Posts

Duck Dynasty, the Green Party, and Steady Statesmanship

by Brian Czech

BrianCzechI’ve never seen an episode of Duck Dynasty, and I’m not a member of the Green Party, at least not any more. But who hasn’t seen the news, and the Duck Dynasty reminds me why I left the Green Party. I’m not sure the Green Party will give a quack, but I do think anyone concerned with political strategy should.

Back in 2000 I was actually quite involved with the Greens. The Green Party of the United States was so desperate for qualified candidates that I was approached to run for office; for President of the United States no less! At last count, I had about six votes, not including my own. (I was still undecided.) Needless to say, we failed to git ‘er done.

Yet it wasn’t a complete waste of time, as we did manage to insert a plank calling for a steady state economy — stabilized population and per capita consumption, in simplest terms — which was a first not only for the Green Party but for any political party on the national scene. In fact, it may have been the first formal act of steady statesmanship in the United States.

But my experience with this effort ultimately caused me to flee the Green Party, because it was worse than like pulling teeth. It was like pulling teeth while dodging spitballs — hastily chewed ones — spit from the left and the right.

Which leads us to the Duck Dynasty and its “patriarch” Phil Robertson. With just a few words about you-know-what, this fella opened up a spitball free-for-all. Just think, a duck caller from the Louisiana swamp opened so many cans of worms that the worm population will double before it can be stuffed back into cans. Why there’s gay rights, civil rights, and the First Amendment for starters. Sure enough, politicians from Arkansas to Alaska are jockeying for position, trying to associate themselves with the baby (Innocent Baby Phil) while bailing out the bathwater (Adult Phil and the ZZ Top Shotgunners).

I suppose it all makes for unique entertainment — God knows every other form of entertainment has been beat to death in the country of America’s Got Talent. But for those who are serious about public policy and the prerequisite politics, all the newly escaped worms and the entertainment buzz is another big distraction, sapping the focus and wasting precious time.

Which leads us back to the Green Party. Have you ever wondered how the Green Party got its name? Back in the day when I signed up, I assumed “Green” meant or at least implied that this was a political party all about environmental protection and its obvious aspects such as wildlife conservation, clean air and water, and (by now) climate stability. For me, fresh out of my Ph.D. research, protecting the environment was rapidly becoming the most important endeavor of the 21st century. This was no tree hugger’s tiddlywinks either. A long hard look will clarify for most that a healthy, stable environment is the foundation of a sustainable, prosperous economy, which in turn is the lifeblood of national security and international stability.

So when I joined the Green Party, I did so because I assumed this would be the party with an undeniable, indefatigable focus on environmental protection. Furthermore, also because of my research plus lengthy experience in environmental management and civil service, I had realized that environmental protection was all about stabilizing the human presence on the planet including the United States. I had realized that environmental protection entailed the establishment of a steady state economy.

And really that’s common sense, no?

Can you imagine my chagrin as the Green Party turned out to know quite little about environmental matters, less yet about natural resource management, and next to nothing about steady state economics? Worse, there didn’t seem to be much focus at all on the environment. The knowledge, passion, and focus was instead meted out to issues that I’m only going to describe, euphemistically, as “off center.” In other words it was a party for the disaffected of all sorts.

Most of us can empathize with the underdog. But there is a time and a place for everything, and as they say, all in moderation.

If your favorite pastime is empathizing with underdogs and you’d like to join a whole team of them, then by all means you should join the Green Party, at least if it hasn’t changed much since 2000. Just don’t expect any political success. On one issue after another, the Green Party goes way to the end of the political spectrum, usually the “left” end in American parlance. It doesn’t take a highly imaginative sense of geometry to realize that such a strategy quickly boxes you into the tiniest corner of the political world. It’s political suicide.

Now I have no interest in running for office, but if I were running with the Green Party, we’d be adopting a new slogan: “First Things First.” Everyone would know what that meant, by virtue of the Green Party’s name. The slogan would be intended to convey a new-found sense of focus on environmental protection.

Bayou

It’s about the bayou, not what’s said on the bayou (photo by Tom Haymes)

First things first — protect the environment and all the awesome potential of the United States can be achieved. Lose focus on the environment and the rug will be pulled from posterity’s future. It won’t matter if the grandkids are gay, duck hunters, or America’s Idol. They’re all gonna need clean air, clean water, a sustainable climate, healthy farms, forests and fisheries, and a bit of wild country for inspiration. They’ll all depend on what we do today for environmental protection.

First things first. Let the Huckabees and the Jindals and the Palins go picking up the worms let loose by Phil Robertson. Let the Charlie Sheens do their liberal lamenting and the A&E’s do their public relations dancing. Meanwhile, let Obamacare sap the energy of its ardent supporters and opponents alike. While you’re at it, let the NRA have at it with the police unions. None of those are dogs in your fight.

First things first. The Green Party is supposed to be about protecting the environment, and we need it. Democrats and Republicans aren’t doing it. Democrats tend to go with the “green growth” propaganda, claiming “there is no conflict between growing the economy and protecting the environment,” while Republicans just say heck with the environment and “drill baby drill.” Both parties are so tight with Wall Street and pro-growth, neoclassical economics that we can never expect sustainable economic policy, and therefore environmental protection, from them.

So at this point in history, Green Party, as you contemplate the New Year, and despite all prior shortcomings, it looks like you’re still the only game in town for providing a significant alternative to politics as usual. It remains up to you to focus on environmental protection. Regarding all those cans of worms, the default response of the Green Party ought to be adopting a central position so that environmental protection can come to the forefront as a decisive issue for the voters.

First things first! Time’s a wasting as green turns to brown, shade by shade. Forget about Ol’ Phil, metaphor for political distraction. Keep your focus on protecting the environment and saving the green space, and even the duck hunters down in Louisiana might vote for you.

Click here to receive the Daly News in your email inbox.

Do We Need a Steady State Economy? One Politician’s Surprising Answer

An interview with Andrew Weaver, distinguished climatologist and BC’s first Green MLA

by James Magnus-Johnston

As the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide reached the historic high of 400 parts per million, renowned climatologist Andrew Weaver became the first Green candidate ever elected to British Columbia’s legislative assembly. We chatted about politics, the perils of natural gas development, and the public appetite for a steady state economy.

Here’s a politician who thinks his constituents can handle an honest dialogue about climate change. Andrew Weaver doesn’t hide the facts or pander with the wishful thinking of infinite growth. His refreshing candidness might have something to do with his background as one of the world’s preeminent climate scientists.

Andrew Weaver Biographical SketchAs a mathematician, Dr. Weaver spent years modeling the climate and now has a long list of credits to his name. He has witnessed the climate take a turn for the worse recently, but remains an optimist who believes the problem is “entirely solvable with will and determination.”

CASSE doesn’t endorse any particular political party, but Dr. Weaver’s experience signals that sometimes a sophisticated debate about complex issues can be a winning political formula. Besides, he said, “the Green Party is not there to form government, but there to facilitate an informed dialogue.”

If B.C.’s Green Party were to one day aspire to govern, I wondered, would it adopt the mainstream agenda of “green growth?” Or would it move more seriously in the direction of a steady state economy?

On Science and Politics

The science of climate change has been “settled,” but political action remains elusive or — in the case of the fracking phenomenon — altogether misguided.

“The scientists have done their jobs,” said Weaver. “Now it’s time for politicians to do theirs.” His voice was hoarse from weeks of intense campaigning.

“I hope I can get some first-rate colleagues who are also willing to stand up and see if we can make a difference,” he stated, suggesting that it’s time for more scientists to become politicians.

“People will try to knock you down and say you’re doing it for selfish reasons, but I wanted to set an example.”

He senses a growing demand for intelligent debate and action on complex issues like climate change. “We don’t give the electorate enough credit,” he told me. “People are fed up with stock messages like ‘those Liberals did this’ and ‘the NDP did this’… you can’t just say ‘no tankers on the coast’ or ‘no’ to some other issue.”

