Prev
Next

Greens struggling to grow in heated political climate

Peter Lewis

by Peter Lewis

16 Feb 05:45am

Must Reads

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future… - this is a caption

ICB:  If I could offer you only one tip for the future…

74

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips” - this is a caption

Six prominent Aussies with a case of the dreaded “yips”

48

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou - this is a caption

The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou

186

Filed under: Climate Change, Election 2010, Ets, Greens, Politics

102 comments

It should be a great time to be a Green: a first term Labor Government governing from the centre; the defining local and international issue is an environmental one; our lives are being buffeted by one extreme weather event after another.

Not easy boosting the green vote as the major parties brawl over climate.

2010 is a crunch year for the third force in Australian politics and, for many, the great hope of progressive change, with a federal election beckoning, the dream of controlling the Senate is looming large

But something is not happening for the Greens right now: despite growing disillusionment in the Labor Government, their vote is flat-lining in major polls and it is twice as ‘soft’ as the two major parties. We asked voters how strong their voting intention was, and these were the results.

How strong is your voting intention?

There are a range of factors contributing to this malaise:

Tactical Factors - with a Coalition Leader keen to broker an Emissions Trading Scheme, Labor consciously dealt the Greens out of domestic negotiations. The play for 12 months was the effort from Labor to get agreement from the Coalition, the Greens were locked on the sidelines complaining the scheme did not go far enough. The change of Opposition Leader has forced Labor to bring the Greens back to the table, although the dangers of brokering a greener ETS has increased as the backlash against the scheme has grown.

Locked outside the tent, the Greens played the issue as a lobby group at a time when rhetoric was being turned into policy. While the Greens had arguably the best-framed argument focussing on the benefits of moving first articulated by Christine Milne, it was too often drowned out by more absolutist messages. The war cry to immediately ban all new coal was unworkable and the rhetoric too often drifted in doomsday scenarios, which have shown to be infective in shifting opinion.

The Greens were also the unwitting victims of broader environmental movement’s failure to translate a public desire for action on climate change into support for a practical response. The alliance campaign characterising those opposing change as ‘dinosaurs’’, which broke the golden rule of politics to engage, rather than to ridicule those who don’t agree with you.

Meanwhile other debates like population growth, reform of the health system, the breakdown of public transport in major cities and the devastation of rural communities from drought all swirled around without a unifying political theme – the failure to plan for the long-term. The Greens failed to effectively break into these arguments in a sustained way,

The financial crisis didn’t help either; two of the key attributes of Green voters are age and economic security. The GFC undermined confidence in job security, particularly amongst the young. When the focus returns to the hip pocket, interest in broader political issues tend to wind back.

Finally, climate change has moved out of environmentalism. Thee real story of the failure of Copenhagen was the failure of the developed and developing world to sign up to a future vision of growth. To China, India, Africa, climate change is not about solar panels and roof insulation, it is about the speed at which its people will move out of poverty. Overlay a GFC, and the debates were of fundamental economics.

I have no doubt there is a role for a progressive party to the Left of Australian politics, I just wonder whether the ‘Greens’ as they are currently branded will make it. Is the Green focus too limiting? Are the policy positions too hard-line? Are the solutions we crave too complex to put on a t-shirt?  Let’s hope the Greens do find a way of working these issues through – a vibrant party on Left is good for politics, no matter what colours you wear.

Most commented

343Is it sexist? We've got nothing to compare it to
306It takes selective memory to call Howard era a golden age
249Gillard's mapping a route but will probably still be routed
230La dole cheque vita is not so sweet on $16 a day
216Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012
201The sun is shining but storms lie ahead for the surplus
186The humourless hysteria of the holier-than-thou
153What happens to us if we collide with GFC 2.0?

102 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      06:28am | 16/02/10

      You neglected to mention that the wheels have fallen off the global warming bandwagon, with multiple scientific scandals following in the wake of Climategate. The IPCC has lost all credibility, as have most of the AGW advocates. This inevitably has an impact on the green vote, despite the efforts of the mainstream media to suppress and ignore it.

      Perhaps the faith of the public in global warming can be restored, but it will take a long time, and campaigners must begin almost from scratch.

      By now, also, most Australians know that the Greens aren’t a party of the environment, but a party of the extreme Left of politics. Thus they will remain on the fringe.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      07:02am | 16/02/10

      Perhaps it’s time for the Green’s to explore some options with the Liberals and Nat’s…...I see no reason why there can’t be left wing greens and right wing greens, main thing is that you are mainly green.

      Reply

    • Toddzilla says:

      08:46am | 16/02/10

      You forget that the Greens are the remnants of the Australian Communist Party. They are mere watermelons - green on the outside, but red to the core.

    • GreenFrog says:

      09:46am | 16/02/10

      I vote green and I sure won’t be voting for them if they Liberal and Nats. Both of those parties are climate change deniers. Sure they cooked this half baked climate change plan up but anyone with half a brain knows its all for show and no substance there. Todzilla your a very ignorant person, many many Australians and for that matter many many people World Wide want to see a cleaner enviroment. If we are communist mate how come Communist China is not out there saving the planet? Wake up and grow up.

    • Toddzilla says:

      10:04am | 16/02/10

      @GreenFrog. Ah, the ignorant green neck - the worst of all human sub-species. Most of the Greens sitting candidates were paid up members of the Commies (or Nuclear Disarmament Party, which was the same party under a different name). That is all I was saying. If you read the Greens social and economic policies, it is patently obvious that they still strive for the Communist utopia the Soviets promised. (that’s the Green Party, not greenies).

