Greens mull rethink on GM crop policy

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party is considering a policy change on genetically modified crops.

Despite genetically modified (GM) crops being grown across much of the country, the Greens hold a long-standing policy position opposing GM crop production that cites the precautionary principle amid fears about potential impacts on human health and the environment.

In contrast, the two main federal political parties have GM policies that back the scientific stances adopted by national regulatory agencies, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

However, Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade also involved connecting more with rural and regional communities where they’ve experienced recent success through hard-nosed policies on land use and mining.

But its opposition to GMs has continually frustrated farming groups.

dv said:

Greens mull rethink on GM crop policy

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party is considering a policy change on genetically modified crops.

Despite genetically modified (GM) crops being grown across much of the country, the Greens hold a long-standing policy position opposing GM crop production that cites the precautionary principle amid fears about potential impacts on human health and the environment.

In contrast, the two main federal political parties have GM policies that back the scientific stances adopted by national regulatory agencies, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

However, Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade also involved connecting more with rural and regional communities where they’ve experienced recent success through hard-nosed policies on land use and mining.

But its opposition to GMs has continually frustrated farming groups.

Never mind principles, we need votes – should be wiped of the earth.

jjjust moi said:

dv said:

Greens mull rethink on GM crop policy

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party is considering a policy change on genetically modified crops.

Despite genetically modified (GM) crops being grown across much of the country, the Greens hold a long-standing policy position opposing GM crop production that cites the precautionary principle amid fears about potential impacts on human health and the environment.

In contrast, the two main federal political parties have GM policies that back the scientific stances adopted by national regulatory agencies, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

However, Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade also involved connecting more with rural and regional communities where they’ve experienced recent success through hard-nosed policies on land use and mining.

But its opposition to GMs has continually frustrated farming groups.

Never mind principles, we need votes – should be wiped of the earth.

GM crops, General Motors should not have been allowed to meddle in this area.

dv said:

Greens mull rethink on GM crop policy

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party is considering a policy change on genetically modified crops.

Despite genetically modified (GM) crops being grown across much of the country, the Greens hold a long-standing policy position opposing GM crop production that cites the precautionary principle amid fears about potential impacts on human health and the environment.

In contrast, the two main federal political parties have GM policies that back the scientific stances adopted by national regulatory agencies, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

However, Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade also involved connecting more with rural and regional communities where they’ve experienced recent success through hard-nosed policies on land use and mining.

But its opposition to GMs has continually frustrated farming groups.

I’m totally in favour of GM crops but hate Monsanto. Monsanto is better described as a law firm that dabbles in GM crops. But it has a strangle hold on GM soybeans and other Roundup resistant crops. These crops are necessary for the farming industry. It’s rather like working for the mafia, you don’t want to but there isn’t a darn thing you can do about it.

So unfortunately I have to hold contradictory views on the topic.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Greens mull rethink on GM crop policy

AUSTRALIAN Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party is considering a policy change on genetically modified crops.

Despite genetically modified (GM) crops being grown across much of the country, the Greens hold a long-standing policy position opposing GM crop production that cites the precautionary principle amid fears about potential impacts on human health and the environment.

In contrast, the two main federal political parties have GM policies that back the scientific stances adopted by national regulatory agencies, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR).

However, Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade also involved connecting more with rural and regional communities where they’ve experienced recent success through hard-nosed policies on land use and mining.

But its opposition to GMs has continually frustrated farming groups.

I’m totally in favour of GM crops but hate Monsanto. Monsanto is better described as a law firm that dabbles in GM crops. But it has a strangle hold on GM soybeans and other Roundup resistant crops. These crops are necessary for the farming industry. It’s rather like working for the mafia, you don’t want to but there isn’t a darn thing you can do about it.

So unfortunately I have to hold contradictory views on the topic.

I don’t want to know what is unfortunate about holding contradictory views. Because I don’t want to say my entire life has been unfortunate. However this is indeed the truth. From the day the nun teaching me music broke my faith with a steel edged ruler across my fingers on.
I’ve spent a lot of my life telling people that my job description was indeed, doing graft and corruption for the mafia.

I would really like to know though, why roundup is necessary and therefore why the only GM crops are, required to be roundup resistant.

What more senseless motivation can there be?

If GM is to be used at all then why not for areal reason?

roughbarked said:

I would really like to know though, why roundup is necessary and therefore why the only GM crops are, required to be roundup resistant.

What more senseless motivation can there be?

If GM is to be used at all then why not for areal reason?

