Even though environmental problems and actions aimed at their management can be said to have existed from the beginnings of human societies,[1] they only became a focus of public (policy) concern in the 1960s.[2] The environmental movement, broadly conceived as comprising all those for whom the protection of the environment is a core value, is arguably the primary factor driving environmental integration as a purposeful process. The United States is often regarded as a breeding ground for this movement, sparked by the seminal publication of Silent Spring, growing pollution problems and incidents (such as major oil spills), a flourishing of environmental writings, news, and initiatives, and the organisation of the first Earth Day in 1970.[3] It was also the place of origin for several new environmental organisations, such as the Environmental Defense Fund (created in 1967), and Friends of the Earth (established in 1969). The new wave of environmental concern was not confined to the United States but also manifested in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the world. Further boosted by a raft of publications that foretold a dire future if environmental pressures were not brought under control and people did not fundamentally change their ways,[4] by the time of the first international conference on the human environment (in Stockholm, 1972), and the first oil crisis in 1973, the environmental movement had become an entrenched feature of the political landscape in many countries.
Here, the purpose is not to offer a comprehensive description or analysis of the environmental movement, but to discuss to what extent this movement has been, and/or can be, a conducive factor in developing and adopting a widely shared environmentally based worldview. As discussed on the environmental integration page, without such a vision or worldview, it is unlikely that environmental integration can occur in coherent and non-conflicting ways, and environmental problems will be addressed (more) effectively.
Diversity in environmental thinking
For a start, many environmental thinkers have pointed out that the environment is an interconnected whole or system, including humans,[5] and that this implies that environmental problems can’t be resolved or even reduced by addressing them separately. Instead, many have argued that resolving the environmental challenge requires considering the environment as a whole (adopting a holistic view), given its interconnected or systemic nature, including its interactions with humans. Human behaviour and practices can have multiple, indirect, delayed, synergistic, and cumulative environmental impacts, while solutions aimed at addressing any one problem may simply shift the problem, exacerbate other problems, or create new ones.[6] To effectively tackle environmental problems, we need to develop a good knowledge and understanding of how the environment works and incorporate that knowledge into the social, economic, political, technological and other systems that guide human thinking, behaviour and practices.
Although many of these obstacles to environmental integration lie within the prevailing systems that primarily serve non-environmental interests, the environmental movement has also contributed to the problem in some respects. While environmental thinkers and advocates have offered many ideas and solutions to specific environmental issues and the environmental challenge as a whole, there has never been anything close to widespread agreement on what the main (systemic) causes are, let alone on the solutions to problems and/or on the course of action that needs to be taken. This lack of agreement exists at all levels, ranging from local to global. While, at times and in some places, environmental advocates have managed to forge agreement on particular issues or solutions, this has never extended to the environmental challenge as a whole. Hence, despite the agreement among many environmental thinkers at a general level on the need for a holistic, integrated, or systemic approach, this has never been translated into a consensus on an overarching vision of how the environmental challenge needs to be addressed. While all environmentalists agree that there are (serious) environmental problems, they have never shared a common, environmentally based worldview.
From its very beginnings, the environmental movement has been a very diverse phenomenon, with many different views or schools of thought about what the main (systemic) causes are, and what kind(s) of actions and/or solutions are needed to handle or resolve environmental problems or the challenge as a whole. It is not my intention to elaborate on the many perspectives that are on offer, apart from noting that analysts have used a range of labels to differentiate between them, for example “deep and shallow” ecologists,[7] radical ecology versus environmentalism,[8] ecocentric and technocentric environmentalism,[9] eco-socialism,[10] eco-anarchism,[11] eco-feminism,[12]radical and institutionalised environmentalism,[13] democratic and authoritarian environmental perspectives,[14] and centralism or globalism versus decentralism,[15]to name just a few. Some analysts argue that it is misleading to speak of “the” environmental movement, given the significant differences in analysis and philosophy, political orientation, problem focus, and adopted strategies within and between countries, as well as at the international level.[16]
Strengths and weaknesses in diversity
Characterising the diversity within the environmental movement, or of environmental movements, as a problem goes against the grain of dominant thinking in environmental sociology and politics. Diversity is commonly viewed not only as inevitable but also as a positive aspect. Diversity reflects differences in socio-cultural backgrounds, geography, history, and the nature and/or degree of environmental problems facing people. Moreover, philosophical and ideological differences, often linked to differences in social position and interests, are regarded as the inevitable and positive characteristics of a pluralist and democratic society. Questioning the value of diversity also goes against ecological thinking, which values (bio-) diversity highly, and thus could be considered academically and politically foolish, to say the least.
Yet, while I agree with all these observations, this diversity also presents a problem when it comes to collectively addressing the environmental challenge more comprehensively and effectively. With a few exceptions, the environmental movement has approached the environmental challenge in a similar, reactive, ad hoc, and fragmented manner as governments. Much environmental activism focuses on specific issues after they have become (serious) problems, without linking them to a broader strategy. Overwhelmingly, the kinds of solutions that environmental groups have sought are like stops, bans, mitigation, or reduction—stopping particular sources of pollution, stopping mining proposals or projects, stopping overfishing, stopping developments that have adverse environmental effects, banning plastic bags, banning pesticides, stopping or reducing the logging of forests, saving threatened species, the reduction of CO2 and other emissions, and so on. Some groups undertake activities that more or less directly protect or improve the environment and human well-being (like revegetation and ecological restoration, organic growing, permaculture projects, sustainable energy and building projects). Still, in most cases, these also fail to dent the overwhelmingly unsustainable thrust of mainstream economic activities and developments. While I do not want to downplay the value and merits of environmental activism – the world would have been a much worse place without it – one has to question the effectiveness of the environmental movement after more than five decades of attempts to halt environmental degradation. In this respect, I agree with Gustav Speth that “all in all, today’s environmentalism has not been succeeding. We have been winning battles, including some critical ones, but losing the war”.[17]
Like religious leaders and churches, environmental advocates have had considerable influence on (segments of) the public and thereby also indirectly on the policies and decisions of governments. But while it is possible, on specific issues, to attribute such influence to particular environmental groups and their campaigns, it is more difficult to assess whether or to what extent the environmental movement as a whole has had an impact on the environmental views and attitudes of the public at large, or on what Jamison calls the making of “green knowledge”.[18] Jamison argues that “Perhaps the main challenge for professional environmentalists – both in the academic and non-government domains – is to help re-establish a sense of coherence in relation to all of the increasingly disparate movements, networks, campaigns, and alliances that they relate to”.[19] Norton has made a case for creating a common language to bridge the differences between the various branches of the environmental movement as the first step towards a unified theory of environmental management.[20]
It has also been argued that the modest outcomes of environmental action can be attributed to environmentalists themselves, linked to the professionalisation and institutionalisation of (part of) the environmental movement. Some environmental groups have become highly professional organisations, dependent on external sources of (state and other) funding and have adopted a more cooperative rather than confrontational approach towards governments and businesses. Behaving like businesses themselves, they tend to advocate technological and “win-win” solutions to problems that, according to some, have turned them into co-pilots of ecological modernisation.[21] This institutionalisation process has occurred in most countries and has been accompanied by a decline in political activism.[22] These developments have raised concerns that this part of the environmental movement has lost its sharp edge, or worse, that it has been co-opted and rendered ineffective by the dominant powers. The de-radicalisation and depoliticisation of a significant part of the environmental movement have led to calls for reactivating the movement and have underscored the importance of (at least part of) the movement maintaining its independence as part of a robust civil society.[23]
Green parties
It can be argued that there is one arm of the environmental movement that has attempted to overcome this fragmented and reactive approach, to overcome the ideological divisions within the green movement, that offers a coherent vision and programme for a sustainable future, and that is engaged in a political-strategic approach towards bringing about a fundamental change in the dominant paradigm as well as in the prevailing political and economic systems: green parties. Although this characterisation of green parties is contestable, as we will see below, they are the most promising branch of the environmental movement with respect to the aim of bringing about more coherent, comprehensive, and meaningful environmental integration, notably at the national level. Arguably, green parties are the most important collective agents for advancing environmental integration politically, based on a coherent vision, through policy, institutional, and systemic change.
