PARTIES AND MOVEMENTS
between these perspectives is illustrated by the opposing views over biotech-
nology and GM crops: Blair welcomed them with enthusiasm while environ-
mentalists regarded them with deep suspicion.
So, although the Labour and Conservative parties have undoubtedly
become considerably greener since the mid-1980s, their commitment has
been half-hearted and often no more than rhetorical. The Liberal Democrats
have sought to present themselves as the greenest of the major parties,
byconsistently making the environment a core campaigning issue. Yet the
only party that the public clearly identifies as greener is the Green Party.
Continued success in second-order elections in the new multilevel British
polity, particularly if the Greens start to attract disillusioned left-wing vot-
ers, could pressure Labour to take the environment more seriously. Perhaps
amoreimportant influence on Labour will be the extent to which the Con-
servatives back up David Cameron’s green rhetoric with progressive and
far-reaching policy proposals.◗ USA
The USA is like Britain in that it has no successful green party, it has a
large environmental lobby (see Table6.1), and the electoral saliency of envi-
ronmental issues is low. Public concern about the environment increased
steadily from the mid-1980s, with polls consistently reporting that Ameri-
cans cared about a range of environmental problems, although there was a
sharp decline after 2001, coinciding with the 11 September terrorist attacks,
energy shortages and rising fuel prices (Bosso and Guber 2006 : 82). Yet even
at its peak, no more than about 5–6 per cent of the electorate – the envi-
ronmental ‘issue public’ – included environmental considerations in decid-
ing which way to vote, with under 2 per cent of respondents identifying
theenvironment as the nation’s ‘most important problem’ in September
2004 (Bosso and Guber 2006 : 82). Notwithstanding the performance in 2000
of Ralph Nader, who stood on a Green Party ticket, the environment has
generally been insignificant during presidential campaigns (Tatalovich and
Wattier 1999 :173–5; Guber 2003 :119)(seeBox5.5).^6
In comparison with the UK, environmental politics has taken a more par-
tisan form in the USA, with the Democratic Party embracing environmental-
ism to a greater extent than the Republicans. Democratic Party platforms at
presidential elections since 1976 have ‘generally called for increased spend-
ing, additional government action, and overall stronger efforts to control
pollution’, whilst the Republicans have favoured ‘little or no government
intervention... and a relaxation of current pollution control restrictions
so that economic growth is not impeded’ (Kamieniecki 1995 :152). Admit-
tedly, research shows that successful presidential candidates have a poor
record in implementing their (limited) environmental pledges (Tatalovich
and Wattier 1999 ). Nevertheless, studies of roll-call voting on environmental
bills in Congress and state legislatures since the 1970s show that Democrat