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.

I think the environment will take care of itself and us as well, problem is we won't have a say. Greens are no different to others, if you share preferences with the opposition, you've sold your soul.

But there is another subject that will rear its head very shortly, it won't effect us, just those that may have been born. The massive increase in infertility, sexual cancers and associated genital deformities that are caused by the water in the cities we drink, its polluted with a deadly chemical thats destroying the ability for the human race to reproduce. So the environment and the greens may not be relevant for the future, just our demise.

Perseus, great post. It made me laugh out loud. Not something a miserable scumbag like myself does much of these days. Many thanks.

And whilst on the matter of a good laugh, and at serious risk of being booted off for posting stuff well and truly off topic, this was the last good laugh I had about a week ago. Hopefully it won't offend too many -

"Tony Blair started jogging near his home in Chequers. Every day, he'd jog past a hooker standing on the same street corner. He learned to brace himself as he approached her for what was almost certain to follow.

'£50!' she'd shout from the kerb.
'No! £5!' Tony would fire back.

This ritual between Tony and the hooker became a daily occurrence. He'd run by and she'd yell, '£50!' He'd yell back, '£5!'

One day, Cherie decided that she wanted to accompany her husband on his jog.

As the jogging couple neared the working woman's street corner, Tony realised she'd bark her £50 offer and Cherie would wonder what he'd really been doing on all his past outings. He figured he'd better have a darn good explanation for the 'Boss'.

As they jogged into the turn that would take them past the corner, Tony became even more apprehensive than usual. Sure enough, there was the hooker. Tony tried to avoid the prostitute's eyes as she watched the pair jog past. Then, from the pavement, the hooker yelled, 'See what you get for five quid?!' "

Yo!

Author unknown.

Onlineopinion really is degrading. Where is a moderator when even petty and irrelevant jokes and trite giveaways get published?

This forum *could* be a valuable clearing house for opinions. Alas.

I agree with the posting of King Canute. The Greens are never going to make a useful contribution to the environment or for that matter anything else.

Who will deny that the environment in our cities and countryside is better now then say it was in nineteenth century. One example: 1858 was called in London the year of the Great stink. Some of you may recall the program on ABC TV as how an engineer, Joseph Bazalgette built the London sewers.

Who can deny that the expectation of life and infant mortality rates are lower now then say 100 years ago? True, modern wars like the wars of yesterday, may cause a short term reversal in the trend line. But overall the vital statistics for both the developed and developing world continue to improve.

Yet almost every advance in Public Health including vaccination, Pasteurisation, the Green revolution., genetic modified foods, irradiation of foods and much more have all been opposed by the Greens and their like minded soul mates, or their ideological ancestors.

Yes……very funny Maximus. This forum could do with a bit more of that sort of input :)

Yair, pigs might fly if any political force in Australia starts addressing the really important environmental issues before it is well and truly too late.

I agree with Anti-green, even though I am by no means anti green.

I reckon the Greens and just about every non-government environmental organisation have been little more than pseudogreens, who have basically missed the point of true environmentalism - balance, sustainability, fighting against continuous population growth and the continuous economic growth paradigm.

Everything else is just a subset if not a completed distraction, to these vital aspects of real greenyism.

Gee, Peter Mc Mahon, I don’t know where you get this optimism for the Greens. I can’t see any of it, and I am a former Qld Greens state candidate.

They just seem to be bungling along in the same old fashion, addressing side issues and just completely missing the big-picture critical sustainability stuff.

I think that Labor has got a vastly greater chance of winning power, if they could just see fit to address peak oil and related sustainability issues with the conviction that they need. You might say this is a bit like recommissioning the Titanic. Well maybe it is, but I’d still say that there is a better chance of it happening than the Greens suddenly becoming true environmentalists!

As for the Democrats, I agree, they are history. This was made patently clear by that terrible couple of discussions I and others had with Senator Andrew Bartlett on OLO recently, in which he showed himself and the Democrats to be no more than a third pea in the pod of antisustainability future-eating continuous-growth blind-eye-to-glaring-resource-problem puppets of big business!!

“The central environmental problem is of course global warming.”

NO IT IS NOT!!

The central problem is sustainability! That will be a major issue well before the really bad effects of climate change manifest themselves.

The first really hard lesson about sustainability is about to take a huge chunk out of our big fat backsides…. and that is continuously rising fuel prices and all its side effects.

THIS is where the true political opportunity lies – with the party that takes on board the huge significance of the peak oil shock and resolves to take a really full-on approach to making the transition out of the fossil fuel era as smooth as possible

The greens are against vaccination and pasteurisation? And since when is genetically modified food a public health advance? Put your silly straw men away "anti-green". And yes, our environment is better now than it was at the turn of the century in some ways, because we are "greener" than we were then. It doesn't prove your argument, it refutes it.

The Greens might succeed because the rural/urban divide means that Landcare groups closer to the environment than any campaigning hippie will not be heard. As a certain Labor man said before the last election... "if the Greens gain the balance of power, then we might have to agree to some of their crazy policies"... those few policies are causing havoc for many, and I can only hope that this article's predictions are incorrect.

