The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Greens: illogical and treacherous > Comments

The Greens: illogical and treacherous : Comments

By Peter Ridd, published 12/5/2008

The Greens are less of an environmental movement and more of a left wing conglomeration devoted primarily to social justice issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. All
Peter you didn't ask the next question, which is why didn't the greens remain a true party of environmentalists, as they appeared to be at their inception?

Answer: Because they opted to sell out for the sake of more votes, more power.

They were courted by the socialist left and saw greater electoral popularity by that route, even though adopting socialist policies directly contradicted many of their green ones.

So now you have Bob Brown looking increasingly foolish arguing we should open the floodgates to more immigrants while at the same time reducing our environmental footprint.
Posted by grn, Monday, 12 May 2008 1:44:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While the editor has corrected the ambiguity between "the Greens" and "the greens", it seems that Peter Ridd wants to maintain the confusion. His response to Lev about the Greens political party's inadequate population policy ignores the fact that, as a mainstream political party, environmental policies form only one of the "Four Pillars" of Greens political parties worldwide: "Social Justice, Grassroots Democracy, Ecological Sustainability and Non-Violence".

As a political party, the Greens are far more than the single-issue party Ridd apparently wants them to be. On the other hand, the Australian Environment Foundation (of which Ridd is Science Coordinator, according to their website) appears to be one of those small-g green groups who campaign on environmental issues but who have no population policy whatsoever. According to their brochure ( http://aefweb.info/data/AEF%20Brochure%20Ver2.pdf ), they are a "practical" organisation:

<< This practical knowledge and experience has given the AEF a unique ability to contribute to public debates on the full range of environmental issues. Such issues include:
• Access and adoption of genetically modified crops
• The more sustainable use of water and fisheries resources
• A more sensible management regime for Invasive Native Scrub
• Active forest management
• Exploring all options in energy production >>

Strange, isn't it that such a practical and experienced "green" organisation makes no mention whatsoever of population policies on their website, despite its Science Coordinator's castigation of other "green" groups for the very same sin. At least the capital-G Greens make some effort to locate population issues within a broader policy framework.

Indeed, if one was to apply Ridd's blinkered analysis to his own organisation, one might be tempted to say that " The AEF are less of an environmental movement and more of an extreme right wing conglomeration devoted primarily to business issues ".
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 12 May 2008 2:19:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I thought it was worth noting that, earlier today, I invited the Greens to send in a riposte to this article. They have declined my offer.
Susan Prior - editor
Posted by SusanP, Monday, 12 May 2008 2:33:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a fully paid-up member of the Greens I can say that I am very disappointed by the leadership's refusal to respond to this opinion piece. Perhaps if it had been written in less inflammatory language it might have encouraged debate. However, it IS worrying that, in order to be popular, the Greens have begun to make serious compromises in principle when it comes to the environment. Their solutions to global warming and energy security continue to push techno-optimist, you-can-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too, middle-class greenwash-type responses. The role of the Greens as I see it is to stretch the boundaries of the intellectual space so that more "rational" (i.e. acceptable) -sounding voices within it can begin to be heard. The Greens need to drag an ignorant public kicking and screaming into the full daylight of the drastic measures needed to maintain something resembling civilization. People have voted in the past for the Greens because they spoke the truth even when that was unpopular or controversial. However, they have dropped the ball on population and energy. If the Greens lose that credibility then they have lost the game. Maybe it is time to establish an "Environment Party"?
Posted by michael_in_adelaide, Monday, 12 May 2008 3:19:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum, its pretty easy to define a left-wing extremist.

There the ones who want to force everyone to do as they say, by law.

The last thing they are interested in is convincing, with logical argument, others to join their cause. They are even less interested in developing policies which would draw more people to their cause.

How could they? They believe they are the font of all wisdom, like most other would be dictators.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 12 May 2008 3:42:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not surprised SusanP, what have the Greens Party got to gain from engaging with just the latest mashup from an Institute for Public Affairs front group? OLO will run another tomorrow, i'm sure.

I too condemn the Greens for their "lets pretend" population policy, but at least they are closer to engaging with reality than the suicidal "growth forever" pushed by the IPA and our ruling neoliberal (and neoliberal-lite) duopoly.

Yes there are leftist infiltrators in the Greens who are crippled by the same ecological illiteracy as Karl Marx and Milton Friedman, but thats not justification for tarring all Greens & greenies, rather reason to spotlight and weed out the Left zealots. If only we lived in a functional democracy... (free and open media? political accountability?)

Call it ecological conciousness or Responsible stewardship, either way its harder than the Footy Show and the 'jam tomorrow' promises of the IPA and we all know which is dominant. Ecological conciousness works and could help with all of the problems facing us, the problems lie in the selfinterested inflexibility, deceitfulness and plain old stupidity of politicians and their wealthy sponsors.
Posted by Liam, Monday, 12 May 2008 3:46:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 12
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy