Why I Vote Green

[ReeferMadness]

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.

I don't envy your choice. I decided against strategic voting long ago but I could see making an exception to get rid of Harper.

[ReeferMadness]

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.

I think that with PR, Green support would easily be somewhere between 6 and 10%. Strategic voting is keeping it artificially low.

[ReeferMadness]

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]

Really? This type of pedantic cherry-picking is exactly why I'm inclined to ignore you. You want to read the REST of the Wikipedia article instead of just the criticisms?

Here:

Fields typically concerned by the precautionary principle are the possibility of:

Global warming or abrupt climate change in general

Extinction of species

Introduction of new and potentially harmful products into the environment, threatening biodiversity (e.g., genetically modified organisms)

Threats to public health, due to new diseases and techniques (e.g., AIDS transmitted through blood transfusion)

Long-term effects of new technologies (e.g. health concerns regarding radiation from cell phones and other electronics communications devices)

Persistent or acute pollution (asbestos, endocrine disruptors...)

Food safety (e.g., Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease)

Other new biosafety issues (e.g., artificial life, new molecules)

The precautionary principle is often applied to biological fields because changes cannot be easily contained and have the potential of being global.

Your own link actually explicitly supports the application of the precautionary principle in the case of GMO's. You just read the little piece you wanted to see.

[ReeferMadness]

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

Yeesh. Really?

I'd sooner have Billy Bob who drives the ice cream truck.

[-1=e^ipi]

Really? This type of pedantic cherry-picking is exactly why I'm inclined to ignore you. You want to read the REST of the Wikipedia article instead of just the criticisms?

... I'm critical of the precautionary principle and was highlighting reasons to be critical. How is that cherrypicking?

Your own link actually explicitly supports the application of the precautionary principle in the case of GMO's. You just read the little piece you wanted to see.

Wow. Look, a wikipedia article saying X is some times applied to Y doesn't mean wikipedia is somehow endorsing that X should be applied to Y.

[Vega]

The Green Party is what the NDP once was not too long ago. They're a good left of centre party with sound ideas (Pharamacare, their Tax plan, Environmental ideas, etc.).

[ReeferMadness]

The Green Party is what the NDP once was not too long ago. They're a good left of centre party with sound ideas (Pharamacare, their Tax plan, Environmental ideas, etc.).

I agree with that. The NDP brought more value when they stuck with their principles and didn't try to water down their ideas hoping to win the election. That's now up to the Greens.

[G Huxley]

A topical development today:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/02/ndp-riding-president-tossed-for-urging-voters-to-back-green-candidate

Edited September 3, 2015 by G Huxley

[cybercoma]

Bitter old man throws a tantrum because he lost the riding nomination. Details at 11.

[segnosaur]

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

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one.

If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind.

And the greens don't want us using it.

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?

Other people have pointed out problems with your argument.

Basically, you might assume they accept GMOs, but they've got so many restrictions in their platform that functionally it will result in a ban.

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.

There is no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is medicine that works, and not-medicine.

Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform:

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians

(from: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/04/voting-green-read-this/_

Homeopathy is a scam, with no valid science behind it. Naturopaths, accupuncture and chiropractors are not much better. And the greens supported it. (Although to be honest, the article also points out the conservatives had support for some of the same nonsense)

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.

I think you've been reading the wrong sources.

Pretty much every western health organization has supported Fluoridation of water supplies.

Oh, and one other thing... the green party has this on their web site:

Promote environmentally sustainable, organic farming practices that protect the health of the land, farmers, and consumers;

Organic farming practices are not necessarily "protecting the land"... in fact, because of lower crop yields and less effectiveness of the pest control techniques they use, its actually harder on the environment. As for consumers... did you know you are roughly 4 times as likely to come down with food poisoning from organically grown food as from non-organic food?

[Evening Star]

There is no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is medicine that works, and not-medicine.

Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform:

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians

(from: http://www.skepticnorth.com/2011/04/voting-green-read-this/_

Homeopathy is a scam, with no valid science behind it. Naturopaths, accupuncture and chiropractors are not much better. And the greens supported it. (Although to be honest, the article also points out the conservatives had support for some of the same nonsense)

This is not in their current platform. There is a vague statement about funding 'alternative' therapies that are less expensive or invasive but nothing more than that. May has said that homeopathy was only mentioned in an earlier platform because of an 'error'.

They do seem to have accepted a resolution in opposition to water fluoridation, which is a bit troubling.

[Evening Star]

I am open to the idea of covering dieticians and massage therapists (as well as mental health counsellors and physiotherapists), actually. These can sometimes be more effective and possibly ultimately less costly than MDs for a lot of lower-level health issues.

[segnosaur]

Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform:

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians

This is not in their current platform. There is a vague statement about funding 'alternative' therapies that are less expensive or invasive but nothing more than that.

You're right... their current platform doesn't go into details. But the 2011 election was only 4 years ago... I doubt the party has had a significant turnover of membership in that time.

May has said that homeopathy was only mentioned in an earlier platform because of an 'error'.

That seems like a very bizarre error... Haven't seen any any indication how it could have happened, plus it was apparently on their web site for years before it was fixed. (http://o.canada.com/news/elizabeth-may-homeopathy)

But ok, lets say we give them the benefit of the doubt and they didn't want to included Homeopathy. There is still the issue of chiropractors, naturopaths, chiropractors and accupuncturists, all of which involve a high degree of nonsense.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html

I am open to the idea of covering dieticians and massage therapists (as well as mental health counsellors and physiotherapists), actually.

While there may be value in those particular health services, the fact that the Green Party has supported so much nonsense makes me wonder if they might support the stuff because they actually researched it, or whether they just get lucky like a blind squirel finding an acorn.

[Mighty AC]

I could be a Green voter but our electoral system would simply waste that vote in my riding. Any vote cast for a losing candidate adds zero representation under the dysfunctional, First Past the Post system. So, I would suggest that in this election any Green, Liberal or NDP voters cast their ballot for the strongest ABC (Anyone But Conservatives) candidate in their riding. Just pick the Green, Orange or Red candidate with the best chance of winning the riding.

In my newly changed riding boundaries, the NDP candidate is currently the strongest of the ABCs so unless polling numbers show differently in October, that is how I will be voting.

[G Huxley]

A very reasonable approach.

[WIP]

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one.

If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind.

Well, thanks for the nuclear industry propaganda for today! What we do know about nuclear is that it has the potential to cause more deaths and sickness by magnitudes than other energy sources. That's why the nuclear industry has to lobby governments to finance the building and continued operation of these plants and relieve themselves of most of the liabilities....which is even what has happened with TEPCO in Japan. And worth noting that Fukushima is not over yet! It is still melting down and leaking contaminated water into the Pacific and there is still no way of knowing if and when it can be safely contained and decomishioned. This is a disaster much worse than Chernobyl.

Looking at the Green Party and the Election again, I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again, most of us who are contemplating checking the box for a Green candidate are also anyone-but-Harper voters, and our Green vote is going to come after carefully checking the local polling data in our ridings.....so much for Conservative dreams of splitting the vote and ushering in the brave new world of permanent Conservative Government in Canada.

For myself, I don't find Elizabeth May and the Green Party all that radical or radical enough on environment issues. I'd rather have something similar to the US Green Party, which being shut out of a two party system, is free to be as radical as necessary on environmental issues, and has placed Steady State or No Growth economics right in their party platform. Our Green Party is not going to venture into anything that will challenge our notions of constant, unending growth, but if we're really serious about climate change and other unfolding environmental calamities coming at us today, we are going to have to deal with the end of business-as-usual voluntarily or watch the whole economic system collapse around us.

[ReeferMadness]

In my newly changed riding boundaries, the NDP candidate is currently the strongest of the ABCs so unless polling numbers show differently in October, that is how I will be voting.

I don't blame you. I just think it's too bad we don't have a voting system that allows you to vote your choice.

[segnosaur]

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one.

If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind.

Well, thanks for the nuclear industry propaganda for today!

Well, thanks for the nuclear industry propaganda for today!

Since when did facts become propaganda?

What we do know about nuclear is that it has the potential to cause more deaths and sickness by magnitudes than other energy sources.

I think the key word here is potential. Nuclear engineers and scientists tend to be smart, and have a general idea of what they're doing. They know what the potential dangers are, and they know how to build safeguards to limit the danger. And since nuclear plants are highly centralized, their construction/operation can be closely monitored. They've been running nuclear plants for decades in the western world. The relative lack of deaths should be a good indication that the "potential" for risk is not being met.

That's why the nuclear industry has to lobby governments...

They have to lobby governments because many people don't necessarily have the scientific or skeptical background they need to adequately assess nuclear power (or any other type for that matter).

And worth noting that Fukushima is not over yet!

Nobody said it was. It will take decades to clean up the site. (Heck, even decommissioning a reactor that wasn't hit by such a disaster is a lengthy process.

But then, decommissioning/replacing solar panels at the end of their life time would also require money and time.

This is a disaster much worse than Chernobyl.

No, its not. Not by any reasonable measure...

Chernobyl dwarfed Fukushima in pretty much every way... number killed, number evacuated, radiation released, expected long-term health consequences.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004896971301173X

Looking at the Green Party and the Election again, I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again, most of us who are contemplating checking the box for a Green candidate are also anyone-but-Harper voters, and our Green vote is going to come after carefully checking the local polling data in our ridings.

If you are voting green for strategic reasons, fine... heck, there may be other reasons to vote for them too.

Just don't do so because they have falsely tried to represent themselves as "the science party".

They may be well-meaning. They may think they are doing the right thing. (And they should get credit for recognizing global warming as an issue.) But many parts of their platform are strongly anti-science.

Edited September 3, 2015 by segnosaur

[Mighty AC]

I don't blame you. I just think it's too bad we don't have a voting system that allows you to vote your choice.

It's undemocratic...but it's what we have at the moment. Support is growing for PR but for this election the most effective choice for environmentally conscious and pro-democracy voters is the strongest ABC candidate in your riding. Let's avoid the split and give Anyone But Conservatives the win.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Mighty AC

[ReeferMadness]

Fukushima was hit by earthquakes and tsunami. And you know what? There have been no deaths due to radiation exposure. None. Not one.

Yet. Unless radiation exposure is severe, the effects can take years or decades to show up. Nobody will ever know how many people die from Fukushima.

But that wasn't the question. You claimed that nuclear power was cheap. Here is a plant that cost billions and will cost 10 of billions to clean up over the next 30-40 years. And it's now producing nothing.

If you look at all aspects of energy production (mining materials, industrial and installation accidents) in the western world, nuclear power has fewer deaths (per kilowatt generated) than solar or wind.

Citation please.

Basically, you might assume they accept GMOs, but they've got so many restrictions in their platform that functionally it will result in a ban.

That's patent nonsense. There are so many GMO's out there already, it would be impossible for any government to ban them and certainly not Canada. The Green Party is just trying to put some basic controls in place.

There is no such thing as "alternative medicine". There is medicine that works, and not-medicine.

Now there is a statement of breathtaking simple mindedness.

When your doctor prescribes medication, she doesn't know what it will do to you. Maybe it will have the intended benefit. Maybe it will do nothing. Or maybe it will have one of the multiple side effects, up to and including death. Modern medicine studies the effects of substances on populations and then tries to choose the ones that have more positive effects than negative ones.

But there are inherent problems. These studies are enormously expensive and it's very difficult to prevent bias from sneaking in. And most studies are funded by the pharmaceutical companies that have an enormous stake in the outcome so there is a huge incentive for a positive result.

The amount of money to conduct the studies virtually guarantees that simple, cheap remedies that can't be patented won't be studied at all; unless governments or universities conduct the studies. But governments and universities are increasingly cash strapped.

So, I understand why people turn to alternative therapies. And if there is a demand, I think we need to be flexible in our approach.

If you want to debate the pros and cons of alternative therapies, it's too big a topic to be contained here. Open a separate thread and I'll be happy to debate that. But there are a lot of people out there who subscribe to the therapies that you dismiss as quackery. In a democratic country, it's right that people should be able to have representatives that believe in things that you don'.

Not sure what their platform is this time, but in the previous election they had as part of their platform:

So, you're not sure what their platform is but you're convinced it's wrong?

I think you've been reading the wrong sources.

Pretty much every western health organization has supported Fluoridation of water supplies.

If that's the case, they're not doing their jobs very well. In Western Europe, only a tiny fraction of the people drink fluoridated water. In Canada, fluoridation is prevalent in Ontario and Alberta but almost non-existent in BC and Quebec. If there is a substantial benefit to fluoridation, it should be simple to demonstrate. I've done a fair bit of reading on this and I oppose fluoridation on the following grounds:

1. The practice of fluoridation essentially amounts to medicating people whether they want it or not. This is contrary to the medical principle of informed consent. If the medical benefits were huge with respect to the risks, this might be defensible; but they are not.

2. Fluoride is a toxic substance and some studies in higher doses will cause health problems (up to and including death). I would say that there is no proof at this point that the levels in drinking water are harmful but it's entirely possible that we will find out at some point that it is.

4. When you put a substance in drinking water, you lose control of the dosage.

5. The health benefits of fluoride are when it is applied to the surface of the teeth. We shouldn't be ingesting it.

6. The articles that I've seen claim the efficacy of fluoride to be all over the map from slight to huge. It seems to me that good dental care is preferable to mass medication.

The bottom line here is that there are a lot of Canadians that share these views. They deserve representation in parliament.

Oh, and one other thing... the green party has this on their web site:

Promote environmentally sustainable, organic farming practices that protect the health of the land, farmers, and consumers;

Organic farming practices are not necessarily "protecting the land"... in fact, because of lower crop yields and less effectiveness of the pest control techniques they use, its actually harder on the environment. As for consumers... did you know you are roughly 4 times as likely to come down with food poisoning from organically grown food as from non-organic food?

[ReeferMadness]

It's undemocratic...but it's what we have at the moment.

It's totally undemocratic. And the sad thing is even with parties calling for democratic reform, I think the prospects of it changing are slim. There are more ways that PR couldn't happen than ways it could. There are so many political insiders that have too much invested in the status quo.

And if the comments made by people around here are any indication, democracy is simply not a big priority for people.

[ReeferMadness]

And:

Solar is cheaper than nuclear.

[-1=e^ipi]

Yet. Unless radiation exposure is severe, the effects can take years or decades to show up. Nobody will ever know how many people die from Fukushima.

People get far more radiation exposure being in airplanes than being in a nuclear reactor.

[-1=e^ipi]

And:

Solar is cheaper than nuclear.

The price of solar varies greatly by location. In some locations it is arguably cheaper, but not everywhere is Southern California or Saudi Arabia.

Secondly, simply looking at price per kWh doesn't take into account variability in production. If the sun isn't shining when you need it to, then it isn't very useful. Not only do you have to deal with diurnal variability but also seasonal variability. In a country like Canada or Germany, when you might need energy the most (say winter, when it is cold), you have less sunlight. The variability can be dealt with if it is used in combination with another source of energy that can soak up this variability (hydro or coal are good at this), but this means that there is a limit to what % of total power production can be reasonably made to be solar (or wind); this usually amounts to a few percentage points of total energy production (unless you want to have lots of coal or gas plants). Nuclear on the other hand gives you a stable energy source that doesn't emit CO2 for the entire year, so can be used to produce the vast majority of your power.

The cost of nuclear energy is inflated due to all the anti-nuclear laws and opposition in developed countries. Also, because it isn't used on a massive scale like it could otherwise be used, we aren't taking advantage of economies of scale which could make nuclear power much cheaper than it already is.

[ReeferMadness]

People get far more radiation exposure being in airplanes than being in a nuclear reactor.

You're changing the subject. We were discussing what happened at Fukushima, not a normally functioning plant.

A few of the plant's workers were severely injured or killed by the disaster conditions resulting from the earthquake. There were no immediate deaths due to direct radiation exposures, but at least six workers have exceeded lifetime legal limits for radiation and more than 300 have received significant radiation doses. Predicted future cancer deaths due to accumulated radiation exposures in the population living near Fukushima have ranged from none[27] to 100[28] to a non-peer-reviewed "guesstimate"[29] of 1,000.[21] On 16 December 2011, Japanese authorities declared the plant to be stable, although it would take decades to decontaminate the surrounding areas and to decommission the plant altogether.