Why I Vote Green

[ReeferMadness]

1. Elizabeth May is far and away the best parliamentarian of any of the party leaders. She is the least partisan, the most reasonable, the most willing to work with other parties and has the most integrity.

2. Their platform is most aligned with my values as measured by the vote compass website.

3. They are the only party that makes environmental issues a priority, not just a matter of preference when they happen not to conflict with other party favorite issues.

4. They were the first (or only) party to get behind things that are so blindingly obvious, they should have been done years ago, including proportional representation, marijuana legalization and guaranteed minimum income.

5. In my riding, the Conservative party candidate has no chance of winning so I don't have to worry about vote splitting.

[-1=e^ipi]

Green party is anti-science; they hate nuclear energy and GMOs. Oppose the cheapest reliable source of non CO2 emitting energy and oppose technology that could be used to help people (example: golden rice and how it could prevent half a million children going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency) and produce more food with fewer resources.

[Derek 2.0]

I'll add one thing in the Green's favor, that separates them from other left leaning parties:

Green Party MPs will:

• Provide increased support for Integrated Border Enforcement Teams made up of officers from the RCMP, Canada Border Services, U.S. Customs, and the U.S. Coast Guard in their gathering of intelligence and arresting of gun smugglers;
• Put strict measures in place for those who attempt to cross the Canada/U.S. border with illegal firearms. Ensure that gun smuggling is prosecuted as a gun crime of the highest order rather than as only a customs violation;
• Fulfill Canada’s obligation under international agreements (United Nations Firearms Protocol and the Organization of American States Firearms Convention) to mark all imported firearms, as recommended by the Canadian Association of Police Boards and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police;
• Ensure that gun crime charges are not dropped to facilitate convictions on lesser charges;
• Review the registry for restricted firearms in consultation with First Nations, and with gun sports and hunter organizations. We will ensure law-abiding citizens do not have their firearms unreasonably confiscated;
• Work with target shooting organizations to establish safe and protected locations where target shooting can be practiced.

Unlike the inane reactionary policies of the Liberals and NDP, the Greens, on the surface, appear to be attempting to implement a common sense firearms policy. Is it enough for me to consider voting for them? Not a chance, but several family members that were life long NDP supporters (BC and Federal) have switched to the Greens based on this reasonable approach (both are gun owners)......Like I said, on the surface it doesn't look bad (I'd want to see what they deem "safe and protected", as all licensed gun ranges are), and it gives firearms owners a choice other than Tory........

[ReeferMadness]

Green party is anti-science; they hate nuclear energy and GMOs. Oppose the cheapest reliable source of non CO2 emitting energy and oppose technology that could be used to help people (example: golden rice and how it could prevent half a million children going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency) and produce more food with fewer resources.

Wow, nuclear power is cheap now. Go ask the guys in Fukushima about that.

I don't think the Green Party is against GMO's per se, they are in favour of labeling. You don't have a problem with people having choice do you?

[On Guard for Thee]

The pro-science guy thinks GMOs are dangerous.

The pro-choice guy also wants forced labeling.

Labeling enables informed choice. Get it?

[Freddy]

the Green parties is perfect if like millions of other Canadians you feel guilty about being a normal Canadian who drives a car everyday. Uses electricity everyday. And participates in society.

Voting Green will not result in anything, except to alleviate a little of that guilt burden all these bleeding harts have inside. its a easy cope out instead of actually doing the hard things for themselves to eliminate all pollution from their lives.

If it helps you sleep at night, I guess that's one reason to vote Green.

Or you could actually stop polluting completely, but that would require effort. I can't seem to find anyone willing to actually stop all pollution in their own lives.

I used to feel guilty about the environment too. Until I realized what a bloody hypocrite I was because I didn't want to face the consequences and lose the conveniences from living up to that standard.

I say stop wasting your life feeling guilty. Once things become a necessary, The market will adapt provide those things for us. Like pollution free products. All will come in good time.

Once the air is so polluted it's not breathable, all countries won't have a problem coming together to build thousands of filters around the world to clean it up.

Once the whole planet is a landfill it won't be a problem to spend money cleaning it up. It will be a necessity of life.

Edited September 2, 2015 by Freddy

[-1=e^ipi]

Wow, nuclear power is cheap now. Go ask the guys in Fukushima about that.

Sarcasm?

[Evening Star]

I don't think the Green Party is against GMO's per se, they are in favour of labeling. You don't have a problem with people having choice do you?

They go further than that. From their policy book:

Ban experimentation with planting and promotion of new GE crops. This

includes a ban on further GE research (except for traditional seed selection

and grafting) at Agriculture Canada and a ban on companies such as

Monsanto owning patents to GE products developed through joint research

with Agriculture Canada;

• Implement the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a protocol within the UN

Biodiversity Convention, which Canada signed and ratified in 1992 and which

came into force in 2003. The Cartagena Protocol requires the adoption of new

products to be guided by the precautionary principle, which balances the

economic benefits of innovation with public health and ecological integrity;

• Require mandatory labeling of all GE foods and food ingredients;

• Support local, provincial, and territorial GE organism-free zones where these

local jurisdictions declare that genetically modified plants and animals are not

to be part of the agricultural mix;

• Prohibit field testing, commercial use, sale, and importation of ‘terminator’

(genetic use restriction) technologies;

• Maintain the ban on GE wheat and oppose GE alfalfa

Place a moratorium on field-testing genetically modified trees while an expert

panel of the Royal Society of Canada examines the risks.

Labelling and and a certain level of caution seem sensible enough but outright banning new experimentation seems pretty wrong. It's one of my issues with them. I might still vote for them, though.

[Black Dog]

Between their GMO stance, their fluoride stance, Elizabeth May's past support of "alternative medicine" quackery and a few other "huh?" moments, I don't think the Greens can be taken seriously.

[BC_chick]

5. In my riding, the Conservative party candidate has no chance of winning so I don't have to worry about vote splitting.

From 2005-2014 I lived in a riding that was swing LPC/CPC so a vote for NDP or Green was pretty much a vote for the CPC. The new riding I moved to is poised to go NDP so I'll be voting Green too.

I'm doing so for very much the same reasons you stated in 1-4, but I'll go as far as saying I think Elizabeth May seems to be the most genuine in her beliefs. I think the values of NDP resonate more with Trudeau but he chose to follow in his father's footsteps by going LPC. I also think Mulcair is more aligned with the LPC than NDP, but the Liberals were in a very bad place after a decade of ruling so he didn't want to be on a losing team.

I truly believe that their mismatch has alienated a lot of their potential voters. NDP voters think Mulcair is too centre and LPC voters think Trudeau is playing a role.

Elizabeth May seems quite genuine in what she says. She is not running for a team just because it suits her. She could have easily gone for a 'winning' party, but she seems to want to truly make a difference as opposed to saying and pretending she does.

I have a lot of respect for her for that.

Edited September 2, 2015 by BC_chick

[ReeferMadness]

Sarcasm?

Observation?

[ReeferMadness]

They go further than that. From their policy book:

Labelling and and a certain level of caution seem sensible enough but outright banning new experimentation seems pretty wrong. It's one of my issues with them. I might still vote for them, though.

Maybe they go a bit far but this isn't going to change my vote. Most of the points mentioned are really based on the precautionary principle, a principle that should be followed more closely, IMO.

The outright ban was on Agriculture Canada, not across the board.

They also oppose technologies that allow companies to "own" GMO's and I support that.

[G Huxley]

BC Chick well put.

Regarding GMO. The problem with GMO in my opinion isn't so much that it's neccessarily unhealthy, it's that if GMO crops go wild then they will replace natural crops.

Here's why I can't vote for the LPC, NDP, or CON.

LPC signed Bill C-51. CON (well let's face it I never would have voted for them anyway + they authored C51) NDP continues to try to sideline the Greens from the debates as they did under Layton and Mulcair has been going along with Harper's anti-Democratic antics. They should take the word Democratic out of the name because at this point it's false advertising.

And why I will vote Green:

The environment is the single most important issue facing the planet right now. And it is far more important than greed.

Edited September 2, 2015 by G Huxley

[Evening Star]

The outright ban was on Agriculture Canada, not across the board.

Why? I'd probably trust Agriculture Canada with genetic engineering research more than multi-national corporations.

[-1=e^ipi]

I think the values of NDP resonate more with Trudeau but he chose to follow in his father's footsteps by going LPC. I also think Mulcair is more aligned with the LPC than NDP

Very true.

[-1=e^ipi]

Most of the points mentioned are really based on the precautionary principle, a principle that should be followed more closely, IMO.

The precautionary principle is the position of infinite risk aversion and leads to absurd policy recommendations, such as requiring that all cattle wear snowshoes.

They also oppose technologies that allow companies to "own" GMO's and I support that.

So you support policies that significantly reduce the incentive for people to develop new technologies?

[cybercoma]

I'm conflicted about voting for the Green Party because Elizabeth May is one of the most accessible parliamentarians out there. She responds to people all the time on Twitter and will answer any questions you have for her. I've also seen David Coon do great work here in Fredericton before and since he won the capital for the Green Party in the provincial election (up against a Conservative incumbent and a former Liberal cabinet minister who was running for the NDP). I want to support the Green Party, but we have a Conservative incumbent and local polling shows a tight three-way race between the CPC, LPC, and NDP this time around. I'll be surprised if the CPC candidate gets overthrown, but at the moment the LPC candidate is ahead in local polls with the NDP candidate not far behind.

[ReeferMadness]

Why? I'd probably trust Agriculture Canada with genetic engineering research more than multi-national corporations.

I don't know why - I'm just interpreting the verbiage contained in your post.

As I said, it's farther than I would go but this isn't going to change my vote.

Edited September 2, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ReeferMadness]

The precautionary principle is the position of infinite risk aversion and leads to absurd policy recommendations, such as requiring that all cattle wear snowshoes.

So you support policies that significantly reduce the incentive for people to develop new technologies?

It's these sort of hyperbolic posts that cause me to start to ignore people.

[-1=e^ipi]

It's these sort of hyperbolic posts that cause me to start to ignore people.

Ignoring contrary information is a good way to ensure that you keep believing in absurd beliefs.

[ReeferMadness]

Between their GMO stance, their fluoride stance, Elizabeth May's past support of "alternative medicine" quackery and a few other "huh?" moments, I don't think the Greens can be taken seriously.

The GMO stance is not entirely unreasonable and it contains some things I like such as the precautionary principle and a rule against owning life. Perhaps it goes a bit far.

I'm not sure what you mean about alternative medicine. It can mean a lot of things and lots of people use things that could be categorized as alternative medicine. Including, recently, Mr Hockey.

As for fluoride, I never really though much about it before. My main exposure to information on fluoridation came in elementary school approximately 800 years ago. But after some preliminary review of what's readily available on the internet, I'm inclined to agree with the Green Party. We can take it up on a separate thread, if you're so inclined.

[BC_chick]

I'm conflicted about voting for the Green Party because Elizabeth May is one of the most accessible parliamentarians out there. She responds to people all the time on Twitter and will answer any questions you have for her. I've also seen David Coon do great work here in Fredericton before and since he won the capital for the Green Party in the provincial election (up against a Conservative incumbent and a former Liberal cabinet minister who was running for the NDP). I want to support the Green Party, but we have a Conservative incumbent and local polling shows a tight three-way race between the CPC, LPC, and NDP this time around. I'll be surprised if the CPC candidate gets overthrown, but at the moment the LPC candidate is ahead in local polls with the NDP candidate not far behind.

If I were you I'd vote for the candidate best poised to beat the CPC incumbent, but that's just me. It's nice to be principled, but there is also the bigger picture to think about which is equally important.

As for May, I agree. I had the opportunity to meet her a few weeks ago. I wasn't at a rally, I basically ran into her on the street. She was unlike any politician I've ever met before. She was genuinely warm and not at all phony.

I think the best hope we have for her to become a viable candidate is if the NDP win and keep their promise of electoral reform.

[cybercoma]

I won't vote Liberal because I don't believe the Liberal Party has pulled itself out of the desert yet. That party needed to reinvent itself and it hasn't sufficiently done so, imo. I'm also less than thrilled about Trudeau backing Eve Adams and Julian Fantino, as well as supporting C-51. More importantly still, I'm concerned about his economic plan that involves a $10 billion cut to services and programs in the 4th year in order to balance the budget, whilst running deficits every other year. It's not that Trudeau isn't ready yet. It's that Trudeau isn't Trudeau anymore. After becoming party leader, he lost his ambition and became another stuffed suit for the party brass. So even if the Liberals are in the best position to win, I likely still wouldn't vote for their candidate.

[cybercoma]

I would seriously rather 4 more years of Harper as prime minister than Justin Trudeau.

[-1=e^ipi]

it contains some things I like such as the precautionary principle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

Internal inconsistency - applying strong PP risks causing harm

Strong formulations of the precautionary principle, without regard to its most basic provisions that it is to be applied only where risks are potentially high AND not easily calculable, applied to the principle itself as a policy decision, may rule out its own use.^[14]:26ff The reason suggested is that preventing innovation from coming to market means that only current technology may be used, and current technology itself may cause harm or leave needs unmet; there is a risk of causing harm by blocking innovation.^[22][23] As Michael Crichton wrote in his novel, State of Fear: "The 'precautionary principle', properly applied, forbids the precautionary principle."^[24] For example, forbidding nuclear power plants based on concerns about risk means continuing to rely on power plants that burn fossil fuels, which continue to release greenhouse gases.^[14]:27 In another example, the Hazardous Air Pollutant provisions in the 1990 amendments to the U.S. Clean Air Act are an example of the Precautionary Principle where the onus is now on showing a listed compound is harmless. Under this rule no distinction is made between those air Pollutants that provide a higher or lower risk, so operators tend to choose less-examined agents that are not on the existing list.^[25]

Blocking innovation and progress generally

Because applications of strong formulations of the PP can be used to block innovation, a technology which brings advantages may be banned by PP because of its potential for negative impacts, leaving the positive benefits unrealized.^[26][27]:201

The precautionary principle has been ethically questioned on the basis that its application could block progress in developing countries.^[28]

Vagueness and plausibility

The PP calls for inaction in the face of scientific uncertainty, but some formulations do not specify the minimal threshold of plausibility of risk that acts as a “triggering” condition, so that any indication that a proposed product or activity might harm health or the environment is sufficient to invoke the principle.^[29][30]

Edited September 2, 2015 by -1=e^ipi