Individual

Isn't there enough instability in the Labour Party without a silvertail like Malcolm joining?

The author takes some pains to identify the potentially mutually beneficial relationship between development and care for the environment - the underlying principle being that development at the expense of environmental sustainability is in reality unsustainable. I would agree wholeheartedly with this proposition.

And what response does the author get? A meaningless debate on AGW. How very disappointing.

Julia's (or Red's) approach to 'Green', is a carbon tax, a mining tax and wealth redistribution - a genuinely socialist ideological approach - whilst refusing attempts to recognise the value of preserving prime agricultural land - but rather giving precedence to mining over agriculture (and food security), and over most environmental and cultural heritage concerns, and even over concerns for public health and for water quality and security. A blinkered focus on GDP and fiscal surplus chasing, irrespective of the ultimate cost to future sustainability and quality of life.

Ok, we don't have a clear picture of Lib/Nat (or Blue) proposals or policies towards long term sustainability and sustainable development, but I venture it could scarcely be worse than the current scenario. If anything, the current Labor dumping on the Greens presents distinct headwaters for any future environmental interests.

Without a continuing sustainable and meaningful biodiversity, what purpose and what substance can there be to human existence? A lonely, steel and concrete, nuclear-fueled monoculture of humanity - with only an ipad, TV and Facebook for comfort. How low can we go?

Science is slowly revealing the hidden possibilities of our amazing planetary biodiversity - to medicine, to food and fodder production, and to the wealth of human experience. We risk so many possibilities and so much future value in our haste to rip and reap and ravage. A line needs to be drawn, irrespective of AGW concerns.

It's always amusing to come onto this site and see people still trying to argue against AGW theory as if every single scientific academy in the world is wrong.

It's like going back in time. My internet speed must be set at 88mph.

"My internet speed must be set at 88mph"

No David that is just your IQ. People who resort to the consensus argument to support the lie of AGW generally have low IQs, or are liars.

"Without a continuing sustainable and meaningful biodiversity, what purpose and what substance can there be to human existence?"

Pure junk consisting of motherhood terms which have no meaning or relevance other then being on at-shirt walking down King st in Newtown.

"It's always amusing to come onto this site and see people still trying to argue against AGW theory as if every single scientific academy in the world is wrong. "

Sadly, scientific academies are governed by politically correct executives who are members of the IPCC fan club. However, there is at least one notable exception -- the Russian academy is not conned by warmist ideology.

Plant 3.1,
Unfortunately no one bothered to point out to you that the
url you gave is to a story that was an embarrassment to the IPCC.
The story was not scientific and was never reviewed formally and
predicted that the glaciers would be gone by about now if I remember
correctly. The IPCC formally withdrew the story about the Himalayan
glaciers. A later study suggested it was possible that they could
possibly be gone in several hundred years.

It is like many of the AGW "official" stories, they have been exaggerations
that have had to be "cleaned up".