In any case, mankind is not on their agenda, so what can you expect if they put it second or third place by default of their policy?
What exactly are your examples BTW?
Personally, i agree with what you are saying to an extent and for the record i don't support the Greens either. A little pragmatism goers a long way when discussing the impact they have and a discussion on what they do wrong - that is, what they do wrong by themselves, by the environment and to Man, would be a great thread to get started IMO.
For example, i don't think they project the impact of their policies enough into the future to achieve a a realistic impact study of their policies. Specifically, implementing legislation to make it compulsory for the industrial use of Brown Coal that is cleaner then black coal and which produces distilled water would be a seriously intelligent evolution on what we currently have - but they refuse to entertain (an insulting word) the word coal in anny way and so we are left with flawed debates about black coal only and the problems it spews into our environment. If however the Greens would entertain a much healthier Coal derivative, then we would be discussing how to further mitigate the impacts of an alreayd healthier fuel.
