After listening to the annoying rhetoric of Rudd, Gillard etc., there has to be somewhere that the thinking “bigger picture” voter can put his or her vote. The Greens are now well established and should be that place. Although taking on social issues, it does not matter that the party arose out of the Franklin River campaign. The historical connection is important and the name should remain even if environmental issues become secondary to social issues [as they must if the party is to grow].

The author is right when he says the party should take bold stands and not play politics by forming alliances. By adhering to unshakable principles, the party has the potential of getting the votes of 20% of the country [i.e. just about everybody who listens to the ABC].

Remember! A vote for a party which can never be in government is not a wasted vote as the party collects a government subsidy on each primary vote - and with the money can mount a more successful campaign next time round

I'm non party political but firmly left and find myself supporting policies rather than parties which leaves me little alternative other that Green or independent.
I agree with Tim's assessment and sincerely hope the Greens take note and follow policy direction in preference to snuggling up to Labor....
Look what that has done to Peter Garrett !! He now stands alongside Kevin Rudd whilst Kevin delivers pale green excuses for not pressing ahead with a real green agenda.

One can only hope that the electorate will see through the veneer of Kevin Rudd's alternative to John Howard for what it is; A dishonest betrayal of Labor philisophy to woo the Corporate sector and gain power. Labor will not 'snuggle up to the Greens' because they don't want a hung parliament where the Greens become Labor's Shiralee.

There will be no Green future without an honest Green Party that fine tunes and develops it's social platform with the welfare of a peaceful,sustainable world as it's main plank.

I think Tim makes some good points.

However he doesn't mention the rise and rise of climate change as a concern of the public.
With the LibLabs both supporting corporate welfare to the fossil fuel industries of $10 billion per year, their pale green distractions such as loans for solar panels are just window dressing, but probably sufficient to fool most voters.

This is where The Greens should concentrate their limited campaign budget: not only to point out their seriously green solutions but to make the public aware of the LibLabs' contrasting deception.

A corollary message should be to educate people about preferences so more understand they can vote 1 Greens and still get Rudd up with their second preference.

The general population of Western powers are slowly beginning to realise the errors of their ways in electing leaders who insist on increasing the population and consumer spending in order to expand the economy which in turn keeps the top 1% of their Worlds most powerful figures bathing in the lap of luxury whilst the rest of the 99% exist in worsening conditions the further down the "heap" they live.

People are demanding more from politicians in relation to water, food and climate, but have nowhere to turn in Australia. Being an opposition leader is an incredibly difficult job and Rudd will do whatever he can to grab power from Howard. He juggles a fine line between conservation and more of the same tired old Howard liberalism that continues to pander to "big business."

The Greens were once seen as radically different, but at a time when that same difference compared to other parties was too much to contemplate voting for. Now, when people are starting to realise the World is doomed without major changes to the way Governments do "business", the Greens seem like a spent force. They simply haven't listened to the people. They could have changed some policy such as their drugs agenda (which was/is extremely unpopular) as well as some of their other wierd and wacky policies and gone on to form a respectable opposition party, but now it seems we're left with just one of two choices. Bit like "Deli Choices" really. Same old chicken dressed up with a thin layer of artificially flavoured sauce.

Part two:

We need young people to step forward and instead of attempting to clambor to the top of the heap, set their sights on a new wave of politics and policies. Infiltrate the political parties and give us something we can all aspire towards. A brighter future with conservation in mind. A World whereby our children and future generations can live and live peacefully. A World without an exploding population and reliance on dwindling oil supplies.

The Greens could have gone down that path, but sadly, I believe that unless inspired young people take over the conservation mantle, the Greens are destined to go the way of the Democrats.
Wildcat.

Much as I'm a fan of Tim's I think the Greens are very unlikely to take ground in the upcoming election no matter what they do. Australia is tired. We have had ten years of one of the most radical governments in our history. We are working longer hours, many of us are in hock up to our eyeballs, we have had an illegal war pushed on us, Howard has played on every division in society, etc. etc. Is it any wonder we are worn out?

The Greens to their credit have been outspoken in the anti-war movement and civil Liberties, but I think many people now see them as part as the whole worn out tape recording as Howard throws a ball and they react to it.

Labor has a new feel to it and promises something different and a return to a less conflicted time. Cant say I blame the electorate for wanting a breather.

i guess voting for democracy is out of the question?

If the Greens stuck to environmental issues instead of mixing it with their perverted social agenda they might win a lot more votes.

Reckon Rudd is playing shrewd and using the Hawke friendly politics strategy testing the political weather during the first term, and hoping for a chance to promote a true Labor stance, which should be what some are calling up-to-date Keynesian mixed economics, which could mean spending a heap of Costello's future fund, once Rudd gets confidently stabilised to buy back what Adam Smith said years ago, that there are certain areas of national nfrastructure that should always belong to government.

Adam Smith's code was broken of course, with the establishment of the East India Company, which controlled the whole of Ceylon, managing the huge military force needed to control the Buddhists and Janists, especially the Janists who were dead against clearing the wooded hillsides for tea.

Certainly with our ever-growing corporates we are heading back to those days, with corporate bosses not much different to those who ran the big colonial companies, which also included those of the Dutch just to the north of Australia.

Certainly hope Rudd has situations like the above in his mind, doing something about what can only be called rampant capitalism, which strong sensible governments need to put the political brakes on.

Why we still have to go back to the father of Big Biz Laizey-faire to regain economic wisdom, goodness knows, but of course, Adam Smith was a well-balanced thinker, being a studied philosopher as well as a commonsense capitalist.

Historians are also inclined to group Maynard Keynes with certain aspects of Adam Smith.

The Greens are still the Greens. No amount of speeches will change either of the big two from what they are. Environment will naeer be their over riding theme. As such the Greens remain the only environmentally friendly Party.

However, having been in contact with several Greens this last 12 months I can only say they have even more radical views than you might think. No, not legalising drugs etc. Their immigration and population policies are extreme and have no place in this country.

If you don't know what I mean, email a Greenie. Join an internet Green group and read the exchange of identical views. No change tolerated.

There is, by the way, no danger of Rudd slipping back to traditional Labor policies. That ended before Hawke took over remember? Today's left is yesterday's right. There is little left on the left and they look terribly lonely whoever they are,

All this would be very interesting if much of it were true. The evidence presented for The Greens change in position or 'snuggling up to Labor' is threadbare at best. All I can see here is that Bob Brown supports war in Afghanistan (which is not entirely true) and that the drug policy is like more like Labor's (which if true says more about the progressive policy of Labor than The Greens because the policy ain't changed that much).

So what about the other 40 odd policies, innumerable media statements, speeches and actions of The Greens MPs and candidates since the last election? As an insider I can tell you that there has been no move from The Greens commitment to a strident belief in social justice, ecological sanity, real democracy and peace not war.

That's not to say that there are areas where the Greens could take more challenging positions – that is a fair point well worth discussing. However to say The Greens are snuggling up to Labor on the basis of one leaflet which uses the term 'Labor can't do it alone' in discussing the Senate numbers and getting rid of John Howard's majority is a bit of a long bow.

If the Greens had such a commitment to peace you would think that they could hold a non violence anti war rally! They display more violence than the average person.

Can't understand you, Davo P, Have a Political Science degree as well as a Post Grad in Macro-Economics, but still can't understand anyone believing in an economic theory that is just survival of the fittest for capitalistic racketeers with no holds barred.

Where is it all going to end, mate, with such types running the globe, with them not even knowing that rationalism in economic rationalism is all about balance and reasonable dealing.

Typical of it is the latest racket about getting rid of the social sciences in our universities to be replaced by heaven knows what?

Well, seeing that law happens to be part of the social sciences, looks like the industrial racketeers will have more of a free go than ever.

Labour, in fact, would be far better to go back to Keynesian economics which managed to get us out of the 1930s Great Financial Depression.

Let's hope Kevin Rudd is thinking more than a bit about it.

Dear Mr Anderson,

Re:

"Bob Brown now supports the war in Afghanistan, [and] has weakened his Party's support for the Palestinians ... "

What convincing evidence can you provide to back up your opinion on these two points?

Dear runner,
Sorry, you are completely misinformed. I have never once seen a Green do anything violent, let alone at a rally. One reason I remain on the whole impressed with them is the degree to which they live up to their ideals, and that comes from long and close observation/participation. Maybe you are getting them mixed up with far left anarchist types who in turn would describe The Greens as conservatives?

