Green party leader says climate change policy worse than Nazi appeasement

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

How many here think she's a devout Christian ala George Bush? How many here think she was pandering to the crowd like any other politician?

Well if she's a minister in training, I assume she's pretty devout...

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well, I'm not the one who made the original comment, but since you're feeling the need to get technical, I'll use your own definition against you...



The Nazis didn't JUST kill Jews. They killed many people of many nationalities. According to your definition, that would not be considered a genocide either. It's just a massacre.

I'm not getting technical...you're playing fast and loose with facts. If you want to play ignorant, I'll leave it up to the rest of the readers to decide for themselves whether your arguments are founded or not.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go out and commit genocide against the human race by driving home.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I'm not getting technical...you're playing fast and loose with facts. If you want to play ignorant, I'll leave it up to the rest of the readers to decide for themselves whether your arguments are founded or not.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go out and commit genocide against the human race by driving home.

You're right. I mistook what was actually said. So let's look back at what was said. It's like the appeasement of the Nazis. Well, by saying that, we're saying that this is similar to knowing the plans of a person bent on killing millions, and yet still trying to negotiate with that person. We know that damage to the environment will kill us off. Yet we're trying to stall that situation with measures that don't go far enough to actually stop it. Should she have used the term Nazi? Probably not. Was she calling Harper a Nazi? No. She was calling him Chamberlain, and the state of the environment the Nazi.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Ok, 1 thing... why is she being burned at the stake here for her Nazi comments? Seems to me more are upset about that than her religious comments.

She stands by the comments. She supports the comments. She agrees with the comments. She repeats the comments. She's making the comments her own. It is pretty much as if she said the comments herself.

The comment is extremely outlandish. Comparing anything to a situation where millions of people were deliberately killed will definitely grab negative attention.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

She stands by the comments. She supports the comments. She agrees with the comments. She repeats the comments. She's making the comments her own. It is pretty much as if she said the comments herself.

The comment is extremely outlandish. Comparing anything to a situation where millions of people were deliberately killed will definitely grab negative attention.

Well, agree to disagree then. I pointed out earlier in the thread as to why I think the comparison can be valid. I don't see anyone supporting the murder of millions of people, nor do I see May implying that Harper is a murderer... anywhere.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Well, agree to disagree then. I pointed out earlier in the thread as to why I think the comparison can be valid. I don't see anyone supporting the murder of millions of people, nor do I see May implying that Harper is a murderer... anywhere.

I don't see that she's implying that Harper is a murderer either.

I do see that she's implying that Harper is appeasing others who will cause major catastrophical events (such as the murdering of millions of people) to occur.

Very different.. but at the same time still completely extreme.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't see that she's implying that Harper is a murderer either.

I do see that she's implying that Harper is appeasing others who will cause major catastrophical events (such as the murdering of millions of people) to occur.

Very different.. but at the same time still completely extreme.

Murdering is perhaps the wrong term, but killing would be a good one. Think of smoking laws. We were killing thousands of people by allowing smoking in buildings. We appeased cigarette manufacturers and the hospitality industry by allowing it to continue indoors long after it the health effects were known. We stood by and watched people die. Environmental devastation is at least partially responsible for the state of famine in Africa. We are already killing off humans with our non-action. Yes, it will become a major catastrophic event. Think of the golden toad!

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

We are already killing off humans with our non-action. Yes, it will become a major catastrophic event. Think of the golden toad!

(warning: analogy ahead) So instead let's make a major pre-emptive strike and attack Iraq instead? Attack Iraq before they attack us? Completely destroy the country, under apparently false pretenses using scare tactics, and then try to re-build it?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I don't see that she's implying that Harper is a murderer either.

I do see that she's implying that Harper is appeasing others who will cause major catastrophical events (such as the murdering of millions of people) to occur.

Very different.. but at the same time still completely extreme.

Yes, thats why I think the comparison is valid. Some people may not like it, because any reference at all to Nazism/Hitler is taboo to them. I think she was trying to find an event of global import and that everyone knew about and could relate to. I see it as her saying 'if Harper appeases Global Warming (as an issue), it may be a mistake on the scale of Chamberlain appeasing Hitler'.

Maybe she thinks its an 'extreme' issue that requires some 'extreme' responses? I know moderations is always best in all things... maybe she doesn't agree though, a lot of those enviro-types tend to regard this whole thing as a pretty important issue.

[MarchHare]

It's a very important distinction to note that Harper was not compared to Hitler but rather to Neville Chamberlain. Nobody is suggesting that Harper is comitting genocide, but rather, the suggestion is that, in the view of the Green Party, Harper's lack of action on this issue will lead to catastrophic consequences for the environment that could have been prevented, just like Chamberlain could have prevented WWII and the Holocaust if he hadn't attempted to appease Hitler.

It's certainly not a comparison I would have made, but when viewed in the proper context it's not nearly as bad as some here are making it out to be.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by calculoso

(warning: analogy ahead) So instead let's make a major pre-emptive strike and attack Iraq instead? Attack Iraq before they attack us? Completely destroy the country, under apparently false pretenses using scare tactics, and then try to re-build it?

False pretenses? Species are already dying out, some have come to extinction due to global warming. Humans are not and will not be immune to that. Destroy the country by making it cleaner? Paranoid much? OMG! Lowering the amount of gas and electricity we use may actually make user costs go down! AACK!

[Hemi-Cuda]

ok what exactly is the big deal with this environmental policy? i've read a lot of stories about different groups condeming it, but i still don't see why. it's hard to sift through all the politicall bull**** to find the real reasons

[Thunderball]

Right or wrong, any politician with half a brain knows there's a few words that begin with the letter "n" to steer clear of, and "Nazi" is one of them. Especially if it, in any way, cheapens the loss of life from World War 2. It just comes off as, appeasing them is "better" than the environment policy. I really don't care what she meant (even if she meant that its simply a massive government blunder), that's how its going to come across and it was just ridiculous. Especially ridiculous coming from a lawyer like May.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

False pretenses? Species are already dying out, some have come to extinction due to global warming. Humans are not and will not be immune to that. Destroy the country by making it cleaner? Paranoid much? OMG! Lowering the amount of gas and electricity we use may actually make user costs go down! AACK!

Species have been dying out for years (Remember the woolly mammoth? Me neither) and certainly long before this global warming fad came about.

Destroying the country? No. Destroying the economy? Definitely a possibility if not managed properly.

User costs go down? I doubt it. Companies will pass along the costs to retro-fit their installations with these new "green machines", causing the cost to go up. After they're long paid off, they will be so used to the profit that they'll never reduce the prices and will increase prices because their closest competitor just did.

As I've said before... Doing nothing is not the answer. Something has to be done to control the pollution being generated. On the other hand, that "something to be done" must be controlled and managed, and not just implemented in a panic situation with no regards to the consequences.

[Resolute 14]

So the leader of an environmental political party is a loony toon. I'm shocked. I truely am. No, really...

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

So the leader of an environmental political party is a loony toon. I'm shocked. I truely am. No, really...

I didn't want to be the one to say it... but there it is... and its very hard to dispute.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Species have been dying out for years (Remember the woolly mammoth? Me neither) and certainly long before this global warming fad came about.

Destroying the country? No. Destroying the economy? Definitely a possibility if not managed properly.

User costs go down? I doubt it. Companies will pass along the costs to retro-fit their installations with these new "green machines", causing the cost to go up. After they're long paid off, they will be so used to the profit that they'll never reduce the prices and will increase prices because their closest competitor just did.

As I've said before... Doing nothing is not the answer. Something has to be done to control the pollution being generated. On the other hand, that "something to be done" must be controlled and managed, and not just implemented in a panic situation with no regards to the consequences.

Well basic supply and demand economics tells me that if the demand for oil and gas go down, so will the cost. There are plenty of ways to help the environment without putting yourself at the mercy of companies who are trying to install "green machines". You're right, there are things that might hurt us short term, but whether we panic and implement them, or let them be implemented at their own pace, it's still going to hurt. The sooner begun, the sooner done. The longer we wait, the more likely it will be too late when we actually do make a change.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Well basic supply and demand economics tells me that if the demand for oil and gas go down, so will the cost.

You are correct..
- unless we aren't talking about oil and gas but pure electricity which now will need huge investment needed to generate the clean stream of power.
- unless they now have larger costs (due to carbon trading, penalties, etc) that will have to be recouped
- unless the companies look at what the others charge and decide to charge a slightly increased amount (what hotels, lululemon, auto insurance, cell phone companies, etc do)

There are lots ways that prices can continue to go up...

Originally Posted by FireFly

There are plenty of ways to help the environment without putting yourself at the mercy of companies who are trying to install "green machines". You're right, there are things that might hurt us short term, but whether we panic and implement them, or let them be implemented at their own pace, it's still going to hurt. The sooner begun, the sooner done. The longer we wait, the more likely it will be too late when we actually do make a change.

"Too late"? According to who? Where is the REAL deadline? It is only a figment of someone's imagination right now.

If you seriously think that no harm will be done by panicking and putting in place insanely impossible to meet measures overnight then you're fooling yourself. The fact that industry thinks that the Harper green plan is tough but do-able means that they can probably do better - and will since they know that things will continue to get tougher in the future.

You saw how the stock market panicked when the Harper gov't implemented the taxes on Income Trusts. You see how oil and gas prices react to international events (like kidnappings). Now imagine the reaction to a measure which would severely limit the capabilities of a vast majority of companies to operate at all. Imagine the Auto manufacturers, who already have a tough enough time staying alive. Imagine the airline industry, who also have trouble staying alive.

Fear is real, and the CEOs of the various companies need time to develop and implement strategies to come up with solutions. Designs just don't evolve overnight.

Take cars for example. The time needed to design a new car is 2-5 years based on the link I found in five minutes of searching. Now imagine trying to design a new car in less time, with new unproven or undeveloped technology. IMPOSSIBLE.

Add some realism to the timeframe and the enviromentalists might have some more support.

[Azure]

So what do the Green Party supporters think?

I know one person has already said they are shifting their support....

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Right or wrong, any politician with half a brain knows there's a few words that begin with the letter "n" to steer clear of, and "Nazi" is one of them. Especially if it, in any way, cheapens the loss of life from World War 2. It just comes off as, appeasing them is "better" than the environment policy. I really don't care what she meant (even if she meant that its simply a massive government blunder), that's how its going to come across and it was just ridiculous. Especially ridiculous coming from a lawyer like May.

I don't see how May's comments 'cheapened the loss of life from World War 2'. She's saying Harper is appeasing the issue of Global Warming by not acting strongly to combat it. She compared it to the most powerful appeasement example in history. I don't see why that is completely invalid and wrong... from her point of view, these 2 instance may be historically parallel. She didn't call Harper a Nazi, and she's not suggesting the Conservatives are going to kill millions of people.

In an interview Tuesday, May said the tempest over her weekend remarks to a church group were being both misrepresented and overblown.
May explained that the controversial quote attributed to her in news reports was actually her repeating the comments of a British journalist and environmental writer, George Monbiot.
Monbiot had told a conference on Saturday that there is a "new axis of evil" on climate change, naming U.S. President George Bush, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Harper as the offending trio.
According to May, who says she took notes, Monbiot called the three "more culpable in the eyes of history than (former British prime minister) Neville Chamberlain's attempt to appease the Nazis."
May says she repeated Monbiot's opinion on Sunday when she spoke to a church group in London, Ont., at the invitation of the local Liberal MP who had defeated her there in a fall federal byelection.
The point, May said Tuesday, is that Monbiot was comparing the moral failure of meeting the targets of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions with Chamberlain's failure to appreciate the dangers of Nazi Germany.

http://www.cjob.com/news/index.aspx?..../n050193A.xml