David Suzuki did not support the BC Liberals

I agree.  I do not support the BC libs either. I called on the NDP to support the carbon tax until their version (cap and trade) was ready. And I called on them to support electoral reform.

 Neither happened so I had no choice. 

Green was the only vote left.

The reason many greens stay away from the polls is that they know their vote will be wasted. 

Why did so many NDP voters stay away?  James message must not have carried much weight.

 Yeah, we are both losers.   The ndp could have had my vote with minimal effort.    They chose not to take it.

I voted for Savoe federally, even stood up on the full bus to let her sit down. (Others didn't even offer).

Loretta wrote:

Yeah, sure, you convinced me...

Are you serious, Stockholm? Or are you some sort of computer programme designed to be as cavalier and dismissive as possible? Sometimes I can't tell.

NorthReport wrote:

David Suzuki is a great environmentalist and brain-dead when it comes to politics.

Which is exactly the way it should be.  Scientists should call it as they see it without weighing the political consequences.  Otherwise, they stop being scientists and start being politicians.

But David Suzuki does practice politics. He made and makes political choices.

Well, fundamentally Suzuki has no apparent attraction for leftist ideas. His alignment with the left historically was just something that occurred as a result of the fact that it was the left that first took up modern environmentalism in a serious manner. Suzuki's statements about what kinds of measure would be needed to avert climate change are quite uncompromising, and even, IMO, quasi fascist when looked in the bold face. I don't think that Suzuki would strongly object to an authoritarian regieme, as long as it imposed strict controls on harm to the environment. When he talks about his project he compares it to world war two, and the kind of complete subjugation of the political will of society to the cause in the manner of total war.

His politics are basically simplistic.Personally, I don't think he would favour any political party on the basis of any other subject than the environment and enviromentalism. He bares no basic grudge against capitalism. His views are basically fanciful, and his political vision totalistic and a little sci-fi. He reminds me a little of Alvin Toffler (if anyone remembers him) for some vague reason I can't put my finger on. Perhaps it is because there is a strong technocratic streak in his political world view.

He also seems to have a strong neo-liberal streak, believing for one thing that market insentives will be enough to shape the green economy of the future. On this point I disagree with him strongly. Market insentives are clever ideas about economic manipulation of the market and Suzuki loves clever ideas. He studiously avoids any analysis that ties together the innate problems relating to corporate power, the economy, and the market, and how they undermine the object of salvaging the planet, just in the manner of their organization, which is fundamentally anti-social. The system can be ammended he feels.

His pretension is that he is above politics, or rather that "politics" is beneath him. 

In this context he considers action on climate change to be far more important than the "sell off" of BC rivers. His view is probably that the Liberals were at least willing to move to impliment a policy on carbon emissions, while the NDP is opposing it, flat out, rather than proposing serious alternatives. B.C. rivers are small potatos, when compared to climate change in his book, and hence, he simply prioritized his concerns and focussed on what he sees as important, regardless of whether or not the tax was regressive, or not. Suzuki doesn't care about that.

Climate change is the only game in the Suzuki playbook.

That said, the whole "cap and trade" v "carbon tax" is a ridiculous arguement. Neither measure is mutually exclusive of the other. Nor is a carbon tax necessarily regressive, it could in fact be progressive if implimented to accomodate the needs of the less wealthy in the society. It just so happens the models being presented for "carbon tax" implimentation are regressive, because those with privilege do not want to see those privileges hampered in anyway -- they would love to see "action" on climate change just not at their expense. It's a false "political" arguement, for the sake of appearing to have"distinct" policy platforms. I think this improper framing of the issue is largely to blame for the fact that the NDP does not have a coherent stand on these issues -- they could simply have ripped off the Green Party platform (or parts of it) and burried the issue. Instead they chose a populist anti-tax position as their key environmental platform, rather than arguing for a tax that was fairly implimented, and did more to target producers as opposed to consumers, and protect BC's rivers.

Brian is fundamentally right in his analysis about this, I believe.

I actually couldn't imagine a more right wing stand to take, one reminicent of George Bush the elder saying: "Read my lips: No new taxes."

Coyote wrote:

He absolutely supported the Liberals. Tell me, did me Suzuki convene his friends at any point in the election to hold a press conference decrying Gordon Campbell's sell-off of BC's rivers? I guess I must have just missed that.

He wrote an op-ed calling for a full environmental review of run-of-river projects and never endorsed the Liberals in any way, shape or form.  Suzuki was very public in the media blasting the Gateway highway project, which Carole and the NDP seemed to oppose in 2007 and then flip-flopped during the election radio debate when Carole said she backed Gordo's highway lunacy on the Port Mann Bridge. 

Do any of you understand that Carole explicitly said she would NOT cancel any current IPP projects ("I will honour all existing contracts") and that her and Horgan said that IPP's had a role to play in the energy mix.  Rhetoric aside, her position was not that different than Campbells, had the NDP won, there would have been a moratorium and review of IPP's and then they would have continued to award contracts for run of river projects, albeit at a slower rate than Gordo.

Suzuki suggested that voters concerned with climate change vote Green, that's what I did as well.

I'll give Suzuki the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does not support the BC Liberals. That said, his political handling of this issue was suspect, to say the least. He publicly blasted the NDP over one area of disagreement, yet the other sins of the Campbell government did not receive nearly as much public criticism. And now the Campbell government has been re-elected, in part because of the argument over which party the "real environmentalists" were supporting. Suzuki has been doing his thing for decades, did he honestly not know how things would play out in the media, especially in the context of an election?

Another point is the general direction environmentalism is taking, especially as it relates to wealth and celebrity status. For example, Al Gore says we all need to make sacrifices for the environment. Yet this from someone who lives a comfortable lifestyle himself? And it's okay for him because he buys "emission credits?" Especially in a context where people are worried about losing their jobs and cutting back as it is? Or ever notice how much time is devoted to talking about "saving endangered species," many of which most people will never have a chance to see up close anyways? Who was the last celebrity to go to Haiti and talk about how it is hit especially hard with hurricanes because of deforestation, deforestation that arises as a consequence of the poverty Hatians live in? Might that expose the role that powerful countries play in keeping poor countries poor?

You can't "save" the environment, the environment is just there and will always do its own thing. It's about having a proper connection with nature, because when you have that connection, you recognise the limits, and you don't build in floodplains, drain wetlands, and soak your body and lawns in cancer-causing chemicals because of certain insects you find annoying.

Suzuki is for both carbon tax and cap and trade(see main article at TOP). And he doesnt endorse Campbell's run of river power projects if it means a [url=http://www.straight.com/article-210518/david-suzuki-energy-urgency-pits-... rush mentality[/url] for private enterprise jackals. Suzuki said:

Quote:

It’s ludicrous to think that we must sacrifice all environmental considerations to get green energy onto the grid. It’s not green if it causes negative ecological impacts. In British Columbia, B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Transmission Corporation have identified more than 8,200 potential sites for run-of-river hydro projects in B.C.’s 291,000 watersheds. That should give us plenty of choice, and surely we don’t have to harness all of them

Campbell's Energy Minister Richard Neufeld does sound like he's panicked over BC Hydro's report and doesnt seem to be concerned at all about a need for ecological impact studies. Typical Liberals - we have them here in Ontario, too.

Who is complaining about lack of support from them?

I would say the NDP got plenty of support from discerning environmentalists, who may have perhaps voted Green Party in former elections. After all look at the GP % drop, if not for Sterk and Kettlewell inflating them in their ridings, their provincial numbers would have been in line with the newly formed Conservative party.

"High profile" so called environmentalists appear to care more about funding their own pocket books than they do for the environment. And that became very apparent in this election. Green Party numbers will not go back up either province wide, they have been exposed for who they are.

Moreover, it was the Green Party and their small amount of supporters who perceived they "owned" the environmental agenda, and thus could do whatever they want like supporting run of the river projects, and still keep their support.

brookmere wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I'll give Suzuki the benefit of the doubt and assume that he does not support the BC Liberals.

Well that's generous of you. Suzuki has never, ever, endorsed the BC Liberals or the Socreds before them

....

The NDP knew full well that opposing the carbon tax would bring it in conflict with many high profile environmentalists and environmental organizations and it has no business complaining about a lack of support from them in the election, or suggesting that they were motivated by an agenda of supporting the Liberals.

Optics. You don't have to flat-out endorse the Liberals to have that effect. It was perceived that Suzuki claimed that the NDP were horrible for the environment based on disagreement with one particular policy. What other environmental issues received that much attention from Suzuki?

If anyone is guilty of GWB thinking, I'd say it's several of the environmental organisations that took that line of thinking (some going so far as to endorse "anybody but James"). There are several environmentalists who are only concerned about "saving the planet" without any regard for how economic policies impact people.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Optics. You don't have to flat-out endorse the Liberals to have that effect. It was perceived that Suzuki claimed that the NDP were horrible for the environment based on disagreement with one particular policy. What other environmental issues received that much attention from Suzuki?

If anyone is guilty of GWB thinking, I'd say it's several of the environmental organisations that took that line of thinking (some going so far as to endorse "anybody but James"). There are several environmentalists who are only concerned about "saving the planet" without any regard for how economic policies impact people.

IMV, the BC carbon tax, notwithstanding the spin that it is, is hardly an "environmental" issue.

One, we know, that it did not work to reduce emissions, indeed emissions increased 3%.

Two, we know that the rate level of the tax will do nothing in respect to diminishing emissions, both currently, and at the time of it's conclusion. It is farrrrrrrrrr below that of other countries who have seen decreased emissions with it and aggressive emission reducing plans.

Which brings us to three, it is not even a long term tax, when does end 2012? Now that will save the planet! Unless of course, that is just when they will end the alleged neutral revenue designation for the poor and fixed income peoples, and keep the tax without any actions to reduce emissions anyway.

Using a hypothetical that if BC rejects the carbon tax no one else will impliment it, is just a load of hooey that non-thinking people regurgitate.

In fact, I would say there are several "environmentalists" who are only concerned with their financial status, and could give a rat's ass about the environment, them and their lifestyle being maintained, or enhanced, is primary to them.

Then there are those who have control issues, and would like to get fascist about it, but even then IMV, it is more about societal control than the environment. The environment is just the excuse they use to try and gain control.

The current BC carbon tax an environmental issue, hardly!

Exactly! and *snerk*

[url=http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0519-22.htm]Why I Am Not An Environmentalist (emphasis mine):[/url]

Quote:

Growing up in East Los Angeles as the son of Guatemalan immigrants, the everyday challenges faced by the people of my neighborhood seemed far removed from the American dream: the lack of good housing and jobs, money for groceries, failing schools and all-too-common police brutality. If you had asked us, we would have told you we were concerned about the days when the air pollution was especially thick, or when the smells coming from the incinerator directly south of our housing complex were particularly bad.

We would have told you we were concerned, but that these were not the greatest challenges facing us. That's not to say they were not important problems, but any agenda that did not speak to our economic and social needs seemed irrelevant.

For communities like mine, environmentalism has seemed to be about preserving places most of us will never see. Even when environmentalism has focused on problems that affect urban communities, such as air pollution or lead poisoning, it has pointedly avoided addressing our desperate need for economic development. Environmentalists do not talk about the importance of a living wage or affordable housing because, we are told, those are not environmental problems. Foundations feed this problem by failing to recognize minorities and urban city residents as prominent stakeholders in the environmental arena.

While many leaders of the environmental movement have a deep and abiding interest in social and economic equity, that concern is largely absent from their work because it is "not their job." The same mistake is made by every other progressive movement, including the civil-rights movement. We have become trapped in narrow categorical definitions of ourselves rather than a comprehensive understanding of what values we stand for in the world.

brookmere wrote:

It was the NDP itself that decided to make the carbon tax the highest profile environmental issue in the election, and it's absurd for any NDP supporter to accuse environmental groups of picking on the party by opposing its stand.

I will agree that the way the NDP campaigned against the carbon tax was not helpful. The problem that we've pointed out is that Suzuki et al allowed the environment to boil down to the simple issue of whether or not a carbon tax should be imposed. Sorry, real environmental issues are far more complex than that.

West Coast Lefty wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

It will be quite amusing to watch the spin once it becomes clear that the so-called carbon tax has had no impact whatsoever on GHG emissions in BC. Right now, once gets the impression that Suzuki and co. don't even really care about whether not GHG emissions rise or fall - its now all about the symbolism of whether something called a "carbon tax" exists or not. Maybe Harper should rename the GST and call it the CST (Carbon Sales Tax) and then sit and while he gets showered with laurels and hosannas from the rightwing environmentalist crowd (ie: the ones whose idea of environmentalism is going fox hunting with the honorary chair of the World Wildlife Fund - Prince Philip - tally-ho!)

The carbon tax, along with other BC government climate action policies including cap-and-trade, are projected to achieve 73% of the 33% GHG reduction target by 2020.  That's hardly "no impact whatsoever", Stockholm.  There was a clear and dramatic reduction in driving when gas prices went up last year -why would the price impact of a carbon tax not have a similar impact, in proportion to the amount of the tax? Do people only get impacted by gas prices when they are caused by corporate greed instead of government policy? I don't see the logic in that argument.

This is apparently from the BC government climate action plan and is supposedly from independent economic modeling. 73% of 33% is a ridiculously precise forecast. Even if Campbell were to increase the tax as planned to $30 per tonne or 7.2 cents per litre of gasoline, the idea that this would achieve any significant proportion of a 24% reduction in GHG emissions is preposterous. Of course people get impacted by gas price increases regardless of where they come from, but it's a question of relative increase.

"I have a question for the NDP people here.  How the hell did axe the tax get to be ndp policy anyway?  The ndp used to be full of environmentalists.  Surely some of them objected?"

Because REAL environmentalists know that the so-called carbon tax is a greenwashing fraud that will do ZILCH for the environment.

Brian White wrote:

I have a question for the NDP people here.  How the hell did axe the tax get to be ndp policy anyway?  The ndp used to be full of environmentalists.  Surely some of them objected?

So what qualifies you to say that those who disagree with a carbon tax aren't real environmentalists? It's that kind of attitude which allows environmentalsts to be written off as elitists who want to control your life. Maybe if you listened to other people, when they raised objections and trying to find a solution that works for eveybody people might take environmentalism more seriously?

The environmental community has been fighting for pollution pricing for decades and the carbon tax in BC was seen as a very important milestone in getting at least one environmental levy in place.  (Its been in the BC Green Platform for about 3 elections now.)

The carbon tax was hardly Campbell's idea, not was it some silly right wing conspiracy.  A huge campaign from across the political spectrum targeted his riding for nearly a year before we managed to get a peep out of him. The Greens were distributing thousands of newspapers, VTACC (non-partisan) was putting up hundreds of "I'm voting for real action on climate change" signs on private property across Kitsilano and Point Grey, and the media were giving huge coverage to economists such as Marc Jaccard before the BC Liberals moved an inch.

 When we finally got wind that a carbon tax would be in the budget, even if we it was less than we had hoped for, it was still a major victory.  Finally, perfect or not, it politicians were actually starting to talk about taking steps to fight climate change.

The NDP could have allowed us to keep that 1.5 cent victory, and focussed on other issues.  They could have attacked the revenue neutral position, and advocated all the revenues go into transit, social housing, or back to the poor.  They had options, and they chose to swing an axe at the environmental movement by running a very malicious campaign on an message that had more assonance than substance.

What were the environmentalist supposed to do. Shut up and take one for the NDP?  Dump pollution pricing and hope that a green bond would eventually yield some mysterious new technology? Not only that, I think may felt that if they were so cavalier about bailing on the carbon tax, could they be trusted to keep their word on other environmental policies or would they be dumped in the near future.

No one in the environmental community wanted this fight to occur even if some were secretly glad that the environment still played a role in the first week of the campaign.  We would rather have had electric vehicles, highway development, light rail, transit funding, oil and gas development concerns be played up.  But, you don't give up your toe hold for the sake of winning over a few suburban SUV drivers.

Anyways, this discussion now is mute.

The NDP did not win, nor did they hold key urban ridings like Vancouver Fairview and in Vancouver Point Grey, Campbell's popularity went up, not down.  

It was a political mistake that cost them key allies and I'm sure they realized it now. I don't see any reference to axe the tax on the BC NDP's website and I take it that cooler heads will eventually prevail.

Baiting framing of the 'question'.

"Yah man. I don't care whether its effective or not. The carbon tax is cool."

The NDP were at fault for playing politics with the environment and it hurt their credibility.  It hurt everyone as well, because instead of focussing on the other environmental items that should have been raised, they led with a policy that the key climate action NGO's has begged them not to take.   Even the environmentalists who supported the NDP, supported them DESPITE their axe the tax campaign, not because of it.

But who cares.  Its over.  

The NDP lost. They were wrong.  They can be forgiven and perhaps next time they will put forward a real plan, snag back their lost voters, and win the election.  

------

Carbon credits?  Weren't part of the NDP's cap and trade plan?

I have no issues with them, on their own they don't cut down fuel consumption, promote efficiency, or such.  But if someone feels guilty enough to plant a tree, go for it.  I'd rather see carbon credits than frequent flyer points.

Ze wrote:

 

and the abuse hurled at some environmentalists by some NDP'ers has also convinced me that the party I've always voted for is not, in fact, a whole lot better than other parties. Which means nothing and is only the opinion of one person, of course, I'm just saying I found it rather sobering and disillusioning. 

Like you said, its only the opinion of some people in the NDP- which is going to happen. You didn't hear it from the NDP itself, and wouldn't.

remind wrote:

demagogue, please do not speak on behalf of all environmentalists

That's mighty rich, coming from the person that has stated that "real" environmentalists support the NDP and "pretendy" environmentalists support other parties...

Lord Palmerston wrote:

remind wrote:

demagogue, please do not speak on behalf of all environmentalists

That's mighty rich, coming from the person that has stated that "real" environmentalists support the NDP and "pretendy" environmentalists support other parties...

I never said that once please do slap a quote of me saying that. I stated real environmentalists would not be supporting privatization of rivers and lakes, there is a big difference there. Though perhaps not to you.

Stockholm wrote:

What  I'd like to know is what the self-styled environmental movement

"Self-styled"? Is there some body that has the right to deterrmine who is a real environmentalist and who isn't? Well silly me, I guess it's the BC NDP.

Quote:

then Suzuki can start appearing at rallies holding hands with Stephen Harper!

Kind of like this?

Yes, the NDP has been more than willing to ride on Suzuki's coattails as long as he didn't get in the way of their campaign strategy.

On Saturday, April 2, Canada's NDP presented Dr. David Suzuki at the University of Toronto. Dr Suzuki and Jack Layton spoke to a sellout crowd of over 1,700 environmentalists and party supporters.