On an aside, the Greens would have difficulty getting a good vote in a generally conservative society, unless they too move towards the centre.

antigreen
I never said that the Greens are never going to make a usefull contribution to the environment.

I said they would stall at the point of achieving power because the party, and indeed the whole Green movement, has no experience of power - only protest.

This does not mean that they cannot build new strategies and directions as new possibilities arise. The question is - will they?

And anti green - perhaps you are confused about where you are. The 1858 great stink was in London. In this country in 1858 the air, water and soil was pristine and clean. Today it is significantly polluted.

Survival and economic necessity will bring about real change in our behaviour towards the environment,not some weak kneed ideology driven by a communist mentality.

Just saying we told you so on a singular issue does not give the Greens the high moral ground to Govern all our lives.

The Greens view of the world is just too narrow to accommodate the diversity of thought and philosophies that make the world such and interesting place.

For years the greens screamed blue murder at the mear mention of the word DAM. Now that the water supply to their surburbia habitat is under minor threat there is not a murmur when a huge new dam is to be built to supply them.
If it was to do something useful, such as supply agriculture, the screams would be deafening, but, of course, the lawns of Brisbane are much more important than thousands of acres of prime farming land, & the people who live & work on it.
The only thing the greens will ever contribute to the country is an unpleasant background noise.

For more than a decade now, my work and my activism has brought me into contact with farmers who have been expanding their area of native forest from the historical, compulsory clearing, lows. They, like my father before me, recognised the value of forest in the landscape, back in the days when it seemed that God, himself, drove a bulldozer.
We were regarded with derision by forestry types for our preference for native species over their introduced exotic monocultures. We were regarded and often labelled as lazy hillbillies by mainstream farmers and townsfolk who regarded our regenerating trees as a lack of adequate weed control.

All of them have taken a deliberate choice to sacrifice the income from grazing that would have come if the paddocks had been left as pasture and many have had to sail a lot closer to the financial wind in times of drought as they waited for their forest to produce millable trees.

There are few people on this planet who could claim to have more of their personal wealth committed to assets that deliver ecological benefits. There are no finer role models.

And yet, almost to a man (and woman) they hate the green movement's guts with a passion that is only ever displayed by those who feel deeply, deeply, betrayed. For after 20,000 days of quiet forest growth and ecological enhancement, the Greens will be there to complain about the damage and the noise from 4 or 5 days of proportional harvesting.

The Greens are going no-where because they are urban people who think they know everything about an ecology they merely visit, who demonise the real ecological champions, and who adopt public profiles when there is, as Candide said, "work to be done in the garden".

You are never there when the environment really needs help.

Agree that the Greens will struggle with the dilemma that real power brings.
There are those who want to maintain the rage and not compromise - this is a difficult balance.
Yes there some loonies, but this is so in every group.
I dont agree that the Greens parliamentarians have not been effective and pragmatic - the people who make it to parliament are committed, intelligent and hardworking with a considerable record behind the scenes.
They have to work harder to keep on top of the relevant issues, when many of the members in the main parties are told what to do by their whips and can spend their time in the political numbers game. Most labour members have spent their whole life in this world and dont know anything about the outside. The politics has become the main game while the real issues are only a means to an end - this is why they are now becoming irrelevant.
The Greens dont particularly care whether they are in power or not - the important thing is the issues

King Canute I am most sorry and humbled to have misquoted and/or misunderstood your majesty. Your majesty please accepts my most humble apologies.

There is no doubt in my mind that the description of filth, pollution, disease and crime in early nineteenth century cities was many orders of magnitude worse then in any contemporary Australian town. Why by comparison the smoke haze seen in Perth, attributed to unfavourable meteorological coinciding with controlled burns by CALM, is in relative terms a minor inconvenience. Just recall the great London smog of from memory 1952.

In answer to the question what has GM plants to do with public health. Have you an opinion on GM plant production of vaccines? Have you views on reduced pesticide use because of insect resistant GM crops? Do you not think that adequate and economically sound food production is per se a public health measure?

PERSEUS. Can you ever stop ranting about the rural sector which is under attack from the ignorant urbanites. Can't you see that the rural sector which represents just 4 per cent of GDP (and hence could close up shop with barely a hiccup) represents most and hence a disproportionate environmental damage to this country.

Cant you see that in comparison to Israel the whole of Australia's population can be supported from Tasmania with smarter production? In other words, what are we doing with mainland Australia?

Can all you anti greenies not see for one moment beyond our current practice including of low value commodity production including on marginal lands, and get smart and produce better and superior products?

From an outsider's perspective looking at Australia, we are incredibly indifferent, short sighted and exploitive of this country. Look to other countries and see what can be done.

You clearly want to champion your conservative rural brethren but I suggest you shape up or get out. Sorry mate, this is 2006, not 1906. You are left behind in your fear, skeleton in cupboard attitude.

Get smart or ship out. The greens present a driver to a new way of being, of operating in an increasingly sophisticated society.

The author said: 'The central environmental problem is of course global warming.'

The central environmental problem is of course NOT global warming.

It is the loss of topsoil and soil degradation in general that is the central environmental problem. Without topsoil it is extremely difficult to grow food. And 6 billion people currently require food.

The next great problem for humanity is the availability of good water to grow food and to sustain the Earth's living species as farmland turns to desert. Fresh water storeage is more important than the effects of global warming. Who is doing somthing about this?

Remco: I agree with you. The rural sector has a massive sense of entilement. They're more socialistic than the left. Yes, they've completely stuffed the land (and many continue to do so). Yes, they're inefficient. Yes, many grow on marginal land.

There are plenty of people in urban areas whose families have lived in the same suburb for several generations, yet they have no more right to the land than anyone else. Why do farmers think it is their right to the land for all time? Small/family businesses in urban areas don't get massive handouts for poor business decisions or for salting their own land (literally). Yet you'd think these twits out bush had never heard the word drought or flood before. If they don't save during the good times, then too bad. If they can't save during the good times, then they shouldn't be there either as the land is obviously not profitable and sustainable.

When are we going to get over this collective myth as a nation that the farmers are the heart and soul of our country, to whom we should pay tribute (in both sense of the word)?

So, Remco, you want me to "get smart or ship out" do you? So what part of the farming practices that I described do you want me to stop? Regenerating native trees perhaps?

And which of the so-called "you beaut" Israeli farming practices do you actually want me to implement in the man made native forest that now covers 80-85% of my property? Do you seriously believe one could even pay the rates from irrigated oranges when they are shaded by 30 metre Blackbutts?

And what impact do you think all those clonal monocultural Israeli plantation forests are having on the Palestinian's ground water supply in the lands below? Do you seriously believe that Israeli Planning Policy has provision for consideration, let alone compensation, for the adverse environmental impacts of proposed developments on the Palestinians down stream?

Are there lessons there for sustainable catchment management?

Your pathetically simplistic ideal world can only represent a favourable view if the vista is severely restricted by the cheeks of your own backside.

And while we are at it, Remco. Get me more desperate, Palestinian labourers on day visas that I can ever use so I can bargain down their pay rates to little more than peanuts, and I'll show you a bloody economic miracle too, you ignorant sack of scheiser gestalten.

Peter's critique of Labor and Liberal bankruptcy is right, but the Greens are not capable of filling the huge vacuum in the mainstream centre of Australian politics.

They remain too trapped in an old left economic and social agenda that is barely changed since the 1970s. Their faith in the public sector in education, health and welfare is untouched by the creative thinking that has accompanied the Noel Pearson critique of big-government service delivery in indigenous affairs, and is out of step with how citizens/consumers are voting with their feet in selecting the services they want. Ironically, the Greens rhetoric about grass-roots participation in political matters is undermined by their advocacy of top-down public sector service delivery in education and welfare. Most of the 'doctors wives' who vote Green in leafy affluent suburbs send their own kids to high-fee private schools and wouldn't contemplate doing without their private health insurance - this contradiction looms at the heart of the Green's temporary role as a protest vehicle for the affluent.

And there is a philosophical hitch, too. Environment issues are important. Global warming is important. Clean air is important. But human relationships are actually more important - and the Greens don't have a language, or a conceptual framework, with which to speak about relationships between humans. Nor do Liberal and Labor. At the centre of the Liberal world view stands the isolated individual. At the heart of Labor worldview stands the trade union. In the middle of the Green worldview stands a ... tree.

None of our parties have a language with which to speak about relationships, social capital or civil society. That is the really big hole in the centre of Australian politics.

Vern Hughes
vern@peoplepower.org.au

Trees, Perseus, is what you can not see for the forest when you refer to regional politics (of Israel).

This is about getting smart in production and that is what the anti-greenies like you are poor at. This is why Australian dairy farmers go to Israel to find out why they can get twice as much milk per cow than we can. That is why Israeli irrigation technology and know how is imported. That is why their productivity on a sustained basis is far greater than ours. We in Australia subsidises (including by alcohol excise exemption) sugar production which produces one tenth the value of tourism at the Barrier reef which is damaged by nitrogenous fertiliser run-off from its burn, slash and undescaled, overfertilised protected activities produce.

Fear is what the old traditional rural sector uses to resist change (hey dont they still talk "bags of wheat per acre"?).

It's time we thought smart and looked more objectively of HOW we farm and practice rather than the impact on old timers.

It is time we acknowledged the real cost to say the Murray River of producing effectively subsidised cotton, and produced higher value crops in smarter way, and if not, get out. It is only regional politics and not real economics, that stands in the way. The Netherlands, if Israel is not acceptable to you, points the way.

Vern

The Greens sure do have a major problem with human relations.

“They remain too trapped in an old left economic and social agenda that is barely changed since the 1970s.”

Yes and they remain trapped in the growth agenda that rules out lives, when it is of fundamental importance that they denounce it and promote a steady-state paradigm. We can’t have sustainability without it and we can’t have true environmentalism without sustainability sitting at its core.

The Greens have managed to present such an awful impression to the majority of the community that most people don’t want to be associated with them, despite sharing a lot of common philosophy. This lessened to some extent over time but then the momentum stopped. They are not gaining ground any more and haven't been for a long time.

One of the main sectors that they managed to severely offside was the rural sector. I talk to graziers, canegrowers and other rural people on their properties very regularly. So often I hear people say;

“I’m not a greenie but….”

They go on to talk about all sorts good environmental initiatives that they are practicing or that they agree with and nearly always express concern over continuous population growth, coastal development, ever-more pressure on already stressed water supplies, and so on.

Where did the Greens go wrong?? There is a huge amount of environmental concern out there that needs to be drawn together into a powerful political force. But the Greens just aren’t doing it and seem to have taken themselves right out of contention.......... unless they make some very radical changes. And the most important changes are to concentrate on peak oil, ie getting us off fossil fuel dependency and onto biofuels with the greatest of urgency, and promote real sustainability along with it, including zero population growth and an end to the continuous economic growth paradigm.

Unless they make some very radical changes? No. Unless they make some very large eminently sensible and absolutely necessary changes.

Gosh, now Remco is a farming expert. He says, "This is why Australian dairy farmers go to Israel to find out why they can get twice as much milk per cow than we can". Can they really? Name your source, Remco. Are these Israeli cows milked 4 times a day or are their bladders twice the size of our local stock? Or is this one of those Judean "loaves and fishes" gigs?

And as this was originally a post about things green, it would seem appropriate to remind you that Holland is essentially a lowland bog. So could you please elaborate on what sort of enhanced perspective on the SOI a dryland cropper from Moree, or a grazier from Cunamulla, might get from a Dutch Bog Wallah? You do know about that SOI thing, don't you Remco?

And you do know that the Dutch were one of the three founders of the European Union and so, have had the longest access to farm subsidies of all, don't you Remco? They couldn't scratch their backside without a subsidy.

But do keep it up, matey. I was going to say that the average "greenie in the street" takes articulate bimboism to extraordinary lengths, but it hardly seems necessary now.

As Ludwig so succinctly put it - many will say "I am not a greenie but....." The greenies, like the other side so epitomised by the firebrand Perseus, are simply reactionary without anything substantial to offer.

Being "green" however one conjectures that up, presents opportunities, not threats except to those "bags per acre" or "miles per gallon" producers with their hands up for bailouts during each inevitable flood, wind or drought. Let's instead hear about opportunities to be smart even if we have to whisper "green".

I wonder what our grandchildren's assessment will be of the little bit of our economy (4% of GDP), that the rural sector now represents when compared to the environmental cost that we are deferring to them. Why on earth did they allow them to destroy so much?

The author of the article is dreaming .

Here in Tas we've endured the greens holding balance of power twice & it was a disaster both times .

The only positive thing I can say about the greens is that they seem to promote the views of their party faithfull .

However when the party faithfull are predominantly envy driven ferrals & the young voter , fringe status is assured as the young voter will usually end up in the workforce with a mortgage & real concerns about where their next paycheque is coming from .

Enviromentalism as it is thrust upon us today is only an indulgence afforded by our current wealth .

This will change !

Other nations are encouraging industry development & growth at a massive rate while we are busy locking up our land & water for the "enviroment" .

As putting food on the table & keeping a roof over our heads gets ever harder , The welfare of trees & frogs will become ever less important in our minds .

So too will the envy driven rantings of the tree hugging / people hating greens .

What the likes of Jamo and other anti-conservationists miss, is that land and water are not in abundance - but what is, is smartness to produce more effectly. It is not about locking up, but doing it better, again with role models in Europe and say Israel.

Sadly the greenies while having a point, fail to offer solutions while the other side, simple whimper about a way of being that is no longer appropriate.

Lets create a vision instead of headbutting.

Remco, nicely said. I hold the view that "Green" political parties don't represent my green leanings. We need to find sustainable ways of living in and with the environment.

We need spaces that retain as much of their wilderness values as possible for our own benefit and for biodiversity (something that appears to be essential to the health of this planet) but we also need access to resources - especially if we are not willing as a society to take some very harsh decisions. Decisions which I for the most part don't support. It often seems that the "Greens" social platforms are in almost direct contradiction to their environmental platforms.

Has the debate over the environment been so dominated by the "green left" that the "green right" has lost it's voice?

Time for sustainable end to end solutions rather than single dimension ideology.

R0bert

“Other nations are encouraging industry development & growth at a massive rate while we are busy locking up our land & water for the ‘environment’ " .

Jamo, some other countries are encouraging development at a massive rate, most notably China. These are of the greatest concern to our world environment.

Others are not growing and have maintained a high quality of life for a very long time, ie Scandinavian countries.

Who is busy locking up land and water? Not Australia. We are encouraging growth and development as much as we can! The little bits that are set aside are minuscule compared to the humanised landscape.

