The bio note appended to Max Rheese's article should acknowledge that the 'Australian Environment Foundation' is a front for the Institute of Public Affairs, which in turn is a front for big business. A front group for a front group - more front than Myers!

Rheese says that in the 2004 election the major environmental groups outspent the political parties by a factor of three. But of course the political parties outspent environment groups by orders of magnitude. Many of Rheese's other statements are equally ridiculous.

I like the comment on the poor farmers watching their paddocks consumed by monoculture regrowth and his assertion that clearing it to plant a monoculture of pasture or crops is somehow better. And his laughable assertion that the river red gum forests NEED cattle grazing them to remain healthy. How the forests developed this symbiotic relationship with farmers and their livestock in 200 years is not mentioned. No Dams policies have broad support in the community as witnessed in Tasmania, The Hunter, Sthn Queensland and Victoria.

A shill for the pollution industry and as dishonest as they come.
Its all about MONEY. For these scum NOTHING is more important.

Jim Green's comments are absurd, the AEF and IPA are perpetually cashstarved. Max Rheese's piece should be reprinted in the MSM if at all possible, perhaps Jim could mobilise some of that mythical support for AEF by Exxon et al.

More seriously, Peter Spencer should be encouraged to come down from his tower, eat a good steak, and organise the bush clearing he needs to have done, and I can suggest a few good scientists who pro bono will serve as defence witnesses to prove a net increase in CO2 absorption from his clearing. Jim Green's track record of deceit makes him an ideal prosecution witness.

This article exposes the environmentalist industry for what it is: a cynical exercise by minorities to provide themselves with good well paid jobs and perks, along with unlimited jet-setting, which they tell the rest of us we should cut down, or cut out for the good of the planet.

These confidence tricksters have to desperately maintain their lies to keep the goodies they have grown used to.

Like all NGO’s, the environmental industry has much to answer for.

Today, even Kevin Rudd doubts that anything will come of the Copenhagen Conference – a costly and useless gab-fest foisted on the world by the environmental scamming lobby, the corrupt IPCC and scientists grabbing for grants

Who is distorting the truth?
And who is driven by ideology--and yet pretends not to be.

The Oz "environment" foundation has direct links and/or shares the same IDEOLOGICALLY driven agendas as the "Heart"-land Institute, an outfit which specializes in lies and misinformation.

There is a letter in the Oz this morning pointing out that there have been copious errors found in Ian Plimers now influential book which he refuses to publicly acknowledge. And that he also still refuses to answer or respond to some very challenging questions by George Monbiot.

Meanwhile I highly recommend a remarkable book by Curtis White titled "the Barbaric Heart: Faith, Money, and the Crisis of Nature".

A book which describes the toxic world-view promoted by the Oz "environment" Foundation, the IPA and the "Heart"(dead) Institute.

Max. Congratulations on an excellent article. The best that I have read in OLO.

I agree with your opening remarks regarding the benefits that we all have gained from the efforts of conservationists over the past 40 years or so. To add to your list, we now have clean water in our harbours and beaches - Sydney Harbour is a particularly good example. And the benefits have been achieved in many places. London for example now has clean air, as does most of Europe.

We have also gained from the overall increase in environmental responsibility. A simple example relates to trash in the streets. Australian towns and cities are remarkably clean most of the time, in stark contrast to towns and cities in some other parts of the world.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have rational discussion and fact based debate on the issues you raise. However, it seems that that isn't possible in this modern era. The whole discussion has been politicised. To ask rational questions is to be labelled a 'denier' engaging in 'conspiracy theories'.

We need our leaders in politics, the media, business and universities to demand much higher standards of discourse. The MSM, particularly Fairfax and 'Our ABC' have much to be responsible for in dumbing down the debate. Unfortunately.