With the NZ election coming up next year i have been assessing the situation in the country and determining where my vote would best be placed. The thing is, i find myself in a conundrum... I think this country needs a bigger focus on environmentalism, and would love to see some more pro-environment politicians in the governing center-right coalition, not only for the obvious lifestyle and health reasons, but also because tourism is New Zealand's biggest industry in terms of revenue and employment (as you all will probably know).

I'm pretty sure this applies to most situations and shouldn't be too NZ focused:

We currently have only one real choice as far as pro-environment parties are concerned, the Green Party... The only problem is.. A vote for them is a vote for fucking nut case socialists. The Green party here is realistically more of a socialist party than they are an environmentalist part. They are more left-wing that our Labour party.

So now i am in a position where i have to either support money spending cunts with the advantage of environmental protection, or support my most ideologically similar National party, who, while having some measures of environmental protection in place, don't really go far enough imo.

Which brings to me an important question, and the point of this rant:

Why the fuck are there no apolitical environmental protection parties? If there were a truly apolitical party i wouldn't hesitate to vote for them. Not only that, but being apolitical would almost guarantee that the Greens got more votes - at this stage they alienate most of the country by being completely socialist - something that seems to make their "environment is priority #1" attitude entirely disingenuous.

Does this situation remind any of you of situations in your countries?

I'm not familiar with Australian politics, of course, but it sounds similar. Our Democrats (Liberal/Progressives) push hard on environmental issues, but they are, as a whole, way too far to the left and are often accused of having a Socialist agenda. Our Republicans (Conservative/Traditionalists) don't seem to give a shit about the environment much at all... and lean way too far to the right... and are often accused of being racists and fascists.

Pick your poison. That's the situation over here (the U.S.).

(August 3, 2010 at 6:36 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: I'm not familiar with Australian politics,

That's offensive. I'm a Kiwi! How dare you associate us with those inferior Australians!

Quote: of course, but it sounds similar. Our Democrats (Liberal/Progressives) push hard on environmental issues, but they are, as a whole, way too far to the left and are often accused of having a Socialist agenda.

The Democrats would hardly qualify as environmental protectionists, just the better of two failed approaches.

Quote: Our Republicans (Conservative/Traditionalists) don't seem to give a shit about the environment much at all... and lean way too far to the right... and are often accused of being racists and fascists.

That they do

What about the American Green party? Do they have the same socialist tinge?

(August 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's offensive. I'm a Kiwi! How dare you associate us with those inferior Australians!

Gah! Sorry. My bad.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm)theVOID Wrote: The Democrats would hardly qualify as environmental protectionists, just the better of two failed approaches.

Indeed.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:48 pm)theVOID Wrote: What about the American Green party? Do they have the same socialist tinge?

I don't think so, I'm not really all that familiar with their ideology, but third parties rarely carry anything more than a small fraction of the vote. Most people don't even think of them as legitimate contenders, but might vote for them as a way to avoid choosing which evil is best.

Cheers Paul - That last party pretty much sums up my problems with the american political system.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm)theVOID Wrote: With the NZ election coming up next year i have been assessing the situation in the country and determining where my vote would best be placed. The thing is, i find myself in a conundrum... I think this country needs a bigger focus on environmentalism, and would love to see some more pro-environment politicians in the governing center-right coalition, not only for the obvious lifestyle and health reasons, but also because tourism is New Zealand's biggest industry in terms of revenue and employment (as you all will probably know).

I recently saw a documentary (on the documentary channel, no less) about the situation in Austraila and while I'm a US citizen and I've never personally lived in Australia, I believe I can offer a few insights in the situation. I'll try at least.

The problem with coal and oil is that the industry is too powerful, too ingrained into the needs of the world, their money is in too many pockets, they have too many powerful people working for them, and many, many 'regular folks' with jobs under their employment.

From what I understand about Australia, the environmental movement is happening in both places to whatever extent and trying everything they can, but their movements are much harder to see and their battles aren't as noticable. Any environmental movement is always going to face an uphill battle and the only way to fight that kind of battle is, basically, through numbers, constant pressure, information/propoganda, and perseverance.

To whatever extent, it's working in the US at least to the point to where environmentalism is a goal rather than a sideshow, but I'm guessing that Austraila is still fighting to get to that point.

Still, to understand why things are the way they are, you need to understand what I've said above.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm)theVOID Wrote: I'm pretty sure this applies to most situations and shouldn't be too NZ focused:

We currently have only one real choice as far as pro-environment parties are concerned, the Green Party... The only problem is.. A vote for them is a vote for fucking nut case socialists. The Green party here is realistically more of a socialist party than they are an environmentalist part. They are more left-wing that our Labour party.

This is approaching the problem in the wrong way. You're right to the effect that certain parties are more prone to the position of being environmentallly friendly, but the issues are problems for everyone that we all must solve, we can't pick and choose who will or will not help the environment.
Efforts have to be made to see that environmentalism is simply a good idea - not simply a party position or it can be disregarded as one.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm)theVOID Wrote: So now i am in a position where i have to either support money spending cunts with the advantage of environmental protection, or support my most ideologically similar National party, who, while having some measures of environmental protection in place, don't really go far enough imo.

Supporting the candidates that most represent your interests is of course the most logical thing you can do in a democratic election, but the best thing for you to do, if environmentalism is as important as anything, is to get involved with the people pushing the candidates, senators, whomever with petitions and information.
In other words, you want to support the people who lobby the candidates and push for the kinds of reform you're looking for. Especially if you can't trust your candidates to see things eye-to-eye with you, so it's usually best to make sure they and especially the public that elects them to see environmentalism as the goal in which your country to strive.

And perhaps most importantly, the people who absolutely must be convinced to support environmentalism must be the general public as much or more than the people who they elect. If you affect one, you can affect the events that follow.

(August 3, 2010 at 6:25 pm)theVOID Wrote: Which brings to me an important question, and the point of this rant:

Why the fuck are there no apolitical environmental protection parties? If there were a truly apolitical party i wouldn't hesitate to vote for them. Not only that, but being apolitical would almost guarantee that the Greens got more votes - at this stage they alienate most of the country by being completely socialist - something that seems to make their "environment is priority #1" attitude entirely disingenuous.

Does this situation remind any of you of situations in your countries?

That tends to be the way political opponents try to paint many of the enviromental movments. For example, FOX news here in the US hates Al Gore and his support for the fight against global warming. The personalities on the propoganda network frequently try to paint him as a hypocrite and many other opponents of the environtmentalism movement here in the US are constantly trying to discredit anything and everything about climate change and the environmentalist movement.

So, you can't really always take what you hear about political parties or other groups at face-value. But if it's important enough for you to feel to get active about it, you could always attempt to motivate others to join a group you start and spread information around and get letter-writing campaigns to the important people in your country.

Just don't give up. Look around, and you may be surprised at what you find. Some groups may be perfectly reasonable, but local and fairly hidden. You may be surprised at what you find if you look hard enough. And who knows, if there aren't any, you could start a group and you could become a major influence on politics in your region/city/state/country.

But there are always people. I never thought that atheists had such a large community until I came here or went to youtube - especially in Austin, Texas with the Atheist Experience television show.
How awesome is that? I certainly thought it was, because I was once certain that they'd have a public hanging in Texas for that sort of thing.

Our Green Party are admitted socialists. The Conservatives over here re-branded themselves a few years back (when Cameron took over) so they were more "green-friendly". They have some good policies on climate change / the environment.

(August 3, 2010 at 7:32 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Our Green Party are admitted socialists. The Conservatives over here re-branded themselves a few years back (when Cameron took over) so they were more "green-friendly". They have some good policies on climate change / the environment.

That is really unfortunate because it's going to be that much harder for anyone who wants to promote environmentalism because it'll be associated with the green party in your country. We have a green party here as well, but they have almost no political power on the national scale.

It's good that at least someone in the conservative/republican party over there at least passes the rhetoric of good environmentalism, so that's something. Here in the US, the conservatives couldn't care less about environmentalism, unless they think they can get votes off it, but then the last time they tried to be 'environmentally friendly' their chant was "drill, baby, drill."

Admit it V, NZ is just the eastern islands of Australia. Bwaah ha ha.

On a positive note, Oz now has the Australian Sex Party.

http://www.sexparty.org.au/

And they will have a candidate in our area.

I think my country is mostly socialists, i think the conservative party wanted to remove the free public schools from the constitution, and the communist party wanted to continue with unsustainable moves in a crisis just so they can rack up votes

Apparently the second biggest political party in my country is liberal conservative...