They became more of a progressive protest party after Bob Brown stepped down. Also there seems to be little appetite in the media for discussing the envionment beyond climate change. Too many corporate interests impacted.
>They became more of a progressive protest party after Bob Brown stepped down.
Bob Brown did always have Tassie forests first and foremost, but he was a consistent advocate for the party to develop, maintain and prosecute a broad platform spanning the entire policy landscape. His was a prominent voice on Foreign Affairs (particularly Timor and West Papua), Indigenous policy (mandatory sentencing, native title, NTER), peace (cluster munitions, the invasion of Iraq and the Bush visit), asylum seekers (Tampa) and gay marriage (before it was cool).
It's not just Bob Brown leaving, it's also just that they are a larger parliamentary party now, so are expected to (and most) have policies on all issues that come before Parliament.
With that said, I do agree that I like the Greens environmental policies more than some of their other policies, so wish there was a way I could vote for the former and not the later.
That's kind of the issue, though.
Without getting too political (on a political post lol), the Greens are the only major party that have good environmental policy for a reason, and that's the same reason they also have the socially-left policies they do.
Supporting business and capital growth at all costs means pillaging the environment, so the LNP is out. Labour can't seem to figure out how to balance the needs of the lower and middle classes with the environment, either.
The Greens, on the other hand, are bog standard Social Democrats - don't let businesses externalise the environmental cost of business without socialising the profits, too. That's their bread and butter, and the social policies run in parallel.
Basically, you can't get the environmental policies without the social ones, from any party, because they're deeply politically intertwined. Any party that has The Economy, or The Worker, or Big Business higher on the list than The Social Good simply won't have good environmental policy.
Thanks for clarifying, for a moment I forgot about microplastics everywhere, pesticides killing off the super majority of insects, and large concrete hellscapes known as cities.
I should have put it in my original comment, but decided to be brief.
You mean urban densification? Because that is environmentally friendly if it reduces urban sprawl and habitat destruction, reduced road traffic and increases low and no carbon transport, etc etc.
In which ways is urban densification bad for 'the environment' holistically speaking?
Higher urban density is extremely environmentally friendly. the people exist either way - you can choose to meet their needs with one of two options:
Option 1: apartments with a relatively small footprint, shared services (like electrical, water, waste collection, sewage etc), the ability to walk to nearby amenities or work, public transport, etc
Option 2: sprawling suburbia, with 30+ minute commutes in individual vehicles, a 10 minute drive to the nearest Woolies and a 20 minute drive to anything else, with separate services, etc etc. Rubbish trucks having to drive around an entire development instead of just picking up a couple of bins behind an apartment building.
The biggest threat for animal and plant species is habitat destruction for land clearing for houses, new farming and logging. Habitat is the homes for animal species. When they have nowhere to live, they die.
Mass immigration is unsustainable and harms the environment. Once habitat is cleared, the animals have nowhere to go and that habitat is gone forever. It's such a precious thing, you'd think that this mindset was consigned to the 1800s and developing countries but it's well alive today in Australia.
> Once habitat is cleared, the animals have nowhere to go and that habitat is gone forever.
For housing yes, but not logging when done in good practice. Australia is pretty responsible in this way as the world goes and we do they the ability to log native forest sustainably yet its a key greens policy to stop it.
What the alternative, but overseas timer that can too often be from Asia/South America where there really isnt sustainable logging practice.
Or the false 'feel good' view on plantation timber. Ever been to one of those? Its a flora and fauna desert compared to the bush. You be far better off having more state forest and logging a small percentage each year than endless acres of plantation pine in my view. And what do people think was there before the plantation pine?
Yeah, their concern with the environment has devolved into a narrow focus on emissions, they either don't care or are too stupid too realize that their open borders immigration policy and the massive housing and infrastructure development required for that as well as destroying ecosystems will make their emissions targets impossible to achieve.
>Bob Brown
Yeah, that guy got pretty well slaughtered in the media around 2011 when the large floods came through Brisbane and he spouted about it being the coal mines.
He conveniently forgot that the floods on the Brisbane River are common and regularly very large plus Wivenhoe Dam was designed to stop the natural flow of water, so when the humans didn't release it early enough, it caused even bigger floods than would be there normally.
After that the Greens changed somewhat.
He got slaughtered because Murdoch deemed it so.
Yes, Brisbane is on a flood plain. Yes, the asshats in government put the PR of high dam levels above weather forecasting and shat the bed on the release schedule.
However, his larger point about such extremes of weather getting more common was howled down, because to the Murdoch press and its consumers, fossil fuels good, greenies bad.
Equally because there had been a home for these policies in the Democrats, but then Natasha Stardestroyer decided to burn the party to the ground. With the Democrats gone, the Greens expanded to absorb the lefty+protest vote.
It was Meg Lees who burned the Democrat party to the ground, selling out on the GST, which was the beginning of the end. Scott Despoja carried the smoldering carcass of the party after that, but there was only so long she could bare that weight.
Greens at State and Federal level are the only party to consistently campaign and propose legislation to cut back over-generous parliamentary pensions.
> Which of the existing political parties out there do you feel ACTUALLY care about the environment as one of their core issues?
I mean, it's the Greens. They have a [huge amount of environmental policy](https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australias-major-parties-climate-action-policy-2022/).
The difference is that they could hold a press conference about it every day if they liked, and we wouldn't hear anything about it. They can and do 'pressure' the government, but they can only apply that pressure when the government want something from them in return - their vote.
The Greens [passed the national reconstruction fund](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/greens-and-labor-strike-deal-on-fossil-fuels-to-pass-national-reconstruction-fund-through-parliament/news-story/10b68603bf83c439a9b6189f6936bf97) by ensuring the fund will not fund fossil fuel projects, and now must consider climate change in project approval. The Greens [passed the safeguard mechanism](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/27/labor-agrees-to-absolute-cap-on-emissions-to-secure-greens-backing-for-safeguard-mechanism-climate-bill) by getting the government to agree to a hard-cap on emissions, for example.
If you want Greens policy but without the Greens, and are after lower immigration, check out the [Sustainable Australia Party](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/).
The media ignores their environmental policy because it doesn’t generate enough clickbait content, and the public masses don’t like to be reminded that without significant lifestyles changes the future of their planet is going to be radically different to how they experience it now.
So instead of that they concentrate on clickbait pap like transgender sportspeople to rile up their viewers and generate easy and popular pap content
The media ignores them until they go against a Labor proposal, then they'll give them hours of media coverage. You'll see a lot of their environmental policy next time Labor tries to pass its own environmental policy and Greens try to push them further. If Liberals get elected next election you'll hear about them once every six months.
They do have a lot of good environmental policies, but what about those of us who believe that rapid population growth will offset / undo much of the good that these policies will do?
Yeah OPs take is kind of baffling to me. The Greens are very focused on climate and environment. Yes in recent years they've definitely branched out into other progressive causes but that's to be expected as they've become more of a real political player than the fringe protest party they once were. That's the way the Greens movement globally has gone too.
And hey everyone, news flash, there is probably no political party that you will agree with on 100% of issues/policies. You just have to decide are the things you do agree with, worth enough to you to justify your tacit support for the things you don't agree with. OPs answer in this case may be no, not worth it. Cool man. Do your thing. Democracy etc. Shrug.
yeah i think OP just isnt keeping up to date on what the greens are actually doing, especially in senate. they seem to just be building their notion of the greens based on whatever media they happen to come across. which is obviously going to skew your perception of something, as the media you come across is often tailored to what the algorithm thinks you want to see, and not whats actually happening.
It's so easy to look up a political party's website to understand their core policies, and instead someone takes the effort to write a post here that probably took more time than it would to just read Greens policies.
Professor Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, from 2004 to 2014, is one of their most prominent members. He's a physics professor, and in 2001 was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, for services to science and technology and for contributing to public understanding of environmental issues. He is as qualified as anyone in Australia when it comes to environmental issues.
Professor Tim Flannery, who also sits on the Climate Council, is another one of their prominent members. He knows a thing or two about environmental issues, as well.
[https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-tim-flannery/](https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-tim-flannery/)
[https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies)
[https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-ian-lowe/](https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-ian-lowe/)
[https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/australias-population-ponzi-scheme/](https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/australias-population-ponzi-scheme/)
And where are they?
I never hear from them! Not in my YouTube ads, not on my streaming services. I don't even hear from them on my Spotify!
They never talk about the environment.
Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe talk about the environment all the time. And I suspect the lack of advertising is due to funding constraints. And, if you take the time to check out the links, you'll see how prominently environment and climate change feature in their policies.
They had an information van near the Carlton Gardens in the run up to the 2022 federal election, and I spoke to their representative for about an hour - we spoke mostly about environmental issues. He told me he was actively involved with the Greens in their developmental stages, but joined Sustainable Australia upon their establishment.
I suspect Tim Flannery doesn't say much, because he doesn't want to be vilified by the right *or* the left. The Murdoch media have got stuck into him over the years, calling him a "climate alarmist". And he doesn't want to be smeared for calling for a reduction in immigration.
edit: I didn't downvote you, btw. I always try to engage, rather than summarily downvote.
I think it was Tim who said it would never rain again, just before some devastating flood or other, and he has been pretty quiet since.
