Time for an 'alternative' Green Party?

Eliot Rosewater

Scofflaw wrote: »

this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread

The reason I commented on peoples' disillusionment with the Green Party of now was to speculate on how a new green party could evolve. My fear would be that the new greens, in attempting to learn from the mistakes of the past, would have a policy of not going into government. I wouldn't vote for a party if they had such a self-imposed policy.

Scofflaw wrote: »

how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

As someone of a liberal outlook, I generally wouldn't give my number 1 to a green party as such parties seem to advocate broad social policies outside of the main green agenda. However I do care for the environment and if a green party were campaigning for policies that would help people like me to help the environment, then I would vote for them. The proposal donegelfella made, that low-emissions cars have significantly less VRT, would be such a positive policy.

paddyland

Scofflaw wrote: »

I've already pointed out that this is a thread about an alternative Green Party, not an opportunity to whinge unconstructively about the current one.

regards,
Scofflaw

Point taken, the inference I would hope to be taken from my earlier post is that a new Green Party WOULD have quite a lot to say about public transport, surely a core element of green thinking in any genuine green party.

Scofflaw

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The reason I commented on peoples' disillusionment with the Green Party of now was to speculate on how a new green party could evolve.

Apologies - I'm not trying to prevent comments on the current Green Party, of course. As you say, the disillusionment of part of the original Green support base is an important part of the evolution of an alternative. I'm only concerned that criticism be constructive rather than "urg..yar...Greens bad!".

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My fear would be that the new greens, in attempting to learn from the mistakes of the past, would have a policy of not going into government. I wouldn't vote for a party if they had such a self-imposed policy.

I'm concerned myself that a new movement would either have to have such a policy, accept that at whatever point they entered government they would suffer the fate of the current Green Party, or content themselves in opposition with saying and promising so little, or being so evidently pragmatic, that they would barely seem worth supporting.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As someone of a liberal outlook, I generally wouldn't give my number 1 to a green party as such parties seem to advocate broad social policies outside of the main green agenda. However I do care for the environment and if a green party were campaigning for policies that would help people like me to help the environment, then I would vote for them. The proposal donegelfella made, that low-emissions cars have significantly less VRT, would be such a positive policy.

I often have issues with Green social/economic policy myself - I'd certainly be interested in a market-oriented Green Party, but I suspect it wouldn't solve the issues of the currently disillusioned Green supporters.

On the other hand, it's pretty hard to see market-oriented solutions to the problems created by economics predicated on unlimited growth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

thebman

We need a green issue orientated party for a few things. Planning is one of them and housing standards along with tackling the issue of political donations and general corruption in general tighter restrictions on expenses and staying in your position if are found to have performed irregular actions in your position like Bertie did. The greens were supposed to stand for all these things or at least wanted themselves to be seen to be these things. Going into power has shown they have a lot of other issues that they seem to think are more important.

I think the majority of the general public voting for the greens thought the above was part of their core policies but it seems to have been deserted to get carbon tax and water metering. Basically greens just appear to be used by FF to bring in extra revenue generating mechanisms and get fobbed off on most other issues and thrown a bone every now and again. Their refusal to criticise their coalition partners has badly hurt their public image to a point that I don't believe can be restored.

Do we need another green party. We need any kind of party that stands for the first things I listed IMO. I don't care about the name as long as they have green issues at heart but a sensible out look on economic views and a realisation of the knock on effects of their desires. For example, giving grants for green issues driving up the prices to what they were before just gives money to green companies for no reason and will always be the effect of giving grants to subsidise things IMO. The market has determined what people are willing to pay and if you give everyone a grant of x amount then they'll be willing to pay x and the original amount and the market will very quickly adapt to the new situation making the grant redundant unless means tested in some way in which case it is unfair on the people that are actually paying most of the taxes and becomes a redistribution of wealth mechanism.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hold up a second. Two things - first, this is not to become an "I hate the Greens because..." thread - second, how many of those who feel that any Green Party is superfluous (as per Red_Marauder) would vote for any Green Party?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I don't think someone can say why we need a new green party without discussing what it is about the current one that has caused a need for a new green party.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and not only people
what have the Green Party done about cow flatulence
methane is 40x times more dangerous than CO2, and we have plenty of these animals roaming our country
will the farmers have to pay Methane Tax :P


yes i think the Greens have admirable goals, but unfortunately they are idealists and are not pragmatic enough, for example they are against using nuclear power to replace coal plants, even tho that would save a huge amount of emissions until renewable energy can fill the gap and take over (thats if it can)

Scofflaw

thebman wrote: »

I don't think someone can say why we need a new green party without discussing what it is about the current one that has caused a need for a new green party.

