Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

This is an interesting take. So perhaps not necessary to put the environmental principle first, so long as it is treated at least equally, the assumption being of course, that some in caucus do not. And this could be true, Sue being the most obvious example, but it is a difficult standard to apply to every individual because the Party looks for balance across caucus as a whole instead. There are actually few who have a wide breadth of involvement in both environmental and social justice issues (ironically, Catherine is one, though its obviously not what she’s known for). It would be difficult not to attract people who, while seeing the principles as equal, bring strengths to a fewer number of policy areas. But I suppose possible if that’s want the membership clearly wanted.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

umm. they’ve been doing that for a long time, but a guide has to be followed and this has been the problem thus far.

“Greens just don’t portray such an unambiguous image”

in all their communications the greens are among if not the most clear party. their policies are available, complete, up-to-date and written in a very understandable way (National recently had a blank page for women’s affairs policy). their appearances in the media (over which they have no control of subject) are consistently well-thought out and clear. the apparent ambiguity you perceive is just because the other party’s policies boil down to neat easily consumed meaningless slogans whereas the green’s have actual substance.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

what is required to attain a green society (and there is no way our impact on the environment will change until this happens) is a broad spectrum change in ways of thinking. and this is slowly coming about (whether it will be in time or will arrest…).

I agree some policies have different balances of impact between society and environment but there are also a lot of unseen connections between social/economic policy and the environment. If poverty was not so prevalent in our society more people would have resources to devote to environmental concerns. If our schools are better funded then perhaps the next generation (or next ‘knowledge wave’) will produce some real environmental breakthroughs. if there was less poverty there might be fewer 2 dollar shops (plastic landfill stores).

the environmental situation is dire and requires our attention but repetition of tired arguments that have been hashed over hundreds of times does not change minds. believe me. for the greens to have any success in protecting the environment they have to do it by helping to change society and society’s by-products. social policy will help to achieve this.

“do not presume that I have not considered your viewpoints in my ideological evolution”

I’m not presuming anything, buddy. how’s the view up there?

“incompetance”

haha you misspelled incompetence. that’s one word that it’s important to get right.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nommopilot,
The reason i vote for the greens and spend so much of my time supporting them is becasue they are the only party with anything more than token acknowledgement of the environment, but that does not make them a environmental party; it makes them a party with environmetnal concerns.
As to Society and the Environment, they are not seperate entities. But there are issues that are primarily of their environmental impact, the interactions of humans with the non-human environment, and there are issues that are primarily of their effect on society, interhuman interaction. The DPB has strong effects on the environment as it alters the number of humans, the abilities of humans, and the priorities of humans but it is primarily a social issue as its main purpose is to affect interhuman relations and what effects is has on the environment as a whole are a side effect of the intended affect.

Furthermore, I, and others on this blog, have observed the strength of Valis’ arguements increase substantially over time, he/she often makes very valid points and on more than one occasion has nearly, or completly, out argued me and often has me on my back leg, esspecially when I get bored and choose to make subjective arguements such as this. Your arguements however lack any merit, you and your incompetance just annoy me; you display a cognitive ability inferior to the common individual, do not presume that I have not considered your viewpoints in my ideological evolution and judged them naive and of a blind mind.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

so exactly where does your society stop and your environment begin, Sapient? Society is a very large part of our environment and our social structure greatly affects our natural environment: the way we use resources, the way we deal with waste, the way we distribute food and goods is all both social and environmental.

“The environment is all-important, the party is just full if idiotic ideologues.”

so name me a NZ party that is more outspoken on the major environmental threats than the greens. I’ll make it easy on you; name me ten that combined are as outspoken as the greens.

It is just a mark of your ideology that you think the green party should consider society to be separate from the environment.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

No, you said “or if i should support bradford so that i can watch the party fall apart and a real green party arise”, which I took at face value, perhaps incorrectly.

At face value the implication is that this party is not a green party. A green party is a party primarily motivated by concern for the survival of gaian life. This party is far too fussed with social issues to the detriment of environmental issues. One cannot call our caucus green, there are some green tendancies but all in all one might as well be looking at a soviet councel.
Social issues have a place in an environmental party as stability, prosperity, and knowledge are vital for the long term maitenence of a sustainable society, but name for me a single social issue more important than the survival of gaian life. Or, to make it easy on you, name me ten which together combine to surpass the importance of the survival of gaian life. You cant, i will bet you that, no social advance can be as important as the continuation of gaian life as the ceasation of gaian life would cease also any socail advances. The environment is all-important, the party is just full if idiotic ideologues.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

And which politicians do you refer? I know of none in the current Caucus that support your position, certainly not Meyt or Jeanette. And the last substantive discussion in the Party on the principles in 2007 concluded that nothing should change, i.e. all four are equal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)