Jagmeet Singh Won't Comment On BC LNG Project

Every energy source has a carbon footprint.  Batteries, transmission lines, construction.  We are not going to solve our problems pouring cement for windmills.

WWWTT wrote:

The problem I see is that our political system allows a little more than 1/3 of the voters to dictate who becomes the government. And with the greens gaining, that percentage can actually go down. 

That part isn’t going to change. I’ll concede that for a country filled with materialistic people like Canada, electoral reform may be its best hope. But I don’t see that happening. I don’t see the real enemy, materialism getting singled out and targeted.

I think this is a key thing. Take for example, electronic devices like iPhones and iPads. There are households where every member, even school age children, each all have their own iPhones and iPads. Why is this necessary? Would it really be crazy to suggest it's not?

To take this idea even further, all these new electronic devices we have that we didn't have 2 or 3 decades ago demand energy to run. True, you might be able to generate that energy in a "greener" fashion, but the best energy savings are the energy you never burn. Also, take the idea of switching out gasoline powered engines for battery powered ones. That alone will have cause a massive increase in demand for electricity. How do you solve that? Also take in mind that the components of these electronic devices we are counting on to save us from climate change have to be extracted. What do we do when the needs to extract these materials conflicts with the needs to preserve sensitive ecosystems in the areas where these materials need to be extracted. Not to mention the problems with e-waste dispoal. Pogo is absolutely correct that rather than thinking about "better" ways to generate energy, we need to rethink our relationships and how we live our lives.

Let's take this idea even further. Suppose you have the option to buy a book from the store or download it onto a digital reader? It's true that producing the book results in cutting down trees to make the paper. But once that book is made, the trees in that area will start to grow back when left alone. The paper is also bio-degradable. The book also doesn't require an energy source, so you can read it just with natural sunlight in your favourite natural spot. The e-reader requires electricity to keep it charged up. And that natural spot you liked to read your book is gone because it's been converted into farms for solar and wind energy that are necessary for that electricity.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of questioning our increasing reliance on digital electricity while composing a message in a digital medium.

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Tthe LNG plant doesn't present the same environmental threat nor does it cross another province who objects to taking on the threat.

Classic climate denialism. Yes Fracking is a planet destroying activity and the idea that we are expanding that industry is madness. WTF don't people understand about the urgency of taking real action in exactly the opposite direction. There is no nuanced way of having your LFG plant and being environmentally responsible. The federal NDP is either going to fight and die on that hill or they will become extinct as a political force. The party can only win by attracting people who are passionate about the synergy between a green economy and social justice.

Bitumen pipelines are being stopped by the threat bitumen poses to the immediate environment not by the threat of climate change.

Never mind climate change, there are several immediate impacts of fracking (think water pollution) that are a good reason to ban the practice.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I think this is a key thing. Take for example, electronic devices like iPhones and iPads. There are households where every member, even school age children, each all have their own iPhones and iPads. Why is this necessary? Would it really be crazy to suggest it's not?

To take this idea even further, all these new electronic devices we have that we didn't have 2 or 3 decades ago demand energy to run. True, you might be able to generate that energy in a "greener" fashion, but the best energy savings are the energy you never burn.

A smartphone uses about 1 kWh of power [i]per year[/i] – what it'd take to power ten 100-watt lightbulbs for an hour.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Let's take this idea even further. Suppose you have the option to buy a book from the store or download it onto a digital reader? It's true that producing the book results in cutting down trees to make the paper. But once that book is made, the trees in that area will start to grow back when left alone. The paper is also bio-degradable. The book also doesn't require an energy source, so you can read it just with natural sunlight in your favourite natural spot. The e-reader requires electricity to keep it charged up. And that natural spot you liked to read your book is gone because it's been converted into farms for solar and wind energy that are necessary for that electricity.

That's true. If we needed a new e-reader for every book, it'd likely be a waste of resources. Thing is, that e-reader can display more than one book, and the books that are transmitted electronically don't burn diesel in the trucks shipping them to the local Indigo.

At the other end of the economies-of-scale index, you've got global summits like the G7, where each leader and his/her associated entourage requires multiple jets to bring security, limousines, staff, reporters, and so forth. Doing that via teleconferencing would save the annual carbon budget of an entire small country. And in between, you have millions of people who drive an hour or more each way daily from their houses in the suburbs to do work that technology would let them do at home, because that newfangled internet is just so impersonal.

There's some real reactionary Luddism behind this idea that we hit the ideal level of technological advancement in 1979, especially when it's some of the oldest industries that pollute the most. Technology isn't a panacea, but it's not the enemy, either.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This article must be good since it mostly agrees with my viewpoint.

At the very least, Singh should have the courage to declare a clear position. Any ambiguity — perhaps a naive attempt to appeal to all voters — will ultimately appeal to none. We are witnessing yet another impossible attempt from the NDP to make policy decisions without alienating anyone, similar to the failed strategy that cost the party the 2015 federal election.

Rather than offer an inspiring vision and decisive policy stances that animate voters, the NDP is trying to seem as inoffensive as possible, cautiously tiptoeing across the country in an effort to appeal to those supposedly king-making Sensible Voters.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/17/Singh-Must-Oppose-Horgan-Become-Cl...

I have to agree the NDP has to take a firm stance now and stick to it. 

I agree that Singh hasn't been as decisive as he could be.  But, one of the things I do like about him is that he is willing to listen and change his position when needed.  One of the things I most disliked about Mulcair is he couldn't listen to the membership.

Also if we're going back to the leadership race, Singh was slow to give his position on Transmountain pipeline, which was weak.  But decisive 2nd place Charlie Angus was very decisive in saying that we shouldn't condemn pipelines.  So, next to that, Singh's slowness in taking the right stance didn't seem so bad to me (although I voted for Niki).

I gather that while I only had Singh ranked 3rd, I am one of the more pro-Singh posters here.

Singh was running in a byelection in BC and needed to get a seat and needed the BC NDP to help him do that.  I don't think he could condemn the coastal gas pipeline while he was doing that.  I was ok with him making supportive comments about coastal gas at that point provided he is now going to take the right stance.  We have seen him changing that stance, but he has yet to go far enough.

The mistake he made was a strategic mistake -- he shouldn't have waited so long to try to win a seat.  And Kennedy Stewart shouldn't have waited so long to resign his seat.  And given the number of retiring Ontario MPs, I think one of them could've resigned earlier to let Singh run for their seat.  But those mistakes weren't about principls, they were about strategy.

Of course I would've preferred that he condemned coastal gas while he was running for his seat.  But if he didn't think he could do so at that time, given the support that he needed from BC NDP, I'm willing to overlook it provided the election platform is strong.

Singh has said consistently that under his leadership the NDP will have the strongest environmental platform of any party going into the election.  He will either deliver on that or not, but I appreciate that he seems to know what are the right priorities.

wage zombie wrote:

Singh was running in a byelection in BC and needed to get a seat and needed the BC NDP to help him do that.  I don't think he could condemn the coastal gas pipeline while he was doing that.  I was ok with him making supportive comments about coastal gas at that point provided he is now going to take the right stance.

You're essentially saying that Singh was willing to stab the BC NDP in the back to get elected. I don't think that's the case myself, like some other posters I think he's just not a person of strong convictions and the Nanimo loss persuaded him to talk a different line.

I'm mostly with WZ, it's good to be flexible but I do acknowledge JS has to be more decisive going forward. In particular the NDP needs to settle their position on climate change to have a coherent message. Can't be wishy washy avoiding firm answers anymore.