Should Greens support the NDP-Liberal coalition?

To answer he thread title, yes, they should.

It's in the Green Party's interests to support any political development that will weaken and discredit the NDP. 

Well the self-interest in pushing the Tories out (along with their now exposed plan to gut the political funding arrangements that have financially emboldened the Greens) would be reason enough for May to support the coalition.

That in addition they get, at least until May, a Liberal PM and an NDP leader who are both willing to co-operate and co-ordinate with incoming US President Obama's Green-fueled economic recovery plan makes it a no-brainer on the policy front.

Long-term, a successful coalition experience builds the case for effective electoral reform, which is really the Green's best only real opportunity to get effective representation in Parliament.

As for weakening and discrediting the NDP, sorry to rain on your parade Spector but I suspect that exactly the opposite will be the case.

Maybe they can stuff May into the senate or something.

ETA: Oh, wait! I get it! You mean "Green" as in truckloads of public money!

Can May support a coalition government that has explicitly rejected the carbon tax and has adopted the NDP environment plan, which is cap and trade?

There are other criteria for supporting a coalition government than strictly their climate change policy. And cap and trade is better than nothing.

Actually, Elizabeth May has some interesting commentary in her blogs which are on the front page of the greenparty.ca website. She talks about a functioning democracy, and how the Conservatives did not respect the role of the opposition.

No question about it.  It was never about cap and trade vs. carbon tax. Both are good, one should come first and the other later as it takes time to implement.

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

Don't quit your day job. You should go find a Conservative Blog to make fun of!

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

The Green Party platform was based on Cap and Trade and Carbon Tax.

The Simple Solution

The liberals advocated for both as well. There is no defeat here. It's something all of the opposition agreed on hence why it is in their agreement. Logical, no?

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)

Absolutely, and it is completely toothless, and not at all the kind of government intervention that will effectively curb global warming. The first displaces the burden of the cost of environmental cleanup onto the "developing world", and creates negative insentives to economic development there, while the latter displaces the cost onto the less advantaged in Canada.

In my view the latter is preferable to the former, since at least Canadians have the option of voting on the measure that will impact them directly, whereas the people of the Amazon most certainly do not.

That said, both solutions are principly market driven insentive programs, and niether directly or effectively confronts the problem. The only reason that the main body of expert environmentalists ever supported "cap and trade" is because it was tied into Kyoto, and Kyoto was considered important because it set up an international regulatory system within the UN structure, one that could be built on with real regulatory provisions directly targetting polution.

Thing is there has been so much hoopla about Kyoto, a lot of people have gotten themselves so caught up in the cause that they think the Kyoto system was the end in itself. It was not. It was meant to be the first baby step. A kid gloves way of getting an international regulatory system into place that could be built on with real regulation, which would ensure that all economies were competing on a level playing field through an international agreement with attached regulatory aparatus. 

The only thing that is going to effectively curb CO2 emmissions is direct government intervention, and regulation, not airy fairy "economic insentives" of the kind dreamt up to appease the very same crowd that has brought us the "Great Depression II."

Kyoto is dead now, so we can stop pretending.

A comprehensive plan composed of regulation, cap and trade, carbon tax, and other various mechanisms accompanied by appropriate offsetting of costs from people who need help to change behaviour due to poverty and such is IMO what is needed. We need to use all tools at our disposal.

Kyoto is so last year/decade!

I'm sorry but our world does revolve around incentives.

Example: I choose grocery store A over B because they have a 10% discount one day a month or a Company decides to do business in one location over another because of their tax rate. Another one: I will complete degree A over B because I know I am guaranteed a well paying job afterwards, or vice versa because it will bring me more happiness.

The effects of incentives are such that it removes the requirement for altruism from the equation and molds the two in such a way as it accounts for the 'true' cost of the action on society or as close as you can get(if done correctly).

Regulation on its own will not solve our problems either.

Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)