I would guess the Crop resilience and expense of development should lay in the GM technology. If the ongoing costs extend to weed managements being labour intensive then the GM advantage (if there is one) becomes negligible. My limited understanding of GM produce in the USA for example prohibits primary producers from producing their own variations from GM plants like soya beans. New product must be invested in, therefore the GM producers to primary producer must show true value for the imposed limitations. Being able to spray a grass GM product like wheat seems advantageous to me. The time saving and ease of application would be value adding not cost adding.

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

I would really like to know though, why roundup is necessary and therefore why the only GM crops are, required to be roundup resistant.

What more senseless motivation can there be?

If GM is to be used at all then why not for areal reason?

I would guess the Crop resilience and expense of development should lay in the GM technology. If the ongoing costs extend to weed managements being labour intensive then the GM advantage (if there is one) becomes negligible. My limited understanding of GM produce in the USA for example prohibits primary producers from producing their own variations from GM plants like soya beans. New product must be invested in, therefore the GM producers to primary producer must show true value for the imposed limitations. Being able to spray a grass GM product like wheat seems advantageous to me. The time saving and ease of application would be value adding not cost adding.

We’d be better to find a better grass. We know they are there. The dependence upon wheat isn’t so sustainable when it cannot by itself be stronger than the surrounding grasses.

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

roughbarked said:

I would really like to know though, why roundup is necessary and therefore why the only GM crops are, required to be roundup resistant.

What more senseless motivation can there be?

If GM is to be used at all then why not for areal reason?

I would guess the Crop resilience and expense of development should lay in the GM technology. If the ongoing costs extend to weed managements being labour intensive then the GM advantage (if there is one) becomes negligible. My limited understanding of GM produce in the USA for example prohibits primary producers from producing their own variations from GM plants like soya beans. New product must be invested in, therefore the GM producers to primary producer must show true value for the imposed limitations. Being able to spray a grass GM product like wheat seems advantageous to me. The time saving and ease of application would be value adding not cost adding.

We’d be better to find a better grass. We know they are there. The dependence upon wheat isn’t so sustainable when it cannot by itself be stronger than the surrounding grasses.

The aborigine ground flour from grains among other things but there was no need for roundup or wheat.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

monkey skipper said:

I would guess the Crop resilience and expense of development should lay in the GM technology. If the ongoing costs extend to weed managements being labour intensive then the GM advantage (if there is one) becomes negligible. My limited understanding of GM produce in the USA for example prohibits primary producers from producing their own variations from GM plants like soya beans. New product must be invested in, therefore the GM producers to primary producer must show true value for the imposed limitations. Being able to spray a grass GM product like wheat seems advantageous to me. The time saving and ease of application would be value adding not cost adding.

We’d be better to find a better grass. We know they are there. The dependence upon wheat isn’t so sustainable when it cannot by itself be stronger than the surrounding grasses.

The aborigine ground flour from grains among other things but there was no need for roundup or wheat.

Wheat flour only made the aborigine unhealthy.

>>> Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade
<<<<<<<<<<<

What? A move away from fundemental environmentalism?

Di Natale is cunning where Brown & Milne were lying pig headed zealots.

By opposing such things as GM food, nuclear power, fossil fuels and DDT, environmentalists have done serious harm to poorer people and their own public image.

Environmental activist Mark Lynas, admits, environmentalists were united, not by science, but by their emotional rejection of contemporary society.
What Lynas has realised, and fellow environmentalist George Monbiot has not, is that ‘sceptics’ did not undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and misanthropic outlook.

What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution.

The_observer said:

>>> Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade
<<<<<<<<<<<

What? A move away from fundemental environmentalism?

Di Natale is cunning where Brown & Milne were lying pig headed zealots.

By opposing such things as GM food, nuclear power, fossil fuels and DDT, environmentalists have done serious harm to poorer people and their own public image.

Environmental activist Mark Lynas, admits, environmentalists were united, not by science, but by their emotional rejection of contemporary society.
What Lynas has realised, and fellow environmentalist George Monbiot has not, is that ‘sceptics’ did not undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and misanthropic outlook.

What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution.

Rubbish.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

>>> Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade
<<<<<<<<<<<

What? A move away from fundemental environmentalism?

Di Natale is cunning where Brown & Milne were lying pig headed zealots.

By opposing such things as GM food, nuclear power, fossil fuels and DDT, environmentalists have done serious harm to poorer people and their own public image.