See my post above:

Apologies - I'm not trying to prevent comments on the current Green Party, of course. As you say, the disillusionment of part of the original Green support base is an important part of the evolution of an alternative. I'm only concerned that criticism be constructive rather than "urg..yar...Greens bad!".

Hmm:

Any alternative Green Party has to think pragmatically about how people can meet their needs in a more environmentally friendly way. That is where the current party has so clearly failed.

yes i think the Greens have admirable goals, but their are unfortunately for themselves idealists and are not pragmatic enough

Poor old Greens - too pragmatic for their ex-supporters, too idealistic for their non-supporters.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Biggins wrote: »

Being honest with yourself and the forum I, myself couldn't say what others "core fundamental principles" are or should be in a future possible new organisation. It would be presumptive of me to say the least.
I cannot attempt to even being to mention a fuller layout of a new Green constitution and memorandum of ideas and to my discredit (and to the much credit of good others here) I'm not as knowledgeable in the vast areas of green issues compared to those said others.

If a new green org' was to be formed (its a big "IF"), I would hope they stick to the ideas they espouse, hopefully more so than the org' presently residing in the Dail.
The issues that the present "Green Party" are advocating, seem to change week to week depending on the whims of Fianna Fail heads!
The leash stretching from FF headquarters to the Green Party Headquarters must be very tight. Its being yanked often enough!

In fact, I was asking what you felt the core fundamental values of the existing Green Party are, or were. I've never been entirely certain myself, but then I don't pay much attention to claims of principle in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

kraggy

ei.sdraob wrote: »

just what we need

yet another authoritarian party who care more for animals than people

The Greens haven't implemented one of their policies relating to animals or animal welfare published in their party policy document.

So I wouldn't class them as animal-lovers.

Biggins

Scofflaw wrote: »

In fact, I was asking what you felt the core fundamental values of the existing Green Party are, or were. I've never been entirely certain myself, but then I don't pay much attention to claims of principle in politics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well I like many of the voters of Ireland could only go with the principles as they are laid out on their website and in the literature they present to us through the doors when seeking our vote.
Some of those were:

* Cut carbon emissions by 3 percent per year - (happened?)
* Subsidize offshore wind, wave and tidal power (far fetched idea maybe but an admirable idea)
* Replace vehicle and motor tax. (Happened?)
* Invest more in public transport. (They are cutting bus services, etc)
* Cut value-added tax by 1 percentage point (LOL - we getting more tax's!!!)
* Keep existing rates of corporate and income tax, increase capital gains tax to 25 percent and reintroduce a levy on bank deposits. (I'll say nothing!)
* Exempt buyers trading down to smaller homes and some first-time buyers from stamp duty. (Happened? No.)
* Levy a windfall tax on development land. (Happened? No.)
* Replace commercial rates with a Site Value Tax. (Happened? No.)
* Cap private rent increases. (Nothing done!)
* Provide affordable housing. (Nada, nothing - more cuts)
* Spend more on teachers (LOL!)
* Hospitals (- cuts!)
* Police (- cuts!)
* Public transport... social housing... and trains... :rolleyes:
* Ban corporate, foreign and institutional donations to political parties. (Nothing!)
* Cut the number of seats in the lower house of parliament to 130 from 166 and extend freedom of information. (Nothing!)
* End the use of Shannon Airport by U.S. military forces involved in the war in Iraq. (Nothing!)

