quote:

---

Both the federal and provincial Green parties - whose policies have long been at odds with those of Alberta - support the province's climate change plan that calls for large emitters to slice their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 12 per cent between July 1 and Dec. 31

---

Is she crazy?

[ 10 March 2007: Message edited by: Lou Arab ]

quote:

---

While not giving it a complete green thumbs up, she said the plan is a step in the right direction.

"My initial reaction was that I was encouraged that Premier Stelmach is talking about regulations," said May.

"When you recognize that the language coming out of someone's mouth appears to be what you had always wanted to hear, you encourage them, see where they go with it."

---

Although this article wants us to believe that May supports the legislation coming down the pipes in Alberta, I'm guessing that's not the case. From what I've highlighted, it seems like May is either being tactically slippery, or extremely naive. Either way, her stance on this issue should be clarified for the sake of the Green Party members across Canada who she would be stabbing in the back if she did mean this how it's being portrayed.

quote:

---

May is confident her party will win at least two seats in the next federal election, an election in which the environment is likely to be a key issue.

She also expects the party to win in Alberta, the province that had the highest popular vote for the Greens last election.

---

May tends to praise any incremental movement by any politican on environmental issues, and Stelmach is an improvment over the dinosaur of a fart Klein. But intensity standards are obviously a very flawed (and intentionally flawed) solution.

At least not now- because tommorow she'll explain that she doesn't support intensity targets. "You know..."

quote:

---

"Here's where I would differ with Dr. Suzuki. I think when someone shows an impulse to move in the right direction, they deserve encouragement," she said. "So we will save the brickbats in case he doesn't do the right thing."

Green Party of Alberta Leader George Read also had praise for the provincial government.

"We are encouraged and excited that Ed Stelmach has set emissions targets, and we are glad Alberta has moved out of the dark ages," said Read. "Obviously, he is catching up to where the world was five years ago. But it's something."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:
May tends to praise any incremental movement by any politican on environmental issues, and Stelmach is an improvment over the dinosaur of a fart Klein.

---

quote:

---

May tends to praise any incremental movement by any politican on environmental issues,

---

First of all, this is not a new position on the part of the Alberta government. I first heard about the concept of intensity targets from Ralph Klein. It was his idea.

Secondly, it's not like the Alberta government's plan has much more to it than intensity targets. There is no 'three-pronged' approach in which to support one or two aspects.

And why would any 'environmentalist' support a plan that puts more greenhouse gases into the air as a 'step in the right direction.' Its not, the atmosphere does not grow with the size of the economy - it remains the same. Isn't this a basic prinicpal of green (small g) politics?

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Lou Arab ]

quote:

---

"Here's where I would differ with Dr. Suzuki. I think when someone shows an impulse to move in the right direction, they deserve encouragement," she said. "So we will save the brickbats in case he doesn't do the right thing."
Green Party of Alberta Leader George Read also had praise for the provincial government.
"We are encouraged and excited that Ed Stelmach has set emissions targets, and we are glad Alberta has moved out of the dark ages," said Read. "Obviously, he is catching up to where the world was five years ago. But it's something."

---

quote:

---

Both the federal and provincial Green parties - whose policies have long been at odds with those of Alberta - support the province's climate change plan that calls for large emitters to slice their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 12 per cent between July 1 and Dec. 31.

---

I am against intensity based targets because they allow emissions to increase. But what is the actual time frame for these cuts? If I am reading it right and IF it actually requires cuts in emission intensity of 12% between July 1 and Dec 31 than I support it. That is a 12% cut in intensity in 6 months vs the 16% cut in intensity that the province achieved in the last 14 years (overall emissions grew by about 40% so therefore the economy had to have grown by about 60% or about 2% every 6 months). I don't see any way that those 100 large emitters would grow 12% in that 6 month time frame (more like 2 or 3%) so it would mean significant actual emissions reductions - or fines - something that hasn't been achieved in Canada.

Now of course my support is based on the tight time frame and under the condition that this will actually reduce emissions. But I haven't looked at what the premier has specifically proposed (again skeptical) and I will evaluate each phase. What are they proposing come 2008?

