Turnbull is in the wings, and very capable of stepping in. A far better choice than Abbott will ever be.
Abbott' s boat policy went down like a duck on opening morning.
What do you expect when you start playing with 3 and 4 star rankings, let alone their authority.
Taking advice from a retired officer was not good as he was known as a radical, and it was best for him to retire.
There is talk going on, as you can see Abbott is scrambling and getting nowhere.

Dear Rehctub,

You wrote: Simply tell me How!

There are sustainable processes. We can farm so that the land is not destroyed by using it wisely in rotating crops, not destroying aquifers, etc. We can fish sustainably by putting aside no fishing zones, not trawling, limiting catches, etc. We cannot mine sustainably. However, even in mining we can try to limit the damage. In Queensland we could construct rail lines to the Gulf of Carpentaria rather than increasing shipments through the ports next to the reef as Campbell Newman wants to do.

You wrote: Do you drive a car, do you use electricity supplied by the grid, is your computer running off grid supply and do you buy your foods, or a portion of them from a shop.

I cannot change the fact we get energy from non-renewable resources and do not have public transport where I live. That requires group action to get such alternatives. I support such group action. We try to limit our footprint. Some weeks we do not have trash for the garbos. All organic wastes go to our compost. We have no air conditioning or central heating. We have solar hot water.

We will not see who’s right by whether the Greens get votes or not. We will see who’s right by what is happening & will happen to Australia in the future if we continue to disregard what is happening to our environment in the present.

There are three main challenges to the environment as I see it:

Uncontrolled population growth. In that Abbott and Rudd are both unconcerned with the problem.

Destruction of the producing capacity of land and sea Here there is a difference. Tony Burke under Gillard set aside ocean national parks which will be areas where fish populations can regenerate and will act to save the capacity of the oceans. I assume Abbott would get rid of them. That is the issue which decides which party I preference.

Climate change: Rudd announced this as the ‘moral challenge of the age’ and then did little or nothing. Abbott called it ‘crap’

rehctub wrote:

Finally, as for my statement of the greens being poison, let's just wait and see what the voters think, as it's my bet thatbthe greens will be wipped out at the forthcoming election.

Let's see who's right!

Dear rehctub,

I am not predicting a large Green vote. I predict that the strategy of the two major parties will be successful. People will ignore the big issue which is the destruction of our environment, our economic base and our base of life, by concentration on such diversions as the boat people. The real poison to the future of Australia are the two major parties which will be successful in persuading the people of Australia to swallow their poison.

You are probably right. In fact I agree with you on the size of the Green vote. The people of Australia will continue to accept the destruction of this beautiful country and the seas around it.

Even though the two major parties will continue to ignore the main issue and get re-elected it will not change what will happen. Unfortunately, the Greens will be proven to have seen the problem when it will be much harder or even impossible to do much about it.

The old standbys of disease, famine and conflict will continue to solve the problem of overpopulation. However, the capacity of land and sea to sustain us will not be restored in the foreseeable future. The species that are going extinct in the sixth great extinction which is going on now will be extinct forever.

Paul1405, if these people were in fact genuine refugees, as you quite clearly believe, they would be so breatful to have ANYWHERE to live so long as the threat of death was taken away.

They are obviously not, as if they were, they would not be burning the safe havens WE have supplied.

David f, rotational farming posses it's own negative effect on climate, as the movement of machinery from paddock to paddock is not only cost negative, it's also non productive.

I do however agree with you on rail.

I work and live most of my time in a QLD mining town, which is also the main feeder road for the channel country, and the number of B-doubles traveling empty is mind blowing.

It's just a pity Anna decided it best we sell our rail off, as I am all for increase rail, run off coal seam gas generated electricity.

But, at the end of the day, our biggest challenge for any reform is our cost of doing business.

rehctub,

Why are the boats still coming when these people are now aware they will be sent to PNG.

Egad!....do yer think they really might be desperate?

Dear rehctub,

Of course one can find better ways to solve problems as to farming and other practices. As far as costs go the costs of dealing with environmental problems is going to increase. Those costs cannot be ignored when the cost of doing nothing gets big enough. Species that become extinct cannot be brought back. Land and sea that are degraded will take millennia to recover.

Actually I am bothered by the fact that the Greens do not concentrate on the environment more and concern themselves with other matters too much. However they are still way better than the Lib/Labs. Katter recognises the threat of fracking. I will probably place him in second place on my ballot.