Why does everyone hate The Greens?

Why does everyone hate The Greens? After all, they are the ones trying to save the planet.

But you still have to smart about it. The Greens are not. To wit, from The Australian:

Senior Coalition figures are warning that legitimate debates over population levels, refugees and border protection are being hijacked­ by claims of racism and argue that left-wing policies — includin­g ending offshore processing — are more likely to stoke racist sentiment than any of the immigration policies implemented by Scott Morrison.

In the wake of the Christchurch massacre in which an Australian shot dead 50 Muslim worshippers, former deputy prime minister John Anderson told The Weekend Australian it was essential for honest debates to be held about complex issues such as the social integration of migrants and refugees. The Nationals leader from 1999 to 2005 expressed concern that, among the intelligentsia, there was a “loathing of Western culture and an idea that it is to blame for everything”.

“The Australian people are not mugs. I don’t believe they are particularly racist,” he said. “I don’t think Australians think all belief systems are the same or that we should not be discerning about what those belief systems might allow.”

The warning is right, aside from the politics embedded within it. The LNP is the worst open borders nut of them all. It just pretends it does border protection by persecuting refugees while ripping down barriers for planes.

But I digress. The Greens push to shut down debate about immigration is poisonous. It breeds resentment everywhere, making them the very illiberal force that the right accuses them of being.

And it does worse. Much worse. The racial fixation of the Greens has completely swamped their core message, their raison detre if you will. So we come to this, at Domain:

Greens members volunteering in last year’s disastrous Victorian election campaign couldn’t explain to voters what the party stood for and what it could achieve, a scathing internal analysis has found.

…Documents seen by The Age show one-third of the Greens’ Victorian members quit the party in the 21 months to December, largely in a state election year when on previous trends the membership should have grown.

Mr Leppert said the party had to recognise it was “not the fresh face of voter contact strategies anymore”, and said Labor and the Victorian Socialists had been more effective in their field campaigns, particularly in the Northern Metropolitan region (traditionally, the Greens’ heartland).

The Greens, he said, “may need to be wary of a growing reputation for impure preference allocation practises while parties on the left [the Victorian Socialists and Fiona Patten’s Reason Party] are seen to be purer”.

So the answer is move left? No! For God’s sake the answer is to shift more green. It’s pretty weird when some random outsider has to remind The Greens that they need to be greener. The mass immigration defended by the party at all costs is not green, it is scorched earth.

Yet, unfortunately for The Greens (and the rest of us) the party can now rely on mass media to reflect its own ideological clap trap back to it. Via Greens apologist, The Guardian, comes a new report from the Wilderness Society:

Regional forest agreements have failed in the 20 years since they were established by state governments, says a new report, which reveals that record numbers of threatened forest dwelling fauna and many species are heading towards imminent extinction.

The report, Abandoned – Australia’s forest wildlife in crisis, has assessed the conservation status of federally listed forest-dwelling vertebrate fauna species affected by logging and associated roading and burning across Australia’s regional forest agreement (RFA) regions in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia.

Released by the Wilderness Society this week, the report identified 48 federally-listed threatened species of forest-dwelling vertebrate fauna living in areas subject to state-run logging operations.

No mention at all in the story of the role of population growth and urbanisation in the rampant destruction. Yet this is what the Wilderness Society says about it today:

Without a liveable climate, the vulnerable ecosystems that sustain us, won’t. Deforestation is Australia’s hidden emitter — like adding 10 million cars to our roads.

Australia’s deforestation front ranks in the global top 10, alongside Borneo, the Amazon and the Congo. It’s primarily driven by agriculture (mostly for beef production), mining and urban development.

In fact, all major environment lobbies want to cut immigration desperately for this reason.

The latest federal government State of the Environment report, released last year, explicitly noted that Australia’s natural environment is being placed under acute strain from rapid population growth and economic development, and noted that these are the main drivers of environmental problems such as land-use change, habitat destruction, invasive species, and climate change.

These findings were confirmed by the latest World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Living Planet Report, which revealed that Australia’s East Coast has been trampled by over-development:

Australia’s east coast has been compared to the Amazon as a “deforestation front” in a new global report by the World Wide Fund…

The report assessed 11 deforestation hotspots, where broadscale clearing had occurred at problematic levels since 2010, and where deforestation was expected to continue in the next decade. Eastern Australia was the only location in the developed world to make the list…

More broadly, the WWF report explicitly noted that the near exponential rise in human population over the past 70 years has driven a commensurate surge in resource use and pollution:

The biggest single phenomenon in the last 50 years is barely discussed in the media, politics, business or education circles. It is the Great Acceleration – a unique event in the 4.5 billion-year history of our planet… with exploding human population and economic growth driving unprecedented planetary change through the increased demand for energy, land and water…

The 1950s marks an explosion in growth. After this time, human activities (left panels) begin to interfere significantly with Earth’s life support system (right panels) (these graphs are from Steffen et al., 2015 30 and all the references to the datasets behind them are in the original paper)…

None of this is new. The WWF previously nominated human population growth as the key risk factor for endangered species, noting that “the current rate of extinctions is 100 times what would be considered normal without the impact of human activity… more of us means more of that” (see below graphic).

ScreenHunter_15830 Nov. 01 17.55

In a similar vein, the Australian Conservation Foundation in 2010 called for Australia’s population to be stabilised and nominated human population growth as a “key threatening process” to Australia’s biodiversity.

The reason everybody hates The “Greens” is as plain as the smoking crater of urbanisation where forests used to be on the east coast. They want to make it much, much worse.

Houses and Holes

David Llewellyn-Smith is Chief Strategist at the MB Fund and MB Super. David is the founding publisher and editor of MacroBusiness and was the fouding publisher and global economy editor of The Diplomat, the Asia Pacific’s leading geo-politics and economics portal.

He is also a former gold trader and economic commentator at The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, the ABC and Business Spectator. He is the co-author of The Great Crash of 2008 with Ross Garnaut and was the editor of the second Garnaut Climate Change Review.

Comments

  1. GunnamattaMEMBER

    Why does everyone hate The Greens?

    Because they focus on those issues which divide us,

    Because they are focused on select parts rather than the whole,

    Because they have an economic narrative which makes no sense whatsoever,

    Because their commitment to global justice and equity is based upon the belief that the life and choices of the majority of everyday Australians make them ‘guilty’ and can therefore be treated with contempt,

    Because they use environment as a brand without having considered environmental policy at the very core of that brand,

    Because they resonate not with the lived experience of the vast majority of Australians, but with the aspired society of an incredibly small section of Australian society,

    Because they are such insufferable hypocrites

    • Because they have almost no cultural diversity while literally screaming at everyone else for being racist.

      Because they are the affluenza – trustafarians incredibly wealthy inner city elite who inherited housing stock, who have never spent time in the natural environment outside of “camping” trips and walking a couple of days on the “Great Victorian Alpine Trail” – woke.

      They make me sick. The level of entitlement and condescending, holier than thou patronizing and proselytizing is repugnant.

      Most of these people live in a world where we transitioned into a fully socialist, borderline communist state 50 years ago and the state owes them everything.

      I grew up in Brunswick and was voting Greens from 1992 when they were first formed. Day one. I was raised in the wild mountains of the Otways and excessive logging really shook me up. It mattered.

      Its a great feeling knowing that you can change and overcome blind Loyalty. It really is a sign of stupidity to still vote Green.

    • Because you can’t chain yourself to a tree in a future dam one day, and say we need more people the next.

      Because you cannot serve two masters.

      • ErmingtonPlumbing

        Clearly male and half “wh!te” himself I notice,…is he keeping his “Privilege in check”?

        As the father of 2 children with very pale skin I find this Racist pr!cks narrative disturbing.
        He speaks of no differently about “White people” than the fascist in 1930s Germany spoke about “Jewish privilage”.
        “We” are all the “enemy”
        Well Fk him and his rac!st pack of Green Grubs.

      • @EP agree mate, I’m being blamed for actions I haven’t taken. I’m also being stereotyped and grouped in the same way anyone from any minority group would despise. Yet because I’m haWhite it’s open season for some reason?

