For in fact, liberals and socialists/marxists also believe in sustaining forever the ever increasing growth in the human share of a finite planet.
Its what all three ideologies have in common.
Old Line Parties only fight over their supporters' shares in ever metastasizing growth
Where the three ideologies differ is over how that ever larger pie should be divided : the three limit their disagreements over what portion goes to those who provide labour and what portion to those who provide capital.
The socialists believe in egalitarianism : all should share equally of some of humanity's increased share of the finite planetary economy.
Conservatives & liberals, today, believe merely in equality of opportunity : that no one, merely because of their religion, skin colour or sexual orientation, should ever be denied access to the best medical care if they have the money to pay for it.
They believe therefore in a form of frugality against the socialist notion of egalitarian equality : society shouldn't "waste" money on those who despite having the same opportunity of success, in fact failed to succeed.
BC: the Inegalitarian Frugality of Mike De Jong
So in British Columbia, a governing coalition of liberals and conservatives successfully argued for 16 years that mere 'takers' (those on social assistance) shouldn't expect to share in the increase in the BC economy that had been produced by conservative & liberal 'makers'.
This coalition was a virtual drunken sailor when it came to throwing zillions in public tax dollars at projects (Site "C", for example) that it saw as building the economy.
But that same coalition was exceedingly frugal at spending any of the resulting increased public revenue on those it saw as mere freeloaders : those too young, too old or too sick to work.
Greens take & reject from the liberal-conservative ideology, just as they take & reject from the socialists' ideology.
Greens have done the socialist-conservative-liberal new math and it simply doesn't 'make' sense.
Infinite Growth on a Finite Planet
We freeloading humans 'makers' can not continue to expect to get ever more golden eggs (onwards into eternity) by denying ever more resources to the golden geese that actually do all of the hard work 'making' them.
So Greens actually do really believe in those loaded political terms 'taker' and 'builder' : but we simply reverse who they are were historically aimed at.
Thus we humans 'take' the oxygen that the ocean plankton 'make' and give them back nothing in return in return.
The planet would survive nicely without the humans but the humans would quickly die without the planet : we are not take-charge 'makers' but in fact, mere dependent 'takers'.
In place of the socialist-conservative-liberal willingness to spend any amount of the taxpayers' money to increase the portion of the world's resources consumed by humans, the Greens advocate "Frugal Egalitarianism".
higher income 'takers' voluntarily restrain themselves so that lower income 'makers' have enough to go on providing for both "makers & takers"
We Greens believe that we higher income human 'takers' must frugally restrain ourselves from taking too much of the resources that the lower income humans 'makers' & non-human 'makers' need to let both themselves and us survive forever on a finitely-resourced planet.
We believe strongly that all humanity and all of the planet are makers (& takers), if not now, then in the future.
We Greens seek to egalitarianly share the world's resources with all the world and all of humanity, because they are all potential life-saving 'makers' rather than just being seen as life-sucking 'takers'.
We do not believe that we humans can foretell the future and that in such an uncertain universe, it is best we have a diversified portfolio of potential makers and not bet humanity's farm by putting all our eggs in one basket.
As that string of ancient proverbs may suggest, green egalitarian frugality has a very ancient history...