Irony: Conservatives new guarantor of green economics?

[Machjo]

During the election, other parties were often criticizing the Conservative Party for not doing enough to promote green economic policy, and rightly so.

The irony now, though, is that while the Conservatives did little to promote green economics, the new co-alition is now talking about doing alot to actively subsidize the auto industry, hardly a wise move from an ecological perspective. So now we have the Conservatives doing little for the environment, and a coalition planing to take active measured to promote harmful industries.

Between these two choices, the Conservatives are now loking like knights in green armour, not because of their brilliant environmental record, but because of the coming even muddier record of the opposition. Do you think this subsidizing of the auto industry will backfire on the co-alition? I can see future gains for the Green party (active environmental policy) and the Conservative party (no-interference) come next election, with the current co-alition (active promotion of a popluting industry) losing out.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[#juan]

During the election, other parties were often criticizing the Conservative Party for not doing enough to promote green economic policy, and rightly so.

The irony now, though, is that while the Conservatives did little to promote green economics, the new co-alition is now talking about doing alot to actively subsidize the auto industry, hardly a wise move from an ecological perspective. So now we have the Conservatives doing little for the environment, and a coalition planing to take active measured to promote harmful industries.

Between these two choices, the Conservatives are now loking like knights in green armour, not because of their brilliant environmental record, but because of the coming even muddier record of the opposition. Do you think this subsidizing of the auto industry will backfire on the co-alition? I can see future gains for the Green party (active environmental policy) and the Conservative party (no-interference) come next election, with the current co-alition (active promotion of a popluting industry) losing out.

What are your thoughts on this?

No. All the coalition has said is that they would produce a package that would stimulate the economy. They have said nothing about direct subsidies for the automakers.

 

[Scott Free]

What are your thoughts on this?

Most people are more concerned with eating and shelter than enviro Nazi agendas.

The "green" movement will need a Hitler if it expects people to make so great a sacrifice as their lives for the green dream of flowery hills and prancing wildlife everywhere.

 

[Machjo]

Most people are more concerned with eating and shelter than enviro Nazi agendas.

The "green" movement will need a Hitler if it expects people to make so great a sacrifice as their lives for the green dream of flowery hills and prancing wildlife everywhere.

You have to realise though that the Green movement is not so homogeneous. We have Green socialists and also green conservatives. In fact, the Green shift would be a more conservative policy in that it aims at more of a user-pay scenario by lowering income tax and letting people choose. This way, a person who cycles to work and buys local for instance would pay much less tax overall, whereas the Hummer owner who always likes to buy tropical foods will pay like crazy.

Some other more moderate environmentalists might not want the government to spend to promote the environment, but at the very least not spend to damage it either. This kind of more conservative minded environmentalist would naturlaly oppose subsidizing the auto sector and let it survive or fall on its own merits. I think traditional even non-environmentalist conservatives would oppose subsidizing a particular industry without good reason either.

 

[Machjo]

I guess now if you don't care for the environment, the co-alition is the one you should be rooting for now that the conservatives have shown themselves the most hesitant to subsidizing the auto sector.

 

[GreenFish66]

Deborah Grey- ex-candian alliance member actually had an alternative...Although it's not my view may be yet another option!

Wish I could find her exact words..She was on CBC sayin...We should put all these leaders in a room and tell them not to come out until they have a solution and can all paly fair!....Another person said These leaders should be put in a room with Deborah Cleland Grey ........lol

I respect Deborah Grey ..She was one of the best politicians that never was..It is too bad...Maybe she should run for P.M.!

Great wise Lady!

 

[GreenFish66]

Greens win regardless ..I am glad their is so much interest in a party who has no say!...P.R. rules lol

 

[Trex]

During the election, other parties were often criticizing the Conservative Party for not doing enough to promote green economic policy, and rightly so.

The irony now, though, is that while the Conservatives did little to promote green economics, the new co-alition is now talking about doing alot to actively subsidize the auto industry, hardly a wise move from an ecological perspective. So now we have the Conservatives doing little for the environment, and a coalition planing to take active measured to promote harmful industries.

Between these two choices, the Conservatives are now loking like knights in green armour, not because of their brilliant environmental record, but because of the coming even muddier record of the opposition. Do you think this subsidizing of the auto industry will backfire on the co-alition? I can see future gains for the Green party (active environmental policy) and the Conservative party (no-interference) come next election, with the current co-alition (active promotion of a popluting industry) losing out.

What are your thoughts on this?

I would tend to agree with every point you have made.

I guess concerning the Canadian auto issue we would have to hope for a delay until Obama announces how his American bail-out is going to be structured.
That's probably what the Canadian Conservatives were waiting for.
His US bail-out plan may include increasing environmental standards and designing much more efficient and marketable cars.
There is a good chance it will as he has some well respected environmentally sound advisor's on board.
The best move for Canada would then be to move in lock-step with those new policies in regard to the big three.

But I would not hold my breath with Smilin Jack at the helm.
He just wants to throw hundreds of millions at the Canadian union members I would think.

On another front Duceppe has announced that part of his demands upon the coalition will be to return to the Kyoto protocol.
With Quebec's huge hydro resources it stands to be a Quebec cash cow.
Debatable whether or not its viable at this late date.


Dion has announced that the "green shift" is dead and buried and will not be revisited by the coalition.

The rest is how you have already stated it.

Trex

 

[Trex]

Deborah Grey- ex-candian alliance member actually had an alternative...Although it's not my view may be yet another option!

Wish I could find her exact words..She was on CBC sayin...We should put all these leaders in a room and tell them not to come out until they have a solution and can all paly fair!....Another person said These leaders should be put in a room with Deborah Cleland Grey ........lol

I respect Deborah Grey ..She was one of the best politicians that never was..It is too bad...Maybe she should run for P.M.!

Great wise Lady!

Actually that is how they choose a new Pope.
They lock all the voting members in a room and feed them fairly plain food and sleep on cots.
After a certain length of time if they still have not chosen a new Pope the food is reduced to bread and water.

A new Pope is almost always rapidly chosen after the bread and water thing happens.

Trex

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Sorry, Machjo, but Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader has endorsed the coalition. You can’t get any greener than the Green Party.

To me, if the Greens endorse the coalition and doesn’t have a kind word to say about the Conservatives, that is the end of the argument.

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Sorry, Machjo, but Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader has endorsed the coalition. You can’t get any greener than the Green Party.

To me, if the Greens endorse the coalition and doesn’t have a kind word to say about the Conservatives, that is the end of the argument.

Great day to you SirJoseph Porter, come Monday it will be end of argument,
Canada will be speared from the Harper Con guillotine.

 

[Tyr]

Most people are more concerned with eating and shelter than enviro Nazi agendas.

The "green" movement will need a Hitler if it expects people to make so great a sacrifice as their lives for the green dream of flowery hills and prancing wildlife everywhere.

Actually of the "official Green policies" from the political parties, The Conservatives would have been the most difficult to implement, taken the longest and been the most expensive. It was also the most comprehensive.

I guess people couldn't see past their own blinders to fairly evaluate each policy on its merits

 

[scratch]

Tyr,
In my opinion we never get the complete agenda from every party in an election.

regards
scratch

 

[JLM]

Sorry, Machjo, but Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader has endorsed the coalition. You can’t get any greener than the Green Party.

To me, if the Greens endorse the coalition and doesn’t have a kind word to say about the Conservatives, that is the end of the argument.

It's hard to really figure what's going on (I think a lot of what you hear is just other people's opinions that are not any better than you own) but it lies somewhere between all the other parties wanting to see the Conservatives dumped & genuinely disliking their latest policies. Watching pundits on C.B.C. news to day (like Michael Meagham) saying that the aspiring coalition had this planned probably since the election- indicates it's not much about recent policy. The thing that upsets me the most is Harper's backtracking on his policies, so not only does that p*ss me off but makes me wonder if the man has any backbone. Still I think I'd rather see Harper as I think any alternative (election or coalition) will just be a disaster.

 

[Scott Free]

Actually of the "official Green policies" from the political parties, The Conservatives would have been the most difficult to implement, taken the longest and been the most expensive. It was also the most comprehensive.

I guess people couldn't see past their own blinders to fairly evaluate each policy on its merits

I think your right especially when you consider my statement was of fact not politics. People are not going to voluntarily live in squalor so you can feel good about yourself.

While you might think it's very noble of yourself to give away other peoples jobs I see your mindset in a different light.

 

[Scott Free]

You have to realise though that the Green movement is not so homogeneous. We have Green socialists and also green conservatives. In fact, the Green shift would be a more conservative policy in that it aims at more of a user-pay scenario by lowering income tax and letting people choose. This way, a person who cycles to work and buys local for instance would pay much less tax overall, whereas the Hummer owner who always likes to buy tropical foods will pay like crazy.

This might work for the people who live in cities but the people who grow your food live in rural areas and can't live like an impoverished 20th century Chinamen.

Some other more moderate environmentalists might not want the government to spend to promote the environment, but at the very least not spend to damage it either. This kind of more conservative minded environmentalist would naturlaly oppose subsidizing the auto sector and let it survive or fall on its own merits. I think traditional even non-environmentalist conservatives would oppose subsidizing a particular industry without good reason either.

I suppose the good reason would be that peoples families rely on those jobs. But then you'd have to be something other than an arrogant prick to see that. Lets hope there is some humanity left in government then huh?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Great day to you SirJoseph Porter, come Monday it will be end of argument,
Canada will be speared from the Harper Con guillotine.

I don’t know, Socrates, I assume Harper will recommend to GG that Parliament should be prorogued. It will be very difficult for GG to refuse the request.

My hope would be that when Harper loses the no confidence motion after that, if he then recommends that Parliament be dissolved, then GG wouldn’t take his advice, but give the coalition an opportunity to form a government.

 

[Machjo]

Sorry, Machjo, but Elizabeth May, the Green Party leader has endorsed the coalition. You can’t get any greener than the Green Party.

To me, if the Greens endorse the coalition and doesn’t have a kind word to say about the Conservatives, that is the end of the argument.

I'm not entirely surprised, but I don't think it has anything to do with their environmental policy. I'm guessing it has more to do with the idea that they are more socially progressive overall. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe she has faith in that the co-alition might do other things for the environment later.

My issue with that is that I don't take kindly to contradictory policies (e.g. promote th ecar insdustry and then try to make them more fuel efficient). Would it not make more sens eto just do what the Conservatives coudl have done (i.e. let the car industry fall and let new industries grow out of that). Can't get any more fuel efficient than no car at all. If May supports this, then I must conclude that, like the NDP, the Greens have their hearts in the right place... but where are the minds?

 

[Machjo]

This might work for the people who live in cities but the people who grow your food live in rural areas and can't live like an impoverished 20th century Chinamen.

I'm all for the government helping the poor, so don't get me wrong here. But I don't support giveing money to the poor without giving training for some trade or profession at the same time. To just give money but no training is equal to giving a man a fish but not teaching him how to fish.

I suppose the good reason would be that peoples families rely on those jobs. But then you'd have to be something other than an arrogant prick to see that. Lets hope there is some humanity left in government then huh?

Instead of subsidizing a defunct industry, why not retrain the workers for growing industries that might be hindered by not being able to find the qualified staff they need to hire for these new industries. After all, the auto sector is laying off workers. So what's the point of giving it money if it can't keep its workers? On the other hand, there might be some companies out there that are not firing employees and maybe even want to hire more staff but unfortunately they can't find qualified candidates. Instead of letting those companies move abroad to find their qualified workers (these would be the companies we'd want to keep, no?), offer to reimburse schools for training the workers in the skills those companies want. Would that not be a brighter move than to through money just to prolong the inevitable?

 

[Machjo]

While you might think it's very noble of yourself to give away other peoples jobs I see your mindset in a different light.

I'm taking away people's jobs by opposing subsidization of their industry? Following that logic, I'm taking away the restaurant waiter's job for opposing government subsidies to restaurants. Same to all jobs. That's rediculous. What applies to one applies to all. Why subsidize the auto sector but not the restaurant sector, for example? Why the double standard? That's why I propose that instead of subsidizing failing industries, that we offer free job training for new trades and professions in the growing industries. In this way we're helping industries that are growing anyway to grow some more, without actually giving them any money directly but just by retraining the unemployed for better jobs. In the end, everyone wins. And no, I resent being accused of supporting that the government let people rot in the streets. In fact, as conservative as I might appear, I'm all for free education. That's the main reason I consider myself more left-leaning than right. But yes my right-leaning streak is there too.