Greens increasing influence in Australia

dynamick · 21-08-2010 11:10AM #1

First ever Green elected at a general election to the house of representatives is Adam Bandt.

The result looks like being a near straight tie between Liberal coalition and labour with a couple of independents, a green and an ex-green (andrew wilkie) holding the balance.

In the senate, the greens will hold the clear balance of power.

Australia's position in climate change negotiations is likely to change now.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2010 11:15AM

dynamick wrote: »

First ever Green member of the house of representatives is Adam Bandt.

The result looks like being a near straight tie between Liberal coalition and labour with a couple of independents, a green and an ex-green (andrew wilkie) holding the balance.

In the senate, the greens will hold the clear balance of power.

Australia's position in climate change negotiations is likely to change now.

Good to hear that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sulmac · 21-08-2010 11:28AM

For those interested, live election coverage of the Australian election can be found here.

bmaxi · 21-08-2010 11:30AM

Oh great! Now Australia is f*cked too.

Einhard · 21-08-2010 05:54PM

bmaxi wrote: »

Oh great! Now Australia is f*cked too.

Maybe if people had listened to the Greens a little earlier then the massive environmental problems we're currently facing might have been somewhat mitigated. It amazes me how many mainstream practices were once the sole preserve of the Greens, who were mocked and ridiculed as hippies for them. And now that the Greens are yet again one step ahead in embracing environmental best practice, they're castigated and condemned once more. I s'pose they must derive some satisfaction from being consistently correct at least...

GSF · 21-08-2010 07:19PM

So they have gone from 0 to 1. They should achieve a majority in about 300 years at that rate.

Permabear · 21-08-2010 07:28PM

This post has been deleted.

Valmont · 21-08-2010 07:45PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Looking into the pallid glow of my energy saving lightbulb makes me think that it was all somehow worth it.

Eliot Rosewater · 21-08-2010 08:21PM

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally. Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims. Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased. Firstly, the people of this country already pay a vast amount of tax on energy, and this amount, I imagine, adequately compensates for the social cost of non-renewable energy use. Secondly, I don't think that the Carbon Tax is even ring-fenced towards projects aimed at off-putting the environmental damage of carbon emissions. I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how giving Carbon Tax revenue to, say, workers in the HSE, actually helps the environment.

(Something in that paragraph could be wrong, of course, and any refutation or confirmation would be welcome.)

So either the Green Party have an actual problem (poor policies) or a PR problem (can't communicate the benefits of their good policies). I'm weaning myself off of the car (easy), and I'm even trying to limit my meat consumption to once every two days (very hard!), but that doesn't mean that I'll support any 'auld Green Party. They have to have Green policies that are actually effective and that strike a balance between environmental concerns and socio-economic concerns.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

Permabear · 21-08-2010 09:10PM

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 21-08-2010 11:43PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally. Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

The Green Party - and indeed the green movement more widely - has never really been "in repute" in Ireland, though.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims. Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased. Firstly, the people of this country already pay a vast amount of tax on energy, and this amount, I imagine, adequately compensates for the social cost of non-renewable energy use. Secondly, I don't think that the Carbon Tax is even ring-fenced towards projects aimed at off-putting the environmental damage of carbon emissions. I'm sorry, but I just fail to see how giving Carbon Tax revenue to, say, workers in the HSE, actually helps the environment.

(Something in that paragraph could be wrong, of course, and any refutation or confirmation would be welcome.)

It was fundamentally, I think, a sop to keep the Green Party happy, since all that really happened was that a rise in excise duty on fuel was rechristened as a carbon tax. By itself, it had almost no impact, and was entirely in line with previous rises in excise.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

So either the Green Party have an actual problem (poor policies) or a PR problem (can't communicate the benefits of their good policies).

Or, to be fair, they have good policies but have to compromise with the major party of government - or indeed with what the electorate are willing to tolerate.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I'm weaning myself off of the car (easy), and I'm even trying to limit my meat consumption to once every two days (very hard!), but that doesn't mean that I'll support any 'auld Green Party. They have to have Green policies that are actually effective and that strike a balance between environmental concerns and socio-economic concerns.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

Since the Greens in government have hardly given rise to any taxes outside expectations set in the Celtic Tiger years, in a period in which the government revenue shortfall is very large, it seems that Mr Gormley may even share your views.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zambia · 21-08-2010 11:54PM

Kevin Rudd promised a lot on the green front and folded like a cheap suit. Chances are people simply decided if they wanted a green tinge to goverment they may have to actually vote Green.