I asked him how he would maintain a positive tone in the legislature. “I would like to see non-partisan caucuses on the environment. I think it’s possible. Progressive MLAs will want to work together — and I don’t mean progressive in terms of the left-right divide, but in terms of wanting to further their knowledge on issues.”

On Energy Policy

As with any campaign trail, Dr. Weaver was challenged by his constituents on a number of policy questions. I wondered which topics resonated with the electorate.

At doorsteps, he said folks wanted to talk about clean, locally-produced energy. They weren’t allergic to the language of economics, either. Dr. Weaver said he used phrases like “the carrot-and-stick approach,” “internalizing externalities,” and “fixing market failures.”

Amid euphoric talk of strong demand for Canada’s resources, he calls natural gas development a “pipe dream.” “Russia has twenty times more natural gas than Canada and they are already supplying gas to China. The U.S. is shifting to clean energy on the west coast, and Australia has abandoned offshore liquid natural gas extraction because they think there’s a price bubble.”

“Under [previous premier] Gordon Campbell, this whole cleantech industry grew and became leaders in the field, but they have lost their guidance”

Now B.C.’s elected officials, he explained, are essentially offering to subsidize natural gas for the Asian market, with little benefit to the provincial economy.

On the Steady State Economy

“Of course we will need something that resembles a steady state economy because it’s a finite world!”

I asked Dr. Weaver to consider the counter-argument: Gail Tverberg wrote recently that a global human population collapse is inevitable; that many animal populations throughout history have followed a pattern of exponential overpopulation and collapse.

“I don’t want to end up on that collapse trajectory and I don’t think we have to do that,” he responded.

Gail notes that human population numbers have correlated closely with energy use — just like economic growth. She argues that we’d have to go back to hunter-gatherer lifestyles to achieve a steady state economy.

She could be right. But why might she be wrong?

Dr. Weaver was quick with his response: “because we’re smarter than phytoplankton!” While phytoplankton or bacteria inevitably grow exponentially in a finite system, human beings are different for a very important reason. “We have brains! We can put men on the moon, we built the Internet! I’m sure we can keep from collapsing!”

There’s that “will and determination” he mentioned earlier.

“You absolutely have to live within your means — financially and ecologically.” He sees the steady state economy as a solution to the world’s most pressing problems. “I’ve been pushing for steady state forest policy and fish farming. Replacing the stocks at at least the rate of replenishment.” He also considers energy policies key to the steady state economy.

So, while Dr. Weaver is adopting elements of a steady state agenda, most political parties avoid the rhetoric of anything but growth when they’re seriously vying to govern. Would B.C.’s Green Party still advance the steady state economy if its chances of governing were to improve?

“Yes, that’s exactly the message that would enable us to form government down the road.”

Economics as “Unusual” in Australian Politics

by Robert Lawrence

An important event has been hardly noticed in Australian politics. But it could be the start of a trend to recognize and address causes of social and environmental problems rather than merely to struggle with the symptoms. Until recently economic growth, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP), has been the primary indicator of governmental performance, with alternatives virtually absent from the political discourse. At last one brave member of Parliament is changing that, unafraid to lead the way toward a steady state economy.

To understand the significance of this event, we need to get some perspective on the Australian political situation. There are two rival sides that differ mainly in rhetoric and in their strategies for winning support from voters. More than 90% of elected politicians belong to these two sides.

There are two houses of Parliament. One is the House of Representatives, which does the main business of government. The other is the Senate, which reviews the decisions of the House of Representatives. A group of Senators is elected to represent each of the six Australian states.

Voting is compulsory in Australia for citizens over 18 years of age. There is a preferential voting system in which every candidate must be ranked for a vote to be counted at all. Effectively this has meant that Australians ultimately had to choose between two political parties. In voting for the House of Representatives, votes for independent candidates and minor parties have rarely made an impact. The electoral system is built around the two parties. There is a review of electoral boundaries every seven years. Boundaries of electorates are redrawn so that there is a more even competition between the two major parties. The parties distribute leaflets on how to vote for their candidate, and these suggest an order of preferences for the other candidates.

The situation is different for the Senate, in which each of the six Australian states has its own set of candidates. This setup has given the minor parties and independent senators an opportunity to wrest some power away from the two main parties. This happened during the last national election when the Australian Greens and a small number of independents were able to cast deciding votes. This meant that citizens who voted for a minor party actually had a voice at last. A tax on carbon emissions commenced on July first as a consequence.

Australia has a free press. A common approach in the media has been to strive for a “balanced” view, which has generally been achieved by presenting extreme viewpoints on any given issue to contribute a public “debate.” The effect of this is to polarize the public, rather than to seek well-reasoned, informed decisions.

Another major factor in the political landscape is the opinion poll. Although polls can help politicians be more responsive to the electorate, they can produce undesirable consequences. Politicians become concerned about managing perceptions rather than governing from the best advice of their departments. Another consequence is that both the major political parties tend to become almost indistinguishable. One gives lip service to workers’ rights and the environment, while the other to business. In practice it is impossible to tell which is better in any aspect. Both major parties express disdain for each other and struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves for voters. Often “debate” deteriorates into personal attacks.

But one issue on which both major parties agree, as is the case throughout the western world, is the imperative of economic growth. Rising GDP is the unquestioned prime measure of success.

Conservationists have been dealing with the consequences of the growth-is-good dogma. They have taken the approach of running campaigns on specific, strategic issues that tend to address the symptoms of too much economic growth. One could argue that they have been afraid of being further marginalized as a lunatic fringe with no grasp of reality. At least population growth has recently made it onto the political agenda, but there has been near silence on economic growth.

Christine Milne understands the link between economic growth and environmental deterioration.

Christine Milne has been a Senator for Tasmania since the middle of 2005, and she became the leader of the Australian Green Party in April this year. There are currently nine Australian Greens in a house with 76 members.

Milne delivered a speech in late September in which she made some astute observations. She said that we can build an economic system that serves the needs of people and nature, both for today and for tomorrow. She quoted from a report of the World Economic Forum, “More with Less: Scaling Sustainable Consumption and Resource Efficiency”:

“Current trends clearly show that business as usual no longer works. Unless the present link between growth and the consumption of scarce resources is severed, our resource base, governance and policy structures are unlikely to sustain the standard of living societies have grown accustomed to or indeed aspire to. Action to decouple business and economic growth from resource intensity and environmental impact, has never been more critical to the long term success of business.”

Milne continued by suggesting that we reconsider who belongs to the lunatic fringe in our 21st-century economy:

“Surely it’s time that those who advocate economic growth derived from resource extraction and pollution as the major path be the ones labeled wacky, loopy, irresponsible, divorced from reality or connected to the CIA.”

She went on to question who actually benefits from pandering to mining companies while ordinary people are struggling to make ends meet. Her full speech is worth reading.

Where is this likely to lead? The media and politicians are completely out of their depth in considering an alternative to the perpetual growth paradigm. Such a change even seems to be beyond the scope of thinking of conservationists. Even members of the Australian Greens may have underestimated the significance of this speech. Almost everyone seems content to ignore this speech and go on as they have.

But now that a prominent politician has publicly questioned the dogma of growth, we’ve moved a little closer to a much-needed turning point in Australian politics. Thanks to Christine Milne for saying what needed to be said. How refreshing to see true leadership taking root within the barren fields of the Australian political landscape.

Robert Lawrence runs Heritage Bushcare, a small business that removes weeds to improve the condition of areas of remnant vegetation. He is also secretary of the Nature Conservation Society of South Australia and the Native Orchid Society of South Australia. He is the author of Start with the Leaves: A Simple Guide to Common Orchids and Lilies of the Adelaide Hills.