Now I'm scared

Here we have a minister in the Rudd Government espousing economic rationalism as though it is the perfect, unquestionable solution to all the world's ills.

There are endless problems associated with economic rationalism and the underlying assumption that 'governments are the problem not the solution'. Any quick study of economic and development history shows the importance of government intervention in a myriad of issues (e.g. public sanitation, public education, infrastructure development, taxation policies etc. etc.). Then there is, of course, the current capital crisis brought on by unrestricted, unregulated lending which has undermined the living standards of so many people round the world.

The reason so many on the Right refuse to accept the science behind global warming is because they are totally wedded to the theory of economic rationalism and free markets, and shut their eyes, ears and minds to any evidence that suggests they could be wrong. Environmentalism, in any form, threatens their world view because it challenges their underlying belief that we can enjoy unlimited, unending economic growth.

These are the true barbarians fighting against Enlightenment thinking. Judging by this article, I fear Craig Emerson may be one of them.

"We dared not release the results of the study for fear of being howled down as environmental vandals."

This is a sad admission of political cowardice and failure. One of the goals of compulsory public education should be to produce people who are capable of understanding logical arguments and making rational decisions. Achieve that, and then speak you can the truth without fear. But as long as our education system is farmed out to vested interests we will continue to make stupid and costly mistakes like the ones described in this article.

The idea of radical free market is much more frightening than anything environmentalists might come up with. (Although an ill-thought out emissions trading scheme might come close).

"Superstition and mysticism" - these are just cheap shots used by someone who cannot present a case with rational and sound arguments. For someone purporting to advocate "rational" over emotional this piece is rather emotive.

Emerson makes the assumption all things 'environmental' = without evidence. And he claims that those who challenge environmentalism are labelled heretics. Perhaps in the same way that anyone who challenges Emerson's "economic rationalism" as the holy grail of economics is labelled a heretic, or worse a mystic.

Does Emerson give the public any credit? Does he really believe that we don't know that a 90% fat free chicken is 10% fat. Does he really believe that we are not capable of reading labels, asking questions,doing our own research.

Yes there are those charlatans out there that might exploit a new market - ethical investments, organic food and environmental products. This is nothing new in the morality free economic system that we live and which Emerson perpetuates.

Why was his own government slow to react to public demands for better labelling on GM products for example. Allowing imported food that we can well produce here and with better knowledge of what chemicals and pathogens might be present. All for the mania of free trade which has done nothing to reduce the cost of food as constantly marketed by free trade zealots.

It is laughable that a politician is groaning about what he perceives as environmental 'spin' and yet cannot take off the rose coloured glasses to his own version.

Most agree foolish environmental reforms do us no favours if we are to make some meaningful progress towards sustainability. Like all worthy goals there will be hiccups and disagreements along the way and there will be articles like this one, with the intent to throw suspicion, fear, uncertaintly and doubt.

I think the public is smarter than this.

<< Does Emerson give the public any credit? Does he really believe that we don't know that a 90% fat free chicken is 10% fat. Does he really believe that we are not capable of reading labels, asking questions,doing our own research. >>

I agree. Each side in these sorts of debates assumes that it has the cold, hard facts, while those on the other side are simply being dogmatic. The result is an industry of semi-scientific shysters who cherry-pick data to make their argument look more valid. And they exist on both sides.

This stopped being a scientific debate the moment "An Inconvenient Truth" was released, and 99% of people simply turned to their preferred political party and said "tell me what to think".

This is a very old dispute. Much of it stems from the use of the word natural. The production of "natural" substances by "chemical" methods focussed the arguments. Wohler synthesised urea in 1828 and Kolbe synthesised acetic acid some time later. The proponents for a natural force that was different and better in a "natural" substance than in a university made synthetic substance were given a challenge - two samples of urea - one "natural" and one "synthetic" which was which? They could not distinguish them - they are IDENTICAL.

The two forms when pure were generally accepted as identical from about 1850. Challenge the naturalists to the same test today. Same result. Note that in Germany today the natural cause still exists - beer can only be made with ingredients made form natural sources - bacterial etc but not ?

This is a very old dispute. Much of it stems from the use of the word natural. The production of "natural" substances by "chemical" methods focussed the arguments. Wohler synthesised urea in 1828 and Kolbe synthesised acetic acid some time later. The proponents for a natural force that was different and better in a "natural" substance than in a university made synthetic substance were given a challenge - two samples of urea - one "natural" and one "synthetic" which was which? They could not distinguish them - they are IDENTICAL. The two forms when pure, were generally accepted as identical from about 1850. Challenge the naturalists to the same test today. Same result. Note that in Germany today the natural cause still exists - beer can only be made with ingredients made from natural sources - bacterial etc but not synthetic. Perhaps this is why the Greens movement began in Germany?