Candidates Who Support Environmental Movements - Case Study Example

ESSAY By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Introduction Before the late 60s, Murray (2013) posits that the environment had a somewhat inconsequential position on the political agenda; however, this is no longer the case. These days, environment is one of the most contested, difficult, as well as key areas in making of public policy, and inters and intra party politics. McDonald (2011, p.114) posits that this rise to fame reveals an extensive public unease concerning the state of the (built as well as natural) environment in Australia. Increasingly, more individuals are at the moment preferring to recycle waste, cycle to work, consume organic foods, spend their money decently, as well as enrol to environmental groups or cast their votes for candidates who support environmental movements. As a result, the mainstream ecological lobby groups have turn out to be an imperative player in Australian politics, assisting in shaping the policies that aspire to care for the environment from more damage brought about by human activities (Desai, 1998, p.92). Well-known political parties in Australia have for that reason been coerced to espouse greener policies since both federal and state government, regardless of ideological tendency, is required to formulate environmental policy that benefits all Australian irrespective of their social class. The essay seeks to offer the key ideological differences between the ‘mainstream’ political parties in Australia as well as the ‘progressive’ parties in terms of approach to environmental policy. Discussion Knowledge of the verity that global warming poses a life-threatening danger to both biodiversity and humanity is at the moment more or less consistently acknowledged (Dixson, 1999, p.18). Yet, environmentalists keep on despairing over how sluggish the looked-for reform on policy takes, despite this increasing level of knowledge concerning the necessity to care for the environment. The ecological priorities of the present government of Australia as well pose a range of queries concerning the solutions nature which may well be employed. A lot still has to be done before conservationists and ecologists can end their activism for more policy change. In Australia, Green politics is to some extent nebulous (Schreurs & Papadakis, 2007). Scores of Greens allege to represent an ‘up-to-the-minute mode of conducting politics’ that surpasses the previous left-right divide; which used to rebuff conventional concepts of social progress, that are described by greater material wealth and technological advancement. Still, Green notion holds contradictory as well as competing social theories, with all of them being somewhat traditional. Environmental policy politics fuses the nostalgic passionate, the progressive, and the scientist liberal. Policy politics concerning environment are popular, and they have an established organisational unity by means of a class struggle denunciation as well as orientation to parliament (Walker & Crowley, 1999, p.14). The wilderness conservation practice, in Australia together with the hypothetical undertaking of ecologists to set up an organisation of thought validating this practice, was essential to the first phase of Australian Green politics. Scores of ecological advocates/activists were at first enthused by the aesthetic and emotional effect of the environment, so they decided to salvage it from human interfering (Mulligan, 2001, p.301). Yet, the actuality of environmental disaster as well as the increasing scientific acknowledgment of human-induced ecological setbacks has given environmentalism a fresh meaning and dimension. Without a doubt the environmentalists’ command in the present socio-economic system, mainly the command they must give green credentials, appear for the most part short-lived. According to Doyle and Kellow (1995, p.17) it rises and falls based on how significant the environment reflection is to the industry or government. During slump, priorities of the economy appear to be prevailing, and subsequently this power of bargaining is considerably decreased. This turned out to be apparent with the legislation to Resource Security in spite of the strong disagreement from diverse environmental groups as well as pledges made to these groups which were, as a result, about to withdraw their support (Desai, 2002, p.264). Participation in environmental policy politics as well as making deals in Australia has the consequence of impinging environmental groups, whereby politicians see these environmental groups like other lobby group which are looking after their own needs as well as interests to be even-handed in opposition to other interest groups (Lane, 2003, p.362). In this perspective, the environmentalists’ bargaining power as an interest group is of greatest significance. The readiness to compromise as well as do transactions in return for power and well-disposed resolutions endorses such an insight, which is abhorrence to Greens who deem politicians must care for the environment since it is the correct thing to do. In Australia, government making deals with the Green raised deep-seated ethical questions. For the government, the environmental groups lacked the right, regardless of how many Australians it represented, to give the environment priority as well as be in agreement to trade-offs that predictably resulted in several ecological sacrifices. Here ideological differences turn out to be dominant. Inside the governing model, the environment is viewed as a resource and its subscribers deem it is tolerable to compromise so as to preserve areas that are vulnerable and valuable (Beder, 1991, p.54). For cavernous environmentalists, the environment has essential value and therefore trade-offs lack any place during the policy negotiation. Current priorities in Australian politics are the exact opposite of what is required to realize a higher life quality. Not just in environmental policy is Australian political parties doing exceedingly bad, but also on accredited goals, like formulating employment policies, with the country experiencing a deficit of almost one million jobs. Therefore, nearly everything done performed under political sphere is doomed to fail, and this is the primary reason