Cat Boyd ignores once again that the problem may be democracy in the North rather than a surfeit of it in the global south. For example, the economic British downturn caused by Brexit may turn out to be Britain's major contribution to addressing climate change this decade, because no party dares to stand on a platform of economic contraction, population control or focussing on happiness. And despite their relative lack of success at the ballot box, the Greens seem unable to campaign on that line; other than wanting to seem nice I have never really been able to work out why.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Climate Crisis
(1297 posts)-
Posted 5 years ago #
-
a platform of economic contraction, population control or focussing on happiness
Tough sell on the doorsteps when the TVs in the sitting rooms are blasting ads for family holidays in Thailand.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Posted 5 years ago #
-
A tough sell maybe, but a positive focus on how many of the high carbon consuming things we buy don't actually make us very happy or healthy might have some resonance and push the Greens from 3% support up a bit. Like UKIP, which managed to frame a debate about leaving an economic free trade area to be about fewer foreigners, minority parties can shape agendas and have disproportionate influence.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Like UKIP, which managed to frame a debate about leaving an economic free trade area to be about fewer foreigners, minority parties can shape agendas and have disproportionate influence.”
Fair point, but I think the Greens need a mass of cash from dubious sources, plus a highly supportive section of the press.
Oh and a permanent invite to AQ, QT the Today programme etc.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@mgj
Experience of knocking doors leads me to believe that economic and population contraction would be a very difficult sell, despite the fact that the human race is in trouble if we don't do both.
I don't see how any party can frame debate in such a way that this idea becomes tenable in a consumer capitalist society.
Posted 5 years ago # -
I don't think they have to; the Tory party took a strong swing to the right on immigration in 77/78 because a minority party was sitting at 4% in the national polls. The debate on immigration has been on their terms ever since.
The current greens are not really worth supporting as there is nothing unique about their offer; a set of 'progressive' social policies that are never examined for their environmental impact allied to mitigating the effects of economic growth, both GDP and per capita GDP.
They could start by saying the only sustainable way that people in Scotland can get richer is to have fewer of them; or start talking about how cycling to work, or cooking from scratch, or whatever, make people happier than the car based commute, ready meal equivalent.
I should get back into politics but I haven't a mound of cash yet
Posted 5 years ago # -
To be fair the Scottish Greens [full disclosure I'm a member] had reduction in house prices in the last Holyrood manifesto. You can imagine the amount of coverage this got. The problem Green parties everywhere face is that the moment they mention the environment (even in relation to something else) most people (not to mention the media) go 'bored now'; mind the time Kevin McKenna called the Greens 'Scotland's most irrelevant party' for daring to mention the fox-hunting ban, because apparently Alison Jonhstone (of all people) isn't focused enough on social issues. But if they try to talk about something else they get critiques like yours. It's hard.
Posted 5 years ago # -
They could start by saying the only sustainable way that people in Scotland can get richer is to have fewer of them
The natural question arises: how will those allowed to breed be chosen?
Posted 5 years ago # -
I don't see how any party can frame debate in such a way that this idea becomes tenable in a consumer capitalist society.
Not all hope is lost - a substantial minority of the Young People seem to be extremely disenchanted with late stage (end stage?) consumer capitalism, in ways that don't feel like youthful posturing. They seem to have identified that it has very little to offer them in the short or long term.
Posted 5 years ago # -
"But if they try to talk about something else they get critiques like yours. "
Critique? That's a generous portrayal of a confused diatribe citing misanthropic neo-Malthusian ideas about population control which have been largely debunked. It's almost as though mgj is repeating stereotypical and outdated misconceptions about what constitutes Green politics for rhetorical effect. Also, a thinly veiled contempt for democracy and implied preference for authoritarian government is starting to emerge in recent posts. Using UKIP's anti-immigration agenda as an example of to Greens of how to influence the agendas of "mainstream" democratic political agendas? Seriously? Stoking popular prejudices against "others" with the benefit of right wing media support is not the same agenda nor challenge as attempting to make people think rationally about their lifestyle choices - especially if the latter involves them maybe having to do without the new Audi they're so convinced they 'need' next year...
mgj has already stated on numerous occasions that he/she doesn't support the Greens. Fine. There's no need to give any credence to mgj's apparently right wing agenda, nor indeed to mistake unfounded grumbling at the Greens for a sympathetic if impossibilist critique that Greens are somehow "not Green enough". It's the kind of trolling we've heard from Tories for decades: compare the opposing party (in this case the Greens) to a misrepresented stereotype purporting to be the opponent's political agenda, then point out how the opponent is failing to live up to this fictional agenda. Classic straw man argument...
Posted 5 years ago # -
Last post skirting Rule 1.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“Stoking popular prejudices against "others" with the benefit of right wing media support is not the same agenda”
Don’t think that’s the point.
Some people/orgs are happy to encourage prejudice often with VERY selected ‘facts’ plus lies.
Greens not likely to use such tactics.
Greens also less likely to be championed by most sections of the media.
“Not all hope is lost - a substantial minority of the Young People seem to be extremely disenchanted with late stage (end stage?) consumer capitalism, in ways that don't feel like youthful posturing.“
Probably true, but what are they advocating instead?
Posted 5 years ago # -
@crowriver, I'm only trying to suggest that it is not necessary (or indeed possible) to have a majority support for something in order to shape the political or news agenda. The National Front was a tiny minority in 1977 but co-opting that vote (back) into the Tory party is arguably what won Thatcher the 79 election. It certainly played a part. They were polling at a level similar to the Greens currently.
Where did I say I didn't support the Greens? I've voted for them in every election since 1987, was a member of the Ecology Party and from a young age worked for anti-nuclear organisations. I'd just like them to be better than just the best of a bad lot.
and that does imply honesty is needed about consumption. Given the current world population, a sustainable standard of living is about the level of some latin American countries. If we want to consume more we either need to find ways of equitably sharing that out (rationing?), or working towards there being fewer of us (which most Western democracies were doing, before someone worked out we'd need to wipe our own grannies bums and pick our own fruit), living better quality, less impactful lives. How does that make me right wing (other than you thinking that I'm implying the only way to achieve it might be through authoritarian methods)?
Posted 5 years ago # -
@mgj, you're also suggesting that population control is the answer, when it is consumption of resources that's the issue.
Pretty sure the Greens are the only party with electoral representation to make regular public announcements on curbing consumption, reducing or eliminating fossil fuel use, questioning the 'need' for endless economic growth, etc.
I can certainly see the argument that Brexit may be a net benefit for the environment through economic contraction. However there's every likelihood it will lead to "energy security" measures such as renewed coal mining; and slashing of "red tape" including key environmental protections, standards and controls leading to increased pollution, tree felling, pesticide and fertiliser use, etc.
Posted 5 years ago # -
If you give women access to education & ensure they have access to birth control & abortion the birth rate falls. No "control", in the sense of restricting people from having kids, is necessary.
@chdot Probably true, but what are they advocating instead?
Revolution. (In some cases.) (Definitions of revolution vary!)
Posted 5 years ago # -
Last post skirting Rule 1.
Feels more like breaking than skirting?
Posted 5 years ago # -
@IWRATS, Rule 1 is "No personal insults."
Please demonstrate how I "broke" this?
(I take chdot's point about "skirting", i.e. coming close, but not actually crossing the boundary).
Posted 5 years ago # -
@IWRATS I didn't feel it broke Rule 1. I'd clearly not articulated myself properly, and was probably rightly accused of using a strawman, and of holding the Greens to a higher standard than others.
My worry about the greens policy provision, as @unhurt outlined is that it is framed as a long term goal, and that there is no population target, and its able to be undermined by seeking young fertile workers from abroad to fill specific gaps. I think that there could be a better ambition around this area, looking at all the causes of larger families (and they seem to exist disproportionally in the rich as well as the poor, and its the rich that will use more resources). But at least they are having the debate (or had it, the policy position was last updated a long time ago as far as I remember), unlike the other parties.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Last post skirting Rule 1.
One of the remarkable things about CCE is the gusto, freedom and relevance with which it discusses politics and politicking, and the generally agreeable manner in which CCEers do so.
Other cycling fora that I could mention explicity forbid any discussion relating to politics.
Posted 5 years ago # -
Yeah well, cycling is never political...
Posted 5 years ago # -
@mgj I am not sure when the policy debate was had, but on the few occasions when I have witnessed population control or similar subjects being brought up at Green meetings, it has very quickly been closed down with levels of authority and even aggression that I don't usually associate with the party (it definitely isn't just down to being 'nice'!). As IWRATS alludes to, this is a politically toxic issue. I am hoping that population growth naturally levels off or even drops, as some predict, and that we can reduce consumption and make it sustainable enough in time to save the planet. Then we can be happy!
Posted 5 years ago # -
On the population thing. As far as Scotland goes, our fertility rate is low. Population is only increasing due to two factors:
- advances in medical care, better diets etc. mean folk are living longer
- inward migration of mostly younger peopleOn the Green position on population control, I had a look into this out of interest. It seems explicit measures for controlling and even reducing the population were in the Ecology Party manifesto from its inception in 1975, and while sightly less forcibly put forward in subsequent elections, were carried on into the successor party (The Green Party) from 1983 until 1989, when apparently there was much negative publicity about these policies and they were subsequently dropped at party conference. Since then, the Green Party split into separate, smaller parties in Scotland, Norn Iron, and England & Wales.
So I would imagine that any mention of controlling or reducing population brings back painful memories for those who were active in the party in the late 1980s, and this may explain why it is seemingly taboo to discuss.
Really great resource on Green political history here, with copies of all the manifestos until 1989:
Posted 5 years ago # -
What @unhurt said. And it is also conveniently the right thing to do, especially in countries where women have access to none of those things. Almost every western country is now trending towards birthrates that will mean zero or declining population growth, unless they have significant levels of immigration ...
Posted 5 years ago # -
So I would imagine that any mention of controlling or reducing population brings back painful memories for those who were active in the party in the late 1980s, and this may explain why it is seemingly taboo to discuss.
I suspect that opposition to population control policies is actually stronger amongst people who don't remember the 1980s.
Posted 5 years ago # -
@Frenchy, suspect away. I for one remember the 1980s all too clearly. I was not active in green politics at the time, so was unaware of the debate on population control.
Posted 5 years ago # -
“It is not going off a cliff, it is like walking out into a minefield,” he said. “So the argument it is too late to do something would be like saying: ‘I’m just going to keep walking’. That would be absurd – you reverse course and get off that minefield as quick as you can. It is really a question of how bad it is going to get.”
Posted 5 years ago # -
“
Scottish Labour sets 2050 carbon-free target as new plan unveiled to combat greenhouse gas emissions
“
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/scottish-labour-sets-2050-carbon-13073644
Posted 5 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
