The Greens position I would identify with was broader based than the one Brad described, and while I sympathised with Brad's concerns, I did not feel that he was providing a representation of a broader Greens viewpoint.

To my way of thinking, all consumption has a cost, and the objective is to reduce consumption while retaining (or at least minimising the loss of) a worthwhile life. Brad certainly agreed that consumption has a cost.

Brad was skeptical about any cross subsidies, and did not feel comfortable with a single postage stamp around Australia as I was. He felt there was a complex set of swings and roundabouts relating to life in the bush, and the were many benefits to being in the bush, which did not justify the stamp subsidy.

Brad also felt that regulations, particularly safety regulations, were counterproductive and made things less safe. An example was the Titanic, which represented an unusual shipwreck - normally in a shipwreck a small proportion of people could get to lifeboats, and a more effective use of the resources available for ship construction was to make a ship stronger and less likely to fail.