They're definately not green when it comes to economic self-interest.

As someone who values the debates in Online Opinion I am a little worried by the multiple appearances of writers associated with such a well exposed fronts as the Australian Environment Foundation. While I value open debate, and enjoy having my own values challenged by those I disagree with and respect their right to put their views across, this sort of subterfuge is unbecoming of a forum such as this.

If the IPA and the logging industry wants to posts its point of view on these issues then they should do so. But to hide behind front organisations, and for OLO to be part of the process I find most distressing

Sorry Michael. You were responding to Susan’s post. I could swear that her post wasn’t there, coz the first thing I did after reading yours was to look at other posts to see if you were responding someone else’s comments. Bizarre (:>|

But I do reckon that you, or Susan, should have a further attempt at impressing on the Greens that they really do need to respond.

.
Col, I consider my years with non-government environmental organisations, the Democrats and the Qld Greens to be a huge waste of effort.

In my experience, few people in those organisations could appreciate the enormous importance of the population / continuous factor, or even for the need for us to develop a sustainable society. And of those who could see it, very few were interested in contributing much, or anything, towards the fight.

I found this absolutely extraordinary and very difficult to deal with, especially given that in many conversations with ordinary people, continuous population growth was expressed as an obvious concern.

In more recent years I have travelled around the countryside visiting grazing properties, cane farms, etc all over north and central Queensland. Many times landholders have said; ‘I’m not a greenie but…’ and gone on to express continuous population growth as being of the most fundamental environmental and societal concern, totally unprompted by me.

At times I think it is almost as though the greenies are really the anti-greenies and that most or many ordinary people, not least the man on the land, are a whole lot greener!

Then I think; no, that is ridiculous. And then I remember the appalling lack of expression on continuous growth pressures from the Greens, Democrats, ACF, Greenpeace, QCC, NQCC, etc, and I think…..yep, I was right the first time.

The late Arthur Eddington was the "physicist's physicist" alright. His work had the stamp of modesty, which sets a true intellect apart from a mere technical observer, which is all that is required to be a servant of the AEF or the IPA.

Although the following quotation refers to particle physics (circa 1930s), the simple wisdom of his words is timeless:

*

"You leave them conversing on their special problems or their latest discoveries; but return after an hour and it is any odds that they will have reached an all-engrossing topic - the desperate state of their ignorance.

This is not a pose. It is not even scientific modesty, because the attitude is often one of naive surprise that Nature should have hidden her fundamental secrets successfully from such powerful intellects as ours.

It is simply that we have turned a corner in the path of progress and our ignorance stands revealed before us, appaling and insistent."

*

Pity old Sir Arthur has gone to the great particle accellerator in the sky. We could use a few more like him right now.

Don't you think so Peter?

Re: population overshoot, here's Prof Bartlett's Youtube presentation on the exponential function, for those who haven't yet had the pleasure.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Peter,

The Green population policy states as its first item; "Australia must contribute to achieving a globally sustainable population". All the other policies you quoted are in the context of that first item.

Political party policy does not normally quote precise figures leaving such promises to election platforms. Other organisations behave a similar fashion. Exact figures are determined from policy in the process of implementation.

An intuitive knowledge of physics will tell you that it is quite possible to increase population and reduce environmental impact. Impact is measured by the simple equation I = P * R, or Impact equals population times resource use per capita.

Introducing a population cap, as you propose, says absolutely nothing about per capita resource use. Read the next item of the policy; "our environmental impact is not determined by population numbers alone, but by the way that people live".

As an aggregate figure, the Greens policy seeks a net reduction in the use of natural resources. This is the appropriate policy as it measures actual impact.

I may also point out even if resource use per capita remains unchanged, even a radical reduction of the Australian population will not affect the global environmental problems. We simply cannot isolate Australia from the ocean currents and atmosphere from which the country exists.

The Greens provide a more comprehensive analysis of the situation that your tirade against them. It seems that you're more upset that they have bothered to include global and domestic social issues such as human rights obligations and decent wages in their population policy.

Yet it is this sensitivity to the a complex of issues is why the Green's Senate vote (poor Mr. Right is Mr. Wrong yet again) has consistently increased from the 1998 election (2.7%) to the 2001 election (04.9%), to the 2004 (7.7%) to the 2007 election (9.0%).

By not stressing a population cap, the Greens have taken correct approach. In this case you are incorrect and on a matter of simple arithmetic. It would do you well to acknowledge this.

Passy “Infiltration? Entryism? Really, why would the radical left bother?”

The first action of an entryist would be to deny the even strategy exists. Thanks for confirming it.

“Let's put people before profit.”

If you understood economics you would realise this “mantra of the inadequate” is simply untrue.

Our modern economy derives profit from the people who value the products/services sufficiently to buy them and those people are perfectly able to invest part of their income into the businesses which produce that profit.

The overall social benefit is an efficiency which can never be matched by a centrally organised society, because the centrally managed system is never able or willing to respond to the “chaos” of individual choice in the way free-market capitalists do.

“Those who sprout population control are anti-human.”

No, those who spout that “unbridled population growth is suicidal and the biggest single cause of environmental degradation” are those equipped with the vision to see the consequences of such actions.

They are also the ones who are recognising a personal responsibility , rather than making it a “governmental problem”.

Now we get down to the real issue, “taking responsibility for the consequences of ones actions” is a capitalist quality (the opposite side of the coin to “reward for personal effort”). Something which I guess the internationalists would rather hide from, when we consider the historic consequences produced from the “vision” of past internationalists.

Ludwig.. thanks for the elaboration. Count on my support for your view.

I have privately considered population growth and absolute population numbers the “elephant in the room” of both sustainability and environmental preservation for many years.

Regardless the rhetoric of the left (Passy) and my supposed “anti-human” stance, I see no alternative to some form of population constraint, preferably voluntary.

Because, ultimately, “a resource based policy for population control” is a euphemism for “Mass Starvation”, especially when it is the underdeveloped nations who are responsible for the population explosion and they who will be first to suffer.

Central governments action never solved anything. Only people taking responsibility for their own lives produces any sustainable benefit.