Why I Vote Green

[-1=e^ipi]

Policy deciders should take a risk management approach and consider the risks/benefits and probabilities to the public of a given approach.

So that means you reject the strong precautionary principle?

In the case of climate change, science has determined that there is a significant likelihood that bad things are going to happen and many of the scenarios suggest that the outcomes could be pretty severe. Prudent public policy would be to pursue policies that would be to curtail C02 emissions in a way that didn't seriously impact quality of life.

1. So first you say that probability distributions should matter, now you say that we can determine which policies make sense without taking into account those probability distributions... I guess you don't reject the strong precautionary principle.

2. Costs are not some sort of step function. Mitigation policies have negative impacts on quality of life, and the effect is continuous (arguably mitigation costs are a roughly quadratic function of the level of mitigation). Realistically, the only policies that would reduce CO2 emissions and wouldn't negatively impact standard of living are getting rid of all the irrational anti-nuclear policies, which you ironically oppose.

[ReeferMadness]

I still don't know where to draw the line (and it's likely impossible to nail it down anyway) when it comes to low levels of radiation being poured into the Pacific Ocean. A lot depends on the type of radiation, as some radioactive elements are more carcinogenic than others. There are plenty of examples of overreaction to radiation....a quick example would be the disseminated public wisdom to slather on sunscreens...especially on children, before letting them go outside. Now some medical experts are telling us that we have way overreacted to solar radiation and aren't getting enough sunlight, which is especially evident in growing numbers of people with vitamin D deficiencies. When people spend little time outdoors and plaster on sunscreen when they do, the cure has become worse than the disease.

I think these are just more examples of where the science will evolve and we will learn more as we go along. That's why I use prevailing science as a guide, not as a set of commandments.

[ReeferMadness]

So that means you reject the strong precautionary principle?

1. So first you say that probability distributions should matter, now you say that we can determine which policies make sense without taking into account those probability distributions... I guess you don't reject the strong precautionary principle.

2. Costs are not some sort of step function. Mitigation policies have negative impacts on quality of life, and the effect is continuous (arguably mitigation costs are a roughly quadratic function of the level of mitigation). Realistically, the only policies that would reduce CO2 emissions and wouldn't negatively impact standard of living are getting rid of all the irrational anti-nuclear policies, which you ironically oppose.

I'm not clear what you mean by "strong precautionary principle" and I'm not sure I need to be. I'm in favour of a pragmatic approach. Specifically, I get wary of anyone who claims to be able to assign precise numerical probabilities to rare events like a nuclear meltdown or a theft of nuclear waste. A pragmatic approach would recognize that these rare events are also potentially catastrophic. So, I would only accept that risk if there were no acceptable alternatives. I think there are alternatives which could be adopted, like solar and wind.

You seem to be equating standard of living with quality of life. They are two very different things.

And maybe if you lived in Fukushima, you would find it less irrational to oppose nuclear power.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm not clear what you mean by "strong precautionary principle" and I'm not sure I need to be.

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

A pragmatic approach would recognize that these rare events are also potentially catastrophic. So, I would only accept that risk if there were no acceptable alternatives. I think there are alternatives which could be adopted, like solar and wind.

A pragmatic approach is to not take into account costs of energy or probabilities associated with certain events?

How about all the people that will die due to lower access to power to heat their homes, or to help fund hospitals?

You seem to be equating standard of living with quality of life. They are two very different things.

If say so...

And maybe if you lived in Fukushima, you would find it less irrational to oppose nuclear power.

Still is irrational.

[BC_chick]

Do whatever you wish...vote for that 'merkin Green Party leader if you want. If U.S. foreign policy wants your opinion...we'll ask for it.

Elizabeth May was born in the US so Canadians should not say boo about the the US creating ISIS in Iraq.

That's pretty much what you're saying?

Edited September 6, 2015 by BC_chick

[ReeferMadness]

Elizabeth May was born in the US so Canadians should not say boo about the the US creating ISIS in Iraq.

That's pretty much what you're saying?

I find it's best not to feed the trolls.

[ReeferMadness]

How about all the people that will die due to lower access to power to heat their homes, or to help fund hospitals?

Several European (Germany, Denmark eg) countries rely to a significant extent on solar and wind. Please do provide some examples of all of the people dying because they can't heat their homes.

If say so...

You think I just made this up?

Quality of life should not be confused with the concept of standard of living, which is based primarily on income.

[bush_cheney2004]

Elizabeth May was born in the US so Canadians should not say boo about the the US creating ISIS in Iraq.

That's pretty much what you're saying?

Nope...that's just how you interpreted the discussion. Pretty much two completely different ideas.

U.S. foreign policy for the Mideast doesn't give a damn what the hapless Green Party or its supporters do in Canada.

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stay on topic.

Unless you can tack ".... and that is Why I Vote Green." to the end of your post, maybe, just maybe you are posting thread drift.

[Civis Romanus sum]

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.

She was extremely shrill and partisan during the last election. I think any improvement is due to coaching her to hide that. As for the most integrity, you have nothing to base that upon. She has no large party to run so you can't judge her against those who do.

[WIP]

So that means you reject the strong precautionary principle?

If anyone on your side of the argument was following the precautionary principle, you would have taken the rapid carbonization of the atmosphere as a sign that we need to collectively back off from increasing the amounts of carbon produced, rather than just toss up some dubious claim of "low sensitivity" to CO2 as an excuse to support business as usual. That claim centers on incomplete knowledge of a complex system that continually proves itself to react in unexpected ways to change.

[WIP]

Elizabeth May was born in the US so Canadians should not say boo about the the US creating ISIS in Iraq.

That's pretty much what you're saying?

That makes sense.....to anyone with a twisted mind.

[WIP]

Guys,

Stay on topic.

Unless you can tack ".... and that is Why I Vote Green." to the end of your post, maybe, just maybe you are posting thread drift.

I've given up on the fight against thread drift on this one, since the only people who are openly hostile enough to care about what a party at 4 to 5% in the polls is saying or doing are the oil industry shills or related global warming-denying extremists.

[bush_cheney2004]

The Green Party received less than 4% of the popular vote in 2011. This thread should be titled why the "vast majority" of Canadians will not be voting Green.

 	Conservative 	166 	5,832,401 	39.62 	+1.97
	New Democratic 	103 	4,508,474 	30.63 	+12.44
	Liberal 	 34 	2,783,175 	18.91 	-7.36
	Bloc Québécois 	  4 	889,788 	6.04 	-3.93
	Green 	          1 	576,221 	3.91 	-2.86
	Independent 	  0 	63,340 	        0.43 	-0.22
	Christian Heritag 0 	19,218 	        0.131 	-0.061
	Marxist–Leninist  0 	10,160 	        0.069 	+0.007

[-1=e^ipi]

If anyone on your side of the argument

Please define 'my side of the argument'.

you would have taken the rapid carbonization of the atmosphere as a sign that we need to collectively back off from increasing the amounts of carbon produced

Wait, so the existence of X occurring justifies moving away from X?

Okay, let me try that logical form and see if you can see a flaw in it.

The rapid increase in life expectancy is a sign that we need to collectively back off from increasing life expectancy.

Does that work?

[-1=e^ipi]

are the oil industry shills or related global warming-denying extremists.

Because if you think the opposition to all nuclear energy and gmos, and support for things like homeopathy is unscientific then you are a global warming denier or oil industry shill.

That's how logic works apparently.

*sarcasm*

[ReeferMadness]

.... and that is why I vote green.

lol

[WIP]

Please define 'my side of the argument'.

The side that's at war with nature! Specifically on carbon, the side that says let's go with a flimsy argument claiming CO2 will have limited greenhouse effect as percentage increases (doesn't address ocean acidification), based on limited...but increasing understanding on how heat is collected and distributed in the oceans and atmosphere of a complex living system. The precautionary principle would argue for assuming the worst to avoid any unforeseen catastrophes; but that hasn't been the line of thinking of climate change denial.

Wait, so the existence of X occurring justifies moving away from X?

Okay, let me try that logical form and see if you can see a flaw in it.

The rapid increase in life expectancy is a sign that we need to collectively back off from increasing life expectancy.

Does that work?

Is human life expectancy in the 20th century following in synch with production of fossil fuels?

For starters, average life expectancy is a dubious measure for human health and vitality....let alone planetary health! The rise in life expectancy has mostly been accomplished through safe drinking water and proper sanitation, to eliminate many lethal water-borne diseases that caused high infant mortality from the beginning of the agriculture age through the early part of the industrial revolution.

When it comes to the issue many people believe that our life spans are much longer than in pre-industrial times, it's totally bogus once high infant mortality rates are separated from that scale. For example, in the Wikipedia entry on life expectancy, it's noted further down that a study of English nobles (a segment of the population who lived better than average, but also were the only group with clear records) who lived to age 21, lived on to 64 between 1200 and 1300, and to 71 from 1500 to 1550....less than the average life expectancy today, but not a great deal less as some would imagine! And once we ask the question: are people living well in their final years today, anecdotal evidence based on the numbers who are sick and infirm, would indicate that those extra years aren't doing a whole hell of a lot of good. Modern techno-utopia is becoming a story of keeping a lot of sick people on life support! So much for life expectancy. But what is this doing for the life expectancy of the human race as a species?

[-1=e^ipi]

The side that's at war with nature!

I'm at war with nature now? Oh well, let's add it to the list of misogynist, racist and other nonsense labels that I receive.

The precautionary principle would argue for assuming the worst to avoid any unforeseen catastrophes; but that hasn't been the line of thinking of climate change denial.

Let's try this precautionary principle right now and see if you believe in it. The worst that could happen if you make another post in this thread is that it could anger the flying spaghetti monster, who will use its powers to turn you into a giant meatball. Do you want to become a giant meatball? If not, don't post in this thread.

Or maybe, it would be more sane to take probability into account when making decisions.

[Peter F]

The Green Party received less than 4% of the popular vote in 2011. This thread should be titled why the "vast majority" of Canadians will not be voting Green.

 	Conservative 	166 	5,832,401 	39.62 	+1.97
	New Democratic 	103 	4,508,474 	30.63 	+12.44
	Liberal 	 34 	2,783,175 	18.91 	-7.36
	Bloc Québécois 	  4 	889,788 	6.04 	-3.93
	Green 	          1 	576,221 	3.91 	-2.86
	Independent 	  0 	63,340 	        0.43 	-0.22
	Christian Heritag 0 	19,218 	        0.131 	-0.061
	Marxist–Leninist  0 	10,160 	        0.069 	+0.007

But it is titled "Why I would vote green" and the OP then gave reason why they would vote green.

Its all very simple really

[ironstone]

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.

Too radical for me and I don't relish the thought of paying a small fortune to fill up my car and heat my home.Prices will rise a lot under a Green government,just as they will with Trudeau or Mulcair.Plus,I don't think too much of any leader that thinks Omar Khadr has class.

[Evening Star]

Tbf, all she said was that he has more class than the whole Conservative cabinet put together, not that he is especially classy in and of himself.

[GostHacked]

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?

Then there is the problem of a nuclear plant's life span. Not very long, and many of them are reaching 30-40 years old. Nuclear energy might be low in monetary cost, but the other costs (as we see in Fukushima) can be devastating for decades/centuries to come.

[GostHacked]

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.

Already happened. Genie is already out of the bottle. GMOs are found in remote areas of Mexico where they thought there would be none. The Mexican farming community was very isolated and though to not have GMOs, which turned out to be false.

http://www.scidev.net/global/gm/news/mexico-confirms-gm-maize-contamination.html

[GostHacked]

Seriously, Fukushima used technology that was decades outdated, survived an Earthquake, and primarily had an issue because a Tsunami knocked out the backup power generators. In the end it killed no one.

Different types of nuclear reactors have different possibilities of meltdowns. CANDU reactors used in Canada are far safer than the light water reactors used in Fukushima.

And what about Thorium-salt reactors?

How many of each type of reactor exists out there? I'd like to see a comprehensive breakdown of location and type. That would tell me what I think I need to know.