      Though with Phil Jones of East Anglia fame this week admitting that the warming up till 1998 was nothing new in human history and that the cooling since 2001 had negated the previous warming, it is fair to say the goose has been cooked on the climate change fiasco. If you aren’t a denier now, with all evidence, even from the scientists involved in propogating the myth, clearly running counter the AGW argument, then you, sir, are a moron and what’s worse is that you’re willing to vote on the basis of your intellectually inept world view. Back to the nuttery for you.

    • Tim says:

      11:30am | 16/02/10

      Acker,
      completely agree. Why can’t there be a party which actually cares about the environment without having a seperate left wing social agenda? The current greens should stop hiding behind environmentalism and brand themselves as what they really are - hard core socialists.

      Toddzilla
      If you think that AGW has been disproven because of a couple of dodgy scientists, emails and a few pages out of thousands being found to be wrong, then you are just as nutty as some of the AGW proponents.
      Being a sceptic is a good thing, being absolutist is not.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:39am | 16/02/10

      Tim @ 1130hrs,

      Please explain why you believe The Greens are “hard core socialists”?
      On what is this view based?

    • Tim says:

      12:01pm | 16/02/10

      OK John,
      maybe not hard core socialists but their policies are hardly libertarian or capitalist are they?

      http://greens.org.au/policies/

    • Tom says:

      12:29pm | 16/02/10

      Lee Rhiannon and Sylvia Hale both seem to have had links to socialist/communist/Trotskyist organisations prior to joining the Greens.
      Frank Stilwell, Professor of Political Economy at Sydney Uni, and well known Socialist academic, has done some policy advising for the Greens I believe.

      I agree with Tim - I would seriously consider voting for the Greens if they were actually a Green party, and didn’t carry a fairly comprehensive and extreme set of economic and social policies.

    • martinX says:

      02:22pm | 16/02/10

      Tim (1130) It’s not just “a couple of dodgy scientists, emails and a few pages out of thousands”, it’s the core group of climate researchers, it’s email discussions about deleting data and pressuring journals to get favourable outcomes and it’s arguments central to the AGW theory that have all come crashing down, not to mention the obviously false scare campaigns.

    • Nigel says:

      07:24am | 16/02/10

      Perhaps it’s their extreme social and economic policies e.g. ‘end the ANZUS treaty unless Australia’s membership can be revised in a manner which is consistent with Australia’s international and human rights obligations’,  that keep them on the fringe of mainstream politics in Australia.  I also take issue with the comment that a ‘vibrant party on the Left(sic.) is good for politics’. Extremism be it right or left on the political spectrum is not good for politics, it is simply an irrelevant distraction. Neither The Greens nor One Nation have added anything of real value to the development of Australia.

      Reply

    • nate says:

      10:58am | 16/02/10

      I disagree, the biggest problem facing Australian politics at the moment is this uninspiring centrality. What that leads to is a bland tip-toeing government that works more on reaction rather than pragmatism. It also leads to the undoing of democracy, which fundamentally aims for all voices to be heard. Look at parliaments around the world, Australia/US etc. are quite unique to have so few parties in parliament.

      Political diversity is good, as much as I dislike/d Family First, One Nation, the Nationals - I respect their right to have an opinion

    • Nigel says:

      12:32pm | 16/02/10

      Nate, you’re right in terms of the need for political diversity but I still stand by my statement of extremisms, either right or left adds no value. The issue in Australia, The Greens aside, is that the diversity of thought in political life is kept under wraps by the mainstream parties.  The Liberal Party encompasses true liberals as well as conservatives and it is at times an uncomfortable alliance.  Strangely the party is also aligned with the agrarian socialist policies of the Nationals.  Labour too has diversity although at the moment they are all holding the line.  The right of the ALP has very little in common with the hard left.  Perhaps a splintering of the major parties would allow for a more diverse political discourse but I’m just not sure how that can happen.

    • Tom says:

      03:45pm | 16/02/10

      I agree Nigel, I think there is a need for a true small l liberal party, as in Australia at present there is little to no representation for those who believe in a smaller government. Both the major parties have become increasingly interventionist and populist.

      However, the risk of having more parties is the potential for no party to gain a majority at elections, and the ensuing political paralysis that creates.

    • Justin says:

      08:24am | 16/02/10

      The Greens will never have broad appeal. With an ETS on its last legs, they should go for a more hard line policy in an attempt to appeal to anyone hard line on climate change who is (becoming) disillusioned with Labor. They don’t need to, & shouldn’t, worry about. the middle ground.

      Just as being Labor lite wasn’t working for the Coalition, being Labor heavy isn’t good for the Greens. People want differentiation.

      Reply

    • steve says:

      08:47am | 16/02/10

      The more the public look at what they say the more they realise they are bunch of Air Heads. The Greens will never be able to govern so they can promise anyone, anything knowing they will never have to deliver it. Their blueprint for the economy would have us all living in caves, hunting bison, but you have to eat it raw as a fire will generate GHC.

      I can not stand the cowardice of them
      The Traffic Light Party; say you are GREEN when you are too YELLOW to tell the truth and tell them you are RED

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      08:58am | 16/02/10

      I believe there are many people in this country crying out for a viable alternative to Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

      This could be The Greens, but they have a lot of work to do. Firstly they must overcome the current aura surrounding them of being Forest Fairies or Wood Nymphs.

      They need strong, practical policies, they need to give the people a clear alternative. If they can do this, all well and good, if not they are condemned
      to forever trudging along at the rear.

      Reply

    • Kim says:

      02:11pm | 16/02/10

      I don’t think you understand.  The Greens are in the Labour Camp.  It would be nice to be able to have a party that isn’t aligned with either Labour or Liberal, but it aint ever gonna happen.  National - aligned with liberal, Greens - aligned with labour etc etc.  The Greens are so far leftist in policy that they actually make labour look good - and that’s saying something.  Practicality never really enters the thoughts of the left wingers.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      07:15pm | 16/02/10

      The Greens are hardlly aligned with Labor.