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        I’ll restate it again – ultimately the only universal theme under Multiculturalism is survival of Colonialism and a unity against “Whiteness”…. case in point #1423515612

  2. Besides stopping mass immigration, the fake Greens should have put in a nationwide cash for cans scheme.

    Guess who put in a cash for cans scheme? Gladys!

    They should have also banned 457 visa staff from driving non-electric cars. Upgrade random breath tests to include random driving licence checks.

    Ban foreigners from owning houses that do not have a 10 kWh battery. Charge them $40/day for a diesel bus ticket.

  3. There has never been a better opportunity for a broad-based environmental party to transcend old political ideology, class and ‘business as usual’. People would rush to a credible alternative with policy based upon evidence. Instead, The Greens have managed to alienate a massive voting block by becoming a boutique club of radical-Left lunacy that rides the dimming memory of Bob Brown. Their harping and attempts to railroad every conversations we desperately need to have about the key issues of sustainability – human population and ecological footprint – is disastrous. They truly are finger nails down the political chalk board. The quicker they get replaced by a real environment party and independents the better.

    • Nah, the Greens have destroyed “green brands” so it would be a long time before another pro-environment party gains traction.

      • They have certainly done some profound damage to the environmental movement. Greens involvement on an environmental issue is a liability in many ways now. Many (if not most) people don’t associate the Greens with protecting their lifestyle and the environment that supports it, they view them as wanting to destroy their lifestyle and their culture.

    • Spot on, in my own way I consider myself a very strong environmentalist but I would never ever vote Greens. The Greens are nothing but self absorbed, deluded socialists with policies that guarantee our environment will be trashed.

      • DominicMEMBER

        This.
        The Greens began life as a genuine, environmental movement. They were anti-establishment and relevant. After a long, hard slog they, to their great credit, achieved what they set out to.

        But they needed a new cause to survive and remain relevant — and are the disaster you see before you today.

  4. One more thing that is extraordinary about the Greens: their stance in the culture wars is ironically to be apologists for cultures that still use their women as baby factories, including the mass importation of such people (and opening a culture-war front against “”racism” in the process), while giving no credit to “developed” societies in a state of “planet-saving” demographic collapse. Apparently it is because some cultures are “victims” that misogyny and patriarchy are stil acceptable in those cultures. Intersectionality is an amazing thing. Western feminists and Greens throwing non-western women to the wolves because after all, universal human rights is a construct of “whiteness”.

    • European Court of Criminal Justice upheld on appeal last year than Blasphemy against Islam is hate speech. Suggesting that Mohammad was a pedophile was not based around fact, but rather used as a hateful slur, even though it was true. The judges ruling was that Mohammad remained married to his wife until his death (she was 18), he also had sex with fully grown woman, proving that he was not a pedophile as he also had sex with adults.

      This is all true.

      American universities are now pushing for a removal of “white” philosophers from some (many really) courses . Its not about what is said – its who is saying it – post-modernism in a nutshell. Chomsky and Peterson were entirely correct.

    • Isn’t it ironic that Greens and feminists are unconscious of any “white privileged”.status on their part, in all this….? Or of bad faith regarding what they claim to stand for?

  5. As one commentator stated two weeks ago: the Greens policies have followed their supporters. In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the environment was the number one issue, but now it is social justice for Greens supporters. Given the $s per vote given by the AEC, they produce the policies that their support base wants.
    Sadly this means only environmental issues that can wedge other parties or that are aired on TV are the only ones pursued with vigour. Given the environmental issues in Victoria (duck hunts, water catchment logging and increasingly water scarcity), you would think they would have an excellent platform to campaign upon, but in 2018 their leader’s number one priority was changing the date of Australia Day.

    • Patrick Moore tells a story about what gave him second thoughts about Greenpeace after having been one of its founders in 1968. By the 1980’s, he was willing to stand up a conferences and say the battle was now largely won, technology and regulations had turned around all the vital indicators (water, air, etc) and it was time to help the third world and the economies emerging from economy-destroying communist management. When he introduced these ideas, in what he thought was going to be a watershed moment for the organization, the audience became increasingly agitated. Eventually someone stood up right in his face and screamed, “don’t you realise our mission is to destroy global capitalism”! And the audience erupted in cheering.

