"Greens believe that our air, land and water are precious to us all, and must be preserved."

Ecological Wisdom means that, but also something deeper (and therefore more difficult to "sell" to many Americans).

A find a nice statement by Lansing Scott on the Seattle Greens web sit:

...In addition to protecting the environment, ecological wisdom means something more. It is also a way of understanding our world, "a new paradigm," as some like to say. Ecology offers a holistic perspective that enables Greens to find the connections among seemingly disparate social problems. This "whole-systems" view is what makes the Green vision more than a simple collection of single-issue causes - "more than the sum of its parts," so to speak. Many of our most serious problems today stem directly from the way our political and economic systems are structured; Greens therefore advocate systemic changes that address multiple problems simultaneously.

Ecological wisdom is a recognition that human society is enmeshed in the web of nature, and that attempts at dominating nature for narrow human purpose lead to very destructive consequences. This insight of ecology can also be extended to see the folly in other forms of domination; man over woman, whites over people of color, the owning class over the working class, the United States over other nations, and so on. Systems of domination are harmful to the ecology of nature and the ecology of society alike. 

"We believe that violence and war robs our people of resources and causes needless suffering."

This is true, but Non-Violence goes way beyond being anti-war.  Indeed, I would bet non-violence -- serious non-violence -- may be the most controversial of the four Green pillars in this deeply violent culture. 

See below some comments from the Twin Cities Green Guide:

Non-Violence As a Way of Life

Choosing to lead a life of non-violence means choosing a life that is based on a whole set of values, one of which is non-violence. That is, an individual doesn't aim to be non-violent while also living a life of competition, deceit and manipulation.

A way of life that includes non-violence as a value also includes respect and empathy for other individuals and an expectation of cooperation and trust within a community. It requires honest communication and techniques other than violence for resolving conflicts that arise. It does NOT mean avoiding all disagreements and conflicts.

Individuals who believe strongly in non-violence typically oppose military efforts to resolve conflicts between nations and often favor strong animal rights policies. They may be conscientious objectors to military service, and they are likely to be vegetarians. 

.  .  .

Non-Violence as a Strategy

.  .  .

Historically, Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948) is known for his leadership in the use of non-violent direct action in political struggles in South Africa and India. In India, a person can use the sanskrit word "ahimsa" to mean non-violence in a general sense that would apply to a lifestyle value; but Gandhi used the word "satyagraha" to denote his philosophy of non-violent direct action in support of truth and justice in a political struggle.

In the United States, the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) and his followers adopted non-violent direct action strategies for the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott in 1955-56 and for later civil rights actions such as lunch counter sit-ins.

Both Gandhi and King emphasized love for all human beings as the basis for using non-violent direct action, and both stressed that non-violent strategies are not a sign of cowardice. Gandhi said, "In non-violence, the masses have a weapon which enables a child, a woman, or even a decrepit old man to resist the mightiest government successfully."

Non-Violence as a key pillar is always problematical in situations like the current struggle over U.S. policy in the Middle East.  Some people attach themselves to the peace movement in the U.S. not because they really want peace but because they want "their side" to win a war that they think they could win without U.S. meddling.  

Also, a lot of "Lefties" clearly do not believe in non-violence.  They believe that progressive change can only come about from violent revolution, or at least the threat of violent revolution.   When Greens like Elaine Brown run around boasting about their leadership in the Black Panther Party, many people think that's "cool", but whatever it is, it is not a celebration of non-violence.     

"We believe every person has a right to be heard, at work, in the government, and as consumers."

Democrats and Republicans love to talk about the "grassroots" and even the Bush Republican justify their imperialist, super-authoritarian policies in the name of "democracy."

One of Ralph Nader's great contributions in the 2000 election was his discussion of what he calls "deep democracy": 

On behalf of all Americans who seek a new direction, who yearn for a new birth of freedom to build the just society, who see justice as the great work of human beings on Earth, who understand that community and human fulfillment are mutually reinforcing, who respect the urgent necessity to wage peace, to protect the environment, to end poverty and to preserve values of the spirit for future generations, who wish to build a deep democracy by working hard for a regenerative progressive politics, as if people mattered — to all these citizens and the Green vanguard, I welcome and am honored to accept the Green Party nomination for President of the United States.

The Green Party stands for a nation and a world that consciously advances the practice of deep democracy. A deep democracy facilitates people's best efforts to achieve social justice, a sustainable and bountiful environment and an end to systemic bigotry and discrimination against law-abiding people merely because they are different. Green goals place community and self-reliance over dependency on ever larger absentee corporations and their media, their technology, their capital, and their politicians. Green goals aim at preserving the commonwealth of assets that the people of the United States already own so that the people, not big business, control what they own, and using these vast resources of the public lands, the public airwaves and trillions of worker pension dollars to achieve healthier environments, healthier communities and healthier people.

(And to think, for some reason some people think it's "cool" to say this man is not a Green).

Republicans and Democrats talk about "democracy" in terms of electoral competition between the politicians of "ever larger absenteen corporations."  But, when you extend the idea of democracy to corporate oligarchy itself, you are talking about something very, very radical in the United States.  This is, in fact, the part of the Green philosophy that is the legacy of "Red" socialism.  By the way, that does not bother me at all since I do not subscribe to the American pseudo-religion that private property and the "free market" is divine.  One way or another everything produced by modern industrial and so-called high tech economies is produced by large numbers of people working collectively.  Therefore, every person is entitled to have a say in the management of this vast wealth.