Addis Ababa — In some minor way, maybe we should consider ourselves lucky here. We don't have yet actively engaged and widely influential green organizations. Of course, we miss the essential contributions that such organizations would have given us. However, we are spared the over-the top debates. It is good to be a beginner.

Many green organizations, often times, are prone to get entangled in some controversies that to other people may seem to go against the grain. This phenomenon could perhaps be explained, at the risk of sounding simplistic. By saying that since there are no longer any meaningful fights remaining for major resource conservation legislations in the West, what remains is to indulge in over-the-top agendas.

Here below are some examples: Cheap but no-frills airlines are now becoming common in most European countries and a god-sent to the average aspiring travelers. EsayJet, Ryan air are just two among the many that dot the skies of Europe.

Some green lobbyists (but by no means all) would like to see this ease of travel in the skies, which has been unleashed by the cheap airlines today, reversed. The reason they give is that such easily available and affordable travel encourages more traveling, more take-offs, which in turn fuels the already substantial carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.

People in the West and some parts of Asia already travel extensively with air-travel consisting a substantial part of the mass transit. What the new model of cheap air-travel does is to increase the existing numbers exponentially.This; the greens say will make an already bad situation, climate wise, even worse.

That leaves many people on the opposite side of the debate livid with anger." Why," they say, "folks, who so far have stayed put because they could not afford the fare of mainstream airlines, should be denied the opportunity to do so when the chance presents itself. Why us?" Both the greens and the supporters of cheap air travel have a point. But the green-left have a lot of convincing to do, why people out there have to forgo traveling by air when it is affordable and on-hand.

Even if and when readily available, traveling overland over long distances, especially in ragged terrains can be a pain on the butt.

Take the major towns in the north of Ethiopia, which are reachable by air. If you have to make a trip to Gondar, Axum or Humera etc. it will take you a minimum of 2 days but possibly 3. Unless you happen to be a born survivor, you end up with your bones needing all the physiotherapy that you can at the end of your trip.

On the other hand, if you were to fly to theses destinations, it would take you an hour or so. If you are not alert, you might have already arrived before you emptied your glass of soda.

I am not trying to say air travel here is cheap. Nor that it is common. What I want to say is that green or not, cheap air travel in Ethiopia is something to look forward to and pray for, recent price hike to the contrary.

A debate currently going on is regarding the opposition by the green-left of capitalism but not of growth. In other words, that socialism was less polluting than other economic systems.

The common knowledge, however, is that some of the worst environmental mistakes have been committed in some of the stalwart socialist countries. The cover-ups to the mistakes were also glaringly obvious.

Another point of controversy is concerning "sustainable development". For some organizations with the label" Green", sustainable development is an oxymoron. One article in The Spectator February 4 2006, titled," How Growth Stunts Us" describes it as follows: "In my Yorkshire Dales hiking club, there is a chap who talks continuously about rucksacks and seems to replace them every few months. This is not because they are leaking or torn or unsatisfactory in any obvious way, but because they are already out- of-date." "Is there a connection between Rucksack man and climate change? The idea that anything that last for more than a few months is quaint maintains an economy built on waste rather than conservation, in which the Planet's resources are assumed to be an endless and to be used without thought for the future." Simply put, they say that sustainability development will not be enough to conserve natural resources. What will do is people consuming less. But will people buy that? Will the huddled masses who are waiting their place in the sun buy it at all?