Environmental activist Mark Lynas, admits, environmentalists were united, not by science, but by their emotional rejection of contemporary society.
What Lynas has realised, and fellow environmentalist George Monbiot has not, is that ‘sceptics’ did not undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and misanthropic outlook.

What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution.

Rubbish.

what matters to the people of the world, according to the UN Poll?

The above is slightly out of date as the number of votes has now increased to 9,717,086 votes for All Countries & Country Groups / All Genders / All Education Levels / Age Group

“Action on climate change” has been DEAD last on the list of concerns humans have, from the begining of the poll,
with “Protecting forrests, rivers and oceans” not much better.

Normal people don’t listen to environmental activist organisations or political groups, like the Aus Greens,
because normal people have no respect for them.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

>>> Senator Di Natale said he had no personal objection to the science of genetically modified crops and his party was considering a potential policy change on the controversial farm technology.

He said the Greens’ goal to expand its voter base to 20 per cent within a decade
<<<<<<<<<<<

What? A move away from fundemental environmentalism?

Di Natale is cunning where Brown & Milne were lying pig headed zealots.

By opposing such things as GM food, nuclear power, fossil fuels and DDT, environmentalists have done serious harm to poorer people and their own public image.

Environmental activist Mark Lynas, admits, environmentalists were united, not by science, but by their emotional rejection of contemporary society.
What Lynas has realised, and fellow environmentalist George Monbiot has not, is that ‘sceptics’ did not undermine the environmentalists’ cause. Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. They have alienated the rest of society by their own uncompromising and misanthropic outlook.

What environmentalists lack in terms of a sense of proportion, they make up for with a sense of persecution.

Rubbish.

what matters to the people of the world, according to the UN Poll?

The above is slightly out of date as the number of votes has now increased to 9,717,086 votes for All Countries & Country Groups / All Genders / All Education Levels / Age Group

“Action on climate change” has been DEAD last on the list of concerns humans have, from the begining of the poll,
with “Protecting forrests, rivers and oceans” not much better.

Normal people don’t listen to environmental activist organisations or political groups, like the Aus Greens,
because normal people have no respect for them.

You are still talking rubbish.

An Indonesian court has thrown out a case against a logging and palm oil company for setting Indonesia on fire.
Money is justice in corrupt jurisdictions.
The Greens need to turn their activism to the real front line of environmental protection.

Peak Warming Man said:

An Indonesian court has thrown out a case against a logging and palm oil company for setting Indonesia on fire.
Money is justice in corrupt jurisdictions.
The Greens need to turn their activism to the real front line of environmental protection.

and running an online petition cannot be accurate.
• I didn’t vote.
• If I wanted to, I could vote numerous times.
• The most in need of action on climate change, may not even have the internet.

roughbarked said:

and running an online petition cannot be accurate.
• I didn’t vote.
• If I wanted to, I could vote numerous times.
• The most in need of action on climate change, may not even have the internet.

1, Its a poll by the UN, not a petition

2, matters not whether you voted or not

3, who would bother voting numerous times anyway, & do you plan to vote 9 million times to raise the position of AGW? LOL

4, the most in (supposed) need of action don’t care bout CC or the environment.

I heard an interview with Di Natale this morning. It’s a joy to hear a politician that expands on points rather than doing simplistic slogans and 6 second sound bites. It will be interesting to see whether the average voter responds to a more considered approach.

The Greens’ opposition to GMOs is unscientific. There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.

I expect/hope that the Greens will be the most rational party around, and to do this they need to drop some baggage.

what DV said. been having a discussion, and a civil one at that, with the National Toxics Network on FB.

dv said:

There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.

I expect/hope that the Greens will be the most rational party around, and to do this they need to drop some baggage.

That’s pretty much sums up what Di Natale was saying.

dv said:

The Greens’ opposition to GMOs is unscientific. There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.

I expect/hope that the Greens will be the most rational party around, and to do this they need to drop some baggage.

I don’t think Sarah Hanson Young will go easily.

dv said:

The Greens’ opposition to GMOs is unscientific. There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.

I expect/hope that the Greens will be the most rational party around, and to do this they need to drop some baggage.

Then, will they rewrite their global warming policies?

Wanting 100% renewables within a generation?

Australias head scientist is in great conflict with this green proposal as he knows it not possible.

Will they even review their unreasonable general projections of ‘worst case scenarios’ to at least a more moderate outlook based on actual data?

Will they change their policiy on Fracking? LOL

The extreme idiot irrational days of Bob Brown blaming natural weather events on Queensland coal mines may have passed with Di Natale at the helm,
but removing the “extreme”, irrational green agendas at any level are bad enough.

Your emotive language is very revealing, Observer. I sense you are under stress. But do keep to the topic under discussion.

ruby said:

Your emotive language is very revealing, Observer. I sense you are under stress. But do keep to the topic under discussion.

more & more ruby, I take whatever worthless comments you do make, with a grain of sea salt

Hmmm, maybe you need to reduce your salt intake, perhaps that’s part of why you are under stress, Mr Observer? One’s health is important- good health care was the #2 issue on the UN survey that you posted.

I’m in agreement with Moll, Monsanto’s aggressive marketing policies and their interaction with politicians have not done the GM debate any favours.

ruby said:

Hmmm, maybe you need to reduce your salt intake, perhaps that’s part of why you are under stress, Mr Observer? One’s health is important- good health care was the #2 issue on the UN survey that you posted.

I’m in agreement with Moll, Monsanto’s aggressive marketing policies and their interaction with politicians have not done the GM debate any favours.

Yes ruby, you have an intolerance problem with people who have views different to yours. Typicaly green mind you, I understand.
Illogical & baseless, emotive.

My views are from looking at all the evidence & making an informed judgement.

You obviously just jump blindly on the bandwagon, again very green.

The_observer said:

Will they change their policiy on Fracking? LOL

Since when has the fracking debate been resolved as innocuous?

During the Franklin River Dam Campaign Bob Brown was asked what was the best alternative to daming the Franklin river?

Bob Brown replied “ A new coal fired power station is the manifestly best option, built on Tasmanian coal fields”

.
.
.

Ha, whatever it takes

I’d like to hear your considered opinion on GM crops rather than your diversions into other issues, personal attack and your intolerance of greenies.

dv said:

The Greens’ opposition to GMOs is unscientific. There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.

I expect/hope that the Greens will be the most rational party around, and to do this they need to drop some baggage.

There have no been dramatic consequences from consuming food containing GM products thus far but I don’t think that you can conclude that all GMOs are innocuous.

The looming health problem appears to be from the associated high level usage of glyphosate, now classified by WHO as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans”, chemical adjuvants in commercial formulations, and their metabolites.

Has the toxicity of Roundup been greatly underestimated?

When regulatory agencies assess pesticides for safety they invariably test only the claimed active ingredient.

Nevertheless, these do not necessarily represent realistic conditions since in practice it is the full, formulated herbicide (there are many Roundup formulations) that is used in the field. Thus, it is relevant to consider, not only the active ingredient, in this case glyphosate and its breakdown product AMPA, but also the other compounds present in the herbicide formulation since these enhance toxicity. For example, formulations of glyphosate commonly contain adjuvants and surfactants to stabilize and facilitate penetration into the plant tissue. Polyoxyethylene amine (POEA) and polyethoxylated tallowamine (POE-15) are common ingredients in Roundup formulations and have been shown to contribute significantly to toxicity (Moore et al. 2012).

Our own recent study in the model organism Daphnia magna demonstrated that chronic exposure to glyphosate and a commercial formulation of Roundup resulted in negative effects on several life-history traits, in particular reproductive aberrations like reduced fecundity and increased abortion rate, at environmental concentrations of 0.45-1.35 mg/liter (active ingredient), i.e. below accepted environmental tolerance limits set in the US (0.7 mg/liter) (Cuhra et al. 2013). A reduced body size of juveniles was even observed at an exposure to Roundup at 0.05 mg/liter.

This is in sharp contrast to world-wide regulatory assumptions in general, which we have found to be strongly influenced by early industry studies and in the case of aquatic ecotoxicity assessment, to be based on 1978 and 1981 studies presented by Monsanto claiming that glyphosate is virtually non-toxic in D. magna (McAllister & Forbis, 1978; Forbis & Boudreau, 1981).

https://www.independentsciencenews.org/news/how-extreme-levels-of-roundup-in-food-became-the-industry-norm/

It is to be expected that ignorant and hypocritical arse-holes will represent any policy that limits commercial freedom in the interests of environmental protection as unscientific extremism. They are easily ignored, but when more moderate and informed people (and organizations) do the same thing that is a cause for concern.

The question of whether GM crops are safe in the long term does not have a simple yes/no answer. It depends on the degree of risk considered acceptable, the possible impact of adverse consequences (including unforseen consequences), the type of GM being implemented, and the degree of benefit from using the modified crop.

It is a very difficult question that I am not qualified to answer for any specific case, but to suggest that it is unscientific to apply the precautionary principle to this consideration is clearly nonsense.

