The Green Party after the election

[M.Dancer]

As it stands, though, the third world is starving anyway. Why? It has nothing to do with growing food for fuel, rather the cost, logistics, etc. of transporting the food to places where the population cannot be sustained.

Or is this just another example of a stupd M.Dancer post, like so many thousand of others?

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The figure emphatically contradicts the US government's claims that plant-derived fuels contribute less than 3% to food-price rises. It will add to pressure on governments in Washington and across Europe, which have turned to plant-derived fuels to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and reduce their dependence on imported oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

I'm sure the World Bank is also stupd.

[M.Dancer]

And another. Risiong demand of corn hikes the price of corn sending the poor into the streets....

Rather than exploit the unedible wealth of the arctic, the Greens would rather have corn riots.

There is another problem with relying on a food-based biofuel, such as corn ethanol, as the poor of Mexico can attest. In recent months, soaring corn prices, sparked by demand from ethanol plants, have doubled the price of tortillas, a staple food. Tens of thousands of Mexico City's poor recently protested this "ethanol tax" in the streets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2301625_pf.html

[Moonbox]

There is a lot of corporate interests involved in development of biofuel. Same goes for farmers; they'll grow whatever makes them the most money. But of course you'll happily foist the blame on environmentalists.

Unfortunately, biofuel is more expensive to produce. It's more expensive and the environmental benefits to it are negligible. Supporting biofuels is nothing but subsidizing unprofitable farming.

As it stands, though, the third world is starving anyway. Why? It has nothing to do with growing food for fuel, rather the cost, logistics, etc. of transporting the food to places where the population cannot be sustained.

Actually, I can provide you with probably hundreds of links where economists from places like the World Bank have concluded that biofuel is the DIRECT CAUSE of the increase in food prices and the subsequent starvation in the third world.

WorldBank - Biofuels and Food Prices

Let's see one example of where they advocate it?

Or is this just another example of a stupd M.Dancer post, like so many thousand of others?

At least his opinions are informed and supportable whereas yours are generally just passionate nonsense. If you would like to start a thread I'd love to debate the benefits of biofuels with you. I can provide you with plenty of evidence showing you exactly how it's more expensive, exactly how it's causing starvation and exactly why it has little to no environmental benefits to offer.

[Moonbox]

The problem with the economy is in part due to high fuel prices, which some would say are abnormally high. We know that Harper is tight with Big Oil and they're the ones who are benefiting from this situation; why would you want to vote the guy in for more of the same?

Please provide your evidence that Harper is working for big oil.

Also, while you're at it, tell us how the Green Shift is going to help us out with fuel prices.

[Ontario Loyalist]

That's one form of democracy. We use another. The one we use works fine and has worked fine for 141 years. No need to fix what isn't broke. No need to tamper with what works. On top of that, no matter who you vote for, you are still represented, and that in a nutshell is democracy.

Yet you support the Conservatives who want an elected senate or to have it abolished outright.

No, if I vote for a party and it doesn't get elected, then I'm not represented.

[Ontario Loyalist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008...renewableenergy

I'm sure the World Bank is also stupd.

My, my yet another juvenile post. Who would have thunk it?

[M.Dancer]

Yet you support the Conservatives who want an elected senate or to have it abolished outright.

Are you saying they have two positions on the senate?

No, if I vote for a party and it doesn't get elected, then I'm not represented.

I would suggest that after the election you have a look at your riding. Someone will have won that seat. Whether they are your choice or not, they are your representitive. I fyou do not like that choice that your riding made, that's your option, regardless, they will work for you, return your calls, answer your letters, come to bat for you....

[Ontario Loyalist]

Unfortunately, biofuel is more expensive to produce. It's more expensive and the environmental benefits to it are negligible. Supporting biofuels is nothing but subsidizing unprofitable farming.

I believe because of biofuels, farming has finally become profitable again. Farming is unprofitable because people like you don't want to pay a fair price for the food that you over eat.

Actually, I can provide you with probably hundreds of links where economists from places like the World Bank have concluded that biofuel is the DIRECT CAUSE of the increase in food prices and the subsequent starvation in the third world.

The World Bank... I'm sorry, but famine, starvation etc. is something that has existed for quite some time and in the modern world has become exacerbated by captialism. This issue with biofuels has been around for about a year or so now and it's now being blamed for famine in the third world?

WorldBank - Biofuels and Food Prices

At least his opinions are informed and supportable whereas yours are generally just passionate nonsense. If you would like to start a thread I'd love to debate the benefits of biofuels with you. I can provide you with plenty of evidence showing you exactly how it's more expensive, exactly how it's causing starvation and exactly why it has little to no environmental benefits to offer.

Okay, the issue here is how the biofuel situation is being attributed to the Greens rather than looking at the real cause as determined by capitalist market forces. Biofuels are produced by corporations trying to make a profit who by corn etc from farmers who for decades have been undercompensated for their product. Of course farmers are going to switch to something that is more profitable--they want to raise families and pay off their debts just like you.

Now, if they were paid a fair price for the edible grains that they grow, then there would be less incentive for them to produce for the biofuel market. And, like I said, biofuels can be derived from non-edible sources.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Are you saying they have two positions on the senate?

Was my post really that difficult ot understand?

I would suggest that after the election you have a look at your riding. Someone will have won that seat. Whether they are your choice or not, they are your representitive. I fyou do not like that choice that your riding made, that's your option, regardless, they will work for you, return your calls, answer your letters, come to bat for you....

So what you're saying is that if a member of a party with a certain stance on a certain policy becomes my MP, if I go to that MP with a concern about that certain policy which conflicts with his stance, he's going to "go to bat for" me anyway...?????

[White Doors]

The World Bank... I'm sorry, but famine, starvation etc. is something that has existed for quite some time and in the modern world has become exacerbated by captialism

No it's been exacerbated by a lack of capitalism... See WTO trade talks to drastically reduce western farm subsidies. That would be the biggest step towards being able to feed poor people (rather, poor people being able to feed themselves) than anything else.

Obviously ideaology is clouding your judgement.

[M.Dancer]

Was my post really that difficult ot understand?

I read what you wrote, I was asking if you believed they had two different positions on it.

So what you're saying is that if a member of a party with a certain stance on a certain policy becomes my MP, if I go to that MP with a concern about that certain policy which conflicts with his stance, he's going to "go to bat for" me anyway...?????

They will listen to you. They will address your concerns. More to the point, your local represetitive will help you with federal problems. Having difficulty getting a permit? The member can help...having trouble understanding government forms? Want to talk about funding a local inititive? Etc etc etc...and they will even listen to you rant about pr...that's what they get paid for, whether they sitright or the left of the Speaker.

[M.Dancer]

This issue with biofuels has been around for about a year or so now and it's now being blamed for famine in the third world?

If a year in your universe has 3650++ days....

Okay, the issue here is how the biofuel situation is being attributed to the Greens rather than looking at the real cause as determined by capitalist market forces.

The Greens want investment (read federal subsidies) into "Green Collar jobs" If "capitalist markets forces" can be blamed then adding to that articial funding will make it worse.

Of course "capitalist market forces" can also alleviate the problem by opening up the arctic to energy exploitation and reduceing the need to divert tortilla corn going to mexico into the gas tanks of Canadian cars....

[Moonbox]

Yet you support the Conservatives who want an elected senate or to have it abolished outright.

No, if I vote for a party and it doesn't get elected, then I'm not represented.

But your community is presented. There are plenty of reasons why proportional representation is a bad idea the first of which is that it makes politics even more regional than they are now.

An elected Senate, on the other hand, is pretty hard to argue against isn't it?

[Oleg Bach]

But your community is presented. There are plenty of reasons why proportional representation is a bad idea the first of which is that it makes politics even more regional than they are now.

An elected Senate, on the other hand, is pretty hard to argue against isn't it?

Interjection! There should not be an un-elected senate...there should NOT be an un-elected and appointed judicary any longer in Canada - to allow this institutional scull duggery to continue - duggery that allows a quiet old elite to govern - that are also NOT elected makes us look like a feudal estate..where the hell is real justice and democracey - I would like to see an elected truely judgemental senate and judicary - one that would respond personally and say "that is wrong - and that is right" Moral neutrality and a shadow government of old rich lawyers has seen it's day - plus the old boys want to go fishing and are tired of being emperors.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I read what you wrote, I was asking if you believed they had two different positions on it.

Have, not had. Phone your MP and ask him or her yourself.

They will listen to you. They will address your concerns. More to the point, your local represetitive will help you with federal problems. Having difficulty getting a permit? The member can help...having trouble understanding government forms? Want to talk about funding a local inititive? Etc etc etc...and they will even listen to you rant about pr...that's what they get paid for, whether they sitright or the left of the Speaker.

I'm supposing your MP isn't and never has been a Conservative.

In my riding over 60% of the people voted for a party other than Conservative. Then why is my MP voting with the Conservatives and not for what the majority of his constituants want on certain issues?

[Wild Bill]

In my riding over 60% of the people voted for a party other than Conservative. Then why is my MP voting with the Conservatives and not for what the majority of his constituants want on certain issues?

Because he or she is not a Reformer! Reform was the ONLY party to champion that idea. NONE of today's parties have this idea in their party platform.

Manning used to say that an MP was supposed to represent his riding's wishes to Ottawa, not Ottawa's wishes to his or her constituents.

What do you think Harper, Dion, Duceppe, May or Jack would say to the idea?

[M.Dancer]

Have, not had. Phone your MP and ask him or her yourself.

I'm supposing your MP isn't and never has been a Conservative.

In my riding over 60% of the people voted for a party other than Conservative. Then why is my MP voting with the Conservatives and not for what the majority of his constituants want on certain issues?

So I have to assume you don't know the conservative position on the senate.

Now how is it that 60% of your riding marches in lockstep in opposite of these issues that your MP votes for?

I am forced to assume you don't know that one either.

[cybercoma]

North American auto manufacturers who consistently lag behind European and Asian auto manufacturers in terms of emissions, mileage etc? As exemplified by GM, which decided it didn't like the profit margin of electric cars (actually, it was that electric cars didn't need nearly the amount of profitable service and repairs as regular cars) and so, after building a bunch of fairly good ones with the aid of a massive government grant, took them all out and crushed them - despite massive protests, thus washing their hands of the whole idea of environmentally friendly automobiles?

Yeah, okay.

I guess my sarcasm wasn't clear. When I said, I liked what Jim Harris said, I meant.... he must be out of his flipping mind.

[cybercoma]

For the people who think she'll make any difference in the election, debate or not:

What seat(s) do you think she can win?

If Elizabeth May is running in the London North Centre riding again and the Liberals honour their promise of not running a candidate, she could win it. She came in second last time around with the NDP candidate getting roughly half as many votes as her.

I'm only saying this assuming she's in that riding again. I don't know which riding she's going to be in.

[Wild Bill]

If Elizabeth May is running in the London North Centre riding again and the Liberals honour their promise of not running a candidate, she could win it. She came in second last time around with the NDP candidate getting roughly half as many votes as her.

I'm only saying this assuming she's in that riding again. I don't know which riding she's going to be in.

Last I heard she was going to run against Peter McKay in Nova Scotia - Pictou/Antigonish.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Last I heard she was going to run against Peter McKay in Nova Scotia - Pictou/Antigonish.

Central Nova

[Ontario Loyalist]

No it's been exacerbated by a lack of capitalism... See WTO trade talks to drastically reduce western farm subsidies. That would be the biggest step towards being able to feed poor people (rather, poor people being able to feed themselves) than anything else.

Obviously ideaology is clouding your judgement.

More like ideology is clouding your judgement. One of the driving forces of capitalism is the need to maximize profits and in doing so whether or not the individual can afford the product is of no concern to the producer. That's why we don't have $10 dvd players.

[Ontario Loyalist]

So I have to assume you don't know the conservative position on the senate.

Evidently you don't know your own leader's position on the Senate. He once stated: "if the Senate cannot be elected, then is should be abolished."

Now how is it that 60% of your riding marches in lockstep in opposite of these issues that your MP votes for?

I am forced to assume you don't know that one either.

What does "on certain issues" mean to you? To me it suggests that I'm implying that there are specific issues that the majority of constituants would be opposed to, perhaps even some Conservative supporters. Should he vote in accordance with the wishes of his constituents or follow the party line?

[Ontario Loyalist]

Because he or she is not a Reformer! Reform was the ONLY party to champion that idea. NONE of today's parties have this idea in their party platform.

Manning used to say that an MP was supposed to represent his riding's wishes to Ottawa, not Ottawa's wishes to his or her constituents.

What do you think Harper, Dion, Duceppe, May or Jack would say to the idea?

I'd say that Harper belived in it wholeheartedly waybackwhen whilst a member of the Reform party and conveniently has forgotten about it now that that early idealism has allowed him to become PM.

So if a MP will not side with his constituents when it comes to matters in the House, why should I trust him/her in any other respect. Obviously he's not there in my best interest. Maybe he'll help me get a permit or something secretly hoping that it will win him a vote, but who cares? So to say that he represents me in Parlaiment is ludicrous to the extreme--he only represents his party.

[cybercoma]

Last I heard she was going to run against Peter McKay in Nova Scotia - Pictou/Antigonish.

I thought Peter McKay was in the New Glasgow riding, or maybe that's just where personally he's from.

This crap gets too confusing. Regardless, I don't know why she'd run in Antigonish when she came in second in London. Who knows though... she's a cape bretoner, so people just might vote for her.