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2665649920070526
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1493160420070614


For the record:

The seven principles that the Green Party/Comhaontas Glas adopted at its foundation were elaborated and expanded in the revised 1997 Constitution. They are:

1. The impact of society on the environment should not be ecologically disruptive.
2. Conservation of the resources is vital to a sustainable society.
3. All political, social and economic decisions should be taken at the lowest effective level.
4. Society should be guided by self-reliance and co-operation at all levels.
5. As caretakers of the earth, we have the responsibility to pass it on in a fit and healthy state.
6. The need for world peace overrides national and commercial interests.
7. The poverty of two-thirds of the world's family demands a redistribution of the world's resources.

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/about/history

Its too east to shoot holes in some of the above and what the heads of the present Green party has actually done - or "not" in some cases!

---

Interesting comment I came across - refers back to '96

Democracy on paper, elitism in practice.

This ludicrous situation is contrived by our constitution in the interests of democracy, but not of political action. Nothing about our structures facilitates political action, ideas and campaigning. In fact, our structures are blatantly undemocratic in that they create a vacuum where public representatives have a free hand on almost every matter, and the membership has no say at all. For a political party claiming to epitomise democratic forms of decision-making, this is an ironic division of intellectual labour: the members exist for the sake of the Party and not vice versa.

The naivety which underpins this structure is a political one: the Green Party is not certain about exactly which facets of Irish society it wishes to change. Instead, we have become an organisation loosely held together by seven unclarified ethical principles while our elected representatives are off negotiating for their inclusion in government - in order to do what, we may well ask. No policy development has taken place in the Party since 1993, most are out of date, and all (except perhaps the economics and housing policies) are inadequate tools for participation in government at either local or national level.

Sadhbh O Neill was Green Party councillor for Donaghmede

http://www.iol.ie/~mazzoldi/toolsforchange/zine/imb96/deep.htm

I guess nothing has changed then since Sadhbh O Neill spoke even as far back as then. Sad...

ei.sdraob

kraggy wrote: »

The Greens haven't implemented one of their policies relating to animals or animal welfare published in their party policy document.

So I wouldn't class them as animal-lovers.

i was referring to how they signed onto NAMA (and ensuring there was no early election) by making few fur lovers happy

Sand

Its too east to shoot holes in some of the above and what the heads of the present Green party has actually done - or "not" in some cases!

Thats the problem with being an idealistic party, which the Greens are, in theory if nor recent practise. Humans are very definitly imperfect. Ideals demand perfection. Politics and political decisions are human. Very easy to drive a gas guzzling humvee knockoff through the gap between the two. Its very cruel to demand a human being meet the requirements of their claimed idealogy at all times. We are only human after all, not abstract meanderings.

Its right to say that the Greens have admirable claimed ideals, but its also true to say that ideals or ideas are not responsible for the behaviour of those who believe in them.

Do we need another Green party? Another "None of the above" option on the ballot? No. We need all parties to take enviromental issues seriously.

Do we need another Green party? Another "Power at all costs!" option on the ballot. No. We already have Fianna Fail, and to a lesser degree Fine Gael for that.

Essentially, the Greens are going to get wiped out at the next election - they tried to play politics with the big boys but Fianna Fail dont run this country by chance. They are this country, in a very real way. They know how to be self interested whilst appearing to be patriotic. The Greens have yet to learn how to do this, and given the electoral wipeout they are facing in 2012 they will never get the chance to learn.

The result of that will be messy - a lot of "I told you so!", but no, there will not be an electable Green agenda for a generation or more regardless of brave new starts greeted in the Irish Times to great fanfare. Green agendas might be affordable where the government hasnt much fiscal restraint, but ironically the Greens have ensured anything up to 60-70 billion of government spending is diverted to the complete disaster of NAMA. Imagine trying to beg for funding for the Green agenda in an enviroment where youre already down 60 billion.

Biggins

Sand wrote: »

...but no, there will not be an electable Green agenda for a generation or more regardless of brave new starts greeted in the Irish Times to great fanfare. Green agendas might be affordable where the government hasnt much fiscal restraint, but ironically the Greens have ensured anything up to 60-70 billion of government spending is diverted to the complete disaster of NAMA. Imagine trying to beg for funding for the Green agenda in an enviroment where youre already down 60 billion.