As of yet we still dont have a clear winner, at 71 seats each between labour and liberal and 76 needed to win. The independants will pretty much decide this.

Sorry I think there is only 4 seats left.

Permabear · 22-08-2010 12:11AM

This post has been deleted.

jank · 22-08-2010 06:09AM

I think this has more to do with the disillusionment of the two main parties than an advocation of green policies. They have some good ideas and alot of the people who I talk to like the greens, then again I am living in one of the more lefty hippie areas of Sydney. They should cut stuff like this though. They want to make 'intersex' an official gender!? I think that is some of the stuff that turns a lot of people off them.

Zambia · 22-08-2010 09:12AM

Adam brandt has vowed to back Labour no surprise there.

Permabear · 22-08-2010 11:54AM

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw · 22-08-2010 12:11PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure - while the Australian Greens may prefer to refer exclusively to the 'free market', the fact is that whatever economic system you use, an industrial economy will generate greenhouse gases to the extent that the problem is either unknown or ignored.

I suspect, though, that they're just overstating the fact that there doesn't seem to be non-regulatory solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Its unlikely that they're proposing to substitute a command economy, given that there is really quite a lot of room between a free market and a command economy in which to arrange things.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dynamick · 22-08-2010 12:27PM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As can be seen here, the Green Party (and by extension the Green movement) has gone into disrepute, which I think is unfortunate, personally.

The greens have massively increased their vote in this election from 7.8% to 12%.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Even though I think that externality taxes are a better kind of tax, the Carbon Taxes introduced by the Greens did not have me overly pleased.

That's very normal. People often support a policy in theory but draw the line when it comes to paying for it. By signing up to Kyoto, Ireland already had a carbon tax, paid out of general taxation. Consumer carbon tax simply collects that tax according the amount each person pollutes, leaving the general taxation money to be spent on something else. As we have a 20bn deficit gap to plug, the quarter billion raised by carbon tax will be a small contribution.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

And, for what it's worth, I don't think the small-tax small-spend government mantra is at odds with environmental sustainability, whatever Mr Gormley thinks.

I agree

Zambia232 wrote: »

Kevin Rudd promised a lot on the green front and folded like a cheap suit. Chances are people simply decided if they wanted a green tinge to government they may have to actually vote Green.

Yes, Rudd lost power over the abandoned carbon tax and mining tax and the maladministered home insulation scheme.

GSF · 22-08-2010 12:39PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Obviously they have never been to Eastern Europe in the 1980's.

Eliot Rosewater · 22-08-2010 02:23PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Green Party - and indeed the green movement more widely - has never really been "in repute" in Ireland, though.

Would it be fair to say that the attitude towards the Greens previous to 2007 was simply apathetic? Now, it is openly hostile. There has been a change.

Scofflaw wrote: »

It was fundamentally, I think, a sop to keep the Green Party happy, since all that really happened was that a rise in excise duty on fuel was rechristened as a carbon tax.

If that's the truth then I think it was a terrible decision. All the annoyance that people direct towards fuel tax increases was basically funnelled at one member of the coalition as opposed to the coalition as a whole. If they have kept the Party happy then it has been at the price of less power for that Party down the line.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Or, to be fair, they have good policies but have to compromise with the major party of government - or indeed with what the electorate are willing to tolerate.

Absolutely. I always agreed with the Greens going into coalition with Fianna Fail for that at least gave them the chance of actually implementing some of their policies. But this short spell in Government will cost them dearly in the long run. So even though the decision of 2007 gave them more clout in the subsequent five years, over a period of, say, thirty years, they have lost power.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Since the Greens in government have hardly given rise to any taxes outside expectations set in the Celtic Tiger years, in a period in which the government revenue shortfall is very large, it seems that Mr Gormley may even share your views.

Well, what does Mr Gormely say?!

[Mr Gormely] also opposed the principle of a low-tax economy. “Seán Healy [director of Social Justice Ireland] is absolutely right. The idea that you have to be low-tax to be competitive is wrong. We can be competitive in the technology area and other areas but it doesn’t mean you have to be a low-tax economy. All of the evidence from all over Europe shows that is not the case,” he said. “I would like to aspire to the same sort of model you have elsewhere. If you look at what they do in France, in Germany or in the Scandinavian countries, that is the sort of model I aspire to.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0609/1224272125517.html

That standpoint doesn't seem to be motivated by his environmental views, mind.

Permabear · 22-08-2010 04:23PM

This post has been deleted.

Manic Moran · 25-08-2010 07:17AM

Even if you don't believe in Climate Change, the increasing cost and shortening supply of non-renewable hydrocarbons, combined with the booming population of the Earth, poses a sustainability challenge that a certain sympathy towards the environment will help to alleviate, in my opinion.