You are taking an extremely narrow focus of ‘the greens’ as those who are “tree hugging / people-hating” and only concerned with the “welfare of trees and frogs”. Then you are mixing this up with “environmentalism”.

Please see my last post for a summary of what true environmentalism, or greenyism, should be.

The trouble is, the Greens have in no small part engendered an impression of themselves that is somewhat similar, although a little less extreme, to yours. And it is partly deserved, because they are a million miles away from true environmentalism. For all Bob Brown’s wonderful input into various issues, he has just completely failed to grasp the big-picture sustainability issues. The Greens desperately need someone with a holistic outlook.

I think your comments are too strong, but not entirely lacking merit.

R0bert

I agree with the point of your post, but beg to quibble over the detail.

Living sustainably is not the province of the 'right wing' as you call it.

I think you have been taken in by anti-green propaganda. If the 'right' is so 'pro-sustainable living' tell me where in Costello's latest budget is there support for development of alternative energy, development of national rail services (cut down on trucking), strategies for sustainable forestry as opposed to clear felling virgin forest and so on.

I agree that the Greens need a wider perception and policies to match before they can be considered a serious political alternative, however we need to be made aware of ecological issues and developments and I hear little from either Labor or the Libs.

Gosh, fresh from a brief dalliance in planet salvation, Remco turns his hands to macro economics and betrays the comprehension of a competent audit clerk.

While agriculture may amount to only a small portion of total GDP there is also a larger portion of manufacturing and value adding that is solely dependent of local produce. To seriously believe, as Remco and a big slice of the green movement do, that this mostly urban value adding sector could still remain viable on imported primary produce is breathtakingly ignorant. And dangerously so.

What Remco and all his lilliputan fellow travellers need to get their head around is to reflect on what the Aussie dollar would be worth if agricultural exports were not propping up the balance of payments.

The wider community is starting to realise that they have a choice between a healthy agricultural sector and a US$ 75 cent dollar or an unrestrained green movement and a US$ 25 cent dollar. They cannot have both. They will make a few noises, trying to have their cake and eat it too, but a $60 DVD and a $4000 entry level PC is simply not in their orbit. Indeed, the only people who would benefit from such a situation would be our farmers who export 85% of their produce and our miners. But wait, Remco has already done without the farmers so tuff luck, punters.

First to dispel the ubiquitous headbutting Man of la Mancha, Perseus, ‘multipliers’ is what he appears to refer to where industry sectors show with factors ranging from 1.5 to 3 to justify importance. The trouble is, that if everyone did that, our economy would be 1.5 to 3 its size it actually is. 4 per cent is 4 per cent. I can talk about trade too if he wants to go there.

The rural sector is not promoted by me for closure, but the “bags per acre” or “mile per gallon” hands out for the next drought, fire or flood sector might just have to shape up or ship out. It is the old school variously championed by Perseus' chain rattlings around Onlineopinion.

Back on track, there are ways of moving ahead and so people like Professor Porter: ‘Green and Competitive’ , 'Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship' and 'National Environmental Performance Measurement and Determinants' show clear examples of success.

No not closure, but refoccussing. No, not under locking out, but getting more out of what there is. Not headbutting, but headpooling.

Yes the traditionalists might have to close up, but say if we lost one-quarter, and that’s is only 1 per cent of GDP, it is nothing but a hiccup and on best practice elsewhere, Australia should be aiming to increase the rural sector’s value added by at least 50 per cent and as shown eg. by vineyards replacing dairying that’s conservative. Again, look to the Netherlands and Israel as examples of what can be done as two extreme examples.

So, where are the greenies showing the way ahead? What could be done with the sugar industry, the cotton industry, the marginal land wheat and sheep croppers, the white elephant Ord River region, etc etc. Let’s instead hear something constructive from this mob led by Bob Brown.

Scout, feel free to quibble. We learn from each other that way. It was not my intention to suggest that only the right care about living sustainably. Plenty on the left promote that idea and plenty on the right don't.

As with many of the issues that divide "left" and "right" it is not so much the broad goals that highlight the divide but the path we would choose to get there. I don't think the right does as well as the left at communicating our values on issues like social justice, the environment etc. Just writing that is stirring the grey matter somewhat to try and clarify why that would be. A topic in itself I suspect.

I don't consider that the "green left" represents my views consistantly enough for me to be willing to vote for them. There are too many places where we part company but at the same time I don't see a "green right" alternative. Not a situation that I am happy with.

Cheers
R0bert

So now Remco has decided that economic multipliers either don't exist or are simply an unfashionable trait of the 1980's. As if money doesn't actually circulate anymore. Better tell that to the trading desks at MacBank and CS First Boston, Remco, but I wouldn't hang out for a fat consulting fee for your efforts, matey.