Dear Sir Vivor - that is a reasonable question - here are some sources (my comments in capitals):

GET OUT OF IRAQ, BUGGER AFGHANISTAN:
"The current Afghanistan mire comes out of the Bush administration’s mistake in withdrawing from Afghanistan and invading Iraq. It should be President Bush dispatching the extra contingent to Afghanistan, not Australia," Senator Brown said. (Bob's website, media release 10/04/07)

ME TOO:
"Greens leader Bob Brown is backing Kevin Rudd’s 3 point plan to tackle the problem of drug abuse, specifically methamphetamine or ‘ice’. ... Senator Brown said that while much more needed to be done, Rudd’s proposal ought to be taken up by the government." (Bob's website, media release 15/04/07)

A bit more for Sir Vivor. Sources on the Palestinians:

Comment: While Kerry Nettle and Bob Brown have both spoken out in defence of the Palestinians, they also voted to ban the 'military wing' of Hamas. A recent internal attempt to water down the Greens pro-Palestinian policy was defeated by Greens members.

HOWARD SHOULD HAVE BANNED HAMAS TWO YEARS BEFORE

ALEXANDRA KIRK: Bob Brown's accused the Government of manufacturing fear and failing to produce a shred of evidence to justify banning Lashkar-e-Taiba and the military wing of Hamas.

BOB BROWN: It is a political exercise based on that lowest of political motivators, and that is fear – manufactured fear. This Government has manifestly failed to proscribe these dangerous, deadly, lethal, disgusting terrorist organisations for the last two years, and it's done nothing about it. It's absolutely disgusting politics from the Howard Government. (The World Today 7 November 2003)

KELLIE DAY: Senator Brown says he supports efforts to outlaw organisations deemed a danger to Australia's national security. But he says in this case, it doesn't appear the Howard government had received any new information about Lashkar-e-Taiba.

BROWN: And we were left to believe that it was really being done to cover the embarrassment of Brigitte's activities in Australia or alternatively simply to raise the spectre of terrorism by banning organisations which it should have banned before. (Asia Pacific 7 Nov 2003)

Sorry Michael G.

I'm going to poke, if not burst your bubble somewhat. Like Atlas (there isn't the world upon your shoulders, hey Atlas hey?) I would describe myself as an insider, at least in left politics.

At the next election, I will be voting Green. I will also be working to put a Green's candidate into the Senate because the majority of Greens who I have met do live up to the ideals that I believe in and I trust this particular candidate to do this.

But like all political parties, they have attracted their fair share of mavericks. It's been the people who are usually dismissed as far left feral who I have found to be the people who these Greens (a minority and identified in their own party) claim to be.

After all if you had personal gain in mind would you become a Anarchist or a Socialist? Hardly. You would join Labor, Liberal and now even the Greens. Sadly the Democrats don't seem to be sparking. Trust the intentions of a Anarchist or a Socialist over a Political Green.

There is not enough in the budget to tackle environmental problems at all. For example water will take more funding and clean energy generation is, itself, a better investment than another trust fund for University potential "future funds". This assumes the investments are not wiped out by stock markets crashing, possibly due to climate change.

@Amie, you clearly don't like the Greens and no matter what they do, you have generally made a statement that you wont vote for them anyway. A policy is not the gravy it is the beef.

@Red fairy, the Greens are not responding to Costello at all. Rudd is the "me too, I am a proud conservative economist" tape recording. Get that one right.

@Runner, I was waiting for you to mention sex with animals as you have in past.

@DavoP, there is nothing radical about the Greens immigration policy, it is similar to the one used successfully in NZ. That is a Labor Government. It is a very economical alternative and children are not locked in cages.

@Myths on the Greens, Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle are not the leaders of the Party, they are spokespeople. Believe it or not, they are not Gods in their own party. On the drug policy, the harm minimisation section IS anti-drugs, and goes into details of managing the disaster, not just lock people in cages. The Government's "war against drugs" and their "war against terror" is not working for us. It is not meant to. It is meant to keep them in power.

If the Greens have a vision, they are accused of being utopian. If they attempt to be "more mainstream" as Bob Brown has attempted to do himself as an individual, then you accuse them of responding to the Government. If they don't, you accuse them of not listening to the people.

Some of you have been mislead in understanding their Party.

Do you really want the major parties to keep a mandate in the Senate?

Thank you, Tim A

Your evidence is arguable, but not conclusive. Maybe you watched the "Bastard Boys" special yesterday and Sunday. The relationship between spokespeople, leaders, number-crunchers, head-kickers, negotiators and the rank and file is always hard to pot in a couple of quick quotes, though Some would have us believe otherwise.

I wonder about your own philosophical and spiritual place on the political landscape. I would assume you are closer to the policy position of the Greens than that of Labor, but I can only guess. Your opinion piece suggests disillusionment.

My own disappointment is in the Greens' lack of recognition of an overriding method of analysis which can unify policy. It does seem to me that the work of HT Odum provides a description of natural and human commerce and material interaction which can provide a basis for arguing the ralationships and values of particular flows of energy, materials, information and money.

David Holmgren has applied some of Odum's thought and discusses the relationship of Odum's work to his work in a 2004 interview. See
www.energybulletin.net/524.htm

After 20+ years of being active in the environmental movement, plus 8 years as an MP in the WA parliament, I've lost my respect for the Greens party and its members. Under Bob Brown, he and the party are more interested in winning votes than in actually achieving wins for the environmental.

If you'd like me to explain why I now hold these views, I'd be happy to add a few more posts with stories explaining why I'm now so cynical and distrustful of the Greens.

Dear Bushie, can't see what your quals have to do with anything I wrote. Perhaps you didn't do English. Can you explain the relevance of your comments and the need to quote quals that make no difference here as it's OPINION, not facts. I'd actually like to see some debate but it's rather sparse.

Saintfletcher, have you actually read what they write to each other. Stuff like "Brother, a call to arms...blah blah blah". Famous Five rubbish, code words and all. They have a minus population policy. Do you know what that means? No kids or executions. How else do we get a minus population growth, if that makes any sense at all. They say no kids. What do you say?

Do read some population studies and stop listening to the "sky is falling in" mob. We are a big country that hasn't been developed beyond the coastal fringe. What desert countries do you know of that thrive? Not OZ, we ignore it. There are perhaps one or two that use the sun to build the towns and cities don't they? Once Leave ot to Beaver leaves perhaps....

@Davo, private memos such as "Brother, a call to arms...blah blah blah" as you put it sounds absurd.

I've never seen the Greens use that kind of language. Do you have a copy of the memo? Publish the details, date, and we can ask someone in the Greens Party to please explain. If it is real, I certainly would not tollerate such nonsense.

I didn't realise that you were on their email list. Does that mean that you are a member?

I have never heard of any negative population growth policy. Could you tell me where the policy is? I can't find it, is this another case of hearsay?

"ooo Beryl did you hear the one that they all eat kittens, and they plan to ship all Liberal members to Siberia".

"...ooo...yeees yeees I know. I know."

"Communists as Harold would say. Tree hugging Lesbian Communists from Mars. Even the men. And they are Volvo drivers"

"...ooo...yees yeees I know. I know."

"Then there's that aweful man Bob Brown who eats babies and kisses terrorists on the bum and calls it peace"

"....I know...I know...yeeees...yeeees"

"I think I'll vote Menzies I is"

"....I know...I know...yeees...yeees"

So the cleaver country choses wheter or not it wants to care for it's own land, water, sea and air or whether they'll just go with Costello and his promise of fiscal paradise. Now, who is whacky?

There will be no fiscal paradise without arable land or enough water for us to survive and cyclones are annually moving south. It will be more than bananas next time.

After Hurrican Katrina, even the American corporations are not laughing at global warming any more. The storms, the droughts and the biblical weather is making business vulnerable.

In the backwoods of Australia the major parties are not offering sufficient attempts to sit at Kyoto and make a real difference.

They don't want to frighten Beryl and Gladys at the local bowls.

Apart from my sattire, who is whacky?

Saintfletcher, you made an asumption about me which I wish to dispute when you said.....

"@Amie, you clearly don't like the Greens and no matter what they do, you have generally made a statement that you wont vote for them anyway. A policy is not the gravy it is the beef."

Firstly, I'm green through and through, but not a Green Party supporter at the present time. I haven't made up my mind yet just who I'll vote for in the coming election. I actually love most of the Green's policies, but there are a couple I have trouble excepting. My total disdain is directed towards John Howard. Not the Coalition Government per se, I have voted for them in the past, just that one man. I regard him as a lying, squirming snake who hides behind and uses talk-back radio to spin his arrogant and despicable dogma. Nobody should be fooled into thinking he has any feeling towards the working class. He hates them. Also, he hates the unemployed, young mothers who he's forcing back to work with poor educational standards and is even targeting those on disability support pensions. Thank God I work for a living!

Saintfletcher, I'll take another look at the Green's policies since I haven't visited their site for some time, I will continue to visit all three major player's policies between now and the election and I'll then be in a position to make a more informed choice when the time comes. At present, I'm very frustrated that we don't have a stronger party to divide the political duopoly we are forced to endure rather than support.

