This article
rather, that editorial sez in short good for the greens but if they are scant on details then whats the big deal for them existing in the first place. The author points out how the left-of-liberal vote is divided and in total the libs, NDP, and greens would make a majority in the house. At the end the author sez there's no real reason why they have to continue dividing the house since the NDP and libs are making air quality and such part of their issues.
This article completely fails to make any nominal distinctions between electioneering environmentalism and long-term environmentalism. Right now environmental issues are a main question because of the unhinging of kyoto. As it is a current political issue, the liberals and ndp might be inclined to step up their efforts on seeming to be the party that will save the environment. Yet despite the surge in popularity of the topic amongst the opposition parties, it has always been a staple of the green party. That as far as I've understood is the point: green health, green economics, green structure. To glaze over the magnitude of fundamentals is at worst accusational and at best just bad argumentation. It is lazy. It drives a point more than it researches it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is the problem with long-term electineering... people vote for 1%cut in GST, while paying lipservice to greater (virtuous) issues, that would require actual reassement of current practices and/or funds (at least initially).
I met Jack Layton once, and told him I voted for the Green Party. His reaction was both defensive and aloof: "You know, the NDP has a greener platform than the Green Party."
1. As a party that has resigned itself to losing every time, the NDP can promiss the moon and never say they broke an election promiss.
2. A liberal environmental assesment of the two platforms discredits the fact that deep ecology (an unconcievable idea to liberals) is a mainstay in the Green Party. Granted, deep ecology is a hottly debated concept in which no definition has gained orthodoxy; nonetheless, that concepts and theories that would require significant change in our unsustainable North American society are being debated somewhere in Canada's political arena is encouraging. Now if we could only get real debate in to Parliment.
Post a Comment