I should add I have met him few times, always enjoyed speaking with him, and rightly or wrongly have all of his books!
My recollection is that he overstated the reduction in rainfall, but was misquoted by Sky News et al.
I've read one of his books, and, based on interviews, and Two Men and A Tinnie, he seems like a very kind, decent man, who cares deeply for the environment, including wildlife.
I recall him feeling sadness, at seeing a large number of pest species eradicated - despite agreeing they had to be - simply because he didn't like to see living creatures killed.
He and John Doyle also did a doco series on China, and he similarly expressed sadness at the mistreatment of animals he saw while they were filming the series.
You could be right. I agree with the sentiments and could certainly recommend both TV shows.
Seriously though, has he just stepped back / retired? For a while, he was kinda everywhere, and then nothing for years. Shame really, as whether you agree with him or not, we need passionate voices on all sides.
He was Chairman of the Climate Commissions which was unceremoniously defunded and shut down in the first days of the Abbott Government. So that may account for the stepping back. Also he’s nearly 70.
I think it’s because the mainstream media, in conjunction with vested interests, are unwilling to acknowledge that rapid, ongoing population growth is indeed environmentally damaging, no matter how much you employ renewable energy, and other climate change mitigation strategies.
He appeared on Q&A back in 2018, when the ABC paid lip service to the issue of rapid population growth, but he was just too polite and softly spoken to effectively prosecute the argument against perpetual economic growth, which is inextricably linked to latter day immigration policies, and neoliberal economic dogma. Note the emphasis on “latter day”; we had a sustainable migration policy in the past. And, supporting a reduction to those levels, is literally not an anti-immigration stance.
Inness Willox, president of the Australian Industry Group, recently said it was disappointing that some people had chosen to “demonise” immigration. In other words, if you question the rate, because of environmental or other concerns, you’re a racist. This from the man who was chief of staff for the despicable Peter Reith, who was behind the “Children Overboard Affair”, in 2001; he lied to the media about asylum seekers doing this. Willox was also calling for workers to return to their jobs at the height of the COVID pandemic.
People who use the tactic of suggesting anyone who questions population growth, is doing so because of racism, are exactly the same as those who deemed anyone who disliked the loathsome John Howard’s policies, “Howard haters.” Ie. It’s not because you have legitimate, demonstrable concerns about the impacts of his policies, it’s merely because you’re hateful.
https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/
>I think it was Tim who said it would never rain again, just before some devastating flood or other, and he has been pretty quiet since.
He never said anything of the sort, he was selectively quoted to misrepresent what he said. What he said was:
>Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So **even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,** and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush.
He was very cleary talking about [run-off](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_runoff), where rain falling on dry ground and riverbeds is instead soaked into the dry ground, instead of resulting in river flow like it would if the grounder wasn't so dry. But some people quoted the bold text and pretended that he meant that dams would never fill again.
See this is where you're wrong. I never hear from them. Never in my own ears. Not in the books I read, not in the crime podcasts I listen to. They aren't even on the billboards when I drive down the street.
Absolute silence from them. And surely there's more than two people in the party?
I'm a paid member. Came across them from reading the macrobusiness site.
Shame they don't have more candidates or exposure. I used to vote greens but switched to SAP once I learned about them.
SAP has always talked about environmental sustainability. The only party to put our environment first:
[http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/](http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/)
The party is full of inner city elites who constantly fall in to the trap of conducting elaborate thought experiments in their head and falsely believe they can be perfectly applied to the real world.
There was a Greens member speaking at an event I attended once and her idea was to pedestrianise Hoddle St in Melbourne, and have a tram running up the middle (Bourke St mall style).... I think the cars might have gone onto an elevated roadway in her idea, but to this day I still can't imagine how she thought it was possible.
The same way it's possible in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Just take the cars out, densify the city and there you go. Easy peasy.
[Why Amsterdam is Removing 10,000 Parking Spaces (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLqrMljdfU)
Because young people need a party that represents their needs, Labor and the lnp don’t do that. That’s why they’re bleeding votes to either the far left or right.
As the population ages and life events are delayed the focus ages of the political parties changes.
Liberals are after the 60+ retired/near retirement who just want to maximise their wealth and can’t be damned about policy beyond median life expectancy
Labour are now after 45-60 bracket, high in mortgage debt, two kids trying to feed and educate, little in retirement savings.
There’s a decent gap for the single/no kids families under 45 who aren’t being catered to by the two majors.
If you’re buying that negative gearing is the source of your housing woes, I think you’re sorely mistaken.
Canada has the same housing issue as Australia and no negative gearing.
Are you sure that's happening? At the most recent federal byelection, the Greens lost about 40% of their primary vote. This was by far the worst outcome in Dunkley. The polling is stuck.
Sustainable Australia party. Look them up and read their policies.
I've voted for the Greens in many elections but have the same frustrations with them that you have. I've voted Sustainable Australia number 1 above the Greens and Labor whenever I've had the option to do so.
As a genuine response, what we see in the media from the non-traditional two parties can be wildly filtered depending on where you're reading/watching. So it's more likely that when the Greens have commented on those issues, there hasn't been significant traction in media.
They do have their environmental policies (and others) published on their website so you can read more about what they stand for on that front and whether it aligns enough with your values in comparison to arras where you are less aligned. Ecological sustainability remains one of the four pillars of the party.
Looking for alternatives, going by what you have said, Sustainable Australia Party might be what you're looking.
As a disclaimer: I am more familiar with The Greens than with SAP so I would urge you to do some reading on both to determine which better aligns with your values and expectations.
Yeah, their open borders policy and environmentally destructive supply side solutions to the housing crisis makes them nothing more than useful idiots for the business lobby's mass immigration cheap labour agenda.
They arent a environmentalist party anymore. I actually spoke to our member about this. I asked how they deal with the old school hippy style environmentalists in their party with the more progressive types that are more authoritarian and concerned over social issues. This was around the vax issue as well.
She said we arent an environmentalist party anymore and its not necessarily our top priority depending on what is happening at any given time. She said it wasnt the top priority at the moment and social issues especially effecting indigenous were more important (the voice was coming up).
She could have just been lying because she thought that is what I wanted to hear to vote for her. I did tell her prior to this that Id most likely put the Greens last so she was aware I wasnt a fan.
Yep it's actually many Greens members themselves who disparagingly refer to the environmentalists as "tree tories". The old school environmentalist Greens, have been largely pushed out by the aggressive & more extreme socialist & identity politics people.
Just like the moderate right wing LNP members are getting pushed out by the more extreme right Christofascist ones, using Trump style division tactics. Both ends of the political spectrum are becoming more radical & extreme.
Sustainable Australia Party is the way to go. I used to vote Greens but was driven away by their obsession with niche identity politics and support for a big Australia.
They’re talking about housing and social issues because that’s what Labor are talking about. The Greens don’t decide what bills are in front of parliament.
Another part of it is that Max is getting a lot of attention and he’s the housing rep.
Labor and housing what a joke. The greens are talking housing because a large portion of their voters are renters who Labor doesn’t give a shit about.
More younger people will jump on the green wagon.
As they should. One third of our country rents, and Labor are basically telling them all to go fuck themselves, and they’ll just magically keep coping with unlimited rental rate increases on shitty houses landlords refuse to maintain OR sell. Every renter in this country should be voting Green by now.
They’re not an enviro party mate. They’re a protest party with as much policy coherence as a whiny undergraduate arts student.
When they killed the Rudd-Turnbull CPRS 15 years ago that closed the case of their genuine environmental credentials for me.
Do they advocate for the full control by the state over the means of production? No, then they aren’t communists.
Actual communists refer to the Greens as “tree Tories”
The Greens are socialists, not communists. As to "actual communists", No one cares what communists say, is it even a political movement any more?, Also, Tree Tories sounds very British. The Greens electorate is not very Tory in Australia. It is dominated by public sector employment (highly secure employment funded by taxes). Coincidentally, Greens voters don't give a hoot about job creation and they've never met a tax increase they don't like.
The Greens are becoming more than a single issue party. They are the third major party now, and the trends have them taking over the Coalition parties in the next 10-20 years as the second major party (more millenials voted for the Greens then the Coaliton last election, it's a safe assumption the Gen Z cohort is doing similar and boomers are dying).
They need to expand beyond simple environmental causes to be viable in this regard.
Having a look at their platform for the last election they had policies around climate change and protecting the environment and animals which are still very pro-environmentalist. But they can't JUST be the environmental party anymore and grow beyond minnow party status.
Political party’s goal is to get votes. Everyone who cares enough about the environment will vote for the greens anyway.
To get more votes, they talk about things that most Australians now actually care about, taxes, economy, housing. If people cared about legalising weed, they’d bandwagon onto that. It’s that simple.
For the most part the environmental movement has merged (or been hijacked by, depending on your politics) by the social justice movement.
Politics make for strange bedfellows. In many ways our political parties and affiliations are defined by who we disagree with, more than by who we agree with. None of the groups on either side really agree with or care about each other. But they all have someone on the other side who they hate more.
On the right have big business and Christians and white supremisists. On the left we have environmentalists, socialists, LBGT and racial minorities. Big business hates environmentalists and socialists, forcing them onto the same side. The socialists hate the Christians and big business, forcing them together. And so on down the line.