Ludwig I did read your post , I think your post said pretty much the same thing as mine , only I used more colourful description to save on typing .
I don't see in my post where I've confused real enviromentalism with greenie politics .
What I said was enviromentalism as it is thrust upon us , take note of the as .
Recently here in Tas we've been coerced to introduce new prescriptive blanket style forest & native veg clearing restrictions , not because we have a problem here but because the liblabs were desperate to compete for a few extra latte green votes in the larger cities .
A few years earlier it was new water legislation equally unneeded here in Tas .
Try getting a water licence in my area at the moment , you'd have as much chance trying to hit the moon with a stone .
The impost of un-targeted prescriptive planning schemes & restrictive land use regs that are intended to serve short term electoral needs in other areas are the type of enviromentalism I refer to & despise .

continued ;
The principle of sustainable developement & use of resources like a religon is better practised than preached .
To give an small example of how I've seen the true colours of the green with envy brigade . Around four years ago I changed from overhead irrigation to drip system for our veg seed contracts. This fantastic method (perfected in Israel I think ,don't quote me ) provided a threefold increase in gross return per meg of applied water , a reduction in the need to spray & respray after wash off from irrigation , reduced power consumption for pumping , ability to water at any time , an efficient fertiliser application system & better infiltration into the soil with no runoff .
Now you'd think the local planeteers flitting about with their water watch & landcare committies rabbiting on about waterways ,farmers bad ,soil erision , farmers bad , trees , farmers bad , frogs , farmers bad , salinity , farmers bad & don't forget farmers bad , would be interested in my project . No way , doesn't give the right impression that farmers are bad . Plenty of interest from other growers though .
So when I describe certain supporters of a political movement that makes a lot of noise but offers no sensible ideas & plays on the inexperience of youth for support as envy driven tree hugging people hating greenies I mean what I say & I have my reasons .
The article suggests that the greens may have a greater future in the parliment . I dissagree . In fact I believe as soon as their impact was felt they would rapidly go the same way as the fairys at the bottom of the garden .

Jamo: Nicely put. Yes I agree the current crop of Greens are reactionary, without vision bunch. But as a force, I feel they represent pressure to promote better ways, alternative ways to produce. That is what the likes of Perseus fail to recognise with his rantings here and elsewhere.

I was delighted you picked up on the Israeli technology. Here is a fifty year old country is showing an older bigger country like us on doing it better (and on parallel to that country, the whole of Australia supplied from Tasmania leaving mainland Australia to produce more creatively)

The Greens are applying pressure on the "miles per gallon" and "bags per acre" with a mendicant mentality. Out of the Greens we might learn to do it better, more creatively and with less of an eye to Canberra for the next handout with the next inevitable vagary.

Fair enough Jamo.

I really think that the best opportunity for a green future lies with Labor.

If they could just see the merit in making a huge switch from basing everything on economic growth to basing it all on sustainability, then we just might get somewhere.

If they continue down the same old path, which is about 0.000001% different from the Libs, then they are bound to stay in the wilderness.

The Libs are happy panderers to their all-powerful short-term profit-motive big-business support base. Labor is a little bit less tied down by that.

Labor should be supported by the unions, who should have little concern about adjusting policy in favour of the long-term viability of our society and all things related to it and should therefore support the notion of ‘sustainability first’.

It was interesting to note that even the Nationals in Queensland made some pretty interesting environmental noises when they were really struggling prior to Borbidge winning power in 1995. This was a long way off-track in most peoples’ view, but they would argue that it was just a sensible extension of real concerns of rural people.

So the same sort of thing could happen with Labor.

If only we could just find a way of making it happen very soon, instead of waiting until fuel prices and other resource issues become much more critical.

Jamo's experience is typical of farmers all over the country. And the Remcos of this world will continue with this moronic "bags/acre" drivell to try and portray Australian farmers as laggards. He clearly has no effective contact with farmers at all as he is very careful to avoid anything specific.

The greens will never talk about the uptake of "minimum till" technology on Australian farms (invented here), let alone zero till methods that maximise moisture retention, maximise biomass retention and improve soil structure and fertility. No, they are still babbling on about soil degradation and erosion to portray their intended targets for dispossession as "undeserving".

There's one thing not being mentioned by either side of this debate, no matter what you think about how the land has been used, it won't matter in the end. Forget global warming, soil degradation, salinity, land clearing, better framing methods or chemical and GM methods and the greens.

When the extinction rate of living species, thats currently a pandemic, reaches a certain point, the entire system will collapse. Because all farming relies on the biodiversity and input of living beings to function and produce. Chemicals, GM, better farming techniques, will be useless if the life forces providing the chain of existence for all living beings are driven to extinction, its all over. The biodiversity of the planet will collapse and take us with it.

You can't grow anything on dead soil, you need insects, birds, native animals to keep the chain going. The present farming community has no interest in that, just how much they can get out of the land in the cheapest and quickest way. For them, its more important to keep their egos inflated, by continuing with failed practises against all the evidence on their own farms. Once there is a big enough break in the biodiversity chain, it will collapse everything above that break. We're at the top of that chain, doesn't that ring any alarm bells, or just frustrate your ego's.

