The NDP actually has a more realistic and comprehensive environmental plan than do the Greens, currently. And it doesn't include shutting down nuclear power. If you're really concerned about the environment you should vote for them.
Also if you think the NDP are batshit communists maybe you should actually read their platform and inform yourself rather than being satisfied with right-wing scaremongering propaganda.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's the best thing. I don't trust them with a majority, and I'm no fan of Dion or Layton. Better to have a situation in which no one party can ram through whatever it wants, and force rational compromise on all involved
Senjutsu on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
The problem is another minority won't last a full term again. We'll have another election in no more than 2 years.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's the best thing. I don't trust them with a majority, and I'm no fan of Dion or Layton. Better to have a situation in which no one party can ram through whatever it wants, and force rational compromise on all involved
We tried that already, and what happened was Harper used the threat of an election to ram through whatever he wanted. And then he called an election.
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's the best thing. I don't trust them with a majority, and I'm no fan of Dion or Layton. Better to have a situation in which no one party can ram through whatever it wants, and force rational compromise on all involved
We tried that already, and what happened was Harper used the threat of an election to ram through whatever he wanted. And then he called an election.
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently(even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
The problem with the minority is that they don't actually work together. the government will get propped up automatically for a year in a half because no one wants 2 elections so close together, then after 18 months they start bitching at each other again, nothing gets done in parliment, then we have an election, either a called one, or by no-confidence votes.
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently (even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
That's what made the NDP criticism so inane: "OMG, the Liberals are voting with the Conservatives, they're the same party!". Voting with the government while always having the option of pulling the plug if things went bad is miles more preferable to voting no confidence at the drop of a hat and ending up with a Conservative majority you can do nothing about.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently (even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
That's what made the NDP criticism so inane: "OMG, the Liberals are voting with the Conservatives, they're the same party!". Voting with the government while always having the option of pulling the plug if things went bad is miles more preferable to voting no confidence at the drop of a hat and ending up with a Conservative majority you can do nothing about.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently (even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
That's what made the NDP criticism so inane: "OMG, the Liberals are voting with the Conservatives, they're the same party!". Voting with the government while always having the option of pulling the plug if things went bad is miles more preferable to voting no confidence at the drop of a hat and ending up with a Conservative majority you can do nothing about.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
*snip*
:facepalm:
Actually that may be a good ad... the less Dion talks, the better.
oldmanken on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I still don't understand what the liberals are thinking with their campaign.
The conservatives are playing up the fact that Harper is considered the better leader.
Why aren't the liberals countering with "But that's all the conservatives are- just Harper. He doesn't let his ministers talk, he doesn't listen to anyone... Whereas Dion has assembled some mighty fine people with a broad range of experience... and he'll actually listen to what they say and act on their experience"?
Sure Dion has the charisma of a limp noodle. As long as he stands for the right things and listens to the right people, the right decisions will be made....right?
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently (even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
That's what made the NDP criticism so inane: "OMG, the Liberals are voting with the Conservatives, they're the same party!". Voting with the government while always having the option of pulling the plug if things went bad is miles more preferable to voting no confidence at the drop of a hat and ending up with a Conservative majority you can do nothing about.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
No, clapping please, every time you do you kill millions of spores that will one day become a nutritious fungus, please show your applause with an spore friendly thumbs up
Seriously though, I would say that ad is better than either the Conservatives have run, not that thats saying much...
Dion was such a good bureaucrat, it's sad to see he still hasn't... 'matured' into a good leader.
Ignatieff? Don't you still want the job?
Narian on
0
Options
JeanHeartbroken papa bearGatineau, QuébecRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I hope for a Conservative majority myself, I'm getting sick of the shenaganians that comes with a minority. Have to deal with 'em both federaly and provincially, this is gettin tiresome.
Jean on
"You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
Oh, I am in support of nuclear power, I'm just wondering about the specifics of uranium mining, which I am not altogether familiar with.
I would imagine that the solution would be not banning uranium mining, but improving it so that it's not hazardous to the surrounding area.
Uranium mining is extremely hazardous to the environment, the workers, and any surrounding population. It's really dangerous and nobody talks about it. The mining process itself produces a large amount (85%) of radioactive waste material (tailings), and you have the waste from the reactor (14%) as well. We don't really have a solution for disposing of the waste either. The tailings disposal process is essentially just modified dumping. There have not been many improvements to this process in the last few decades. Port Hope has been contaminated by the tailings from the nearby refinery.
Nuclear energy is also expensive. Very expensive. Spending less money on alternative, outperforming solutions is the way to go if you are trying to reduce carbon (more reduction per dollar). Micropower generation, cogeneration, wind power and conservation (so-called negawatts) are all proven solutions.
I guess it's easy to label people as crazy hippies when you don't bother to do any research.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
The Green's proposals are actively counter to their own stated goals (banning uranium will have a quantitatively much worse impact on air quality and CO2 than not).
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's the best thing. I don't trust them with a majority, and I'm no fan of Dion or Layton. Better to have a situation in which no one party can ram through whatever it wants, and force rational compromise on all involved
I'm a fan of the scenario of a Conservative minority, and then new leadership for the Libs and NDP.
The possibility of a Conservative majority is disquieting. I have a somewhat lovecraftian sense of a nameless horror that we'd really be better off never seeing lurking somewhere. Maybe in the basement of 24 Sussex Drive.
Corvus on
:so_raven:
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Considering their opposition to the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, their retreat from Kyoto (even though the previous government did shit to get us anywhere near our targets), and his fascination with just cutting taxes it's not really a 'nameless' horror, to name a few examples.
Oh, I am in support of nuclear power, I'm just wondering about the specifics of uranium mining, which I am not altogether familiar with.
I would imagine that the solution would be not banning uranium mining, but improving it so that it's not hazardous to the surrounding area.
Uranium mining is extremely hazardous to the environment, the workers, and any surrounding population. It's really dangerous and nobody talks about it. The mining process itself produces a large amount (85%) of radioactive waste material (tailings), and you have the waste from the reactor (14%) as well. We don't really have a solution for disposing of the waste either. The tailings disposal process is essentially just modified dumping. There have not been many improvements to this process in the last few decades. Port Hope has been contaminated by the tailings from the nearby refinery.
Nuclear energy is also expensive. Very expensive. Spending less money on alternative, outperforming solutions is the way to go if you are trying to reduce carbon (more reduction per dollar). Micropower generation, cogeneration, wind power and conservation (so-called negawatts) are all proven solutions.
I guess it's easy to label people as crazy hippies when you don't bother to do any research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That goes well with cost reduction (most money in a nuclear plan mostly goes towards cooling systems) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor
This goes well with using the reactor waste (yes, citation needed lol, but the design segment isn't being questioned.)
I can't answer you about the tailings, but quite frankly trying to push ourselves completely off of coal and oil and onto solar/wind/water without some sort of softening intermediary step is completely politically unfeasable. I say this as an American, but it applies to Canada also.
You guys have to keep in mind that the party leadership has very little control over what actually appears in the policy document. Unlike some other parties, policy is almost entirely decided upon by the membership as a whole. So you can get contingents of really anti-nuclear people who want to get rid of it right now and forever, and they can outmanuever the more realistic among us (who, like me, view nuclear as a better temporary solution than coal) and put it in the platform.
But that doesn't mean everything is going to be implemented that is in the platform. Hell, even with the more mainstream parties, none of it ever is. Remember Chretien's vow to repeal the GST? Yeah, or renegotiate FTA?
Yeah. Don't get too hung up on one little policy point that you don't agree with.
So I should vote for them so more money will go to a party whose policies are shaped by lunatic hippies with impractical ideas that don't worry we know are practical?
Umm, no.
Lunatic hippies with impractical ideas?
Most of the policies that the Green Party advocates are fairly straightforward and absolutely practical. Tax reform, stricter environmental standards, shifting subsidies, reforming medicare. All of these things are advocated in some way or another by the other major parties, the GPC just advocates implementions and approaches that I think are superior to the alternatives.
There's no reason to bust out the ad homs because you don't like the Sea Shepard Society or Earth First. That's like voting against the NDP because you don't like the Shining Path, or voting against the Conservatives because you don't like the Ku Klux Klan. The existence of batshit crazy extremists who are involved in marginal organizations that are only incidentally related to actual parties with actual policies doesn't suddenly invalidate the policies of the actual parties.
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently (even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
That's what made the NDP criticism so inane: "OMG, the Liberals are voting with the Conservatives, they're the same party!". Voting with the government while always having the option of pulling the plug if things went bad is miles more preferable to voting no confidence at the drop of a hat and ending up with a Conservative majority you can do nothing about.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
The Sierra Club of Canada gave top marks to the Green party and a failing grade to the Conservatives in its ranking of parties' climate change platforms on Friday, just days before an expected election call.
The Green party's A- mark reflects a plan that "is very ambitious," national campaigns director Jean Langlois said at an Ottawa news conference.
"It's more ambitious than the minimum as defined by the science."
The Liberals, who have made their environmental plan, dubbed the Green Shift, the centrepiece of their platform, received a B+. Their aim is to balance a carbon tax with income-tax cuts.
While Langlois congratulated the Liberals for putting together a credible plan, he said the party lost marks for an "ambiguous" target for reducing greenhouse gases.
The party plan calls for reductions of 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and that could rise to 25 per cent if other countries take on comparable targets.
Both the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party received Bs.
"The Bloc have a target that reflects what needs to be done based on science. However, their plan is not very detailed," said Langlois. For instance, the party doesn't specify a price for carbon emissions.
Canada 'so far behind'
The NDP also has science-based reduction targets, said Langlois, but it lost marks for relying only on cap and trade for reducing emissions and forgoing a carbon tax.
Under cap and trade, government limits how much greenhouse gas polluters are allowed to emit. Those who reduce their emissions below the cap receive pollution permits they can sell to companies that go over their cap.
A carbon tax involves government charging polluters for each tonne of greenhouse gas they produce.
"Canada is so far behind, we need both," said Langlois.
The Conservative party received an F+ because the Sierra Club said it has chosen a "completely inadequate" target for reducing greenhouse gases and because it is relying on intensity targets to meet its goals.
Emissions can be limited by an absolute cap or by a maximum allowable intensity measured relative to economic output. An intensity target allows overall emissions to grow as long as the greenhouse gas producer is using energy more efficiently.
The Sierra Club's report card rates parties based on information published as of August.
Executive director Stephen Hazell said the group would be publishing another report card closer to election day to reflect potential changes during the campaign.
On Friday afternoon, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed he will meet with Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean on Sunday morning and ask her to dissolve the government, triggering an election campaign.
Canadians would go to the polls Oct. 14
tl;dr Sierra club ranked the environmental plans on the major parties, Greens came in first, Conservatives last.
Greens:A-
Liberal:B+
Bloq/NDP:B
Conservatives:F (shocking, I know)
I may have missed it but...are there no Newfoundlanders on this board? I mean, Danny Williams has been doing great things for our province and he is a conservative.
That leaves us is a hard place: I want Danny to stay. He is a charismatic and intelligent leader. I don't like Harper much though. At all. He seems...brittle. Watery. Like there's very little integrity in him.
Any thoughts? Does anyone even care about Newfoundland and Labrador? :P
PS: Signed up just to make this post. Hello forum!
I may have missed it but...are there no Newfoundlanders on this board? I mean, Danny Williams has been doing great things for our province and he is a conservative.
That leaves us is a hard place: I want Danny to stay. He is a charismatic and intelligent leader. I don't like Harper much though. At all. He seems...brittle. Watery. Like there's very little integrity in him.
Any thoughts? Does anyone even care about Newfoundland and Labrador? :P
PS: Signed up just to make this post. Hello forum!
I think Andrew_Jay is a relocated newfie in...Montreal? Toronto?
Anyway, Danny Williams is cool, and I hear that he has higher approval ratings than Joey Smallwood.
Considering their opposition to the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, their retreat from Kyoto (even though the previous government did shit to get us anywhere near our targets), and his fascination with just cutting taxes it's not really a 'nameless' horror, to name a few examples.
To be fair, I thought they had very good reasons for opposing this thing. I think they were spot on with their criticism of it.
shryke on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Considering their opposition to the International Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, their retreat from Kyoto (even though the previous government did shit to get us anywhere near our targets), and his fascination with just cutting taxes it's not really a 'nameless' horror, to name a few examples.
To be fair, I thought they had very good reasons for opposing this thing. I think they were spot on with their criticism of it.
Most of the criticism coming from the Conservative Government's position on this was centred around indigenous' peoples right to land was traditionally theirs and their fear that this would dismantle our current land claims process. Considering this was a national matter that could have been resolved with consultation and possible amendment to our current process (which may be in need of fixing anyway, considering the number of growing claims and length of time it tends to take to resolve them) with Canadian aborigines I don't see why they couldn't have signed it and worked towards achieving its aims rather than abandoning it outright.
And this is offtopic, but in response to the Sierra Club of Canada, what the christ? They were against funding of ITER and successfully lobbied the Canadian government to not support it because of: "Sierra Club of Canada Policy Advisor David Martin stated, “Fusion is a future fantasy, whose time has passed. Cabinet should just say no to more nuclear subsidies for the ITER fusion reactor”. “Our solar system already has one fusion reactor (the sun), which is safely located 150 million kilometres from planet earth, and there are already enough black holes without ITER.”" O_o
Posts
Also if you think the NDP are batshit communists maybe you should actually read their platform and inform yourself rather than being satisfied with right-wing scaremongering propaganda.
However you feel about the NDP's socialist wing, they aren't stupid enough to propose shit that actively works against what they want to achieve.
Good point that. NDP: Crazy but consistent.
I dont' even know of they're consistant. they've been leaning more and more left over the last few years.
The NDP are praying for a Conservative/Liberal minority and the NDP holding enough seats that they can prop the government up by themselves. That's the only way that the NDP will have any kind of relevance in parliament.
Yep. Known as holding the balance of power.
I think another Conservative minority is what's going to happen, but I'm at a loss as to whether that's a good thing or a bad thing.
Personally, I think it's the best thing. I don't trust them with a majority, and I'm no fan of Dion or Layton. Better to have a situation in which no one party can ram through whatever it wants, and force rational compromise on all involved
The liberals were in no shape to hold an election until recently(even then I'm not sure), so they had no choice but to prop the government up. That's what really happened.
The problem with the minority is that they don't actually work together. the government will get propped up automatically for a year in a half because no one wants 2 elections so close together, then after 18 months they start bitching at each other again, nothing gets done in parliment, then we have an election, either a called one, or by no-confidence votes.
Fix'd for the current state of Canadian politics.
Ugh, new Liberal ad. I don't know if this might work or if it's an unmitigated disaster. So awkward.
The Green Shift
That doesn't seem to be a realistic outcome at the moment, at least the last time I looked at the polls
:facepalm:
Actually that may be a good ad... the less Dion talks, the better.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Although I do give the liberals points for not just slamming Harper, as I think every previous ad they have ever run has done.
Ads that are at least relevant to their own platform instead of just saying what's wrong with the other party are bad.
I would rather have a liberal majority.
The conservatives are playing up the fact that Harper is considered the better leader.
Why aren't the liberals countering with "But that's all the conservatives are- just Harper. He doesn't let his ministers talk, he doesn't listen to anyone... Whereas Dion has assembled some mighty fine people with a broad range of experience... and he'll actually listen to what they say and act on their experience"?
Sure Dion has the charisma of a limp noodle. As long as he stands for the right things and listens to the right people, the right decisions will be made....right?
No, clapping please, every time you do you kill millions of spores that will one day become a nutritious fungus, please show your applause with an spore friendly thumbs up
Seriously though, I would say that ad is better than either the Conservatives have run, not that thats saying much...
Ignatieff? Don't you still want the job?
Uranium mining is extremely hazardous to the environment, the workers, and any surrounding population. It's really dangerous and nobody talks about it. The mining process itself produces a large amount (85%) of radioactive waste material (tailings), and you have the waste from the reactor (14%) as well. We don't really have a solution for disposing of the waste either. The tailings disposal process is essentially just modified dumping. There have not been many improvements to this process in the last few decades. Port Hope has been contaminated by the tailings from the nearby refinery.
Nuclear energy is also expensive. Very expensive. Spending less money on alternative, outperforming solutions is the way to go if you are trying to reduce carbon (more reduction per dollar). Micropower generation, cogeneration, wind power and conservation (so-called negawatts) are all proven solutions.
I guess it's easy to label people as crazy hippies when you don't bother to do any research.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm a fan of the scenario of a Conservative minority, and then new leadership for the Libs and NDP.
The possibility of a Conservative majority is disquieting. I have a somewhat lovecraftian sense of a nameless horror that we'd really be better off never seeing lurking somewhere. Maybe in the basement of 24 Sussex Drive.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
That goes well with cost reduction (most money in a nuclear plan mostly goes towards cooling systems)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor
This goes well with using the reactor waste (yes, citation needed lol, but the design segment isn't being questioned.)
I can't answer you about the tailings, but quite frankly trying to push ourselves completely off of coal and oil and onto solar/wind/water without some sort of softening intermediary step is completely politically unfeasable. I say this as an American, but it applies to Canada also.
Lunatic hippies with impractical ideas?
Most of the policies that the Green Party advocates are fairly straightforward and absolutely practical. Tax reform, stricter environmental standards, shifting subsidies, reforming medicare. All of these things are advocated in some way or another by the other major parties, the GPC just advocates implementions and approaches that I think are superior to the alternatives.
There's no reason to bust out the ad homs because you don't like the Sea Shepard Society or Earth First. That's like voting against the NDP because you don't like the Shining Path, or voting against the Conservatives because you don't like the Ku Klux Klan. The existence of batshit crazy extremists who are involved in marginal organizations that are only incidentally related to actual parties with actual policies doesn't suddenly invalidate the policies of the actual parties.
Who are these dour people, and what is up with their humorless, totalitarian clapping?
You couldn't see Ignatieff's eyebrows and cocky smirk?
They're fucking visible from space.
tl;dr Sierra club ranked the environmental plans on the major parties, Greens came in first, Conservatives last.
Greens:A-
Liberal:B+
Bloq/NDP:B
Conservatives:F (shocking, I know)
That leaves us is a hard place: I want Danny to stay. He is a charismatic and intelligent leader. I don't like Harper much though. At all. He seems...brittle. Watery. Like there's very little integrity in him.
Any thoughts? Does anyone even care about Newfoundland and Labrador? :P
PS: Signed up just to make this post. Hello forum!
I think Andrew_Jay is a relocated newfie in...Montreal? Toronto?
Anyway, Danny Williams is cool, and I hear that he has higher approval ratings than Joey Smallwood.
To be fair, I thought they had very good reasons for opposing this thing. I think they were spot on with their criticism of it.
Most of the criticism coming from the Conservative Government's position on this was centred around indigenous' peoples right to land was traditionally theirs and their fear that this would dismantle our current land claims process. Considering this was a national matter that could have been resolved with consultation and possible amendment to our current process (which may be in need of fixing anyway, considering the number of growing claims and length of time it tends to take to resolve them) with Canadian aborigines I don't see why they couldn't have signed it and worked towards achieving its aims rather than abandoning it outright.
And this is offtopic, but in response to the Sierra Club of Canada, what the christ? They were against funding of ITER and successfully lobbied the Canadian government to not support it because of: "Sierra Club of Canada Policy Advisor David Martin stated, “Fusion is a future fantasy, whose time has passed. Cabinet should just say no to more nuclear subsidies for the ITER fusion reactor”. “Our solar system already has one fusion reactor (the sun), which is safely located 150 million kilometres from planet earth, and there are already enough black holes without ITER.”" O_o
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12