C J Morgan, "There is no inner cabal of 'leaders' who dictate policy, unlike other political parties in Australia, and certainly the polar opposite of how I imagine the Vatican works."

That is all cobblers for sure and you know it. Bob Brown thought nothing of walking over the newly elected Greens member of the House of Representatives Adam Bandt, to second guess and deny Bandt's stated intention to support Labor. Did Brown even talk with Bandt first? There is no evidence that he did. Second, Bob Brown has said he has entered into negotiations (not deals he says) with the LNP, but Adam Bandt is no-where in the picture. Obviously to Brown, Bandt is no more than a puppet and an excuse to beard Gillard and Abbott in the lower house.

Of course Bob Brown acts like the Pope, but he is cunning enough to present the image of a democratic leadership (Uncle Bob) so the Greens and he himself are difficult to pin down on policy and decisions. It is all part of those Green 'tactics' you have often muttered darkly about. However most would see such behaviour as misleading and unethical. No wonder Brown was kept out of the recent Greens' election campaign and now partnership in government in Tasmania. The Tassie voters want 'green' as in environmental considerations in policy, not green as in convenient camouflage for radical social policy without mandate.

Federally, it is because the major parties are pre-occupied with opposing each other that the Greens can get away with an ambiguously worded, conflicting but likely radical social policy. As you have previously insinuated but now boldly assert, the mainland Greens are far more interested in their social agenda - the green militancy is all for show.

As far as population is concerned, the Greens' first priority of promoting and extending 'diversity' easily trumps sustainability, which is why Bob Brown only shadow-boxes at (over-)population and sustainability, while wanting to keep the immigration spigot turned wide open.

Cornflower, we know that you hate the Greens, but you really should stop just making things up.

You know nothing about the Greens' decison-making processes or structure. While Bob Brown is the parliamentary leader, he is not the leader of the party - indeed, the Greens don't have one as such. Tactical parliamentary negotiations are quite different to substantive policy development processes, and in any case Greens parliamentarians are answerable to the State and National Councils of the party.

As it happens, Adam Bandt has reiterated his intention to support an ALP government, so your premise is shown to be the bunkum that it is. Nobody tells anybody else what to do in the Greens - they simply don't have the authority to do so.

Also, I've never heard anybody except you refer to Bob Brown as "Uncle Bob".

Fair criticism is one thing, but can you please stop fabricating stuff?

C J Morgan

Heh, heh, since you are the Greens' self-appointed Number One supporter whether they want you or not, that extreme defensiveness and personal biff are only to be expected I guess. Sure rots your credibility though.

Here you are C J, pick yourself out in this and stop taking yourself so seriously, because no-one else does:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/25/greensvoters/

"Extreme defensiveness", Cornflower? Hardly, but if you post utter bulldust I'm happy to correct you.

"Personal biff"? It's pretty obvious you're just trying to pick a fight, but I'm not going to accommodate you.

Why don't you just try debating honestly for a change?

Have a lovely day.

Baygon;
As we will not have control of energy depletion I do not think
we will have control of population depletion.
Over the next 20 years or so we will need to train enough farmers to
have about 50 to 100 times the number of farmers that we currently have
engaged in farming. These figures must be rubbery as we have no idea if
we will be able to apply electric power to farm machinery.

We cannot rely on coal unless we stop exports now as world peak coal is
about 2025.

@Bazz you are an optimist! The latest figures on peak coal suggests 2011 as the peak year.
However, I agree with you - the notion that we can avoid a catastrophic collapse as nature intervenes, is probably widely optimistic.
For many countries around the world there is simply not the option to shift to a sustainable lifestyle. In Australia we still have a chance to create communities that can feed themselves. It is only a small chance it would mean major changes in areas of high urban density and a policy shift in other states which are still rezoning agricultural land for residential use. (Think about it - a hectare of agricultural land could feed perhaps 20 people - turn that into a residential estate for 200 people and not only do you lose the food supply for those 20 people you also have to find an additional 10 hectares of equally productive land to feed the new residents.)
The other part of the equation is that the income from primary production has gone down about 20% whereas costs have increased by about the same number - hence it should come as no surprise that we are losing farm expertise.
Yet whilst it seems to me that there are lots of ordinary folk who understand that we need to make major changes not one of the three parties seem to understand that we simply cannot continue the way we are.
Given that most people would have expected the Greens to understand this best it is clear from CJ Morgan's posts in this thread that not only do they not grasp the problem they are unapologetic about it.