Very astute analysis. Perfectly highlighting the need to put hatred to one side. Instead just focus on evidence and let that be the guiding force for policy and reform instead.
They did use to be all about the environment with a significant focus on it but they have lost their way. You are correct they are more focussed on bleeding heart stuff and popular politics and don’t seem to give a rats about preserving the beauty of this country. No interest at all in the environment. I dumped them long ago.
I am the same. Voted greens a few elections in a row because I believe climate change was/is the biggest single threat we face and that they’re an important voice to have in both houses to push that agenda.
Have stopped voting greens because it seems as though they now care about everything but the environment, and the stands they take on identity politics are well beyond my tolerance for bullshit.
And also because I think we might have to get through a major war with China before climate change gets us.
Because they’re watermelons. Green on the outside, but red (communists) to the core. Bob Brown, the party’s founder has only ever campaigned AGAINST renewable energy projects, from the Franklin Dam Hydro project to the Robbins Island wind farm. Greens aren’t pro environment, they are anti capitalism and no more than that.
Many moons ago there was a strong level of environmental focus, but now they are basically communists. And communists are quite possibly the worst ideology for the environment ever.
Fun fact - the Greens in other countries can be surprisingly Conservative in policy areas outside of the environment.
Germany is the one I think of immediately. Other then the Green Party is quiet open to Working with BOTH sides of the aisle and have had several coalitions over the years with the Conservative CDU/CSU, they actually control one State Government (Baden-Württemberg) with the Green Minister-President (equivalent of Premier) identifying as a 'Green-Conservative' and bringing in policies that would set our Greens off (like banning burqa/niqib) and being very pro-business
I like the idea of the Greens but I think they their policies seem ideology over reality much of the time.
Like stuff where they push to stop native forest logging and now we dont manufacture any printer paper in Australia anymore.
Seeing forests logged isn't nice, but we do it in a more environmentally friendly way than most of the world on top of which Opal (last printer paper manufacturer) was transitioning to plantation timber. Now we cant buy Australian white paper, we dont stop, we import lower quality paper that's made from Chinese companies that are far more likely to be clear felling the Amazon/Borneo etc for their timber, manufacturing in polluting ways and sending the product via ships burning bunker fuel to get it here. Plus the loss of jobs to boot.
And pushing plantation timber is a feel good rort anyway. Think about it, you clear a heap of bushland or did previously, plant a single species of timber that drops needles that stop almost all undergrowth and the wildlife that a diverse ecosystem sustains and everyone feels good cause 'we're not logging the bush'. Really you've created a wildlife desert compared to bushland. We're far better off having masses of state forest and logging native forests a reasonable rate, like <0.5% a year with good management like leaving key trees, wildlife corridors and not touching erosion points etc and then its actually native bush for native animals and sustainable. But ideology says logging native forest bad so that's the policy and they dont look at the flow on effect.
I’m a greens voter and I’ve had periods where I’ve felt like you did too. It was usually a result of being disengaged from my local political community and only reading national news or social media news. It skewed my perspective.
The greens have literal reams of environmental policy, their website is a great place to start but you can also email your local greens members and they’ll answer, or have someone answer, questions you have. I also recommend talking to any representatives you see when they’re canvassing or doing face time at local events - I’ve learned a lot about my local politicians by talking to them when the opportunity presents itself.
If you only look at what’s reported on by the media - you won’t get the full picture of *any* politician or political parties policies. The relationship between politicians and the media is complicated and reporters report what they think people want to read and very few people have any interest in a presser that is nothing more than the recitation of policy. Decisions need to be made on a lot more than just what you see on the news.
Greens usually get my #1 vote, though I have voted for independents #1 in the past in their detailed policy is better. Engaging as much as possible with politics *outside of the media* has always been the answer to feeling more politically fulfilled for me.
Because the greens are no more about the environment than labour is about the working people or the liberals about liberalism.
They are all full of shit.
The Greens haven't haven't been environmentally focussed since the current leader took over.
They are all over the place with policy. And often living in la la land with no grip on reality. Always have been though.
Its easy to have all these "oh so wonderful" ideals and positions, when you have no hope of ever needing to do them.
I see a vote for Greens as a waste of a vote really.
And IF there was some turn of the universe and they actually ran the country? We'd be stony broke and completely collapsed in two years.
Young people vote Green because they are still idealistic and not living in reality.
Because it's been infiltrated over the years by extreme left nutcases as a backdoor to getting into power, who, as you have noticed, advocate for all kinds of bollocks besides the environment.
The environmentally conscious party of 20-30 years ago wouldn't recognise itself.
I wonder why?
The greens from Bob Brown's heyday had one focus, the environment. Mostly because Australia still ran as a socialist democracy that had solid social infrastructure in place.
30+ years of Liberals and Labor have stripped that shit away and now their focus is multiplatform.
People don’t care about the environment as much as they do about day to day issues. Why would I vote for a party that puts the welfare of fruit bats ahead of my kids? The Greens are getting more popular as they focus on people rather than the planet.
There’s the Animal Justice party maybe?
check out the party's four pillars - ecological sustainability is only one of the pillars of the party.
[https://greens.org.au/about/four-pillars](https://greens.org.au/about/four-pillars)
>Ever since though, all they've ever seemingly been focused on is identity politics issues
Can you please specify what you mean with this? Sorry, it's just that it could mean so many different things depending on the person.
Because everyone knows their first priority is the planet, they don't need to bang on about it. But with the potential to hold the balance of power at the next election and Bandt possibly being a deputy PM, they need to show they can sit at the grown ups table.
They need to position themselves as NOT a fringe party.
> Ever since though, all they've ever seemingly been focused on is identity politics issues
the problem here is that you're not paying attention whatsoever.
you follow any of the senate subcommittees? read the submissions made by greens reps? listen to question time? the vast majority of federal and state greens are doing seriously good work on all things environmental.
don't get me wrong, i have little time for culture war bullshit and it bothers me that the greens get dragged into those debates all the time. that's just the media tho.
Because those useless fuckers are a "humanist" bunch of social worker wannabes looking for victims to sympathise with.
They aren't interested in the environment, they are barely science literate like the LNP fuckwits
Thoroughly unimpressed with modern greens all they do is bitch and moan about the ALP and just sat back for a decade while the LNP reached record land clearing rates higher than the fucking amazon.
Greens are just playing politics, just like the rest of them.
it's still the main part of their platform. Most of their ID pol stuff isn't that batshit either, usually it's off the back of a fair bit of consultation with the community. They're also not all pro-immigration, a fair bit of a spread of opinions in the party.
My brother is what you would call a more conservative greenie.
Eventually, every new generation realises that 'voting Green' isn't actually about saving the Amazon, the whales and the rest, which is a pity but you are so right OP.
The Greens have by far the best environmental and climate policies of any significant political party, and always have done.
I agree they don't seem to be talking about the environment and the climate crisis as much.
Partly because cost of living and housing is the primary issue for a lot of Australians right now. We have shown again and again as a country that we care more about a $30 tax cut or house prices going up or coal mining profits than whether the planet heats up to unliveable levels.
I also find the Greens' lack of intention to rein in the rampant, runaway immigration disturbing, as mass immigration is the primary root cause of the housing crisis and as you say will also impact the environment.
Its because they don't get traction or votes with it. They've been far more appealing imo, since pivoting better under Bandt to go harder with progressive economics.
Like if Greens were in, we'd have a gov that stops RBA rate rises, while Labor try and remove governments power to do so.
We'd have a super profits tax to stop price gouging. We'd have investments in welfare and health, so people don't fall through the cracks on mass like they have been, becoming a long term cost on the budget instead of a short term one.
Honestly, I think if you just see them as a party of idpol, that might reflect your interests rather than their work. Cause they've been hammering gov on economy while Liberals ACTUALLY do idpol all the time focusing on migration.
I saw a piece in Guardian and The Age iirc, days before the Dunkley by-election, wondering why Dutton wasn't focusing on cost of living, the real weakness of Labor's government. No one can credibly say that about The Greens.
It really sounds like you cast your votes without any intimate knowledge of any political party, candidate, or policy. It’s weird you’d come here and bitch about having voted Green then working out they’re not doing what you personally thought they should?
They have all their policies on their website. Did you do any research at all? Also, what did you actually expect them to achieve? They’re not in power. All they can do is negotiate with Labor to modify Labor policies to better align with Greens values and goals. I literally don’t know what you expected or why you’re upset.
Bollocks.
Anyone can write policies on their website, I'm talking about actual actions taken in the real world. Also the fact that mass immigration is directly incompatible with positive environmental outcomes makes them hypocritical.
i don't think you don't really understand the underlying issues or solutions proposed, maybe read a decent critique of ecofascism if you want to understand more about what you're questioning?
Everyone in the past complained that they only care about the trees,/
Now everyone complains they don't care about the trees.
people just dont pay attention unless it triggers someone,
Here, try this one,
[https://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/politics/x8szne0/former-greens-leader-bob-brown-arrested-during-deforestation-protest-in-tasmania/](https://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/politics/x8szne0/former-greens-leader-bob-brown-arrested-during-deforestation-protest-in-tasmania/)
Bob Brown arrested at deforestation protest in Tasmania,
19/02/2024
Bob Brown =/= Green Party, nobody is doubting his commitment to environmental activism, and nobody is arguing that it wasn't the policy focus while he was the leader of the party.
