The Greens:

Justin Wood writes: Re. “The Greens are here to stay” (yesterday, item 1). I’m an enormous fan of Bernard Keane; honestly I think he’s about the best thing going in Australian journalism. Routinely I emphatically agree with him. I’m also a member of the Greens. And so it is that I am troubled by the occasional sideways comment such as this:

“They offer a combination of rigorous economic rationalism — their positions on a carbon price and mining tax are economically superior to those of the major parties — with trips down to the fairies at the bottom of the garden.”

I struggle to see exactly what Bernard is referring to with the garden fairies jibe. I’m not so foolish as to profess intimate knowledge of all our stated policies (nor state with hand on heart that I personally fully subscribe to every last one), but at the same time I’m not aware of any worthy of fairies comparisons.

Perhaps Keane might be encouraged to expound on that theme; to tread some objective middle ground between effusive “latte-sipper” support and rabid News Ltd proclamations that the Greens are the antichrist?

Les Heimann writes: As Bernard Keane points out there is little to distinguish between the two parties these days. So it’s getting easier to be Green.

Labor simply isn’t the people’s party anymore, and the Liberals never pretended they were — despite John Howard’s Aussie battlers. Why is anyone surprised that when our two major parties are breaking world speed records in their dash to the right another party seeks to fill the vacuum?

So move aside or accommodate; the Greens are coming.  A Green government will soon be welcomed with a mighty roar and those who chose to ignore the swarm will perish in their own chagrin.

David Griffin writes: With all this talk about The Greens (the biggest party to support Marriage Equality) it occurred to me that I’m just waiting for someone of an older generation to say something like “Over my dead body.”, to which I’ll reply “Pretty much, you can either watch your gay child/grandchild/niece/nephew get married or make them wait until you’re gone”.

My children will learn in history class about how it was as inevitable as the women’s or civil rights movements.

Irish stew:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Default of the Irish?” (yesterday, item 22). Regarding Karen Maley’s article, I think it should be underlined that a key ingredient in the Irish financial stew is the euro.  This point is made in quotation from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard provided by Richard Farmer.

The weaker and stronger economies of Europe are yoked together by a single currency. America is able to devalue its currency to lighten its debt burden, but Ireland can’t. All those who attacked the opponents of the euro as irrational reactionaries should hang your heads in shame.

The euro has not brought stability, but rather put the witches’ brew of European economics into a pressure cooker.

And it hasn’t brought world peace either. If you believed that, you might as well have believed in leprechauns.

Viv Forbes:

Steven McKiernan writes:  Re. Viv Forbes (yesterday, comments), who mentions vested interests.

I’ve written to you before about Mr Forbes own vested interests. On July 19 I asked for verification from Crikey that Mr Forbes should declare his interest as the Executive Director of the Carbon Sense Coalition and a direct lobbyist on behalf of coal producers. Crikey should have declared his ongoing vested interest as a protector of coal producers as you have been advised previously, and Mr Forbes has admitted.

On 21 July Mr Forbes wrote to Crikey:

“Re: comments (yesterday). I confirm that I am a non executive director of Stanmore Coal Limited, a small Australian coal exploration company and also Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition. I also breed cattle and sheep on a small grazing property.”

However, Mr Forbes is now allowed to write such comments as:

“Who wants a tax on carbon? The Greens do. They hate humans and their …”

How were Crikey in a position to accept these comments on face value, obviously from the Screaming Lord Sutch end of the political spectrum, and publish without the acknowledgment of Mr Forbes business and lobbying interests?

Given Mr Forbes is a serial offender in failing to declare, the consumer and reader of Crikey is reliant on the ability of the editorship to recognise when Crikey is being played by coal lobbyists.

And you failed.

Daniel Nguyen writes: Viv Forbes’ rant deliberately and maliciously muddies the waters. When Gillard and other Ministers talk about needing a “price on carbon”, this is shorthand for “a mechanism to internalise the economic externalities of carbon production and consumption”.

Obviously the former is a snappier sound bite, but Viv sounds like a smart gentleman and should know this. It should also not be above him to realise that a particular concentration of CO2 is consistent with plant growth and steady temperatures. No-one disputes that CO2 is essential for life — that is a straw-man — but as concentrations move beyond their historical levels, we are doing almost irreversible damage.

His crocodile tears for Australian consumers is misplaced — Labor’s ditched CPRS included payments and subsidies, with lower-income households wholly reimbursed. He is right about industry subsidies though — they received far too many hand outs in the original CPRS proposal.

John Bushell writes: Viv Forbes. A very brief summary of why your children and grandchildren need a carbon tax — even if you don’t.

For 300 million years trees and plants grew, absorbed carbon dioxide, died and formed coal. Similarly, ocean creatures lived capturing carbon in their bone structures, died, decayed and formed oil and gas. 250 year ago a smart ape started to burn the coal and about a hundred years ago this same creature captured the oil and gas and burnt that too — releasing  about half of the captured carbon as carbon dioxide (CO2) gas.

CO2 (plus other “greenhouse gasses”), presently at a concentration 36% higher than the long-term average, mean that reflected sunlight is trapped and the planet heats up. Continued heating will result a “tipping point” being reached when the atmospheric temperature will rise inexorably to render the planet uninhabitable.

A carbon tax will cost mankind less than 2% of annual gross domestic product (GDP) and will dramatically lower manmade CO2 thus avoiding the catastrophe. Failure to make these changes will result in damages bills well in excess of 2% of GDP per year, increasing relentlessly once the “tipping point” has been reached.

Brett Gaskin writes: Last week I wrote in to Crikey asking they cease publishing Tamas’s predictably incorrect climate change denials. So yesterday we get a very thoughtful and well written contribution from Viv Forbes.

Thanks for the heads up Viv that the Greens hate people, and thanks for coming straight to the point. Those lying Greens sure are a worry, talk about a bunch of selfish, materialistic, thieving bastards.

We all know everything the Greens say and do is only to make themselves richer and more powerful. Thankfully we have the Liberals (and Labor) who are a selfless, caring, thoughtful lot.  And who can fault the main parties plans to deal with climate change? Half of them simply deny there is such a thing, and the other half plan to ignore it until it goes away.

So thanks again Viv for the warning, if those hateful Greens have their way there’s every chance we won’t completely screw this planet up -and where’s the fun in that. It’s just a pity we can’t string up the bloody tree-hugging, beard growing, job shy bunch of hippies like the old days.

Seriously Crikey — if I want to read this crap I can always visit the Hun.