It seems now that the former environment minister has been sacked due to poor public response to the Conservative environmental plan, and Dion has just given a big speech in TO regarding how he wants Canada to be on track with Kyoto, have pollution credits, lead the world in environmentally sustainable technologies and so forth, the Conservatives are scrambling to get some sort of credibility for their environment plan. It will be interesting to see whether or not they revamp it, or to buy votes just say the gst will be reduced by 1% again.
Ambrose got sacked for doing exactly what Harper told her to do. Nothing. Now we've got Baird, who was largely responsible for the Accountability Act that Chiquita mentioned in another post. BTW, both Harper and Baird have already broken federal law according to that act.
It'll be more gestures and lip service than actual action, regarding the environment, until someone who actually gives a damn is in charge. I know Dion has been environment minister before, so I hope that means he would make it a priority and isn't just shovelling out what the public wants to hear.
When you look at how well the Green party did last election, approx 600,000+ votes and how much attention the environment is getting the in news I beleive that is a trend to reckon with. Any party that does not make the environment a major commitment on the campaign platform does so at their peril. For the conservatives, the must show they're strong for the environment BEFORE an election, else voters will not go for them.
I personally feel that the current concern for the environment is a rerun of the 1980s..."it is cool to be green", some minor changes will be made, some major promises will be made, but in the end the economic and politic norms of complacency will remain. Our collective Canadian head is still stuck in the sand with regards to the environment.
I watched the CTV morning news, which announced Harpers new green initiative that will provided funding to alternative energy production over the next ten years. CTV news reported that the amount of funding provided this year is substanitally less (talking millions) than what Harper removed from the former Liberal program over a year ago.
I can understand your pessimism. However, I do think that in the 80's it was a cool factor and there really wasn't widespread reporting of the issue surrounding the environment. People were call tree huggers etc. Today, the story's quite different, there is a mass of scientific data regarding global warming etc, and people today are much more aware of these issues than in the 80's. If the green party were around in the 80's (i'm not sure it was or wasn't) they would not have gotten 600,000+ votes like that did last election.
The Buzz is from the spin doctors of the conservatives, I beleive people now care very much about their environment, polluted lakes rivers etc retrict our freedom.
Again, if the conservatives don't put substantial amounts into their environmental plan NOW, they will fail in the next election.
I think you had your head in the sand in the eighties!! The NDP was the original "green party" in Canada. I think the NDP track record attests to that. The Green Party of Canada was established federally 1996 (provincially 1983 in some provinces), and has had subsequent internal issues that despite its gaining popularity has not been able to maintain cohesiveness within the party, most notably the separation of the Green Party of Manitoba in 2005. The Green Party of Saskatchewan ignored the federal policies of its party and ran its own local policies which contradicted some of its party's federal policies. In addition, the Green Party has not been able to really maintain infrastructure between elections. The Green Party funding is non existent and is primarily funded by Wayne Crookes, a BC businessman through the Green Party of British Columbia. One could question the intentions of a party that has one substantial donor. In the last federal election, Green Party was only able to secure 4.5 % of the total vote and without representation in parliment...proof that Canadian are concern with the environment.
In the last election, based on the policy platform on its web site, the party was right wing on social and fiscal policy ... both the Sierra Club and Green Peace rated them below the NDP (and in most categories, below the Bloc) on environmental policies. And don't get me started on Jim Harris, the former right winger turned environmentalist who had crappy ill formed policies of: enhanced food banks to end poverty; volunteerism instead of funding social programs; rejection of strong environmental laws and strong enforcement in favour of so-called "voluntary compliance" by corporate polluters. The policies should have been ridiculed. They were badly thought out, and clearly contradictory of the Charter of the Global Greens which the party supposedly has adopted as its guiding principles in 2004. Harris was really only concerned about running as many candidates as possible in order to secure the Green franchise status and $$$.
No amount of promises or action taken by the Tories will result in any long term changes for improved environmental health as the programs will be barely implemented before the next election is called. The bottom line for most Canadians is the economy and until improving the environment is presented as a captial gain for the average Canadian, there will be no substanial improvement in it. The mighty loonie wins.
***** The Green Party of Canada role modeled itself and adopted the United States Green Party's Ten key principles. It has not had a strong presence in the Global Greens Conferences or its constitution/principles of ecological wisdom, social justice, particpatory democracy, nonviolence, sustainability, and respect diversity. Should one take a party seriously that models itself of US environmental friendliness? I think most Canadians assume our Green Party is like the European Green Party, which has much successes..it is simply not.
Has the Green party been able to demonstrate in concrete terms that it would be able to make effective environmental changes without damaging the economy? Are its policies really helping the environment or is just a lot of smoke for the lazy voter who tries to do good?
Any major change is going to have reprocussions in the economy. While trying to mitigate the the negative effects on business we should not stop trying to come up with new initiatives. Frankly, I beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread. Solar power etc. All the other major countries require emission standards! Why not canada? Make the environment fiscally linked to companies bottom line. Have government run waste centres where business had to put their waste and pay for its storage. This would then force companies to reduce their waste, and finally send executives to jail for polluting! Just fining the company will not change anything as the company will just place it under the expenses of operation.
No amount of promises by ANY party will result in long term improved environmental health before the next election. However, the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and electricity. Something substantial for the average canadian! Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation.
As far as the green party is concerned, I have never said they would make a good ruling party, but i want to see one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change.
By your post, it is obvious this issue is very important to you so why do you campaign?
After watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and being impacted by the documentary, you stated and I'll paraphrase " I'm definitely joining the Green Party now". My posts were merely gaging your resolve to join the party and your commitment to the environment; to see whether or not, you were serious or if it was a momentary reaction that soon fell to passivity.
You really should campaign, because you gave such a political answer Meaning, you didn't answer. That's OK. As far as I'm concerned, my committment to the environment, and my resolve to joining the Green party are two different issues, which it seems you are lumping together. At this moment in time, my committment to the environment is still there. And I will still vote for the Green Party for reasons I have stated before and for the other reason they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%.
It is interesting how you apply Buzz to this topic. Sure I was affected by the documentary, because Gore's use of scientific studies and data back up the his theory. There was a prominant protestant who stated that whenever I come across an idea or theory that better explains something gladly will I incorporate that into my own worldview. Though in this case I beleived there was a global warming problem before watching an inconvenient truth, it just further reinforced it. As for my joining the green party, I am still serious about it.
It was not a political answer...let me make it easier for you "Yes!" For the lack of factual and logical/rant free responses, it seemed simpler to addresses the environment and the Green Party together, however, I would be happy to discuss the issues separately. Although, you cannot really look at the Green Party too deeply without discussing the environment as it is their main platform.
Environment: From your post dated 01-19-2007... "the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and eletricity."
Not a new idea, municipalities already offer rebates for energy efficient items such as: water heaters, furnaces, bathroom fixtures, toilets, appliances such as washer/dryers, and fridges/stoves.
"Make the environment fiscally linked to companies bottom line. Have government run waste centres where business had to put their waste and pay for its storage. This would then force companies to reduce their waste, and finally send executives to jail for polluting! Just fining the company will not change anything as the company will just place it under the expenses of operation"
Won't they put it into their operation expenses anyway? They are certainly not going to suck up the cost. Where do you draw the line of responsibility..the boss or the suck that they are going to use as an escape goat for their bad actions?
"Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation"
I agree that Japan has practically destroyed itself through air, soil, and water pollution. What changes did Japan make and is there any significant statistical improvement in environmental quality?
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Green Party:
In my post of -01-19-2007, I addressed a (albeit brief) historical track record of the Green Party of Canada, including the weak and right winged governing policies of the party. No rebuttal was offered on your part on how the party policies had possibly improved since the replacement of Jim Harris with Elizabeth May or even how the international Greens have aided the party.
Your primary claim to support the Green Party is that you wanted to see "one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change." I find this logic flawed, what good is another right winged leader masking as an environmentalist really going to improve the debates?
Your secondary claim to support the Green Party of Canada is that "they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%. " True. The introduction of Gardasil will have done that in one generation... wow and they did not even lift a finger.
It was not a political answer...let me make it easier for you "Yes!" For the lack of factual and logical/rant free responses, it seemed simpler to addresses the environment and the Green Party together, however, I would be happy to discuss the issues separately. Although, you cannot really look at the Green Party too deeply without discussing the environment as it is their main platform.
So, my reasoning is based on a lack of facts and logic and full of rants. Curious, where did I ‘Rant’?
Environment: From your post dated 01-19-2007... "the way to go would be tax cuts or rebates for energy efficient home heating and eletricity."
Not a new idea, municipalities already offer rebates for energy efficient items such as: water heaters, furnaces, bathroom fixtures, toilets, appliances such as washer/dryers, and fridges/stoves.
I was referring to home heating specifically, I am well aware of the appliance rebates. To date the rebates for adding solar power to your home are negligible. And when it costs $30,000 Canadian after taxes to have one’s home virtually off the grid a rebate as well must be substantial. It will get to that point though, as electricity rates become more and more expensive. Same with geothermal heating. There is a company here in KW that does geothermal heating, what if there were some kind of rebate for new homes for putting this heating and cooling system in?
Won't they put it into their operation expenses anyway? They are certainly not going to suck up the cost. Where do you draw the line of responsibility..the boss or the suck that they are going to use as an escape goat for their bad actions?
To a degree yes companies will factor these into their budgets, but when offered a way to cut their waste to save money, companies will do that. Companies look at the bottom line and if induced enough they will change. We just need to have a government that will take that step. Drawing the line for responsibility? Ultimately responsibility lies with the CEO. Look at Enron and Worldcom cases, though they deal solely with these companies and their unrealistic worth and going bankrupt, the same logic should apply for polluting companies.
"Or send teams to other countries to research what they are doing for the environment. This has worked in the past.. japan modernized itself in a VERY short time doing the same thing. It send learned experts to all the western powers to learn from them, take ideas home and incorporate them into the Japanese nation"
I agree that Japan has practically destroyed itself through air, soil, and water pollution. What changes did Japan make and is there any significant statistical improvement in environmental quality?
My point with Japan referred to an act as a result of a political will to change, not specifically to its environmental record. Japan went from a feudal system to a modernized one in less than 40 years. As for Japan’s environmental record, it is atrocious. But, this concept can be used for the environment. If only there were a political will to learn how other countries are dealing with the environment in practical terms, not theoretical then we would be shown alternatives.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes.
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Reduction of heating while away from home. We attempt to limit use of dryer when doing laundry. Recycle as much as we can (though that process is not perfect, not our attempt, but the system at large). Re-use as much as we can. We have one car, with no plans to get a second one. The car we do have is maintained appropriately to not only increase its life, but to make it as efficient as possible.
Green Party:
In my post of -01-19-2007, I addressed a (albeit brief) historical track record of the Green Party of Canada, including the weak and right winged governing policies of the party. No rebuttal was offered on your part on how the party policies had possibly improved since the replacement of Jim Harris with Elizabeth May or even how the international Greens have aided the party.
Your primary claim to support the Green Party is that you wanted to see "one green constituency so that the leader, good or bad, can take part in leader debates. Different voices mean a better chance at change." I find this logic flawed, what good is another right winged leader masking as an environmentalist really going to improve the debates?
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
Your secondary claim to support the Green Party of Canada is that "they are the only party that has stated they want to reduce instances of cancer by 15%. " True. The introduction of Gardasil will have done that in one generation... wow and they did not even lift a finger.
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
I was referring to home heating specifically, I am well aware of the appliance rebates. To date the rebates for adding solar power to your home are negligible. And when it costs $30,000 Canadian after taxes to have one’s home virtually off the grid a rebate as well must be substantial. It will get to that point though, as electricity rates become more and more expensive. Same with geothermal heating. There is a company here in KW that does geothermal heating, what if there were some kind of rebate for new homes for putting this heating and cooling system in?
Then don't say electricity if you mean only heating. It is not feasible for any government to spend millions of dollars on promoting personal electric systems that are costly, require extensive operating knowledge in terms of hazardous material and electrical safety. Let alone the cost of inspectors to ensure the safety of the community (ie fire, UV radiation, illegal disposal of battery cells).
My point with Japan referred to an act as a result of a political will to change, not specifically to its environmental record. Japan went from a feudal system to a modernized one in less than 40 years. As for Japan’s environmental record, it is atrocious. But, this concept can be used for the environment. If only there were a political will to learn how other countries are dealing with the environment in practical terms, not theoretical then we would be shown alternatives.
oh, so to your knowledge they have done nothing environmentally. It was economical/political change.
"beleive there is an impressive amount of money to be made under environmental auspices. Take for example geothermal heating as mentioned in an earlier thread.Solar power etc."
What are you talking about in terms of revenue? Yes.
did not answer the question...
What personal changes have you made in your life to help the environment?
Reduction of heating while away from home. We attempt to limit use of dryer when doing laundry. Recycle as much as we can (though that process is not perfect, not our attempt, but the system at large). Re-use as much as we can. We have one car, with no plans to get a second one. The car we do have is maintained appropriately to not only increase its life, but to make it as efficient as possible.
ok, so you're generally a blue box baby
Green Party:
I never offered any rebuttal regarding how they’ve improved their platform, because quite frankly, my goal is as you’ve said. The effect of 600,000 + votes for the green party is that the main parties, which will most likely always rule, have taken notice and have made the environment a key running platform. Both the liberals and the conservatives. They realize that support for alternative parties will only increase if they do nothing. So, from that standpoint, and from the ultimate goal of having government address the environment, I don’t feel my logic is flawed. Regardless of whether or not I know every facet of the green party platform, I am voting for them, because symbolically, I am making a statement to the main parties.
With that mind set, why not vote for the flying Yogis!!
I have no idea what Gardasil is. I am very wary of chemical fix to our cancer problems. An ounce of prevention beats a pound of cure…
Gardasil is the new vaccine that prevents 70% of cervical cancer cases caused by certain strains of the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). HPV is believed to cause 98% of all cervical cancers. HPV remains in the body and negatively affects cell growth. HPV most often is sexually transmitted. Over the last year, Health Canada has recommended that all females between 8 to 26 yrs get the vaccine in order to prevent cervical cancer as over 75% of Canadians will have an HPV infection in their life time. Guidelines for males have not been released to date. I believe the vaccine will become mandatory for school age children shortly. Preventative and chemical!
A couple things I would like to comment on: Hawkeye implied that the Green Party (or the number of votes for them) has made the big parties realise that the environment is a priority, and they have to do something about it. I would argue that. Harper WON the election with clear intent to do nothing about the environment, yet that is the same time the Green Party got so many more votes than ever before. I think the reason the government is waking up is because it has become impossible to refute the world-wide climate change we've caused, and the public is finally getting fired up about it. I don't attribute that to the Green Party.
I watched the Elizabeth May interview linked by Chiquita. It was a good example of why Peter Mansbridge is a good interviewer. He didn't let her get away with glossing over things that may counter her points. Honestly, I still think Harris was a better leader for a fledgling Green Party... Yes it's a "grass-roots" party, but you need someone at the helm who can play the political games. May strikes me as good intentioned, but out of her league.
As for how companies will handle fines/incentives to be less wasteful... I think if it costs them money in any way, they'll just move! I believe Hawkeye made the point that it's the bottom line that motivates them. I agree! If they can build it cheaper in another city/province/country due to waste fines where they are, they'll have more incentive to relocate than to clean up.
Interesting debate guys! Let's keep it civil though. Chiquita, your last post reads a little hostile (eg. "Blue Box Baby")
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
Private message
The NDP was the original "green party" in Canada. I think the NDP track record attests to that. The Green Party of Canada was established federally 1996 (provincially 1983 in some provinces), and has had subsequent internal issues that despite its gaining popularity has not been able to maintain cohesiveness within the party, most notably the separation of the Green Party of Manitoba in 2005. The Green Party of Saskatchewan ignored the federal policies of its party and ran its own local policies which contradicted some of its party's federal policies. In addition, the Green Party has not been able to really maintain infrastructure between elections. The Green Party funding is non existent and is primarily funded by Wayne Crookes, a BC businessman through the Green Party of British Columbia. One could question the intentions of a party that has one substantial donor. In the last federal election, Green Party was only able to secure 4.5 % of the total vote and without representation in parliment...proof that Canadian are concern with the environment. 
