Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The Green platform

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, April 7, 2011 4:32pm - 30 Comments

The Green party has released its election platform—both short and long versions.

In this platform you will find a vision for a modern, smart economy that reduces the deficit, creates new jobs that won’t be gone tomorrow, and doesn’t rely on generating pollution to generate energy. We see a future Canada with vibrant, well-educated and motivated citizens, living in healthy communities, eating safe and healthy food, and enjoying a life-giving, healthy natural world.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are set to present their platform tomorrow. The NDP will follow on Sunday.

Tags: election, Election 2011, Green Party, greens, platform

More by Aaron Wherry

OriginalEmily1

Well, I'll agree with Churchill

"We are entering an era of consequences" Sir Winston Churchill

And I agree we need a 'smart economy'

Beyond that…..meh….
Crit_Reasoning

Work with provinces to phase out existing nuclear power, to stem the buildup of nuclear wastes, and to institute a Canada-wide moratorium on uranium mining and refining.

So the Green party wants to phase out nuclear power and fossil fuels. Instead, they will "create thousands of jobs manufacturing, installing, operating and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels".

Dalton McGuinty tried to do a less ambitious version of that in Ontario, but I hear it didn't work out so well.

OriginalEmily1

The wind turbines are going up here….but yes there is concern about nuclear plants considering the ongoing crisis in Japan.

In fact there is a backlash against nuclear plants everywhere now.
Dot

Remember when E May made that reference to Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler (referencing who else?) – she was quoting George Monbiot (a rather disingenuous way of trying to not be held accountable for the original slander).

Well, he has since come out in full support of nuclear power post Japan crisis. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/…

As have many many prominent "environmentalists" – say Gaia Theory author George Monbiot http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.e…

And James Cameron endorses it for oil sands production…

May is a dinosaur on this issue. But it sells well amongst the Gulf Islands.

Crit_Reasoning

If May once again fails to win a seat, I hope she'll step aside as Green Leader. I think it's irrational for environmentalists to oppose nuclear energy and fossil fuels. The environmental movement needs intelligent pragmatists, not wooly-headed dreamers.
OriginalEmily1

Lovelock said that years ago, and Monbiot is a leftie always years behind the times.

Cameron is a director for gawd's sake

Dot

And you're on the Left Coast. Where you have an abundance of hydro, wind, tidal etc etc.

OriginalEmily1

I'm in Ontario actually.

On the south coast of Canada.
Dot

Well, then you might be interested in this online debate I had with the GPC's critic (on something) about his highly subsidized solar panels on his house. I posted as "SIR" as in Economist letters to.

I calculated the cost of solar at $1,827 /tonne. This was way back in Oct 2009. http://www.erichthegreen.ca/2009/09/making-green-…
OriginalEmily1

And why would I be interested in that?
Dot

Because you're paying for it through your electricity rates – and it was a desperate farewell policy from Lib George Smitherman before unsuccessfully running for the Mayor of Toronto. Along with the windmill tariffs etc.
OriginalEmily1

And?
Dot

Oh sorry, I forgot. It couldn't lead to a gratuitous comment about Harper.

Revert back to your promise of ignoring my comments. Thx
OriginalEmily1

Actually it's this kind of ugliness that puts people off Harper.

I know what's on my hydro bill, and I know what we're paying for. I don't need to hear you argue with somebody about it.

We are searching for a solution to the energy problem, and that costs money.
Dot

Actually it's this kind of ugliness that puts people off Harper.

You are obviously flying in some strange orbit of your own. Happy landing.
OriginalEmily1

So you do the ugliness thing again!

LOL

bennji1977

I am looking forward to the Conservative Platform tomorrow.

I am betting that there will be at least, 50 photos of Harper in it. Anyone else?

John_Edgar

Since it's Friday tomorrow, how about a shot for each photo?

Guy Smiley

"We feel it in our bones" [referencing Jacob's description of faltering education, family, etc...]

Glad to see to see public funding is being used to generate such powerful and compelling research and evidence to support policy.

I've long seen the Greens as possessing a novel mix of libertarianism and socialism (pre-May, anyway) that could present a credible alternative, but this platform is all over the map (the same trap the NDP has fallen into in the last decade, I'd argue).

Probably doesn't matter this time around, anyway, as voters ought to be voting either Conservative or the strongest alternative in their riding. Lesser of evils isn't a fun way to vote, but I recall Rick Mercer once pointing out that less evil isn't such a bad thing.

OriginalEmily1

Greens have always been all over the map as far as I'm concerned….they don't have a direction…except maybe Nirvana. LOL

But yeah, the choice is between Libs and Cons.

OriginalEmily1

LOL no they're not.
Stewart_Smith

We can agree to disagree, but the science around impact on the environment from the options for delivering baseload electricity is pretty clear.

Solar, wind are not options for baseload, biomass is just stupid, oil & gas are too valuable, coal is a death sentence both workers and for those nearby. Taking US statistics, coal-powered electricity generation kills about 30 people a year directly through the related mining operations and estimates range as high as 30,000 contributed deaths per year due to air quality. Uranium mining at one time had a horrible record but vast improvements have been made. Estimates for deaths contributed to by the 3 mile island accident range from 0 (most of them) to a few hundred.

The Japanese troubles are of course upsetting but most experts expect the number of radiation related public fatalities to be very small.
OriginalEmily1

LOL doesn't matter what the experts say….nuclear is dead for another generation.

Guess we'll just have to find something else.
Stewart_Smith

kinda harperesc (or maybe clemantinelike) to discount expert scientific opinion for the Tim's crowd.

Anyway, as I said, happy to agree

to disagree.
OriginalEmily1

Well, that's what his supposed Timmie's crowd does…but even Starbuck types aren't big on nuclear waste, and human error.

'There are two million high-level radioactive fuel bundles sitting at temporary storage sites in Canada, as the Nuclear Waste Management Organization wrestles with the mandate of finding a community to host a central storage facility for the waste for perhaps tens of thousands of years.'
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/08/18/f-…

And having read numerous 'incident' reports….I know that Homer Simpson is alive and well.
John D

I really like the Green Party. It is unfairly maligned as a one-issue party. I think Elizabeth May has done some good things for the party's visibility but she is harming their long-term prospects. I hope they get a seat other than hers and get a new leader.
Thwim

All fair. All run smack into the problem of what the hell else are we going to do? People will *not* choose to suffer in the dark, and aside from fossil fuel, there really isn't any energy source that will be able to meet our demands over the next generation or so. We're already way too far behind to develop the number of alternative energy generation plants in the time span needed.. hell, given how long it takes to build a nuclear plant, we're almost past the point of no return there too.

I expect in the next decade or so, we're all going to get used to frequent brown-outs.
OriginalEmily1

Well there are more than 2 choices…..people have been working on alternate fuels for some years now….everything from shale gas to peat to electric cars to fuel cells.

Trouble is we were complacent for so long, and never thought ahead, so it takes awhile to change over.

Even now we have nummies who don't want to change at all.
http://www.idrinkinthemorning.com Rick Oman

Whoa whoa whoa. Electric cars are not an alternative fuel. The electricity to charge them still has to come from somewhere. And most places, it's coming from some kind of fossil fuel.
OriginalEmily1

Obviously. They just operate on an alternative fuel. You can operate cars on a lot of things….it doesn't have to be gas.