What The People Want

Our environmental minister is undoing any good work that has been done over the years,this is why his described as being an agent for industry.The professors & oceanographers have
been ignored in regard to desalination,all studies produced were backed up with evidence.According to government we have a shortage of water,land & qualified people.This is total rubbish,stop leasing rich farming land to companies to build mud lakes & contaminate. 15% of potable water is for households,the remainder is divided between agriculture horticulture and industry.Why are there so many qualified people unemployed,why are workers having to train the qualified people being bought to Australia?There are to many myths & unanswered questions.Is there a party that actually cares about country and people?

Australia has past the point of responsible environmental impact. Let's cut the bull, become an insular country, honour our existing citizens, and, protect the future for our children. That is, a country who, (according to a UN spokesman some time ago), can feed the world does not need to import at all. We simply need to get the demand generated best price for exports.

Its not the USA we have to be consumed with, of course world politics is an important issue, but it's the local councils of this country allowing extremely uneconomical and unsuitable housing to be erected with no real consideration given to the little pieces of flora and fauna that are left trying to scratch a living between land developments. This is possibly for the monetry gain that the council will realise with the extra population. The population growth will also give the local council more clout in the house no doubt.

Councils will happily give you rate consessions for a number of 'green' additions to your home including low flow taps, solar water, water tanks and a few little items here and there. But they are still approving homes by the dozen that are
1/ Slab on ground (A house with 300mm of ventilation will cool your house remarkably) 2/Small eves. (Gives your walls no protection from the sun which subsequently heats your home) 3/Fully air conditioned asd a result.
Bring back the modern Queenslander and cut your air con use in half! Get rid of the brick boxes!

The large domestic house builders in this country have had it too easy. They build to a cost plan, not to an environmental one. And the reason for this is that the local councils are approving it, for either there own selfish reasons or they are being held over a barrel by developers. Which one is it?

I live on the Gold Coast and am still amazed at the woeful housing still being approved and churned out here.

Oh yeah, the city folk statement doesn't sit all that well with me either (Alison 13/July, Graham Yong 12 July), it strikes me that much of the initial and ongoing environmental degredation in this country was initiated by farmers using poor farming practices such as poisons, clearing vast areas of land with no control methods for nutrification or erosion, which all ends up in our waterways as silt and unused fertiliser, you can find this type of pollution in just about any Australian river. If you still dont believe me go to Cooya Beach near Port Douglas and have a look for yourself. The brown sludge and what looks like detergent bubbles and oil that seep straight into the Great Barrier Reef via the mangrove system at low tide smells and is an eyesore. This type of farming is directly contributing to the death of one of our greatest assets and our only wonder of the world. I might only be city folk now but I have seen both sides of the fence and both sides have their faults, different as they may be, equally damaging they are to our beautiful land.

I don't know what the solutions are, but these things have to be bought to the publics attention and made into an issue of importance before anything will happen.

Maybe the reason the survey is not truly representative is that the Greens and Labor supporters are the ones who are most likely feeling that they are least able to be heard. It is a wonderful thing to participate in something that you feel is partially democratic, and in principle frees the thinking voter to discuss.

I agree that the main problem for the earth's future lies with the attitude of the most powerful and greedy nation, USA. The attitude of "profit at all cost" and "shareholders come first" is the way to destruction. How to change these priorities voluntarilly? I don't know. But I hope we don't have to wait until we are forced to by the force of Nature herself.
Discussing all this is very good for the future.
Thanks for the opportunity!

For Waratah - the Greens tend to feel there is a lot at stake here. They want an ecologically sustainable future - which clearly is at risk - I suspect many others may be at the best complacent and at the worst feel there is no problem - after all, they have a big house and big 4WD. Nice.

I tend to agree with Grahams comments (July 12) -people who are "on the land" tend to be more in contact with what the real issues are - city folk just turn on taps - water. Go to the shop - food. There are lots of "green" farmers dealing with some important issues like salinity and better ways of using water - but equally there are lots of economic and political pressures they face as well. I guess they don't see the "Greens" as having their best interests at heart. In NSW they are tending to vote "Independent".

Australia tends to exporting its natural resources - even though agricultural exports only contribute about 4% of overall economy. The overgrowth of what was once referred to as the Tiger economies - dare I say it - in response to what is perceived as the benefits of western countries - clearly dominated by "American culture" will continue to contribute to consumers consuming themselves out of existence.

