No, this article doesn't make it on a number of counts.

How's this as a candidate for some sort of award: "Human use of the environment is by definition an improvement to the environment, otherwise it wouldn’t happen." Maralinga?

Sophistry all the way down the line.

What a joke to write: "human use of the environment is by definition an improvement of the environment".

Perhaps Justin should visit some of the vast wastelands caused by human use (or rather abuse)of the environment that are to be found all over the world. Four dramatic examples would be the Aral Sea, the leveled hills of Western Virginia (via coal mining),the vast tracts of former rain forest in the Amazon basin, and the vast areas of China which are essentially environmental disaster zones.

He should also read todays posting by Barry Pittock.

Meanwhile I quite like these two magazines which define what an environmental ethic is, and what a truly human culture based on this ethic may look like.

http://www.resurgence.org

http://www.orionmagazine.org

Plus as always a reference to an institution that was set up with the intention of re-educating humankind altogether re the non-human inhabitants of this mostly non-human world.

http://www.fearnomorezoo.org

Plus this very stark image tells us all there is to know about the paradigm which drives the current system. A paradigm which is profoundly anti-human or the complete opposite to that expressed in the references above.

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.htm

"The western world is on the brink of sliding into fascism with the rise of a creed that government has and ought to have the unlimited power..."

Corporate America, together with big organisations from the mainly Anglo-Saxon countries and their allies (Saudi Arabia) or derivatives are using their influence on world governments to control the world to enrich themselves.

We should work towards getting rid of Obama, Saudi "royal family", IMF, World Bank, GATT, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Monsanto and many other big corporations that have implemented policies to impoverish the common person.

They should be brought to justice and executed for commercial crime like they do in certain countries.

http://www.globalissues.org/video/729/lori-wallach-free-trade-the-price-paid-part-one

A greedy, selfish, ignorant article.
The author doesnt spell out what he means by "human values" and given the diversity of humanity's actions, it could basically be read as "anything humans do". Given that it is humans that are environmentalists his argument could not be more illogical.

I find it hard to fathom that anyone could be so dumb as to state "he environmentalist values the same piece of land to satisfy a different kind of human want - for growing plant species that were here before 1788". What a disengenous, lie of a statement. If the author cant understand how the whole web of life works and how dependant humans are on the environment then he really is mentally defective. It is not about saving old trees it is about sustainably using the environment around us. Not depleting and wasting what we cant replace and fouling our nest in the process.

All round this argument is sinking to the depths of weaselness and is a new low for the climate change deniers. How much more can they debase themselves and their ideology of greed and exploitation?

<<the process by which original prices arise is far more representative of society and the greater good>>

Really? Were is your evidence fool? The greater good? Good for the wealthy who just keep getting richer. Good for white people. Good for despots and tyrants. Good for religious fanatics. Not so good for the rest of us who slave away on the consumerist treadmill, going nowhere but backwards.
Representative? "Every dollar is a vote". So how is the wealthy getting the vast majority of votes representative? The poor and destitute get virtually no vote at all. Representative! Get your hand off it mate.

Im not even going to bother with the rest of this fascists article. It is just too ironic for words for this prat to be talking about enviro fascism while promoting real fascism. The type of fascism where society is run by business for business. Todays world in other words.

The author is at least making a valid point that valuing the environment loses its meaning when humans are not valued. Some parts of the environmental movement are misanthropic and currently gaining ascendancy. They have strong influence in government circles, a fact which should cause great concern.

The eco-fascists will hate this article as both this writer and the anti-pops writer are attacking them using a humanist values argument and all the whiners throw back is 'we'll all burn in hell if we don't do as they want'.

The writer has accurately demonstrated the poverty of the far right/left environmental positions. They have no tenable creedo and make outlandish and ill thought out slurs on other cultures, especially Muslims and women.

While there should be action on climate change, the key drivers need to be consensus rather than the attack dog mentality of the eco-fascists.