h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The Green Party have entered a coalition with the long-ruling Fianna Fáil party. We now have two Green ministers plus one junior minister.

A letter of mine was published in The Irish Times today. It was written in reply to a letter on the formation of the new government, which ended with a swipe at the Greens, and goes:

Madam,

David Shiels (June 19) makes an odd choice of words when he
warns the Government against "succumbing to the whims and fancies of
the eco-lobby".

The distinguishing feature of the eco-lobby is long-sightedness. Its
concerns boil down to one single point: if we fail on the environment,
we fail on everything.

Yours, etc.

Short and to the point. Couldn't have put it better myself.

Hi RM,

Doesn't the Green party have a much more wide-ranging agenda than just environment (US military personnel in Shannon, hospital co-location etc)? And haven't the "eco-lobby" in the past made some dreadfully inaccurate assumptions (Brent-spar, even perhaps Chernobyl)?

Surely, just because we can agree with the general viewpoint of the Greens does not mean we need to accept everything they say, particularly in the cases where their philosophy is unsupported by any valid scientific research?

W

I have always had trouble sorting out the eco-friendliness of the Greens. (Greens have been a party to be taken serious for a long time in Germany and in Government, ousting the Liberals, for three or four legislative periods now - maybe even more, but I'd have to check)

My father (you've heard me talk about him) is a staunch right wing so-and-so. He'd probably call the Nazis big girls' blouses. But as a right wing, and by definition, conservative (Conservative?), he always did his utmost to conserve the environment and we were brought up to use the environment economically and keep our use of energy down, recycle as much as possible and whatever else you bundle into the big jute bag of eco-friendliness.

So the greens should not be seen to have the monopoly on eco-friendliness - it is just common sense, whichever your political belief. As Recumbentman implies in his letter to the ed above.

Well, done Mr Recumbent.

And, taking up a further point in your letter - it would be nice if politicians would use more long-sightedness in other fields too. Schools for example, or caring for small children. If kids were given more attention during their formative years, surely it would reduce crime and unemployment later on. But as we're talking about 10-20 years in the future, politicians don't seem to be arsed about it, they're only interested in their term of 4-5 years and Après eux le déluge.

I imagine those very civilized chaps in the Irish Greens would have very little in common with the German Greens, if the policies and antics of that former Green leader and minister, the reformed hoodlum from Burgenland, Austria, who infiltrated the German cabinet is anything to go by.

An outsider's view:

It is plain that Ireland has more of a 'JFDI' attitude than (ahem) the mainland. . Take the carrier bag tax. Britain would hum and ha for years, then offer all sorts of opt outs: carrier bags are OK if there's a Y in the day and are carried by someone with at least one leg.

Ireland has more of a chance. I was impressed to hear of the proposals for re-opening the railways. Apart from the environmental benefits - imagine the economic and just plain *human* of extending the DART and (what's the other one called?) further.

As well as us all needing to be green to save the world, individual countries are going to have to be green to survive economically. Ireland holds the promise of becoming the new Finland.

The SCART? No - that's what holds my TV and DVD player together.

The other one is called the Luas (pronounced Lewis, means speed).

And yes, Woodpigeon, in the cases where their philosophy is unsupported by any valid scientific research pay them no attention. I went out and canvassed for the Greens, and I was disappointed how many issues they were pushing; I pushed one.

And yes TC, Conservatives are often conservationists. The Greens got labelled "left" by the Progressive Democrats (whose slogan was "Don't throw it all away") but there's nothing left-wing in caring about ecology.

A curious example from France: I noticed that organic wine didn't give me headaches, and also that expensive wine doesn't either. A lit up in my head and I asked someone who knows about wine (my restaurateur ebrother). He said it's true: axpensive French wine is organic, and always has been. They don't put gloop in or near the wine they care about.

Nothing lefty about them châteaux.

Same with beer manufactured under the reinhetsgebot. You can drink it by the gallon and not feel ill the next day. It's rumoured that a leading British brewer used to add extra chemicals to their beer to ensure that drinkers got a hangover, convincing them that they must have had a good night previously.

Yes - Greens aren't always on sure ground when they fall victim to their 'well intentioned' leanings. During the 1980s NUM strike I remember their 'Green Case for Coal'.

Mind you - a friend has just (today!) received word that he's passed his MSc in Environmental Decision Making. The fact that there's a whole MSC in it suggests that the decisions aren't necessarily easy.

Woodpigeon has a good point in that many of the rather more peripheral policies of the Greens seem to have little to do with the environment: after all, I've written about this myself. *However*, you should treat my outpourings on this subject as a lament on the way that the original Green vision has become adulterated. It is difficult to argue with the potency of this vision that you so concisely encapsulated in your letter even, if like the wine, its purity sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

It occurs to me that the "If we fail on the environment..." slogan refers most urgently (but not entirely) to global warming. However, when green politics first emerged, the focus was on a whole range of issues, from nuclear power to pesticides to whale saving. The assumption was that these were best addressed by a whole new kind of political philosophy.

Now global warming is our most urgent priority. I'm afraid I'm far from convinced that an all-encompassing green philosophy is the *only* way to address it, or that we have the time to change our whole way of doing things. (Although I conced the point it would be a highly attractive thing to do).

I'm not so much behind the Greens as a political force as a lobby group. But getting elected is a pretty good lobbying technique.

Although entering into a coalition government means that you have to compromise instead of holding fast to your principles and acting like a government conscience. The fact that they have entered government now paves the way for them to be considered for government in the future, however I would not be surprised if there were some sort of split down the road. A "right-on" green party and a "militant" green party of some sort.

This is shaping up to be a very interesting and stimulating thread.

I think the moment of truth for the Greens will come when they are asked to propose some answers to long-standing problems. One thing that the Greens are undoubtedly very good at is unearthing these problems: ringing alarm bells and giving us all a 'wake-up' call if you like. The other side of the coin is their abject and ongoing failure to come up with some coherent and practicable solutions. Yes it *is* wrong that the oil industry gets to pollute so much but no, it's *not* a good idea to sabotage their attempts to dispose of one of their oil platforms in the most environmentally-friendly manner possible. Especially when you've just gone and done the same bloody thing with your own boat!

Politics is the art of the possible. They will be sorely tested in matters of policy, and I think they will be shown to be wanting.

And he's another gratuitous plug for my own rather expanded =and totally subjective view on the whole movement:
A2028854

Here's a site after my own heart:
http://www.sensibleenvironmentalist.com/

"“The movement has been hijacked by people who prefer rhetoric to fact and refuse to evolve beyond confrontation,” says Dr. Moore. “As the first wave of activists in the early 1970s, we struggled to make people realize the harm that was being done to this planet—and yes, we relied on confrontational tactics. But, after more than 15 years of yelling as loud as we could, an interesting thing happened. People started to listen. Governments started to listen. Environmental protection became a fundamental part of our laws and regulations. Public participation and inclusiveness became the norm.

“And yet, I see environmental groups today becoming increasingly extreme, promoting arguments that have less to do with the environment than their own political agendas. This is not the way to achieve environmental progress.”

Spot on, mate.

Right. A couple of things are going to cause the green politicians some major headaches in the next five years.

a) Waste disposal. Ireland has no incinerators, so we continue to export our worst waste abroad - probably to you guys, or Germany. Many of our land-fills have reached their best before date, so some more sites will need to be found and commissioned in the very near future.

b) Energy. *cough* nuclear power *cough*. Whether people like it or not, the fact remains that we are hooked on oil. Rapeseed, wind energy and willow farming is not going to make a big enough dent, in the medium term at least.

c) Infrastructure. Prior to joining the government, the Greens have been actively involved in rather militant efforts to prevent a natural gas facility being opened on the Irish west coast. They have also been lobbying against the opening of a motorway close by Tara, a hugely important pre-historic area in Ireland.

If they can weather these storms and still direct Ireland in a much more ecologically friendly direction then I support them fully. Not only that, but they will have proven themselves to be a very suitable government party in the future too. But I can see a lot of their former supporters switching ranks over these issues. It's going to be very interesting.

Interesting times ahead. Thanks for the warnings; though has there ever been a movement, on any excellent basis, that has not been at some point "hijacked by people who prefer rhetoric to fact"? That's what rhetorical hijackers do. As I write this the whole life of Brian flashes before my eyes.

Yes, Woodpigeon, a number of thorny beds have already been made for the Greens in Leinster House. About energy, I agree that biofuel is a distraction; it would need far too much farming land devoted to it. But as my brother and I found in Denmark, people elsewhere are amazed that we use so little wind, when we have the best wind availability in Europe. There is also a lot of power swishing around in wave and tide activity: we should be exporting electricity.

I have inlaws who have a very luxurious bungalow out at Ardnacrusha, a delightful place. You'd never guess that there was one of the world's biggest power stations only a stone's throw away.

Is it one of the world's biggest? Wow. I've been there: my son took part in a concert in the turbine room. It was built in the 20s and still running in immaculate condition (using water power from the Shannon). It is like stepping onto the set of Metropolis. It now runs unstaffed, controlled from another station hundreds of miles away.

It deserves an Entry; it was built by the fledgling Free State of Ireland, with help (and plenty!) from Siemens. The Free State official language was Irish, and Siemens gave their men lessons in Irish before they came over to build it. Few or none of the Irish workmen spoke it though; if they did it was in dialects the Siemens men hadn't been taught. Fortunately there were also some Norwegian workers on the site, and they were able to translate between the German and English speakers.

http://iwn.iwai.ie/v31i4/ardnacrusha.pdf article on Ardnacrusha with pictures.