Green parties first emerged in the 1970s in Tasmania (Australia), New Zealand and the United Kingdom. It is instructive how the first national-level green party established in New Zealand, in 1972, was called the Values Party, making explicit its focus on changing the dominant values perceived to underlie environmental, social, economic, spiritual, and other problems affecting societies.[24] Although there are programmatic differences between green parties, related to differences in social, political and economic contexts, most green parties share at least six fundamental principles: ecological wisdom, social justice, participatory democracy, nonviolence, sustainability and respect for diversity.[25] While including a strong commitment to the protection of nature, or, in Goodin’s terms, a “green theory of value”,[26] this set of broad principles forms the basis for advancing comprehensive and coherent programmes of environmental integration while at the same time aiming to bring about significant socio-cultural, political, and economic change.
In the late 1970s and 1980s, green parties were set up in several other European countries.[27] Over time, they have been established in many countries, and as of 2016, there were approximately 91 green parties worldwide. Although little is known about most of them, 31 have gained parliamentary representation (commonly with just a few members), while only seven have been junior partners in a government coalition.[28] They have also formed an international network of the “Global Greens”.[29] Although the growth in environmental awareness and commitment can be seen as a basis for their emergence, Rootes[30] rightly notes that this is not a sufficient condition. Whether green parties take off depends largely on the political and institutional conditions prevalent in a country, including the electoral system, political competition for the green vote, and the ability of other parties to attract green voters.[31]
Although green parties share (most of) the principles mentioned above, this does not mean they are ideologically cohesive. While it has been argued that green parties are “neither left nor right, but out in front”,[32] it has also been found that most members are left-leaning[33] and that, where green parties have participated in government, they have done so almost exclusively with parties on the left.[34] Social justice and the redistribution of wealth, issues traditionally associated with the left, are also important planks in the political programs of most green parties.[35] Political-ideological differences between “watermelon” and “cucumber” (“pure green”) factions, often referred to as “Realos” and “Fundis” using the German labels,[36] have plagued most green parties from the beginning, raising conflict also about their internal organisation and the extent to which they must continue to practise “grassroots” democracy also when participating in government.
Internal conflict is also fuelled by the extent of compromise on programmatic issues that inevitably comes with participating in government. It has been found that the participation of the Greens in government decision-making, including at the EU level, has had a de-radicalising effect on those involved, as it requires them to compromise and become more reformist in their outlook, creating or adding to tensions with rank-and-file members.[37] Whether de-radicalisation, which has affected the environmental movement in general and tends to lead to just sticking plasters on environmental problems, is an unavoidable by-product of participating in government decision-making, is an important question. How green parties can remain true to their core values and the goal of bringing about fundamental political, economic, and social change, while supporting governments as a junior partner in exchange for very modest gains, and maintain, or rather expand, their support base, remains an ongoing challenge for all green parties.[38][39]
This is not surprising, of course. Nowhere have the Greens been able to impose their programme on a government. In most countries where the Greens are (or have been) represented in the national Parliament, their share of the vote has been relatively modest most of the time (less than five per cent in most cases, not much higher than around ten per cent in some cases).[40] Whether political support for the Greens will increase significantly remains an open question.[41] Even though in many countries, the support for social-democratic (or labour) parties and other major parties has declined in the wake of the fall of (“really existing”) socialism in Eastern Europe and the rise of neoliberalism, green parties are not, as Rootes notes, “inevitable beneficiaries of the decay of traditional party alignments”.[42] In recent years, the truth of Rootes’ observation has clearly been illustrated in many countries where, despite the electoral collapse of the traditional main parties, far-right and populist parties and politicians gained more political support than (most) green parties. Green parties have not (yet) become the political force for change that many Greens had hoped. Nonetheless, while the electoral fortunes of green parties ebb and flow, few have died, and it seems that the Greens are a political force that is here to stay.[43]
There is, however, a worrying trend. Developments within the Green Party in Germany suggest that it has undergone an ideological transformation, albeit at the expense of some of its founding principles. Led by Joschka Fischer, the Green Foreign Minister in 1999, the German Greens supported the bombing of Serbia by NATO. In 2002, they supported the bombing of Libya, and in 2003, the invasion of Iraq in the “war on terror”, even if the German government did not join the “coalition of the willing”. The German Greens have become staunch supporters of NATO, its expansion, and the use of military power to defend “freedom.” This is perhaps best exemplified in public statements by Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s (2024) Green Foreign Minister, on the Russia-Ukraine war. This stance is a far cry from the non-violence that has been one of the Greens’ core principles from their early days.
While it can be argued that the Greens’ stance on military power and its use has changed in the light of changing geopolitical realities, it is harder to defend the ideological shift toward accepting neoliberalism as the “solution” to the world’s (or a country’s) environmental problems. Yet, this has been a marked trend in green parties, perhaps most clearly so in Germany, where the Greens obtained high positions (Vice-Chancellor, Finance, and Foreign Affairs) in the SPD/FDP/Greens coalition government after the 2021 elections. Rather than advocating for fundamental economic (policy, institutional, and industrial) change, they accepted the conservative neoliberal stance of their coalition partners. This also implies buying into typical eco-capitalist environmental policies, such as carbon trading and promoting “green” technologies (electric cars, solar, and wind power), which offer new economic growth opportunities. This ideological shift has been pushed more by leading figures in the German Green Party rather than by changing circumstances, illustrating the reformist trend among parliamentary Greens mentioned above.
The experience of the German Greens is perhaps an outlier. In most other countries where the Greens joined or supported governments, they have only been given responsibility for less important portfolios, often related to environmental matters. Thus, they have perhaps avoided the traps into which the German Greens have fallen, which has re-ignited conflicts within the Green constituency, and to a punishing loss of voter support in German state elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg. Overall, the achievements of Green parties are a long way from the comprehensive environmental integration and transformation that are needed. So far, Green parties have not brought about a “green revolution” or a paradigmatic change.
Conclusion
To conclude, although many environmental thinkers have pointed out the interconnected nature of the environmental challenge, the environmental movement has consistently struggled to translate this view into a concerted programme of action. In large part, this can be attributed to the diversity of views within the environmental movement, which makes it very difficult to find common ground on what is needed to (fundamentally and/or effectively) tackle the environmental challenge. This has led most environmental demands and actions to focus on specific environmental problems, on which it is easier to reach an agreement and mobilise public support. Green parties have arguably taken a more comprehensive and coherent approach to addressing the environmental challenge. Still, they have also been plagued by internal divisions, not only about tactics and means, but also increasingly about goals and why these parties were created in the first place. Moreover, without major political breakthroughs that would give green parties dominant positions in government, they will continue to face formidable obstacles to introducing the fundamental political and economic changes needed to address the roots of environmental problems.
References
[1] Ponting, Clive, A Green History of the World. London: Penguin Books.
[2] Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963), “Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy”. Public Administration Review, Vol . 23, pp.132-139.
[3] Earth Day Network, The History of Earth Day. https://www.earthday.org/history/ (Accessed: 29 September 2015).
[4] Goldsmith, Edward (1972), Blueprint for Survival. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jörgen Randers, William W. Behrens (1972, 1974, 2nd ed.), The Limits to Growth. A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: New American Library.
[5] Boulding, Kenneth E. (1966), “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”, in Jarrett, H. (ed.) Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy and Society. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.3-14.; Capra, Fritjof (1982), The Turning Point. Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. London: HarperCollins (Flamingo); Commoner, Barry (1972), The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred Knopf.; Ward, Barbara and René J. Dubos (1972), Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Harmondsworth: Penguin; Caldwell, Lynton K. (1963), Environment: A Challenge for Modern Society. Garden City, New York: Published for the American Museum of Natural History by the Natural History Press.
[6] Bartlett, Robert V. (1990), “Comprehensive Environmental Decision Making: Can It Work?” in Vig, N. J. and M. E. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 235-254; Guruswamy, Lakshman (1989), “Integrating Thoughtways: Re-Opening of the Environmental Mind?” in Vig, N. J. and M. E. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.235-254.
[7] Naess, Arne (1972), “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement. A Summary”, Inquiry, Vol . 16, No.95, 95-100.
[8] Sutton, Philip W. (2000), Explaining Environmentalism: In Search of a New Social Movement. Aldershot, Burlington, Vt: Ashgate.