    • Charles says:

      10:36am | 16/02/10

      The main problem the Greens have, is that they are an extremist party who fundamentally disapprove of human beings.  When you read between the lines you see most of their policies are dependent on either reducing the human population, or keeping them away from places.

      In fact, the strategies the Greens have put out are usually fairly stupid and don’t particularly achieve any useable environmental benefit.  Most of their ideas have led to unfortunate economic outcomes and in cases like the planting of ethanol crops, some very negative effects on critical forests and vegetation that would be useful in any assumed climate crisis.

      We should try and reinvent the term Greens, and start to develop policies where economic outcomes and preservation of the quality of the environment can exist side by side.  It does not necessarily mean the exclusion of either party to achieve, unlike the current Green Dream

      Reply

    • Bluecollarworker says:

      10:44am | 16/02/10

      what a rude and ignorant person you are Toddzilla , and another good reason not to vote for Liberal. Many Australians vote with the heart and vote for the party that gives them the values they believe in. Who are you to claim the Greens are communist. Many people just want a cleaner world for their children. I vote Labor and rant all you like at me, I am going back to work. Unlike you I have been working since 6 am, my smoko break consists of taking my kids to preschool. Get a job mate and maybe you will do The Liberals a favour by not turning people off them

      Reply

    • Phil says:

      11:07am | 16/02/10

      Bluecollarworker

      The greens were formed from the socialist party. That does not mean every member is a socialist, its just that the parties roots were in fact the socialist party.

      They have policies which are anti family, pro drugs (legalisation which can only lead to more consumption) Their economic principals are one of everyone being equal regardless of whether you choose a life of welfare or one of prosperity.

      They also have some good environmental ideas, but they can never bring them into play as policy as they dont have enough penetration to get the job done. They may after the next election hold labor if they retain power to ransom, but we will wait and see.

    • Toddzilla says:

      11:28am | 16/02/10

      I think on one your smokos, you should look up the meaning of the word ignorant. You should also do some research into the people who make up the Greens and their previous affiliations. These are clearly things you are ignorant of.

      Also, what the hell do the Liberals have to do with anything? You are ignorant of my voting intentions and I am open to, and will, vote for the party offering the best opportunities for all Australians. That is clearly not the Greens.

      You are also ignorant of my employment situation. It must be good to feel better than everyone else just because you get up early and lift stuff for a living. Luckily, I’m good at my job, though, so I get a couple of extra hours sleep and have about a grand play money each week after paying off my two mortgages, rent, food, utilities and the like. Yes, I really should get a proper job like you.

    • Dan says:

      02:48am | 17/02/10

      Phil, even if the greens were formed from the socialist party, so what? That doesn’t make them murderous stalinists.

      As for being anti-family, that’s merely your opinion. I think that being pro-legalisation of drugs (which is not the same as being pro-drugs) IS pro-family. Why? Because it will lead to reduced crime and it will mean that those who take drugs can receive treatment instead of prison sentences. It will also ensure that the drugs they take are cheaper and safer. They can even be taxed with the proceeds going to anti-drug campaigns. Legalisation will not lead to more consumption, especially since those who want it will always find a way to get it.

      I very much approve of their drug policies, and I think it is absolutely pro-family (on a side-note, I don’t particularly think that the government should be able to tell us which drugs to take, especially when we can smoke and drink, which cause far more damage than illegal drugs.)

    • Phil says:

      09:33pm | 17/02/10

      Dan

      I was simply stating that they started as the communist party and many of their ecomonic policies if adopted would ensure Australia would go from an A class economy to a Z.

      They are not known as the traffic light part for nothing.

      You are a dill. Please name one family who has a drug dependant child/adult where the end result is pro family/life. It is simply a con and lie to state that legalising drugs will solve the problem and everyone will live happy ever after.

      Whilst I agree that you can smoke and drink till you kill yourself, moderation is the key. I dont know many hard drug users, although having worked on the door of many establishments for years in my younger days I have seen many go from a smoke of weed to lsd, coke and eventually smack. This in many cases results in crime against families first then others to feed the habit. Many then end up before the courts who deal with them accordingly.

      No government in Australia will ever legalise drugs, so get over it. Would you encourage your children to indulge with you in these substances? I doubt it.

      As for help, shouldnt they get that in Jail. They should be drying out in there. I have no sympathy for those who inject themselves with this poison.

    • Macca says:

      11:12am | 16/02/10

      “our lives are being buffeted by one extreme weather event after another”

      Extreme Weather conditions are not linked to Climate Change.


      but thanks for writing an article about this important political occurance. The Greens are struggling to become a major political party, you don’t say?

      Reply

    • Super D says:

      11:18am | 16/02/10

      Actually the surprising thing is that the Greens have managed to get the support that they have.  I think they’ve reached a high point and now will go the way of the democrats.  They are certainly no third force.

      Reply

    • James says:

      11:51am | 16/02/10

      But your “science” has its roots in conspiracy nut websites.  Time to put on your tin foil hat.

    • Martin G says:

      12:08pm | 16/02/10

      @James “But your “science” has its roots in conspiracy nut websites.  Time to put on your tin foil hat. “

      Not sure how you managed to get that from my post. In any case, this isn’t my science, it’s the IPCCs. The CRU at East Anglia had it’s whole building wrapped in tin foil.

