*WOW*.....

I mean....*WOWWWW*....

What a breath of fresh air... some honesty about the Greens at last.

looking at all the bickering.. I'm thinking our various denominations are like an oasis in a wide desert by comparison :)

GINXy...

"Ho Hum, its pretty easy to define a Right-Wing extremist.

They are the ones who want to force everyone to do as they say, by law."

Well said.. now we can all rejoice that 'Christians' are definitely not 'Right Wing Extremists'.. because their Bible says:

"It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery." (i.e..the LAW)

"You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace."

Now that's freedom :)

I'm amazed (but welcome it)that the true colors of the Greens (party) are being nailed to so many masts here.

What saddens me though, is my own hairdresser and a few others who don't really dig into things much are influenced by the 'para-message' of the Greens "We care for the environment" when in reality.. the darkness of their Orwellian hyper managed Socialist "Utopia" is lurking like a hungry lion in the background.

They don't want to respond ? hah!.. cowards.. utter cowards... absolute wimps and lacking in intestinal fortitude..as they KNOW they cannot control the agenda HERE!

Col Rouge. A refugee from Thatcherism!

As someone who has been a member of a number of conservation and environmental groups and who very nearly, by a cat's whisker, joined the Greens, I only partly agree with Peter's article.

In the Greens defence, they are a political party. Political parties hoping to get elected (even if primarily in the Senate)are required to formulate policies across the broader spectrum. The Greens were criticised in their 'birth' stages for being too narrowly focussed on the environment and now it seems they face similar criticism for coming out strong on social justice issues - those evil, mean Greens. :)

The Greens are not incorrect when they argue that sustainability is not achieved solely via population numbers but has to include issues of consumption. I quote:

"- Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population.
- our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live.
- consumption patterns and levels, distribution of resources, agricultural practices for domestic consumption and export, levels and types of industrial activity, urban design and transport options determine the ecological footprint of a group of people."

The Greens are also about equity - that is not a bad thing. I suspect the Green's reticence about population policy is influenced by a fear that this issue will be exploited by those with racist agendas.

Despite this, I agree that the Greens need to be more forceful on a 'numbers' approach in population policy in addition to their 'consumption' focus. They are both important - we cannot continue to overpopulate or consume at the same unsustainable rate. Poorer countries can ill afford to increase their populations in an ever increasing spiral of poverty.

While it is the Greens perogative to decline to responsd, I am also disappointed and I believe they do themselves a disservice. I have great respect and admiration for Bob Brown as a man of integrity and one who holds a vision for global economic equity.

"Me too". Excellent article and good discussion. Yes a Green party without a strong proposition on population is contradiction in terms, and deserves outing. And as others have said it looks like Greens have set aside their roots in pursuit of the political ground occupied by the Democrats.

Pity. We are going to run into the limits of this planet in this century. We need politicians with a clear grasp of the implications of this - and it seems the obvious choice, the Greens, have lost interest.

I find it hard to square Peter Ridd's articles here on OLO with the rest of the stuff that comes from the AEF. Reading elsewhere, it seems Don Burke is a AGW believer. That makes the AEF a fairly broad church.

So what do you guys actually have in common? It isn't your views on the environment. You all look to have a right wing bent. My guess is you all take pleasure in mouthing off at your left leaning environmental brethren. The attitude reduces the impact of your message - and seems like a waste given you have so much in common.

The Greens (ie the party, not the more widely defined movement) are hardly radical. They are occupying some of the ground the Left of the ALP had before it moved to the Right.

The difference is the Greens have no links, direct or indirect, to the working class, while the ALP, through the trade union bureaucracy, does.

Infiltration? Entryism? Really, why would the radical left bother? This sort of watermelon analysis (green on the outside, red on the inside) just doesn't stack up. The Greens don't challenge the profit system. They are part of it.

Population control as the answer to environmental problems? Malthus was a reactionary. His logic was reactionary (and wrong). Resources are "limited" by a system based on production for profit.

Some people in the green movement see people as the enemy. Those who sprout population control are anti-human. They see only the effects of the profit system and overproduction, and blame the wrong group for that. Let's put people before profit.

Peter.

I tried to decode your article.

I say "decode" because frankly, I couldn't really recognise the Greens of which you speak. One can always cherry-pick stuff from well-meaning but otherwise outworn ideas, as you did. After all, the extent of the environmental damage we are causing is being revealed to us almost on a daily basis - an exponental rush of revelations you might say. It's easy to be left floundering in the flotsam of yesterday's most cherished beliefs.

All sides accuse each other of being illogical, because all sides - including yours - have been caught flat-footed and bereft of excuses for their idiocy.

".....the process by which the external world of physics is transformed into a world of familiar aquaintance in human consciousness is outside the scope of physics." (Arthur Eddington).

What bothers me Peter, is the idea that any physicist is prepared to bash and beat the metrics of natural laws, until they are distorted enough to fit into the pockets of profiteers.

Enter the Australian Environment Foundation.....