GPC candidate Elizabeth May interviewed

[quinton]

I heard Green Party leader candidate Elizabeth May interviewed this morning on CBC Radio's The Current.

She downplayed the problem of overpopulation in Canada and how our present immigration practices are making it worse.

She said the problem was only sprawl and wasteful overconsumption.

Link May 17 episode.

Anna Maria Tremonti started out by interviewing former member of the Sierra Club, Paul Watson live from Seattle who focussed on the envrionmental problem of population growth and its direct link to immigration.

He quit the Sierra Club when a private donor paid $100 million in exchange for the Sierra Club being pro-immigration and not linking immigration to environmental degradation.

He said that USA and Canada should limit immigration to support a steady population if they wanted to be able to preserve biodiversity.

I agree, although I would advocate a reduced population.

Then Anna Maria interviewed Elizabeth May and asked her what she thought of Paul Watson.

She said the issue is too complex to "single out immigrants as toxic waste".

She said the real problem was consumption.

Paul Watson said the problem is population growth and consumption. Elizabeth May said it's only consumption.

They both recognized that when immigrants come to Canada or USA, they consume more.

Paul Watson also pointed out that immigrants have more children than Canadians or Americans born people.

One thing is for sure after listening to that interview, I won't be voting for Elizabeth May.

Too bad Paul Watson wasn't running for Green Party Leader of Canada.

Paul Watson is telling things as they are instead of trying to avoid controversy and be politically correct like Elizabeth May.

[August1991]

I agree, although I would advocate a reduced population.

Please don't tell me that you truly advocate that.

She said the real problem was consumption.

How does getting a manicure or a pedicure (both examples of consumption) harm the environment?

[quinton]

August1991, you are way off topic, but I guess you need a lesson in ecology.

ecology 101 - everything is interrelated in an ecosystem. A city is an ecosystem which is heavily dominated by humans and has lost its natural integrity for supporting its original inhabitants: the native plants and animals that existed there for thousands of years before the first human walked the planet.

Your example of a manicure or pedicure still harms the environment in the following ways:

1 - Driving the the beauty salon

2 - Doing trivial things means that you aren't producing your own food, so your food must be shipped to you

3 - Heating or cooling the beauty salon

4 - Using chemicals to paint nails

5 - Using disposable sanding devices for filing nails

6 - Producing garbage and waste that is not composted from nail work

7 - Having food shipped to the workers of the beauty salon

8 - The workers driving to the beauty salon

etc, etc.

Although it may or may not be as bad for the environment as using the same amount of money to detonate firecrackers, all economic activity is consumption that impacts ecosystems by further degrading them or altering them in anthropogenic ways.

Yes, I advocate a humane reduction in human numbers. The balance of ecology would be far healthier with fewer people on earth.

Further, I want to have more food options than just genetically modified corn. We are losing biodiversity and ocean fishes fast.

We either need another war (only this time one that will kill off many millions) so that we can start our goal of economic growth all over again, or we need to stop our practice of economic growth (what I recommend) and promote a steady population, steady economy (no more interest rates and inflation) and sustainable consumption.

[August1991]

Your example of a manicure or pedicure still harms the environment in the following ways:

....

Although it may or may not be as bad for the environment as using the same amount of money to detonate firecrackers, all economic activity is consumption that impacts ecosystems by further degrading them or altering them in anthropogenic ways.

So you admit (the rather obvious point) that some activities are more harmful to the environment than other activities. And some activities are completely benign. To give a spurious example, a pedicure done at home.

It is absurd to argue that we must stop all consumption. The problem is rather to discourage consumption harmful to the environment while ignoring other forms of consumption. This is a question of degree.

Yes, I advocate a humane reduction in human numbers. The balance of ecology would be far healthier with fewer people on earth....

We either need another war (only this time one that will kill off many millions)...

I'm willing to bet that you don't consider yourself one of the people who will be affected by this.

Further, I want to have more food options than just genetically modified corn...

I note too that your ideal world makes room for your personal preferences yet seems to be austere for everyone else.

----

Human activity has myriad effects on the environment, and I share with you a concern for how these effects are harmful. I just happen to think that your approach to the problem is simplistic and wrong.

[rover1]

It should be noted that some countries and regions have higher fertility rates than other, that is they produce more surplus population per year. It makes good sense to encourage control measures in such countries or regions, in preference to low fertility areas which are often in a net population loss position to begin with.

As for war as a control method, it could be effective if conducted on a large enough scale, and with sufficient frequency to have a lasting effect. Fortunately, many of the high fertility countries and regions seem well disposed to the use of this method, but at the same time are lacking in up to date technology. Here is where some of the high-tech low fertility countries and regions could be of real assistance by supplying up to date means and methods. as well as infrastructure. Some work has been done, and is being done, in this area but coordinated action is required.

[betsy]

She was interviewed regarding Harper's plan to scrap Kyoto...and pretty much her tirade was purely anti-Bush. That's what's eating her goat.