I find it a very telling social comment that, as I post this, over on a neighbouring thread 19 posts have already appeared. Over there people are going at it hammer and tongs: the rights-thinkers are hammering the greens who are hammering them right back, the lefts are coming in for an earful but, almost unanimously, everyone is hammering away at the author.

He has suggested that everyone - rights, lefts, greens,pinks or whatever - could, just possibly, be at fault. He has at the same time given voice to the opinion that perhaps we should be giving as much concern to remedial measures for current problems as we are giving to projected future concerns. It is not going down well. The article is concerned with environmental ethics.

Over on that other thread a fairly reassuring consensus has been reached at this point: there's nothing much we can do about other countries until they themselves take the lead by limiting population growth.

In the face of their irresponsibility we are justified in dismissing them while we struggle for our own environment. As one poster pointed out, pragmatism dictates that this planet just ain't big enough for the two of us groups to survive.

So thank goodness its us, the responsible ones, who are doing all we can to come out on top, eh?

Meanwhile here, where no-one has been crass enough directly to use the word "ethics", as long as no-one actually starts to post, we can all pretend that this article, which would make a bit of a dent in our self-satisfied and complacent view of ourselves, was one of those that we haven't got around to reading yet.

And yeah, if we make enough noise over there and stamp our smug feet, no-one will notice the deafening silence which greets the proof of our
perfidy right here.

I find it utterly disappointing to stomach Australia's lecture on "good governance, transparency and all the goodies of democracy" when Australian firms are allowed to run scoot free doing incalculable damages to hapless countries.

This "grand bullying tactic smacks of disrespect and neocolonialism".

No wonder many Pacific Islands countries including PNG are resenting Australia which she tries to use AID as a smokescreen to hide her own ills.

This is digusting and an abomination of highest degree Australia should rid itself of from the developing countries like PNG.

In reference to the thread that I started in the general section of OLO, if Australia NZ and Canada joined in an economic union, we could have a united standard on Greenshouse gasses.

Canada has a bigger headache than we do. It is one of the largest coal uses in the world using more CO2 per capita than just about any other country, except maybe the neighbouring States of the US.

If you see their climate, you can see why. Today was -20 c and it takes energy to heat a population more than twice that of Australia. Similar to non coastal American States.

Canada is aware of this and knows it needs to change its reputation. It could lead to being demonised in trade. That is probably why they have invested so much in researching nuclear fusion and thorium as other alternatives. The blueprints to build the new power stations are already being passed, and they are about to "bite the bullet".

They too have plenty of coal, but like Australia, the risk of trade boycotts are too serious economically. The EU has little sympathy for our situation: we are not poor countries.

The story in India and China is something we will find difficult to challenge. But if in an economic union with Canada and NZ, we act as an example, our actions between the 3 will make a difference in the world, and you know that the US cannot help but notice any changes we make. Then you will see real change. We can even put the EU to shame if we put more into action, and less into bickering and whinging.

The more I think of it, the more I can see a Pacific Economic Union based on the EU model for many reasons.

Hhhmmm..and while we are thinking about it PNG is still suffering from our abuse of their eco-system