Ericc, you can disagree with my post but you can't argue against it, it's Iron clad.
The greatest environmental catastrophe will occur if the White countries are degraded to the point that the good will of White people toward the Third World dries up or we simply can't provide the assistance the third world is accustomed to.

Nothing is invented in the third world anymore, little is manufactured from indigenous technologies and the most serious environmental damage (deforestation for example) is being perpetrated by third worlders.
You have to face facts, Africans are not going to become environmentalists, skilled migrants and refugees are going to side with their benefactors, the polluting Oligarchs,their owned political class and the god of Western consumerism. If climate change is to be ameliorated then WHITE people and to a lesser extent Asians are going to be the driving force behind change.
The Green movement cannot be taken seriously while it focuses in Anti Racism and homosexual "Rights", neither of which have anything to do with the environment.
Believe me, coming from a White nationalist background I can recognise "blocking" issues when I see them.
We have the "Jewish" question and "Who's White?" which are always held up as reasons not to proceed, Anti Racism and Homosexual rights are their Leftist analogue, they eat up precious time and resources and divert energy from the real issues.
The Green movement is now in the pocket of big money, it works to the government agenda.
Take my earlier post to heart, the only way you will achieve change is to get rid of the source of the problem through revolution.
If the environment is the most important issue at hand then why in God's name are you all sitting around waiting for PERMISSION to act from the people at the root of the problem?
A ragtag bunch of little brown men can best a Western power any day of the week but White people can't even talk about revolution without someone wetting their pants and going crying to the Feds.
Greenies aren't serious otherwise they'd be DOING something.

JoM “I wonder how you'd respond the the idea that "Multiculturalism" was designed to fail in order to bring about Racial assimilation?”

Not sure what you are suggest JoM but ultimately, “assimilation” will prevail because for “multiculturalism” to be “sustained” would mean its proponents would demand people of different culture would retain their “ethnic purity” by not intermarrying (intermarriage being the primary path for “assimilation”) and any ethnic minority which thinks that is a sustainable prognosis is seriously deluding itself to the point of extinction and I say that as an Anglo-Saxon, recalling that to be an “Anglo-Saxon means you are part “Angle, part Saxon and probably a bit of ancient Briton, some Celtic and of course mixed with bits of Roman, Norman, Gaelic Viking… oh do I need to go on?

Designed or not, multiculturalism will fail because it contains the seeds of its own destruction within the abnormal and abhorrent philosophy, which thinks it could possibly work but then, so many theories of collectivism harbor similar failngs and this is just another one, that it should be no surprise to anyone.
Whilst I doubt there is great difference between our views, I personally, see no merit in diluting the quality of our legal tradition by abdicating anything to Sharia law or the barbaric practices of a medieval religious-feudalism.
I always assumed among the multiplicity of reasons motivating Muslims migrating to a Christian country was to adopt the practices of that Christian country, as is demanded (in reverse) by Christians who may wish to migrate to any number of Muslim countries (the Seychelles to name but one)

Ah Johnny Rotten seems to think he has the right to be obnoxious to everyone … I am adopting a new policy for response to the likes of him

Susieonline different eating habits and food shops etc. is not a hallmark or valid claim of evidence of “multiculturalism”. Such things have been common in many countries in which the operators of such establishments have fully assimilated into the host nation before “multiculturalism” was invented.

Can we trust “Greens” on sustainability or on any other matter, at all?

The environmental movement was infiltrated by Trotskyites and other leftwing extremists back in the early 1990’s and before, even before the USSR and its Empire of Evil started to collapse.

Doubtless, the offensive collectivist politics which embrace lies, deception, revolution and violence are the seed-stock of every exaggeration, misrepresentation and collectivist "restrictive" / "levelling" policy, initiated in the name of “green activism”.

The environmental movement is a “Trojan horse” of leftwing extremists and their gullible helpers, the “useful idiots” as Lenin called them.

It has been said that in Tasmanian politics, an allegiance between a mainstream party and minority greens is a “poison chalice”.

Trust a Green like you would a rabid dog and maybe adopt the same survival policy, forget any “allegiance” and just shoot the dog before it has the opportunity to bite, not after.

In reply to C J Morgan.

You say:

"...., the Greens have four equally important philosophical 'pillars', namely

* Ecological sustainability
* Social justice
* Participatory democracy
* Peace and nonviolence

As a member of the Greens ....Any population policy formulated by the Greens has to take into account all four of their philosophical pillars. Unfortunately that's not enough for some people who view population in unidimensional terms."

As a one time Green supporter, Let me say what I see the issue as being: The Greens cannot have an honest and realistic Policy of "Ecological sustainability" which so obviously excludes references to population growth and population issues. Neither will they achieve the other policy issue goals unless they face up to population questions.

My problem is that the Green party, and its leader, do not have any integrity on the population issue. They will not address it frankly and honestly. I do not expect integrity from the major parties, but I do expect it from the Greens. Unfair I know. So perhaps in this sense I am being unidimensional.

Hi there last word. Unsurprisingly, I disagree with you about the integrity of the Greens. Greens policy development, like all decison-making processes within the Greens, works on a consensus model. Ergo, unless advocates of a particular policy position can persuade the great majority of other Greens as to its virtues, it doesn't get up. With respect to population policy, clearly there is no consensus in the party with respect to the kinds of measures you and others desire.

The Greens' adherence to their consensus model of participatory democracy is indicative of their integrity. Indeed, to have joined the Laberals in their poll-driven 'race to the bottom' approach to population issues would indicate a lack of integrity on the part of the Greens, similar to that which we expect from the Laberals.

Not that they ignore population policy entirely. The current version is available here

http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

As I've said before, as a Greens member I'd like to see this policy strengthened substantially - but the way to do that is to engage in the policy process rather than taking my bat and ball and sledging from the sidelines.

@C J Morgan
This thread started as a response to Michael's analysis of the flaws in the Greens population policy to respond by simply referring us back to the Green's policy is essentially stating that you agree with his analysis.
As far as the consensus model of democracy goes then your description of what happened is an even greater indictment on the Greens.
Indeed implicit in your analysis of the reasons why the policy is constructed the way it is is an assumption that it is just a "race to the bottom" The problem here is that the Greens allowed the Laberals to hijack the debate by allowing them to focus just on 'boat people' - refugees are not central to the population debate - the real problem with our population growth lies with policies that encourage migration . The fact that the Greens had no one in the party capable of joining the dots and demonstrating that without a robust population policy their environmental credentials are in tatters suggests that the majority of the Greens who participate in these policy discussions clearly have no understanding of what is meant by sustainable. (Remember that is one of your four pillars)