All good points. By they supporting FF and NAMA, they brought about themselves that MASSIVE bill on their own heads - effecting their own now unclear agenda (it seems to change from month to month!) and their own demise...

They reap as they sow. How's that for a Green quote?

View

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Presuming they were electorally succesful, then sooner or later they'd stand on the threshold of coalition. At that point principles and policies would need to be compromised - that would not keep the purists happy. After all, it would be a case that they had left the (original) Greens over this precise issue and were now being asked to do the same again.

The only real difference I'd see is they might be luckier timing wise - maybe entering coalition at the start of a boom rather than a bust...

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Presuming they were electorally succesful, then sooner or later they'd stand on the threshold of coalition. At that point principles and policies would need to be compromised - that would not keep the purists happy. After all, it would be a case that they had left the (original) Greens over this precise issue and were now being asked to do the same again.

The only real difference I'd see is they might be luckier timing wise - maybe entering coalition at the start of a boom rather than a bust...

That's about how I see it panning out. Ideals are easy enough in opposition, as are criticisms of the government and talking up how much better you'd do things - but when you enter government, those ideals have to be translated into practical action against vested interests, apathy, inertia, conflicting legislation, and the sheer complexity of real government...and that's assuming you're a single party in government rather than a coalition.

However, that still leaves me with the question of how those of us who want to pursue a pro-environmental agenda are going to pick up the pieces - because I take it none* of us want an Irish political scene entirely devoid of a Green movement.

cordially,
Scofflaw

*although there are perhaps those who would prefer no Green movement to a Green movement that doesn't meet their standards

Eliot Rosewater

View wrote: »

I'd have to honestly ask what would be the point of setting up a "New Green" Party?

Well obviously they will take a different approach. Theres no problem with going into government and exerting a bit of influence, small though it be, once one doesn't stand for the kind of things the current Greens have.


Also, thinking more abstractly, theres plenty of different policies the new greens could have. Such as being pro-nuclear power or pro-incineration.

Or a different approach to public transport. Yes I know the usual scapegoat is the "infrastructure" or something but being honest the price is the biggest thing holding it back, at least in here Cork. Its cheaper for me to drive into Cork than to get the bus including parking. It seems that Government run bus services have failed. However as usual with these kind of things, the implementer of the system (FF) is blamed rather than the system itself (Government run transport).

But if the new greens are going to be cut from the same cloth as the current Greens, one has to wonder will there be any turnaround on these policies, or will it be just turning the Greens back 5 years to their idealogical stance.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Total voter base = 2 (optimistically).

amused,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

There are some, including current members of the Green Party, former members of the party, and supporters or potential supporters of the movement from which the party springs, who seem to me to have an opposition mindset. If they can't have all of what they want, they seem unwilling to settle for getting some of it.

When the Greens went into government, they bargained to get some of what they wanted. Some of the habitual oppositionists quit the party at that stage. It's the same pattern of splitting that one sees in socialist movements or among Irish republicans: when there is an attempt made by the leaders to deal with other interest groups, a group shears itself off because they won't accept the deal. The group that splits off is typically, in my view, the more extreme or intolerant part of the movement. It might be best if the extremists just went away, but it generally doesn't work out so easily: movements get damaged.

I don't like to see too many fracture lines. Another party competing for the votes of the environmentally-concerned would probably do more harm than good. The electoral prospects of the Greens have been set back for the next few years, and I don't think there is any way around that. I think they have to repair their image, and that means more than doing a public relations job. They need to review their policies and "get real".

For example, zero waste is just not going to happen, but that is the basis of the party's waste management policy: that enables them to oppose both landfill and incineration (and allows John Gormley to put constituency issues ahead of national policy). I have no respect for policies that ignore realities. Yes, it is acceptable to try to change realities, but only within the limits of what is truly possible. You can put "zero waste" up there as the impossible dream and aim to get as close as possible to it; but it is necessary to recognise that there will still be a waste disposal problem.

At the next general election, the voters are likely to present them with an opportunity: they will be excused the burdens of government, and much of the burden of public representation. That should give them the time to reflect on their policies, their successes (there have been some) and their failures, and plan a future that might be better for them and for us.

