Jagmeet Singh Won't Comment On BC LNG Project

67 posts / 0 new
Last post
WWWTT

kropotkin1951 wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Sounds like you’re putting the cart before the horse kropotkin. If more people break free from materialism, come election time, these voters not blinded by selfish greed should be able to break the vicious cycle. And in great enough numbers, make an actual change. 

WWWTT my age, as hinted at by my" name" is 68. I first worked on a political campaign in 1972 because the NDP candidate running was a environmentalist with a background in the fight against acid rain. Unlike most boomers I am one of the minority that belonged to the counter culture not the emerging consumer society. There is no cart or horse there is only the struggle. The struggle takes place on many levels.

Fair enough kropotkin. The work you’ve done and are still doing by just sharing is needed, so we’re on the same page. 

I’m going to figure this one out when time permits 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Every energy source has a carbon footprint.  Batteries, transmission lines, construction.  We are not going to solve our problems pouring cement for windmills.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Pogo wrote:

Every energy source has a carbon footprint.  Batteries, transmission lines, construction.  We are not going to solve our problems pouring cement for windmills.

Building pipelines and fracking is going in the wrong direction. If the NDP doesn't get that they don't deserve to even be in the House. We already have a Liberal party to offer us more and better oil and gas development as a way to offset climate change.

Aristotleded24

WWWTT wrote:
The problem I see is that our political system allows a little more than 1/3 of the voters to dictate who becomes the government. And with the greens gaining, that percentage can actually go down. 

That part isn’t going to change. I’ll concede that for a country filled with materialistic people like Canada, electoral reform may be its best hope. But I don’t see that happening. I don’t see the real enemy, materialism getting singled out and targeted.

I think this is a key thing. Take for example, electronic devices like iPhones and iPads. There are households where every member, even school age children, each all have their own iPhones and iPads. Why is this necessary? Would it really be crazy to suggest it's not?

To take this idea even further, all these new electronic devices we have that we didn't have 2 or 3 decades ago demand energy to run. True, you might be able to generate that energy in a "greener" fashion, but the best energy savings are the energy you never burn. Also, take the idea of switching out gasoline powered engines for battery powered ones. That alone will have cause a massive increase in demand for electricity. How do you solve that? Also take in mind that the components of these electronic devices we are counting on to save us from climate change have to be extracted. What do we do when the needs to extract these materials conflicts with the needs to preserve sensitive ecosystems in the areas where these materials need to be extracted. Not to mention the problems with e-waste dispoal. Pogo is absolutely correct that rather than thinking about "better" ways to generate energy, we need to rethink our relationships and how we live our lives.

Let's take this idea even further. Suppose you have the option to buy a book from the store or download it onto a digital reader? It's true that producing the book results in cutting down trees to make the paper. But once that book is made, the trees in that area will start to grow back when left alone. The paper is also bio-degradable. The book also doesn't require an energy source, so you can read it just with natural sunlight in your favourite natural spot. The e-reader requires electricity to keep it charged up. And that natural spot you liked to read your book is gone because it's been converted into farms for solar and wind energy that are necessary for that electricity.

And yes, I am aware of the irony of questioning our increasing reliance on digital electricity while composing a message in a digital medium.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Air travel needs to be replaced as much as possible by electric trains.

Apparently, Drake now has his own private jet.  No, not a small Lear -- a 767.  It's tricked out for Drake and a small entourage to fly in style, though the original could carry between 180 and 300 passengers.

Who wants to bet that his young, environmentally-woke fans are going to abandon him for doing something so blatantly and ostentatiously and harmful?  Me neither.  He could probably retrofit it to run on coal.

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Tthe LNG plant doesn't present the same environmental threat nor does it cross another province who objects to taking on the threat.

Classic climate denialism. Yes Fracking is a planet destroying activity and the idea that we are expanding that industry is madness. WTF don't people understand about the urgency of taking real action in exactly the opposite direction. There is no nuanced way of having your LFG plant and being environmentally responsible. The federal NDP is either going to fight and die on that hill or they will become extinct as a political force. The party can only win by attracting people who are passionate about the synergy between a green economy and social justice.