why Australians are disillusioned with politics; thus, scores of them who do not completely value it, direct their dissatisfaction at certain policies (Keane, 2012). This certainty could as well be why environmentalists, who are aware of these issues better than the other political parties, have failed to take advantage of the people’s disquiet. Rather, some like the Greens have been considered as merely an additional political party whose environmental policies symbolize reasonably traditional progressive/left beliefs, which is disgraced by Australian voters. Therefore the Greens are wedged on the horns of a quandary between remaining to be relevant to debate of mainstream policy in addition to supporting responses that equal the challenges scale, and between response usefulness as well as the relevance of the policy (Eckersley, 2014). Because of the contemporary politics limitations (which include the media role) together with the mood of the public, there could be no any way out. Still, the Greens might think of changing their spotlight outside certain questions towards environmental policy towards constantly formulating a fresh narrative: a change from the governing material progress narrative to one of sustainable (bona fide) development. According to Marshall (2002), material progress stands for an old-fashioned, industrial paradigm: that is pumping more material goods into the pipeline’s one end and as a result, more welfare will flow out from the other side of the pipeline. In this case, sustainable development depicts an environmental paradigm, where human society elements work together in non-linear, multifaceted ways (Marshall, 2002). Therefore, increasing the gap between response effectiveness as well as environmental policy relevance would need exceedingly cautious management because the two must be kept separate. Basically, there have been threats in government moving too swiftly to details of environmental policy, considering that environment policies must be true to and in agreement with, the new-fangled narrative of human development as well as progress. The policy focus must be associated more closely with worldwide challenges and threats to Australian’s individual lives and welfare, on proving that the goals of improved life quality and environmental sustainability are complementary and well-matched. There are mounting anxieties between and within progressive and mainstream parties’ with regard to environmental policy, and the role of government to protect the environment from further human damage (Drew, 2013). The panic of separation, uselessness, and hopelessness yields a novel form of separation, uselessness and hopelessness amongst the environmentalists, specifically; they have completely given up their most basic goals and ideals to the mainstream parties. Undoubtedly, the Green’s’ power was achieved to the detriment of losing the lone power they actually possessed that could have changed the negative energy directed to the environment. This was evidently a celebratory chance for mainstream parties who for decades have used the environmental issue in Australia to press forward their prominence as well as individual fortunes. Conclusion In conclusion, it is without a doubt that the environmentalists’ power in the present Australia socio-economic system, mainly the power to protect environmental policy appears short-lived. Scores of human activities, which includes the utilisation of natural resources have directly impacted Australian environment. Such issues are the key concern of progressive parties in Australia, who believe that Australians are part of the environment, and every life form on Earth merits their respect. Mainstream parties agree Australians rely on environmental resources, but they are unconcerned with who maintain and protect the integrity of its environment. These ideological differences, has made it hard for Australia to realize a sustainable environmental development, thanks to existing differences between mainstream and progressive parties regarding. References Beder, S., 1991. Activism versus Negotiation: Strategies for the Environment Movement. Social Alternatives, vol. 10, no. 4, pp.53-56. Desai, U., 1998. Ecological Policy and Politics in Developing Countries: Economic Growth, Democracy, and Environment. New York: SUNY Press. Desai, U., 2002. Environmental Politics and Policy in Industrialized Countries. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Dixson, M., 1999. The Imaginary Australian: Anglo-Celts and Identity, 1788 to the Present. Sydney : UNSW Press. Doyle, T. & Kellow, A.J., 1995. Environmental Politics and Policy Making in Australia. Sydney: Macmillan Education AU. Drew, C., 2013. Why the Greens were the real election losers. [Online] Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-04/drew-greens-labor-voters/4999216 [Accessed 9 September 2014]. Eckersley, R., 2014. Are the Greens finished in Australia? [Online] Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/21/greens-australia-politics [Accessed 9 September 2014]. Keane, J., 2012. The politics of disillusionment: can democracy survive? [Online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/the-politics-of-disillusionment-can-democracy-survive-6073 [Accessed 9 September 2014]. Lane, M.B., 2003. Participation, Decentralization, and Civil Society. Journal of Planning Education and Research , vol. 22, no.4, pp.360-373. Marshall, G., 2002. success or failure in the Western Australian context. [Online] Available at: http://www.regional.org.au/au/soc/2002/5/marshall.htm [Accessed 9 September 2014]. McDonald, M., 2011. Security, the Environment and Emancipation: Contestation Over Environmental Change. New York: Routledge. Mulligan, M., 2001. Ecological Pioneers: A Social History of Australian Ecological Thought and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Murray, D., 2013. Waging war on the environment does not add up. [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/waging-war-on-the-environment-does-not-add-up-20131219-2znxt.html [Accessed 9 September 2014]. Schreurs, M. & Papadakis, E., 2007. Historical Dictionary of the Green Movement. New Jersey: Scarecrow Press. Walker, K.J. & Crowley, K., 1999. Australian Environmental Policy 2: Studies in Decline + Devolution. Sydney: UNSW Press. Read More