Tim’s essay is a bit of a paradox. On the one hand, he argues that the Greens are compromising their support base by pursuing votes. And on the other hand, he frets about the need for the Greens to increase their vote, or ‘disappear’ like the Democrats.

I realise the point is really about whether to compromise or not to compromise. However, the solution of retaining a ‘radical voice’ is questionable, as is the suggestion that they develop ‘alternative media networks’. Being a party of protest becomes ephemeral and reactive; it swells the party ranks in the short term, but does not allow for long-term planning or stability. Also, the Socialist Alliance, for example, has never compromised its stance, and it has a brilliant and popular alternative publication in The Green Left Weekly, yet its electoral strength remains a low single digit percentage.

My feeling is that the Greens need to come off the back foot and be a lot more aggressive towards the mainstream media. They need to publicly ‘out’ the MSM on its unethical and dishonest treatment of the Greens to date. (Journalists have admitted to me in private that the Greens have been treated badly by their profession, despite the fact that many are sympathetic to Greens policies.)

Also, the worldwide green industry is set to become the major economic player of the next twenty years – and, to borrow a well-used neo-liberal scare tactic, those who are slow to embrace it will be left behind. With the main parties now accepting the inevitability of climate change (albeit superficially), the Greens now need to move on from their old policy of raising awareness on environmental issues to a policy of selling an economically sound sustainability package that is accessible to the general electorate.

@Aimie, I assumed this on your frustration, but it is good that you are taking another look at their policies again. The health and harm mimimisation policies are fully backed by all the drug and alcohol experts, especially St Vincents Hospital. They work on the coal face of drugs on the street and are so frustrated at how dysfunction the health system is in its attempt to making a difference: lowering the use of drugs and the number of people using them.

The websites written by Senator Brown and Nettle, are comments as the "spokespeople" from their own point of view.

The actual policy drives the party, much to the frustration of Bob Brown, and for this reason, the Greens can never be like the Democracs. You will not have a situation of elected people taking power into their own hands. It is clearly against the Greens way of doing business. Everything is agreed by the party, usually by consensus. So far there is no number crunching, branch stacking or any elected person in office taking power into their own hands.

From the humble beginnings of Bob Brown, the anti nuclear movement, the people against the third runway (NSW), the Quakers (WA). Various people who just wanted to be practicle without the usual sleeze in politics. They are clean, so I guess the media doesn't like boring real people.

If anything, this is a fresh change from what the major parties have to offer. Good Policy cannot be sold by bad politics, and good politics cannot save a party from a bad policy. Overall, I think they have a good forward thinking balance.

I agree with MLK, after talking to radio people in 2UE, I was surprised to find that a few well known shock jocks there are avid Green supporters. Talkback radio is done with a persona, and people forget performance from reality. So that may come as a surprise to you. Some Daily Telegraph journalists vote with a different hand than what they write with too.

As someone whos worked activly to support the Greens in the past, and someone who will continue to support them in the future, I would just like to point out how difficult it is to gain a foothold in politics outside of the big two.

Labor and Liberal have millions of dollars to spend on advertisements. They have the bennefit of thousands of members nationally. Paid staffers, many MPs, backbenchers, ministers and the like. Often the media, when presenting an issue, will present "both" sides of the issue by interviewing a Labor polly and a Liberal polly, while the Greens and the Dems never get a look in.

Meanwhile, both the majors will use the Greens as a whipping boy and attack them mercilessly, while the Greens no-corporate donations policy prevents them from raising the dough to counter the massive advertising budgets of the big two. In the Marrickville by-election in 2005, the local Greens group were forced to return their largest campaign donation ($2500) from the local pub, as it breeched the donation policy.

It is very difficult to raise a profile beyond a protest. The Greens must work harder, but the forces arrayed against them should be acknowledged.

As much as I have admired Tim Anderson’s commentary on some issues in the past, It’s clear this article is well below par.

Firstly the idea that no other Green candidates stand a chance in the upcoming election besides Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle is plain wrong.
Recent polling and past state and federal electoral results show that Scott Ludlum in WA and Richard Dinatale in Victoria are actually looking more likely than Kerry Nettle in NSW. Kerry’s chances really depend on chance, a combination of preferences and where the leftover votes from Labor will fall. Outsiders are the Green candidates in SA and QLD but with preferences and luck they too are in with a chance, especially given the death of the democrats. One poll even rated a second Senator in Tasmania as an outside chance.

