlated without compelling evidence e.g. increasing migration to cities is claimed to increase per capita resource use and meat consumption, requiring more fossil fuel use (Dunn, 1998); this seems to preclude ‘preventative measures’ through legislation and personal responsiblity or lifestyle changes.

Related and significant ideas were also promoted by The Club of Rome, which commissioned the Malthusian influenced ‘Limits to Growth’ and the ‘Steady-State Economy’ which helped promote the supposed negatives of human population through proxy issues of resource depletion and environmental degradation (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020).

There have been more nuanced attempts to relate economic growth in a negative sense with population growth, but while Malthus lived through the fossil resource dependent industrial revolution, this has declined as a share of GDP (Dunn, 1998). However, Malthusian school to this day views increases in GDP or economic growth as negative due to supposed dependence upon industrial use and linking of fossil fuels, population growth and environmental degradation; ignoring the positive impacts of science, technology and innovation plus the desire of poorer people or working classes to improve their economic situation (Ibid.).

Related is how Malthusian principles also influenced Darwin on ‘natural selection and the theory of evolution’ which was then extended further by the eugenics movement e.g. worker versus immigrant nexus when it is about all workers knowing their place in societal and industrial hierarchy, blaming poor for famine, ‘survival of the fittest’ and for example describing the Irish famine as positive (Montano & Garcia – Lopez, 2020 & Shermer, 2016). Again, when this is added to supposed outcomes or dynamic of population growth leading to economic growth, resource depletion and environmental degradation e.g. carbon emisisons, but ignoring increase in service industries not using same resources (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020)

Later research into eugenics was conducted in the U.K., Germany and U.S. with support of U.S. oligarchs such as Rockefeller (Standard Oil, later Exxon Mobil/Chevron) and Ford, not only operating in Germany through World War Two, but supporting eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (Shermer, 2016).

The Malthusian population movement has been accused of promoting eugenics versus poor or lower classes, non European minorities and immigrants i.e. dog wistled, to deflect blame and responsibility from governments, and the fossil fuel sectors for global warming, carbon emissions and environmental degradation.

Critics & Criticism

Many if not all the issues viewed through and correlated with the population principles of Malthus have not come to pass. Nowadays scientists and media have access to more related research into population, economics, society and environment through better data analysis following science process. Issues to emerge through this have been inconsistent methodologies in data collection, analysis and presentation precluding many comparisons. Meanwhile, forecasts of Malthus proven incorrect e.g. improved food production has increased faster than population, lower fertility and birth rates leading to population stabilisation while economic growth has increased without significant population growth (Montano & Garcia-Lopez, 2020).

According to Vollset et al. (2020) regarding demographic impacts, that while variances in population, structure and growth are factors for nations, governments and society to consider, it should not resort to comparing humans with animals when green revolution, irrigation and fertiliser, i.e. science and technology have found solutions.

Shermer (2016) adds that as opposed to Malthusian principles still being promoted, the solutions are and have been education, empowerment of women, birth control, economic growth to bring the poor out of poverty supported by democracy, globalisation and free trade.

We have had an over view of Malthus’ early life, population theory, future according to Malthus, then based upon science, the reality and criticisms. Much of the negativity round population and growth from past two centuries to now, especially in the Anglo world, is unwarranted when not only have catastrophic predictions not occurred, it is being used tactically to deny progress on environmental regulations, transition from fossil fuels and blaming any perceived negative on undefined immigrants responsible for population growth.

The latter allows political, government, business and societal elites to avoid future issues, responsibilities and short medium term costs to maintain an optimum environment versus leaving it for future generations to clean up for a higher cost.

References:

Avery J. S. (2013). Malthus. Cadmus Journal [online]. 1(6). [Viewed 15 January 2021]. Available from: https://www.cadmusjournal.org/article/issue-6/malthus

Dunn P. M. (1998). Thomas Malthus (1766–1834): population growth and birth control. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal [online]. 78(1), F76–F77. [Viewed 15 January 2021]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1720745/pdf/v078p00F76.pdf

Montano B. & García-Lopez M. (2020). Malthusianism of the 21st century. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators. [online]. 6(100032). [Viewed 15 January 2021] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2020.100032.

Shermer M. (2016). Why Malthus Is Still Wrong Why Malthus makes for bad science policy. Scientific American. [online] [Viewed 15 January 2021] Available from:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/?print=true 2/4

Vollset S., Goren E., Yuan Chun-Wei, Cao, J., Smith A., Hsiao T., Bisignano C., Azhar G., Castro E., Chalek J., Dolgert A., Frank T., Fukutaki K., Hay S., Lozano R., Mokdad A., Nandakumar V., Pierce M., Pletcher M., Robalik T., Steuben K., Yong Wunrow H., Zlavog B., Murray C. (2020). Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet [online] 396, pp. 1285–306. [Viewed 15 January 2021] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(20)30677-2