    • James says:

      12:31pm | 16/02/10

      What rubbish, you really are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

    • Martin G says:

      12:46pm | 16/02/10

      Okay James, here’s some more ‘molehills’

      - Climategate
      - Himalayan Glaciers to melt WRONG
      - African crop yields claim WRONG
      - Extreme weather event claims WRONG
      - Poor/invalid/dodgy sources in IPCC report
      - Pachauri is hot water over business deals
      - Phil Jones, head of CRU at East Anglia “no warming”
      - Hockey Stick controversy / omission of MWP
      - Dodgy GISS data - raw data missing
      - Weather station siting issues / UHI effect / urban bias
      - Selective use of Yamal tree ring data

      Etc, etc

      Perhaps you should remove that tin-foil hat of yours

    • James says:

      04:37pm | 16/02/10

      Buy low lying costal property then, if they are “mountains” you will make a mountain of cash.

    • Anjuli says:

      11:38am | 16/02/10

      Why would any one consider voting for the Greens ,when really it is a vote for Labor by default, if they could make policy and be voted into government that would be a different story .Even Garret saw that, he joined the Labor party as he saw he would never be in government if he stayed with the greens and we have all seen how he has turned out,he has been TURNED.

      Reply

    • Andrew says:

      06:34pm | 16/02/10

      How is it a vote for Labor by default? You do know that when you vote you get to choose where your preference goes don’t you?
      If the Greens had the balance of power they can influence policy be it created by Liberal or Labour, even without making government.

    • James says:

      11:48am | 16/02/10

      The Greens are the only option if we want to halt environmental destruction and global warming, the scientific basis for which, despite what loony conspiricy nuts say, has not shifted one iota.  I don’t agree with all their policies, but they are the only party that has policies for environmental protection of the magnitude that we require to hedge against its destruction.

      Reply

    • D'oh says:

      12:24pm | 16/02/10

      You have got to be kidding James, although you are of course entitled to your own opinion.

      Nothing to see here folks, just a shrill alarmist clutching to the last vestiges of their religion.

    • James says:

      12:50pm | 16/02/10

      Nice try.  “Climategate” what a storm in a tea cup.  You lot desperately want it to be more than that but what the science tells us is unchanged. 

      Of course what conspiracy nuts tell us is that the whole thing is off, try and find one scientist who has changed their mind becasue of “climate gate” though.  Ha ha it makes me laugh to think of you trying.

    • David c says:

      01:09pm | 16/02/10

      what is becoming obvious is that the scientific basis for the phenomenon of climate change is indeed unchanged, the scientific basis for claims of catastrophic climate change is what is under attack.
      We are now fast arriving at a point where we can all go back to what we were doing and stop panicking about something which in the end will more than likely be a manageable event.
      The author of this piece is right, there has been major damage done by the “alarmists”, all the huneger strikers, all the wild claims of no water in Adelaide by 2009, those caling for coal executives to be jalied ala Nuremberg etc etc etc
      Problem for the Greens is these are the folks they hang out with.

    • James says:

      01:52pm | 16/02/10

      I admit there are people who are very passionate about the environment that are a total liablity to rational arguement, but the implications of global warming make me very uncomfortable, the trends in data i.e. ocean acidity and average temperature increase are actually quite alarming if you think what could happen to world food production.  If long term warming and acidity trends continue we will be in real trouble.

      Bear in mind crops can be completely destroyed if temperatures spike above a certain level, with a higher global average temperature such spikes become more common.  I think sitting on our hands would be a huge mistake.

    • D'oh says:

      01:53pm | 16/02/10

      Funny thing is I was not even trying James.  As for “climate gate” (which is a lot more serious than James is willing to acknowledge - any scientist with a shred of integrity should acknowledge it), there have been more damning reports in recent times which for some reason you have chosen not to address.

      Let’s see now:

      Create scare: “The Greens are the only option if we want to halt environmental destruction and global warming” - tick

      Create unltimatum solution: “The Greens are the only option” - tick

      Personal attack on others that don’t share your belief: “loony conspiricy nuts” - tick

      Precautionary principle without any regard for the ramifications associated with implimentation: “they are the only party that has policies for environmental protection of the magnitude that we require to hedge against its destruction.” - tick

      Disregard for real issues associated with the “settled science” (also called ‘head in the sand’) - “the scientific basis for which…has not shifted one iota” - tick

      Congratulations James, 5 out of 5.

      Now, kindly address Martin G’s other concerns.

    • D'oh says:

      03:48pm | 16/02/10

      quoting realclimate (the bastion of objective climate reporting /sarc) - tick.

      6 out of 6 James.

    • James says:

      04:33pm | 16/02/10

      Yeah exactly what is your point?

    • James says:

      04:38pm | 16/02/10

      What are you waiting for then D’oh time to snap up property on the coast.

    • werp says:

      06:23pm | 16/02/10

      Playing the man and not the ball like pretty much every climate sceptic…7 out of 7, D’Oh.

      Just because it is from realclimate does not make it necessarily incorrect. I have noticed that climate sceptics seem unwilling or unable to extend a similar level of scepticism to the blatant lies and misrepresentations in the work of people such as Plimer and Monckton.

    • acker says:

      11:49am | 16/02/10

      @Tim saya 11.30 am .... Very true, I have a passion for the Western Bulldogs as does Julia Gillard, just because we both support them doesn’t mean we have to have duplicate political ideals.

      Peter Costello barracks for Essendon, so do a lot of people with far left political veiwpoints, likewise that doesn’t mean Costello and political veiws have to be duplicated.

      In my opinion Greens can come from both sides of politics, plenty of bussiness people express very Green veiws. Why totally cut yourself off from that side of politics to pander to a few one eyed zealots clinging on the outer fringe.

      Reply

    • James says:

      12:35pm | 16/02/10

      This is my only problem with the Greens, they need to broaden their appeal becasue they are probably the most important party in Australia given current circumstances.