The big problem with attempting to make out that the Greens are now irrelevant is that Labor voters need them in the Senate. Without a Greens Senate balance of power Labor will not be able to pass legislation. With only a half senate election it is mathematically impossible for Labor to gain a majority, hence the Greens are the only hope of altering workchoices and any other liberal nastys labor voters may care to want to change.

As others have pointed out in this forum, it’s very easy to bag the Greens as either too radical or too soft. The Murdoch papers do it all the time

Dear Scrubba - I didn't say the Greens were irrelevant, just that I feel they are playing a losing hand. The polls show their support is weakening. I also would like to see them get the balance of power in the Senate (far preferable to a Lib-Nat OR a Labor majority) but I'm almost certain this isn't going to happen - best wishes - Tim

The reality of this election is we have a coalition with control of the Senate or the Greens and maybe family first.

The Greens whether you like them or not are minor players and do have viable policies to strike a balance in the Senate.

Im from Queensland and am impressed with the Greens candidate Larissa Waters. www.larissawaters.net . If I had to choose between a liberal, labor, National or family first, this intellegent woman would win hands down.

Anand

The Greens will always have trouble due to a media ban on us. Its very difficult to have letters,profiles and news items published when the media ignore us. The reason the Greens have increased their vote in recent years is due to the diversity of their policies and not being a one dimensional party. With the ALP moving more to the right and becoming a newish looking clone of the Libs the Greens are the only true alternative and the last hope for working families.

Bill Weller
Greens candidate for Kingston SA
AMWU delegate

Yes that is correct that the ALP needs the Greens in the senate but the Unions need the Greens there as well to keep the ALP to its promises. As one Union leader remarked Howard is the devil we know the ALP is the devil we don't.The left wing of the ALP is nearly extinct and along with that so will their policies. The Greens still hold those policies and most voters will never get to see that. ( and they call it democracy )

Bill Weller

The unions are all pro ALP and will not support the Greens. They are set in their ways and will allow the ALP to walk all over them and still vote ALP.

The Greens although have stronger policies for workers will not and cannot expect Unions to assist in any way.

Yes, the media do not give the Greens much space, but do they deserve it. Are they relevent, are they newsworthy??. Bob Brown is a smart media player but the others do not play the media's game and get little coverage.
The Greens strategists need to start thinking outside the box and move into the new media, the internet and by pass the traditional media.

The media and Unions are not the concern for the Greens it is the ALP preferencing family first before them as happened in Victoria. This could happen Australia wide and Family first will hold balance of power. No work place relations laws being changed, no progressive social policy passed and Australia will go backward thanks to the ALP back room deals and the Unions being weak and not standing up to the ALP.

It has nothing to do with the Greens nuggling up to Labor. It is more about the ALP selling their soul to the fundamentalist family first.

Anand

The Greens ?
Who are they ?

Bill Weller,

Congratulations on your up-front, intelligent post.

I'm guessing that competition for preferences is the key struggle between now and their declarations. I wish you well.

It's difficult for me to believe that either the right or the left has any overarching system of analysis which applies consistently at all levels - from the local to the global.

No political group, Marxists, Capitalists or others, can currently offer a method of looking at world at regional, local and personal scales, so as to better seek sustainable solutions to problems of energy flow and the exchange of materials, information and currency.

In a previous post, I mentioned that:

"It does seem to me that the work of HT Odum provides a description of natural and human commerce and material interaction which can provide a basis for arguing the ralationships and values of particular flows of energy, materials, information and money.

David Holmgren discusses the relationship of Odum's work to his Permaculture work in a 2004 interview. See
www.energybulletin.net/524.htm "

Additionaly, you may be interested in the application of Odum's system of analysis to the state of West Virginia.
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/publications/files/wvevaluationposted.pdf

See also this link, describing the relationship between the idea of emergy (embodied energy) to environmental law (in the US):
http://www.lclark.edu/dept/elaw/objects/Angelo_Brown_emergy_paper.pdf

Emergy or "Embodied energy" is the energy already implicit in something - for example, all else being equal, a punnet of strawberries at the shop has more embodied energy than a punnet of those from your strawberry plants at home, because of the transport and labour involved in getting them to the shop.

Odum spent his professional life exploring natural and technologically driven flows of energy and materials, and developed a system of analysis which is worth the consideration of anyone interested in a sustainable future.

Interesting ideas, worthy of any politician's consideration.