I will agree with you on this. I see nothing wrong with reducing waste, finding non-polluting sources of energy, or a lot of other less-damaging things done to the environment. Even if you don't believe the Global Warming malarky, there's no harm to be done in making a few concessions to the planet's well-being.

The key, really, is tying your government policy to the environmental aims

What turns me off the Green party for the part of it is that the government policy seems to be being tagged onto environmental aims, not that the environmental aims are an equal part of the government policy. It's almost like everything is second to the environment. (But hey, it's the 'Green Party', so I guess it's what the name says on the tin) The daftness of Minister Gormley's E900 sur-tax on those evil, gas-guzzling commercial vehicles is a case in point. "Let's do this because it's good for the environment, and we'll sort out the reprecussions on everything else later". That is not going to endear you to people who want a more balanced approach.

The complete distaste for nuclear power is another one. "No, we won't let nuclear-powered vessels dock in our ports. But smoke-belching diesel or turbine powered ones are fine." OK, I got it. Once every several decades there has been a nuclear incident, with only one, very poorly maintained, second-rate facility having a noteworthy impact. But considering how much of today's power is being done by fossil fuels, it seems to me both strategically and environmentally stupid to do something like the Green Party in Germany did and force the cancellation of nuclear power plants and go with building new coal ones instead.

The other part of it, for me, is that one would have thought that environmentalism would have been fairly neutral on the political spectrum. I mean, really, whether you recycle your household waste or have solar panels on your roof is pretty independent to whether you favour a strong military or believe that social welfare is too high. Yet the Green Party can not really be considered centrist. Their social and economic policies are definitely out on the left hand side. This automatically alienates them from half the population which puts an automatic cap on their prospective voter base and by extension, their capabilities for growth. There is very much a prospective market for them. Particularly in the US, but if they want to tap into it, they need to move right.

NTM

Eliot Rosewater · 25-08-2010 10:07AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The complete distaste for nuclear power is another one.

Indeed. I was recently a delegate at the London International Youth Science Forum, where the consensus seemed to be that nuclear fission energy was necessary as a stop-gap solution between our fossil fuel consumption now and fusion nuclear energy in the future (which is at least 30-40 years away). Of course, the issue with waste is not ideal, and fission itself is unsustainable over more than a hundred years, but we still have to admit that it is the least worst solution currently on the table.

Green activists hide behind false gods like wind power and live in an alternative reality to that of science. It is unfortunate when their damaging views are actually put into practise (as in Germany).

Manic Moran wrote: »

Once every several decades there has been a nuclear incident, with only one, very poorly maintained, second-rate facility having a noteworthy impact.

Exactly. A cursory reading of, say, the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl will inform one that management at the plant was atrocious and the kind of safety measures present in Western plants were simply non-existent. Yet some activists still hold on to the "Chernobyl card".

(Last summer I was Berlin and I joined an anti-nuclear power march, just for fun. Near the end there was a large column of tractors, with one protester atop this column carrying a coffin with "Chernobyl" written across it. My friend wondered how much damage they had done to the environment by driving three hundred inefficient tractors from the countryside into Berlin city centre.)

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other part of it, for me, is that one would have thought that environmentalism would have been fairly neutral on the political spectrum.

That's quite a good point. Of course an environmental party would have to assume some economic policies to support their aims, for example, externality carbon taxes. But, in Ireland at least, they could market themselves as being a complement to the mainstream parties. "Vote for us and we'll turn whatever coalition we're in environmentally friendly."

Permabear · 25-08-2010 11:02AM

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch · 26-08-2010 02:59AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Unfortunately the right wing doesn't give two hoots about the environment beyond the unavoidable lip service. So it's not like there's much choice.

Manic Moran · 26-08-2010 04:03AM

Memnoch wrote: »

Unfortunately the right wing doesn't give two hoots about the environment beyond the unavoidable lip service. So it's not like there's much choice.

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

NTM

Zambia · 26-08-2010 04:11AM

There you go

http://www.triplem.com.au/sydney/funny-stuff/news//blog/chasers-real-reason-people-voted-green/20100825-9muv.html?anchor=424784

I agree its sad when the only green road to travel veers left.

Example you want to save the planet cool but refugess need to be allowed live in your house.

ei.sdraob · 26-08-2010 07:16AM

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Exactly. A cursory reading of, say, the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl will inform one that management at the plant was atrocious and the kind of safety measures present in Western plants were simply non-existent. Yet some activists still hold on to the "Chernobyl card".

