|
Green Party Of Canada (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
As for cars, Green Party is for accelerating the new hybrid-car technology, so that we are releasing less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (believe it or not, I am not a very strong supporter of Kyoto protocol either).
They are all for technology, which will benefit people's health and the health of our environment.
They will not ban gasoline. They will look for alternatives to it, and attempt to introduce those on the market. However, I dont think even the Green Party's website goes beyond this, because its just too dam far to fantasize about. We just need to cut down on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions first.
Here's a great Green Party platform: Canadians have very high rates of electricity consumption, while they pay some of the lowest rates in the world (our government has cut the prices somewhat), which have resulted in the higher use of electricity by consumers, which is REALLY straining our electricity supplies, especially in hot summer months / cold winter snaps. Green Party proposes raising prices on electricity, to match world standards, to pressure people to be more careful with electricity, that way we will not have blackouts, and we'll have anough electricity for everyone - at the same time we'll be causing less damage to environment by requiring less power. |
|
|
| naesean3 |
congrats on the inroads the green party made this time around - slowly but surely.
;) |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
The Green Party is ing retarded for bothering with hybrid cars. If anything, they should be pushing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Hybrids are not the answer, they're merely a half-assed stop-gap solution.
Modern European diesels get better fuel economy and with the particulate and NOx filters, release fewer emissions than any gasoline hybrid could ever hope to do. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Trade policies?? Who benefits from world trade - only the rich and higher middle class people. Poor people are the ones who get left behind, used as cheap labour and paid low wages. 100 years ago when there was no 'world trade' and later, people lived in smaller communities and were less reliable on world trade since they had enough resources for themselves. We don't need world trade. It abuses our resources and is a foresight for greedy's corporations evil plans to suck our resources out onto the world market. |
If you look at most countries how they became a "developed" nation, you would see that most of them have at some point been "exploited". many of the western European countries where by the English, Japan and Taiwan were by the western world, as China and other Asian countries are today, all of them are going towards a brighter future that they wouldn't have seen without globalisation and trade policies that the green party want to implement.
As for cheap labour, sure for us it might seem like cheap labour, but the western would companies are NOT paying less than what is common practice in these countries. Quite the opposite actually. For example Vietnam has got a huge problem with Nike overpaying workers there (due to pressure from ppl like you), and it pays them much more to be a worker at a Nike factory than it does being a doctor, which is screwing things up majorly, but really the argument that they are underpaid is ing bull most of the times.
According to most ppl, freer trade policies would decrease the number of poor substantially. For example it is estimated if the Doha round would be successful with creating freer trade agreements (which it probably won't because of the retarded EU's protectionism), it would lift something like 300 million ppl out of poverty. That's a lot of ppl, but yeah guess globalisation is only bad bad bad capitalism :rolleyes:
| quote: | | Well, its not Canada who is directly responsible for dissappearance of rainforests. American government, the most powerful in the world, encourages and ignores destruction of rainforests. In South America, rainforests get cut down so that farmers can breed cattle and sell meat to American fast food industry - in fact, 40% of all American meat is imported from Central American countries. |
So, invade America?
| quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
They say 25,000 people die of starvation every day. My book, http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...glance&n=283155 , Last Hours Of Ancient Sunlight, says, quote:
In the 24 hours since this time yesterday, over 200,000 acres of rainforest have been destroyed in the world. Fully 14 million tons of toxic chemicals have been released into our enviroment. Over 45,000 people have died of starvation, 38,000 of them children (UN puts it at 25,000 people). And more than 130 plant or animal species have been driven to extinction by the action of humans (The last tiume there was such a rapid loss of species was when the dinosaurs vanished.). And all of this since yesterday.
According to the United Nations' Pilot Analysis of Global Ecosystems, half of the world's wetlands have vanished in the past century, half of the planet's forests gone, 80% of grasslands and 40 percent of the planet's land surface suffer from soil degeneration, and 70% of the planet's major marine fisheries are depleted.
To learn more about this RESPECTED UNITED NATIONS GROUP, click:
http://newsroom.wri.org/mediakits_c...fm?MediaKitID=6
www.ifpri.org/pubs/books/page/agroeco_end.pdf
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q...cosystems&meta= |
Well, nowhere here did you say that food will run out. Starvation is a problem, and not easy to deal with. However the problem is not that there isn't enough food, but the problem is that you need more competent politicians in third world countries (and in this side of the world as well, open up markets etc).
And again, I do think we should take better care of our environment, I just don't think Canada is the problem or that the problem is as bad as you make it sound like (it is however bad, but I don't think the end of the world is close like you do).
I had a teacher that told me that the fruit in California alone would be enough to support the world with food. Now I don't know if that is true, but it doesn't seem impossible to me, and it shows that the problem with starvation is not a problem with our world but with our leaders and policies.
Also, natural selection/evolution will also take care of a lot of the problems for us. Making the environment better can actually have a bad effect on the animals as well. For example many of the lakes in Sweden are cleaner now than they have been since like the 12th century (ie ing ever), which means a lot of the species in our lakes have died out because the water was too clean, since evolution had made them used to the pollution!!! Now I'm not saying we shouldn't have clean lakes, but I'm just saying that we will always have species being extinguished. Also I wanted to point out the world is not all bad, I could give you many more examples of how the world's environment is changing to the better.
| quote: | | Oh, and by the way, even though people are starving around the world right now, I meant to say that in the future, perhaps in the next 100 years, we will start going through massive famines as a result of soul degregation, overpopulation and damage to the environment. Its common sense, you dont need a graph or number to figure that out youtself. |
According to most ppl the world's population will be rather stable in 50 years or so, and not increase much further. In its current state the world would have no problem handling the 10 billion ppl that is predicted by then. Of course if all your doomsday predictions would turn true, we would have a huge problem. I don't believe in them, and if they really come true I believe in mankind being smart enough to solve the problem.
| quote: | | First of all, they dont have enough power or money to do any changes. They'll probably never win anyway because money runs everything. Its behind the world's problems. Economy is based on "growth", but for how long can we live off the environment? After all, fossil fuels are limited, as I said before. |
So if the green party had enough money they would buy away everyone's right to have kids in the third world or what? :p
| quote: | | Green Party is for introducing more expensive but environment-preserving electricity production (solar power, hydrogen cells, etc.). However, it will never be implemented, because it will be too late before it is ever given a chance, since our culture looks for the cheapest methods first, which are always most harmful to the environment. We live for today, not for tomorrow. |
Somewhat true, this is why it's so good that fossil fuels are limited, because it means oil prices will go up, and it will make it more attractive to get alternative energy sources (this is already happening at a large scale).
| quote: | | New inventions??? You know, from what I've read there is technology out there to power an entire city of Chicago for ONE DAY using ONE CUP OF WATER. Thats one example. However, this will put big companies out of business, so they buy out or 'shut-the-door' on new technologies that will compete with them. We are heading backwards. Corporations and big money is in the way of making our world a better place. Just read 'Natural Cures They Don't Want You To Know About', and you'll be convinced that even the cure for cancer is out there, but health care mega-companies make BILLIONS of dollars every year from cancer-struck people (including drug manufacturing companies, some of which make TRILLIONS of dollars every year). Why would gas and oil industries want you to have technology to fuel your car with ... WATER? Cause then they wont make any money from you!! |
Hahaha, please prove to me that there is "technology out there to power an entire city of Chicago for ONE DAY using ONE CUP OF WATER", and that the only reason it is not on the market is because big companies are closing the doors. If you show any substantial proof of that, I will never vote anything else than green party, ever (plus you would get a free half a million dollar car from me).
The ones that are currently investing most money in new energy technology (renewable) is actually big oil corporations. But yeah guess they are the bad guys anyway...
| quote: | | So you are saying the its the government's fault for people making WRONG choices for themselves and getting sick? That is really stupid. Green Party does not plan to cut on health care. They want to show people how bad some products are, and by placing more taxes on them they would encourage people to change for the better. Green Party is not going to stop people from doing drugs, smoking, etc. |
I never said that? I only said that the solution for the health care system is not to make Canada more environmental friendly, but to fix the actual health care system. |
|
|
| Dufouria |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I see your point. Believe it or not, OUR ECONOMY WOULD COLLAPSE without the Third World countries. We live off their cheap labour, products (China, Malaysia, Brazil, etc.), we need their oil, thats why we buy their products for PENNIES and sell it on our markets for 1000 or so times more. Why do you think the Northern Hemisphere countries (North America, Europe, Northern Asia - Russia) only make up 25% of the world's population, possess over 60% of world's wealth and consume over 70 percent of world's resources? As I said earlier, who benefits from world trade? - mostly the rich, who make profits on stocks, mark-ups - basic principle of capitalism. Working class people get paid lower wages, less secure on the job. Did you know that the gap between the rich and the poor has doubled between 1960 and 1989. As of 2003, the richest 20 percent of the world's population controlled over 87% of the world's wealth, whereas the poorest 20 percent had access to only 1.4 percent. Thats a ratio of 60:1. We approached such an imbalance just before the stock market crash of 1929 (around 40:1), but other than that time, such an imbalance has never been seen in a "democratic" economy that survived, although its common in ones that have flipped from democracy to dictatorship and anarchy, such as numerous African nations, pre-World War II Germany, pre-Revolutionary France, etc.. (SOURCE: Last Hours Of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann)
|
this is where yourself and Bono are misguided. It doesn't matter HOW much money we give the 3rd world countries, or how we make trade fairer, the reason why the countries are poor are due to the leaders running the countries. There is no reason why they should be in the situations that they are. This is why i totally disapproved of Bono's methods, because they are pointless if the leaders that lead the countries are still in power. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dufouria
this is where yourself and Bono are misguided. It doesn't matter HOW much money we give the 3rd world countries, or how we make trade fairer, the reason why the countries are poor are due to the leaders running the countries. There is no reason why they should be in the situations that they are. This is why i totally disapproved of Bono's methods, because they are pointless if the leaders that lead the countries are still in power. |
Yes, I agree with you on this. I didnt say otherwise. I just mentioned poverty, starvation and the lack of stability. Remember the famous quote: "If you give a man a fish, he'll ask for more, but if you teach him to fish, he'll be able to feed himself. .... " ;) |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
If you look at most countries how they became a "developed" nation, you would see that most of them have at some point been "exploited". many of the western European countries where by the English, Japan and Taiwan were by the western world, as China and other Asian countries are today, all of them are going towards a brighter future that they wouldn't have seen without globalisation and trade policies that the green party want to implement.
|
Tell this to the many tribes who flourishing cultures and lifestyles were shattered by European invaders - Incas, Aztecs, Tainos (who were completely WIPED OUT), Native Americans, etc. Europeans came over and forced them off the lands, for resources and power. Buffalos MIRACULOUSLY weren't wiped out completely!!! Invaders used slavery to make themselves powerful. Today's "slavery" is hidden in the cheap 5 cents per hour hard labour by chinese labourers (some others get paid 5 cents A DAY). Wal-Mart, for example, uses cheap-labor of Central America to make most of its clothes. Employees have no rights or benefits, work in factories guarded by armed guards and ARE TIMED TO A SECOND to make clothes as fast as possible (yes, I've seen A DOCUMENTARY ON THIS - if you want to know the name, I can look it up and tell you the name). I dont know about Vietnam, but China, which makes most of the our goods, this is the true.
Free trade doesn't work. One example: US places tariffs on many of exports into the country, despite World Trade Organization's rules and NAFTA regulations. US and British companies operate in many countries (amongst other big corporations) in China, Brazil, Malaysia with little or no care for the area's economy or well-being. Remember how Ford shut down its operations in Michigan and moved to Mexico because it would make more money there, as a result making the entire town of Flint, Michigan one of the world cities in the states to live?
Remember in the middle ages how serfs and slaves worked to make their masters rich? In ancient Athens, there were 3 slaves for every Athenian! Same for any Roman citizen. Slavery and oppression have always been around and will remain in this capitalistic society, in one form or another. Our society just cant live without it. Any culture that existed that has lost control over its slaves populations eventually declined or disappeared altogether. Be it Ancient Egypt, Assyria, Mesopotamia, Tsarist Russia (serfs), Bolivia (yes, thats a very recent example)
| quote: |
According to most ppl, freer trade policies would decrease the number of poor substantially. For example it is estimated if the Doha round would be successful with creating freer trade agreements (which it probably won't because of the retarded EU's protectionism), it would lift something like 300 million ppl out of poverty. That's a lot of ppl, but yeah guess globalisation is only bad bad bad capitalism :rolleyes: |
World Trade Organization has been around for ... how many years now? Why are 4 billion people on this planet living in poverty then, including 2 billion of them living on less than 1 DOLLAR A DAY. Who is this WTO benefiting anyway? Why do you think African, South American and Asian countries owing BILLIONS of dollars to western banks, barely able to pay JUST THE INTEREST. How do you expect those countries to get better because of this? Why dont companies go to those countries and help BUILD their infrastructure, instead of giving them money (which is actually more harmful). Why? Because they just cant see a way to make money there!
Oh, and 300 million people out of 4 billion is not that much. There are enough resources in the possession of developed countries to eliminate all poverty overnight.
| quote: |
So, invade America?
|
Why ask this question again. I am anti-war. If Americans stop going to wars around the world to please their own economic interests, then their society will collapse, because the flow of cheap oil and labour will end. Corporations are afraid of pushing their own citizens around in USA, so they do it elsewhere around the world.
| quote: |
Well, nowhere here did you say that food will run out. Starvation is a problem, and not easy to deal with. However the problem is not that there isn't enough food, but the problem is that you need more competent politicians in third world countries (and in this side of the world as well, open up markets etc). |
Yes, open up markets! Oh, how about letting those poor countries in those trade organizations? Eh? The reason why the third world countries are plagued by wars and conflict, is because they are so much in debt and poor, the leaders reserve to violence to keep themselves in power. In USA, its opposite. When Bush was very unpopular before 9/11, he went to war to a different country, to Iraq/Afghanistan to make his people happy ... temporarily. Do you see the similarity?? Another better example, cause I actually visited Iraq in 1980s - boy, what a nice place to live it was. Everyone had jobs, people were happy, there were enough schools, hospitals for everyone. After Americans bombed the out of Iraq, then Saddam cracked down on dissent as a result of the destruction and peoples' unhappiness as a result of it. Iraq has never been the same since. More Iraqis died because of sanctions than all combined deaths from all kinds of weapons of mass destruction.
| quote: |
And again, I do think we should take better care of our environment, I just don't think Canada is the problem or that the problem is as bad as you make it sound like (it is however bad, but I don't think the end of the world is close like you do). |
No, I dont believe in religion, so Armageddon is not something for me. The proper word I'd place to my view is "cataclysm", a large-scale destruction of lifeforms and ecossystems of the planet. It hasn't stopped yet. There's no end in sight. I think as a result, people's life expectancy will lower, pollution will be a normal thing, many species will only be available to read book about, most of rivers and lakes will be out of reach to swim/drink, etc.
[/QUOTE]
| quote: |
Also, natural selection/evolution will also take care of a lot of the problems for us. Making the environment better can actually have a bad effect on the animals as well. For example many of the lakes in Sweden are cleaner now than they have been since like the 12th century (ie ing ever), which means a lot of the species in our lakes have died out because the water was too clean, since evolution had made them used to the pollution!!! Now I'm not saying we shouldn't have clean lakes, but I'm just saying that we will always have species being extinguished. Also I wanted to point out the world is not all bad, I could give you many more examples of how the world's environment is changing to the better.
|
No offense, but this was lame. Are you saying that fish needs POLLUTION to survive? Has it occured to you that the fish is simply not there because it has all been fished out? Or maybe because there's tons of mercury and other 'invisible' chemicals in the water? Just because it looks like, doesnt mean it is. So go ahead, litter and pollute all you want, animals need all of it to survive. Yes, if you could show more better examples, it would be nice. :)
| quote: |
According to most ppl the world's population will be rather stable in 50 years or so, and not increase much further. In its current state the world would have no problem handling the 10 billion ppl that is predicted by then. Of course if all your doomsday predictions would turn true, we would have a huge problem. I don't believe in them, and if they really come true I believe in mankind being smart enough to solve the problem.
|
Population 500 years ago: 500 million
Population 150 years ago: 1 billion
Population 50 years ago: 2.1 billion
Population 25 years ago: 4 billion
Population now: 6.6 billion
Population 50 years from now (do the math): ______ billion
Don't forget that China has implemented a one-child policy in 1970s. Since then it has remained the second-fastest growing population in the world. How do you think population will just ... level itself 50 years from now (when it should be around 12 billion at current rate, but will probably slow down A LITTLE)?
| quote: |
So if the green party had enough money they would buy away everyone's right to have kids in the third world or what? :p
|
Look and see why First World Countries have a low/declining population growth. Implement the same system in Third World Countries. Buying them off will never help. Only through education and jobs.
| quote: |
Somewhat true, this is why it's so good that fossil fuels are limited, because it means oil prices will go up, and it will make it more attractive to get alternative energy sources (this is already happening at a large scale).
|
"Large scale" .... hmmmm ... How many hybrid vehicles are out there on the roads compared to ... normal cars? Take that number and compare it to the 2 decades that the hybrid technology has been dusting on the shelves.
Oh, and I never said Green Party was ONLY for hybrid cars. It SUPPORTS any methods that will immediately slow down release of pollution and greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.
| quote: |
The ones that are currently investing most money in new energy technology (renewable) is actually big oil corporations. But yeah guess they are the bad guys anyway...
|
I'd loooooooooooove to see an example of this, as I have a countless number of sources that shows otherwise. I already mentioned tons of info in previous posts.
| quote: |
I never said that? I only said that the solution for the health care system is not to make Canada more environmental friendly, but to fix the actual health care system. |
So, in your own words, whats wrong with the world's BEST HEALTH CARE SYSTEM?
| quote: |
Hahaha, please prove to me that there is "technology out there to power an entire city of Chicago for ONE DAY using ONE CUP OF WATER", and that the only reason it is not on the market is because big companies are closing the doors. If you show any substantial proof of that, I will never vote anything else than green party, ever (plus you would get a free half a million dollar car from me). |
First of all, solar energy comes from hydrogen. Actually, all life comes from the sunlight. This energy has limitless number of uses. When you take a cup of water, break it down into 2 part of hydrogen and one oxygen, you create a reaction that produces huge volumes of electricity. Then you take the hydrogen, burn it, and you have even more electricity! In fact, hydrogen is so slow to burn, there is enough hydrogen in a cup of water to keep it burning for a long time!!! (In a controlled reaction, that is). Dont forget that the Sun is made up of hydrogen. There is enough hydrogen in the sun to keep it burning for another ... 5 billion years! Hydrogen gets fused into helium which is the second most-common element in the universe(sunlight), and is a direct reason for the existence of all life on Earth. Plants capture sunlight and use THAT ENERGY to create life. Here another Fact: you only need a cup of hydrogen to make a hydrogen bomb, one of the most devastating weapons on Earth. If this isn't enough to convince, when I find the exact source where I found this (cup of water to power a megacity thing), I'll get back to you. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
[COLOR=FF7F50]
Another better example, cause I actually visited Iraq in 1980s - boy, what a nice place to live it was. Everyone had jobs, people were happy, there were enough schools, hospitals for everyone. After Americans bombed the out of Iraq, then Saddam cracked down on dissent as a result of the destruction and peoples' unhappiness as a result of it. Iraq has never been the same since.
|
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
*breathe*
BAHAHAHAHAHA.
You just lost all credibility with me with that comment.
Calling Diginut! It's all yours mate. I think you'd have more fun with this than me. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
*breathe*
BAHAHAHAHAHA.
You just lost all credibility with me with that comment.
Calling Diginut! It's all yours mate. I think you'd have more fun with this than me. |
No need for DigiNut. Explain me yourself. Have you been there? Do you know anyone who lived in Iraq in 1980s? Sure he was a dictator, but Iraqis lived much better then. No question about it. Same with Soviet Union. I was born and raised for 8 years in Soviet system. I perfectly well know the difference between the "New Russia" and Soviet Union. Iraq is quite similar. I rest my case. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
No need for DigiNut. Explain me yourself. Have you been there? Do you know anyone who lived in Iraq in 1980s? Sure he was a dictator, but Iraqis lived much better then. No question about it. Same with Soviet Union. I was born and raised for 8 years in Soviet system. I perfectly well know the difference between the "New Russia" and Soviet Union. Iraq is quite similar. I rest my case. |
No, but I lived in South Korea when I was a kid, a nation that was under constant dictatorship since 1945 until first truly free election only in mid 90s.
I wasn't poor and my family was well off, but there was a lot of civil unrest because dictatorships being oppressive. Being a kid, it didn't affect me much, but I remember the days of having to stay home because there were riots and demonstrations and the smell of tear gas in the air.
Reflecting on that as I grew up later, I wondered why those people did what they did. Thankfully South Korea is a democracy, even under dictatorship and people weren't shot for political dissent.
Yeah, having a roof and food in your belly, even if it's crappy food and very ty shelter is nice while very few elite gets to enjoy the cream of the nation. (Hey, aren't you suppose to be against that?) But I don't think I'd be content living in a nation where I can be arbitrarily shot for having an opinion, because I'm not a sheep. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
No, but I lived in South Korea when I was a kid, a nation that was under constant dictatorship since 1945 until first truly free election only in mid 90s.
I wasn't poor and my family was well off, but there was a lot of civil unrest because dictatorships being oppressive. Being a kid, it didn't affect me much, but I remember the days of having to stay home because there were riots and demonstrations and the smell of tear gas in the air.
Reflecting on that as I grew up later, I wondered why those people did what they did. Thankfully South Korea is a democracy, even under dictatorship and people weren't shot for political dissent.
Yeah, having a roof and food in your belly, even if it's crappy food and very ty shelter is nice while very few elite gets to enjoy the cream of the nation. (Hey, aren't you suppose to be against that?) But I don't think I'd be content living in a nation where I can be arbitrarily shot for having an opinion, because I'm not a sheep. |
First of all, South Korea is a DEMOCRATIC country, and it has been since 1945 (at least if you compare it to North Korea). Whatever the unrest it had, it was still a democracy, so your example does not compare with Iraq or Soviet Union, both of which went through structural and economic collapse that changed them from "dictatorships" to "free market democracies". Yeah right! Look at today's Iraq/Russia's stats: unemployment rate. poverty rate. crime rate. life expectancy rate. income. etc. etc. AND THEN COMPARE IT TO THEIR PREVIOUS MARKS (Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein).
I REST MY CASE. I am not saying that Saddam was a great leader, or that communism was good (I hate communism), my whole point that you stirred up was that, "in 1980s Iraqis were way better off than after Gulf War." Life in Soviet Union was much better for an average citizen than it is now after the collapse of Soviet Union. In both cases, rich people got richer, poor people got poorer - the gap increased. Both countries are not transitioning properly to achieve the true democratic status of western countries. In Iraq its the Americans' fault, in Russia its the corrupt elite's fault.
Anyhow, I wasnt talking about Iraq or Russia, lets get back to Green Party talk, this is completely pointless. Just because you disagree with this one line I mentioned you disregard everything else I said. Which shows that you are on this thread not to support the Green Party cause, but to find an argument that will be an excuse for you to think the Green Party is bad. |
|
|
|
|
