Voting Against The Environmental Parties Is Best For The Environment And The Country As A Whole
In the upcoming federal election if environmental concerns – primarily the issue now almost entirely referred to as the ‘climate crisis’ – is of the utmost importance as to who you are going to cast your ballot for, considering options beyond the two parties touting to be the champions of the environment may be wise. I suppose it seems counter-intuitive that voting for the NDP or the Green Party is detrimental to such an initiative, but diving into the less than worthy paths the parties have gone down demonstrates why.
Under the platforms of both parties the plan is to eliminate use of fossil fuels completely, with the Green Party aiming to do so much more abruptly than the NDP. Their means to do so, which corresponds with the general politically Green consensus internationally, is through renewable energy. But only certain renewable energy. The types that fit into the dogma of the anointed environmentalists. Wind and solar exist as the primary avenues for our new path of energy resources and at this point it is difficult to say if that is the least bit feasible. Their efficiency is quite low, and they of course only work when its windy and sunny. The more pertinent dilemma with wind and solar is current power cells being inadequate making us unable to retain enough surplus energy.
The best course of action is to have an energy source that has no carbon emissions and will mitigate our fossil fuel consumption while the technology for the various renewables advances. We have such a source, and that is nuclear. So why isn’t this the top priority of the Green Party and the NDP? It exists, it’s available, and it’s highly efficient. With new breakthroughs such as small modular reactors (SMR), the possible fortunes for the present and future in nuclear power look bright.
Usually there are definitive answers to such contentions within the doctrinaire musings of the environmentally righteous, even if such contentions are on a widely varying gradient of coherency. Traditionally concerns regarding disposal of the waste is what fuelled the green placards to shake and rattle worldwide. Since we’re fast approaching Ragnarök, nuclear waste doesn’t sound like that consequential of a deal breaker. All I can conclude with our two greenest parties, is that nuclear is just an age old evil, a demon from the Green scriptures of the past.
In 2000, Germany under the Schröder cabinet, which came to power under an SPD and Green coalition in the Bundestag (with the Greens having run a viscerally anti-nuclear campaign), a decree was put forth to phaseout nuclear power by 2022. This was to be delayed under the Merkel government, but due to an outcry following the Fukushima incident, the delay was scrapped. With the reduction of nuclear power, Germany has seen a sizable increase in energy costs, a decrease in energy export capabilities, an increased dependence on fossil fuels – even with a renewable energy sector that currently contributes to over a third of their energy demand – and an increase in their carbon footprint. The actions of the Green movement only make the problem more grave.
What is on the table with the Green and NDP platforms is truly unrealistic and can only spell severe economic jeopardy for the present and future. Their extreme transformations have no evidence to be able to work and can very easily destabilize our economy. They of course want to increase a wide array of spending to go along with the radical energy sector transformation (not a an idea without merit in areas such as health), which would exacerbate the probable economic turmoil. Even with all the effort, under the NDP’s purported plans, their emission reductions would only be marginally lower than with the Liberal’s plan for the 2030 targets.
The ideas of nuclear power or realistic economic maintenance don’t seem like ones that could ever arise in the, dare I say, divisive discourse we see coming from our parties on the left. Anything straying from the core Green ideology are rarely present in what they espouse, but plenty of unsavoury ideas and proclamations from within that ideology are.
For instance, we are apparently responsible for saving the world, even though we only contribute 1.6% of international greenhouse gas emissions. Elizabeth May thinks we have such a great presence in the UN, that our grand deeds will persuade China, India and Russia to take staunch action. She calls for us to create a “war cabinet”, like the one in World War II.
Every time there is a flood, heavy rain, or any sort of storm, Jagmeet Singh and Ms. May will point to these as products of the climate crisis. They seem to have, by some sort of divine omniscience, the ability to know which storms are due to the climate crisis and which aren’t (none ever really fit into the latter category). No analysis to figure it out, just immediate recognition. They are also perpetually the ones to declare that they are behind ‘science’. Science, which has been our great tool of reason has now been reduced to a quasi-deity like figure to be flippantly tossed about with zeal by the righteous.
At the commissioned french language debate, Singh pointed out that “children and young people” have taken to the streets and that action is urgently needed. May went on to quote – as she seems to do constantly now – the teenage Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, saying “The house is on fire!” It should be pointed out to them that even though someone is representative of posterity, it does not by default mean that they know what is best to be done for posterity.
The majority of the population are concerned about the environment and climate change, as they should be. The conversation around possible solutions needs to be brought to reality and removed from this fanaticism. For instance one example of an alternative approach that dissents from the conventional environmental activist consensus is that of Danish political scientist, Bjørn Lomborg. Lomborg notes that climate change, when removed from the radical view and put under sound scrutiny, is a problem but likely won’t amount to Judgment Day. Mostly gross effects are highlighted by activists and the media but not the net outcomes. Due to a lack of economic growth, mainly in the developing world, drastic actions in the name of tackling the climate crisis will leave us worse off. We can implement a moderate carbon tax to start moving the market towards different energy options, while continuing to grow our international economies in every other way. Growth and development have proven well for us so far, even though the environmental crusaders seem to ignore this blaring inconvenience. With its continuation we’ll be able to address the effects of climate change while continuing all other progress forward.
Past anything to do with climate change, if you’re still bought and sold on it being solely a ‘crisis’ with the firmest actions to be taken immediately, I imagine one would want serious people to handle such matters. With many other curious points of interest currently surrounding the NDP and the many issues that have gone on with the Greens, concerning mainly their party leader, one should still second guess giving them their support.
May compared the Harper government to North Korea. A holocaust denier, Monika Schaefer, ran for the Greens in Alberta, three times. May brought a bunch of 9/11 thruthers into Parliament, to have their grievances heard. May criticized the funding of a memorial for the victims of communism and questioned why we don’t have a monument for the victims of capitalism. May warned us of the imminent dangers of WiFi and took up the cause to combat against it. The other current Green MP apart from May, Paul Manly, was booted from the NDP as his views on Israel were too harsh for even them.
The NDP haven’t fared much better since the decapitation of Tom Mulcair, and their embrace of the ridiculous Leap Manifesto. Both contributing to them moving far away from the moderate position they had been going towards for decades and tossed them off the far left cliff.
Singh tweeted a warm memorial to the dictator, Fidel Castro (a dictator who was not very kind to the gay community, so that doesn’t seem like a very tolerant tweet to me). Singh has publicly hoped for the impeachment of U.S. President Donald Trump. Although I do find Trump detestable, I would say hoping for the impeachment of the leader of our nation’s largest trading partner and greatest ally is something unwise for foreign relations.
Singh removed one of his MPs, Erin Weir, from caucus for speaking publicly about his harassment allegations. Such allegations proved to have no substantiation. They were based on someone saying he was “harassing”, which turned out to be false. But amidst the MeToo flurry, the alleged harassment got propelled out of proportion, and in Singh’s bizarro world of jurisprudence, everyone must just “believe survivors”, disregarding that accuser and survivor are not always one in the same.
With them working in tandem, May and Singh have both recently declared Canada as a racist nation. One more striking problem they both share is their commitment to follow through with all the “Calls for Justice” recommended by National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Now the incidents that occurred over decades that brought forth this inquiry are beyond tragic and without question warranted an inquiry of such scale. An additional tragedy is that throughout much of its findings, it is a case of obscurantism and critical theory absurdity, committing a grave injustice to those who have perished. I cannot see how it could reasonably do anything for the indigenous women, girls, and “2SLGBTQQIA” people it commits to help.
The most standout absurdity from the inquiry, that garnered much press, was that Canada has committed “genocide”. Such a charge ignores the actual meaning of the word but worse yet discounts the most important factor, intent. Our Prime Minister went on to make the less than sound minded decision to accept such a claim, making Canada an admittedly genocidal nation. This even caused the Organization of American States to want to investigate. I can’t imagine how much further things could go under the NDP or the Green Party.
With their heated competition over taking extreme stances, at least May has demonstrated some favour towards open democracy and free speech. Singh claimed that Maxime Bernier from the People’s Party should be excluded from the leader debates for spreading “hate”, now a much beloved word on the new social justice left which acts as a synonym for ‘blasphemy’. May expressed Bernier shouldn’t be excluded from the debates, but Singh has presented himself, on many occasions as well as here, to be the arbiter of moral virtue. I see this as his most alarming attribute.
With seemingly almost all matters, including climate, the NDP and the Greens have truly found themselves dangling on the far fringes of the left. They’ve obliged themselves within the zealotry of social justice, and they’ve put themselves rigidly within the most farcical variety of the Green movement.
Now to give them their due – its never all bad – Singh has recently made a very commendable stance to address the appalling conditions of drinking water in many First Nations communities. The Green party has proposed the idea of a Guaranteed Livable Income (GLI), commonly known as Universal Basic Income (UBI), an idea which would remodel our social safety net making it more efficient and universal. The idea has received significant attention lately due to it being proposed by U.S. Democratic Presidential candidate Andrew Yang under the name of the Freedom Dividend.
With all the fantastic flaws of the NDP and Greens, their opposition isn’t offering much for great alternatives to dealing with climate change or for general good governance. The four years of the Trudeau Liberals has felt like a national circus. The Tories disingenuously claim to want to tackle climate change but offer next to nothing to do so. The new People’s Party doesn’t consider anthropomorphic climate change to even exist and have been off to a fairly rocky start in general.
Considering the prospects of the two traditionally major parties and the new populist libertarian upstart, there is certainly not a whole lot available to inspire. But if the environment is your concern, or really anything is your concern for that matter, I’m sure those three parties will disappoint. That disappointment is at least better than a disaster. I’m sure with this I may be viewed as an overwrought right-winger, but I’m certainly someone who is on left. I just can’t ignore when the left has jettisoned sanity for insanity.