The Green Rise in Canada

[August1991]

BC, PEI. People ask, will this go federal?

Argument 1: Byelections are protest votes.... 

Argument 2: The Greens are disorganized. Once people see the candidates..... 

Argument 3: In this modern era, people are disgruntled. (As if this era is "modern" and people were never "disgruntled" before.)

=====

I have a different take on this question.

The Left typically argues that we should be "solidaire", stick together. We should unite. Work together. The Left invariably wants to restrict choice so that we collectively choose the "best method".

And yet, the Left invariably argues among themselves and never agrees.

Hence, in Canada now: people on the "Left" can choose among the NDP,  the BQ, QS, NPD, the Greens and Trudeau's Liberals.

Meanwhile, on the "Right": there is at most the PCC, CAQ and Max Bernier. 

[-1=e^ipi]

All of the parties have weak, and often inconsistent, arguments on climate change. Given the arguments available, the greens arguably have the most convincing/best arguments. They will continue to gain power as long as their narrative is not adequately challenged; this will not happen any time in the near future.

[August1991]

11 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

All of the parties have weak, and often inconsistent, arguments on climate change. Given the arguments available, the greens arguably have the most convincing/best arguments. They will continue to gain power as long as their narrative is not adequately challenged; this will not happen any time in the near future.

Climate change? Disagree. "CO2" emissions? You have my attention. "Pollution?" - major. 

It is good that Canadians have the choice to vote Green.

[eyeball]

49 minutes ago, August1991 said:

The Left typically argues that we should be "solidaire", stick together. We should unite. Work together.

And the right gathers under One Big Tent.

This is why they call it tribalism.

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

All of the parties have weak, and often inconsistent, arguments on climate change. Given the arguments available, the greens arguably have the most convincing/best arguments. They will continue to gain power as long as their narrative is not adequately challenged; this will not happen any time in the near future.

No it won't, instead, their narrative will be increasingly underscored by reality.

[August1991]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

And the right gathers under One Big Tent.

This is why they call it tribalism.

Tribalism?

On the Right, people are only changing/voting for a new government.

On the Left, people are only choosing/arguing about changing the State.

Edited May 11, 2019 by August1991

[eyeball]

22 minutes ago, August1991 said:

On the Left, people are only choosing/arguing about changing the State.

Eliminating it one day too I hope.

Seriously though, the Greens are arising everywhere so, welcome to Earth.

Edited May 11, 2019 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

41 minutes ago, eyeball said:

No it won't, instead, their narrative will be increasingly underscored by reality.

I don't think that underscore is the correct verb to use in this sentence. As a result, it is unclear to me what meaning you are trying to convey.

 

With respect to the green narrative's relationship with reality. There are many groups that misunderstand the magnitude of the problem. You have many denier groups that misunderstand the problem, but also various eco-groups that think that the problem is orders of magnitude larger than it is. The correct and mainstream scientific position is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases the global mean surface temperature by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees celcius. Until you have a political group that points out divergences between mainstream climate science and claims by eco-justice people, the greens will continue to gain power.

[-1=e^ipi]

57 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Climate change? Disagree. "CO2" emissions? You have my attention.

I don't understand what you are trying to convey? You disagree with climate change?

[eyeball]

31 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Tribalism?

On the Right, people are only changing/voting for a new government.

The right also talks a lot about empowering the state, often with more police, prisons, military, surveillance etc.

Of course a lot depends on what one means when they say the right.  You should know by know that I have a fondness for the French post revolutionary sense of what it meant.

Why conservative normal people hitched their wagons so tightly to their betters remains an enduring mystery.  All I've ever really gotten is that its because no poor man ever gave them a job. It's pathetic really.

Edited May 11, 2019 by eyeball

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I don't think that underscore is the correct verb to use in this sentence. As a result, it is unclear to me what meaning you are trying to convey.

I think you get it. As I recall you've expressed some pretty quirky sentiments towards the subject of climate change.  Didn't you once suggest the Sahara would one day become the world's bread basket due to greater concentrations of CO2?  

[August1991]

People on the Left want to restrict choice.

Yet, they argue!

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, August1991 said:

People on the Left want to restrict choice.

Hence they have no issue with diversity.

Hmm. 

[August1991]

25 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Hence they have no issue with diversity.

Hmm. 

eyeball,

Leftists always seem to want to create a single-payer, restrict choice, nationalise, create a single window.

====

The right? Well, I'm a conservative. I prefer slow change.

Edited May 11, 2019 by August1991

[eyeball]

5 minutes ago, August1991 said:

Leftists always seem to want to create a single-payer, restrict choice, nationalise, create a single window.

Seems it's always something.

[August1991]

37 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Seems it's always something.

eyeball,

You "Leftists" never seem to agree among yourselves.

====

Yet you want everyone else to agree with you.

Edited May 11, 2019 by August1991

[eyeball]

43 minutes ago, August1991 said:

eyeball,

You "Leftists" never seem to agree among yourselves.

Notice how you always say it 'seems'?

Quote

Yet you want everyone else to agree with you.

Everybody wants that, it's human nature.

Edited May 11, 2019 by eyeball

[August1991]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Notice how you always say it 'seems'?

......

Everybody wants that, it's human nature.

In English Canada, I recall that there was "rabble.ca", then it split into another website: "enmasse.com?" (Do either still exist or have they split again?)

====

Leftists want to limit choices: "Single Payer/State Schools";  but they invariably argue and never agree "Bolsheviks/Mensheviks" .

I have also learned that wealth is not having more money: it is having more choices. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by August1991

[Zeitgeist]

I tentatively support the Greens as a viable choice only if their platform is data driven and scientifically sound.  If they’re NDP tax and spenders and equity pushers in disguise, no way.  

[Michael Hardner]

Are the Greens really 'left' ?  I oppose the idea that environmentalism or social justice is 'right' or left... everyone agrees with these to a degree.

 

Right/Left is about how much government spending and interference you have.  And you can have social justice and environmentalism with varying degrees of government intrusion vs. government leadership.  If the Greens are 'left' why do the NDPers always call them conservatives ?

[-1=e^ipi]

10 hours ago, eyeball said:

Didn't you once suggest the Sahara would one day become the world's bread basket due to greater concentrations of CO2?  

 

I don't think I've used that terminology in the past. However, the Sahel region of Africa getting wetter due to increased atmospheric CO2 is supported by general climate models. As the Earth warms, its jet streams are pushed poleward, which will make some places, such as the Sahel region, wetter, and other places, such as California, drier.

 

With respect to people misunderstanding the magnitude of climate change, good examples include the Extinction Rebellion in the UK and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claiming that the word will end in 12 years. The magnitude of climate change simply isn't large enough to be an extinction risk to humans. We should still internalize externalities with a pigouvian tax on CO2, CH4 and N2O, but that's quite a different policy than what some of the ban-everything people in the green movement want to do.

Edited May 11, 2019 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Are the Greens really 'left' ? 

They're not conservative so of course they are.

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right/Left is about how much government spending and interference you have.

I think its a lot more about the unequal distribution and concentration of power, which is to say away from the vast majority into the hands of a few.  Like wealth except far worse.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The magnitude of climate change simply isn't large enough to be an extinction risk to humans. 

No but its certainly enough to knock much of our global civilization off its pedestal.  That could lead us towards greater risk of extinction as certain powers fight and squabble over whose to blame, habitable areas and resources.

[PIK]

If the NDP went with someone else, the greens would not even be noticed. How they could pick a guy with a turban. Nothing against him, he seems like a good lad. It was the wrong time for him to be picked.