      Moore’s second thoughts from that moment, included the ubiquitousness of red berets and Che Guevara posters in Greenpeace offices. He soon walked away from the organization.

      So is it a recent thing, or were Green movements ever about anything other than using environmental pretexts as part of a program of subterfuge of their own “side” in geopolitics? Perhaps a few people like Moore were sincere in the 1960’s. I recognise the sincerity of “back to nature, off-grid” advocacy that was common in the 1970’s. The flip to supporting human battery-hen existence in concrete jungles, is another evidence of the victory of bad faith.

      • Hardly surprising is it that some of the environmental warriors would have seen capitalism as their enemy?

        Every threat to the environment comes from some kind of capitalist activity: logging, mining, large-scale agriculture, etc.

      • “Every threat to the environment comes from some kind of capitalist activity”

        No. Communists are well known for their economy-destroying management as well as for their environment-destroying management (air pollution and water pollution were bad under communists, but the worst example is the Aral Sea).

      • I’d suggest you compare the state of the environment in East German vs West Germany in say 1990 (just after the wall came down) and than tell me again how the Capitalists ruined the Environment and the Socialists/Communists were the custodians informed Environmental opinion/policy.

      • There used to be a regularly-published list of “The World’s 100 Most Polluted Places” (The Blacksmith Institute) and even 20 years after the collapse of communism, almost all the sites on the list were contaminations that occurred under Communism.

        All the data shows that mixed economies (with capitalism) have a “Kuznets curve” of enviro indicators. Past a certain point of economic development, the environmental indicators turn round and improve.

        It is often forgotten that the lesser-developed state of humanity involved worse local environmental conditions that were solved by economic development and capitalism. Bad-faith activists are only ever looking at the “negative externalities”. For example , what happened when wood was the only source of fuel for cooking and heating?

  6. WhatcouldgowrongMEMBER

    Ironically they’re eroding their own voter base – you won’t find too many champagne socialists in the countries they would like to see more of. Given what was borne out in the SSM debate they’re more likely to vote for… more… conservative options.

  7. “they are the ones trying to save the planet.”

    LOL a marvellous April Fools jest!

  8. reusachtigeMEMBER

    It’s because we have all been rightly conditioned to hate commies and those who want to impose trans-gender transformations on us!

  9. blindjusticeMEMBER

    Greens believe you can just keep subdividing and building apartments so we can live on the same urban footprint. In their heads increased population requires no extra rural footprint to feed the extra bellies and no extra industrial production to manufacture goods for all the extra people. I suppose the imagine it all being renewable energy based but their lack of knowledge ignores that energy is just one of many industrial inputs.

    The best bit is where the think increasing density is going to actually IMPROVE everything. Magic will happen & all sorts of improvements will suddenly become possible.

  10. The most dangerous thing going on at the moment and something the Greens are at the forefront of is shutting down debate and discussion about anything it does not agree with ie population growth. The lack of open discussion pushes people to the fringes of politics as well as society in general and in time when enough people turn and get angry you end up in disaster based on history anyway. The common saying history doesn’t exactly repeat but it rhymes.

  11. Private vehicle policy really reveals the modern day green for what they are. Block the fuel excise increase claiming it would hurt low income earners, a few years later wants 100% electric vehicles by 2030.

  12. I remember driving past a telegraph pole with a Green slogan sign nailed to it saying “Stop all mining and logging” or similar.

    What we have here is a sign that was made of plastic. Plastic comes from oil which requires drilling, digging and extraction from the ground – ie mining.
    The sign was secured to the pole using a nail – probably a nail made of zinc coated steel. So iron ore and zinc ore must be mined, extracted and processed to form a nail.
    The nail was secured to a pole which was logged and the a hole for the pole was drilled into the ground.
    Further the audience for the sign were all driving past the pole in vehicles made of metals, burning oil, or using batteries and electricity that are the result of mining.

    Is that like rain on your wedding day or what?

  13. Because they are the shallow end of the progressive cult’s gene pool. Every cult has its end time fantasy, their ‘repent, the end is nigh’ moron dragnet. While human impact on the environment is a real challenge, the Greens have turned it into an end times fantasy.

