Editor's note: In the newest edition of Red, Green and Blue, writers Jimmy Hogan and Shirley Siluk Gregory take a look at the "big issue" of environmentalism vs. humanitarianism.

Jimmy: I was thinking the other day, and it struck me that I don’t have a very well-formed stand on the distinction between environmental and humanistic issues. Is there a point where being green comes at the expense of human welfare?

The statement seems a contradiction, but in the future, as in the past, we will discuss and debate issues relating to this fundamental choice. Is it morally wrong to use food-stuff like corn and soy in biofuels while other people around the world are starving? Do our lofty environmental goals sometimes have negative unintended consequences?

Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring sparked a major environmental movement, but at the same time has contributed to increasing malaria deaths in the developing world because many countries cannot afford the more expensive alternatives to DDT. I really don’t know the answer to this question. Sometimes population concerns meet human concerns, and it’s likely many (including myself) will be surprised where I stand on the matter.

Have you considered this balance before? In the spirit of open discussion and debate my challenge today is to ask our readers to contribute their thoughts on the matter in the comments thread below and to see where there is common ground and where society needs work.