Should the "Yes Men" be able to change the world?

[shermerhorn]

My personal observation of the environmental movement is that there has been a sharp move toward "radical" measures since Bob Brown ceased to be Greens leader. That applies both within and outside the actual party.

Can you qualify this. It appears the Green movement has always been consistently 'radical' from my point of view.

I believe Brown's defense of the Franklin (an instigating action in forming the Wilderness Society and later, the Greens) was illegal activity. He was arrested for this I believe also. Heckling George Bush was looked upon as radical too in some eyes - ironically, not in GB's. forgive lack of citation, but information freely available.

...With the rivers flowing free, the Tas forestry industry dead, the WA gas infrastructure relocated, renewable energy actually being built and a carbon tax introduced etc the party and the movement generally is desperate to remain relevant.

If you pay an interest in opposing Green radicalism, it's easy to see where environmental campaigns come from, and such information is easily accessible through the wilderness society, getup and the green's website. From a green party pov the carbon tax is inadequate, CSG should be more thoroughly assessed by independent govt science bodies before practiced (some would argue this is just code for stop-work and a ban). The GB reef is also under threat from CSG, another Green concern. From a green radical point of view (assumedly their voters), they are of course as relevant as ever. Also, there is the largest coal mine in the southern hemisphere planned by Whitehaven.

Being a Green right now is akin to being a union leader after the bosses just handed the workers everything they wanted. It's hard to remain relevant as an activist (for anything) when the issues you represent have all been resolved and everyone is happy with your supposed opponent.

Whitehaven developments, for example, have been met with critism and concern from farming groups and sustainable energy advocates alike. Agreeing or disagreeing with the cause might bare relevance to biases offered in your representation of the facts, but as far as I can see no such victories have been attained by greens. If no-nuclear, no-coal power is their target, how are Greens any further progressed with their 'victories'. If they are relevant for these reasons to their voters then they are still as relevant as ever. Given recent developments in CSG and coal, it seems they are more relevant. Politically speaking - and subjectively - this is for the polls to decide, of course. On the existence of 'green relevant' issues (in the eyes of their voters) they are as relevant as ever. It would only be through a lack of observation one could claim there was no work left for perceived greens to do more green things.


Now, as I have found a number of posts citing your two cents as having some authority, I'm curious to learn where you get the confidence that greens relevance is being reduced (either in real terms given publicised issues, or in perceived terms through perceptions in the media.) The later might be argued - I could imagine. I can't see how the former would be. You would have to assume that green voters weren't extreme in their demands, or they were ignorant of the parties extremism. Is that the case? If so, I can't see how that maps to anything you have stated so far, but I could concede that point with some relevant demonstrations.

As a final note, you might also notice that many 'green' issues and 'green' protests are becoming alarmingly mainstream within rural australia. For example, farmers claim they were 'derailed' by Whitehaven in their shipping contracts (Gunnedah area), without compensation. The most conservative of farmers (or 'non-greenie' farmers, if you like) is still likely to be marginalised and vote accordingly if their businesses are directly threatened by coal, for example. In this way green is an ongoing and underestimated threat to mining and non-sustainable development. And there are many such instances of marginalisation to pick from occurring around the country: CSG in Sydney (indeed, all NSW and much of QLD, thought to a lesser extent), CSG again, with tourism QLD and the threat posed to the barrier reef. Whitehaven Maules creek is just another example.