babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Greener than the Green Party

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Greener than the Green Party
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 July 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In an exclusive Rabble interview, Michael Byers says that he is "greener than the Green Party."

I love that! It's a great line for the next election.

GREENER THAN THE GREEN PARTY


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 16 July 2008 09:11 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Softball questions and softball answers.

I have no enthusiasm for the politics of Michael Byers. I have always considered him to be a likely Liberal Party supporter.

Mind you, he did vote for Brian Mulroney's party back in 1984, before gradually becoming uncomfortable with the idea of sucking up to US imperialism. He then became a strong Canadian nationalist. "We are now," he says (quite incorrectly), "for all intents and purposes, a vassal state." Paradoxically, if it were left up to him, Canada would likely side with the USA on foreign policy matters about 95% of the time anyway.

Byers thinks Canada should be heavily involved in blue-helmet "peacekeeping". He wants to replace our troops in Afghanistan with a UN peace-keeping force (presumably by simply issuing different hats to our soldiers in Kandahar).

He is a big proponent of the so-called "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine - a sort of neo-liberal blueprint for "humanitarian" wars around the world. Consequently, he wants Canada to send peacekeeping (or "peace-making" as he often calls it) troops to Darfur and the Congo.

Byers opposed the sale of MacDonald Dettwiler's space division to a US company on Canadian nationalist grounds, but never got around to questioning why Canadian public funds were being used to subsidize the development of star-wars technology by Canadian companies in the first place.

Ho-hum. Another high profile social democrat who wants to tackle climate change without pushing "an already stressed economy over the brink." Yeah, good luck with that, Mike.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 16 July 2008 10:20 AM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have no enthusiasm for the politics of Michael Byers.

Whose politics DO you have enthusiasm for? We see that you criticize Byers, but you can't beat something with nothing.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 July 2008 10:27 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Softball questions and softball answers.

You may not like it, a lot of babblers may not like it and I don't like it but, the truth is, fluff sells.

Would you be happier if he was asked the kind of questions you like and he answered the way you like and he goes on to lose the election?

I may be cynical but that's the way politics seems to go these days.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 July 2008 10:35 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The obligatory smear was omitted. An oversight, I'm sure.

"Stephane Dion is trying to force Canadians to change their behaviour," is the reason Byers decided to run as NDPer according to Canada.com.

If anyone thinks that environmental issues, including climate change, can be tackled without Canadians changing their behavior, they would not only be less green than the Greens, but less green than Stephen Harper sitting in an air-conditioned SUV, on a humid 30C day, while awaiting three large take-out coffees in disposable cups and heading up a 40 car line up at the Tims.

[ 16 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 July 2008 10:40 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why force Canadians to change their ways when education and incentives would work just as well?
From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 16 July 2008 10:43 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does it? Really? How many Canadians have gone from SUVs to fuel economy vehicles due to "education" as opposed to due to high oil and gas prices?

That same line is now infamous having been uttered by the senior Bush at the Rio Earth Summit (corrected after a google review): "The American lifestyle is non-negotiable".

Is that the NDP position for Canada? If so, kiss your ass goodbye. The limits of nature are non-negotiable too.

[ 16 July 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 16 July 2008 10:45 AM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ocsi:
In an exclusive Rabble interview, Michael Byers says that he is "greener than the Green Party."

I love that! It's a great line for the next election.

GREENER THAN THE GREEN PARTY



It is a great line, because the Green Party just got him to say green twice.

My first reaction is to think that that's unlikely, and that it's somewhat of a cheap attempt to look for what's popular and try to get votes by following the trends.

Imagine the Green Party saying "newer and more democratic that the New Democrats", or "more liberal than the Liberal Party".

I think every national party should say green and Green Party over and over in their campaigns. It reminds people that the old line parties are playing catchup with the Green Party.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 July 2008 10:48 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cameron W:
I think every national party should say green and Green Party over and over in their campaigns. It reminds people that the old line parties are playing catchup with the Green Party.

I already read my morning smile on the Globe and Mail.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 16 July 2008 11:06 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
The limits of nature are non-negotiable too.

And it's some people's nature to rebel when they're forced to do something.

I care about the environment too and I'll place my bet on education.

I am not forced to recycle but I do.

I am not forced to be an organic gardener but I am.

Who, or what, forced you to do the things you do for the environment?


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 July 2008 07:24 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You and Michael Byers used the word "forced". I would use the word regulated. Your entire life is regulated from the time you wake up to the time just before you wake up.

Of the hundreds and thousands of laws and regulations that govern your life, how many our you actively rebelling against?

Let me try and put my position clearly: There can be no sustainable Canada without human behavioural changes.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 July 2008 08:17 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Getting massive changes in human behaviour will require a lot more than some dinky little "pay to pollute" carbon tax that doesn't even have any targets for actual emission reductions.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 July 2008 08:32 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did I mention carbon taxes or are you conversing with a phantom babbler ... again?
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 17 July 2008 10:15 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Did I mention carbon taxes or are you conversing with a phantom babbler ... again?

FM:

The source you quoted upthread said,

quote:
"Stephane Dion is trying to force Canadians to change their behaviour," Byers said, referring to the Liberal leader's Green Shift plan.

When you quoted this you left out the italicized section.

When Stockholm said,

quote:
Getting massive changes in human behaviour will require a lot more than some dinky little "pay to pollute" carbon tax that doesn't even have any targets for actual emission reductions.

I believe that he was replying to the source you quoted.

I thought that might help.

Personally I agree with you both. FM you are undoubtably right that,

quote:
There can be no sustainable Canada without human behavioural changes.

Stockholm is also right when he says that Dion's Green Shift plan will not achieve these changes.

What I'd be interested in is what would you suggest to achieve the needed changes?


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 July 2008 10:28 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's obvious Dion's carbon tax is not even intended to reduce emissions. One, it only targets the burning of fossil fuels and not other emission producing activities. Two, if you read the Handbook, there is a lot about taxes and only platitudes about emissions. I couldn't find any reference to actual emission reduction targets or rationale used to conclude a carbon tax will lead to reduced emissions.

I have made it clear what I think the solution is: for the government to mandate a carbon free economy by 2050 with no exceptions and no excuses.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 17 July 2008 11:22 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have made it clear what I think the solution is: for the government to mandate a carbon free economy by 2050 with no exceptions and no excuses.

Okay I can get behind that. Do you see this declaration as the beginning or the end of the government's role? As in: will government investments need to be made (and what?) or will the market be left to reply to this regulation?


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 July 2008 11:38 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The government would need to make resources available. But they would need to do so under any plan, such as a carbon tax, that would demand management, collection, and compliance enforcement.

Instead of a tax regime, the government could instead play a role of encouraging and assisting in research, development, and supporting the necessary infrastructure projects.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 17 July 2008 12:13 PM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fully agree, especially the,

quote:
supporting the necessary infrastructure projects

part; trying to gain that support is a big part of my profession.

In an attempt to pull our interesting discussion closer to the thread topic: which way do you think one should vote to get closest to this result?


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 17 July 2008 03:33 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't think any party represents that view point because while both members of the NDP and Green parties say in private they agree me, they say the public is not ready for that message and they can't get elected on it.
From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Daniel Grice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7985

posted 17 July 2008 06:44 PM      Profile for Daniel Grice   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How can he call himself greener than anything if he does not support a Carbon Tax!

Sorry Byers, the Green Party's messaging is as easy as that.

You have to explain to downtown Vancouver, a riding free of commuters and with low heating bills for 400 square foot apartments why you oppose a tax on emissions.

In the North and in the Suburbs you could argue that "people still have to heat their homes and gas to work" (despite evidence that we are nearing peak oil and so that we are only delaying the inevitable price spikes).


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 17 July 2008 06:47 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The NDP may have a superior environmental plan, but the way they are selling it is pretty bad, resorting way too much to anti-tax populism.

In a riding like Van Ctr., Byers and the NDP would probably be better off if the race did not turn into a referendum on the carbon tax.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Daniel Grice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7985

posted 17 July 2008 07:25 PM      Profile for Daniel Grice   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is from Byers interview, regarding Stephane Dion:

"I wish that he had introduced a carbon tax when he was environment minister. Or at least laid out this policy proposal shortly after becoming leader of the Liberal Party, rather than waiting two and a half years."