      All the Greens really need to do is be a party based on the science and they will achieve most of their objectives, they need to ditch some of the ideology.

    • Karen M says:

      11:57am | 16/02/10

      Toddzilla who died and made you God? People have a right to their opinion and to their vote. Many vote for different reasons and unless your God, you can’t possibly know all those reasons. Your self opinionated person and what a turn off that is. Your views are just that..YOUR VIEWS. Others have a different perspective

      Reply

    • Evan Findlay says:

      05:21pm | 16/02/10

      Yeah but Todd has a $1000 left over after he has paid his two mortgages,rent food and utilities, not to mention he gets to sleep in an extra two hours a day, so he must be really good! How many hand cranks do you give yourself with that extra two hours in bed?

    • stephen says:

      01:25pm | 16/02/10

      The Greens are an addendum to the Labor Party.
      Just ask the Minister for the Environment.

      Reply

    • James says:

      01:55pm | 16/02/10

      Why are they blocking the ETS in the senate then?

    • 6clegs says:

      01:56pm | 16/02/10

      I think that a lot of people totally missed how smart Malcolm Turnbul was in shutting the Greens out of the ETS talks, and how itt gave the [fed] Greens nowhere to go. Or if they did notice, didn’t comment on it.
      I know of long since disaffected Liberal ‘‘greenies’’ here (Tas) that with MT’s willingness to engage on CC, and rejection of the ‘right fundies’, had them seriously wondering about renewing their Greens membership.

      Of course now they’re quite sure about where their vote, and membership monies are going.

      Me? I’d love to see Turnbull quit the house of reps and stand as a Greens Senator. (and why Turnbull hasn’t asked me to be his adviser lol)
      As much as I appreciate all of Senator Brown’s hard work, passion and dedication, I think that he’s reached the ‘‘it’s time’’ point that comes to all politicians.

      If only the hirechry of the Greens and Dems could have seen that really they had more in common as parties than they didn’t , Australia could have had a genuine 3rd party that would’ve given voters a serious alternative.

      Reply

    • Willy K says:

      02:08pm | 16/02/10

      Do people realise that the dominant political philosophy behind almost all the ‘Greens’ is Hardline Socialism, Marxism and Communism?

      They are a joke of party.  Simply an arm of the ALP.  Hollow to their rotten core.

      Reply

    • nate says:

      02:42pm | 16/02/10

      what’s with all the anti-communism rhetoric. The cold war ended 20 years ago - get with the 21st Century.

      Next you’ll be telling me the Japs are invading from the north.

      This is not a comment in favour of communism, it’s to read all these anti-communist statements. Are people still afraid the red shirts are going to come and get them in the night??

    • James says:

      02:24pm | 16/02/10

      I offer my standard challenge to those who think climate change is nothing to worry about.  Buy up low lying land and make a killing if sea levels aren’t rising.  Think about it, it will be undervalued and if you are right you will clean house.  Big Bucks to be made!!!!!!!!

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      03:34pm | 16/02/10

      IPCC scientist bought up all the low lying real estate and won’t sell. Good Idea though!

    • James says:

      04:35pm | 16/02/10

      Rubbish there is plenty around, property in the Maldives is going for a song.  It should be a serious proportion of any high growth portfolio.

    • Kevin says:

      05:10pm | 07/03/10

      James, I took your advice and offered $20K for a prime beach front site in Noosa. For some reason, the vendors were laughing at me.
      You’d think they would be keen to get rid of it, seeing as your science is predicting catastrophic sea-level rises.
      Care to show me some low lying areas near the sea where I could get a nice piece of land with sea-views for a paltry sum?

    • Leonid says:

      02:28pm | 16/02/10

      The ALP should be very grateful to the Greens.  They provide a home for all the old commos so that they don’t infest the Labor Party.

      The Greens also provide a chunk of preference votes to Labor, many of which come unknowingly from people who say they would never vote for Labor.  The downside of that is that the traffic light brigade extract a quid pro quo of some remarkably silly policies from Labor.

      A classic example was that the first thing the NSW govt did when elected fifteen long years ago was to pay off the Greens by halting construction of a planned dam for Sydney’s water supply.

      The dam would have supplied vital extra capacity to reduce the need for restrictions.  Instead we now have a hugely expensive environmental disaster of a desalination plant which uses vast amounts of power.  So maybe we should give credit where it is due and say thank you to the “environmental” Green/red brigade.

      Reply

    • E says:

      02:31pm | 16/02/10

      Catastrophic AGW = Iraq WMD
      evidence = ‘sexed up’

      James, chill out man the world isnt ending.

      Also it really infuriates me how people claim ‘all the scientists agree’, without mentioning that 90% of scientists are not climate scientists and so their agreement has no more validity than a biologists view on quantum mechanics.

      Further, obviously all climate scientists agree, because they have a vested interest in AGW, its the source of billions in grant money. Its like saying creationism is proven because most priests say it is.

      What we need are some disinterested physicists, geologists and meteorologists to take an independant look at the physics and data and see what the real deal is.

      Until we have that, the debate cant continue. The IPCC 2007 report was a farce based on non-peer reviewed fund raising pieces from NGO’s, and key phrases urging caution were omitted AFTER the relevent scientists has signed off on the original document.

      The whole thing just stinks. Also, if this really was such a big deal, why do all the mainstream policial solutions seem to do little to nothing to actually reduce the problem? Theyre all obsessed with a smoke and mirrors solution based on paper shuffling. Its all really dodgy.

      Reply

    • johnno says:

      09:47pm | 10/03/10

      E - I am shocked - isn’t Al Gore a renowned climate scientist???

