Green Doesn’t Have To Be Left: Navigating Political Complexity in Wellington

Challenging the notion that the Greens are Left and the best—and only—solution to our environmental issues, with a special lens on Wellington's unique political landscape.

Let’s challenge the idea that the Greens own the Left and rethink why the Left doesn’t hold a monopoly on values or morals.

This gross misunderstanding of the Greens and the Left limits our capacity to use politics to solve hard issues like climate change. This misunderstanding is particularly entrenched in Wellington.

Wellington prides itself on progressive green politics, but what if our understanding of environmental solutions is more limited than we think? What if the association between environmentalism and the political Left narrows our thinking and undermines our broader potential for change?

In this article, I’ll challenge the belief that the Green Party is the best—and only—answer to environmental challenges. We must explore how aligning environmental politics strictly with the Left restricts progress and why transcending these traditional political lines can empower more effective action.

I get it—this perspective is not the one we discuss or even consider as an option, especially here in Aotearoa and even more so in Wellington, a bastion of progressive green politics. Wellington is a city where conversations often imply that the Left is politically preferable and morally superior.

But is this perception helping or hindering our ability to solve problems? What if we considered that if we really cared about the environment, we wouldn’t care what Party was in power as long as the environment was on the political agenda? What if the Greens focused on the environment again and decided they would work with anybody that puts them on the Cabinet table, where the real change happens?

It seems like the Greens want to be righteous more than they want to be effective, which is deeply problematic.

To understand why this perception needs to shift, consider this foundational truth:

Politics and democratic societies are based on general agreement on certain key concepts like freedom, solidarity, welfare, and progress, but also in deep disagreement about giving substance and content to these concepts.

This duality is essential—without an agreement, there is no political cohesion or framework to guide the process, only fragmentation. But without disagreement, there is no politics, only the administration of consensus.

Wellington’s political environment often misses this balance. Conversations here can become monolithic, framing Green politics as inherently leftist. This stifles nuanced dialogue and limits creative policy solutions. Politics is not about uniformity; it’s about conflict, compromise, and searching for positions where the seemingly incompatible can coexist.

By framing environmental solutions as exclusively within the domain of the Left, we create an echo chamber that shuts out valuable and effective ideas, perspectives and solutions. This can be counterproductive, especially when tackling complex issues like climate change, which demand innovative thinking from across the political spectrum and where non-government agents have more agency to solve their local issues—which are right-leaning values. Actual progress requires us to move beyond the narrow binaries of Left and Right, embracing the conflict and searching for compromises that push us towards more comprehensive solutions.

Let’s rethink the narrative at the heart of Wellington’s politics. The Left doesn’t have a monopoly on environmental values or solutions. By recognizing this and fostering a more flexible, inclusive dialogue, we can unlock more creative and effective ways to address the issues we face.

Photo by Becca Lavin on Unsplash

This mindset has roots in New Zealand history, shaping a political landscape where Labour and National dominate as moderate forces, while MMP has created space for smaller parties like ACT, the Greens, and New Zealand First to thrive. Yet, notably absent is any official centrist or Green/Blue party to shift how we view the political spectrum in New Zealand. The Opportunities Party (TOP) was, and still is, the closest we have to a Blue/Green centrist party, which is why I chose them as the party to run with last year.

But here’s the problem: this vacuum doesn’t just silence voices; it sets the stage for bigger issues, such as further, more violent polarized dialogue and a lack of meaningful debate or even any debate. That’s why it’s crucial to explore new ways of thinking about how we approach Politics and engage with ideas across the spectrum.

Why I Want to Talk About This

Conversations in Wellington often veer into politics, sometimes before the second coffee is poured. I lean into these discussions not just because I enjoy them but because I’m driven to create spaces where people can explore their beliefs without the fear of being judged, cancelled, or misunderstood. Let’s face it: political discourse has become more of a battlefield than an exchange of ideas, and I want to contribute to changing that narrative. In an environment where political views are so closely tied to identity, creating room for honest dialogue is not just nice—it’s essential.

My approach is intentionally non-judgmental, open-minded, and flexible. This stems from living in five countries (Mexico, USA, Canada, Spain and NZ) and absorbing various cultures, beliefs, and social norms throughout my life. Political perspectives are deeply influenced by personal context and backstory. Years of deep academic dives into political science have also given me a layer of emotional distance. This necessary buffer helps me navigate these topics without the heat of bias.

But I’m not just talking about this for the sake of good conversation. It matters because when we reduce politics to rigid categories and moral absolutes, we miss the chance for nuanced discussion and more effective political outcomes. This is why I’m circling back to the Greens, the Left, and how we can think about them differently—not to change anyone’s mind, but to widen the lens through which we view political ideas.

Photo by Hannah Tims on Unsplash

Environmental Politics: Not Always Left

To foster open, honest, and nuanced conversations about Politics, we need to challenge some of our core assumptions about Political identity. One common belief is that environmental politics inherently belong to the Left, especially in Aotearoa and, more specifically, in Wellington.

So let’s set the record straight: environmental parties aren’t always Left-leaning. Effective Green parties should work across the spectrum to be more effective. Not like the New Zealand Greens, who shot the seven in the foot by not working with National. Imagine what the government today would have looked like if the Greens would have been strategic enough to get a seat in Cabinet?

While progress and change are associated with Leftist ideals, global examples reveal that environmental movements can align just as easily with the Right. This alignment is sometimes called Green Conservatism, a philosophy that supports market and community-based solutions to address environmental challenges rather than relying on centralized planning.

