But, I want to qualify my thoughts about qualifications.

Many of the smartest people I have ever met had no tertiary qualifications.

This observation was reinforced by my 7-8 year experience in university employment where I found that even professors talk bs and overrate their opinions and published works.

In fact, I have had much better policy debates when working in factories and building sites, talking to veterans at the races, and even sparring on OLO.

In a liberal democracy, which I love, all opinions are valid and can influence policy outcomes (including the environment)

to help promoter the discussion, here is the start of opinion piece which I invite readers to add to, support or critique as I write up body of argument.

"Can we can optimistic about the planet environmental future?

I give a qualified yes, but believe that the environment by 2050 will be vastly different from what it is today even for the most progressive of nations in terms of any determination to temper/address environmental degradation.

My argument will focus on two points that will highlight both policy possibilities and limitations.

One, in line with the reality that humanity always adapts to new challenges, increasing awareness about environmental degradation will lead to better strategies at both the national and international levels to address related problems.

Two, the competitive nature of international relations and the reliance upon economic and population growth may ensure that many nations continue to lag with regard to their environmental commitment, thus complicating global efforts.

"policy possibilities"?

Why some people never miss an occasion to try and play God, like a child sitting in a toy cart, turning the little wheel round and round as if they control the cart's movement, which is actually rocked by an engine or pushed by its parents!

2050? Can you even tell about tomorrow? Will humanity still be here? Would it even matter? At most you may pray "give us today our daily bread", but if you are looking for a winning strategy then there is one: God's will shall always prevail, so if you align yourself to Him and say "God's will be done", then you can never lose!

And for those who are not inclined to think in terms of God, just let nature take its course, why worry?

And by-the-way, there is no global environment, no such thing at all: every one experiences the environment they deserve and so it shall ever be, no two experiences are the same.

Chris, should all opinions really be considered valid and influential in political decision-making? For example, should people who think the earth is flat be able to influence air transport policy? I realise this is an extreme example, but if everyone's opinion is equally valid and influential, where do we draw the line? Do we go with the majority opinion? What if they are wrong and minority opinion is correct?

Chris,

Excellent.

I started out with a BE. Thought it was dead end stuff so went on to do a BA and two MAs and have drifted into environmental sociology and hoping to make an MA thesis out of independent qualitative research I started several years ago. I didn't want to be in academia and stayed in the engineering game for my livelihood.

I dabbled in some political sociology at one point of my studies so I have a good idea of the things you cover and hope to have some good discussions with you.

My specialty is water. We are 60% water. The weather is water. The planet is covered by 70% water so why call it Earth? We should call it Water!

all opinions are never equal in terms of shaping an individual's opinion.

But all opinions are equal in terms of their ability to win a seat and elect a member of parliament, the main ingredient of liberal democratic policy outcomes. of course, the media and interest groups also help shape individual and public opinion.

the legitimacy of individual rights in a liberal democracy gives every person the right to express their views, but the social part of liberal democracy is also crucial in ensuring that policy consensus can prevail by winning a majority of opinions.

now I know some feel disdain for certain policy approaches in Australia, but I would argue passionately that we get it right most times in Australia.

even with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, where I have argued Australia failed, we still have cut our per capita emissions which is certainly better than nothing