As long as all the industry/business lobby groups are removed as well.

The amount of money is very small compared with the funds available for advertising and lobbying that business groups have.

This opinion piece indicates that business groups do not like the information that the NGOs are providing.

Reducing dependency on coal is not a bad aim in the long term. How do you know what all taxpayers want. There was no referendum?

However as far as this article's content I would agree that governments allocate too much money on grants funding but not only in the environmental sector. Some monies are put to direct use where there are visible gains eg. tree planting, river bank protection and water saving measures.

No lobby group should be funded by government including business councils and the like. Taxpayers might also have something to say about bail outs of loggers, banks and other businesses. The money spent on environmental groups mentioned in the article pale by comparison to business grants and bail outs.

it is pleasing to learn that state and federal governments provide funding for green groups that have as their goal the improvement of the lives of all - and the world - by reduction in greenhouse gases, nurturing nature in positive ways, treating the earth and the land as they ought to be treated - namely with care and ecological soundness. i had thought that governments were so intent on maintaining devotion to the notion of 'economic (ir)rationalism' (some new name now, but still the same philosophy) that funding of the enlightened sort would be no longer a priority or even honoured in any way. thank you for a most enlightening article which has provided me with great pleasure - both as regards the knowledge that governments are broader in their fairness vis-a-vis funding than i had thought, and that green groups are receiving some financial support.

on the jobs in the latrobe valley - no one wants anyone to lose her/his job and we must therefore aim for alternative means of energy which will provide good, sound, environmentally friendly jobs. funding green groups means that alternative forms of energy, and hence more jobs (jobs in the nature described), will be promoted to sustainability.

What a load of garbage;

Out of curiosity Asher Judah, should the government also ignore lobby groups, like, say the Libertarian lobby group that YOU are working for, the "Institute of Public Affairs"?

Strangely this whole article actually just attacks people who oppose large-scale development that impacts 'on the environment, a community, or existing industries'
Now could you please point out where people's standard of living is compromised by an organization that demands people's standards of living (in both residential AND business) to be upheld?
(using your own reference).

Of course you don't, because you people never make (or even have) arguments, you make smears about people who get in your way and hope they stick. After all, I'm quite certain that a residential-rights group is a lot closer to "what the people want" than a libertarian mob acting on behalf of some construction developers who don't want to accommodate resident's wishes into their projects. So the only option left is to make stuff up.

Not so sure about this one Asher. I know it sounds crazy but governments do from time to time fund organisations which have agendas which are opposed to the prevailing social and economic paradigm.

It's good to have informed researched opinions. I think you simply disagree with what some of these lobby groups have to say.

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The New Right think tanks are full of intrigue caused by a desire for personal advancement, and therefore the opinions that emanate from such organisations can only be called ideology. Yet you have not called for a ban on funding from big business interests have you.