Well Chernobyl really was (is actually its other reactors are still running to this day) a very badly designed plant whose main aim was to generate fuel for nuclear weapons

we could follow the lead of the India here in Ireland and build thorium based reactors, which is plentiful, cheap and doesnt result in weapons grade stuff

Speaking of "command economy" earlier, I hope the Greenies here on board dont miss the irony of Chernobyl being constructed (and the mess somewhat cleaned up with hundreds of thousands of conscripted "volunteer biorobots") under a planned centrally commanded economy
and that it was the fateful Homer Simpsonesque decision by bureaucrats to run tests on a nuclear plant with safeties off (yes however badly designed there were safeties)

The Greens have no choice but to gravitate towards the left authoritarian side of the axis, since a planned command economy suits their aims quite fine. And it attracts certain types of bright people to the "cause", as Hayek has noted "specialists" have a tendency to want tightly planned/controlled economies and sympathize with socialism since they often seek perfection and do alot of planing in their narrow line of work (engineering for example) but dont realize the negative impact on society that their otherwise good intentions might have if implemented on a nationwide scale and often recoil in horror when their plans are fully implemented since it leads to other results

As @MM above pointed out there really is no need for a green movement to be aligning itself as they do, after all their aims are environmental right?

Memnoch · 26-08-2010 10:13AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

NTM

I agree with you partially, in that, protecting the environment SHOULDN'T be a right or left issue. Sadly, the real politic doesn't seem to bear this out.

If you look at the issue of the environment and conservation, any time laws are suggested or debated the staunchest opposition tends to be from the right. Quite consistently so. (Though the right in Europe are far less militant about this than in America).

Climate change is a great example of this. Despite the mounting and overwhelming evidence, as well as broad agreement within the scientific community, the strongest skeptics (at least those with the highest profile) seem to be right wing pundits, or "scientisits" associated with right wing think tanks, opposition too seems to come largely from the right (though I was disappointed with Obama's u-turn on off shore drilling)

I think you are wrong in that there is very much a link between general political philosophy and environmental consciousness.

The right generally tend to come from a "pro business," standpoint. And in my opinion the philosophy of the right seems to put the short term benefit of the individual over the benefit to society. It's a philosophy that seeks to maintain the status quo more often than not and help the 'haves,' stay that way.

Since environmental legislation can often result in restrictions on how businesses do or should operate it is often perceived as affecting short term profits. (eg: you can't keep dumping your waste in that river, or spewing out endless CO2 from your factories without some kind of consequence) And this results in the repeated opposition that we see from the right to environmental causes.

Conversely, I feel that the left wing (not extreme left) philosophy is one that tries to consider the long term benefit to society and is concerned more with fairness and equality than keeping the rich rich. I could be completely wrong about this but I don't think it's a coincidence that people who are generally concerned for the welfare of others also happen to be the ones who care most about preserving the environment.

The left does not believe in unchecked capitalism and this seems to parallel the necessity of environmental protection regulations.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the most pro-environmental standpoints come consistently from the left.

Scofflaw · 26-08-2010 10:49AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Way to utterly miss the point. There is nothing about right or left wing which requires, or is contrary to, a somewhat sensible evironmental attitude. The Green Party advertises itself as being the party which is going to take the best environmental attitude. Being environmentally friendly is required for its existance. The Green Party has chosen to be left wing. This is not required by its attention to the environment. It could be right-wing and environmentalist if it chose. It could be centrist and environmentalist if it chose.

That's not quite true, though. Environmentalism fits well enough with traditional conservatism, but if we take as some of the characteristics of the modern right wing the following:

1. support for the status quo
2. nationalism
3. strong property rights
4. little regulation
5. individualism
6. self-reliance
7. support for religion
8. support for industry
9. philosophy of man vs environment
10. open-ended economic growth

we can see that there will be an inherent conflict with the solutions required for environmental problems:

1. changes in the status quo
2. trans-national solutions
3. limits on property rights
4. more regulation
5 & 6. communal rather than individual action
7. secular
8. limits on industry
9 & 10. sustainability

Further, while solutions to environmental problems can come from the market, they can only come from the market once the market has been shaped appropriately by regulation, and that means an increased role for the government.

There's certainly nothing stopping someone right wing being pro-environmental, but the solutions to environmental issues do not in general sit comfortably with the right wing attitudes outlined above. Nor has the right wing yet been very forthcoming with solutions to environmental problems - they have generally preferred to oppose them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 26-08-2010 03:22PM

This post has been deleted.

Greens increasing influence in Australia

Comments