Green Party Ready to Pitch Platform

Green Party PlatformThe Green Party, headed by outspoken leader Elizabeth May, is gearing up this week to take part in its first ever federal election debates tonight and Thursday.

In previous posts, I've highlighted the environmental platforms of the Liberals and NDP parties. I guess just the Green Party is left (that's a dig at the Conservatives, who still haven't released their platform).

Obviously the Green Party continues to make environmental issues the backbone of their campaign. In fact, their environmental objectives are so comprehensive that it's hard to find a decent dissection in the mainstream media. So let's break it down here:

The Greens were actually the first to release their official platform. Okay, but that's only 8 pages. There's more. There's also the 160-page Vision Green document and a separate breakdown of their Green Tax Shift.

Climate Change / Carbon Emissions
- Introduce a $50/ton carbon tax right away (similar to the Liberal plan but higher from the outset).
- A difference between the Green and Liberal plans is that the Greens are proposing to allocate all carbon tax revenue towards payroll and income tax cuts (vs. Liberals who will use some for social spending).
- The goal is to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. By comparison, the NDP wants 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and hte Liberals haven't set targets that I am aware of.

Green Economy
- Move from Gross Domestic Product (GDP) indicator to Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) which includes environmental considerations such as air quality (using legislation to support this and change our system of national accounts).

Fisheries
- Change legislation to prioritize fish stocks over oil and gas exploration.
- Oppose large scale fishing technologies and encourage smaller scale wild fisheries.

Transportation
- Invest heavily in rail infrastructure, improve VIA offerings, and come up with a "national clean freight initiative".
- Double existing federal funding for public transportation.
- Make transit passes fully tax deductible and support efforts to make them free for lowest-income levels.
- Stop funding expansion of highway and roads.
- Force auto companies to meet higher emission standards and offer consumer rebates up to $5000 for efficient cars.

Other
- Allocate one cent from the GST to municipal governments for "Green Cities" initiatives.
- Many specific actions to support local agriculture (some of it interesting, some of it pretty idealistic such as "supporting the 200 km diet").
- Nuclear - stop uranium mining and introduce measures to essentially kill the nuclear industry in Canada.
- Prohibit bulk water exports and bring in legislation mandating water efficiency.
- Spend $500 million annually on expanding conservation lands and marine habitat.

I could go on and on with details, but I think that covers most of the fundamentals.

My initial thoughts are that this thing is really detailed, which is great, but it also opens them up to a lot of criticism. I like that their opposing bottom trawling fishing (like the NDP) and emphasize sustainable fishing in general, a really worthwhile cause. And there are plenty of "hard green" investments proposed, such as protecting forests and investing in our parks system (good stuff!).

On the critical side, I'm skeptical of their emphasis on revitalizing rail transit. I generally don't believe in governments picking winners. And if their carbon tax does what it is supposed to, if rail is feasible, it should be without new subsidies. Same with the energy efficient cars stuff - if carbon is priced right, why do we need more legislation and rebates for this? I'm also seeing old Green Party policies like "promote hemp" are still in there, which seems a bit behind the times.

That's it for now on the Greens, until I get around to a final roundup of all the parties environmental platforms. For more info, TVO's The Agenda with Steve Paikin (who also happens to be hosting the debate this week and is the best in the business in my opinion) offers an mp3 version of their interview with Elizabeth May.

Photo from Shaun Merritt's photostream

Reader Reviews and Comments

Submit a Review or Comment

Woah. I just came to the realization that I don't think I've heard the word "hemp" uttered in years. :P

Posted by: Jerrold at October 1, 2008 9:29 AM

I think the Green party is afraid of any hemp associations - when asked directly about the legalization issue, May said it was still on the Green agenda but immediately diverted to the above greenshift plan. Although many rational people understand the hemp debate, I am sure the Green party wants to distance themsleves for now to gain 'credibility' amongst the irrationals.

Posted by: Corina at October 1, 2008 9:48 AM

Their "Green Shift" plan would be so much more intriguing if by green the meant "weed" and by shift they meant "delivery to the people". ;)

Posted by: Jerrold at October 1, 2008 9:54 AM

Nobody's cheering harder for the Greens than Stephen Harper. A splintered Left is great news for a united Right.