I am not suggesting that the Green’s current policy has the right balance, but I do suggest that treating all evidence with true scepticism, and having due regard for the possible consequences of any action is essential in a scientific approach.

ruby said:

I’d like to hear –

1. your considered opinion on GM crops

2. rather than your diversions into other issues,

3. personal attack

4. and your intolerance of greenies.

1. Greater and more dependable harvests, need less water and fertilizer, good for humanity

2. funny that; here’s your first post ruby -*“I heard an interview with Di Natale this morning. It’s a joy to hear a politician that expands on points rather than doing simplistic slogans and 6 second sound bites. It will be interesting to see whether the average voter responds to a more considered approach.”*

not much said on GM crops by you! and I have elaborated on the bit -” It will be interesting to see whether the average voter responds to a more considered approach.”

3. you started it dear

4. greenies hate GM. Why? Because it means more people, & greenies hate other humans. It’s the too many rabbits sydrome, dear.

The_observer said:

During the Franklin River Dam Campaign Bob Brown was asked what was the best alternative to daming the Franklin river?

Bob Brown replied “ A new coal fired power station is the manifestly best option, built on Tasmanian coal fields”

.
.
.

Ha, whatever it takes

In fairness, it is well to update policies on the basis of new evidence. At the time of the Franklin Dam battle some 35 years ago, climate change was a genuinely controversial topic.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Will they change their policiy on Fracking? LOL

Since when has the fracking debate been resolved as innocuous?

I’m a fan of fracking, even though it has cost me money personally, because of its ability to disempower the Saudis.

But despite my fanhood I acknowledge it is far from clear that it is generally safe, and I would expect that even when all the evidence is in, it will be necessary to restrict and heavily regulate the industry to prevent groundwater contamination.

dv said:

The_observer said:

During the Franklin River Dam Campaign Bob Brown was asked what was the best alternative to daming the Franklin river?

Bob Brown replied “ A new coal fired power station is the manifestly best option, built on Tasmanian coal fields”

.
.
.

Ha, whatever it takes

In fairness, it is well to update policies on the basis of new evidence. At the time of the Franklin Dam battle some 35 years ago, climate change was a genuinely controversial topic.

35 years ago IPCC climate models projected a warming for a 2 x co2 scenario of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.

Today, IPCC climate models project a warming for a 2 x co2 scenario of 1.5 C to 4.5 C.

dv said:

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

Will they change their policiy on Fracking? LOL

Since when has the fracking debate been resolved as innocuous?

I’m a fan of fracking, even though it has cost me money personally, because of its ability to disempower the Saudis.

But despite my fanhood I acknowledge it is far from clear that it is generally safe, and I would expect that even when all the evidence is in, it will be necessary to restrict and heavily regulate the industry to prevent groundwater contamination.

and which seat will you be contesting as a Greens candidate next election DV?

The_observer said:

1. Greater and more dependable harvests, need less water and fertilizer, good for humanity

2. funny that; here’s your first post ruby -*“I heard an interview with Di Natale this morning. It’s a joy to hear a politician that expands on points rather than doing simplistic slogans and 6 second sound bites. It will be interesting to see whether the average voter responds to a more considered approach.”*

not much said on GM crops by you! and I have elaborated on the bit -” It will be interesting to see whether the average voter responds to a more considered approach.”

3. you started it dear

4. greenies hate GM. Why? Because it means more people, & greenies hate other humans. It’s the too many rabbits sydrome, dear.

Point 1 sounds like an advertising slogan. I do believe ‘good for humanity’ is also used with regards to coal for simplistic sound bites, but it’s been good to see that the general community is interested in a larger debate on whether coal mining and GM are in fact good for humanity.
There are so many factors in deciding what is in the greater good. For GM, the immediate production of food is just one factor. Ongoing sustainable production of food, water quality, reduction in gene pool, monopolies of production of an essential to life are a few more factors.

2, 3 and 4. You’re doing it again.

The_observer said:

Wanting 100% renewables within a generation?

That is achievable.

The_observer said:

and which seat will you be contesting as a Greens candidate next election DV?

I do not intend to stand as a candidate at the next election.

“The greater good”

sounds like an advertising slogan ruby, along with sustainable this and that.

Forms agenda 21

carbon polution

big poluters

the dirty indistries

ocean acidification

global warming

climate change

climate disruption

spaceship earth

ecosystem

dv said:

The_observer said:

Wanting 100% renewables within a generation?