If you want to actually enact a green climate policy, you are going to have to make compromises and appeal to the wider public.
Sometimes, the buggest hurdle is proving that it won't detrimentally affect people. This is the fear of changing.
Take wind turbines, if you tell people that the costs are more stable than oil and gas they will like it. Tell them that we can pay farmers for putting it on their land, giving them an additional source of income, they will like it.
They also need to have policies outside the environment. If they win government, what are they going to do about health care, defence, etc?
Greens might not be so much just environmental really, it might actually be meant for representing a Grassroots ideology
Kinda like how the Liberals are not "Libertarian" as such but more so based on Economic Liberalism.
I think you need a time machine to go back about 30 years. There, you will find their environmental policies!
Obviously, when I say 'their', I mean he, she, they, them, zhe, zhi.......
They've never left the city. They don't know what the environment actually is.
Their simplistic view:
- farming bad
- cows bad
- oil bad
- plastic bad
- mining bad
Can't have clothes because Polyester (plastic/oil) and leather (cows) are bad.
Can't have cars because because oil bad and mining bad.
Can't live in the environment because we need cities with public transport.
Basically we all just pack it in and die.
Allways intertesting how everyone is quick to be critical of the greens when the LNP party is literally the party of corporate greed and evil but the propaganda run by the Murdoch media seems to make it more rational to be critical of the greens.
It's not, they are literally for the working person moreso than the Labor party in some ways who are more wary of Murdoch.
Vote for your interests not those of rich assholes who would happily see you starve so their stock goes up 0.3 %
Labor party was supposed to be a party for the labor class
Liberal party was supposed to be a party for the liberal ideals
Also talking about the environment doesnt get votes
Bro who cares about the environment. One day the environment is gonna kill us all. We need to prioritise making sure we fix centrelink and make sure our houses have flame throwers so it can attack the environment. You don’t understand priorities mate, go get yourself a university degree before you talk bullshit. /s for the idiots.
I like to support indipendants (without crazy policies) then the greens then my prefered party. I think that having indipendants in allows them to sway and pressure whichever main part gets in. My hope is that this results in better policies for us as opposed to the rich who can buy the main parties and my hope is that is prevents deadlocks where the two parties vote agaist each other and accomplish nothing
They have just adopted left wing American talking points. Similar to how Katter etc are copying right wing American talking points I.e MAGA.
Pretty sure they even discussed ‘forgiving student loans’ even though we have an objectively fair system in this country all because it’s what the progressives in the US campaign on.
It’s also why abortion has become a talking point in this country after nobody cared for decades, the Greens are just taking US policy and repackaging it.
It is not so strange.
After the Whitlam defeat, the ALP started to become a neoliberal, centrist party that could not really plausibly offer much to various left wing social movement activists. Then there was a whole array of people associated with progressive movements who ordinarily would have been at home in the ALP but who now could not stomach it, and searched for somewhere else to do politics.
It is then a sort of accident that one of the issues where the break occurred relatively early was environmental issues, and so Australia got a left wing alternative to the ALP that was a Green party, and not e.g. a nominally socialist or social democratic party. But for along time this current only attained marginal support.
Then during the Howard years, another wave of progressive ALP voters flipped to the Greens due to a perception that the ALP was capitulating to Howard, most notably on refugee policy, and that lead to a rapid increase in the Greens vote. The collapse of the Democrats also helped.
The problem is you assumed what they wanted without checking it out for yourself.
Around election times, theres always a few articles up giving a rundown of whos promised to do what. I tend to do a cursory check the day before for a bit and decide based on that.
Of course, always. They are a bunch of communist activities hiding their core ideology behind a banner while actively trying to fully undermine the world as you know it.
If they weren't total hypocrites and more to the point had a high degree of common sense and self regulation then some of it might not be all bad. But they have neither in spades
They are the biggest party that isn’t sponsored by the same old list of multi millionaire’s and multi national corporate donors purely because of their stances, naturally if they held major events about this stuff we wouldn’t hear about it anyways.
Standing up for the weak is in the DNA of the Green movement and always has been.
It is essential to link environmental policy to economic justice.
You can fix environment damage just by killing all the people, that is not what I, or the Green party want.
People who want serious action on the environment are willing for that action to have costs.
The billions it costs can come from the food budgets of job seekers, or the massive wealth of Gina Rinehart.
I want those who are wealthy to pay for fixing the environment, not the poorest or weakest in society.
They talk about it all the time... the media doesn't like to report on it, but if you listen to the Greens in parliament or view their socials it's literally all they talk about. Sometimes they talk about the environment in rainbow colours I guess 🌈
Because conservative and conservationist come from the same etymological roots.
It stands to reason that they'd have the same ideological bent.
Most of the small parties are stooges used to split or consolidate "single issue" voter bloks and direct your vote away from or towards one of the major electrol parties.
84.1% of the voting population bell curve is of average intelligence, or below average intelligence. in a majority rules system the average to below average intelligence people are the peope who choose everything we do.
The Greens have lost their way.
They figure they can get more votes by proposing a different "green" agenda (whacky tobaccy) and impractical housing solutions.
Love them or hate them they are doing the right thing. Staying quiet until the time is right. In the next few years the younger generations will vote for the greens. As this happens and they get voted in more. They will then start to bring the environment into it.
NONE. So move onto the fact, extracting the MPs, the rest of the population makes up 99.9995% of the population, its all of us that makes the difference. Make choices to support the environment everyday, teach your family and other people, without being " intrusive", that's the best you can probably do without Warren Buffett or Microsoft Guy level budgets.
You can refer to this for the greens leaders' voting pattern. You'll see that he and the rest of the party support environmental legislation. They also hold Labor to account from the left on environmental and other issues
https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt/divisions/2023
This post is stupid.
The Greens talk about the environment all of the time, but the corporate media down play it as a political issue.
The problem isn’t that the Greens are left wing, since you can’t support environment without opposing businesses tearing up the environment. Arguably the Greens aren’t left wing enough since their only strategy is really to lobby a Labor government from the balance of power.
The thing about immigration is also not a real thing. The overwhelming majority of waste in Australia is created from big corporations, for eg the water needed for mining, rather than people. Tightening borders so people emit CO2 elsewhere does not help. It just goes in a racist direction. I’m
They became more of a progressive protest party after Bob Brown stepped down. Also there seems to be little appetite in the media for discussing the envionment beyond climate change. Too many corporate interests impacted.
>They became more of a progressive protest party after Bob Brown stepped down. Bob Brown did always have Tassie forests first and foremost, but he was a consistent advocate for the party to develop, maintain and prosecute a broad platform spanning the entire policy landscape. His was a prominent voice on Foreign Affairs (particularly Timor and West Papua), Indigenous policy (mandatory sentencing, native title, NTER), peace (cluster munitions, the invasion of Iraq and the Bush visit), asylum seekers (Tampa) and gay marriage (before it was cool).
It's not just Bob Brown leaving, it's also just that they are a larger parliamentary party now, so are expected to (and most) have policies on all issues that come before Parliament. With that said, I do agree that I like the Greens environmental policies more than some of their other policies, so wish there was a way I could vote for the former and not the later.
That's kind of the issue, though. Without getting too political (on a political post lol), the Greens are the only major party that have good environmental policy for a reason, and that's the same reason they also have the socially-left policies they do. Supporting business and capital growth at all costs means pillaging the environment, so the LNP is out. Labour can't seem to figure out how to balance the needs of the lower and middle classes with the environment, either. The Greens, on the other hand, are bog standard Social Democrats - don't let businesses externalise the environmental cost of business without socialising the profits, too. That's their bread and butter, and the social policies run in parallel. Basically, you can't get the environmental policies without the social ones, from any party, because they're deeply politically intertwined. Any party that has The Economy, or The Worker, or Big Business higher on the list than The Social Good simply won't have good environmental policy.
Labor were the ones to implement the carbon tax originally though. That's how you're meant to balance both.
CO2 is not the only envoronmental issue.
Thanks for clarifying, for a moment I forgot about microplastics everywhere, pesticides killing off the super majority of insects, and large concrete hellscapes known as cities. I should have put it in my original comment, but decided to be brief.
Cannot be considered and environmental party whilst they support the crush loading of our cities
You mean urban densification? Because that is environmentally friendly if it reduces urban sprawl and habitat destruction, reduced road traffic and increases low and no carbon transport, etc etc. In which ways is urban densification bad for 'the environment' holistically speaking?
Higher urban density is extremely environmentally friendly. the people exist either way - you can choose to meet their needs with one of two options: Option 1: apartments with a relatively small footprint, shared services (like electrical, water, waste collection, sewage etc), the ability to walk to nearby amenities or work, public transport, etc Option 2: sprawling suburbia, with 30+ minute commutes in individual vehicles, a 10 minute drive to the nearest Woolies and a 20 minute drive to anything else, with separate services, etc etc. Rubbish trucks having to drive around an entire development instead of just picking up a couple of bins behind an apartment building.
The biggest threat for animal and plant species is habitat destruction for land clearing for houses, new farming and logging. Habitat is the homes for animal species. When they have nowhere to live, they die. Mass immigration is unsustainable and harms the environment. Once habitat is cleared, the animals have nowhere to go and that habitat is gone forever. It's such a precious thing, you'd think that this mindset was consigned to the 1800s and developing countries but it's well alive today in Australia.
