Monday July 9th, 2007. 10:53 am by frog
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2007/06/26/politicians/index.html
Some rather unusual choices, and even weirder omissions….
Helen Clark makes it in as number 4, ahead of David Cameron, & Bob Brown is a ‘runner-up’ !?
Posted in Environment & Resource Management | Society & Culture | by frog | Mon, July 9th, 2007 |
This entry was posted
on Monday, July 9th, 2007 at 10:53 am and is filed under Environment & Resource Management, Society & Culture.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can email this article to a friend. Printable version of this article.
You can leave a response, but trackbacks are not allowed.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Grist’s list of the best Green politicians in the world is very apt. Although some critics might see it as strange, the list very accurately characterises the nature of modern Green politics. The logical conclusion of contemporary environmentalism is to praise a list of rather Tory and neoliberal politicians for their very market-based and clip-on conservation politics. It’s all incredibly superficial. In this regard it makes sense to put a pragmatic centrist politician like Helen Clark near the top of the list. After all, as others have pointed out, ‘under her leadership our emmissions/forest clearing/waterways pollution stats have gone through the roof’, and she’s come up with empty slogans about climate change, and done very little. And because parties like the Greens want to mimic this mainstream/conventional approach, they don’t really have much of a future. There will always be politicians like Clark, Schwarzenegger, and Cameron that can carry out the charade better.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
July 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
this is quite old news..(whoar..eh..?..always first..!..)
here is the response i posted at grist..way back when..
“..[new] helen clark
um..!..with helen clark..you must contrast the realities with the rhetoric..
under her leadership our emmissions/forest clearing/waterways pollution stats have gone through the roof..
her government have also been wholesale ‘dairy-pimps’..
actively encouraging the conversion of farms to dairy units..(thus ensuring much higher pollution/farm ‘run-off’ problems..)
and don’t get me started on our ongoing record on animal welfare..
and perhaps as a clincher for you..
after the last election..after campaigning for the green party as favoured coalition partner..
clark instead plumped to coalesce with the two most reactionary/climate-change denial parties in new zealand..
in fact your nomination of clark has many here in new zealand..both laughing and crying at the same time..
(part of the laughter is for your use of what is generally considered here a photographic abberation..her ‘glam/soft-porn’ shot..
where the physical realities of helen clark are as different to this picture..
as her greenwash/spin is to the realities of this ‘green leader’
and if helen clark is one of the top 15 green political leaders..
than we are in more trouble than i thought..
vegankiwiguy..
by philu at 6:57 AM on 29 Jun 2007 ..”
(sorta sums it up..really..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Your reply is over the top again Phil.
jh
July 9th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
and what is ‘over the top..?’
what is not true..?
what is exaggerated/miss-represented..?
tell me !..jh..!
water pollution’s up..(c.f…relevant stats..)
emmissions up..(c.f..relevant stats)
13,000 hectares more forest cleared than replanted last year..
they have been blatant dairy-pimps..(still are..!..)
(there are no fish caught from streams/rivers that are safe to eat..c.f…forest/bird..)
our rivers streams have dairy farmers all over the land..just pouring cowshit/farm run-off straight into them..
just ignoring any prohibitions not to..
clark/labour campaigned citing greens as favoured coalition partner..
then went with peters/dunne..
in general..the environment/we are worse off now..than when labour came to power..
as i said jh..tell me where i have got it wrong..!
(oh..!..then there’s that ‘election-photo’..)
i’m serious j.h..plse tell me what i have said that is incorrect..?
i’m just saying out loud what many greens feel..
but very few will come out and say..
cos’..there is/that involves facing the ugly fact that..over these years..
..the greens have supported/succoured labour in these (eventual) anti-endeavours/nasty outcomes..
(and what’s to hold the head up about there..?..eh..?..)
and i’ll just repeat (just one of) the arguments/exhortations i used to make that pissed the auckland/and other greens off so much..
namely that the greens should have stood tall as focussed fighters for the environment..
and should have performed/acted as an active/focussed opposition party..
arguing/constantly fighting for/protecting the environnment..
and not have tied itself to self-silencing/crippling ‘arrangments’ with labour..
