The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Politics and a greener future > Comments

Politics and a greener future : Comments

By Peter McMahon, published 4/5/2006

With the environment the big political issue this century, the Greens could be looking at a brighter future.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
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.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 5 May 2006 1:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by lightgreen, Friday, 5 May 2006 3:30:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 5 May 2006 3:47:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Remco, Friday, 5 May 2006 6:37:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ev, Saturday, 6 May 2006 6:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Philo, Sunday, 7 May 2006 11:00:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy