I am standing on the service road for a turbine on a wind farm in Far North Qld. Each of these turbines is over 250 metres high and the blades are about 85m, meaning that very wide access corridors are needed. Each platform is 1-2ha. There will be about 31,000 of these around Australia by 2032 and many, like this one, will be in high biodiversity areas. The beautiful Australian bush and many rural communities are under threat like never before. Whole regions, like the Darling Downs, will become industrial wastelands with wind farms and data centres springing up everywhere with virtually no pre-planning and they will join the thousands of coal seam gas wells and associated infrastructure already there. The bush and urban allies need to resist this. I think we should demand a moratorium on these potentially destructive developments until the Australian community is satisfied that there are adequate safeguards.

Yes. The IGR makes clear that high migration will only limit - not stop - increases in the median age & health/aged care costs as a share of GDP. So the issue is the trade-off between how much it curbs health/aged care cost per worker vs the extra infrastructure cost per worker.

Population growth can boost GDP- but that does NOT mean it's good for the "economy" when you analyse it from a resilience, sustainability & per capita outcome perspective. The idea that GDP adequately reflects the state of the economy/the nation is a seriously bad one.

Just for the record: I'm in possibly the world's smallest club: "The environmentalists who acknowledge the role human numbers (population) play in ecological impacts". In fact, most of the vitriol I receive, ... is from "environmentalists".

This was known about 20 years ago. I recall a friend who was a lecturer telling me about it then.