If Australia wishes not to "collapse" as Jared Diamond put it - and it has the potential to do that in a very short time frame (we could end up like Iraq - with only one resource) ....we need to consider the very precarious situation we are in - socially, environmentally and economically. The Australian landscape once had the capacity to be very, very productive - but all environmental systems have a 'carrying capacity'. We need to stop mining it....the water, the soil, the minerals.

The economic inputs that the environment provides are not factored into decision making very well, nor are the externalities. If you damage something - it costs to fix it. Bandaid solutions are the favourite of all Governments. What we need is better long term visionary planning with better environmental and social costing. We may even need to help people adjust to a new way of living I refer people to the CSIRO websites - plenty of material there.

Developing countries have to deal with sustainable approaches to delivering the basics to their people - it is a double edge sword...providing water storages for people? or providing for the landscape? My Indigenous friends tell me that they view the landscape as their mother - look after it and it will look after you.

It occurs to me that there is more than just the United States of America to worry about when we are talking about over population and pollution and an imbalance in trade.
When we talk about population explosion and growing economies we need to include China and India. The United States might have started the "culture of greed and consumerism" however watch how quickly the Chinese and the Indians will seek to follow in the "western" traditions of car ownership and large consumer spending with little or no regard to pollution and the use of limited resources.
Also we have seen how American foreign policies have impacted on smaller trading countries, it is now a great concern that China and India (who pay workers some of the lowest wages in the world and provide poor working conditions) will, because of their cheap labour and low production costs, flood foreign markets and effect the working conditions and the rights of workers in other parts of the globe.
It is perfectly understandable that these two countries (China & India) want all the material benefits which the American population have enjoyed over a long period of time.
My point is that:
1. An inevitable imbalance in trade will see smaller communities and nations struggling to maitain any profitable domestic markets.
2. An influx of cheap foreign products might spell the end for many local industries and communities will suffer and be unsustainable as a result.
3. The effect of consumerism and pollution in these countries with large populations will be an environmental nightmare.
4. How will workers in other countries compete /and or survive when workers in China and India are payed so little but produce so much?
5. We share this planet, so nothing is done in issolation. We all need clean food, clean water and clean air - when will that become the inalienable right of all individuals ?

I agree with Graham Young that Farmers are far more concerned with their land's sustainability (be it for environmental or economic reasons). Instead of voting Nationals who don't mind putting it under water if it is in the way of a Dam why don't Farmers start supporting the Greens?

The comment by a male that "the United States is our biggest environmental problem" hits the nail on the head. The US government is an instrument of the corporatocracy, and its policies are directly related to the enrichment of corporate shareholders. So the environment, both global and local, is set for continued degradation while through the WTO and bilateral free trade agreements the world's resources are exploited for the benefit of the few who control the US economy.

Professors that have given their time & expertise on problems that are forseen in regard to desalination plants & proposed locations.For some reason they have been ignored in preferance to those from the east,that agree with State government.Our environment is being ignored in preferance to the dollar.We did not elect a government to abuse or be part of environmental vandalism.

Lee, you're dead right. But if you look closely, I've adjusted for that. Most of the percentages I've quoted have been drawn from a sub-sample which was normalised against Newspoll's figures for voting intention. You can still end up with quite a large sample this way, certainly sufficient to make balanced conclusions.

The other thing that we do, even when we don't balance, is to report on the sub-groups.

And if you want to know what Greens voters think...well, I'm your man, because more of them talk to us than anyone else I suspect.

Environmental politics is just that - politics.

Politician's of all sides are not really that interested except for where they taste votes. This includes the Greens. I believe that the political party that would have most connection to the environment would have to be the National Party since a large base of its membership is farmers.

While there are some farmers who continue to pollute, most are looking after their land. It is their business and they want it to last. Most environmental destruction is committed by governments and multinational business.

Unfortunately, city people think that they should decide rural policy even though their knowledge is non-existent. All they know is what they hear - political propaganda and media sensationalism.

It may have dragged a good 1,243 respondants but it certainly was not representative. 43% Greens, 19% Labor, 9% Liberal 5% Democrats and 4% National is hardly the national voting pattern. At best we are talking to ourselves and no amount of analysis is going to make the sample useful politically. Oh well, at least I know where like minds lurk.