Why Have the Green Party Been So Ineffectual for the Environment?
I felt sorry for James Shaw last Wednesday morning. Guyon Espiner was like a lion with his head in his mouth, and all Minister Shaw could do was wave his hands.
Guyon is right, the Green Party have been ineffectual advocating for the environment as part of this coalition. But it isnât Minister Shawâs fault. He is an incredibly smart and hardworking Minister with absolutely no bargaining power. And that lack of bargaining power is thanks to his own party members tying his hands.
The Greens Lack Bargaining Power
At the last election the Greens and NZ First had similar vote tallies, but we saw vastly different outcomes from coalition negotiations. In fact there is very little in the coalition agreement with the Greens that wasnât already in the Labour or NZ First manifesto.
Their infatuation with the Labour Party renders the Green Party completely toothless. Thanks to their unwillingness to work with National they have no bargaining power. Meanwhile New Zealand First, thanks to its willingness to go either way, can command a $3b slush fund in its negotiations.
This sad state of affairs is very difficult for Minister Shaw to change even as co-Leader, due to the consensus nature of the Greens. As a result he has few cards to play at the Cabinet table. Meanwhile he is forced to back the tentative actions of his Government on two of our biggest environmental crises, fresh water and climate change. Donât even mention fishing.
Imagine a party that is prepared to use Winstonâs strong-arm tactics on behalf of the environment and future generationsâŚ
The Greens Activist Spirit
Of course the Greens do have a spirit of activism, but that seems to be directed at issues other than the environment. The âpragmaticâ half of the Green Party is focussed on the environment, but is robbed of any real bargaining power. Meanwhile the activist side of the Party is preoccupied with other things. Some refer to it as âidentity politicsâ.
Now I donât have much of a view either way on that stuff. The issues are obviously very important to some people, but there doesnât seem to be a lot of consensus on the evidence or way forward so I donât have much to add. Quite frankly I think we have bigger fish to fry with our housing crisis and polluted fresh water.
Regardless, Iâm not sure activism really moves the debate forward in that space. Iâm sure it plays well to part of the Green Party base, but does it help our society change for the better?
These sorts of debates currently end up being used to shut down constructive conversation, not encourage it. Reasonable people are too scared to even ask questions or voice an opinion, for fear of a social media pile on. Without any middle ground, the debate degenerates to a pointless barrage between right wing shock jocks and the woke left baiting each other into outrage.
With all this going on no wonder Minister Shaw has ended up in the gun for the Governmentâs lack of action on climate change. The Green Partyâs lack of wins on the environmental front doesnât look likely to change as long as Winston Peters holds all the cards.
Climate Action
What has the Government done to reduce fossil fuel use? Minister Shaw pointed to the oil and gas ban, but unless this is backed by a higher carbon price we could simply end up importing more fossil fuel to burn. If the Government let the Emissions Trading Scheme work properly and pushed the carbon price up then oil and gas exploration would dry up pretty quickly anyway.
Of course, New Zealand First will never agree to that. They have only just admitted climate change exists. They might agree with having a plan to reduce emissions (the Zero Carbon Act), but they certainly wonât want to implement that plan. Again the only answer is having a Party in Parliament that can strong arm on behalf of the environment. We need a green Winston, and I donât just mean the morning after too many whiskys.
So what does need to happen to reduce emissions? Here are a few no brainers. If we remove the price cap on the Emissions Trading Scheme the carbon price should double, at least. That should push electricity generators to invest in more renewable energy. We need to plant our marginal, erosion prone land in native trees, ASAP. Other farmers and land users can help pay for that as a way to offset their biological emissions (as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Simon Upton recently suggesed). Finally we are way behind the rest of the world on investing in energy efficiency which can save money and help reduce emissions.
It all seems fairly simple to do, but it wonât happen unless those representing our environment and future generations in Parliament have some bargaining power.
Geoff Simmons is an economist and Leader of the TOP Party.
You say: “if we remove the price cap on the Emissions Trading Scheme the carbon price should double, at least.”
And that, of course, will be inflationary.
Therefore, what protections do you think National be willing to concede to protect low income earners from the negative inflationary outcome? Potentially setting the ground for the two (Greens & National) to talk.
You see, it’s not only Nationals willingness to do more in regards with the environment that is at play here, it’s also about who is expected to pick up the costs?
The economy is unprepared for what comes. Infrastructure all up and down the country have been found wanting. To actually get the money and capital to where you want it, not only that raise new industries where there are no power lines or water pipes or where there are no roads we are going to have to price carbon into the economy so that business has a number with which to hire labour and build the things we need and want.
if the Greens had gone with National they would have had some real power but instead they committed to Labour before the election so when it came to sharing out the lollies they got very little . Also it needs to be remembered half of the party are not enviromental Greens but social warriors who try to talk for the poor. Unfortunately they know little of the partial side of life so fail to be any help.
