Liberals help Harper ditch NDP environment bill on eve of Copenhagen

Canadians were motivated to furiously lobby against the Liberal's internet bill and forced changes to it, but will not get behind pollution initiatives.

And yet some still try to spread the nonsense that the NDP has lost its environmental focus and are just the same as the "Liberals".

The Libs are afraid of any initiatives by the NDP for the simple reason that it takes attention away from the Libs. It's clear to me that Iggy wants the NDP to disappear, but that just ain't going to happen!

I see Dion even showed up to knife the back of the environment

Maybe someone should contact her and demand her reaction to this. I suspect that May has probably gotten over her past habit of bending over backwards to make Dion look good. That only made sense for her when she thought he was destined to become PM and would be in a position to dispense patronage for her. Now that he is out of power as Liberal leader - he is totally worthless to her. I doubt if she would even return a call from him.

Its actually a more than fair question. May is supposedly a federal political leader. She is supposed to comment on the stands taken by other federal political parties and leaders. Its "fair" to ask layton about what Doer said as well in that ANY question is fair in politics - but Doer is no longer a politician. He's a public service employee and in that sense its not much different from being a senior bureaucrat at Health Canada and it being part of your job to read whatever script you are given to read that day.

She is not going to make a statement on this, unless of course she feels it would put her in good stead in SGI.

If she wants NDP voters in SGI, she will make a statement about it, or even environmentally inclined Liberal voters. Such as Brioney, whom one would think would be quite upset with the Liberals backtracking, into a do nothing position.

 

My first reaction to this thread was that there should be a criminal law that includes environmental crimes against humanity. The Cons and many libs would qualify. I completely agree with the NDP's position that Canada should not go to Copenhagen empty-handed. 

Then I saw this.

Quote:

 And yet some still try to spread the nonsense that the NDP has lost its environmental focus and are just the same as the "Liberals". (Remind)

Obviously, the New Democrats in parliament aren't trying hard enough, or they would have pushed it through, against all odds. (GVictor)

Fascinating. No one has said either of those on this thread. Or on any other thread that I've read recently.  I do question the wisdom of a conditional moratorium on further tar sands development. More and more I'm leaning to a complete and total moratorium but I can certainly live with the NDP's position. 

And after all the complaining by partisans about some babblers' criticisms of certain NDP policies or actions (mine included), in the absence of any such comments on this thread, you are provoking, baiting and putting words in people's mouths. You are attacking other babblers instead of attacking the liberals and conservatives (the same criticism you level against others).

You've just derailed the kind of NDP-positive thread that you claim you want to see more of and evoked a defensive response from me. 

Actualy we know about the Climate Change and Accountability Act and we know that Iggy helped to ensure it won't become law anytime soon. That is what we know. Beyond that, we can begin to shape or be shaped by reality. For that to happen, we can either begin to build or we can continue to mindlessly yammer.

Frustrated Mess wrote:

So what I would propose, is that the  federal NDP is the only party of choice for environmentalists and those who recognize that climate is the greatest threat facing all of us on a collective, and global level.

I certainly support the bill the NDP is currently pushing, but what's your specific critique of the BQ position on the environment? I'm not saying I support their views, but I don't like some of the NDP stands either - just wondering why you've written them off.

 

I haven't, Unionist. I think the Bloc and the NDP need to develop an answer to the label of seaparatists and socialists. But the Bloc and the NDP would have to cooperate.

I'm really not interested in demonizing or attacking the Greens, George. I'm far more interested in building around an idea and a goal. The idea being that only the NDP has the party machinery  and commitment to bring about meaningful climate legislation and the goal is to convince everyone else of that.

I think that average voters only look at the NDP after first discounting other parties, and if the NDP offers something credible when they look.  First the politics are by broad definition negative, in that people have to be told that the Conservatives are bad, and the Conservatives are not an answer.  Secondly, the NDP has to be the answer for what they want.  That means an understandable direction for government that people can get behind with enough 'mainstream substance' that the talking heads are not unanimous in their condemnation. 

Polunatic2, I appreciate your concern, but I feel it was more than appropriate, it was not a comment about anyone here per se. It was a standard trope that one hears everywhere, "all politicians are the same", "the Liberals are the same as the NDP", "the NDP are the same as the Liberals only the poor mans version"etc etc...though admittedly some do say so here, too, but usually they are Liberals coming for a visit to suggest strategic voting..

Though I am not sure if you have or not, as I do not remember you doing so, but you appear to be taking it personally, so....

Whatever is the case, please know that you were not being specified, so that we may get back on topic.

~

FM what a wonderful post, at # 11, I am all on board for that.  And had suggested in other threads several times over the last while, that people should calling their MP's, no matter what brand they are, about getting behind this, and other NDP Bills.

If we can get internet laws that were being proposed changed in a matter of hours, we could have gotten this through too, and maybe we still can, if we start flooding our local news papers, and calling our MP's, and organizational contacts.

We can shift the focus out of the emotional brain, to the rational frontal lobes if we try and your post goes a long way towards that.

Can we send your post out to our contacts?

Thank you FM I am going to...and yw.

I think perhaps a letter such as yours posted on environmental blogs, and websites,  that you can find needs to be done, or perhaps even something more edited and focused, yet broadened, if you or someone, could draw something up.

It would start off as a gathering together against dissatisfaction of events occuring and spur momentum for environmental protections.

Just today in BC, there was public statements about the salmon fishery because apparently the Harrison River return of sockeye was good. So they want public action getting governments, both federal and provincial, to start finding out what the differences are, when the runs should be the same, and make then make the necessary changes.

Obama, just announced  polar bears as a protected species, today, and that drilling etc off shore  in Alaska would not be happening. He did this I am sure, because of Copenhagen and not wanting to go their empty handed.

As such, it will be noticed by Canadian politicians, they will be looking for something to take now too.

This Bill could be it.

The push needs to go on.

From there traction could be gained, in creating a more formal umbrella of orgs, to get behind the push for the NDP, to gain more prominence.

Great we are building a consensus.....

Hmmm...ya got a lot crammed in there. Gotta to think about it all.

Some environmental groups are going to remain "non-partisan", they have to give the illusion of it. There is no point in involving them at all.

Others here in BC,  who have no reasons to be "non-partisan" or  at least appear to be, are already publically behind the NDP. Perhaps a re-statement and push can be made from them though to appeal to other environmentalists.

Some people prefer, big city living and city lights, rather than a star soaked sky.

I have  a fabulous view of the stars each and every clear night, and sometimes at night, while out and about, I do not even give them a first glance, let alone a second one. ;)

So don't get too worked up about some people's plight on that score. :D

Anyway going to think some more on this, and perhaps discuss with a few people, whom I am involved with in concurrent activities,

 

 

 

I think that an effective way for the NDP to attract and build support networks (and increasing credibility) with both partisan and non-partisan environmentalists is to be more of an activist party, getting involved in local, provincial & national environmental campaigns in between elections. Some change is needed on both sides of the equation to find common ground. I think that it's more than just getting others to "see the light". This would then translate into more support during election campaigns. 

However, environmentalists come in all stripes. Not all are going to be attracted to the NDP, no matter what the party does, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. As the NDP's green credibility and strength grows among new supporters, the other parties will take notice. Environmentalists in those other parties may gain more influence over their parties' policy directions on the environment, opening the way for "rolling up the sleeves" and working together to come up with solutions. 

FM:

"I'm really not interested in demonizing or attacking the Greens, George. I'm far more interested in building around an idea and a goal. The idea being that only the NDP has the party machinery  and commitment to bring about meaningful climate legislation and the goal is to convince everyone else of that."

 I had to hit the kip, FM, and thus missed your reply and all the interesting, supportive postings. I am not into "demonizing or attacking" , but as you see, the Munk people have not set up the bifurcation of thoughts on climate change as one simply of "believers and non-believers" in CO2 as "bad". That would be too antedeluvian in our post-industrial age. The smooth bastards are putting forward folks with a "techno-solution", should things begin to look really serious for those interested in sustaining diverse life forms,on Earth. And that is the position of the techno wizards of the Green Party. It's sort of a salve to those who can't give up the idea of spiritual salvation - and explains the presence of priest-to-be 'Liz as leader...and I can see her caving to Lomborg's ideas.

 

So, I think to promote social democrats with solutions, we would have to finally pronounce the death sentence on the "technical fix" for the problem - you know, the one about burying CO2, etc.? :)  And since that one seems to have the most sex appeal at the moment, I'm not sure how to bring it off. Of course, we could always form a fifth column and SAY that that is the way, join with the technical crowd. (Not).