For a race that prides itself on its intelligence and ability to evolve and survive, we're to stupid to see anything but the mirror in our heads

Alchemist, short of a nuclear winter scenario, I think your concerns are unfounded, at least in the big picture. On some regional and local levels yes, perhaps.

No matter how aggressive humans become in overtaking natural ecosystems, how much we deplete soil fertility or cause salinity to manifest itself, or how big the magnitude of global warming, agricultural systems will survive, and in a pretty vigorous form.

Even very significant changes in overall ecosystem support mechanisms won’t cause many of them to totally collapse. They might cause massive changes, with large proportions of species going extinct, but vigorous species will survive and maintain or regenerate the system. Look at the area around Queenstown in Tasmania, which suffered massive acid-rain damage over many decades, with the resultant loss of nearly all vegetation and topsoil off the hills. It is bouncing back, albeit with a lot of it highly altered.

However, on regional scales, such as parts of the Western Australian wheatbelt with low-fertility soils and massive salinity issue, agriculture will take a very heavy hit, especially when the economics massively change as fuel prices rise. But again, it will survive, just in a considerably altered form.

Yes farmers are interested in maximised produce in the cheapest and quickest ways. But they are just a subset of society in this regard. Many farmers, being on the environmental frontline, are seeing the light and switching to better practices.

So I think we need not worry too much about the extinction rate, the continuation of short-sighted practices or the collapse of ecosystems or agricultural areas. What we really need to worry about is the continued coherence of society, which I believe will be very sorely tested by the end of cheap fossil fuels, within five years. When liquid the fossil fuel era ends, human expansion, and all the continuing increasing pressure on our environment, that goes with it, will be severely reduced. We are on the cusp of the massive population adjustment that we have to have. The trick will be to get though it without degenerating to anarchy and a Mad Max scenario.

So much of this debate is hinged on a rural/urban divide that is fanned by politicians seeking to justify their roles in representing their community. The rural sector will always be there, but not the old ways which I labelled the "bags/acre" or "mpg" mob.

The ongoing funding at times of duress during the inevitable flood/famine/drought only serves to slow the move to the farmers taking charge of their own affairs - in this case self insurance. The greens are seeing a problem and reacting. The greens have a point but dont offer solutions and at present only promote reactive discussion. There is a way ahead and rather than debating on fine points of detail, that the likes of Perseus has engaged, to get back to the big picture and above all, create the conditions for change. To help some move off the land and for others to move in to do it better. The Greens, like the spammers that make Microsoft produce more robust software, have a role to play.

It is for the likes of Perseus to respond with solutions to improve the system without looking for his "bimbocracies" to solve them.

Once we get that mind set, we can move on and get down to detail. Before that, all we are doing is tilting at self-created 'wind-mills'.

A little clearer re my linking the greens to the nuisance spammers. Without the spammers, as much as they are a nuisance, they promote Microsoft to produce a more robust product. Without spammers, one day a terrorist group might create havoc hacking computers around the globe. The spammers, like the Greens, are creating awareness and a basis for doing things better. That is not to justify that the Greens are without a vision but they serve a (painful purpose).

Above is some utter crap witten by various individuals. Much of work by Greens is happening by country green people. The Greens are still against expensive desalination plans, against the Coal Power Station proposal in Bega, against the sale of Australia's masterpiece of engineering: the Snowy River Scheme to the multi-nationals. The water must be owned by Australians, not foreign companies. They encourage windmills, solar, tidal, and hot-rock energy.
They are not a single issue party. It is also a social justice party, a community development party, and was the only party that took the NSW Government to task of the curruption over the Cross City Tunnel. The Greens are the only party that have a vision for light rail in Sydney, more underground rail lines to ease congestion, and an intergrated ticketing system. They are the only party to draft legislation for a universal Anti Discrimination Act, and had the courage to make a stand.
Greens don't make the best politicians. That is why they would make the best leaders. I think that is why people believe them and their votes double every election. To represent people, they actually listen and proove to be accountable to the people's concerns.
They are the only party not financed by tobacco companies, or any private business at all, and believe in people rather that cheating with back door deals. This is the big difference between the Greens and the Democrats other than the Democrats being an offshoot of the Liberal Party. The Democrats under Meg Lee, disasterously decided to be a political force. This was their big mistake, as they forgot their own supporters and voters, and it fell apart. The Greens do everything within by consultation and consensus within the party, after listening to the grass roots.
It is also wrong to say that the land can always support agriculture. With such a dramatic rise in Greenhouse gasses, plants can't grow in floods, draught, cyclone, firestorms, cell storms and unpredictable extreme temperatures. Plants will not grow under these conditions, and it will be difficult for humans too.

Saintfletcher: What a fearful world you live in; pretty frightening with your promoted chaos and disasterously naive people.

You sound like a Mark Latham - learn to play team, rather than go out like a flaming meteor.

Some of the ideas to alternative power including the use of "hot rocks" north of Port Augusta in South Australia, and other environmental answers to problems came from the Proffessor Sir Mark Oliphant, not Mark Latham.

