CJ Morgan would do well to follow this link http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-kingsnorth/confessions-of-recovering-environmentalist?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=On-Demand_2010-08-16%2013:27
The point that Michael is making that without a strong population policy the very first plank of the Greens platform is negated.
Population is not just a hobby horse - without a population policy you cannot claim any environmental credentials. My experience with the Greens has been that there are many outstanding environmentalists in the movement but the policy making process is dominated by cafe latte environmentalists who want to do something about the environment as long as it does not demand that they surrender 21st century consumerism.
It is equally clear that there is by no means a shared understanding within the greens of what they mean by the other 3 principles that CJ Morgan identified - participatory democracy in the Greens does not extend to the members having any influence over the policies adopted by the parliamentary wing - indeed the members are little more than a cheer squad for the elected members. The commitment to Social Justice does not seem to extend to demanding that Australia end its policy of recruiting skilled labour from the developing world making it even more difficult for the developing world to lift itself out of poverty.
It is time that members of the Greens indulged in some brain pain when developing their policies - perhaps this final article will convince the Greens that as it stands they are a long way from being an environmental party http://www.postcarbon.org/Reader/PCReader-Ryerson-Population.pdf

Great article Michael.

I am another disillusioned former Greens member.

But hey, maybe they can redeem themselves. On Q&A last week after Dick Smith’s Population Puzzle docco, Bob Brown nearly knocked my socks off with his comments about population growth. He was actually saying the right sort of stuff…. for the first time ever in my experience!

Now that the ‘dam holding back the population debate has burst and a flood of concern has swept out over the nation’, perhaps the Greens will really grab hold of the population / sustainability issue. Heaven knows they’ll need to, because our new government is bound to be woeful on it.

I reckon they'd glean a great deal of support if they did. But….I’ll believe it when I see it!

If CJ Morgan represents the leadership or the general consensus in the Greens then I have erred in my previous post assuming that the Greens were simply hard-headed political realists.

If the leadership of the Greens thinks that population is a hobbyhorse rather than the vital link to getting sustainable, then they need to change their name to the Social Justice party and quit masquerading as an environmental party. It is hard to believe that is the case after hearing Bob Brown after the Dick Smith movie, but maybe. We will have to see.

Perhaps there just aren't enough people who are really interested in the environment to fill up a "sort of" major party. The Greens have to take who they get and who they got, ain't really Green.

This is a blow to the sustainable population movement. The pro-growthers can easily say "What are you complaining about all the time? Even the Greens don't think population is important."

Maybe we can work with the Greens to understand what they really think. I hope so. Not much chance of working with Liberal or Labor.

YES - YES - YES.

Yes we can trust the Greens, all the way on population?

Didn't you see Bob Browns statements on Q & A Population Debate. Among his statements he said, "we've concentrated ridiculously on one or two per cent of the immigrants to this country who come as refugees on boats. We've got to raise the level of the debate. We're a compassionate country. "

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2981403.htm

Here's the Dick Smith questions. He did well to break the ice on this debate.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/populationpuzzle/index.html

Let's Hope we can put the best side of our brain forward Australia.

In Canberra, any bozo, doofus dingbat who says the Greens won't stand up to the ALP in the senate doesn't understand the progressive topic's being challenged in this local [and may I say] "healthy" electorate.

ACT Greens candidate Lin Hatfield Dodds is rimstone, hot and mighty. We want her in. Gai Brodtmann from the ALP is both applied, intelligent and comes with business savvy economic community driven experience. More then tennis in the field here.

Given the chance, the Greens will take over where the Democrats left off. "Keep the B's Honest".

As an example of how politics ought to be; I wish Cape Yorkers and my friends in Leichhardt were here to see it. Local politics in Canberra is hot, inclusive and it is politics at it's best.

So what was the question?

http://www.miacat.com/

<< The Greens have to take who they get and who they got, ain't really Green. >>

Erm…yes, that’s about the size of it, ericc.

I want to be positive, but alas, I can’t see the Greens being much different to what they always have been on this issue. Let’s face it; they’d have to become very different if they were to start expressing concerns about population and sustainability with anything like the level of urgency that is needed.

They now have the most excellent opportunity to become Australia’s sustainability party and to do it with a level of support much greater than what they have ever had, in fact to the extent of becoming a third major party, I would think.

But with Bob Brown at the helm and with an apparent preponderance of pale green social-justice-oriented members, I’ll believe it when I see it. (:>/

I think that much of the disillusionment of population activists with the Greens derives from their uninformed assumption that environmental issues are paramount to the party. The simple fact is that, while the Greens rightly accord ecological sustainability far more importance than the major parties do, they have never pretended that it is their raison d'etre. Social justice, participatory democracy and nonviolence have always held equal weight in Green ideology, at least since the Australian Greens were formed in the 1990s as part of the global Greens movement.

Having said that, I agree with ericc that "the Greens are still miles better on environmental issues than either major party and if they hold the balance of power, the environment will be better protected than if they don't". However, I don't think that the Greens are, or want to be, an "environmental party" of the sort that BAYGON apparently envisages. Unlike purely environmental political groups, the Greens have developed a comprehensive set of policies that reflect the equal importance of their four philosophical pillars, which is of course a major reason that they have been steadily increasing their membership and support base over the past couple of decades.

While I'm neither a spokesperson nor any kind of 'leader' in the Greens, as a grassroots member who has been involved in policy formulation and is familiar with Green philosophy, I can say that our policies reflect the consensus view of the party - indeed, that's how the Greens work. Unfortunately, many good and passionate activists for one worthy cause or another join the Greens thinking that they're something that they're not, nor pretend to be.

I'm certainly hopeful that the Greens will strengthen our population policy along the lines that Bob Brown was talking about on last week's Q&A. However, the way to achieve that as a Greens member is to get involved with policy working groups and being delegated to State and National Councils where these things are nutted out, rather than spitting one's dummy and stomping out of the room, as it were.