Consensus issues in Conservation Politics

Several friends on Facebook have been airing differences in matters of policy and practice. We do not agree on everything,  but we all , I think, are interested in conservation ...and making it much more than mere talk .
Thought it might be good idea to state some things that we, as  followers of Christ , agree on.

( If you are a Christian -please add comment below with a view to keeping it as positive and relevant to our group and a high level of content competence as possible ) Australian party terms used .Note use of capitals in referring to parties ( Capital) and interest groups (lowercase)   .
Please note : This preliminary note will be modified in the future in the interests of both clarity and accuracy .( currently in draft form and applying the highest level of professional advice and agreement ( only quoting settled science matters here )  from scientists that are, infact, amongst our number )


A. Politics and Balance
No particular party has it all . Worse,  with many groups focusing on the margins , parties can pretend to be committed to a cause and not really be. Small parties can take extreme and untested positions and should be required to demonstrate capability to be taken seriuosly. We do not accept this sort of failure to commit to practical competency both at an intellectual and practical level. We do not accept that politicians should offer themselves as vehicles for correct professional policy,  but rather the particular people who study and practice it.  Commonly,  in relation to conservation, many leading politicians  do not do that .  We believe in talking and working together to make change happen. ( The model of the Good Samaritan ) We believe in studying a subject before you can expect to be listened to with any seriousness .We therefore do not accept the idea that a democratic or even a leadership call  is necessarily a wise or correct vote.( Advice on the floor of parliament)
Infact, because of all those who make a noise and blow their own trumpet  in the media (or  those who call for cabinet solidarity at all times) , we tend to reject or be highly suspicious of such moral judgements and instruments .
We reject many in political debate  who do not demonstrate proper economic responsibility ( eg supporting more general and careless taxes ) or who offer token efforts instead of substance and action clearly able to produce sustainable results ( Clear support by practical professions) .
We are tempted to reject arguments from leaders whose commitment to "all the people under their care" can be questioned.  We accept the security of the growing knowledge base of sound science ( physics and chemistry) but insist on the imperative of verification for edge and technology questions . We do not believe you can prove everything and that some arguments seek only to reinforce prejudice or simple arguments ; and the public should be so cautioned . We do not accept that all public good can be adequately measured in purely accounting and money terms.  We share  with the public the expectation that problems and solutions will not always be clearly and plainly put by politicians.  Small children can sometimes speak the truth when men in leadership do not ,  so that sourcing the truth can sometimes mean listening to the internet and your neighbour.
Conservatives and green issues   
Many claim in this weeks facebook that the Conservatives are NOT providing sound balance on the Global warming question) My response is that we do often lean to the left because the right is too often the home of those who would legitimize greed and only give token commitment to green questions. We tend to lean to the left when the right assumes all  public good can be measured in economic or statistical measures . We support great caution and some opposition to the idea of free trade when it risks individual  economic sovereignty ( eg  buying up sovereign resources , telling individuals how they should behave , failure to respect the commonwealth in either debts or assets management)

B. Cheap fuel and scarce resources  We accept that Governments have a right to consider market intervention to prevent exploitation of scarce resources ;  We support the idea of private property provided it is assumed to be held in Trust to the commonwealth. We therefore support appropriate taxes which target waste of commonwealth resources  in particular respecting everyone's right to choose their own sources without having to pay for others choices . We question why government want to tax everyone when those who choose to waste resources are not specifically targeted . We honor the tradition of the Commonwealth in reinforcing this idea and the concept in law that all man are created equal and deserving of the same legal support when  accused in particular. We believe in freedom of speech and will generally support a persons right to it within the law ( not personal or exploiting the moment ) whether we agree with what they say or not


B2 Alternative fuels Esp Biofuels One of the greatest dangers presently  is the haste with which all parties have been rushing to create renewable fuels and energy surces without respecting the cost to the earth and farmers and communities which must always be considered in a MORE careful and a considered way .( basic to conservation)
Anyone who names a solution to the renewable energy question must question whether they are acting as heretics (in conservation ) because, by supporting all those who love a quick fix( the majority)   they will leave rural people  and economies bleeding because of carelessly applied political surgery in this regard.

C. Global warming and Carbon Dioxide action imperatives  We accept that  the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a high as it has been for eons; We accept  that anthropomorphic activity can be expected to be the reason for this . However,  many of us , as scientists, do not accept that higher levels are something to be concerned about because the chemical and physical verifications for such fears are not clear and  have not been published . Both radiation and gas exchange chemistry do not provide a priori cases for concern . For example , photosynthesis on the terrestrial environment is rate limited by the concentration of carbon dioxide,  suggesting mediation and re absorption can be planned for and capitalized on, even in the short term . We completely reject the political use of extreme words like pollutant knowing that no sound case can be built on half truths -  favouring more accurate terms that reflect CO2's role in carbon cycling .

D. Free speech is always at risk because people in power are often seeking to cover up their mistakes and the public in general , our prejudices.