|
The general scientific consensus is that we are rapidly approaching the emissions limit to mitigate massive worldwide climate change, and that even current oil reserves outpace that red line by a factor of three. The federal NDP takes a tentative first step towards acknowledging that fossil fuel use on an industrial scale has to eliminated within our lifetimes, and even Helsing's first reaction is "What about the economy?  "If I didn't have a young son, I could cynically quip that our species is going to get the punishment we deserve and leave it at that, but as I do have a stake in our prosperity even after my death, I'm going to side with the people that recognize that something akin to the Leap Manifesto needed to be adopted by the major industrialized nations decades ago. Didn't we just spend months conversing about how the NDP is more effective pushing for progressive policy adoption as a permanent third party than when it shoots for control of government? Adopting a "radical" (though in reality unavoidable unless your priority is the cult of short term economic growth) environmentalist stance will give the NDP a true progressive goal to rally around. And unlike the Green Party, the NDP has the pedigree of fighting for and achieving powerful progressive reforms as a third party to believe it can influence government policy in this direction. Notley's Alberta NDP does not get to call the shots on this issue merely (or should it be "especially") because her government is from a province that has tied its wagon so tightly to the cause of carbon emission. And if the cost of moving Canadian policy in this arena more in the direction of acknowledging that radical reforms need to be enacted yesterday is that the NDP never achieves the office of prime minister, that may be the price of doing the right thing as surely as advocating for a "planned and socialized economy" eventually lead to the progressive reforms of the 60s even without a prime minister Tommy Douglas.
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Looking up nuclear energy last night I found that BC has banned it outright and it isn't producing energy anywhere other than Ontario and new Brunswick. I can't ever really remember it being part of the political discourse. Why isn't it being considered as an option in the discussions about emissions
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Because atoms are scary to stupid people with money and ballots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:The general scientific consensus is that we are rapidly approaching the emissions limit to mitigate massive worldwide climate change, and that even current oil reserves outpace that red line by a factor of three. How does the NDP win that fight though? The NDP will make a realistic plan for 2 degrees, the Liberals will tout their ridiculous 1.5 degree stretch goal. On the vote spectrum, you're losing votes from people who don't believe global warming is manmade but also people who follow the science closely and realize the planet is doing much too little too late. So you're targeting the fair weather progressives who end up just voting Liberal. I think the NDP needs to find a better issue, hopefully better than $15 federal minimum wage. terrorist ambulance posted:Looking up nuclear energy last night I found that BC has banned it outright and it isn't producing energy anywhere other than Ontario and new Brunswick. I can't ever really remember it being part of the political discourse. Why isn't it being considered as an option in the discussions about emissions People are terrified of nuclear. Because Canadians are everything CI says we are. quote:44% of Canadians surveyed believe Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activities.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
Until the parties that claim to support environmental responsibility get off their rear end and start supporting nuclear power generation in a huge way, I don't think anyone should pretend they're actually serious about fighting climate change. Why does the oil industry and the province of Alberta constantly get cast as the bad guy, when every political party that claims to want to fight climate change is dragging their rear end on supporting the one true alternative? Don't we teach people the basics about how nuclear power generation works in high school physics, and go through a discussion of why Chernobyl isn't a possible thing in the Canadian context? I remember that, did I go to some sort of magical public school or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Don't we teach people the basics about how nuclear power generation works in high school physics, and go through a discussion of why Chernobyl isn't a possible thing in the Canadian context? I remember that, did I go to some sort of magical public school or something? Probably not, and kinda? I was taught about Chernobyl in school because I was in school when it happened, and it was important to give everyone an understanding of what happened to stop us from chewing our fingers raw. Even a fourth-grader's understanding of the situation ("It wasn't built very well, they made many mistakes in a row and the worst possible thing happened at every step") was enough to make me realize why the cloud of death floating across western Europe wouldn't be seen here. Because our teacher was extra-cool, she even explained why the Three Mile Island "disaster" was really no big deal. Thanks, Mrs. Farrall. Hmm, seems it's still on the books in Ontario: quote:By the end of Grade 6, students will: flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 14:58 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Winnipeg Radio host who spent all of last year defending Winnipeg against the Maclean's "Most Racist City in Canada" article makes and posts 2 incredibly racist and sexist music videos(with a 3rd one that never will see the light of day) Just burn Winnipeg to the ground and salt the earth quote:A popular radio DJ in Winnipeg has been suspended for producing a pair of videos on YouTube considered by many to be racist and sexist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Man gently caress the green party. We urgently need to reduce our impact on the planet, but not use the amazing tools of nuclear power or genetically modified crops because those are icky. We should make our own party that actually cares about the single greatest issue facing our planet more than some stupid appeal to nature. Dr. Stab fucked around with this message at 15:29 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Man gently caress the green party. You say this sarcastically but this is a large portion of the population that thinks like that, but primarily vote for other issues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:Man gently caress the green party. NDP also had "halt nuclear expansion" as official policy until Aug 2015.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:NDP also had "halt nuclear expansion" as official policy until Aug 2015. Well, I admire them for taking the first step on the road from "completely retarded" to "only slightly retarded," I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:NDP also had "halt nuclear expansion" as official policy until Aug 2015. Was this an election platform or in the policy book? I remember it was the policy book which means basically nothing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Was this an election platform or in the policy book? I remember it was the policy book which means basically nothing. It was in a PDF called "NDP Policy Book". The front page, in giant lettering indicated I was reading a document called "NDP Policy". Every single page was stamped "NDP policy". I downloaded it from the NDP website. It had a section on nuclear energy. Why in the christ would that not be the NDP's nuclear energy policy? Also, yer boy mulcair. https://openparliament.ca/debates/2009/11/17/thomas-mulcair-4/only/ posted:Mr. Speaker, nuclear energy is the antithesis of sustainable development. It is so dangerous that the Conservatives have introduced legislation to limit corporate liability in the event of a disaster. Canada seems to have forgotten the lessons of Chernobyl.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
Yikes, what a stupid thing to say. Did he later apologize for that, or claim to have inhaled too deeply or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:It was in a PDF called "NDP Policy Book". The front page, in giant lettering indicated I was reading a document called "NDP Policy". Every single page was stamped "NDP policy". I downloaded it from the NDP website. It had a section on nuclear energy. Why in the christ would that not be the NDP's nuclear energy policy? Good thing we aren't single issue voters like PT6A with tobacco/alcohol/weight issues for women. Mulcair has been shown the door so things can only improve from that position, but again it's a populist position and that would depend on whether the party wishes to go against the grain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
You called me a single issue voter and then named three issues I've discussed. I would also point out that I have at various times criticised obese men for their obesity. Regardless, nuclear is a far more important issue than all of the above, which is just another reason I cannot vote for the NDP in good conscience.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You called me a single issue voter and then named three issues I've discussed. You voted for the ALP, and Harper in the previous fed elections. Your opinion is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Can we try to reduce these dumb arguments to once every
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
NDP leaderchat: Alexandre Boulerice is interested Some Québec activists and former MPs are trying to draft Tom to lead a NPD-Québec.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Can we try to reduce these dumb arguments to once every  quote:http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/dean-del-mastro-out-of-jail-pending-appeal-of-his-appeal/ He's been behind bars for a total of 7 days? I'm not sure what he stands to gain given people found guilty of election fraud have run again for federal parties, see Penashue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Good thing we aren't single issue voters like PT6A with tobacco/alcohol/weight issues for women. Mulcair has been shown the door so things can only improve from that position, but again it's a populist position and that would depend on whether the party wishes to go against the grain. Well, Mulcair did get them to take down the policy book and made no mention of nuclear energy in the platform, maybe in a Butts-esque realization that you can't make changes if you can't get power. I feel like the NDP has slingshotted around realityland and is headed back to the vacuum of space where nobody can hear you. I don't know what their next platform will be but the energy policy they've decided to examine includes - The new iron law of energy development must be: "if you wouldn’t want it in your backyard, then it doesn’t belong in anyone’s backyard" - we could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy - we want energy sources that will last for time immemorial and never run out or poison the land That doesn't sound like nuclear to me. The fact that they're going to spend time seriously discussing those items is pretty disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Tom didn't "get" the party to take down the policy book, it was just taken down during the election to avoid confusion. It's back up now. The policy book is a statement of values and principles, and the platform is a blueprint for government, and you don't want voters to confuse one for the other (have them think that elements in the policy book are election promises and either get attacked on them or disappoint people when you don't defend/enact them).
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
jm20 posted:You voted for the ALP, and Harper in the previous fed elections. Your opinion is garbage. No I didn't, I voted Liberal in the previous federal election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Tom didn't "get" the party to take down the policy book, it was just taken down during the election to avoid confusion. It's back up now. Oh snap, I'm an idiot. I should have said the current NDP policy is halting nuclear expansion, would have saved us a bunch of time. quote:New Democrats believe in:
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:The general scientific consensus is that we are rapidly approaching the emissions limit to mitigate massive worldwide climate change, and that even current oil reserves outpace that red line by a factor of three. My concern is that the Manifesto is tone deaf and suffused with a kind of left-wing self righteousness that I personally don't mind but which I cannot imagine working well during a political campaign. I think it's overall a positive step that the party is debating something so far beyond the current mainstream debate but I would be extremely uncomfortable trying to fight an election with something modeled on this document. Basing the party's environmental platform around the stern chiding of a bunch of downtowners who work in cultural industries doesn't seem to me like a path to greater influence inside or outside of Parliament. I don't immediately have a better alternative to offer but my personal preference (presented here as a vague set of ideas rather than a finalized plan) would be for the party's to base its appeal around a more populist message, trying to drum up anti-media, anti-elite and anti-corporate sentiment. The message should be about getting some other bastard with a bigger pay check than yours bastards to sacrifice. Even if that message doesn't tell the whole story (realistically, middle class taxes and expenses might have to increase) but in terms of election sloganeering I'd prefer to focus on drumming up class resentment and telling people to feel angry rather than guilty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
"Halting nuclear expansion"? Who has even built a nuclear reactor in the last thirty years aside from China?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:"Halting nuclear expansion"? The developing world, Iran, France, etc Also Japan 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I was volunteering for Rosario Marchese (long time Ontario MPP) a few election cycles back and had just come back to the campaign office with my canvassing partner. It had been a tough day and we'd just passed an entire block of signs for the local Green party candidate. Marchese came into the office and came over to say hi to us, and we mentioned to him that it was hard to tlak to people at the door because the party still hadn't released most of its platform, including its environmental policies (Horwath was releasing the platform one day at a time to try and maintain media attention). Marchese's reflexive response was to start talking about how the NDP opposed Nuclear power. To his credit he also mentioned some local work he'd done on getting some diesel trains electrified, but I'll still never forget how quickly and robotically he slipped into a spiel on nuclear power, falsely assuming that me and my partner be impressed by this. The point of this little anecdote being that there seems to be some kind of reflexive gut assumption that bringing up opposition to Nuclear power is, in essence, a way for NDPers to fill dead air when they don't have anything more pertinent or relevant to say on the subject. Which is really unfortunate. Anyway Marchese did limp to victory in that election with a margin of about 900 votes, but by the next campaign I was too demoralized by Horwaths's performance as leader to do any volunteering, and the riding is now represented by an Ontario Liberal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Also, I pulled this from YCS as an example of something I never ever see the NDP do: Obviously the differences in Canada's political system mean this add wouldn't apply directly but I love how this ad presents a coherent, bite-sized political economic theory about the relationship between corruption, finance and economic growth. It suggests that a left wing candidate could actually get you a better job. It implies that political corruption is directly holding you back. It makes it sound like the left could be a partner for you, fighting to get you a better deal, rather than attempting to just make you feel guilty about some laundry list of activist causes. I don't know exactly what the Canadian equivalent of this add would look like. Perhaps something trying to lay out, in simple and understandable terms, the internecine relationships between the Liberals and various corporate interests who end up benefiting from Liberal governance. But this should be the left's goal: get people to feel angry, not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:CanPol Megathread: Because Canadians are everything CI says we are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
quote:Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality. now that's #RealChange 
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
John Horgan, labour leaders, and the BC Liberals are forming a united front against Leap. We need those construction jobs you see! gently caress the environment, we need jobs for the uneducated and we can't imagine any other way!quote:Mr. Horgan told reporters on Monday that the so-called Leap Manifesto, which also calls for an end to stop all new infrastructure projects aimed at increasing extraction of non-renewable resources, does not reflect the values of British Columbians. All hail Premier Clark, forever and ever, all thousand years! Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Apr 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
THC posted:Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality. And with some token gestures towards the environment, the Liberals can probably get it done with little backlash. Conservative politicians will learn nothing from this, while conservative voters will give the Liberals no credit for getting the pipelines approved.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
THC posted:Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality. Hells yeah. That's what keeps people like me as Liberals. We're happy to be centrists, not NDP light. This is a reasonable compromise, no to Northern Gateway, yes to Kinder Morgan (which is a pipeline that already exists), in exchange for Alberta implementing a carbon tax, and phasing out coal power. I expect this forum will explode in a few more months, when the CETA and the TPP are ratified, with cries of betrayal, because they expected the Liberals to somehow magically morph into the NDP. While those of us who, you know, actually support the Liberals, are happy because we are getting exactly what was promised. Yes to deficits, yes to trade deals. No to every pipeline, yes to some pipelines.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:
Here's what I don't get about environmental policy relating to Global Warming for Canada: how is it going to help any of our kids? It's a token effort on its own. It needs to be part of an international framework, or it's a waste of time. Local environmental issues are still worth dealing with of course, but CO emissions and the like, again, it's just a token "feel-good-about-ourselves" effort. With a real economic cost to boot. It's like "consumer-choice activism" on an international scale. Reduce your carbon footprint, make sure your coffee is fair trade yada yada. Do all that, and you can pat yourself on the back and call it a day, everything is fine, problem solved. It's not only worthless, but IMO dangerous - this is stuff that should bother us all the time. The token gestures are only worth doing insofar as they can be used as inspiration towards a larger movement and a systemic solution. I think Canada's resource industries are well worth murdering, as part of an international agreement that will have actual effects. In a way this does go back to Helsig's point that having real movements again with serious organizing power and an explicit ideological message is more important. The fact that we are even discussing this issue as something we can just solve in our back-yard is symptomatic of the individualist liberal pseudo-ideology of the past few decades which seeks compromise by allowing systemic problems to flourish as long as your individual involvement in them can be controlled. We can't tackle global problems this way - we can only tackle them with global movements that can deal with global, long-term plans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Whiskey Sours posted:And with some token gestures towards the environment, the Liberals can probably get it done with little backlash.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:People are terrified of nuclear. Because Canadians are everything CI says we are. You know how in alien and/or monster movies there's that one guy who is yelling the truth and warning everyone, but they all think he's bat-guano crazy? That's CI.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Another benefit of developing new nuclear technology is that we can export it to developing countries that need energy and would otherwise use large amounts of fossil fuels. This investment could mean more money for Canadian companies, and a far bigger impact on global climate change than Canada could ever manage on its own.Ron_Jeremy posted:Hells yeah. That's what keeps people like me as Liberals. We're happy to be centrists, not NDP light. This is a reasonable compromise, no to Northern Gateway, yes to Kinder Morgan (which is a pipeline that already exists), in exchange for Alberta implementing a carbon tax, and phasing out coal power. I agree with this post, it is a good post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Another benefit of developing new nuclear technology is that we can export it to developing countries that need energy and would otherwise use large amounts of fossil fuels. This investment could mean more money for Canadian companies, and a far bigger impact on global climate change than Canada could ever manage on its own. If only we had a PM who would do that, http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/candu-signs-joint-venture-agreement-with-chinese-to-build-nuclear-reactors-1.2095086
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Ikantski posted:If only we had a PM who would do that, http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/candu-signs-joint-venture-agreement-with-chinese-to-build-nuclear-reactors-1.2095086 Now who's progressive on the environment you NDP fucks? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2016 18:17
|
|