While I agree completely with his comments in describing Dion, it does not seem that Byers is against the carbon tax as much as he was unconvinced that the Liberals would be able to sell it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 July 2008 10:06 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can he call himself greener than anything if he does not support a Carbon Tax!

This is one of the stupidest comments I've seen in a long time. There are a variety of policies that have been advocated to address climate change. Some people want to go the route of a Carbon Tax - even though it includes no targets and there is no evidence that it will have any impact at all on emissions. Others think cap and trade is a more effective policy since it includes HARD caps on emissions and will also lead to increased revenue for government all of which will be earmarked specifically for environmental initiatives.

As much as I think that the so-called Carbon Tax is bad public policy and will be totally ineffective in fighting climate change - I also welcome the debate and I would never go so far as to say that proponents of the Carbon Tax are "enemies of the environment" and "cannot call themselves green". There are many highly respected environmentalists who have sterling credentials who think that cap and trade is a far superior policy to carbon tax. I think its pretty childish and silly to say "either you support a carbon tax or you cannot call yourself 'green'".

I for one think that cap and trade is a much "greener" and sounder policy than some "pay to pollute" carbon tax scheme and I will happily make that case and I'm glad to see Byers make that case as well. We need people like him to attack head-on the fallacy that Dion's pallid and ineffective little "pay to pollute" scheme is the last word in environmental action.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 18 July 2008 04:35 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People buy into slogans. The Tax Shift is a slogan. It isn't an environmental platform.

The NDP has been rated Greener then Green, this is hardly anything new. It comes down to splitting hairs over who is the most environmental, and for parties to argue how best to achieve that goal.

To suggest that critising a revenue generating exercise mythically proposing to the public that a tax shift is an environmentally sound method, by a party without a credible track record is not
"anti-green" or "anti-environment". It is good sound politics.

For a GP Candidate to question an NDP Candidate his reasons for challenging the validity of a Liberal proposal, shows that they require more schooling in understanding the nature of politics and Liberal Platforms.

Meanwhile, in similar manner, it is apparent that the Green Activists in the Green party remain silent about their support for Coal and Nuclear Candidates.

This unfortuneately is politics.

Like in the United States, we as the voting public must recognise slogans for what they are worth.

"No Children Left Behind"
"Green Shift"
"Free Trade"
"Little Red BOOK"
"Revenue Neutral"

None of these represent the facts of the policy nor the facts on the ground.

There is no environmental impact with a "tax shift" Just which people get taxed and how much, changes.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 18 July 2008 07:11 AM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your entire post is a slogan.

Environmentalism is more than "messaging" and messaging appears to be the policy platform of the Liberals, the Greens and NDP. There is no light of difference between them other than the spin placed on the message.

None of the three parties are firmly committed to environmental sustainability so much as they are committed to partisan bullshit and endless platitudes.

A pox on all your houses.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 18 July 2008 07:28 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
A pox on all your houses.


So what will you do? Throw in the towel? How will cursing at the political options advance environmental issues?


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 18 July 2008 07:49 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
None of the three parties are firmly committed to environmental sustainability so much as they are committed to partisan bullshit and endless platitudes.

Exactly.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 18 July 2008 08:49 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, since our current political system sucks, do we need a dictatorship to save the planet?
From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
It's Me D
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15152

posted 18 July 2008 09:30 AM      Profile for It's Me D     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, since our current political system sucks, do we need a dictatorship to save the planet?

I would say a democracy is a better antithesis of "our current political system" then a dictatorship; why not ask, do we need a democracy to save the planet?


From: Parrsboro, NS | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621

posted 18 July 2008 09:34 AM      Profile for St. Paul's Progressive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think this attempt to out-"green" the other isn't going to determine the results in Vancouver Centre. It is, as pointed out, an educated downtown riding where people care about environmental issues. That rules out the Tories. That being said, my feeling is the voters there will see both the Liberals and the NDP as reasonably green, and determine how they vote based on other factors. Certainly the quality of the local candidate will matter there.

Michael Byers sounds like a first-class candidate who can resonate with a lot of Liberal voters. With him at the helm, I think the NDP can finally take Vancouver Centre.

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: St. Paul's Progressive ]


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
madmax
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15139

posted 18 July 2008 10:28 AM      Profile for madmax   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do the voters understand this....as I read it.

....
Of all the spending in the Green Shift plan, there isn't ANY spending on the environment. Nothing. Zero.

Of the $15.4 billion that will be raised in carbon taxes, here is where the spending will go as per the Green Shift handbook...

Broad Based Personal Income Tax Cuts - $6.675 billion
Benefits for Working Families and Canadians - $3.740 billion
Support for Rural and Northern Canadians - $.789 billion
Corporate Tax Reductions - $3.823 billion
Contingency Tax Offset Reserve - $.400 billion

So where is the spending on the environment? Isn't this supposed to be an 'environmental' program?

What kind of environmental program spends NOTHING on the environment?
----------------------------------

And I do believe that people must take Democracy by the horns. FM made a good point that political movements become lost in the spin. Ideas are converted. And dissillusionment sets in.

Voters have to call it as they see it, recognise the politicians/activists for spinning and framing an issue, and defeat the media circus that likes detracts discussion from the facts at large.

If its difficult to do here, imagine what it is like for the General public who pay attention in the weeks/days before an election to sort out fact from fiction.


From: Ontario | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 18 July 2008 01:23 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why force Canadians to change their ways when education and incentives would work just as well?

Incentives (particularly sticks as opposed to carrots) could be considered forcing. This quote of course ignores that various incentives have encouraged if not forced us to be wasteful of energy and other resources in the first place.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 18 July 2008 01:31 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can he call himself greener than anything if he does not support a Carbon Tax!

Correction, he doesn't support the Liberal version of the carbon tax. There is room in federal NDP policy for a carbon tax, but only if people have viable alternatives for reducing GHG emissions.

Also, as others have pointed out there are alternatives to a Carbon Tax, such as Cap and Trade, Cap and Share, Personal Carbon Trading and Tradable Energy Quotas.


From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 July 2008 03:29 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much as I don't linking Elizabeth May, here's an interview with her where she praises Dion's plan and says how Layton is criticizing the Liberals for political gain and how the NDP is out of sync with the social democratic parties of Western Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Aku2QAGU0


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 21 July 2008 05:14 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well I watched it - even though listening to Elizabeth May droning on reminds me of listening to fingernails scraping a blackboard. Basically she just lied through her teeth about everything and her claim that social democratic parties support carbon tax is false. She is also claims that "the entire environmental movement" supports her approach - this is a total lie - many if not most environmental groups have supported cap and trade over a carbon tax for many years. Then she brags about how Geoffrey Simpson and The Economist magazine champion carbon taxes (I didn't know that Simpson was a socialist and I didn't realize the Economisrt was a socialist magazine either!)
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 21 July 2008 05:24 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I actually watched two Elizabeth May videos today. The other one was why she wanted to run in Central Nova. The most amusing part there was about how Peter McKay will have to live with the consequences of stabbing the old PC's in the back by merging with the Alliance. She goes on to say how the old PC's were a great party that was part of the Canadian political tradition and how the Harper crowd, as Reformers in disguise, isn't part of Canada's political tradition. Yet she's leading an even bigger abberation - the Green Party! (at least the Reform Party had its roots in Social Credit, the Greens are a foreign import!)

[ 21 July 2008: Message edited by: Lord Palmerston ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
ocsi
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13760

posted 22 July 2008 06:33 AM      Profile for ocsi     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Palmerston:
As much as I don't linking Elizabeth May, here's an interview with her where she praises Dion's plan and says how Layton is criticizing the Liberals for political gain and how the NDP is out of sync with the social democratic parties of Western Europe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Aku2QAGU0


I just saw the interview and on three occasions, Elizabeth May mentions that Jack Layton in out or sync with social democratic parties in Europe.

The question that came to mind is why would she care if Layton is out of sync? She, after all, is in bed with the Liberals who are not progressive at all.

May mentions that the carbon tax is not a regressive tax but a "tax shift." Yeah, right!

That's much like th GST. Low income Canadians get a tax credit but the GST in no way cuts mindless consumerism. Likewise, the Green Shift, or tax shift, will not cut carbon emissions.


From: somewhere over the rainbow | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Brian White
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8013

posted 22 July 2008 06:52 AM      Profile for Brian White   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Policywonk:

Also, as others have pointed out there are alternatives to a Carbon Tax, such as Cap and Trade, Cap and Share, Personal Carbon Trading and Tradable Energy Quotas.

Well, then use them in your policy.
I hate this whining about carbon tax when you refuse to even sketch out your alternative.
It is just a cheap shot, nothing more nothing less.
Regardless of what the alternative is, people will see it in their gas bills and heating bills.
Correct?
And with cap and trade, you will have union members in big polluters coming at you looking for special treatment. Correct?
Lets see your system. It seems to be all wind and hot air. Carbon usage has to be reduced. You can ban it or make it unaffordable.
But you have to have a specific policy. You do not have a policy,.


From: Victoria Bc | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 July 2008 06:58 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's all here:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/6448

quote:
NDP Leader Jack Layton was joined by a number of NDP candidates from across Canada with environmental backgrounds today to outline why a cap and trade system is the best option for fighting climate change in Canada.

“The cap and trade system ensures that big polluters pay their fair share, and it makes it possible for more people to afford green solutions,” explained Layton.

The NDP plan sets absolute caps on major industrial emitters, which account for 50% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. These emitters would be required to purchase emissions credits at market-based prices. In year one alone, with carbon prices projected to exceed $35 per ton, auctioning credits would generate at least $2.5-billion. All of these funds would be invested in developing green technologies and making them affordable for the average consumer.



From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
St. Paul's Progressive
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12621

posted 22 July 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for St. Paul's Progressive     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't Elizabeth May will have much of a chance in Central Nova. The NDP came in second place - and it is a primarily blue collar vote that won't be attracted to May. Not to mention a lot of Liberals there probably feel disenfranchised by Dion's decision to essentially endorse May.

She does have a point about the old Progressive Conservatives - they were much more tolerant and moderate than the Reform-dominated merged party.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 22 July 2008 11:45 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In what way was Progressive Conservative Mike Harris any more "tolerant" or "progressive" than are the current federal Tories???
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
thorin_bane
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6194

posted 22 July 2008 11:57 AM      Profile for thorin_bane     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harris is an ontario reformer, heck even his pledge was to reform. I would say if you compare Joe Clark and earlier maybe even malroneys years they were no where near as bad as the last 3 for privatization. Hell the libs did worse then lyin brian for A selling off the last remnants of petro cananda, and for the abolishment of a maximum foreign investment percentage, under martin it went from 20 to 30 to 100% allowance of money in foreign stocks...nice job PM PM.
From: Looking at the despair of Detroit from across the river! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 22 July 2008 12:11 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by St. Paul's Progressive:
She does have a point about the old Progressive Conservatives - they were much more tolerant and moderate than the Reform-dominated merged party.

No. They weren't.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 22 July 2008 12:17 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by HeywoodFloyd:

No. They weren't.


Well, Joe Clark regularly appeared in Pride parades if that means anything.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 22 July 2008 12:21 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well. He did once. As leader of the rump PC's and that was as part of a deal with Anne McLellan's team to ensure that PCs voted for her in Edmonton and Libs voted for him in Calgary.

He showed no interest in his time as PM, as a minister under Mulroney, or any other time.

He's anti-CPC and anti-Harper but that's about it.

And ask yourself where the vast majority of Reformers came from and whom they voted for before the formation of the RPC.

[ 22 July 2008: Message edited by: HeywoodFloyd ]


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 09 August 2008 01:26 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Barbara Yaffe on Byers vs. Fry
From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 09 August 2008 02:02 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Byers says Vancouver Centre is his kind of riding, that he understands the riding's robust gay community. He's also keen for a fight. "I don't want a safe riding. I want a competition, to beat someone in a real fight."

But his fight is more against past Liberal and Conservative governments than a personal battle against Fry.

For example, he's furious about homelessness in Vancouver Centre, a situation he traces to the Chretien Government's funding cutbacks for housing in the nineties.

He cannot understand why the port authority, a federal agency, permits cruise ships to spew diesel fumes into Vancouver's harbour when, in L.A., Seattle and Juneau, docked vessels are forced to connect to those ports' electrical grids.

He wants the False Creek Surgical Centre and other private medical outfits in the riding, and the country, to be padlocked.


Good article amazing really.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca