I don't see why several commentators seemed to object to Scott Stephens ideas. It is pretty obvious that today the prevailing assumption is that no-one will do any good thing unless it can be shown to be in their own economic interest.
This assumption seems to be accepted everywhere. This is why everybody rejoiced at the Stern report - because it came from an ECONOMIST. In the religion of our times - it is unthinkable to suggest any actions that might actually cost us financially.
Therefore any environmentalist, concerned for the well-being and beauty of the natural world cannot expect to be taken seriously.
Still, what can Al Gore, or any concerned person do, in this mental climate?
The only course of action is to put your case in economic terms, even if, secretly, you care about the ecology and its beauty, more than you care about money ( - if they find you out, people will think you are stupid)

Yes, the climate change thing looked very convenient for the nuclear industry, and for Howard’s Australia to go on to become the lucrative quarry and waste dump of the world
But I rejoice that nuclear power is so utterly more expensive than any other power source, (with full cost pricing, and perhaps even without it). The economic argument is the only argument that's likely to stop this industry. Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

ChristinaMac,

where did you get the impression that economics was about money? Money is an abstracted measurement of value - it can model anything you value, including your family or the environment or anything you want. If these things are not worth money, then people do not really value them.

I couldn't have said it better myself Julatron. Why doesn't Mr Stephens pray to his interventionist god to put everything right. All these religions have an absurd superstition that there is some sort of guiding hand that only has to be invoked to bring order and balance to this planet of ours.

What I never hear is the connection to population that has created the mess this world is in regarding pollution and sustainability. Half a century ago we had half the number of people on this earth and it is the accelerated rate of change that has drawn the attention to our dire plight, and this is increasing exponentially. Yet nearly every country in the world is exhorting their people to breed (except China)and offers financial subsidies to encourage this when they can. As other philosophers in the past have queried - is there such a thing as pure altruism ? I am motivated by self interest as everyone is if they are honest with themselves. We have to reduce the world population or reduce our standard of living. We cannot embark on expansion for ever on a finite planet.

If this is Scott Stephens’ best attempt to round up more souls he’s got to count me out. Perhaps he likes us to live by this unselfish quote from the bible: “Whoever is a friend of the world is an enemy of God.” Peter 4:4

What is wrong with wanting to protect nature from destruction?
Even if you are denying Global Warming, doesn’t it worry you that our next generations will be stuck with a polluted and damaged earth? Without nature we cannot sustain ourselves. Is it therefore selfish to want to protect it?
I thought Christians were supposed to be pro-life?

Thing is, that even *IF* environmentalists are as selfish as the author makes them out to be, destroyers of nature are also selfish.
If both are selfish, then it’s better have the environment saved by the selfish than to have it destroyed by the selfish.

If I’m reading the author right, the ethics of this piece are pretty loathsome. Politicians are blamed for endorsing action on climate change only when they have assured themselves that the costs are worth the benefits. Seems like they’re doing their job to me. The alternative, to commit to a course regardless of the damage it inflicts, reflects the worst form of “environmentalism as religion,” which sees sacrifice and moralistic asceticism as both the end and the means of public policy.

Altruism is held up as a virtue, but it is a peculiarly-defined form of altruism. While the origin of the word means “other-regarding”, in this case it is not self-denial in the service of other people’s welfare, but mortification for the supposed good of environment that is held as the highest virtue, regardless of the cost to human welfare. This is pagan idolatry, not Christianity.

Like many of the environmentalists he sneers at, what seems to motivate the author is not desire to achieve the best environmental outcomes at the least cost, but to impose on the rest of us his own vision of how society and the economy should be run – changing our “excessive, self-seeking and idolatrous” lifestyles, and “curtailing the very excesses we call ‘freedom’”.

Lord preserve us from puritan control-freakery, the creepiest form of so-called Christian ethics.

"...the one possibility that must be considered - altering the seemingly immutable laws of economics themselves, which means curtailing the very excesses we call “freedom” - is never considered."

Curtailing the excesses of our consumerist culture would be more pertinent to the issues of poverty and third-world hunger.
I don't really see it as great solution to environmental problems. These would be better addressed by innovation; finding and developing and *putting into use* more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of manufacturing, transport, etc. Not to mention uprooting and dispensing with old methods that are not efficient or environmentally friendly, despite the various forces that attempt to keep them firmly planted. This need not impact too heavily on the comforts and excesses we take for granted.