What is your Green policy priority?

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
derrick derrick's picture
What is your Green policy priority?

Please take a second to vote in the latest rabble poll, and then continue the discussion here... This week's question: "Imagine for a moment that Canada had a government that showed a real concern for the environment. What would be your top policy priority?"

remind remind's picture

Shouldn't green be in small letters then?


I didn't like the wording of "Federal subsidies to support free, accessible transit in all urban centres".  I don't think that is a bad idea and improving transit would probably have been my first pick but in my experience the poor quality of transit outside of urban centres is a real problem and shouldn't be excluded from a progressive transit strategy.


I am surprised there is no option of large solar or wind projects being emplaced.

To me the choices on the poll seem very urban vs. rural and east vs. west.

Refuge Refuge's picture

I think they should add to the list some more personal everyday items too like requiring all new buildings to get some type of LEEDS certification and programs to get older buldings more environmentally friendly. Also more incentives to build / sell electric cars.

derrick derrick's picture

Feedback taken re: the wording on the transit option -- thanks!

Bookish Agrarian

remind wrote:

Shouldn't green be in small letters then?

Yes it should.  In fact the phrase should be environmental policies.  Personally when I see some of the folks using the word green I want to run the other way.

The bit around mining is foolish.  There is mining and then there is mining.  We can not have much of an economy without mining.  Look at what you are typing on and think about what happenes if the metals and minerals involved disappeared.  The trick is to support less damaging mining practices, not to undermine the resource economy.


Sorry, but I can't edit the title of this thread, otherwise I'd remove the capital G from "green".  Derrick, are you able to edit it?  Maybe you have a higher classification than I do on the site (being the editor-in-chief) and I can't edit your babble posts?


Set energy intensity targets and GHG reduction targets for all buildings and support that with proper, long term incentives including accelerated depreciation for green buildings. Have renewables incentives that are long lasting and send a meaningful market signal to manufacturers - not ones that disappear every two years a la ecoAction.


Federal subsidies to support free public transit. ....The feds should build public transit and give all those that have no private cars that burn fossil fuel a credit towards the use of public transit. The public transit fares should be based on the population density one travels through. Sothat rural and urban folks have aproximately the same costs to reach the same number of other people.  Fares should not be free, to remind us that there are environmental costs associated with every trip.


Shutting down the tar sands is a given. Coal as an energy source is probably even worse.


Government support for mining? I can see the possible justification for some of that. If for example some mining company comes up with an environmentaly more friendly way to mine a mineral then has been done up to now, but the process is more costly, then there might be an advantage to support this new developement.


I am not sure about this hard caps on polluting emissions, sounds a bit like supporting the status quo. If that is what it is then I am against it.


Maybe a progressive tax on unsustainable consumption is what I like to see the most.