And Pigs might fly.

Accepting for arguments sake that statement 1 is true.

“The central environmental problem is of course global warming. It is now clear that such a thing is happening, that humans are doing it…..”

Plus the equally true statement 2:

“One of the latest concerns is the possibility that the Gulf Stream will cease operating and plunge northern Europe into a mini-ice age.”

Conclusion: End to global warming Q.E.D.

The distinction between politician skills and activist ones is important, not just in selecting staff or candidates, but as a matter of direction for the whole party. With all respect to activists, that's probably what I am, activists tend to develop a slogan consciousness, being able to clearly and concisely articulate specific campaigns and general overall positions for such things as media statements, but lack the capacity to integrate this into a realistic political strategy for change that deals with real power in real terms.

The greens have grown because of a developing ecological understanding in the whole community. They have not cleverly built this powerbase through campaigning and gathering political momentum.. The A.L.P. however (back in the dreamtime), was formed out of political struggle requiring clever political machinations as well as the brute strength of organised labour to influence, and indeed dominate the parliamentary sphere.. The Greens have no such history of struggle and use of power, only a history of side line commentary (activism).

The Australian Greens will stall at the point at which they become powerful.(e.g. Germany) Green solidarity is based on Apple pie statements about the environment and social justice. Opposition parties have a free hand to do and say as they want, especially if they have no hope of forming government and be obliged to deliver on their broad agendas. However it is not inconcievable that the A.L.P. could seek a coalition or "policy understandings" with he Greens to govern after the next election. This is the opportunity that many in the Greens are wishing for - The opportunity to exercise power in real terms. However many in the party are opposed to going in to government and many have not seriously considered the possibility. If the Greens want to go down that road it will require considerable "robust discussion" internally (e.g. the TELSTRA/forests debacle). Given the absence of a history of political power and struggle there is little collective wisdom or reference points in this discussion.
Such a dillemma will drop in their lap eventually, just as their present electoral base did.

56 Snouts in the Snowy trough - Labor and Liberal

Australian's could almost believe Bob Brown's call from the sidelines after the final vote for the sale of the Snowy River and it Hydro power facilities.

In future point scoring, Bob Brown who has been a very quiet objector to the Sale of this "Australian identity" and "Australian Icon" has pointed out that the 56 votes for its sale and the 7 against in the Senate, was not only represented by Liberal party Senators but also Labor.

Absent also amongst the seven that voted against the sale was the Family First party who have media blitzed their endearment and committment to Australian families.

Bob Brown's Greens party preferences and campaigns off the skirt tails of the Labor Party.
The Labor party have fed off the Greens first preference.

The Greens party have let down the Australian people that it suppose to represent, all in the name of getting a better foot in the door to parliament and staying hushed in the corridors of parliament.

What the Greens haven't grasp is that the "preference system" will never see their party in any true force, so their brown nosing have let Australian's down even further.

What has the Greens party done since they have taken up space in Government?

Bob Brown said that Labor got into bed with Liberals over the decision to sell the Snowy River and its utilities.

This leaves Bob and the Greens party as their pillow plumpers.

The Greens party and its leaders comments from Tasmania are a bit like the mysterious cancerous growth that is plagueing the Tasmanian devil and eventually killing them.

As has already been pointed out, it's easy to be an opposition party (especially a minor one) and have all sorts of interesting (or crazy, depending upon your sympathies) ideas because you'll never be held to account for them, especially if you can get elected by proportional representation into the senate. Reading the policies on the Greens' website a while back, I thought they broadly fell into two categories: the truly wacky that will never go mainstream; and the, "that would be lovely, but who's going to pay for it?" variety. The Greens seem to play at children's dress ups, where everyone gets to be a prince or princess, but no one actually has to be the person who grows or cooks the food for the banquets.

It also seems to me that many of the left's (not just the Greens') social policies are in direct competition with their environmental policies. eg. Bracks who wants one million more people in Victoria, yet who also wants to drastically cut water consumption.

I disagree that the environment will be the next big issue. There are local environmental issues that we may need to address (though life would go on). Then, there are a whole lot of international issues that I believe are beyond our control, despite our best (or worst) efforts. Why would China, India or any other rapidly developing nation that is much bigger than Australia want to get on the environmentalist bandwagon? They (perhaps rightly) see this century as theirs and they're not going to let anyone hold them back.

Global sized catastrophes aside, the rich, developed nations will find ways of getting out of a squeeze by throwing money (or bombs) at smaller nations to get what they want or get rid of what they don't want, and I also think they're hardly going to change their lifestyles or standards of living for the sake of the environment. Technology may allow us eventually to have our cake and eat it too, but if a choice has to be made, it won't be in favour of the environment.

The great opportunity for Australia, and hence for the Greens to pick up, is that being "green" is not necessarily a cost to the community. One can actually obtain a competitive advantage and raise living standards as much as an oxymoron as that may sound.

Michael Porter in his widely acclaimed tome, the "Competitive Advantage of Nations" shows how countries who faced difficulties overcome them spectacularly (eg ceramic tiles in Italy, space restraints in Japan which helped their microgoods industry). Australia already has an international reputation for quality and that can be built upon.

As the diehard city-slamming Perseus said earlier in the postings, "Pigs may fly", this attitude of turning a disadvantage into an international advantage will be strongly opposed by the reactionary rednecks in our society. The fact remains, there is a HUGE market available to Australia with a different mindset. Regulations and practices can be turned to advantage.

Sadly the rednecks, much of our industry and the Greens are still on their perches crowing with the back to the future.