"...there is no such thing as values over and above human values. If we took away all the people, there would be no value in the environment."

Well yes, but humans and the environment are very much linked. Go back to Year 9 Biology and studies of the ecosystem to see that humans can influence for the better or worse impact on the environment, which ultimately affects the human condition.

There would still be value in the environment if there were no humans, there just would be no value to humans (if they did not exist), but I am sure the animals, microorganisms and plant life would 'find' value (albeit not consciously).

After reading this article I am left feeling that something is missing. Did the author miss the news, Copenhagen was a failure and there will be no world government dictators deciding what we should do in regards to carbon emissions. It was always going to be a failure.

Of course we should keep our governments accountable but there have been strong moves away from the authors perception of facism which he fails to mention. The interfering morality of the Church is much less than ever before, and we will eventually even have same sex marriages (it has to happen). We are more and more moving away from dictating to people what they should do in their personal lives (as long as it does not harm others). It was much worse during the reign of Queen Victoria and in Pilgrim America.

If humans value other humans it is imperative that we don't destroy the environment we all live in and that wealth/resources are distributed more evenly. And this is apart from the debate on climate change.

Even some animals know not to foul one's own nest.

Pelican,
"There would still be value in the environment if there were no humans".

Absolutely.
The author of this article and his ilk have no concept, as mikk, points out, of our dependence on a well ordered eco-system. Environmental values are human values and vice versa - there can be no separation.

For instance, I offer the example and contrast of the two countries that make up the island of Hispaniola. The eastern part of the island belongs to the Dominican Republic, while the western part belongs to Haiti. Aerial photos depict two vastly different landscapes. The Dominican Republic is covered in vegetation, while Haiti is almost completely deforested.

Haiti was once a lush and tropical. The aerial photographs of the border between these two countries starkly reflects the amount of deforestation that has taken place on the Haitian side of the border.

Haiti is designated as the poorest country in the western hemisphere and one of the poorest in the world - a country where the inhabitants are forced periodically to make biscuits out of clay. The poverty endured by Haitians is directly linked to deforestation and habitat loss.

Human values and environmental values should be entwined - to separate the two is to invite disaster.

I could not agree with the writer more. People are deluding themselves if they believe governments are all about "the people" likely more about themselves and how they are seen.

An example: There is a farmer up a pole in Shannons Flat, New South Wales, dying of starvation. Why? Because the governments Federal and State have put him in the position of not being able clear and use his land to farm. They have done this in accordance with the so called promises signed under the Kyoto Protocol to cut CO2. They have not compensated him so the man, Peter Spencer, is willing to die because he cannot sell his land, he has no options and his life has been ruined.

Good government control? Is the Kyoto Protocol worth this man's life. I don't think so.

In Britain farmers are paid NOT TO GROW PIGS. That's the UEC coming into play. Is that okay in a world where many are starving? The EUC wants to pick and choose who grows the produce and who gets the money. And should they be allowed to dump processed chicken of suspect freshness on African countries rather than letting the people grow their own?

Give me answers, I'm willing to be convinced that the actions of politicians and governments are necessary and for our well being, but they would have to be very good answers to convince me that it is not greed.

Four paragraphs from the person who created and inspired the Zoo in my previous post.

The modern everyman of consumer society is a propagandized individual, participating in illusions and, effectively, self-destructing.

The modern everyman is being created by the power system of the world, because it is the interests of that power system for there to be consumer egos who are completely self-involved, self-seeking, and stupefied.

At present, a culture of total war, a culture of death, is ruling, while the people are engrossed in consumerism.

The present-time human world is fragmented and stupefied, utterly misled by the grossest kind of deluded thinking about "reality". The mass populations of the world are being seduced by the absurdities of "consumerism".

Atmans statement that
"Ultimately this issue is all about wealth and its redistribution the issue of climate is simply a convenient way for a new left elite to seek power"
seems to make the most sense to me.
The Watermelons would have us riding bicycles while they jet about the world redistributing our taxes,
after having put aside enough to cover their humble expenses of course.

It is a sign of an informed but uneducated mind that prevents the rising to concepts of universal breadth.

Many of the comments to JJ’s piece are stumbled by the very boulders the author can see, can’t dislodge, but cannot include in his conceptual argumentation.

The western world is on the brink of sliding into …

To my long experience the western world has never been out of...

Fascism! I was born in it and could realize its extent by migrating to a less fascist country than the one I was born in.

Which person we happen to deal with or we encounter in the course of our day, doesn’t show some form of anxiety, apprehension or right-out fear?

With the unlimited and unknown array of irrational rules imposed on us, with the constant danger of a law officer’s tap on the shoulder, where is a free citizen? Who is the State?

I wonder how a judge can get from home to his Court without breaking a law or another.

Yes we have the freedom to criticize authors and should do it mercilessly but we must do our best to be plausible with our arguments.

The Author of this article raises Ideas that have occupied the greatest minds.

He may even have read the text of the Australian Constitution, which is no mean feast. Have we done the same before arming ourselves with a pen?

The effort of man to raise the first question about himself was of Titanic dimension. Can we emulate his effort?

Or do we need be the guests of a prison or a concentration camp to fathom our dept?