I dont believe that NZFirst really had more bargaining power by threatening to form a coalition with National. If National ever got into power by the support of NZF that would be an end to them.
The 43% or so that vote National is all there is – there is no adding to it.
Who would vote for a party that, not so long ago, had an official policy that “we support the need for climate change,but not yet”. Paula Bennett.
National is simply unfit for office in these troubled times and everyone knows it. Forming a coalition with National would be suicide for NZF.
If the greens went with National they would have turned into the Maori party.
The Greens demise is nothing to do with Labour, it is to do with themselves, putting too many newbies high on the party list and losing all the talent they had with identity politics (their fault) and dirty politics (not their fault) for the last 6 years.
If Norman and Metira were still there the Green Party would be in a better state and not destroying credibility amongst their own voters.
I agree Shaw is nice and hardworking. Effectual, er no. As for Marima she is not suited to leadership, she was best as an independent activist, now she speaks for the entire party, she repels more than she attracts.
Chloe going on about depression, being bisexual and drug reform does not address pressing problems for many people who are not mentally ill or think Ganga is the number one election issue. Even if you agree with what she is on about Most people wanted immigration to decrease not be idealised via Golriz. Whose heard of what the rest of the Greens are up to in terms of helping NZ???
Some of the worst damage from an unexpected quarter, Eugene giving the “green” light for more overseas water bottling for nothing against Green policy – Go Greens (sarcasm).
Shaw looks good compared to the rest, but maybe the leadership is what went wrong?
Greens, nice people. But smaller parties need to be a lot smarter and better than big parties. They are nice as individuals and would have been better if Marama, Chloe and Golriz (and actually all of them) were representing Labour.
The issue is that the Green MP’s stand more for Labour policy than Green policy, that is why Labour were able to take their votes so easily.
Another issue is, that the Greens are too in agreement with neoliberalism and globalism, like Labour!
And TOP is just as neoliberal as Labour!
So only Mana was a different choice which is why the other parties conspired to get rid of Hawawira even if it cost Labour the election to focus on that (and capital gains for locals), rather than winning against Natz that year.
The Green Party are the Kurds of New Zealand politics. Everyone attacks them and their only friends are the mountains
I was a green party member in 1999 to 2002 and had to quit but then it was a true environmental Party and we were never a social advocate then as all Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons taking about endlessly was the environment, so I moved into a group of ex Green Party members to advocate for the environment again, as we do now.
Now we are as Citizens Environmental Advocacy Centre, and we have a laboratory to measure environmental issues such as air quality noise and water pollution.
But the greens need to get back into the game again, as they will never be elected doing other things and not concentrate on the environment as Greenpeace does.
“Without any middle ground, the debate degenerates to a pointless barrage between right wing shock jocks and the woke left baiting each other into outrage.”
Nailed it!
Yes, the Greens insistence on self-righteous purity and refusal to work with National renders them essentially powerless. This is bizarre for a party which claims to put the environment first, but as countless other commentators have pointed out the Greens have always been split between the environment first people and the identity politics people.
A very well reasoned post. Thanks.
Just as you said, they need to be able to support either major party to get a better deal. For example, in the previous election, we would have a Kermadec Sanctuary now if the Greens had supported National.
Three problems I see for the Greens
1. Just as you say, this supposedly environment focussed party has been infested with narcissistic radicals who just want to grandstand and get their names in the media.
2. Their total focus on climate means they’ve dropped the ball on several important local environmental issues where they could have made more impact and which would have drawn in more voter support.
3. They’re mostly scientifically illiterate and need better advise on policy. A classic example is the oil & gas ban. Not only will this make NZ a poorer place, it will actually be bad for the environment! (Because we will eventually have to import gas). If they wanted to take tilt at energy policy there is a long list more sensible things they could have pushed for.
The Greens could have had some real wins on the board if they’d gone with National. The Kermedec Sanctuary would be a no-brainer and possible transport and understructure changes would be actually felt around the country ie less trucks on the road.
Instead poor old James is clinging to the Oil and Gas Exploration lockdown (even though it was Jacindas Captains Call after discussing policy with 5 year olds) as his win. Notwithstanding that the policy may actually increase global carbon rates overall.
The Greens are really at a crossroads. Let’s face it, the most vocal Green MP’s (Marama and Goliz) hardly come across as environmentalists, and it makes you wonder if the best thing to do is slpit the party. Shaw, Chloe, Eugine, Garath en tal are talented but their voices are being drowned by the Woke Identity Politics of Marama and Goliz, damaging their brand and pushing them towards electoral oblivion
Greens would be worse of as would the country if they had gone with the Natz. I think Greens did well to support the coalition, but it went wrong before them with the election.
