Has "going green" gone too far?

Several things have happened in the past two weeks, several things that I am concerned about. 

The first  was reading a report, apparently correct, that a group of people planning to replant native vegetation along a river bank were told they could not do it without permission from the traditional owners of the area. The traditional owners were demanding a hefty sum in "compensation" under new laws passed by a government in another state.  There are other demands being made by "traditional owners" in the same state. They seem to be more of a money making exercise than a way of preserving indigenous culture and heritage or caring for the environment. I might be wrong but it certainly is starting to read that way.

In this state we also had a group of "traditional owners" claim victory when the Federal Court came down on their side and said a nuclear waste dump could not be built on "their" land. The actual site was on farm land in a geologically stable area. The waste itself is the medium to low level waste currently stored in inner city areas - yes, the waste left by nuclear medical procedures. It was fairly obvious that the "traditional owners" were making some rather ridiculous claims about "secret women's business", something others had never heard of and knew nothing about. The group however was being backed by "the Greens". The Greens are vehemently publicly opposed to anything which might have a whisper of nuclear energy  about it. (I note however that, in their private lives things are rather different - and they certainly wouldn't deny themselves the benefits of nuclear medicine if they needed it.) 

And now there are reports that this state may go back to the dark ages of no international flights as airlines attempt to "go green".  Yes, I know that air travel is one of the chief offenders when it comes to the emission of greenhouse gases.  The problem is that a lack of international flights would have a massive economic impact. It took years for this state to get any such flights at all.

While I was living in London I had to travel back here several times. (I would have been more than happy not to travel back at all but circumstances demanded it.)  On each occasion many hours were added to an already very long journey because we would fly over this state...and then I would catch other flight back here. It was a ridiculous situation. In terms of emissions the amount was probably even greater than it would otherwise have been. Tourism was down in this state. It was struggling even more than it now does with exports. Imports were taking much longer and were more expensive.  We really were not particularly green either. We were simply more isolated.

We could go back to all of that and "save" the environment - perhaps. Suggestions that we could increase the rail network and get thousands of heavy goods vehicles off the roads don't seem to get heard. The Greens have very little to say about that. 

I am beginning to wonder if "going green" isn't going too far. Considering all the other measures we are told need to be taken and the likely economic impact but dubious environmental impact is it time to start rethinking how we do this? 

I'd start here by saying that if a tree planting project is going to have a positive impact on an area then it must be allowed to go ahead without hindrance. I would say that if a nuclear waste facility is needed and the area is considered safe then it must be allowed to go ahead.  I would say we need to greatly expand the rail network if two engines can do the work of a hundred or more heavy goods vehicles.

And those planes? Well we need to work on fuel efficiency because it will take more fuel to fly over this state and come back again... unless of course you don't want us to travel anywhere ever again.