Remco, I am just an ordinary guy and I am not in any political party capacity. I don't speak on behalf of any polical party, nor do my words in any way resemble those of Mark Latham. That is the silliest thing I have heard in my life. Otherwise I would have disclosed myself as representing a political party. I don't need to "play team", as I am not in a team to play in. I did not realise this was a childish game.

You seem to have fun playing games, I really hope you have a fun life. I do, and I enjoy life thank you. How could I go out like a Mark Latham flame, when I am not even in politics, nor am I a guiding light. Your use of parliamentry language is suspicious in motive, to say the least. Play that game, and I could just as easily call you the Neville Chamberlian, who appeased a dangerous giant staring at him in the face. Chamberlain had your arrogance and denial and went down in history as a most dispicable leader in British modern history. He refused to look at the impirical facts, or do anything about it. In short, like you, he was useless.

I don't live in a fearful world, Remco, I think the problems can be resolved. I live in a beautiful world and I am at peace. I am a common citizen simply looking for responsible answers. I personally believe that the Greens would be a responsible Government. Do not project your sinister paranoia, only to belittle the opinions of ordinary individuals. This commentry is not supposed to be a personal mud-slinging game, Remco. If you do your homework on global warming, then you might approach this more scientifically and less personally, and with less conspiracy theories.

Saintfletcher, I am pointing out that the Greens are highlighting problems; the farmers feel they are under attack from urbanites, while others point to the problems without resolutions.

We have an affluent country and that has enabled the ongoing subsidies for floods, famine, drought etc. to the rural sector instead of allowing those so affected to self-insure, get out, or adapt. Salination (land and water) has occured as responsibility has been avoided. The problems will simply persist as long as the mudslinging persists instead of taking charge of one's own affairs.

I refered to Mark Latham as he alienated himself from even the party he represented instead of steering, he jumped ship. As I said, the Greens serve a purpose like the spammers to promote change and they, like the spammers would disappear when responsibilities are assumed. They are not.

Yes I agree, we do need positive solutions and once we dispell the rural vs urban myth, then we are on the same road to a constructive direction.

In terms of parties, I would prefer David from the Big Brother Household, a farmer, and a proud member of the National Party, to be in leadership, than Kim Beazley, John Howard, some Democrats, and even some Greens. At least he listens, makes a stand for the underdog, is brave, bold, and has a strong social conscience. I think many in the old Country Party were similar, being practicle rather than conservative for the sake of being conservative. They really did care about their land.

The "hot rocks" to generate power North of Port Augusta, suggest by Sir Mark Oliphant is one idea. Windmills and solar panels are well known alternatives. Ethanol replacing petrolium is a great idea, but we need to change a few car engine parts. Bundaberg QLD could be the power centre of Australia between Ethanol from its vast sugar mills, solar power in its swamps and even windmills. Then there is tidal power in WA. Wind on the south coast. Imagine the benefits in these rural areas. We really are the same people afterall.

The hypothetical Proposition - Nuclear Waste

It appears that Priminister Howard has a story for International colleagues and one for his domestic, in Australia.

Mark Vaile's suggestion that it is inevitable that we store the spent nuclear fuel as part of the agreement for selling it.

Is Mark Vaile that gullible to present this proposition to the Australian Nation as an acceptable agreement? Lets not talk about his help in the US trade agreement.

He moved on to say that Australia just can't expect to sell it and then wash their hands because of the dangerous consequences to transport and store it.

A proposal will be put forward by the United States this week with John Howard for this exchange to occur upon the sale of Uranium to the United States.

This equates to the United States getting cleaner energy supplies and for Australia's return on profit, the spent nuclear waste, making our country a waste land for their improved quality of life.

And at what cost is the United States willing to pay us for the Uranium add the cost to store it for generations of futures of Australians?

Australian companies do not own any Uranium deposits pegged nor those currently in operation, they are all Foreign owned.

Are Australians then to accept that the few jobs that may come out of this industry, with competition from the influx of Foreign workers, be of any benefit to Australians to sell the Uranium product to international markets.

I maintain, Australia is digging its minerals deposits and mining our earth, so that it will provide the pits the nuclear waste will be stored in.

Australia's next wave of success. The 'Worlds" greatest nuclear waste dump.

Where are the pillow plumping GREENS?

The Greens are where they allways are , In the back seat of the car fullfiling the roll of self appointed driving instructor .
The green back seat driver is an expert driver despite having never driven a car before .
Tapping the driver on the shoulder when pointing out "its a sixty zone here!" "that light's about to change!" "there's a child on a bike!" "the bus is pulling out!" is essential for the safety of all involved isn't it .
Never mind the fact that the person driving the car saw all of these things at least five seconds before the green expert in the back did .
The green back seat driver knows he's helping .
Don't know how the now frightened passengers & really annoyed driver are going though .

If the Greens are ever given the numbers to influence legislation directly at federal level as they have here in tas in the past, the views of we simple country folk won't seem so strange .

Wonder how we'd get by without back seat drivers ?

Plant a billion trees than the human race will have a chance.