Four Statements
on Green Philosophy,
Politics and Economics

Delivered in the House of Representatives by the Green Party

April-May 2009

1 April The Global Challenges of the 21st Century Kennedy Graham

8 April The Inadequacy of Traditional Politics Kevin Hague

29 April Green Politics for the 21st Century Jeanette Fitzsimons

6 May Green Economics for the Next Decade Russel Norman

Following the 2008 General Election and the strengthening of the Green Party to nine Members of Parliament in the House, the opening of the 49th Parliament seemed an appropriate opportunity to advance an exposition of Green philosophy, and a description of the strategic direction of Green politics and economics in the early 21st century.

Accordingly, a series of four statements in General Debate were made in the House during April and May of this year. Together they form an overall picture of how the Green Party in New Zealand is responding to the serious challenges of our times and where it is heading in terms of its national policies.

It is our hope that this publication will encourage debate with other political parties on a higher level of dialogue than is usually possible in Parliament – because of the various commitments and time pressures that arise from the heavy legislative schedule from year to year.

We lay no inherent claim to superior insight or judgement in political thought and action. But we genuinely adhere to the philosophy underpinning our beliefs and we are of the view that advancing these in an open and transparent manner through public dialogue can only be beneficial to the political process in this country.

Jeanette Fitzsimons, Female Co-Leader
Russel Norman, Male Co-leader

15 May 2009

1. The Global Challenges of the 21st Century

Dr Kennedy Graham: General Debate: 8 APRIL 2009

I rise to initiate a series of four statements to be advanced by the Green Party over the next month. It is our intention to put forward for public consideration a general statement addressing four themes: the problems we face in today’s world, the inadequacy of traditional politics to meet the challenge, the Green political philosophy for the 21st century, and the Green economic programme for the next decade.

Humankind is entering the age of reckoning. In earlier times Earth’s erratic climate precluded sedentary agriculture, and thus any ordered society. For the past 10 millennia a stable climate has allowed us to tame nature in a relatively empty world where resources were abundant and our numbers sparse. Through technological ingenuity we went forth and multiplied, in the belief we were inheriting the Earth. Over the past two centuries the human population has grown from 1 billion to 7 billion, and our terrestrial inn is full. In the past half-century the global population has doubled, yet global GDP has grown fivefold in global trade and twentyfold in volume. The world economy, driven by the classical economic precepts of resource exploitation, and unlimited growth, has overheated. In the past century each human’s Earth share has shrunk to less than half what it was—from 5 hectares to 2. Yet as our Earth share has shrunk, our ecological footprint has expanded, recorded now at 2.7 hectares per person. With greater numbers and a larger footprint, we now record an ecological overshoot of 25 percent beyond the planet’s carrying capacity. We are today colliding with the limits of Earth’s finite resources—limits that are elastic, but that can snap. Economic hubris precedes ecological collapse.

As part of that overshoot, this generation is bequeathing severe global environmental problems to the next, leaving behind us an impoverished planet. We have engaged in extensive deforestation and desertification of the land surface, and have damaged some 20 percent of the coral reefs. We have created an ozone hole in the atmosphere that is injurious both to agriculture and to human health. We are causing climate change of unprecedented magnitude, and we face the catastrophic potential of global warming with storms and droughts, ensuing crop failure, and debilitating sea level rise. We are on the way to a human-induced mass extinction of Earth’s species—at our own hands. In the worst-case scenario, over the next century human civilisation itself will be under severe strain.

To compound matters, in the past two decades we have engaged in a frenzy of unlicensed financial adventurism, giving vent to individual and corporate greed of shameful immorality. The resulting financial meltdown has caused a global recession of proportions not experienced for many generations. Last century repressive communism imploded and a necrotic mindset withered away. This decade predatory capitalism has exploded and that voracious mindset is undergoing death throes of a character all its own.

From the wreckage of such ideological excesses we search for a rational and balanced way of life, but the short-term financial emergency obscures a clear view of the long-term ecological crisis. We in New Zealand believe ourselves to be insulated from the worst of both crises. Our banking system has been more responsible than elsewhere. Because of our rich national resource base and sparse population, we run an ecological surplus. Yet we are an integral part of the rest of the world. The global fate is our fate. Any nation that believes it can survive the global ecological crisis and prosper with positive good fortune is not only self-centred but self-deluded.

There is no choice. We must change our mindset, our way of life, our governmental management, and our political direction or we shall experience ecological collapse. This goes for New Zealand as assuredly as it does for the rest of the global community. Traditional politics of the kind embraced by National and Labour in this country will fail us in our time of need. The Green Party, with its new and positive philosophy, offers the answer to these problems, as my colleagues will explain in subsequent statements.