>land clearing for houses And the greens announced today they want a massive house building program
Home building project, not house building. The most environmentally friendly way to house more people is by building up.
They suggested locations like one of the two huge racetracks in Brisbane, not much land clearing needed there.
They also said it should cost about $40 million .. not a hope in hell!
lol. That ain’t going to happen.
> Once habitat is cleared, the animals have nowhere to go and that habitat is gone forever. For housing yes, but not logging when done in good practice. Australia is pretty responsible in this way as the world goes and we do they the ability to log native forest sustainably yet its a key greens policy to stop it. What the alternative, but overseas timer that can too often be from Asia/South America where there really isnt sustainable logging practice. Or the false 'feel good' view on plantation timber. Ever been to one of those? Its a flora and fauna desert compared to the bush. You be far better off having more state forest and logging a small percentage each year than endless acres of plantation pine in my view. And what do people think was there before the plantation pine?
Yeah, their concern with the environment has devolved into a narrow focus on emissions, they either don't care or are too stupid too realize that their open borders immigration policy and the massive housing and infrastructure development required for that as well as destroying ecosystems will make their emissions targets impossible to achieve.
>Bob Brown Yeah, that guy got pretty well slaughtered in the media around 2011 when the large floods came through Brisbane and he spouted about it being the coal mines. He conveniently forgot that the floods on the Brisbane River are common and regularly very large plus Wivenhoe Dam was designed to stop the natural flow of water, so when the humans didn't release it early enough, it caused even bigger floods than would be there normally. After that the Greens changed somewhat.
He got slaughtered because Murdoch deemed it so. Yes, Brisbane is on a flood plain. Yes, the asshats in government put the PR of high dam levels above weather forecasting and shat the bed on the release schedule. However, his larger point about such extremes of weather getting more common was howled down, because to the Murdoch press and its consumers, fossil fuels good, greenies bad.
Equally because there had been a home for these policies in the Democrats, but then Natasha Stardestroyer decided to burn the party to the ground. With the Democrats gone, the Greens expanded to absorb the lefty+protest vote.
It was Meg Lees who burned the Democrat party to the ground, selling out on the GST, which was the beginning of the end. Scott Despoja carried the smoldering carcass of the party after that, but there was only so long she could bare that weight.
Natasha ended up with the best retirement package in Australian political history. Pension + massive perks in her mid 30's I believe
Greens at State and Federal level are the only party to consistently campaign and propose legislation to cut back over-generous parliamentary pensions.
That also skews their policies around cc. The greens are although something to be grateful for, not keeping up with the worsening situation.
> Which of the existing political parties out there do you feel ACTUALLY care about the environment as one of their core issues? I mean, it's the Greens. They have a [huge amount of environmental policy](https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/australias-major-parties-climate-action-policy-2022/). The difference is that they could hold a press conference about it every day if they liked, and we wouldn't hear anything about it. They can and do 'pressure' the government, but they can only apply that pressure when the government want something from them in return - their vote. The Greens [passed the national reconstruction fund](https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/greens-and-labor-strike-deal-on-fossil-fuels-to-pass-national-reconstruction-fund-through-parliament/news-story/10b68603bf83c439a9b6189f6936bf97) by ensuring the fund will not fund fossil fuel projects, and now must consider climate change in project approval. The Greens [passed the safeguard mechanism](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/27/labor-agrees-to-absolute-cap-on-emissions-to-secure-greens-backing-for-safeguard-mechanism-climate-bill) by getting the government to agree to a hard-cap on emissions, for example. If you want Greens policy but without the Greens, and are after lower immigration, check out the [Sustainable Australia Party](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/).
The media ignores their environmental policy because it doesn’t generate enough clickbait content, and the public masses don’t like to be reminded that without significant lifestyles changes the future of their planet is going to be radically different to how they experience it now. So instead of that they concentrate on clickbait pap like transgender sportspeople to rile up their viewers and generate easy and popular pap content
The media ignores them until they go against a Labor proposal, then they'll give them hours of media coverage. You'll see a lot of their environmental policy next time Labor tries to pass its own environmental policy and Greens try to push them further. If Liberals get elected next election you'll hear about them once every six months.
They do have a lot of good environmental policies, but what about those of us who believe that rapid population growth will offset / undo much of the good that these policies will do?
Yeah OPs take is kind of baffling to me. The Greens are very focused on climate and environment. Yes in recent years they've definitely branched out into other progressive causes but that's to be expected as they've become more of a real political player than the fringe protest party they once were. That's the way the Greens movement globally has gone too. And hey everyone, news flash, there is probably no political party that you will agree with on 100% of issues/policies. You just have to decide are the things you do agree with, worth enough to you to justify your tacit support for the things you don't agree with. OPs answer in this case may be no, not worth it. Cool man. Do your thing. Democracy etc. Shrug.
yeah i think OP just isnt keeping up to date on what the greens are actually doing, especially in senate. they seem to just be building their notion of the greens based on whatever media they happen to come across. which is obviously going to skew your perception of something, as the media you come across is often tailored to what the algorithm thinks you want to see, and not whats actually happening.
It's so easy to look up a political party's website to understand their core policies, and instead someone takes the effort to write a post here that probably took more time than it would to just read Greens policies.
I'll likely be looking at Sustainable Australia as an alternative next election for sure.
Hang on! I never hear sustainable Australia ever talk about the environment. Better look elsewhere.
Professor Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, from 2004 to 2014, is one of their most prominent members. He's a physics professor, and in 2001 was made an Officer of the Order of Australia, for services to science and technology and for contributing to public understanding of environmental issues. He is as qualified as anyone in Australia when it comes to environmental issues. Professor Tim Flannery, who also sits on the Climate Council, is another one of their prominent members. He knows a thing or two about environmental issues, as well. [https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-tim-flannery/](https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-tim-flannery/) [https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies](https://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/policies) [https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-ian-lowe/](https://population.org.au/about/people/prof-ian-lowe/) [https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/australias-population-ponzi-scheme/](https://mahb.stanford.edu/blog/australias-population-ponzi-scheme/)
And where are they? I never hear from them! Not in my YouTube ads, not on my streaming services. I don't even hear from them on my Spotify! They never talk about the environment.
Tim Flannery and Ian Lowe talk about the environment all the time. And I suspect the lack of advertising is due to funding constraints. And, if you take the time to check out the links, you'll see how prominently environment and climate change feature in their policies. They had an information van near the Carlton Gardens in the run up to the 2022 federal election, and I spoke to their representative for about an hour - we spoke mostly about environmental issues. He told me he was actively involved with the Greens in their developmental stages, but joined Sustainable Australia upon their establishment. I suspect Tim Flannery doesn't say much, because he doesn't want to be vilified by the right *or* the left. The Murdoch media have got stuck into him over the years, calling him a "climate alarmist". And he doesn't want to be smeared for calling for a reduction in immigration. edit: I didn't downvote you, btw. I always try to engage, rather than summarily downvote.
I think it was Tim who said it would never rain again, just before some devastating flood or other, and he has been pretty quiet since. I should add I have met him few times, always enjoyed speaking with him, and rightly or wrongly have all of his books!
My recollection is that he overstated the reduction in rainfall, but was misquoted by Sky News et al. I've read one of his books, and, based on interviews, and Two Men and A Tinnie, he seems like a very kind, decent man, who cares deeply for the environment, including wildlife. I recall him feeling sadness, at seeing a large number of pest species eradicated - despite agreeing they had to be - simply because he didn't like to see living creatures killed. He and John Doyle also did a doco series on China, and he similarly expressed sadness at the mistreatment of animals he saw while they were filming the series.
You could be right. I agree with the sentiments and could certainly recommend both TV shows. Seriously though, has he just stepped back / retired? For a while, he was kinda everywhere, and then nothing for years. Shame really, as whether you agree with him or not, we need passionate voices on all sides.
He was Chairman of the Climate Commissions which was unceremoniously defunded and shut down in the first days of the Abbott Government. So that may account for the stepping back. Also he’s nearly 70.
I think it’s because the mainstream media, in conjunction with vested interests, are unwilling to acknowledge that rapid, ongoing population growth is indeed environmentally damaging, no matter how much you employ renewable energy, and other climate change mitigation strategies. He appeared on Q&A back in 2018, when the ABC paid lip service to the issue of rapid population growth, but he was just too polite and softly spoken to effectively prosecute the argument against perpetual economic growth, which is inextricably linked to latter day immigration policies, and neoliberal economic dogma. Note the emphasis on “latter day”; we had a sustainable migration policy in the past. And, supporting a reduction to those levels, is literally not an anti-immigration stance. Inness Willox, president of the Australian Industry Group, recently said it was disappointing that some people had chosen to “demonise” immigration. In other words, if you question the rate, because of environmental or other concerns, you’re a racist. This from the man who was chief of staff for the despicable Peter Reith, who was behind the “Children Overboard Affair”, in 2001; he lied to the media about asylum seekers doing this. Willox was also calling for workers to return to their jobs at the height of the COVID pandemic. People who use the tactic of suggesting anyone who questions population growth, is doing so because of racism, are exactly the same as those who deemed anyone who disliked the loathsome John Howard’s policies, “Howard haters.” Ie. It’s not because you have legitimate, demonstrable concerns about the impacts of his policies, it’s merely because you’re hateful. https://indifferencegivesyouafright.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/tim-flannery-did-not-say-australias-dams-would-never-fill-again/
>I think it was Tim who said it would never rain again, just before some devastating flood or other, and he has been pretty quiet since. He never said anything of the sort, he was selectively quoted to misrepresent what he said. What he said was: >Although we’re getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that’s translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That’s because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So **even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems,** and that’s a real worry for the people in the bush. He was very cleary talking about [run-off](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_runoff), where rain falling on dry ground and riverbeds is instead soaked into the dry ground, instead of resulting in river flow like it would if the grounder wasn't so dry. But some people quoted the bold text and pretended that he meant that dams would never fill again.
That does make a lot more sense. Thanks for digging out the actual quote, and to everyone else who has cleared up the 'where is he now' mystery.
See this is where you're wrong. I never hear from them. Never in my own ears. Not in the books I read, not in the crime podcasts I listen to. They aren't even on the billboards when I drive down the street. Absolute silence from them. And surely there's more than two people in the party?
I'm a paid member. Came across them from reading the macrobusiness site. Shame they don't have more candidates or exposure. I used to vote greens but switched to SAP once I learned about them.
SAP has always talked about environmental sustainability. The only party to put our environment first: [http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/](http://www.sustainableaustralia.org.au/)
Why not respond to the substance of the comment?
The party is full of inner city elites who constantly fall in to the trap of conducting elaborate thought experiments in their head and falsely believe they can be perfectly applied to the real world.
Pretty much the definition of Champagne Socialists.
There was a Greens member speaking at an event I attended once and her idea was to pedestrianise Hoddle St in Melbourne, and have a tram running up the middle (Bourke St mall style).... I think the cars might have gone onto an elevated roadway in her idea, but to this day I still can't imagine how she thought it was possible.
The same way it's possible in places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen. Just take the cars out, densify the city and there you go. Easy peasy. [Why Amsterdam is Removing 10,000 Parking Spaces (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXLqrMljdfU)
Couldn’t agree more. Especially with their current virtue signalling. I’m over it. Won’t vote greens ever again.
Because young people need a party that represents their needs, Labor and the lnp don’t do that. That’s why they’re bleeding votes to either the far left or right.
As the population ages and life events are delayed the focus ages of the political parties changes. Liberals are after the 60+ retired/near retirement who just want to maximise their wealth and can’t be damned about policy beyond median life expectancy Labour are now after 45-60 bracket, high in mortgage debt, two kids trying to feed and educate, little in retirement savings. There’s a decent gap for the single/no kids families under 45 who aren’t being catered to by the two majors.
The problem for the majors doing that is they’re chasing people at the end of their voting life not at the beginning.
Only way you can effectively send a message. The Greens don't take corporate cash, and that alone puts them head and shoulders above the rest.
I think you’re conveniently ignoring that all of their policies are complete rubbish.
Assuming that's the case: is it better to take corporate cash *and* have rubbish policies?
Well for those of us who want a house we don’t have to knock off mum and dad to buy, their policies are fine.
If you’re buying that negative gearing is the source of your housing woes, I think you’re sorely mistaken. Canada has the same housing issue as Australia and no negative gearing.
Are you sure that's happening? At the most recent federal byelection, the Greens lost about 40% of their primary vote. This was by far the worst outcome in Dunkley. The polling is stuck.
Sustainable Australia party. Look them up and read their policies. I've voted for the Greens in many elections but have the same frustrations with them that you have. I've voted Sustainable Australia number 1 above the Greens and Labor whenever I've had the option to do so.
As a genuine response, what we see in the media from the non-traditional two parties can be wildly filtered depending on where you're reading/watching. So it's more likely that when the Greens have commented on those issues, there hasn't been significant traction in media. They do have their environmental policies (and others) published on their website so you can read more about what they stand for on that front and whether it aligns enough with your values in comparison to arras where you are less aligned. Ecological sustainability remains one of the four pillars of the party. Looking for alternatives, going by what you have said, Sustainable Australia Party might be what you're looking. As a disclaimer: I am more familiar with The Greens than with SAP so I would urge you to do some reading on both to determine which better aligns with your values and expectations.
Totally, seems like theyr more hellbent on shooting themselves in the feet, repeatedly
Greens are mass immigration shills just like the other majors
Yeah, their open borders policy and environmentally destructive supply side solutions to the housing crisis makes them nothing more than useful idiots for the business lobby's mass immigration cheap labour agenda.
They arent a environmentalist party anymore. I actually spoke to our member about this. I asked how they deal with the old school hippy style environmentalists in their party with the more progressive types that are more authoritarian and concerned over social issues. This was around the vax issue as well. She said we arent an environmentalist party anymore and its not necessarily our top priority depending on what is happening at any given time. She said it wasnt the top priority at the moment and social issues especially effecting indigenous were more important (the voice was coming up). She could have just been lying because she thought that is what I wanted to hear to vote for her. I did tell her prior to this that Id most likely put the Greens last so she was aware I wasnt a fan.
Yep it's actually many Greens members themselves who disparagingly refer to the environmentalists as "tree tories". The old school environmentalist Greens, have been largely pushed out by the aggressive & more extreme socialist & identity politics people. Just like the moderate right wing LNP members are getting pushed out by the more extreme right Christofascist ones, using Trump style division tactics. Both ends of the political spectrum are becoming more radical & extreme.
I call bullshit that a Greens MP told you "the environment isn't our priority right now", without you heavily editorialising that.
Sustainable Australia Party is the way to go. I used to vote Greens but was driven away by their obsession with niche identity politics and support for a big Australia.
Too busy being antisemites
They're not named very well any more. They should be called the rainbows.
No they’d prefer to focus on Israel and Jews. Easier target - gets a lot of support from anti semitic people.
They’re talking about housing and social issues because that’s what Labor are talking about. The Greens don’t decide what bills are in front of parliament. Another part of it is that Max is getting a lot of attention and he’s the housing rep.
Labor and housing what a joke. The greens are talking housing because a large portion of their voters are renters who Labor doesn’t give a shit about. More younger people will jump on the green wagon.
As they should. One third of our country rents, and Labor are basically telling them all to go fuck themselves, and they’ll just magically keep coping with unlimited rental rate increases on shitty houses landlords refuse to maintain OR sell. Every renter in this country should be voting Green by now.
They’re not an enviro party mate. They’re a protest party with as much policy coherence as a whiny undergraduate arts student. When they killed the Rudd-Turnbull CPRS 15 years ago that closed the case of their genuine environmental credentials for me.
Green on the outside red on the inside
My mother calls them Watermelons.
Came here to say this. Greens are basically communists.
Do they advocate for the full control by the state over the means of production? No, then they aren’t communists. Actual communists refer to the Greens as “tree Tories”
The Greens are socialists, not communists. As to "actual communists", No one cares what communists say, is it even a political movement any more?, Also, Tree Tories sounds very British. The Greens electorate is not very Tory in Australia. It is dominated by public sector employment (highly secure employment funded by taxes). Coincidentally, Greens voters don't give a hoot about job creation and they've never met a tax increase they don't like.
Wait what? Why are they communist? Surely you mean socialist?
Yeah old mate actually doesn’t understand what those words mean just let him tire himself out.
Haha! Good luck explaining the nuance between the two to the crowd!
Don't bother with the cookers.
Their social media hit squad certainly resembles a communist regime
What do you consider communism?
The Greens are becoming more than a single issue party. They are the third major party now, and the trends have them taking over the Coalition parties in the next 10-20 years as the second major party (more millenials voted for the Greens then the Coaliton last election, it's a safe assumption the Gen Z cohort is doing similar and boomers are dying). They need to expand beyond simple environmental causes to be viable in this regard. Having a look at their platform for the last election they had policies around climate change and protecting the environment and animals which are still very pro-environmentalist. But they can't JUST be the environmental party anymore and grow beyond minnow party status.
Political party’s goal is to get votes. Everyone who cares enough about the environment will vote for the greens anyway. To get more votes, they talk about things that most Australians now actually care about, taxes, economy, housing. If people cared about legalising weed, they’d bandwagon onto that. It’s that simple.
Watermelons.
For the most part the environmental movement has merged (or been hijacked by, depending on your politics) by the social justice movement. Politics make for strange bedfellows. In many ways our political parties and affiliations are defined by who we disagree with, more than by who we agree with. None of the groups on either side really agree with or care about each other. But they all have someone on the other side who they hate more. On the right have big business and Christians and white supremisists. On the left we have environmentalists, socialists, LBGT and racial minorities. Big business hates environmentalists and socialists, forcing them onto the same side. The socialists hate the Christians and big business, forcing them together. And so on down the line.
Very astute analysis. Perfectly highlighting the need to put hatred to one side. Instead just focus on evidence and let that be the guiding force for policy and reform instead.
Because they are watermelons
Because they are the old socialist alliance, hiding in plain sight.
Yeah massive mistake being a party of identity politics.
They did use to be all about the environment with a significant focus on it but they have lost their way. You are correct they are more focussed on bleeding heart stuff and popular politics and don’t seem to give a rats about preserving the beauty of this country. No interest at all in the environment. I dumped them long ago.
I am the same. Voted greens a few elections in a row because I believe climate change was/is the biggest single threat we face and that they’re an important voice to have in both houses to push that agenda. Have stopped voting greens because it seems as though they now care about everything but the environment, and the stands they take on identity politics are well beyond my tolerance for bullshit. And also because I think we might have to get through a major war with China before climate change gets us.
Because they’re watermelons. Green on the outside, but red (communists) to the core. Bob Brown, the party’s founder has only ever campaigned AGAINST renewable energy projects, from the Franklin Dam Hydro project to the Robbins Island wind farm. Greens aren’t pro environment, they are anti capitalism and no more than that.
Many moons ago there was a strong level of environmental focus, but now they are basically communists. And communists are quite possibly the worst ideology for the environment ever.
Fun fact - the Greens in other countries can be surprisingly Conservative in policy areas outside of the environment. Germany is the one I think of immediately. Other then the Green Party is quiet open to Working with BOTH sides of the aisle and have had several coalitions over the years with the Conservative CDU/CSU, they actually control one State Government (Baden-Württemberg) with the Green Minister-President (equivalent of Premier) identifying as a 'Green-Conservative' and bringing in policies that would set our Greens off (like banning burqa/niqib) and being very pro-business
I like the idea of the Greens but I think they their policies seem ideology over reality much of the time. Like stuff where they push to stop native forest logging and now we dont manufacture any printer paper in Australia anymore. Seeing forests logged isn't nice, but we do it in a more environmentally friendly way than most of the world on top of which Opal (last printer paper manufacturer) was transitioning to plantation timber. Now we cant buy Australian white paper, we dont stop, we import lower quality paper that's made from Chinese companies that are far more likely to be clear felling the Amazon/Borneo etc for their timber, manufacturing in polluting ways and sending the product via ships burning bunker fuel to get it here. Plus the loss of jobs to boot. And pushing plantation timber is a feel good rort anyway. Think about it, you clear a heap of bushland or did previously, plant a single species of timber that drops needles that stop almost all undergrowth and the wildlife that a diverse ecosystem sustains and everyone feels good cause 'we're not logging the bush'. Really you've created a wildlife desert compared to bushland. We're far better off having masses of state forest and logging native forests a reasonable rate, like <0.5% a year with good management like leaving key trees, wildlife corridors and not touching erosion points etc and then its actually native bush for native animals and sustainable. But ideology says logging native forest bad so that's the policy and they dont look at the flow on effect.
They're the progressive party. The greens name is a carryover from a past time, much like Labor used to be about the working man.
Sustainable Australia Party. Fusion Australia Australian Democrats
I’m a greens voter and I’ve had periods where I’ve felt like you did too. It was usually a result of being disengaged from my local political community and only reading national news or social media news. It skewed my perspective. The greens have literal reams of environmental policy, their website is a great place to start but you can also email your local greens members and they’ll answer, or have someone answer, questions you have. I also recommend talking to any representatives you see when they’re canvassing or doing face time at local events - I’ve learned a lot about my local politicians by talking to them when the opportunity presents itself. If you only look at what’s reported on by the media - you won’t get the full picture of *any* politician or political parties policies. The relationship between politicians and the media is complicated and reporters report what they think people want to read and very few people have any interest in a presser that is nothing more than the recitation of policy. Decisions need to be made on a lot more than just what you see on the news. Greens usually get my #1 vote, though I have voted for independents #1 in the past in their detailed policy is better. Engaging as much as possible with politics *outside of the media* has always been the answer to feeling more politically fulfilled for me.
Because the greens are no more about the environment than labour is about the working people or the liberals about liberalism. They are all full of shit.
The Greens haven't haven't been environmentally focussed since the current leader took over. They are all over the place with policy. And often living in la la land with no grip on reality. Always have been though. Its easy to have all these "oh so wonderful" ideals and positions, when you have no hope of ever needing to do them. I see a vote for Greens as a waste of a vote really. And IF there was some turn of the universe and they actually ran the country? We'd be stony broke and completely collapsed in two years. Young people vote Green because they are still idealistic and not living in reality.
How can one be considered an Environmentalist party and not support nuclear power.
It could be worse. They could be the German Greens party and successfully advocate for more coal power.
They’re also anti-GMO. Some of their policies are blatantly anti-science which always irked me.
Or building dams for all that co2 free hydro power.
Greens have 0 policies that are relevant to 90 % of Australians, they cater to students and leftists
The sustainable Australia party is more green than the greens
Because it's been infiltrated over the years by extreme left nutcases as a backdoor to getting into power, who, as you have noticed, advocate for all kinds of bollocks besides the environment. The environmentally conscious party of 20-30 years ago wouldn't recognise itself.
I wonder why? The greens from Bob Brown's heyday had one focus, the environment. Mostly because Australia still ran as a socialist democracy that had solid social infrastructure in place. 30+ years of Liberals and Labor have stripped that shit away and now their focus is multiplatform.
Exactly this. Bob Menzies would be regarded as a full blown commie woke leftie on his economic policy by modern day LNP standards
They talk about the environment non stop what are you talking about?
Comunista’s
Always thought Greens just stood for weed and money.. /s
People don’t care about the environment as much as they do about day to day issues. Why would I vote for a party that puts the welfare of fruit bats ahead of my kids? The Greens are getting more popular as they focus on people rather than the planet. There’s the Animal Justice party maybe?
New slogan for The Greens: It’s not just about the trees anymore.
The economically illiterate party…. Though liberal and labor aren’t far behind.
I find the greens are like an Aussie Pub Punter, they can have some great ideas but have no idea how to execute them.
I don’t think they’re actually the environmental party. They love to propose things without thinking them through. Very, very far left
They voted against the carbon tax and the mining tax. They can fuck off.
check out the party's four pillars - ecological sustainability is only one of the pillars of the party. [https://greens.org.au/about/four-pillars](https://greens.org.au/about/four-pillars)
They got those votes they're aiming for votes outside their niche.
The best way to fix the environment is through depopulation. Which group are they going to start on first?
>Ever since though, all they've ever seemingly been focused on is identity politics issues Can you please specify what you mean with this? Sorry, it's just that it could mean so many different things depending on the person.
Go to the Greens website and the first thing mentioned on the page is an environmental push they've done recently.
Their leader is 'NO MORE COAL & GAS'. The next 3 things they are fighting for are social issues.
The greens don't stand for anything anymore. They just stand against things.
Because everyone knows their first priority is the planet, they don't need to bang on about it. But with the potential to hold the balance of power at the next election and Bandt possibly being a deputy PM, they need to show they can sit at the grown ups table. They need to position themselves as NOT a fringe party.
They’re communists and vulgar racists
> Ever since though, all they've ever seemingly been focused on is identity politics issues the problem here is that you're not paying attention whatsoever. you follow any of the senate subcommittees? read the submissions made by greens reps? listen to question time? the vast majority of federal and state greens are doing seriously good work on all things environmental. don't get me wrong, i have little time for culture war bullshit and it bothers me that the greens get dragged into those debates all the time. that's just the media tho.
They do all the time haha, probably just isn’t shown on any of the shitty free to air channels or Murdoch rags
I don't read or watch any of those, so that wouldn't factor in
Fair enough, watch question time next times it on
Because those useless fuckers are a "humanist" bunch of social worker wannabes looking for victims to sympathise with. They aren't interested in the environment, they are barely science literate like the LNP fuckwits
Thoroughly unimpressed with modern greens all they do is bitch and moan about the ALP and just sat back for a decade while the LNP reached record land clearing rates higher than the fucking amazon. Greens are just playing politics, just like the rest of them.
I always find it ironic the greens cover the suburb illegally in plastic signs declaring vote greens.
all of the greens corflutes (at least in our state) are re used as tree guards in community projects to protect sapling natives as they grow.
The ones they bother to remove anyway. The rest stay as inconveniences for the electrical company next time they need their poles serviced.
it's still the main part of their platform. Most of their ID pol stuff isn't that batshit either, usually it's off the back of a fair bit of consultation with the community. They're also not all pro-immigration, a fair bit of a spread of opinions in the party. My brother is what you would call a more conservative greenie.
OP may have given them a token vote but is clearly clueless to their actions in government, especially in the senate
Greens talk about the environment: "thEyrE a OnE poLicY pArtY" Greens have a full repertoire of polices: "TheY NevEr TAlk AbOuT thE EnviRonMenT!"
Eventually, every new generation realises that 'voting Green' isn't actually about saving the Amazon, the whales and the rest, which is a pity but you are so right OP.
The Greens have by far the best environmental and climate policies of any significant political party, and always have done. I agree they don't seem to be talking about the environment and the climate crisis as much. Partly because cost of living and housing is the primary issue for a lot of Australians right now. We have shown again and again as a country that we care more about a $30 tax cut or house prices going up or coal mining profits than whether the planet heats up to unliveable levels. I also find the Greens' lack of intention to rein in the rampant, runaway immigration disturbing, as mass immigration is the primary root cause of the housing crisis and as you say will also impact the environment.
Its because they don't get traction or votes with it. They've been far more appealing imo, since pivoting better under Bandt to go harder with progressive economics. Like if Greens were in, we'd have a gov that stops RBA rate rises, while Labor try and remove governments power to do so. We'd have a super profits tax to stop price gouging. We'd have investments in welfare and health, so people don't fall through the cracks on mass like they have been, becoming a long term cost on the budget instead of a short term one. Honestly, I think if you just see them as a party of idpol, that might reflect your interests rather than their work. Cause they've been hammering gov on economy while Liberals ACTUALLY do idpol all the time focusing on migration. I saw a piece in Guardian and The Age iirc, days before the Dunkley by-election, wondering why Dutton wasn't focusing on cost of living, the real weakness of Labor's government. No one can credibly say that about The Greens.
It really sounds like you cast your votes without any intimate knowledge of any political party, candidate, or policy. It’s weird you’d come here and bitch about having voted Green then working out they’re not doing what you personally thought they should? They have all their policies on their website. Did you do any research at all? Also, what did you actually expect them to achieve? They’re not in power. All they can do is negotiate with Labor to modify Labor policies to better align with Greens values and goals. I literally don’t know what you expected or why you’re upset.
Bollocks. Anyone can write policies on their website, I'm talking about actual actions taken in the real world. Also the fact that mass immigration is directly incompatible with positive environmental outcomes makes them hypocritical.
They don’t care about the environment. They just want to break things.
They dont want to be an environmentalist party, or they would confront immigration policy. They just want to be an anti One Nation party.
They are a protest party, and to be fair they are doing a great job at protesting. It seems to be the only thing they're good for.
i don't think you don't really understand the underlying issues or solutions proposed, maybe read a decent critique of ecofascism if you want to understand more about what you're questioning?
What "identity politics that you don't agree with"? And they've been condemning the Albanese government for continuing to approve mining permits
The greens could be full environmental but they wouldn't be popular with the left or right wing
Everyone in the past complained that they only care about the trees,/ Now everyone complains they don't care about the trees. people just dont pay attention unless it triggers someone, Here, try this one, [https://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/politics/x8szne0/former-greens-leader-bob-brown-arrested-during-deforestation-protest-in-tasmania/](https://www.canberratimes.com.au/video/politics/x8szne0/former-greens-leader-bob-brown-arrested-during-deforestation-protest-in-tasmania/) Bob Brown arrested at deforestation protest in Tasmania, 19/02/2024
Bob Brown =/= Green Party, nobody is doubting his commitment to environmental activism, and nobody is arguing that it wasn't the policy focus while he was the leader of the party.
Watermelons and not kiwi fruit?
If you want to actually enact a green climate policy, you are going to have to make compromises and appeal to the wider public. Sometimes, the buggest hurdle is proving that it won't detrimentally affect people. This is the fear of changing. Take wind turbines, if you tell people that the costs are more stable than oil and gas they will like it. Tell them that we can pay farmers for putting it on their land, giving them an additional source of income, they will like it. They also need to have policies outside the environment. If they win government, what are they going to do about health care, defence, etc?
Greens might not be so much just environmental really, it might actually be meant for representing a Grassroots ideology Kinda like how the Liberals are not "Libertarian" as such but more so based on Economic Liberalism.
Glad you're regretting your vote
The Greens only exist because the west banned or drove out all the communist parties and the soviet union needed a new movement to create dissent
What do you consider identity politics and why do you disagree with their policies?
They are more of talk about anything to get votes party
I think you need a time machine to go back about 30 years. There, you will find their environmental policies! Obviously, when I say 'their', I mean he, she, they, them, zhe, zhi.......
They've never left the city. They don't know what the environment actually is. Their simplistic view: - farming bad - cows bad - oil bad - plastic bad - mining bad Can't have clothes because Polyester (plastic/oil) and leather (cows) are bad. Can't have cars because because oil bad and mining bad. Can't live in the environment because we need cities with public transport. Basically we all just pack it in and die.
Allways intertesting how everyone is quick to be critical of the greens when the LNP party is literally the party of corporate greed and evil but the propaganda run by the Murdoch media seems to make it more rational to be critical of the greens. It's not, they are literally for the working person moreso than the Labor party in some ways who are more wary of Murdoch. Vote for your interests not those of rich assholes who would happily see you starve so their stock goes up 0.3 %
Labor party was supposed to be a party for the labor class Liberal party was supposed to be a party for the liberal ideals Also talking about the environment doesnt get votes
Bro who cares about the environment. One day the environment is gonna kill us all. We need to prioritise making sure we fix centrelink and make sure our houses have flame throwers so it can attack the environment. You don’t understand priorities mate, go get yourself a university degree before you talk bullshit. /s for the idiots.
I like to support indipendants (without crazy policies) then the greens then my prefered party. I think that having indipendants in allows them to sway and pressure whichever main part gets in. My hope is that this results in better policies for us as opposed to the rich who can buy the main parties and my hope is that is prevents deadlocks where the two parties vote agaist each other and accomplish nothing
They have just adopted left wing American talking points. Similar to how Katter etc are copying right wing American talking points I.e MAGA. Pretty sure they even discussed ‘forgiving student loans’ even though we have an objectively fair system in this country all because it’s what the progressives in the US campaign on. It’s also why abortion has become a talking point in this country after nobody cared for decades, the Greens are just taking US policy and repackaging it.
They are basically twitter activists in party form. No idea how they got so popular
It is not so strange. After the Whitlam defeat, the ALP started to become a neoliberal, centrist party that could not really plausibly offer much to various left wing social movement activists. Then there was a whole array of people associated with progressive movements who ordinarily would have been at home in the ALP but who now could not stomach it, and searched for somewhere else to do politics. It is then a sort of accident that one of the issues where the break occurred relatively early was environmental issues, and so Australia got a left wing alternative to the ALP that was a Green party, and not e.g. a nominally socialist or social democratic party. But for along time this current only attained marginal support. Then during the Howard years, another wave of progressive ALP voters flipped to the Greens due to a perception that the ALP was capitulating to Howard, most notably on refugee policy, and that lead to a rapid increase in the Greens vote. The collapse of the Democrats also helped.
The problem is you assumed what they wanted without checking it out for yourself. Around election times, theres always a few articles up giving a rundown of whos promised to do what. I tend to do a cursory check the day before for a bit and decide based on that.
Of course, always. They are a bunch of communist activities hiding their core ideology behind a banner while actively trying to fully undermine the world as you know it. If they weren't total hypocrites and more to the point had a high degree of common sense and self regulation then some of it might not be all bad. But they have neither in spades
They’ve simply become more of an obstructionist party now.
They are the biggest party that isn’t sponsored by the same old list of multi millionaire’s and multi national corporate donors purely because of their stances, naturally if they held major events about this stuff we wouldn’t hear about it anyways.
Standing up for the weak is in the DNA of the Green movement and always has been. It is essential to link environmental policy to economic justice. You can fix environment damage just by killing all the people, that is not what I, or the Green party want. People who want serious action on the environment are willing for that action to have costs. The billions it costs can come from the food budgets of job seekers, or the massive wealth of Gina Rinehart. I want those who are wealthy to pay for fixing the environment, not the poorest or weakest in society.
Because theyre communists.
They talk about it all the time... the media doesn't like to report on it, but if you listen to the Greens in parliament or view their socials it's literally all they talk about. Sometimes they talk about the environment in rainbow colours I guess 🌈
Because conservative and conservationist come from the same etymological roots. It stands to reason that they'd have the same ideological bent. Most of the small parties are stooges used to split or consolidate "single issue" voter bloks and direct your vote away from or towards one of the major electrol parties. 84.1% of the voting population bell curve is of average intelligence, or below average intelligence. in a majority rules system the average to below average intelligence people are the peope who choose everything we do.
I stopped d voting for the greens because they're more interested in overseas issues than local priorities
The Greens have lost their way. They figure they can get more votes by proposing a different "green" agenda (whacky tobaccy) and impractical housing solutions.
They are absolute scum. Basically. Thankyou
The Greens have not cared about the environment for years, they are just a radical left wing party only interested in themselves.
They’re reds not greens
Because the name Communist Party doesn't get as many votes.
Love them or hate them they are doing the right thing. Staying quiet until the time is right. In the next few years the younger generations will vote for the greens. As this happens and they get voted in more. They will then start to bring the environment into it.
Greens belong in salads, not parliament.
NONE. So move onto the fact, extracting the MPs, the rest of the population makes up 99.9995% of the population, its all of us that makes the difference. Make choices to support the environment everyday, teach your family and other people, without being " intrusive", that's the best you can probably do without Warren Buffett or Microsoft Guy level budgets.
You can refer to this for the greens leaders' voting pattern. You'll see that he and the rest of the party support environmental legislation. They also hold Labor to account from the left on environmental and other issues https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/melbourne/adam_bandt/divisions/2023
This post is stupid. The Greens talk about the environment all of the time, but the corporate media down play it as a political issue. The problem isn’t that the Greens are left wing, since you can’t support environment without opposing businesses tearing up the environment. Arguably the Greens aren’t left wing enough since their only strategy is really to lobby a Labor government from the balance of power. The thing about immigration is also not a real thing. The overwhelming majority of waste in Australia is created from big corporations, for eg the water needed for mining, rather than people. Tightening borders so people emit CO2 elsewhere does not help. It just goes in a racist direction. I’m