A Credible and Responsible Green Party, Part #1

The Essential Principles

Some time ago, we argued that the responsibilities of taking care of our environment were far too important to be left to the representations and remonstrations of the New Zealand Green Party. That Party lacks credibility.

A respondent laid down a challenge: what would a more responsible green party stand for? It is a fair and provocative challenge. Having given the matter some thought, we would like to lay down our beliefs of what a responsible and serious green party would represent. The easiest way to do this is via negativa—that is, to stipulate what we believe a credible green party would not stand for.

1. A credible green movement would not subject mankind, nor make mankind vulnerable to the rest of nature.

In New Zealand, with the greenist demand that only renewable sources of energy be exploited, we are now subject to the vagaries of the natural order. As the population grows and the demand for energy increases, going without electricity will increasingly become the norm.

Renewable sources of energy are finite and limited, in the sense that only so much wind blows in any given time period; only so much rain falls. There is a finite quantum of energy which can be developed from these renewable sources; as the demand for energy increases, eventually they will run out. Moreover, not only are renewable energy sources finite, they are also unpredictable and, more often than not, beyond our control to command. If the wind does not blow, nor the rains fall, we run short of power.

In African countries, in a continent with immense natural resources, the greenist movement has worked to restrict the exploitation of those resources for the generation of electricity. In so doing, the greenist movement (from the comfort of its own padded armchair, in its air-conditioned home) would condemn many poor, vulnerable people to a world without electricity. They insist that, for the greater good, these people must be prepared to sacrifice themselves to a life of disease ridden poverty for the greater good of mankind. They must remain vulnerable to, and subject, to the rest of the natural order.

A creditable green party would completely reject all such notions.

2. A credible green movement would neither deny nor decry the duty and responsibility of man to rule over the rest of nature, subdue it, and develop it.

To be credible, a green party must acknowledge and celebrate the regnant place of man within the realm of nature. Man has a duty to rule over, subdue, and develop the rest of nature. To the extent that any green movement denies the unique place and special responsibilities of man within nature, to that extent it is anti-man and anti-Christian.

A credible green movement will seize upon, and celebrate, the duty and responsibility of man to rule over the creation. It will espouse the evil of nature left untended and undeveloped. It will acknowledge that many species have been lost to the world without human involvement; it will acknowledge that much destruction of landscapes has occurred without any human involvement. It will articulate that some of the most destructive effects upon nature occur if men do not get involved, to husband, manage, and control.

It will espouse prudent and responsible development, and uphold conservation rather than an anti-developmental bias.

3. A credible green movement would neither be irrational nor emotive over technological advances and developments.

The NZ Green Party is both rationalistic and consequently irrational in its approach to technology. A property green movement would be scientifically rational and neutral to all technologies, and would not proscribe any. For example, nuclear energy would not be precluded from the outset.

It would not ban drilling and developing oil fields, since proper management has proved that oil exploitation will not result in destruction of the environment. An example, is that during the terrible hurricane season in which Katrina struck, not one oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico leaked or spilled oil. Moreover it is now demonstrably true that oil rigs situated in the ocean greatly enhance marine life.

Moreover a credible green party would not ban genetic engineering from the outset. It would welcome it, and argue for its application with discriminate care and appropriate testing and safeguards.

4. A credible green movement would not play off technology against nature.

The greenist movement repeatedly sets up a dichotomy between nature and technology or economic growth. A credible green movement would completely reject that dichotomy. It would insist instead that a growing blade of grass and a slab of concrete are both alike natural. Both are part of the natural order. Both are part of the creation. Both are subjected to exactly the same natural laws. Both are part of God's created world

All technological developments are part of Nature, part of the natural order. Not all are equally beneficial or helpful. Some developments are destructive; others constructive. But all alike are natural and must be celebrated as such, if a green movement is to have any credibility.

5. A credible green movement would not accept that the finitude or limited nature of resources restricts economic growth or development.

A credible green movement would be knowledgeable about economic history and human development. It would recognise that technological developments have meant that in practical terms there is no limit to natural resources, since man is not limited in his ability to continue to discover the potentiality of the creation, and develop marvelous applications of it—such is the glory of the creation as made out of nothing by the Living God.

A credible green movement would not use arguments of scarcity of resources to restrict economic development. Rather it would call for constant pure and applied research to break though whatever limitations current resources are applying. For example, the world has a limited supply of copper. The technology which required copper lines to transmit electricity meant that the supply of electricity to every person in the globe would have exhausted the world's supply of copper. However, in time, research discovered the conductive properties of silica, which is increasingly making copper redundant as an electrical conductor. Last time we checked, there was no shortage of silica in the world.

Old photographic technology was threatening to consume much of the world's supply of silver. Now photographic film has been consigned to the “dark ages” through the development of digital photography.

When environmental problems and damage emerges, the first response of a credible green movement would not be to restrict and ban. It would be to call for more research and development, for more sophisticated technologies and abilities that would reduce, alleviate, or prevent the problem. For example, if burning coal puts poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere, the first and most insistent response of a credible green movement would be for research into technologies that would give us clean emissions when coal was fired. It would not be to ban coal.

To be continued . . .