2. The Inadequacy of Traditional Politics

Kevin Hague: General Debate: 29 APRIL 2009

In the last sitting week my colleague Kennedy Graham identified the magnitude of the challenge that faces humanity in the 21st century, and the place and role of New Zealand within that. It is our conviction that the problems we face today are the direct result of our traditional political and economic beliefs. By clinging to an increasingly obsolete world view, humanity has not only generated serious global problems; it is unable to perceive them for what they are, let alone solve them. In New Zealand, the National Party owes its heritage to the Western liberal tradition, which responded to the strictures of absolutism and tyranny. Those concerns evolved into the politics of individual liberty and economic freedom. The Labour Party’s heritage lies in the Western socialist tradition, which responded to the misery and injustice of inequality and insecurity; that evolved into the compassionate politics of State welfare and communal responsibility.

For its part, the Green Party owes its heritage to a new and modern tradition that responds to the ecological crisis and the politics of survival and sustainability. Born of an awakening concern about the silence in spring, the environmental movement took political form in the Green parties of the 1980s, and in our case descended from the visionary Values Party. Those parties entered Parliaments in the 1990s and are strengthening in the early 21st century. Today, the Green Party exists to respond to the concerns of the contemporary world. Having earlier foreseen the onset of those problems, it now works to develop a strategic policy response.

Policy makers who tinker with fiscal and monetary policy in order to restore an outmoded notion of economic growth do not provide the answer; they are the orchestra on the Titanic.

The ecological overshoot is the product of individual freedom run amok. We in the West have carried economic growth to the level of addiction; we have geared our economic systems to require continual economic growth for any kind of stability. Because the resources on which continual growth feeds are finite, it is not sustainable in the long run — nor in the short run, as recent events have demonstrated. The planet simply cannot sustain the equation of human numbers multiplied by human greed. Policy makers who tinker with fiscal and monetary policy in order to restore an outmoded notion of economic growth do not provide the answer; they are the orchestra on the Titanic. The ecological overshoot can no more be remedied through an intensified pursuit of individual liberty than a drunk can be sobered through a trip to the liquor store. Pretending that exponential growth on a finite planet is possible through technological progress is a delusion. The self-evidence of this fact is veiled only by powerful interests that are intent on short-term gain at the expense of long-term sustainability, while the rest of us are desperate to believe what we wish were the case.

But the politics of compassion are also inadequate to deal with the problems we face. Redistributive justice can remedy the inequality of wealth and poverty, but it can no more reverse the ecological overshoot than a bird can fly backwards.

In New Zealand, National and Labour have philosophically merged into a conjoint political establishment with the same broad underlying beliefs: self-perpetuating economic growth, corporate dominance, and unfettered international trade and finance. Their combination is disastrous. The political struggle between the relative priority of individual freedom and equality is reflected in the left/right spectrum that is used today to analyse politics. But the tension between sustainability and profligacy cannot be placed on the left/right spectrum. A second and new axis is required: the sustainability axis. Without this, we lack an accurate compass for navigating through the 21st century.

As the contemporary generation matures, so do its politics. It is apparent that the Green Party, in this country as elsewhere, carries the underlying beliefs that are relevant to our age, and the party is maturing to the point where it is able and ready to lead. We welcome that challenge.

3. Green Politics for the 21st Century

Jeanette Fitzsimons: General Debate: 6 MAY 2009

My colleagues Kennedy Graham and Kevin Hague have described the inability of the old politics of right and left to address the unique challenges that face us in the 21st century. My task today, in the third of these four statements to the House, is to outline how Green politics can respond to those key challenges.

Nineteen years ago our Charter set out the principle of Ecological Wisdom. It recognised that if we fail to live within the limits of our planet’s natural resources then we will simply fail to live. Wisdom is greater than knowledge; it implies understanding and an ability to see consequences and adapt. Ecological wisdom tells us there is no “away” to throw things to; that as in Nature, our wastes must be the raw materials for another process; that when one species outgrows its food supply or fouls its habitat, it will crash. It suggests that our economy will thrive only if it mimics the cycles of Nature that have sustained life on this planet for millions of years.

People generally get richer over their lifetimes,
but the evidence is that they do not get happier.

If resources like fresh water, land, fisheries, and the rate of solar input are limited – and surely there is no-one in this House now who believes otherwise – then we cannot deal with poverty by just expanding the size of the economy. Trickle down never did work anyway, but the social democratic bargain between capital and labour pretended it did – labour would allow the capitalist system to maximise resource use and production provided a share of it was passed to workers. The gap between rich and poor continued to grow, but was disguised by rising living standards for everyone. That is no longer possible. Even in the last nine years, the Labour Party has allowed the gap between the poorest ten per cent and the richest to continue to grow.

The Greens’ principle of social justice recognises that if the economy cannot continue to get bigger as it always has, then we must share our wealth more equitably. People seem to find sharing very hard – yet even by the age of three my grandson had grasped the principle and managed to live by it much of the time. What is it that happens to us after kindergarten that makes it so much harder? Why do we encourage our small children to share their toys but teach them later that self-interested win-lose competition brings the greatest economic good?

Sharing, of course, is a bad idea if you believe that happiness can only be attained by getting more stuff. What we value is at the heart of any economic system. If we value only what can be priced then of course we will pursue economic growth right to the point where the collapse of our life support system destroys us all.

If we instead value our families, friends, community and human relationships, our natural environment and time to enjoy it, quality rather than just quantity, we will measure our success with a Genuine Progress Indicator rather than the sheer size of economic output. NZ ranks sixth in a recent OECD survey on people’s satisfaction with their lives, despite our GDP per capita being towards the low end of the OECD rankings; people generally get richer over their lifetimes, but the evidence is that they do not get happier.

We also have a different view of what it is to be a global citizen. We support a healthy globalisation, founded on democratic political governance and the rule of law, which is compatible with the interests of every human being on the planet, not just the elites which currently govern most countries. We recognise that fair trade can bring benefits to all countries, but that trading patterns today are often powered by unsustainable use of fossil fuels and unjust exploitation of workers and the natural environment.

Michael Cullen, in his valedictory, concluded belatedly but correctly, that ecological sustainability is about our survival. Yet he said the Greens should “loosen up”. Our caucus and our lives are full of laughter and fun. We take pleasure in living simply and minimising our impact on the earth. We offer New Zealand a satisfying and joyful way of life. But we will also sound the alarm, honestly and clearly and with no apology, about the fate our society will face if we do not change. If that makes people feel uncomfortable, perhaps it is because there is genuine cause for alarm.

4. Green Economics for the Next Decade

Dr Russel Norman: General Debate: 6 MAY 2009

Last week during general debate, my colleague Jeanette Fitzsimons laid out before this Parliament the world view of the Green Party, with its aspiration of a more harmonious and prosperous future steering us away from the dangers humankind presently faces. It is my intention today to elaborate on the economic dimensions of our philosophy. We contend, first, that green economics is the only way to achieve that aspiration.

In the 19th century, the classical theories of Smith and Ricardo freed societies from feudalism through a self-regulatory free market that claimed to be optimally productive. The potent partnership of capitalism and technology generated unprecedented industrial development, liberating us from some of the age-old scourges of disease, pestilence, and famine. Freedom of the individual and the market were central tenets, though, of course, the experience of the industrial working class was one of struggling to achieve these freedoms.

In the early 20th century neoclassical economics developed these notions further, with theories of profit maximisations, consumer rationality, and market information. In the 1930s, macroeconomic planning through public finance management reflected the new reach of modern technology and the globalisation of economic supply and demand. Responding to the Great Depression, Keynesian theory emphasised the role of the public sector in stimulating growth through active fiscal management—a lesson we have recently had to relearn. Welfare of the individual and the responsibility of the State were central tenets of Keynesianism. By the late 20th century, monetarist theory had reverted to free-market principles and the use of interest and exchange rates independently managed by central banks, as the means to wealth. But its weak regulatory frameworks led to excessive corporate speculation and irresponsible investment practice. Thus we face the serious global financial crisis of today. The invisible hand miraculously appears to be begging for help.

Ecological economics understands that society is a subset of the environment and that the economy is a subset of society.

Neither of these economic theories has paid due attention to the natural world. Traditional economic theory demands continuous material growth. The classical theory of capitalism and compound interest rates requires limitless growth, yet the planet is finite. This fundamental illogic, if allowed to proceed, spells disaster for humanity. Yet traditional economics, ensnared in its own tenets, remains blind to this obvious truth about the finite world. Since the mid 1970s, while GDP has continued to increase, the general progress indicator, which includes social and environmental measures, has steadily declined. The global economy, far from strengthening, has experienced negative marginal utility. We would be foolhardy to continue along the same path, yet we hear no cry for any change of direction from National or Labour.

Ecological economics, the theoretical basis of the Green Party’s economic policy, introduces a remedial element that is essential to our 21st century survival and prosperity. Its central goal, which is sustainability, can be obtained only when its three component factors—economic, social, and environmental—are met. It understands that society is a subset of the environment and that the economy is a subset of society. Ecological economics differs from traditional economics in four ways: it values nature not as an object of productive exploitation but for its intrinsic worth to humanity; it accords equal importance to the well being of the next generation as well as our own; it acknowledges the irreversible consequences of environmental change arising from economic behaviour; and it recognises the uncertainty of environmental outcomes from economic inputs. Ecological economics thus adopts the uncertainty principle, which requires that an economic development project will not proceed unless it is clear that irreversible environmental damage will not occur. Although the international community embraced this principle 20 years ago, no New Zealand Government has properly implemented it into domestic law. The result is that irreversible damage continues to be done to our national environment and thus to our long-term economic potential. Traditional economics takes into account three components: land, labour, and investments. Ecological economics factors in the fourth: natural resources. By omitting the fourth, classical and neoclassical economics fail the test of the current age. The Green New Deal offers a new way ahead. The Green Party is developing a set of economic policies involving fiscal and budgetary measures that are suitable for our time.

ENDS

© Scoop Media