In Germany, for instance, the conservative CDU/CSU has spearheaded significant environmental policies, including phasing out nuclear power and promoting renewable energy. Similarly, under leaders like David Cameron, the UK’s Conservative Party launched its “Vote Blue, Go Green” campaign, showing that green initiatives coexist with right-leaning governance. Finland’s Centre Party, which leans to the right of the Centre, emphasizes sustainable rural development and environmental stewardship. Even in the U.S., “eco-conservatism” exists, represented by groups like ConservAmerica, which promote conservation rooted in traditional conservative values such as responsibility and resource stewardship.

Now that we can see the Greens don’t have to be exclusively tied to the Left, it’s worth considering how they could work across political ideologies. This nuance is often overlooked in New Zealand, where the Green Party has firmly positioned itself as synonymous with the Left. Recognizing that environmental politics can transcend traditional political boundaries could shift how we think about political identity and open up new avenues for dialogue and collaboration.

The Green Party’s strategy of rooting itself on the far Left has solidified its base and helped carve out a confusing, at times, ideological identity. Their disjointed and dogmatic direction limits their broader appeal and, more importantly, curtails its ability to shape policy and legislation and participate effectively in Cabinet discussions—where the key decisions are made. ACT and New Zealand First, both smaller parties, have demonstrated how political flexibility can lead to greater influence, showing that maneuverability is an asset, not a compromise. By staunchly rejecting collaboration with the Right, the Greens may have inadvertently restricted their capacity to enact the environmental progress they champion.

It’s not far-fetched to say that the Green Party now resembles more of a socialist party than a purely environmental one. Here’s an interesting point: during last year’s campaign, the Greens published 51 detailed policies on their website, making them one of the most policy-rich parties of the election. But of those 51, fewer than ten were focused on environmental issues. This shift toward broader social and cultural policies isn’t inherently wrong—it highlights their commitment to social justice. Still, it muddles their environmental identity and limits their capacity to drive meaningful ecological progress.

Imagine if, in the last election, the Greens had signalled a willingness to collaborate with any party forming a government, prioritizing policy influence over the rigid political alignment. Such a strategy could have positioned them within the Cabinet, where tangible changes are forged. Instead, by aligning exclusively with the Left, they’ve narrowed their political playing field, possibly sacrificing broader influence for the comfort of ideological purity.

Imagine today’s government but the Greens instead of ACT or NZ First. I know that’s hard, but indulge me …

I know this idea might sound surprising and even hard to imagine. Our dogma and indoctrination into Left-Green ideas are well embedded in our psyches. I see the puzzled looks when I mention it to friends and family—like I’ve suggested something radical or outlandish. But this isn’t about compromising core values; it’s about expanding our understanding of what environmental politics—and politics in general—can be.

We need to think beyond traditional alignments and ask ourselves if holding onto one side of the spectrum is worth the opportunities we might miss.

So, if you’ve read this far, you might be thinking: “Okay, maybe the Greens could collaborate with the Right, but I still don’t trust the Right—aren’t they the problem?” No, they are not …

If we’re going to challenge the idea that the Green Party must be strictly Left, we also need to reconsider how we view the Right. The notion that the Right is inherently “bad” or morally inferior is not only a narrow and shallow understanding of the Right, but it also fuels a divisive, counterproductive approach to politics that limits real progress.

I’m not here to defend every policy ACT or National puts forward, but reducing politics to a simplistic binary where “Left = good, Right = bad” oversimplifies complex issues and restricts productive dialogue and our capacity to think about politics differently. This mindset, particularly pervasive in a city as progressive as Wellington, deserves unpacking.

As a radical Centrist, I aim to shift how we think about the political spectrum. Consider this: while the Left believes government should address more societal issues, the Right argues for a more restrained approach. Centrism, however, seeks strategic focus—it’s about leveraging the public service and community groups, locally-led solutions and the private sector to tackle complex problems effectively, strategically and sustainably. Yet these nuanced perspectives are often lost in oversimplified narratives where the Left is seen as virtuous, the Right as villainous, and the Centre as unclear or ineffective.

One of our biggest challenges in understanding the Right is our narrow and often superficial perception of what the Market truly represents. The Market isn't limited to large corporations avoiding taxes and regulations. If your view of the Market is confined to figures like Jeff Bezos or partners at Deloitte and PwC, you're missing the bigger picture. The Market encompasses community groups, churches, small and medium-sized businesses, startups, social enterprises, farmers, tradespeople, scientists, NGOs, and everyday people like you and me. I only request that you remain open to the idea that the Market is far more than wealthy, powerful men getting richer at the expense of others—because that perception is inaccurate. We think this is limiting our options for real change.

Bringing this back to the Greens, imagine the potential if we recognized that effective environmental policy could draw on both Leftist and Right-leaning principles. Public-private partnerships, often championed by the Right, could help propel environmental innovation without sacrificing core ecological values. By moving beyond rigid labels, we can unlock more comprehensive solutions. Here in Wellington Central, we must remind ourselves that dismissing the Right out of hand limits the open dialogue needed for meaningful change.

Rebuilding Discourse, One Conversation at a Time

Political discourse today feels broken. Misinformation spreads rapidly, and our understanding of political ideologies has become blurred, dangerous and grossly narrow. I see the Left, especially here, often weaponizing the notion that dissenting views are not just incorrect but morally unacceptable. This shuts down dialogue. If you express support for the Right or even hint at centrist ideas, you risk being labelled part of the problem. Cancelled. Conversation over.

But this isn’t how political engagement should work. We need less certainty, more curiosity, and a genuine willingness to understand why others believe what they do. The goal isn’t to agree on everything; it’s to learn how to disagree without demonizing each other.

If this little corner of the internet serves one purpose, let it be this: a space to challenge assumptions, foster balance, and push back against the polarization that erodes genuine discourse. It’s a reminder that being “less certain” isn’t a flaw—it’s how we actually achieve change.

Happy Tuesday!