[outlier]

Any general sense of what it should stand for?

Is it like a relatively-rabid Greenpeace-style organizations for Mormons? Or a somewhat more pragmatic "for the environment, but there are limits to what we'll sacrifice for the environment" situation?

More national parks? Or should they be privatized?

Oil or ANWAR?

Anti-SUV?

Advocating more government intervention/spending? or more public awareness?

I'm not sure how I feel about any of this myself. I worry that there is no study anywhere in the world that doesn't bear the biases of its creator, whether pro-environment or pro-industry, wherefore it's hard to get a grip on what the *actual* situation is. As such, I think it's hard to be specific in one's ideologies in this regard -- you end up believing what you want to believe. Oh well. Maybe it'd be easier to try and identify the future ideal than the specific, more-immediate platform planks.

Ideals:
1. Nothing goes extinct.
2. No humans starve.
3. The world's climates remain stable.
4. Human quality of life allowed to continue improving.

My greatest concern is that 1 and 3 necessarily conflict with 2 and 4.

My $.02, FWIW, IMHO, and all sorts of 4-character disclaimers.

o