Posted by: Ratpick at October 1, 2008 10:09 AM

It should be noted, however, that even Ms. May encouraged strategically voting the Conservatives out of office.

Posted by: Philip Marley at October 1, 2008 11:06 AM

I think rail transport is being outdone by trucks due to large gov't subsidy to the latter. The problem I see is that even if a railway brings it to the station, we need trucks for distribution w/i the municipalities, where most of the pollution problems exist. There was a reason why old markets grew around rail lines. As for stopping nuclear energy use, I don't think I'm convinced...

Posted by: Gregg at October 1, 2008 11:11 AM

I was referring to their mention of hemp as a fuel/wood source but if were talking drugs lets give them a round of applause for being the only party to point out the stupidity of the war on drugs (seriously)

Posted by: Greg Davis [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 1, 2008 12:33 PM

As much as I'd hate to see Canadian elections turn into a year-long circus, when parties release their platforms two weeks from election day it tells me that not enough time is alloted for campaigning and giving people enough time to decide.

On another note, I wish it was illegal to break campaign promises. We elect them because they say they'll do something. That's a contract in my eyes, but they're free to break it without warning or reason and the only recourse we have is to not vote for them 4 or 5 years later, and quite possibly be stuck with the consequences far beyond then.

Posted by: rek at October 1, 2008 1:16 PM

Wow, destroying the nuclear industry is part of the Green platform? I would have thought Mrs. May would understand that nuclear is the price we need to pay to have clean air. The demand for power is not going away, and it is almost impossible to set up wind and solar to power all of Canada, so the real alternative you're giving us is Coal-fired plants...

Besides, with current technologies, and strict safety standards set in place in Canada, it is about as likely as a giant meteor hitting the earth than an uncontained accident. (by uncontained I mean 0 injuries and all radiation is contained in the core or the vacuum).

To top that off, the amount of power produced and the amount of leftover material afterwards, the amount of hazardous radiation produced is very very small. Finally, there have been lots of scientific undertakings at various universities that have been aimed at speeding up the breakdown of certain chemical compounds (nuclear waste, plastics, etc).

Posted by: john at October 1, 2008 4:27 PM

Sloppy reporting. If you can't find Liberal pledge on GHG reduction (featured in their platform), don't write articles like this one. The numbers are below, btw:

? reduce greenhouse gas emissions to at least 20 percent below 1990 levels
by 2020, and increasing this goal to at least 25 percent if other countries
make comparable efforts;
? reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 emission levels
by 2035
? reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 60 to 80 percent below 1990 emission
levels by 2050.

Posted by: matts at October 1, 2008 5:38 PM

@Jerrold ...that would make me actually want to vote. they'd never do something that rational.

Posted by: Corina at October 1, 2008 6:19 PM

Hemp is not a drug people. It is an extremely valuable agricultural resource that requires no pesticide or fertilizer to grow and can be used to produce a number of valuable products from clothes to fuel to food. The seeds from this plant contain all eight essential amino acids and have been used as a major food source by people around the world for thousands of years. We all just decided to stop growing it around here at the beginning of the 20th century for some reason. True, Marijuana and Hemp are related, but Hemp is no drug. Hemp production could be another valuable source of income for Canadian farmers, and help to lower our reliance on imported goods.

Posted by: DennisHarvey at October 1, 2008 6:19 PM

Hemp can not be written off as a hippie ideal. It can be used to make paper! I am a graphic designer and excessive, unneeded printed materials make up for 30% of pulp and paper usage in Canada. Hemp is a crop, it can be harvested, and replanted. It is more sustainable than clear cutting, http://maps.google.ca/maps?q=British+Columbia&ie=UTF8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ll=53.294772,-124.285583&spn=1.157341,2.131348&t=h&z=9

Posted by: Andrea at October 2, 2008 9:58 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

Email This Entry

Email 'Green Party Ready to Pitch Platform' to: Message (optional):
Your email address:

Please type the verification code displayed in the image:

By forwarding this entry to a friend, we do not opt you or your friend into
receiving any additional mailings from blogTO. We hate spam too.
Disclaimer: Comments and blog entries represent the viewpoints of the individual and no one else.