    • Alex says:

      02:45pm | 16/02/10

      Wow, the word “extremist” appears a lot in the comments. Reminds me of whenever Libs and/or Labor referred to the Greens, they’d start with “extreme”.  At the last federal election the “pundits” declared the Greens had reached their peak, and quite clearly voters had other ideas.

      The Greens are providing a comprehensive set of policies and unlike the other parties, are trying to ensure their policies reflect the interconnectedness of our natural and urban worlds. Trying to write them off as being a flash-in-the-pan will not make it so.

      Reply

    • johnno says:

      10:06am | 11/03/10

      The Greens can provide whatever hare-brained policies they want - they will never have to implement them, and thereby never be held responsible for them.  All they ever do is push Labor Governments over the line, though of course they always claim not to be stooges for any party.

    • James says:

      02:52pm | 16/02/10

      E your last paragraph is the telling one, why indeed. 

      The problem is that many disinterested atmospheric physicists have looked at the data and the vast majority conclude that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases emitted due to human activity.

      Also:

      Grants don’t go into the pockets of scientists they fund research.

      Scientists could (and a small number do) make much more money lying about climate science for oil, gas and coal companies.

      ———————————

      Now enough of that, here is my scheme to make you big money.  Buy up low lying property, it will be cheap and as well all know climate change is crap so it will be massively undervalued.

      LET’s ALL MAKE A FORTUNE on climate science lies whooo hooooooo.  Think about it, if you are right truckloads of property investment cash await.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      04:18pm | 16/02/10

      James, you are coming across as rather nutty.

    • Fog Badger says:

      08:51pm | 16/02/10

      Yeah, he won’t give up, Eric.

    • Z says:

      11:58pm | 16/02/10

      James, I was looking at a property that was low lying,and was out bidded .
      By Al Gore.

    • James says:

      09:25am | 17/02/10

      Ok you got me, you are a funny bunch of guys. But seriously if you had any balls you would put your money where your mouth is and bet real cash that climate change is a load of crap.  There will be lots of undervalued low lying property that if you are right, will be make you a fortune, think about how sweet it would be you would be right and laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Brad says:

      03:06pm | 17/02/10

      James, I’ll buy up coastal land if you can promise me that local councils will respect my property rights and not try to block development on my land because of the supposed threat of AGW.

    • James says:

      11:31am | 18/02/10

      Brad forget Australia, too many regulations, try the Madives or Tuvalu you shouldn’t have too many problems there.  I am talking investment properties here.

    • Ads says:

      05:17pm | 23/02/10

      @James

      The Maldives and Tuvalu are subsiding because of erosion.  The sea level around those islands hasn’t risen in decades.

      After bagging everyone who disagrees with you in previous posts for not using facts, you could at least get your own facts straight

    • eye4aneye says:

      06:30pm | 23/02/10

      @ James - I went looking for this cheap low lying coastal land you speak of and couldn’t find any, in fact it was the most expensive land available I also looked briefly into real estate prices over the last decade or so since climate change really entered the spotlight and you know what it’s performed better than average.

      Lucky for you climate change will soon destroy the coastal strip and all the rich well educated folk of whatever political affiliation that currently own the land will proven as idiots.

      And this is my personal opinion but based on the number of posts you’ve made and the pushing of real estate that forms your central argument you come accross as a bit of a nutbar and possibly worse a real estate agent.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      03:07pm | 16/02/10

      I can’t see the Greens filling the void because they have extremist views, make a lot of noise but have no teeth. Everyone wants a better life or world for their kids (one that’s not warming or cooling) but not at the expense of living in a cave, marvelling at nature, sleeping on the dirt wearing a loin cloth and walking 100 Klm to drink water from a pristine spring. Reminds me of the Pure Blond add a few months ago…. If there is beer I’ll give it some thought otherwise not for me.

      Back in the seventies, the “let’s keep the bastards honest” party was the hope – a balance or an alternative to the other 2 major parties, unfortunately it could not be sustained. Pity, Don had the right idea. That’s the problem - leaders - or lack of.

      Peter, I recon you could write an article about sex, footy, raising kids, religion, chess or racism and it will end up discussing the merits or otherwise of CC, AGW GW…..

      Reply

    • James says:

      04:32pm | 16/02/10

      That is a pretty subjective view there Carl.  I don’t ever remember a Greens policy being “We will take you back to the stone age” are you sure you aren’t confusing how their critics portray them with what they actually say?

    • Carl Palmer says:

      11:02am | 17/02/10

      @James, subjective – well they only have themselves to blame.

      I listen to the ABC broadcast of parliament and whenever I can watch A-PAC. They do some good things but by enlarge they do not reflect my views on a number of important issues.

      PS Some years back I actually voted for them believing they’d make a difference, not now, I place them near the bottom. If they change however, happy to reconsider my position.

    • James says:

      12:27pm | 17/02/10

      They only have themselves to blame for your subjective view?  They can only make a difference if people vote for them in sufficient numbers, how is putting them last on the ballot going to help that?

    • Brad says:

      03:14pm | 17/02/10

      @James, its not quite the stone age, but back in 1999 one of the Greens policies was to “reduce the total amount of land occupied by human infrastructure (transport, buildings, roads etc) and agriculture (grazing, cropping etc) to below 1995 levels (see section: Agriculture)”.  I’m not sure if this is still their policy, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:23pm | 17/02/10

      James says:12:27pm | 17/02/10
      Huh? James that’s their challenge not mine. Let’s put the horse before the cart and not the cart before the horse.

