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 .