(and for what..?..who got the better in that ‘deal’..eh..?
all those years of ’support’ for labour from the greens..
and for feckin’ what..?
what have either the greens or the environment gained from this (almost ‘abusive’) relationship the greens have had with labour..?
taken for granted..and treated with blatant contempt..
(both the greens..and the environment..)
have pretty much been par for the course.. .
for/from clark/this labour government..
eh..?
my arguments being that the greens tieing to labour would emasculate the green party/dilute their work/messages..and eventually cost them votes/support..
as their ship sank..along with the (inevitable) sinking of labour….
and now..this all sorta seems to be coming to pass..eh..?
tell me what else could explain..given how mainstream green issues are..
how/why the greens are so languishing in the polls..?
a strong/independant green party..that had shown consistancy in their messages..
would now be reaping the benefits of that..
(i’m not the only one to see that..)
and the greens are reaping nothing/very little….
why is that ..?..jh..?
why is that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 10th, 2007 at 8:46 am
You come across as vitriolic; it detracts from your message.
jh
July 10th, 2007 at 10:03 am
frog..cd u plse tell me why my response to jh has been censored/blocked..?
and hey jh..when i see/think about what is happening to our world/environment..
and how labour have only made it worse..
yes..it does make me tend/lean to vitriol..as a reaction/weapon..
and if that should offend your sensibilities..?
(sheesh..!..like i really give a flying f*ck..?..eh..?..)
(would you rather i ‘politely demurred’..?..in the traditional ‘green’ way..?
‘politely demurring’ hasn’t really done that much for us/the environment to date..eh..?
maybe time to consider another tack..?..doyathink..?
maybe even involving a dash of vitriol..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 10th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Think I agree with Phil here. Most of the others on the list have actually done something. Helen says she is going to do something, but Cullen’s last Budget outlined no strategy whatever to achieve it.
July 10th, 2007 at 10:52 am
um..frog (kindly) contacted me to inform me spam-filters are the censorship-issue..not censorship..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 10th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Phil - You are correct - I agree with you (and Toad).
There is a time and a place for everything, and at this point doing something is long overdue. Clark and Cullen are masters at rhetorical procrastination ( a trait that they share with most New Zealanders unfortunately - remember my characterization of the NZ, Aussie and US approaches to new ideas ? ). They just seem to embody this characteristic reluctance to DO things to a far greater degree than anyone else.
Just be careful where you throw the verbal grenades OK?
respectfully
BJ
July 10th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
BJ
I think your characterization was apt, but it wasn’t always this way.
The country was built of rugged individualism, getting stuck in, and getting things done. This attitude still exists, outside politics and the chattering classes.
Unfortunately, the socialists have taken over…
July 11th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I agree with Phil, especially over animal welfare and the dairy pimps. Neither of the main parties seem to be tackling the issue of bigger and bigger dairy farms polluting rivers, sucking up ground water and contributing to global warming. National is wanting to come up with a technological fix, so we can keep importing dairy products to a world that does not need them (most of the human species is lactose intolerant), and even the Greens are not going to force dairy farmers to pay for their own carbon emissions, only those “at the margins”.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
wheres youd green politician in christchurch dudes
July 13th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Apparently dairy emissions can be substantially reduced, but farmers are unwilling to bear the cost which is very selfish in the current economic climate. http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/docs/AConvenientUntruthJune07.pdf
July 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
I agree with Phil - it’s embarrassing to see Helen Clark so high on that list.
However, I don’t think it is entirely fair to condemn the Green Party for talking with Labour (and everyone else actually) about how to actually do this stuff - if you don’t discuss these things everywhere you can, then you can’t complain your ideas aren’t taken up. Of course our mps make tactical errors, but they are dedicated to the Green cause and work damned hard to promote it. It’s easy to criticise, harder to be in there doing the hard stuff every day.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Janine
And if the Green MP’s stuck to Green issues they would easily make the 5% threshold come the next election.
It is the social policy (engineering), Maori issues and state interference that the voting public have had enough of, by aligning themselves so closely with Labour the Greens run the very real risk of not reaching the threshold.
Many of us who have some sympathy with parts of the Green message have been warning you about this for months, many claim that Labour have become arrogant yet the Greens could also be accused of the same thing.