According to those who track the affiliations of voters with environmental
concerns, if they were to vote along strictly partisan lines,
IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY:
If we split our votes:
But on the other hand, if “we” who cared about climate change cast
aside our traditional love toward our favourite party and voted for that
party best able to defeat the Conservative in our own riding, the result
would be a parliament with only 75 Conservatives but 123 Liberals, 52
NDP, 55 Bloc, 1 Green and 2 IND .
Kevin Grandia and his campaign to vote strategically
against the Harper government is based on the fallacy
that the opposition parties do not share the government’s
ecologically suicidal commitment to economic growth.
Growth which is fuelled by runaway immigrant driven
population growth and per capita consumption. The green
coalition which Kevin works to fashion in fact favours 38%
higher immigration levels than the Conservatives, which
would result in 38% more GHG emissions, and about
29% of what the tar sands are putting out now.
And since neither Layton nor May would actually decommission
the tar sands but only stop its further expansion, and Dion will
continue it but vaguely promise to make it “green”, then
immigration is what separates the opposition and the government.
The decision goes to Harper on climate change, although neither
But climate change is only the flavour of the month, the loss of
biodiversity services is more pressing and its relationship to population
growth is more obvious to most than global warming. When biodiversity
services are undercut, when 24% of 12 of its vital services are compromised
our survival is imperiled. As it stands, 536 of Canada’s species at risk
lie just at the margins of those cities bulging with immigrant growth.
Those who advocate such growth, the fastest of all countries in the G8
group, are sitting in all 308 seats in all four parties on both sides of
the aisle in the Canadian House of Commons. How, then, as environmentalist
Brishen Hoff asks, can we vote for the environment?
For all intents and purposes, we live in a Growthist one party state.
The contest Kevin describes, between corporate climate changers vs. noble
climate saviours is a sham. We don’t need a change in government. We need a
change in the SYSTEM of government. Direct democracy. And a change in mindset.