I have no idea why they are so anti-Pakeha when they are mostly all Pakeha or seemingly identify as white, (what ever that means because it is a massive brush to paint into one picture so many diverse cultures who might be considered ‘white’, likewise the very wide brush “Asian” or ‘middle eastern”).
It’s completely fucked up when you hate your own identity and can’t own your own body and culture! I think maybe the Greens are so overwhelmed and under experienced that woke privilege issues is all they can muster up without having ever had real jobs before or seen much life outside of woke meetings or political elite aka Law school.
I notice those who go on about white privilege and create policy against the middle class are the middle class and the rich and are white! Give you your MP’s seat for a more deserving person of colour if that is what you believe in! Or like the Natz sell it, for $100k donation, (what a bargain).
Essentially wokeness and identity politics are gifts for the right.
Reclaim the C*nt word why don’t we, that has so much to do with saving the planet from the ravages of capitalism. What we really need is a truly environmental green party, true to the foundations of the Green movement in Germany in the 80s. And that would also mean a party willing to walk away from market fundamentalism. What this article fails to mention is the propensity of James Shaw to kowtow to the ‘market’. He was once a corporate PR man and he believes in the market to fix things. This is the fundamental flaw in the Green Party, more than their obsession with identity politics. They are in tow with neoliberal capitalism and neoliberal capitalism is the reason we are in the mess we’re in. Climate change and pollution are merely the symptoms of a sick system. Without a party committed to changing that system we are doomed folks. Brace for impact.
It feels like, to me, that the Green Party is in the doldrums. I can’t actually list off their economic policies, only the “social justice” opinions of higher profile members. That’s not a good place for a party to be in.
I won’t deny making enough room for social justice issues, whilst side-stepping some of the social media shrieking, as there’s some clear issues to solve. But the Green Party need to be thorough in communicating what they stand for. That said, I’ve not voted for them since 2005. I’ve found TOP is a better home for my ideology.
Its true that the Greens are in the doldrums but, as I said earlier, Labour could save them by changing the MMP voting system – but they wont cry in the Green Party sinks. Politics is a nasty business.
Social justice issues mean squat when droughts followed by floods is screwing the ability to produce food and agriculture exports.
There is only one issue to address at the moment and put all focus on that. Lord knows it’s big enough to consume all the Green MPs’ efforts – and by doing that communicate its significance FFS.
Capitalism such a uncaring structure of self preservation.
An incrementalist moaning, about incrementalists.
Sad, just sad.
The Greens have a basic manifesto that includes the environment, social and economic equality and the Treaty. There has never been a hint of them abandoning any of those three aims and membership is unlikely ever to agree to such a betratal. So outsiders can wine all they like about not enough emphasis on this or that but everything is driven in the Greens by the membership and always will. Sure the Greens never want to slip below the 5% and in my view probably never will but other than that it is more important for them to remain firm in their principals. Until people like most commentators here understand that society is actually part of the environment and not somehow external and irrelevant to climate change but intimately connected to it (after all it is called anthropogenic climate change) little in the way of positive moves can be expected anyhow. If you think you can save the climate from being trashed while continuing to trash other people, cutures and countries you are deluded and destined for the ravages that climate change will bring.
How can giving the green light to more water bottling into plastic bottles to a Chinese company be Green policy??? They use to be against water resources being given away to be privatised and profits go to private companies, foreign ownership of NZ assets and plastic bottles….
Oh Christ… I can’t read the above. I’m going to instead wallow in assumptions and I think itâs safe for me to do that, donât you?
See that woman third from camera left? Her name is Chloe Swarbrick. I talked to her about farmers and farming. Yes, yes I did.
I said something like this: â Since farming is our primary industry AND has the potential to create environmental catastrophes if run like a factory focusing on profits for investors which will trample over the holistic and modest approach farming must always governed by then is that not, in fact, having our primary industry with itâs influence and money handed to the green party as a kind of abstract gift to be benignly exploited by the greens for the good of us all? In all fairness to Ms Swarbrick, she had no idea what I was talking about.
Itâs my opinion that labour, the greens and nz first are running a desperate tag team in conjunction with the natzoâs and their assembly of useless politician bastards, traitors and riche criminals to protect the dead easy money farming still provides them with.
How about them apples then?
Well there’s a couple of monopolies that I could off the top of my head. Round Up ( Monsanto I believe) and John Deere. Out of the hundreds of different cattle and seed variety that New Zealand could cultivate we only farm a handful of them. That’s no good for diversification but it’s all good for huge transnational intellectual property rights. With the ability to harvest niche products there’s little to no value for the family farmer.
Comments are closed.