40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What about them? They made a lifestyle choice to move outside of city limits but work in the city. Part of that lifestyle includes a longer commute and less access to public transit. Anyone who chooses to live in those areas was surely aware of this reality when they moved there.

So now we must conform to your way of life which is being JAMMED packed into an urban centre?

Ya they did make a choice to be out in the country/suburbs, gas wasn't 2.50-3 a litre like you are proposing.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I think the thing there is they don't and that's exactly the brand they are trying to implicitly advertise to voters who are shamed into silence by the new environmentalism. They are the party for the person who isn't willing to reduce their standard of living so we can be an idealistic nation while the rest of the world's inaction renders our sacrifices useless. Quite frankly I'm not willing to freeze in the winter waiting for a bus so China can build more coal-fired generators with the permission of the UN because "It's up to the G8 to lead by example to get the ball rolling."

I, on the other hand, am willing because it is the right thing to do. My moral conscience isn't dictated by "well everyone else is immoral, so what the heck".

You may or may not believe in climate change. You may or not believe in acting on climate change. What I am saying is, completely outside of that issue, doing what you believe to be good, right and ethical shouldn't consist of looking around and seeing what everyone else is doing and imitating.

If you look at any progress that humanity has made, be it in terms of civil rights, reducing poverty, environmental stewardship... it all starts with a few people saying "this is wrong and I'm going to change my ways DESPITE the fact everyone else is doing nothing about this issue". I can imagine what it must have been like to be a "n'ggr-lover", outcast from your community for doing the right thing despite knowing your actions were a tiny, minuscule drop in the bucket.

I'm hoping that this country has a few more idealists other than myself willing to lead by example by doing something as simple as putting on a damn sweater while I wait for the bus.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I'm hoping that this country has a few more idealists other than myself willing to lead by example by doing something as simple as putting on a damn sweater.

Leading by example is extremely different than forcing everyone to participate whether they like it or not.

I wouldn't mind replacing my furnace with a more efficient and "greener" version... but I don't have the money.

I wouldn't mind replacing my vehicle which emitted less GHG.. but I don't have the money.

I wouldn't mind getting a series of solar panels to power my house... but I don't have the money.

Now... here I hear about the Liberals wanting to force something down my throat by making everything more expensive when I already don't have the money.... and they figure I'll like it?

I hear about the elitist environmentalists who look down on everyone who's not doing enough, only to totally forget about the negligible impact that any one of us can have.

It just makes me cynical about the whole thing. Nothing will ever be good enough. "BUT JUST DO SOMETHING!"... sigh. I'll remember that when you run out into the street without looking and get slammed into by a bus. As we know in the hockey world... sometimes the best trades are those that you don't make. To me, a carbon tax falls into this world.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I, on the other hand, am willing because it is the right thing to do. My moral conscience isn't dictated by "well everyone else is immoral, so what the heck".

You may or may not believe in climate change. You may or not believe in acting on climate change. What I am saying is, completely outside of that issue, doing what you believe to be good, right and ethical shouldn't consist of looking around and seeing what everyone else is doing and imitating.

If you look at any progress that humanity has made, be it in terms of civil rights, reducing poverty, environmental stewardship... it all starts with a few people saying "this is wrong and I'm going to change my ways DESPITE the fact everyone else is doing nothing about this issue". I can imagine what it must have been like to be a "-lover", outcast from your community for doing the right thing despite knowing your actions were a tiny, minuscule drop in the bucket.

Good for you . It's this kind of "Smug" emotive response that politicians need to get a mandate to enact policies that don't make sense or end up in more typical pork-barrelling and corruption. Don't give me this BS that because you vote green/NDP/Liberal that somehow you're part of some special movement towards social justice in the world on the magnitude of the civil rights movement. Heck on a relative worldwide basis just being able to sit at your computer typing this drivel could be considered by some as contributing to create an unacceptably large "Carbon footprint" for yourself.

Also at what point are you considered ethical or not ethical? Replacing Bulbs with CFL bulbs but still driving to work everyday? buying a place close to work and walking everyday, but still buying produce from Mexico? washing your clothes in the river without detergent? Once made a moral issue even having a fire while hermitting oneself in a wooden shack in mountains could be considered an unecessary sin by the most extreme climate change zealots.

[Devils'Advocate]

Ah. The "you can't do everything, so why not do nothing" brigade. As a friend once put it, it is often the man who recycles nothing that condemns a man who recycles everything but milk cartons as a hypocrite.

Being environmental stewards isn't about having no footprint, it's about having a limited impact and REDUCING the amount of resources we use.

As for the "making everything more expensive", that's an interesting OPINION. And one that Jack Layton may well share with you. But my post wasn't about the Green Shift. It wasn't even about global warming/climate change. It was about rejecting an idea because China and India are not on board.

It's like giving aide to impoverished third world nations. Even if China could afford to spend some of its treasury but refused, I think it would be the right thing for Canada to do, even if it is dwarfed by what other countries with more people could do. I wouldn't say Canada should stop doing the right thing because other countries are not doing the right thing either. You do the right thing BECAUSE it is doing the right thing, not because you can get away with doing the wrong thing.

You may have very good reasons to disbelieve in climate change. You may dislike a party's platform regarding climate change. I just don't think "we shouldn't do anything because nobody else is doing anything" is a valid reason.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I just don't think "we shouldn't do anything because nobody else is doing anything" is a valid reason.

How about not doing anything at the moment becuse doing so would put us at a competitive disadvantage in a world where the global economy is already cooling?

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Dan02

How about not doing anything at the moment becuse doing so would put us at a competitive disadvantage in a world where the global economy is already cooling?

Ah... the old "Environment vs Economy - Choose one" argument.

There are ways to reduce pollution, reduce emissions and help the environment without throwing the economy into chaos. And, as the Conservatives and Liberals have shown, sitting on their hands does NOT reduce pollution, reduce emissions nor helps the environment.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

But will the impact of Canada having reduced carbon emissions truly be worth the undeniable impact on Canada's economy and the Canadian public as a whole. It seems to me as though if the "Green Shift" tax goes through the main loser will be Canadians whose only consolation will be that they have the moral high ground to stand on while jobs in pretty much every industry are outsourced to cheaper locations where they can maximize profits and not be taxed to the same degree.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ah... the old "Environment vs Economy - Choose one" argument.

There are ways to reduce pollution, reduce emissions and help the environment without throwing the economy into chaos. And, as the Conservatives and Liberals have shown, sitting on their hands does NOT reduce pollution, reduce emissions nor helps the environment.

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but in this case I don't think he said choose one, he said consider the consequence of making your choices. Which are correct consequences. That's all.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ah... the old "Environment vs Economy - Choose one" argument.

I can't comment on the specifics of any particular national government environment plan, but in the business world, Google chose both. A few years ago they outfitted their entire corporate campus ("The Googleplex") with solar panels.

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/...is-coming.html

We believe that improving our environmental practices is not only our responsibility as a corporate citizen, but good business planning -- a new report from the North American Electric Reliability Council suggests that demand continues to outstrip power supply by a considerable margin. And of course by saving electricity (not to mention producing clean renewable energy), we also save money. In fact, we believe this project demonstrates that a large investment in renewable energy can be profitable.

Emphasis added.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

It's this kind of "Smug" emotive response...

Also at what point are you considered ethical or not ethical? Replacing Bulbs with CFL bulbs but still driving to work everyday? buying a place close to work and walking everyday, but still buying produce from Mexico? washing your clothes in the river without detergent? Once made a moral issue even having a fire while hermitting oneself in a wooden shack in mountains could be considered an unecessary sin by the most extreme climate change zealots.

I think you answered what you consider a smug, emotive response with a smug emotive response.

Nobody (at least nobody taken seriously by even what you might consider environmental extremists) has suggested that humans return to shacks and launder their clothes in the river, but this kind of exaggeration always makes its way into the conversation somehow.

It is pretty straightforward -- the idea is that we make an effort to not consume so much. Or, to put it another way, we should waste less.

Driving a more efficient car and/or cutting down the kms you drive isn't going to take you back to the middle ages. Neither will a more efficient furnace, using wind/solar power, buying less cheap junk that is made on the other side of the world or recycling (very easily) what you can.

It's not that big a deal.

[Azure]

Google makes millions of dollar each day.

Its easy for them to put solar panels on all their building. Heck, they might even buy the new transportable nuclear power plants and power all their stuff with one of them.

But, they have billions of dollars to invest into something like that.

Most of us can't even afford solar panels for our houses. Big difference.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Driving a more efficient car and/or cutting down the kms you drive isn't going to take you back to the middle ages. Neither will a more efficient furnace, using wind/solar power, buying less cheap junk that is made on the other side of the world or recycling (very easily) what you can.

It's not that big a deal.

Yeah, except all of that costs money.

If my car is paid for, I'm not going to run and buy a 'new' car with 'better' gas milage, just to cut down on the cost of gas, but in the meantime, I add another monthly payment to my already inflated cost of living.

Same thing with a more efficient furnace. I'd love too, simply to save power, but it costs more money to save money in the end.

Not worth it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ah. The "you can't do everything, so why not do nothing" brigade. As a friend once put it, it is often the man who recycles nothing that condemns a man who recycles everything but milk cartons as a hypocrite.

Not sure if you were meaning me in this, but way to be condescending and totally miss the point.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

As for the "making everything more expensive", that's an interesting OPINION. And one that Jack Layton may well share with you. But my post wasn't about the Green Shift.

And I was framing it in the 'here and now'. We're in an election, in - wait for it - an election thread. I find it hard to believe that you DON"T believe that a tax on fuel and other carbon producing things ISN"T going to increase costs.

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

You may have very good reasons to disbelieve in climate change. You may dislike a party's platform regarding climate change. I just don't think "we shouldn't do anything because nobody else is doing anything" is a valid reason.

China and India being on board or not has no impact on me. I can't afford any more than I'm doing (turning off lights, replacing lights, reducing the temperature of my thermostat, driving less, etc) and yet for the environmental elite that's not enough.

Keep that act up and pretty soon I'll be ignoring it altogether.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Ah... the old "Environment vs Economy - Choose one" argument.

There are ways to reduce pollution, reduce emissions and help the environment without throwing the economy into chaos. And, as the Conservatives and Liberals have shown, sitting on their hands does NOT reduce pollution, reduce emissions nor helps the environment.

Didn't know it was either the Liberals plan or nothing in terms of working on helping the environment. That being said, the "Green Shift" and the nonsense the liberals are trying to convince us of is quite ridiculous and i'd think you'd have to be pretty naive to believe such things like it would be revenue neutral. Now thats a load of phoey.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, except all of that costs money.

Buying less stuff doesn't cost money.

I'll give you the solar/wind cost thing. That's true.

Originally Posted by Azure

If my car is paid for, I'm not going to run and buy a 'new' car with 'better' gas milage, just to cut down on the cost of gas, but in the meantime, I add another monthly payment to my already inflated cost of living.

People buy new cars all the time. You don't have to sell the one you have and run out and buy a new one, just see to it that the next one you buy isn't a pointless gas guzzler. Is that so hard?

Originally Posted by Azure

Not worth it.

To some people. Other people don't like needless pollution, never mind the bigger ramifications that you may or may not believe exist.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Let me get this straight. You don't want parties on a televised debate that will tear it apart?? Then why would you want the BQ there??

I don't. I merely stated that they couldn't be allowed in one debate, yet excluded from the other based only on language. Exclude them on valid grounds: that they have no interest in running the country, same as the Grens. Well...I suppose the Greens have "interest," but if they ever got the chance to do it, they'd soil their diapers so fast when confronted with "reality" that it's fair to say they'd never try again.

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

The Green Party will likely get 8-10% of the popular vote, I doubt the NDP wil get 18% of the vote. Yet, because their voters are concentrated in certain regions of the country, they are considered an extremely legitimate party that deserves almost equal billing to the Conservatives and the Liberals.

They got 4.5% last time. Getting 8% this year would be absolutely shocking when there's so much on the line this time. While 4.5% is well above the levels of other fringe parties, it still qualifies as nothing more than protest vote level...it's one in 22 for pete's sake! As for the NDP and concentrated support...the reason we have distinct electoral districts is that regions have different needs and desires...the ultimate fact, though, is that the Greens have never found enough support among ANY group to elect an MP. The other 4 parties have.

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

Rather than using extreme statements, maybe you should focus on the fact that the Green Party isn't the Mary Jane party or the Communist party. They garner a significant portion of the vote and consider that this party has made significant inroads in the last decade when it comes to vote gathering.

They are media darlings because they have such "noble" environmental goals. In reality, May appears to be a communist (her latest announcement was in support of a guaranteed livable income...guess I'll just stop working and go fishing), and any Green supporters I've ever met are cut from the same cloth as supporters of the MJ party, or the Marxist-Leninist party. They have taken the position of being the default protest vote, but that doesn't mean they've become a serious party.

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

This country is not a two party system like the U.S. where individuals have to choose one or the other. If you have criteria for which party should or should not be allowed to represent themselves on national debates, please express them.

1) Significant support.
2) Intent to actually lead the country, on all issues

Greens have neither.

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

And you should also question why Jarack Layton and Sweaters Harper are so insistent on not letting the Green Party in. I'll give you the NDP's reason right now. The NDP is the supposed alternate choice after the two main parties. The possibility of the Green's replacing them as that alternate has become a credible threat to their power and base. I'm not sure why the Conservatives wouldn't want them there. Right now, the conservatives must be the luckiest party in Canadian history. You have three left leaning parties splitting votes and only one right of center party.

You've got the NDP reasons right. The Cons' reasons are simple: when 1 person is the incumbent and the remainder are vying for his job, the incumbent tends to have more than his share of attacks from the others. Why would the Cons want this, in addition to the reduction in total "face time" to only 12 minutes per hour?

Originally Posted by flamey_mcflame

If there is no right of center alternative prior to the next election. I'm gonna run as a pseudo Neo-Con. I'll rail against homosexuals, immigrants, atheists and uppity city folk. Maybe I'll be able to steal 5-7 points from the Conservatives. Then the conservatives will realize how fortunate they have it right now. Lucky Blue punks.

Good luck. I'd love to see another right-of-centre alternative that would be led by a smarter group of people. This latest "puffin" gaffe by the Cons sure makes me question their intelligence. However, it's Mr. Dion's policies that make me question his intelligence. For this election, I'm forced to vote for the least dangerous policies, even though I'm not sure that the Con leadership has any political saavy at all.

[Stranger]

I work with my Dad on the farm. I can tell you right now that if taxes on fuel are increased with Dion's green shift, it will put more pressure on an already frustrating situation.

Farmers don't have the luxury of passing on costs to the consumer like other industries. If a carbon tax is put in place, not only gas and diesel prices will rise. Truckers will charge more to transport our grain. Fertilizer will increase in cost because of rising natural gas costs. Heating bills for our shop will increase. And the list goes on. If gas prices increase like some have suggusted on this board, it would easily amout to tens of thousands of dollars to our farm.

Dion can say that he will give farmers and truckers a rebate to cover the cost increases, but I assure you it won't. Many farmers are already on the verge of quitting, and this will only increase the number of farm sales.

I'm not saying I'm against the environmental movement, but it can't be forced upon us in one step. This is something that should take years to bring in, starting with gradually phasing out what we deem to be causing the problem and gradually phasing in newer more efficient technologies. A new tax will do absolutely nothing, but create another big government program that does nothing but take more taxes out of the average Canadian's pocket.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Stranger

Dion can say that he will give farmers and truckers a rebate to cover the cost increases, but I assure you it won't.

And there is the crux of the condemnation against the "Green Shift" - that people will generally end up paying more.

We have seen varying levels of Green taxes across Europe, which has made them world leaders in reducing greenhouse emissions - without increased tax burden and without crippling their economy. In fact, in Germany, which has the closest thing to the Liberal "Green Shift" has not only seen a signficant reduction in their emissions, but has also seen their economy grow.

So it would seem POSSIBLE to have a "Green Tax"/Ecotax without destroying the country. So this belief that an Ecotax would raise the cost of everything, increase taxes on everybody, destroy farms, impoverish the country, etc... has to be based on something other than "all Ecotaxes are evil".

I'm not 100% sold on the "Green Shift" as written. I have backed green taxes in the past as a general concept, but I'm not sure that Dion's "Green Shift" is the right implementation. However, at least they have a plan - an option that has worked in other countries. The Conservative plan mimics that of Chretien and Paul Martin - give great lip service to the issue, but nothing more.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

And there is the crux of the condemnation against the "Green Shift" - that people will generally end up paying more.

We have seen varying levels of Green taxes across Europe, which has made them world leaders in reducing greenhouse emissions - without increased tax burden and without crippling their economy. In fact, in Germany, which has the closest thing to the Liberal "Green Shift" has not only seen a signficant reduction in their emissions, but has also seen their economy grow.

So it would seem POSSIBLE to have a "Green Tax"/Ecotax without destroying the country. So this belief that an Ecotax would raise the cost of everything, increase taxes on everybody, destroy farms, impoverish the country, etc... has to be based on something other than "all Ecotaxes are evil".

I'm not 100% sold on the "Green Shift" as written. I have backed green taxes in the past as a general concept, but I'm not sure that Dion's "Green Shift" is the right implementation. However, at least they have a plan - an option that has worked in other countries. The Conservative plan mimics that of Chretien and Paul Martin - give great lip service to the issue, but nothing more.

Interesting because I keep hearing about Green tax revolts like this one

Briton's will not foot bill to save planet
Surging Fuel Prices Spur Green Backlash

and the fact that it is the ordinary people that end up footing the bill.
Considering that Europe continually has high levels of unemployment and a weak economy you would think they would do more to deal with that than to delve into some fantasy of "saving the planet". Especially since, in fact, companies are usually given a free ride when it comes to these Green taxes. Green taxes are simply another way to bilk people out of their money to line the politician pockets under the guise of helping the planet.