I am quite concerned about our environment (among other things) and I should be the sort of person whose vote the Green Party would hope to win. But I am also concerned about good government, and want to vote for parties that are prepared to participate pragmatically in the running of the state -- no way will I vote for starry-eyed idealists who are so focused on their dreams that they will be permanently in opposition.

I don't know if the Greens will evolve into a party that I would vote for. Given where thay are now, they have to do something to broaden their appeal, and I think the place they should look for inspiration is their own origins as an ecological movement, but it should become an ecological movement that grows up to face the big issues as well as the little ones that dominated the attention of many of its founders.

Scofflaw

At the next general election, the voters are likely to present them with an opportunity: they will be excused the burdens of government, and much of the burden of public representation. That should give them the time to reflect on their policies, their successes (there have been some) and their failures, and plan a future that might be better for them and for us.

Beautifully euphemistic!

cordially,
Scofflaw

kev9100

Instead of a new Green party, why don't all the disenchanted Green members and voters form a new Progressive Party? One that pushes for all the classic Green policies, but also for reform in the HSE and Education.

Ronanr

@ Donegalfella.

If you don't like the (unionised) Bus Eireann service from Letterkenny to Dublin there are private sector alternatives.

I have no idea how much the prices are - usually private buses are a bit cheaper - but I do not think they would get a family of four to Dublin for 35 Euro anyway.

So I am not sure how the Greens attacking the trade unions would have much impact on the price differential between the cheapest public transport option from Letterkenny to Dublin (presumably a private coach service which is non-unionised anyway) and the cost of taking a family there by car.

Scofflaw

Ronanr wrote: »

@ Donegalfella.

If you don't like the (unionised) Bus Eireann service from Letterkenny to Dublin there are private sector alternatives.

I have no idea how much the prices are - usually private buses are a bit cheaper - but I do not think they would get a family of four to Dublin for 35 Euro anyway.

So I am not sure how the Greens attacking the trade unions would have much impact on the price differential between the cheapest public transport option from Letterkenny to Dublin (presumably a private coach service which is non-unionised anyway) and the cost of taking a family there by car.

Nor, to be fair, is the fuel cost the only cost of taking a car from A to B, so a fuel cost comparison to ticket price isn't really accurate. True costs per mile would include depreciation, repairs, insurance, tax, parking, tolls, tyres, oil changes, etc - I see that in the US they use about 45-50c/mile, but many of their costs are lower than ours (esp fuel!).

If we take the AA's figure of €12,236 for average annual ownership of a petrol car (source), and the average annual mileage as 15,969km (source), then the average cost per km of an Irish petrol car is 77.6c/km.

Dublin-Letterkenny is 200km, so the likely cost of the journey for the average petrol car is actually €155.20 once you take into account all the costs of running the car. The "unionised" CIE bus ticket, on the other hand, is €17.50. Those are both one-way, and the return journeys are €310.40 and €27 respectively.

Per person for a family of 4, of course, those figures don't look quite so bad - €38.80 each way per person for the car, versus €13.50 for the bus.

Obviously that doesn't take into account the costs of taxation in each case (subsidy to the bus company, taxes going into roads) or the externalities (costs of pollution), although some of the latter are theoretically now covered for the driver by VRT.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

IrishTonyO

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we take the AA's figure of €12,236 for average annual ownership of a petrol car (source), and the average annual mileage as 15,969km (source), then the average cost per km of an Irish petrol car is 77.6c/km.

Have to say that figure is ridiculous if you ask me. My car per year costs me no where near that amount and I mean you could divide it by 4 or so.

Scofflaw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt that the cost of a second car would necessarily be as high - but is a two-car household an average household? Or is, as seems more likely, a two-car household above average in terms of disposable income?

IrishTonyO wrote:

Have to say that figure is ridiculous if you ask me. My car per year costs me no where near that amount and I mean you could divide it by 4 or so.

Your costs might be well below average (and after all, an average is just an average), or you may not be factoring them all in. I can't tell which, obviously, although if you're driving a smaller car it's probably the former.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's very true - and reinforces the point that the fuel costs of driving are very much only the tip of the iceberg.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Red_Marauder

Sorry to reply to these issues when the thread has moved on but I've read the entire thread and will try not to repeat arguments.

Scofflaw wrote: »

I wish that that were true - and for at least a couple of major issues (climate change, most obviously, but also several others) it is the case, because those issues are being driven by more environmentally conscious nations at the EU level.

Partially. Irish people do engage with environmental issues now though - even if our motives are financial (within the household saving energy output means lower household bills and fuel costs; in the community, environmental protection protects tourism; there is VRT on cars to consider, the artist formerly known as REPS, etc.). This engagement has all been without any real Green-specific leadership (except maybe the VRT issue which was probably inevitable).

And there is nothing wrong with the fact that our environmental agenda is being driven partially from Strasbourg or Brussels. What matters is not the cause, but the effect. We do not need a Green Party to drive issues that are already being driven.

However, that does nothing about our national planning, waste or transport issues, nor does it mean that the decisions taken with respect to the Irish environment are anything approaching environmentally friendly, because the other Irish parties are about as environmentally conscious as the corpse of a property developer.

That is very much opinionated, it's not necessarily the truth. Personally having read most of the Fine Gael policy documents on the environment and the €18 billion New Era policies, I'd have to disagree. In fact they seem to have a far more innovative and realistic approach to environmental issues than the Greens, somewhat worryingly.

To claim that the green agenda is a victim of its own success in Ireland is quite extraordinary, in one sense - this is not a country where the green agenda has gained anything more than a toe-hold, despite its "green" image.

I think toe-hold is quite an understatement. Wind turbines fleck the countryside around the area I grew up as they commonly do elsewhere, in the cities we take local vehicle emissions and oxide concentrations into account when planning things traffic flow; illegal dumping and littering have reached a new level of stigma... there are too many examples to name.
Of course, tinkering with light bulbs and introducing a reasonably pathetic plastic bag levy aren't going to change much, but we have done so much more. People genuinely do care about in the environment - like I said - even if only in an indirect way.

Someone mentioned the PDs and how many of their policies were copied or implemented into other party policies to the extent that they were largely the same as their Dáil counterparts, particularly Fine Gael. This is what has happened in Green politics.

We simply do not need another Green Party. Irish people might care about the environment, but the environment won't be their main electoral concern any time in the forseeable future.
Any new Green Party will be sidelined and at best have to aim for life as a junior coalition partner who gets a semi-implementation of their policies - just like the current green party.

Macha

paddyland wrote: »

The Green Party seem to have nothing to say on the subject of public transport, other than encouraging everyone to buy bicycles. We don't have the weather for bicycles in this country!

Firstly, as Scofflaw has already pointed out, countries with much worse weather than us have much higher cycling rates.

As for the Green Party not having anything to say on public transport, well I'm glad you acknowledged that it is not a Green minister in charge of DoT. But if you go onto the party website, you will see that there is a comprehensive transport policy, emphasising the importance of public transport.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is a total misinterpretation of what I wrote. I did not say there is no point in pursuing low emission combustion engine vehicles and of course they are better than high-emission vehicles. I said that it is small fry, ie that in the grander scheme of things, lower carbon vehicles are not going to be a big factor. As it stands, the VRT regime has been changed and electric vehicles are VRT-free.

Do you understand the details and the issues at hand? It takes on average 20 years to replace the car fleet of a country. Moving slowly towards lower emission vehicles does not result in significant reductions in CO2 emissions. The difference between the highest and lowest emission cars is approximately 100g co2/km. Now factor in the embodied energy of an entire new vehicle (plus other environmental impacts, including damage caused by mining etc etc etc). The motor industry's successful push for a scrappage scheme included claims that newer cars are better for the environment whereas overall, many environmentalists would argue that holding onto your old car is far, far better for the environment. And there are a myriad of other issues with private transportation aside from the carbon emissions, including social exclusion.

This is not about "absolutist Green thinking", it is facing facts. And nudging people in the right direction over decades is not a luxury we have, if you consider that the IEA (an organisation previously skeptical of the concept of peak oil) has predicted an oil shock within the next five years. Green thinking isn't about pushing morality on people, it's about dealing with the ecological limits that exist.