Green Wars

A combination of David Cameron's political opportunism, rampant floods across Britain this summer and the boom of supposedly green corporate marketing campaigns by high street retailers, has thrown the issue of greenism to the political forefront. Never before has environmentalism been so prominent in public discourse, but like any other burning issue - in our polarised and sceptical society - naysayers, exploiters, bickerers and political opportunists seek to turn the issue to their advantage. First take the Conservatives, many will see their green agenda as refreshing and full of foresight, bringing in the rural intelligentsia and young urban neo-libs. Others - including Tory grandees descended from 19th century fat cat industrialists, a weary and inherently cynical right wing press, and a handful of Atlanticist CC deniers - tear the party in the opposite direction. The heralded Quality of Life report triggered more debate internally than with the public. If in power, their fragmented views would only worsen.

As political parties act with greater inefficacy, high street brands have attempted to fill the void. And surely they are acting for the greater good, surely they have ample profits to restructure their entire businesses for our new verdant age, and surely they are going to been universally green rather than simply recycling plastic carrier bags. It looks great and green has so far been underused in the marketeers colour scheme, but without actual clear planning and environmental know how, this supermarket sustainability will be unsustained. These contradictions were set out in an excellent article this week.

The final theatre of war in our ecogeddon is a civil war in which both sides will lose but is in political sphere with the most potential and sadly offers the only purist option. In November this year, Green party members will vote in a referendum to decide whether to reform their structure and elect a party leader. Or to maintain the existing non-hierarchical system, where power is horizontal, and two principal speakers front the party. To make progress in British politics and be electable, the Yes campaign argue it is necessary for the public to see a formal figure who can represent the Greens. Leaders can misrepresent, corrupt and erodes party participation, as Derek Wall current principal speaker and No or Green Empowerment voice says: "Conventional leadership with a single leader almost always comes with commitments to water down the message, to remove real debate and participation." Since the major political parties have jumped on the green bandwagon, the pressure on the Green party is more acute. The next election - whenever that is - will be make or break. But would have a leader make a difference? It would be superficial, yes, but could - with the right individual - break down perceptions of Greens and make the party more electable. Cliches of clause 4 aside, something radical does need to happen, as support for the Greens is levelling out with only slow election on election increases. There is real potential for expansion amongst the 18-35 demographic, and any fillip to that would help. Voters don't like divided parties and favour divided confused parties even less. The referendum could provide clarity internally and to the public, then again it could create more disharmony. Then then again, most voters could see it as irrelevant.


Amidst this debate and discord, groups across the country promote their own self-sufficiency. Festivals like Waveform are mostly hedonism, but with a dose of awareness. Government and institutions might continue the debate, but individuals are making real changes themselves.