Bitumen pipelines are being stopped by the threat bitumen poses to the immediate environment not by the threat of climate change.

Never mind climate change, there are several immediate impacts of fracking (think water pollution) that are a good reason to ban the practice.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

This article must be good since it mostly agrees with my viewpoint.

At the very least, Singh should have the courage to declare a clear position. Any ambiguity — perhaps a naive attempt to appeal to all voters — will ultimately appeal to none. We are witnessing yet another impossible attempt from the NDP to make policy decisions without alienating anyone, similar to the failed strategy that cost the party the 2015 federal election.

Rather than offer an inspiring vision and decisive policy stances that animate voters, the NDP is trying to seem as inoffensive as possible, cautiously tiptoeing across the country in an effort to appeal to those supposedly king-making Sensible Voters.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/17/Singh-Must-Oppose-Horgan-Become-Cl...

cco

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I think this is a key thing. Take for example, electronic devices like iPhones and iPads. There are households where every member, even school age children, each all have their own iPhones and iPads. Why is this necessary? Would it really be crazy to suggest it's not?

To take this idea even further, all these new electronic devices we have that we didn't have 2 or 3 decades ago demand energy to run. True, you might be able to generate that energy in a "greener" fashion, but the best energy savings are the energy you never burn.

A smartphone uses about 1 kWh of power per year – what it'd take to power ten 100-watt lightbulbs for an hour.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Let's take this idea even further. Suppose you have the option to buy a book from the store or download it onto a digital reader? It's true that producing the book results in cutting down trees to make the paper. But once that book is made, the trees in that area will start to grow back when left alone. The paper is also bio-degradable. The book also doesn't require an energy source, so you can read it just with natural sunlight in your favourite natural spot. The e-reader requires electricity to keep it charged up. And that natural spot you liked to read your book is gone because it's been converted into farms for solar and wind energy that are necessary for that electricity.

That's true. If we needed a new e-reader for every book, it'd likely be a waste of resources. Thing is, that e-reader can display more than one book, and the books that are transmitted electronically don't burn diesel in the trucks shipping them to the local Indigo.

At the other end of the economies-of-scale index, you've got global summits like the G7, where each leader and his/her associated entourage requires multiple jets to bring security, limousines, staff, reporters, and so forth. Doing that via teleconferencing would save the annual carbon budget of an entire small country. And in between, you have millions of people who drive an hour or more each way daily from their houses in the suburbs to do work that technology would let them do at home, because that newfangled internet is just so impersonal.

There's some real reactionary Luddism behind this idea that we hit the ideal level of technological advancement in 1979, especially when it's some of the oldest industries that pollute the most. Technology isn't a panacea, but it's not the enemy, either.

Unionist

cco wrote:

There's some real reactionary Luddism behind this idea that we hit the ideal level of technological advancement in 1979, especially when it's some of the oldest industries that pollute the most. Technology isn't a panacea, but it's not the enemy, either.

Worth quoting and repeating.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This article must be good since it mostly agrees with my viewpoint.

At the very least, Singh should have the courage to declare a clear position. Any ambiguity — perhaps a naive attempt to appeal to all voters — will ultimately appeal to none. We are witnessing yet another impossible attempt from the NDP to make policy decisions without alienating anyone, similar to the failed strategy that cost the party the 2015 federal election.

Rather than offer an inspiring vision and decisive policy stances that animate voters, the NDP is trying to seem as inoffensive as possible, cautiously tiptoeing across the country in an effort to appeal to those supposedly king-making Sensible Voters.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/17/Singh-Must-Oppose-Horgan-Become-Cl...

I have to agree the NDP has to take a firm stance now and stick to it. 

R.E.Wood

kropotkin1951 wrote:

This article must be good since it mostly agrees with my viewpoint.

At the very least, Singh should have the courage to declare a clear position. Any ambiguity — perhaps a naive attempt to appeal to all voters — will ultimately appeal to none. We are witnessing yet another impossible attempt from the NDP to make policy decisions without alienating anyone, similar to the failed strategy that cost the party the 2015 federal election.