    AOC thinks world is going to end in 12 years. I remember being told that the Arctic would be ice free by 2000, then it became 2010. I remember being told the Great Barrier would be dead by 2010. I remember being told Bangladesh would be underwater by the early 2000’s. How much did Al Gore make from that scam?

    Spend some time googling, and the you can still see the ‘world is going to freeze` hysteria from the 70’s.

    The only thing the scumbag greens are good for, is stealing public money while telling the rest of us we are bad people – money they then use to buy private jets.

    F that noise.

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      Don’t forget Tim Flannerys prediction that Perth would be dried out and uninhabitable by 2014.

    • Yep, meanwhile the stuff we really can do immediate things to fix and fast, like plastic pollution, urban clearing and degradation, the biodiversity collapse, is left untouched while we wail and moan that the world is ending.

  14. Ipswich, just out side of Brisbane, has become the landfill site for the Eastern states. Poor policies by NSW and Qld on waste have led to legal wholesale dumping of rubbish in staggering volumes, as well as horrendous illegal dumping in both Qld and NSW. The Qld Labor government has proposed an incineration/energy plant for the region. This technology should be a no-brainer for the region, it’s high tech, the emissions are not harmful, it starts Australia on a journey away from landfill, it puts a value on waste that is likely to encourage appropriate dumping.

    The Greens oppose the incineration/energy technology for a waste to power plant. The reason? According to the Greens the emissions are not perfect, it encourages consumption, and it doesn’t facilitate recycling. All these reasons are flawed. The emissions from such a scheme are not perfect, but the environmental outcomes from the plant are basically irrelevant compared to landfill, illegal dumping and the emissions and environmental carnage of growing the population breakneck speed. We also know as a fact that recycling has been (and still is) a facilitation myth. Very little, almost none, of the worlds waste is recycled.

    So, despite the fact that in the short-term there is about zero chance of consumption changing, that recycling is demonstrably failing and areas like building and renovation are expected to increase waste in the future not reduce regardless of what people do with personal consumption, there is opposition to the project. This is the same failed logic that says extreme population increases are ok because we intend to change the system, notwithstanding the fact that nothing is changing and the chance of change in the short/medium term are zero. The Greens have policies of ideological change not practical relevance.

    When i think of the Greens, i no longer really think of Bob Brown and the Franklin, I think of Jenny Leong giving us the finger. We desperately need a real environmental party.

  15. “I don’t think Australians think all belief systems are the same or that we should not be discerning about what those belief systems might allow.”

    As an example of the “benefits” of one of those different belief systems, Brunei is going full Islamic Sharia law. This includes, among other charming things, introducing death by stoning for gay people.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-31/brunei-government-defends-stoning-gay-people-to-death/10956386

    So in the 21st century, a supposedly modern country is going to start stoning people to death. Because of their sexual practices. Tie people up in the street and throw big rocks at them until they’re dead.

    Not all cultures and belief systems are equal, and I’m not entirely sure that we need that kind of thinking in Australia. Things are bad enough as they are.

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        The double standards are not dealt with because they are not considered. There is no rationality. Facts and reasons are unnecessary when the only actuating forces are , self loathing, feelings and virtue signalling.

    • ErmingtonPlumbing

      What is “Belief” when there is no external Reality. The World is but a representational concept of the Mind. However, if you close your eyes and walk around you will probably bump into objects. (I have not worked this one out yet.)

  16. ROSS ELLIOTTMEMBER

    I don’t for a moment believe the Greens are mainly concerned about the environment. Their agenda has become anti everything. Destructive, propagandist, shouty, leftist, and Orwellian. Not to be trusted.

  17. FiftiesFibroShack

    The only time the Greens seem to make the news is when someone has committed a minor wokeness infraction. And no group publically crucifies their own like the woke left. That is bound to scare off votes before people even consider the Green policy platform.

    The majority of their problems are self-inflicted and they could go the way of the Aus Democrats if they don’t pull their heads out.

  18. The massive impact of global population growth is something i wish the Climate Change protesters would be more vocal about. Climate Change is but one symptom of the bigger issue of human impact on this planet.