Comments on Paul Kelly “The biggest game in town”, 10/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-biggest-game-in-town/story-e6frg6zo-1225852009335
Paul, while your beloved rational approach may seemingly appear to be reasonable, it is really based on false belief.
If you think it is impossible to plan population path or growth in advance, how can you plan the infrastructure for an uncertain population size or path? Isn't illogic at the extreme?
The Treasury argument on challenges from population aging in advanced countries is red herring! Old people, if they have enough assets, don't have increased burden to the economy or society at all, because they can have enough income from their productive and valuable assets.
Why the Treasury people can't see or understand that? It is beyond belief.
Further, while your suggested important missing element is not an issue at all, there is a really and extremely important missing element in the population debate. That is the emissions reduction or cap in the future.
For a given target of emissions level in the future based on current emissions (also population), the larger the future population the less the allowable per capita emissions, that means the lower per capita energy with the current energy mix, or much higher costs in reducing emissions.
I have not read Treasury's IGR, and don't know if they have ever considered it at all.
If they haven't, that means they are incompetent in their work! How can they miss such an important, so significant and urgent issue inevitably related to population in the future?
The whole premise on which the IGR has based on needs to be reconsidered, that is, both the population aging and emissions capping!