Oh I get it now. It's the *Creationist* Sustainability Party of Australia.

So that means God help us, I guess :)

I think I'll stick with the Greens, thanks all the same.

"It all hinges on his definition of science, if that is not semantics, then I need a new dictionary."

It's philosophy, not semantics. It comes down to the value of the different definitions. But thanks for moving the discussion away from the religious strawman.

"And if that part is included in your 'sustainability party' platforms freediver, you can seriously count me out on that one."

It isn't.

"I think I'll stick with the Greens, thanks all the same."

Are you concerned about whether the actions taken by the government to reduce greenhouse emissions and other problems are chosen based on popular appeal or economic rationalism?

This little exchange on "evolution is not scientific theory" has piqued my interest freediver.

Let's forget for a moment whether it means what Bugsy and CJ think it means.

What is the point of including it in your party's manifesto in the first place if it isn't a component of your platform?

After all, you have a series of pages on the site devoted to - presumably - statements that in some way represent what you want people to vote for.

Is "evolution is not scientific theory" a part of this package or not?

If not, why is it there?

Vague waffle about the need to "get people to understand what is written in plain english in front of their face" and to "correct people's misunderstandings about what you say in order to have a rational debate with them" simply does not wash.

We get enough dissembling with the current lot. To be different from them, you need to be straightforward and crystal clear about what you do and don't stand for.

So far you are failing that simple test.

Freediver;
This was not from my post.

"Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false."

The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place.
If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited.
That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war.

This protcol should be a policy for a sustainable political party.

It could be enforced by the UN and oil transport to countries that did
not comply could be intercepted by those countries that do comply.
After all it would save them heaps of money.

"What is the point of including it in your party's manifesto in the first place if it isn't a component of your platform?"

It isn't included. I only have one page dedicated to the party at the moment. If there is enough interest I will set it up on a different website so there is no confusion. The rest of the site is stuff I am generally interested in. Most of it is political and fits in with the party policies, but I deliberately left some out.

"The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place."

It will not avoid the price surge. It will just make it higher in some countries and lower in others.

"If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited."

It depends on how demand is limited. If it is taxed or the rights are capped and traded, the cost will go up even more in the affected countries. If there is some artifical limit that will keep prices low, but I am not familiar with a sensible way of doing this.

"That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war."

Scarce resources and a free market do not lead to 'chaos.' They lead to a very orderly tapering out of consumption, provided private ownership is protected. There is little risk of war. Renewables are a lot cheaper than war.

"This protocol should be a policy for a sustainable political party."

We have much better policies. The protocol you described is clumsy, worse for the economy than our policies and it's goal is not sustainability (reducing emissions) but rationing (shifting emissions from rich to poor countries).

Freediver,
"The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place."

>It will not avoid the price surge. It will just make it higher in >some countries and lower in others.

It will because the demand will reduce each year and match supply.

"If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited."

>It depends on how demand is limited.
It has nothing to do with tax or capping. It is done by the importing
countries reducing their orders for oil by the depletion percentage.

> If it is taxed or the rights are capped and traded, the cost will go
>up even more in the affected countries. If there is some artifical
>limit that will keep prices low, but I am not familiar with a >
>sensible way of doing this.

Go to the aspo site www.aspo.net and read about it.

"That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war."

>Scarce resources and a free market do not lead to 'chaos.' They lead
>to a very orderly tapering out of consumption, provided private
>ownership is protected. There is little risk of war. Renewables are a >lot cheaper than war.

The market is a feedback loop and if any one component in a feedback
loop limits the feedback loop stops responding then the control stops
functioning. The limit in this case is supply.

"This protocol should be a policy for a sustainable political party."

>We have much better policies. The protocol you described is clumsy,
>worse for the economy than our policies and it's goal is not
>sustainability (reducing emissions) but rationing (shifting emissions
>from rich to poor countries).

I don't know how I can make it simpler to understand just go and read
what the experts propose.