 

Anyway, that would be the great barrier to your idea, FM. I've been around those folks too long. Any thoughts on how to overcome the belief system of a generation - or two - as well as the lingering traces of animosity to things green in labour circles? I know my skepticism flies in the face of my persistent concern for social democracy, but while being supportive of the "best out there" , I'm mindful of political realities. And the increasingly critical nature of the threat is going to make possible all sorts of unbelievable changes in Homo sapiens' attitude.

 

WRT posts 29 and 31, not many street lights here, and I have a great view of the dark sky from my LR window. Occasionally I can see what must be a falling comet or star. And aircraft - flying pretty high. The moon, when it's full, gives us enough reflected light that we can see through the darkness. And it's super quiet here from early evening to the next morning. Almost like being in the northern wilderness, which is only a hop, skip, and a jump away. Environmental concerns hee are getting rid of our septic tanks and putting in sewers leading to a cesspool; and cleaning up thrash littering our very few roadways. I think all of us are concerned about the environmental impact a new connecting road to the outside will have on us.

Step #1:  Define what you mean by "environment".  Its too big a term as presently used.  Consider:

Air quality

Water quality

Fisheries management

Speciies endangerment

Habitat

Hunting

Climate change

Soild waste

Soil contamination

Watershed management

Clean energy

Food supply

 

It may be that some enviromental impacts need prioritiy in time or place.  Also, any party that is not just about "environment" is going to have to compromise too.  It appears the sentiment of agreement here is about climate change but nestled in a nest of "environment".

I think the answer to Step #1 is that "it depends". It depends on who you're talking to, which communities and what their environmental concerns are. The NDP's current program covers a lot of the bases that you outlined to some degree. Climate change is a big one because it impacts people everywhere in the country (although not necessarily in the same ways). 

not being driven away.

but really am going for a hike, however warm the house is.

remind, you are entirely missing my point. Let's just skip it.

George, I have been involved with the Federal Green Party and I know they are not all techno-fixers and I also know the NDPers have their share of techno-fixers. But the discussion is over if it begins with "your party sucks". As for labour, I would argue to them that we are deep into deindustrilaization. What would they like to do? Do they not have an interest in both developing a productive economy and preserving the planet?

Ken S., we are in fact talking about individuals. We are talking about people reaching out not on behalf of the NDP but on behalf of our own best interests whch are best served through the NDP - today. It is very different.

CanadianAlien, no, let's not define it to death. The issue is climate change. Very clearly. That's what we're talking about. Who are we talking to? Everyone who understands or who can be made to understand the critical nature of the issue.

Pollunatic: "Not all are going to be attracted to the NDP, no matter what the party does, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. As the NDP's green credibility and strength grows among new supporters, the other parties will take notice. Environmentalists in those other parties may gain more influence over their parties' policy directions on the environment, opening the way for "rolling up the sleeves" and working together to come up with solutions."

It won't happen. The Linerals have demonstrated, repeatedly, that they will not responsibly represent the planet when the time for a decision comes. And we don't have time. We don't have time to reach everyone and change every mind. I am suggesting here we reach those who can be reached and move on. Don't debate, don't waste time persuading, just provide the very simple fact that only the federal NDP has shown resove on climate. Are you in favour of acting or not? If you're in favour of acting then join us because anything else is inaction. It is not complicated even if it is difficult.

 

Quote:

So what I would propose, is that the federal NDP is the only party of choice for environmentalists and those who recognize that climate is the greatest threat facing all of us on a collective, and global level.

The question then becomes, how do we move the larger green, environmental movement behind the NDP (and don't tell me to stop being critical of them. I can be critical and supportive at the same time)? What would be the key messages? What would be the narrative? What is the approach? Who do we approach? What objections should be expected? How are they answered?

It may be hard to imagine, but at my age, the world I inhabit is far different from my father's and my mother's. They could drink from streams, eat fish without care of contamination levels, and explore lush green valleys and forests. The soils they planted in were alive and healthy and air they breathed didn't give asthma nor allergies.

The world my young relatives are being raised in is one of scarce energy, smog alerts, environmental disease, dead soils, poisoned waters, toxic fish, acidic oceans, deforestation, collapsing fisheries, rising extinctions, and desertification. That is one generation. What about the next?

If babble is more than a place where arm chair politicians come to spit at each other, why don't we strategize and develop for ourselves, our friends, and anyone who will listen, a strategy to unite the green vote behind the NDP?

Ok, you did start with climate change, but did thereafter invoke many other 'enviromental' aspects. Nothing wrong with that but it becomes a big fuzzily defined 'ball of environmental'. 

My point is that if the goal is to unite and strategize, one needs to be clear on what one is unting behind and strategizing about.  I can get behind stating that climate change as an issue supersedes all others. 

Some envronmentalists may see clean energy being the real solution (dirty energy as problem).  Others may see CO2 emissions as problem (and carbon sequestration as solution).  Or some may see biggest impact being global agricultural loss (and adaptive techniques as solution).

However, when it comes time to be pragmatic and address the issue of climate change, you then get into the thorny bits of all the other enviromental aspects. This happens because root causes of climate change are legion.

Vice versa, when it comes to recruiting those with varying environmental priorities, you need to help connect their 'sub-issue' to the 'super-issue' of climate change.

See what I mean?  On a practical level, Jack Layton, for example, would need to be able to make a persausive pitch in House of Commons, to various environmental constituencies, and the general public.

FM, If you wish to accept that Canada is deep into De Industrialization, then accept that this resource rich country will be extremely poor and the planet will not benefit from such activity.  The Planet is NOT deindustrializing, it is INDUSTRIALIZING and at an accelorated rate.  And considering the choices, a total lack of environmental awareness in 3rd world countries, especially where laws exist on paper if not in practice, then things are getting worse not better. 

I quite frankly am please with new policies that bring back industry to Canada. We have stronger environmental controls and internal controls then virtually any other country and especially over any 3rd world country.  Perhaps you are unaware of the long long long history of environmental awareness. It started with unions who were the first to fight in order to get laws changed and the environment protected. It is the people who work in these places that suffered the effects the most.

I find your positions not to be insulting, but to be ignorant of the work of Unions in all facets and occupations and their concern for their members health and safety. 

Check out any facility and if you want to see which facility has the higher standards it will always be a Union Shop.

Union initiatives on the environment exist in Canada and certainly even in the US.

Instead of taking potshots at Unions, or being ignorant to the economic engine of Canada (Don't worry you are not alone, the Federal Conservatives and Ontario Liberals have already buggered up the manufacturing sector in such a fashion you may be happy, but not me), I suggest you applaud collaborative initiatives.

Such as saying..... wouldn't this be good to have similar initiatives in Canada as this one.

 http://www.bluegreenalliance.org/

 The Blue Green Alliance is a national partnership of labor unions and environmental organizations dedicated to expanding the number and quality of jobs in the green economy. With partners USW, Sierra Club, CWA, NRDC, LIUNA, SEIU, AFT and UWUA, the Blue Green Alliance is uniting eight million people in pursuit of good jobs, a clean environment and a green economy.

 -----------------------------------

As for the NDP, I have not doubted their commitment to the environment. Whether I agree or not I know the NDP has  the best approach compared to all the other parties.

Which reminds me.....

This Liberal MP...Kirsty Duncan taught meteorology, climatology, and climate change at the University of Windsor from 1993 until 2000. 

Obviously Climate change cannot be the problem that the politicians hype it up to be, because she is voting against the Climate Accountability Act that she voted for. Its obviously not in Canadas interest to go to Copehagen with a plan. Worked for the Liberals when they Signed Kyoto.... LOL.

To think she won the Noble Peace Prize working with Al Gore...

 

 

 

 

  

Quote:

only the federal NDP has shown resove on climate. Are you in favour of acting or not? If you're in favour of acting then join us because anything else is inaction. It is not complicated even if it is difficult.

I don't see resolve as the same as action. That's why I suggested that the NDP would build its credibility by getting more involved in building and supporting local, provincial or national campaigns that are reducing GHGs (even if some may not be much more than symbolic).  Does the federal (or any provincial) NDP know what their annual greenhouse gas footprint is? Have they squeezed every drop of conservation from their own operations? Do they have a plan to do so? I guess I'm asking, "are they walking the walk"? Are they being the change they want to see? That's one way to build support - at the ballot box and in between elections. 

FM - you're right that the NDP is playing their legislative role on this portfolio and that people in Canada should be stomping up and down demanding that Canada play a leading role in forging a deal in Copenhagen. I agree with you that the time for action was yesterday. And based on the science, it seems that it's the pace and degree to which we're fucked that's left to debate. 

My comments about "between elections" were looking beyond Copenhagen and in relation to the NDP's future, not the climate talks. However, we can't let hope fade away even if the climate talks fail in Copenhagen. Life will go on. This has been and will continue to be a long fight.