I have heard that emissions reductions by these large companies will not be available to the public which is not encouraging.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stockholm:
Of course in the case of the NDP there was never any need for "incremental movement" in the first place since the party was wayyy ahead of the curve on the environment

---

quote:

---

But what is the actual time frame for these cuts? If I am reading it right and IF it actually requires cuts in emission intensity of 12% between July 1 and Dec 31 than I support it. That is a 12% cut in intensity in 6 months

---

I haven't seen the Alberta legislation, maybe Lou Arab or someone could fill us in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

I haven't seen the Alberta legislation, maybe Lou Arab or someone could fill us in.

But this has got to be a slip by the reporter. More likely the legislation will take effect in that time frame.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
I am against intensity based targets because they allow emissions to increase. But what is the actual time frame for these cuts? If I am reading it right and IF it actually requires cuts in emission intensity of 12% between July 1 and Dec 31 than I support it.

---

No, apparently you are not against them, because you added a "but" and then gave your support. I guess it would not do to trash your leader's political grandstanding upon the back of the environment. Quite obviously the environment means nothing to May, or indeed yourself.

Apparently, with no real thoughts whatsoever about how spurious this 12% decrease is, you have given it your approval in order to play politics.

All they have to do to comply with this 12% decrease, for the 6 months it is in effect, is to go full out for the next 3 months, polluting in higher amounts than normal, then cut back on production for 6 months to fall within the 12% decrease. Then once the 6 months is over, again go flat out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
All they have to do to comply with this 12% decrease, for the 6 months it is in effect, is to go full out for the next 3 months, polluting in higher amounts than normal, then cut back on production for 6 months to fall within the 12% decrease. Then once the 6 months is over, again go flat out.... Nothing will be acheived...

---

Emmissions intensity is a measure of efficiency only, a function of GH gasses divided by production. Decreasing production doesn't do a thing to aid an industry's ability to meet an intensity target. Similarly, an industry can increase production (and the amount of CO2 emmitted) without fear of retribution. This is the inherent flaw of using intensity targets to cut GHG emmissions: it doesn't directly measure the volume of GHG actually thrown into the atmosphere, and emmissions can increase if production increases fast enough.

What Trevormkidd is saying is that since:

1) the intensity targets are aggressive enough that there will be a reduction in emmissions, as production will likely not grow by 14% over 6 months and

2) there will be penalties for noncompliance

An actual cut in industrial GHG emmissions will likely be achieved through legislation for the first time in Canadian history, which is significant.

Now, since no further cuts in GHG emmissions are being considered, Albertan industrial emmissions are likely going to continue to rise after the 6 months are over (albiet more slowly than before) so long as the mandated intensity standards are maintained beyond the 6 month reduction period.

quote:

---

Quite obviously the environment means nothing to May, or indeed yourself.

---

Does your first impulse have to always be to insult someone's motives rather than persuade? The other day you called me a tory based on........ nothing. Now that the usual green gang here seem quite alarmed by May's reaction, even to the point of 'eating their cards,' why not attempt to persuade rather than belittle them? A scorched earth style of arguement demeans the humanity of your opponent, humiliates them into an intractable position, and leaves no bridge for them to cross over to your side. I'm reminded of the scene in Gandhi where he says "we want to see the British off as friends."

Having said that, and not having heard of intensity targets prior to this thread, now that I'm looking at them this seems pretty alarming. For one thing, these targets were part of Harper's Clean Air Act schtick.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/02/02/3507295-cp.html

Can someone fill me in? What does the "per unit of output" mean, anyway? Does this apply regardless of what that output is (widgets, grommets) or is strictly pertain to the energy industry? If the unit of output is oil or natural gas is this a sleight of hand to decouple the GHG of the product from the GHG of that same product's manufacture? What's the basline gonna be? The oilsands? "Oh, you're cleaner than the oilsands? Well, off you go then"

Regardless, my first thought is if it's per unit of output, then, even if this was supposed to kick in instantly, it's a stall for at least 15 months: your fiscal year starts today; you release your annual results 15 months from now; only then does anyone even see whether you've hit your target. And is the first year merely a baseline year? IE- whatever the pollution is this year is where we set the reduction target for the subsequent year, or, worse, since we wont have the numbers for 15 or 18 or 21 months, depending on your year-end, well, then we're in mid-year of the next year, and we can only set targets for 2009. You dig?

I'm also curious as to whether this is a policy that favors economy of scale. One would assume that a massive industrial complex would produce slightly less pollution per unit. Setting up a regulation to skew business conditions towards the biggest players is hardly new.

And i don't see a thing about fines in there. So this could all be a clever distraction anyway. What the hell is May doing saying

quote:

---

"He has hinted there will be regulations, that it will be serious, that there will be targets,"

---

So she's endorsing this on the basis of what???? A hint???? WTF is that? Maybe, yet again, she shot her mouth off and we'll get yet another, "ohhh, i didn't realize my words had meaning" statement of which she's so fond. The only alternate I can see is that she is willing to screw the environment in exchange for votes.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Greeny:

An actual cut in industrial GHG emmissions will likely be achieved through legislation for the first time in Canadian history, which is significant.

---

By your own chart, we end up with more greenhouse gas emissions over time. And that's if all goes well - read what the Alberta Environment Minister is predicting:

quote:

---

Companies that can not make their full quota of reductions can purchase offsets generated in Alberta by other companies that have reduced their emissions beyond their target.

The last option is for them to pay $15 per tonne of carbon dioxide into a climate change and emissions management fund.

The fund will invest in technology to reduce emissions in the province, such as a pipeline to carry carbon dioxide from the Fort McMurray area. The gas can be used to force extra oil out of old, congested oil wells.

"The fact of the matter is, the vast majority of them will have to make contributions to the technology fund," Renner said.

---

This technology fund might produce something useful, but there are no guarantees. If the oilpatch can still emit greenhouse gases, but pay a penalty, that might reduce the profitability of non-renewable energy, but with oil over $50/barrel, I fail to see how it reduces our greenhouse gases.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Lou Arab ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by minkepants:
Now that the usual green gang here seem quite alarmed by May's reaction, even to the point of 'eating their cards,' why not attempt to persuade rather than belittle them? A scorched earth style of arguement demeans the humanity of your opponent, humiliates them into an intractable position, and leaves no bridge for them to cross over to your side. I'm reminded of the scene in Gandhi where he says "we want to see the British off as friends."

So she's endorsing this on the basis of what???? A hint???? WTF is that? Maybe, yet again, she shot her mouth off and we'll get yet another, "ohhh, i didn't realize my words had meaning" statement of which she's so fond. The only alternate I can see is that she is willing to screw the environment in exchange for votes.

---

Ah, so you condemn me, but go way over the top much further above, than I did, when I said; "Quite obviously the environment means nothing to May, or indeed yourself."

So, what bridges did you just build minkepants? Was it the "wtf" bridge, or the "shot her mouth off" bridge, that is your attempt at bridge building?

quote:

---

This will be the first time in Canadian history that greenhouse gas emmissions will be regulated with excess polluters being penalized, which is significant.

---

This is not without note. And if it was happening in isolation, the legislation might be unequivocally commendable even with all it's limitations.

But the legislation is definitely NOT taking place in isolation. It is part of a concerted and multi-actor coordinated drive to slide by with a minimum being done.

The fact that the penalties are non-existent or cheap is what makes it part of that pattern of them deviating as little as possible from business as usual.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Sorry but I fail to see where any of the governments of of Calvert, Romanow, Harcourt, Clark, Doer and Rae were/are ahead of curve on the environment. Haven't the emissions from Saskatchewan gone up by something like 60% since 1990? What NDP government has achieved hard targets on emissions? My hopes are still high for Doer, but the rest of them were a complete disappointment on the environment.

---

quote:

---

opportunistic... hypocrisy

---

There's quite a diff between poking holes in a major national figure and slagging another poster as a tory or an anti-environmentalist, especially when the most they've ever done is asked questions or expressed feelings of ambiguity

quote:

---

This will be the first time in Canadian history that greenhouse gas emmissions will be regulated with excess polluters being penalized, which is significant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Sorry but I fail to see where any of the governments of of Calvert, Romanow, Harcourt, Clark, Doer and Rae were/are ahead of curve on the environment. Haven't the emissions from Saskatchewan gone up by something like 60% since 1990? What NDP government has achieved hard targets on emissions? My hopes are still high for Doer, but the rest of them were a complete disappointment on the environment.

---

At the risk of derailing this thread, I can't let that last comment go by unanswered. You may be right as far as global warming was concerned (although I saw something recently that suggested the federal NDP first raised the issue of global warming in the early 1980s) but I lived in BC during the Harcourt and Clark governments and Harcourt in particular did a huge amount of green stuff. I think its fair to say Harcourt's government was the greenest government North America ever saw, even taking Clayquot into account.

Harcourt's government introduced land use planning, bringing communities, environmentalists, and industry together to tables to put together land use plans in all parts of the province.

The government introduced Forest Renewal BC, a fund that collected additional funds from industry for every tree cut, and put those funds into a wide range of forest restoration projects, start up loans for value added industries and other forestry related green initiatives.

Harcourt's government also introduced the Forest Practices Code, which greatly increased the regulations around how forests could be cut, vastly reducing the number and size of clearcuts in BC, and improving forest practices overall.

Finally, the government doubled the amount of parks and protected wilderness areas from 6 to 12% of the province. At the time, that was basicly unprecedented in North America (except for Costa Rica).

The basic question in this thread is: what the heck is Elizabeth May doing?

The someone adds, "I'm not not too impressed by what various NDP provincial governemnts have done."

Notwithstanding Lou Arab's defense of at least some of that record- the relevant subject matter is comparing these two federal opposition parties.

Let alone the compromises that you worry a political party will make if and when a political party is government... fundamental questions are being asked about what May and the Greens are doing even as an opposition party.

Here's the link to the NDP's Green Agenda.

http://www.ndp.ca/page/4048

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070313.wxroilsands13/BNStory/Business/home

And here's a quote relevant to the new Alberta regs:

quote:

---

The companies will face a penalty of $15 for each tonne of CO{-2} that they emit above that limit. Mr. Potter said the Alberta scheme would have add only 18 cents (U.S.) a barrel to the cost of oil sands production.

---

Big whuppee.

Not that the goal is to make the companies pay. But how much they will have to pay is a good indication of effectiveness.

Why would the Greens praise any legislation- even qualified praise- that only imposes a cost of 18 cents a barrel?

That doesn't even get remotely close to pushing the envelope.

In fact, it's further evidence that the legislation is a dodge- and should be called that. Period.

quote:

---

Mr. Potter said the more likely federal approach would be to require industries to cut intensity of the CO{-2} emissions by 25 per cent, which would add between $1.18 and $1.44 a barrel to oil sands production.

---

And remember, these aren't figures from the Pembina Institute that nobody in industry beleives.

Harper is looking at intensity based regulations-under which GHG emmissions will continue to rise- will cost something around $1.25 per barrel.

That isn't good enough- and is itself a dodge to shelter the industry from effective regulations- and Lizziw praises Alberta for bringing down regulations that cost 18 CENTS a barrel ?!

[ 13 March 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

Seems like May was being serious when she said all that because I haven't heard about her trying to re-spin what she said.

quote:

---

At a minimum: this is NOT the Post spinning things.

The quotes are extensive, and the point is repeated a number of ways.

Again, at best what they both said is a politically unwise concession to Stelambach in particular, and to the overall charm offensive by the cabal of Harper, Tom D'Aquino and the oil and gas industry which is CLEARLY to everyone including May laying the ground for getting away with doing sweet fuck all. This is not one of Lizzies off hand stream of conciousness wanderings. She is clearly identifying the difference between the Greens and Suzuki [and all other environmentalist NGOs].
So at best, this is politically unwise and most unhelpful. May says "I was encouraged that Premier Stelmach is talking about regulations."
???
Hello. Remember Clean Air Act when it was brought out by Ambrose? Lots of regulations there too, also new for the party offering them.
But they still blatantly had THIS IS A DODGE stamped all over them.
The dodge by Stelambach, part of the overall highly concerted dodging, is much worse. They've learned how to get it right.
Lizzie can turn around and say she does not support intensity targets without it directly contradicting what she and Read have done here.
It's aid and succor to a climate change obfuscation agenda that deserves and requires absolute opposition.

---

Stockholm

quote:

---

May tends to praise any incremental movement by any politican on environmental issues,

Except if the politician is in the NDP at which point she foams at the mouth with hatred...

---

quote:

---

sidescroll, dude! Try tinyurl.

---

Globe biz section article, effects of govt on oil sands investment

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimeguy:
KenS
KenS is right here. The Alberta Conservatives have a clear track record of having no regard for the environmental impact that the Oil Sands development has had or will have.

---

quote:

---

out damn side scroll !

---

The wonders of technology !

I was also wondering how people did that edit thing.

I have learned so much today!

quote:

---

KenS
KenS is right here. The Alberta Conservatives have a clear track record of having no regard for the environmental impact that the Oil Sands development has had or will have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You quite clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I never was one for reading manuals unless I had to assmble the damn thing or had broken it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimeguy:
I exchanged emails with a member of the Green Party shadow cabinet and he assured me that the article was all spin in favour of the Conservative government. The Green Party does not and will not support any plan that does not follow aggressive reduction in targets. The priority is true emission reduction based on at least the Kyoto plan.

---

He assured you did he?

So what was spin?

This comment?

"When you recognize that the language coming out of someone's mouth appears to be what you had always wanted to hear, you encourage them, see where they go with it."

or this comment:

"He has hinted there will be regulations, that it will be serious, that there will be targets," she said, adding the emissions plan is better than what she has seen in Alberta in the past.

or this one:

"We had Premier Klein and the dinosaur farts line ...so I would say this has to be an improvement," said May, referring to Ralph Klein's remark at a 2002 fundraiser that global warming trends millions of years ago were caused by "dinosaur farts."

or this one?

"Here's where I would differ with Dr. Suzuki. I think when someone shows an impulse to move in the right direction, they deserve encouragement," she said. "So we will save the brickbats in case he doesn't do the right thing."

Or this one by the AB Green Party leader?

quote:

---

He assured you did he?

---

Yes. He did.

From the article.

quote:

---

Both the federal and provincial Green parties - whose policies have long been at odds with those of Alberta - support the province's climate change plan that calls for large emitters to slice their greenhouse gas emissions intensity by 12 per cent between July 1 and Dec. 31. Federal Green Leader Elizabeth May, speaking in Cochrane on Friday, said she was pleasantly surprised by the emissions policy, announced by Stelmach on Thursday. While not giving it a complete green thumbs up, she said the plan is a step in the right direction.

---

This is pure spin and not based on anything except what the reporter wanted everything to mean. Saying something is a step in the right direction is not an endorsement of the legislation itself. So yes, the reporter took her statements and wanted it to imply a full endorsement. That's spin.

quote:

---

So what was spin?
This comment?
"When you recognize that the language coming out of someone's mouth appears to be what you had always wanted to hear, you encourage them, see where they go with it."

---

This is not an endorsement of the policy. She says that it 'appears to be what you had always wanted to hear...' Appears to be. Not IS what you always wanted to hear.
The rest of your quotes don't imply that she endorses the actual plan either, just plays to the fact that anything over Ralph Klein is an improvement. I don't agree but so be it. It doesn't prove your point at all and certainly doesn't prove the question in the thread as to whether the Party endorses the plan. I already stated that I think she is wrong when she says she differs on Suzuki's approach on this in my post above. I don't think we need to wait but the statement doesn't prove your point or disprove the fact that the Party won't endorse the plan.

As to the quote from Read, I can't answer for you because its from the Green Party leader of Alberta and I don't know where he is going with this in terms of what the AB Greens want to do. It certainly doesn't say he endorsed the plan completely either, only the fact that the consevatives are talking in the right direction.

Look, if E.M. wants to paint herself as Saint Elizabeth of Politics who encourages everyone rather than attacks and criticizes, then so be it. That's her strategy to make work or fail miserably at. I'm not the only one who is bothered by this or the only one who gets a headache when she talks like this but again that's her problem to deal with. So yes I am assured that the Party won't endorse this now or anytime in the future.

They pre-supported it in actual fact mimeguy!

But hey, if Ms May wants to make herself a laughing stock -- well day of the environmental community she is welcome to do it.

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

I am assuming that did not flat out endorse it.

Saying that it is a step in the right direction is itself a problem- and that should be totally obvious to anyone with a fraction of the grasp of the 'mechanics' that May has.

It is most definitely NOT a step in the right direction because the direction IS setting up a dodge for the oil and gas industry.

The Alberta $15/tonne penalties established for non-compliance are HALF the consensus opinion of what the costs will be for cleaning GHG emissions from oil sands production.

Which on one has the incentive to actually reduce emissions. They'll just pay the penalties which add a measly 18 CENTS per barrel.

Its exactly the kind of smokescreen and dodge that Harper's Clean Air Act was when it landed last Fall- for which it got the deserved universal condemnation.

Nor do I but that it is Lizzie's mistaken love-in of going around and praising everybody for what they manage to do. Even if it really exists it would not be an excuse for as serious a failing as giving even the most qualified support to this smokescreen.

And here's a simple test for whether Elizabeth May is caught up in praising everyone's good side.

Sephane Dion gets LAVISH praise when he is Environment Minister, even though most NGOs characterize his effort as way too little way too late.

Dion continues to get praise and strokes as Opposition Leader [so the earlier praise was not just buttering up the govt of the day].

Harper is villified constantly- as he should be. Bu he is the official Bad Guy against whom all good people identify themselves as such [see Stephane Dion].

And the we have Stelembach- now even HE gets some praise. Do you suppose that just might have something to do with how many votes the Green Party gets in Alberta and the broad popularity of the government? ... so maybe lets dish out some praise that we can say is not an endorsement?

quote:

---

Look, if E.M. wants to paint herself as Saint Elizabeth of Politics who encourages everyone rather than attacks and criticizes, then so be it. That's her strategy to make work or fail miserably at. I'm not the only one who is bothered by this or the only one who gets a headache when she talks like this but again that's her problem to deal with. So yes I am assured that the Party won't endorse this now or anytime in the future.

The National Post is constantly vilified here as a completely unreliable source but now that it prints a story that gives you amunition then apparently it can't be wrong. None of the quotes above that you site indicate that the Green Party would support the legislation which hasn't even been completed yet.

---

First off, good point about the Post.

Again, it doesn't seem to be so much a matter of her being nice to everybody so much as May saying some awfully goofy shit without bothering to check with her party. I've certainly seen people pull this kind of lone decision crap in supposedly concensus-based organizations, so that's not that unusual. But it seems pretty clear you guys are getting sick of the Houdini-like contortions you have to do to rationalize everything she says. Maybe "Queen Liz" is more appropos.

And that's just, again, if we're nice enough to assume she's just prone to put her foot in her mouth. Pretty bad when she keeps putting her foot in her mouth in the exact same way: namely in a way that implies she's courting a libertarian/ objectivist laissez-faire approach to environmental regulation, whether she's not exactly endorsing the Fraser Institute, or not exactly endorsing the BS policies of the Tory government of Alberta.

There would appear to be a lot of people who are genuinely committed to the environment in your party. But every time your leadership makes a comment like this, the more it seems like they're being played. After all, their policy votes are gonna be chucked in exchanged for her personally drafted platform, right?

I really wish you guys were like Petra Kelly. I wish this whiff of sulphur didn't waft around you guys. Then I hear some incredibly lame remark like those by your national and Alberta leaders.

And good for you for your candor.

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
I never used the National Post for my link, I used the Calgary Herald.

---

quote:

---

And the we have Stelembach- now even HE gets some praise. Do you suppose that just might have something to do with how many votes the Green Party gets in Alberta and the broad popularity of the government? ... so maybe lets dish out some praise that we can say is not an endorsement?
And then we have Jack Layton and the NDP. Bearing in mind that some opposition politicians do get lots of praise for what they [allegedly] do- please recount for us all that praise Lizzie has offered of Layton and the NDP.

---

KenS - we are not in disagreement on this. I've said it in other threads and earlier in this one. E. May has a definate bias against the NDP which I do not fathom. Even with her holding conservative views. I hold conservative views in many areas but I would never deny or challenge Jack Layton's credentials on the environment nor the NDP. Both the NDP and the Greens have strong policies and I see the 'enemy' as the liberals and conservatives. I would rather share the House of Commons with Greens and NDP than give back power to the conservatives and liberals. I'm not alone in this within the Green Party.

Quoting what I said earlier in the thread.

quote:

---

Stockholm
quote:

May tends to praise any incremental movement by any politican on environmental issues,
Except if the politician is in the NDP at which point she foams at the mouth with hatred...

Although expressed in typical Stockholm drama queen fashion the statement is essentially true. Elizabeth May has displayed a clear bias against the NDP in her statements to date. If WCG meant that her praise of any incremental movement by a politician is aimed at those sitting in government then she should be hiring brass bands and giving parades to other sitting provincial governments, NDP and Liberal alike because Alberta has some of the worst environmental attitudes in the country. I get confused because when I hear her talk without cameras around at events she talks strongly about moral obligations on the part of politicians but then makes statements like the ones in the article in front of cameras and the press. The last people who should be confused about what she is doing are Green supporters themselves and I don't seem to get any clear answers as to what the strategy is here, and it is strategy and not 'off the top of my head musings'. The strategy should be calling everyone in Ottawa and the provincial governments to back up their talk with clear, decisive action. She would do better to listen to David Suzuki rather than parting company over such a weak point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
fyi: Calgary Herald is owned by CanWest, as is the National Post. Editorial is centrally controlled in Winnipeg. Therefore Calgary Herald = National Post, as does every other news org owned by them. Same rag. Different cover.

---

I know know did you NOT get my big

minkepants -

quote:

---

There would appear to be a lot of people who are genuinely committed to the environment in your party. But every time your leadership makes a comment like this, the more it seems like they're being played. After all, their policy votes are gonna be chucked in exchanged for her personally drafted platform, right?

---

quote:

---

If our government was driven by what scientists say, we would not be debating — we would be acting. And I do expect Mr. Harper's government to act. But the yardstick will be neither Kyoto nor the warnings of scientists; it will be a short-term political calculation, delivered with a heavy dose of partisan spin, aimed at getting through the next election by doing the bare minimum.

Here's my prediction. We will see a government program to "get tough" with big polluters. It will involve binding regulations, but against intensity targets based on reductions per unit of production. So as oil production goes up, so will pollution.

---

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

-----------

Her article is interesting, certainly better than her verbal ability, but it seems to go contradict itself at the end. How can intensity targets, which allow total emissions to rise, imply either a 45 or 90 megaton reduction? Also, that final line "Let's hope the voters are as smart as the atmosphere." Is a real clanger

[ 14 March 2007: Message edited by: minkepants ]

Good luck to you on getting through to Elizabeth May. She's been making it up as she goes her whole activists' life- working in small organizations where that can be smoothed over with the people involved.

I actually know next to nothing about the dynamics of her work at Sierra Club- but even the SC is a small organization when it comes to the number of people really involved in decision making.

[ 15 March 2007: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Cool, mime. One other note on this: even if she wants to court Alta tories federal votes, or if she's trying to get the Alta tories to do a "Nixon visits China," how hard would it have been to say: "He has made an interesting overture, I urge him to make history by giving this legislation some teeth." It would have stayed nice but kept her from looking like a pushover.

---

I have no idea why she can't say things in this manner. Sometimes I think she just doesn't know when to stop talking or take a pause and actually think about it then respond. Why she couldn't have referred back to the opinions expressed in the article where she clearly debunks the Federal Conservative plan and Liberal actions is a mystery to me. But now I'm repeating myself so I'll end there.

quote:

---

Her article is interesting, certainly better than her verbal ability, but it seems to go contradict itself at the end. How can intensity targets, which allow total emissions to rise, imply either a 45 or 90 megaton reduction? Also, that final line "Let's hope the voters are as smart as the atmosphere." Is a real clanger

---

Actually she doesn't contradict herself. From the article.

quote:

---

The politically sneaky part of Mr. Harper's announcement will be choosing a target for industrial emissions reductions far higher than the 45 megatonnes contained in the previous government's plan. This part of the Liberals' "Project Green," in which big polluters were referred to as Large Final Emitters, was universally condemned by climate groups. It was so weak as to be laughable. And it has set the bar very low for Mr. Harper, who can now claim to be "doing better than Mr. Dion."

The handful of climate change programs introduced by the Liberals, then cancelled by the Conservatives, will be reannounced. These will be cobbled together with an intensity-based LFE system that, even if it doubles the feeble Liberal target to 90 megatonnes, will be meaningless where it really counts — its impact on the atmosphere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

I know know did you NOT get my big

---

well, i did in fact miss the point of your as there is no link in any of your above posts, and the only one with similarly quotable material is the Nat. Post link at the beginnning of the thread, so if the joke was the Post and Herald are one and the same as i pointed out then "duh" to me. yar!

i interpereted the smiley as implying the Herald was a more reputable source than the Post, which it is not of course, all the articles being sourced from the same pool. this conclusion is likely abetted on my part by my visceral dislike for anything CanWest or Asper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by farnival:
the Green leader is unfortunately becoming a target for capping her own emmisions before they become unsustainable.

---

Her emissions and most likely her thinking about Green party memberships is tied to her opinion of Canadians.

quote:

---

Canadians at stupid

---