[9] O’Riordan, Timothy (1981, 2nd rev. ed.), Environmentalism. London: Pion Limited.
[10] Kovel, Joel (2014), “Ecosocialism as a Human Phenomenon”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol . 25, No.1, 10-23; Pepper, David (1993), Eco-Socialism. From Deep Ecology to Social Justice. London and New York: Routledge.
[11] Bookchin, Murray (1986, 3rd ed.), Post-Scarcity Anarchism. Edinburgh: AK.
[12] Mies, Maria and Vandana Shiva (1993), Ecofeminism. Melbourne: Spinifex.
[13] Rootes, Christopher (1999), “Environmental Movements: From the Local to the Global”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 8, No.1, 1-12.
[14] Radcliffe, James (2000), Green Politics. Dictatorship or Democracy? Basingstoke, England: Macmillan Press.
[15] Schumacher, E. F. (1973), Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as If People Mattered. London: Blond and Briggs; O’Riordan, Timothy (2001), Globalism, Localism, and Identity: Fresh Perspectives on the Transition to Sustainability. London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
[16] Doyle, Timothy and Sherilyn MacGregor (2014), “Through the Green Kaleidoscope: Environmental Movements around the World”, in T. Doyle and S. MacGregor (eds.), Environmental Movements around the World: Shades of Green in Politics and Culture, Volume 2, Europe, Asia and Oceania. Santa Barbara, California: Praeger, 1-19; O’Neill, Kate (2012), “The Comparative Study of Environmental Movements”, in P. F. Steinberg and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge, Mass.The MIT Press,114-141. One might add that this diversity of views has been further complicated by the idea that nature and the environment, and the notion of an environmental crisis, do not exist objectively but are “socially constructed”, an idea deliberately fuelled by anti-environmental interests that portray “radical” environmentalists as alarmists or even terrorists. Buell, Frederick (2003), From Apocalypse to Way of Life: Environmental Crisis in the American Century. New York: Routledge.
[17] Speth, James Gustave (2008, e-book ed.), The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, New Haven and London: Yale University Press, Loc 49-50.
[18] Jamison, Andrew (2003), “The Making of Green Knowledge: The Contribution from Activism”, Futures, Vol . 35, No.7, 703-716.
[19] Ibid., 710.
[20] Norton, Bryan G. (1991), Toward Unity among Environmentalists. New York: Oxford University Press.
[21] Chartier, D. and J. Deleage (1998), “The International Environmental NGOS: From Revolutionary Alternative to the Pragmatism of Reform”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 7, No.3, 26-41.
[22] Dalton, Russell J. (2015), “Waxing or Waning? The Changing Patterns of Environmental Activism”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 24, No.4, 530-552.
[23] Dryzek, John S., et al. (2003), Green States and Social Movements: Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. New York: Oxford University Press; Garman, Joss (2009), “It’s All About Us”, The Ecologist, Vol . 39, No.4, 83; Boggs, Carl (2012), Ecology and Revolution. Global Crisis and Political Challenge. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[24] Dann, Christine (1999), From Earth’s Last Islands. The Global Origins of Green Politics. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University.
[25] The German Green Party, established in 1980 and a source of inspiration for many other green parties created since, adopted the first four principles. Over time, these principles or values have been expanded upon, and the Global Greens, the umbrella organisation of green parties, have adopted the six principles or values mentioned. However, the US Green Party formulated ten principles. Green Party US (2017), Ten Key Values (Accessed: 21 November 2017). The Swedish Green Party has adopted fourteen principles. Wikipedia (2016), Green Party (Sweden), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_(Sweden) (Accessed: 19 October 2016). While most of these additional principles may not seem controversial, the fact that they are not all officially shared suggests that green parties differ to some extent on what they consider the most essential principles.
[26] Goodin, Robert E. (1992), Green Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press, chapter 2.
[27] Parkin, Sara (1989), Green Parties: An International Guide. London: Heretic Books.
[28] Wikipedia (2016), Global Greens, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Greens (Accessed: 13 October 2016).
[29] Ibid.
[30] Rootes, Chris (1995), “Environmental Consciousness, Institutional Structures and Political Competition in the Formation and Development of Green Parties”, in D. Richardson and C. Rootes (eds.), The Green Challenge: The Development of Green Parties in Europe, 232-252.
[31] Richardson, Dick (1995), “The Green Challenge: Philosophical, Programmatic and Electoral Considerations”, in D. Richardson and C. Rootes (eds.), The Green Challenge. The Development of Green Parties in Europe, 4-22.
[32] Parkin, Sara, Green Parties: An International Guide, 17.
[33] Rootes, Chris, “Environmental Consciousness, Institutional Structures and Political Competition in the Formation and Development of Green Parties”, 247-248.
[34] Rihoux, Benoît and Wolfgang Rüdig (2006), “Analyzing Greens in Power: Setting the Agenda”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45, No.1, 1-33.
[35] Parkin, Sara, Green Parties: An International Guide, 17, 23.
[36] O’Neill, Michael (2012), “Political Parties and the ‘Meaning of Greening’ in European Politics”, in P. F. Steinberg and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects, 171-194.
[37] Rihoux, Benoît and Wolfgang Rüdig (2006), “Analyzing Greens in Power: Setting the Agenda”; Bomberg, Elizabeth and Neil Carter (2006), “The Greens in Brussels: Shaping or Shaped?”, European Journal of Political Research, Vol.. 45, No.1, 99-125.
[38] Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand (2002), “The Lifespan and the Political Performance of Green Parties in Western Europe”, Environmental Politics, Vol.11, No.1, 1-16; Poguntke, Thomas (2002), “Green Parties in National Governments: From Protest to Acquiescence?”, Environmental Politics, Vol 11, No.1, 133-145; Rihoux, Benoît and Wolfgang Rüdig (2006), “Analyzing Greens in Power: Setting the Agenda”.
[39] Poguntke, Thomas (2002), “Green Parties in National Governments: From Protest to Acquiescence?”, 143.
[40] Muller-Rommel, Ferdinand (2002), “The Lifespan and the Political Performance of Green Parties in Western Europe”. The German Greens obtained an average of 7% in the federal elections between 1980 and 2013, with the highest result being 10.7% in 2009 Wikipedia (2016), Alliance ’90/the Greens, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_%2790/The_Greens (Accessed: 19 October 2016). In Sweden, the Green Party scored an average of 4.6% between 1982 and 2014, with a high of 7.3% in 2014. Wikipedia, Green Party (Sweden). The highest score by the Swiss Greens was 9.6% in 2007. Wikipedia (2016), Green Party of Switzerland, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Switzerland (Accessed: 19 October 2016). The Finnish Greens scored 8.53 (in 2015). Wikipedia (2016), Green League, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_League (Accessed: 19 October 2016). And the Dutch Groen Links 7.3% (in 1998). Wikipedia (2016), Groenlinks, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GroenLinks (Accessed: 19 October 2016). The Austrian Greens were probably the consistently highest-scoring party, with an average of 7.6% between 1983 and 2013, and a high result of 12.4% in 2013. Wikipedia (2016), The Greens – the Green Alternative, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Greens_%E2%80%93_The_Green_Alternative (Accessed: 19 October 2016). The New Zealand Green Party also scored an average of 7.6% across seven elections between 1990 and 2014, with the highest result of 11.1% achieved in 2011. Wikipedia (2016), Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_of_Aotearoa_New_Zealand (Accessed: 19 October 2016). It is worth noting that the best scores were achieved by most green parties in recent years.
[41] In the 2021 elections in Germany, the Green Party’s vote share increased to 14.8%, providing the basis for their participation in a coalition government alongside the SPD and the FDP. The Federal Returning Officer (2021), Bundestag Election 2021 Results (Accessed: 21 December 2021). Despite this best-ever result, it does not make the Greens the leading government party, does not alter the need for compromise on many key issues, and still makes systemic (including economic) reforms unlikely.
[42] Rootes, Chris, “Environmental Consciousness, Institutional Structures and Political Competition in the Formation and Development of Green Parties”, 248.
[43] O’Neill, Michael, “Political Parties and the ‘Meaning of Greening’ in European Politics”; Rüdig, Wolfgang (2015), “The Greens in the 2014 European Elections”, Environmental Politics, Vol . 24, No.1, 156-162.