    • James says:

      11:42am | 18/02/10

      @Brad, I am just guessing here but that policy might be an anti urban sprawl policy which is a good thing.  The sprawl is costing the tax payer billions of dollars more than higher density living i.e. the more we sprawl the more you have to stretch the sewer, gas, water pipes and power line and roads etc all this costs money, lots of money I know becasue I work in energy transmission.  No country in the world, has more un economic mains services than OZ

    • Matt says:

      03:18pm | 16/02/10

      The Greens are like a frog in a blender.

      Only green until you turn on the lights….

      Reply

    • AJ says:

      04:15pm | 16/02/10

      The Greens act quite differently in different states.  Like most parties, they have their share of nutters, including some that get elected, but I suspect most Libs would like to pretend Tuckey didn’t exist and most of the Labor party wish Michael Atkinson in SA would quietly drop off the face of the planet.

      That said, whilst wishing to avoid being a ‘it’s all the media’s fault!’ nutter, it should be noted that, outside the Canberra Times (where the nature of the ACT Assembly means they’re considerably more powerful than any other parliament), they tend not to get a play in the papers unless it’s an environmental issue.  Admittedly, some (but far from all) of their elected officials don’t really have views on non-environmental matters, but that’s changing as they become mainstream.  Again, for interesting viewpoints on how they actually operate, examining media reports from Canberra should be informative.  Of note to a number of you who have complained previously of the BS that goes on in Federal Parliament during question time, the (Green) Speaker has effectively nullified Dorothy Dixers by allowing supplementary questions from the other two parties and being able to compel a Minister to more directly answer a question.

      (Disclaimer, yes I’m a Canberran Green voter.  But I wouldn’t be a NSW Green voter)

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      02:29pm | 17/02/10

      Your joking aren’t you AJ,
      the Canberra Greens are a massive blight on our legislative assembly, and that is saying something with Lord Stanhope in charge.
      90% of the time they are irrelevant and the other 10% of the time they are supporting proposals that will actually harm the environment, are completely inefficient or raise the cost of living.
      BTW i’m an equal opportunity hater. There are very few members of the legislative assembly that earn their pay cheque.

    • acker says:

      04:33pm | 16/02/10

      A lot of the original young Greens student perhaps socialisist idealist members have also aged and possibly started families, busineses, mortgages, etc..and maybe also have become more economicaly conservative

      Reply

    • pc says:

      05:20pm | 16/02/10

      Hi Pete, Hi Punchmates

      As you discussed disillusionment amongst Labor voters,  I remembered when I was a bit younger and Id often hear friends say. “Not this time. Im going to vote bloody green.” Which of course they never did. 

      Disillusionment isnt new on the left and thats probably a good reason for everyone else NOT to worry we are going to be crawling out from under their beds hammer and sickle in either hand.

      The election of Obama in the states and Rudd in australia were heralded as a time of expectation, expectation of change, expectation of something better. As senates in the US and Australia obstruct the policies on which this expectation for change was based our expectations were considered unreasonable. Our expectations were too high. Obama and Rudd had miscalculated the effect of these expectations.

      Shouldnt we expect great things of our politicians? We should but we shouldnt expect their rivals to suddenly become accomodating/reasonable/rational/constructive in the future. Its been working so well for them up until now why would they change?

      Reply

    • Chris says:

      05:27pm | 16/02/10

      The 1980’s-early 90’s Democrats would have handled this admirably. They were a minority party, with strong influence in the Senate, they had modern, progressive policies on all areas of government and, for many years, did not appear as crackpots or obstructionists.
      For years, they were the green party.
      I voted for them on many occasions, as they seemed to be a sensible party.

      Reply

    • acker says:

      08:14am | 17/02/10

      Democrats ended up shooting themselves in the foot because in the finish they were further left than Labor…..Let’s remember they were originally started by a Liberal politician Don Chipp, who probably occupied many of the ideal positions as Malcolm Turnbull and perhaps even Peter Costello.

    • 6clegs says:

      05:42pm | 16/02/10

      Of course Mr Abbott doesn’t have any “extreme’’ views, does he?
      Dunno where it says in any of the Greens policies that ‘‘living in caves, wearing loin cloths’‘, or having to ‘walk 20ks for water’?
      “James” have you seen that page? I musta missed it?

      S u s t a i n a b l e - L i v i n g doesn’t mean living in a cave - but me thinks that some of the neathanderal posters of Punch would actually be quite at home. . .

      Reply

    • James says:

      09:53am | 17/02/10

      I sure don’t remember them saying that and I have heard them talk quite a bit.  Maybe it was at the deep green convention that Carl Palmer got a special invite to.  I must confess I feel a bit miffed that I wasn’t invited.

    • Pete says:

      09:00pm | 16/02/10

      Not that it matters much, but chances are the Greens are on target to hold the balance of power in Tasmania heading in to a year of other elections around the country. Could be worth something to think about wink

      Reply

    • greg barber mlc says:

      03:40pm | 17/02/10

      the Green vote has gone from 3% to 6% to 9% in as many elections.  we’re now polling 12% and, as at every other election, there’s someone arguing theat the Green vote has ‘plateaued’.  yeah right - you’ve discovered a law of electoral gravity that applies only to the Greens - what goes up must come down. or perhaps jiggle along sideways forevermore.

      Reply

    • greg barber mlc says:

      04:45pm | 17/02/10

      and as for the ‘soft’ part of our vote, that’s a sign of our recent growth.  although the *proportion* of our vote recorded as soft is larger than for the other parties, they are much larger than us in ABSOLUTE terms.  or to make it real simple, they have more voters likEly to defect to us than the other way ‘round.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      01:26pm | 18/02/10

      well I wouldnt hold your breath on that one, Green is so last decade.

    • James says:

      02:44pm | 18/02/10

      What are you, a teenage girl from California?