That is achievable.

no

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

Wanting 100% renewables within a generation?

That is achievable.

no

Still, it is nice to know that you and I have some point of agreement.

dv said:

The_observer said:

and which seat will you be contesting as a Greens candidate next election DV?

I do not intend to stand as a candidate at the next election.

good, the Greens wouldn’t have you anyway with your policy on fracking

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

That is achievable.

no

Still, it is nice to know that you and I have some point of agreement.

Yes, I liked your fracking policy

kiss

The_observer said:

good, the Greens wouldn’t have you anyway with your policy on fracking

The opposition to fracking includes a more diverse bunch than just the Greens. IIRC even Alan Jones is against it.

dv said:

I’m a fan of fracking, even though it has cost me money personally, because of its ability to disempower the Saudis.

But despite my fanhood I acknowledge it is far from clear that it is generally safe, and I would expect that even when all the evidence is in, it will be necessary to restrict and heavily regulate the industry to prevent groundwater contamination.

Mr O gives you a kiss for your opinion (which surprised me).
I’d like to be less emotional and merely say that I agree with your opinion on fracking.

Australia

A scheme under which people volunteer to pay more for renewable energy is losing customers and sales as the price of a green conscience rises dramatically.

GreenPower, a scheme run by state governments in which people and businesses pay more for their power to buy non-fossil-fuel electricity, has been hit by up to a 40 per cent increase in cost as retailers pass on the rising price of large-scale renewable energy certificates.

Retailers have increased their prices for GreenPower, ranging from 5.23c to 6.6c per kWh.

The scheme has gone from more than 900,000 customers in 2008 who bought about 1 per cent of total generation to just over 500,000 who bought just 0.6 per cent of all the electricity generated in 2013. Since, sales have dropped a further 21 per cent.

Wonder what Richard has to say about aussies not wanting to pay more for green energy?

ruby said:

dv said:

I’m a fan of fracking, even though it has cost me money personally, because of its ability to disempower the Saudis.

But despite my fanhood I acknowledge it is far from clear that it is generally safe, and I would expect that even when all the evidence is in, it will be necessary to restrict and heavily regulate the industry to prevent groundwater contamination.

Mr O gives you a kiss for your opinion (which surprised me).
I’d like to be less emotional and merely say that I agree with your opinion on fracking.

Jelousy is a curse ruby.

kiss

there, is that better

The_observer said:

dv said:

The_observer said:

no

Still, it is nice to know that you and I have some point of agreement.

Yes, I liked your fracking policy

kiss

Well we seem to agree of GMOs as well.

ruby said:

I’d like to be less emotional and merely say

ruby, seeing Obama cry, tell me, how did that make you feel?

dv said:

The_observer said:

dv said:

Still, it is nice to know that you and I have some point of agreement.

Yes, I liked your fracking policy

kiss

Well we seem to agree of GMOs as well.

“The Greens’ opposition to GMOs is unscientific. There was some cause for caution 20 years ago when less was known, but now the evidence is in and it is clear that GMOs are innocuous.”

yes, yes GM too!

Kiss hug.

Oh, & a hug for you too ruby.

Okay this is getting a bit too kissy

dv said:

Okay this is getting a bit too kissy

sorry, slap on the back then

Witty Rejoinder said:

The_observer said:

good, the Greens wouldn’t have you anyway with your policy on fracking

The opposition to fracking includes a more diverse bunch than just the Greens. IIRC even Alan Jones is against it.

You could hardly call him green.

The_observer said:

ruby said:

Hmmm, maybe you need to reduce your salt intake, perhaps that’s part of why you are under stress, Mr Observer? One’s health is important- good health care was the #2 issue on the UN survey that you posted.

I’m in agreement with Moll, Monsanto’s aggressive marketing policies and their interaction with politicians have not done the GM debate any favours.

Yes ruby, you have an intolerance problem with people who have views different to yours. Typicaly green mind you, I understand.
Illogical & baseless, emotive.

My views are from looking at all the evidence & making an informed judgement.

You obviously just jump blindly on the bandwagon, again very green.

:)))))

Ohhhhh, the irony.

5 minutes ago. fire is miles away. we also have a storm cell overhead.

ChrispenEvan said:

5 minutes ago. fire is miles away. we also have a storm cell overhead.

Dam those GM crops.

The Rev Dodgson said:

ChrispenEvan said:

5 minutes ago. fire is miles away. we also have a storm cell overhead.

Dam those GM crops.

Might have thought they would have modified the crop for fire retardance.