Rather than offer an inspiring vision and decisive policy stances that animate voters, the NDP is trying to seem as inoffensive as possible, cautiously tiptoeing across the country in an effort to appeal to those supposedly king-making Sensible Voters.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/05/17/Singh-Must-Oppose-Horgan-Become-Cl...

Excellent article. But why would anyone expect Singh to suddenly become decisive now? He proved clearly during the leadership campaign that he was the least decisive person running (or have we forgotten?). Leopards don't change their spots.

wage zombie

I agree that Singh hasn't been as decisive as he could be.  But, one of the things I do like about him is that he is willing to listen and change his position when needed.  One of the things I most disliked about Mulcair is he couldn't listen to the membership.

Also if we're going back to the leadership race, Singh was slow to give his position on Transmountain pipeline, which was weak.  But decisive 2nd place Charlie Angus was very decisive in saying that we shouldn't condemn pipelines.  So, next to that, Singh's slowness in taking the right stance didn't seem so bad to me (although I voted for Niki).

I gather that while I only had Singh ranked 3rd, I am one of the more pro-Singh posters here.

Singh was running in a byelection in BC and needed to get a seat and needed the BC NDP to help him do that.  I don't think he could condemn the coastal gas pipeline while he was doing that.  I was ok with him making supportive comments about coastal gas at that point provided he is now going to take the right stance.  We have seen him changing that stance, but he has yet to go far enough.

The mistake he made was a strategic mistake -- he shouldn't have waited so long to try to win a seat.  And Kennedy Stewart shouldn't have waited so long to resign his seat.  And given the number of retiring Ontario MPs, I think one of them could've resigned earlier to let Singh run for their seat.  But those mistakes weren't about principls, they were about strategy.

Of course I would've preferred that he condemned coastal gas while he was running for his seat.  But if he didn't think he could do so at that time, given the support that he needed from BC NDP, I'm willing to overlook it provided the election platform is strong.

Singh has said consistently that under his leadership the NDP will have the strongest environmental platform of any party going into the election.  He will either deliver on that or not, but I appreciate that he seems to know what are the right priorities.

WWWTT

I think you made a good well thought out post here wage zombie and I somewhat agree. 

I too am a Jag supporter (kind of). I have donated to his campaigns in the past. But I have also heard complaints from other NDP members in neighboring Brampton ridings when I was on the executive of The previous Brampton west riding association before the 2015 redrawing of ridings. 

Everyone will have some point to disagree on. Guaranteed! The way I see it is, can Jag’s advantages outweigh his disadvantages?

Real hard to say now because Canadian politics today seems to be unpredictably changing. The greens growing support make it even more challenging. Jagmeet may very well have to adapt his position to keep the NDP relevant. 

So far Jag hasn’t made any fatal errors. I read a lot of complaints about him here on babble, but in my opinion, they are all debatable. 

Like it or lump it, Canada is going into the 2019 election with Jag at the helm of the NDP. I personally wouldn’t be writing any eulogies about him just yet! He has a history of victories. Jag got to where he his because he’s smart and is a good fit as a politician. 

Out of all the major parties except the bloc, Jags probably the strongest intellect. I don’t know Blanchet, so I can’t comment on him. 

brookmere

wage zombie wrote:
Singh was running in a byelection in BC and needed to get a seat and needed the BC NDP to help him do that.  I don't think he could condemn the coastal gas pipeline while he was doing that.  I was ok with him making supportive comments about coastal gas at that point provided he is now going to take the right stance.

You're essentially saying that Singh was willing to stab the BC NDP in the back to get elected. I don't think that's the case myself, like some other posters I think he's just not a person of strong convictions and the Nanimo loss persuaded him to talk a different line.

wage zombie

I don't know that there is anything the federal government can do to block coastal gas, it is a provincial project (not inter-provincial).  So I think "stab in the back" is a bit overwrought.

Everything we've been hearing since the byelection was stuff that I've fully been expecting to hear from Jagmeet.

Pondering

I'm mostly with WZ, it's good to be flexible but I do acknowledge JS has to be more decisive going forward. In particular the NDP needs to settle their position on climate change to have a coherent message. Can't be wishy washy avoiding firm answers anymore. 

Pages