    • Ads says:

      05:27pm | 23/02/10

      There are 2 things holding back the greens:
      1 - they preference labor heavily , so a vote for Bob Brown is essentially a vote for Kev, so anyone not happy with the ALP in power will not vote green
      2 - they have absolutely no power over the ALP, as evidenced by the ETS debacle

      The greens couldn’t cut through on their most important, many would say only issue, so what exactly did voters get for their vote and what reason is there to think they’d get anything more next time?

    • Ben says:

      10:27am | 20/02/10

      From 3% to 6% to 9% and polling 12%. Certainly the interest in the far left has grown exponentially in line with the alarmism that Club Left has spouted because of AGW. You forget that now Labour has been elected and in power, the impetus to be an opposition for oppositions sake does not lie on the left side of politics. I would put both low lying investment properties I own on the Green vote retreating at the next federal election.

      The public are beginning to realise that they threw out a sensible, economically responsible government and replaced it with a diplomat who does nothing but talk, and a bunch of leftist acolytes who clearly have no business being in government. The reason we have remained as the the worlds pre-eminent economy throughout the GFC is the spending of the hard earned cash saved by the coalition whilst in government. Labor cannot claim to have been a force for any good whilst in office.

      Reply

    • Emma H says:

      09:37am | 21/02/10

      Global warming is the latest in a string of half lies that Governments latch on to, to draw attention away from thier own failures. Seriously think about historical issues and how many of those actually affected human life the way the public were told they would. Global warming is merely the latest one. Is it happening, don’t know. Is it likely to happen on the scale that is being suggested to us,  not likely.

      Reply

    • James says:

      10:32am | 22/02/10

      I hope you are right but I also hope to win Tatts

    • eye4aneye says:

      06:42pm | 23/02/10

      I’m a climate sceptic myself - open to conversion if undiluted evidence can ever be provided. However I don’t see anypoint in potentially wasting trillions of dollars combatting something that may or may not be a problem and therby lowering the standard of living for people by diverting funds into what may be a wild goose chase.

      I also think that if I’m wrong and it is an issue we’re better off inversting in a technological solution to the problem rather than asking everyone to massivly change their lifestyles and oh by the way can you pay a ton more tax as well (which I think has bugger all chance of happening - most people are essentially selfish in my experiance and before anyone says it yes I am. If it came down to you or me and you wern’t a member of my family I’d choose me, as would most people i think).

    • James says:

      11:56am | 24/02/10

      So lets invest in 100% renewable energy, electric cars etc how would that negatively impact your lifestyle?

      Reply

    • thatmosis says:

      08:27pm | 27/02/10

      Lets look at this.Firstly the greens abhore anything that is taken from the ground to be used for power. They expect everybody to accept their mantra ” What do we want-Green Power - and when do we want it -now” when even a kindergarten child knows that Green Power is a myth for cities and factories.Sure several houses can run on pure green power, like mine, but full scale Green power is decades from becoming a reality. Secondly they want to halt all mining and save the planet but still have free medical and schools etc but no income to fund these things as the mining industry implodes and unemployment goes through the roof. Thirdly extra Taxes on businesses who happen to pollute causing more businesses to close and more unemployment. The litany of completely off the planet ideas by the Greens is what is slowly destroying them and it cant come soon enough. Their grasp of reality beggars belief but they will insist that they are actually saving the planet whilst destroying the fabric of life in Australia as we know it.  If thats what you want then go ahead and vote Green at the next election but when you lose your job because of the looney toon ideas of theirs dont bother lining up at the dole queue because there will be thousands before you and no money.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      05:03pm | 03/03/10

      That depends on what your vision of being Green actually is.

      If you look at the most successful green country, Germany, being green is about efficiency and building a sustainable economy.  After the opec price hike they wanted an economy and society that wasn’t reliant on other countries resources.

      Green polices about using resources efficiently have allowed them to improve businesses i.e. manufacturing.  They recycle efficiently to get the most out of the resources that they have i.e. when you buy a beer you only pay for the alcohol if you return the bottle to be reused again.  Afterall it’s only the alcohol you really want isn’t it? 

      I remember the sales people I worked with thought that water efficient products were a joke.  Afterall bigger is always better, just like the car industry.  Guess what their top sales were when we had water restrictions? 

      Being green to me is about being efficient, saving money and building a better future. 

      Unfortunately in Australia being green is seen as being anti-progress and a threat to our current lifestyles.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 04:03PM

Wow the official Chewbacca website looks like it was designed by... a wookie http://t.co/SCTBVbVt

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 03:58PM

@GrogsGamut We need a government quackdown

Paul Colgan

Colgo 10 Feb 12 03:51PM

Good story by @ashermoses on the mass gaming of a website poll about alternative medicine http://t.co/3XNE2BF5

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 10 Feb 12 02:56PM

OK, so am I the last person in Australia to see this Herald front page mockup thru the Rinehart lens? http://t.co/LSNBPkVl

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Would you kill for a job?

by Tory Shepherd

87

Would you kill for a job?

Who would work in an abattoir? Most of us have done jobs we didn’t want to do because we needed…

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

by Anthony Sharwood

28

Friday Dilemma: child cruelty or harmless fun?

Parenting. It’s the new oneupmanship. Ah, how quaint the days now seem when parents could raise…

Hipsters with hip replacements

by Lucy Kippist

25

Hipsters with hip replacements

Someone once told me that when people reach a certain age they begin dressing in the manner they did…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Punch on: Open thread 09/02/2012

marley says:

I'm one of the older ones, so I've certainly seen a few changes in my time. When I started school I learned to write with a nib pen, dipped in an inkwell (no, I'm not kidding). My mother became a dab hand at getting inkstains out of my clothes. Flicking ink at one another in the classroom was an essential… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

152 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed