less focus on no pipelines more focus on developing sustainable industry and jobs

The green party really losses credibility with me when it focuses so negatively on existing industry with out providing meaningful solutions and paths forward. It is very temping to give that fast sound bite about how pipe lines are bad etc but the party should not give in to that temptation if it wants to get anyone elected and into a position where they might be able to slowly and all due care make some meaningful changes.

Reactions

How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • commented 2017-02-23 16:00:15 -0800
    I agree!

    We would not be where we are technologically or scientifically without energy provided by the oil industry, and demonizing them diminishes a lot of the accomplishments of humanity.

    We need a vision not only for the future of energy, but also for how to transition to that future. This vision would be aided, not hindered, by praising the energy industry for their previous contributions while making a strong effort help that very industry transition to more sustainable and cleaner energy resources.
  • tagged this with Important 2017-02-23 16:00:14 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-18 15:02:36 -0800
    The solution to the climate crisis is going to come about when market forces (ie industry and job creators) are incentivized to act in a way that creates is aligned with the solutions. Government can’t actually fix anything themselves, it is the day to day actions of people making decisions in companies that actually makes change. As a Green Party we should be focussing on strategies and public policy that will foster positive environmental outcomes while making sure that people have good quality jobs and healthy, sustainable dwellings to go home to. This province has a great education system and a thriving green-tech sector. Combine these elements with the right policies and grant/seed money and you set the province up for the future.
  • tagged this with Important 2017-02-18 15:02:36 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-16 15:20:21 -0800
    Good points Kevin!
  • tagged this with unimportant 2017-02-16 15:20:20 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-15 09:10:06 -0800
    I partially agree, If we want non-Greens to listen, the argument needs to made in economic terms. Look at it in the investor’s perspective – why invest in a dying industry with no room for growth when you can invest in one (like Windmills) that shows 24% growth in Canada over the last five years and expanding (and why does oil rich Alberta have 4X more windmills than BC)? Why should we dig out all the oil today and sell low (even under production cost) when we can conserve it for later when oil is more scarce and more valuable? And the consumer perspective – why should we be forced to buy an energy source that MUST get more expensive in order for its production to be viable when there are cheaper sources available that continue to get cheaper? For the majority of people, it comes down to money. If they can’t afford childcare, they will not spend more on organic food for the purposes of saving the environment. We have two choices – speak economics or be ignored by the 80%.
  • tagged this with Important 2017-02-15 09:10:05 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-13 04:57:47 -0800
    Yes. How many of us who are opposed to pipelines drive cars? How many of us who are against fracking heat our homes with natural gas? It isn’t easy being green! But we must work to change how we live. Government can help by subsidizing the things we want, such as renewable energy, rather than those we don’t want.
  • tagged this with Important 2017-02-13 04:57:46 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-07 17:36:12 -0800
    Hi Sean yes I agree more positive solutions is a good way to go. Removing plastic from the environment should be a top priority as well. An economy for used plastic needs to be created to give incentive for a mass cleanup around the world. Plus we need to stop the use of all soft oil based plastics immediately.
  • tagged this with Important 2017-02-07 17:36:11 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-07 14:13:38 -0800
    Hey thanks for taking the time to reply both of you. I do agree with you Alan that climate change is the defining issue of our age; however, I am concerned that most will consider it so in retrospect. Erin I am very happy to hear that Green leadership will be meeting with the board of trade. I think that many in the business community are aware of the issues facing our environment and also in the position to institute change; however, they need leadership and good consistent policies that consider the other challenges business face. When Green supporters overly simplify things or ratchet up the timeline to “right-now” they loose the support from and credibility with those in the business community most able to help achieve our goals.
  • commented 2017-02-07 12:30:06 -0800
    I disagree. Climate change is the defining issue of our age. It is crucial to get the message across strongly that we cannot continue to extract fossil fuels at the current rate if there is to be any hope whatsoever of containing climate change. By all means we should promote our ideas for a green economy, but not at the expense of weakening our position on pipelines. That would put us on a level with the fence-sitting, say anything to get elected NDP.
  • tagged this with unimportant 2017-02-07 12:30:06 -0800
  • commented 2017-02-07 12:01:42 -0800
    Agreed! I have emailed head office in the past that Andrew and/or another high profile Green needs to tour the province and speak at every Chamber of Commerce and show that the Green Party has the best policies for small and medium-sized business. People know where we stand on pipelines and the environment. We own those issues. Time to show what sustainable business policies look like! Kudos to Andrew for beginning this process by meeting with the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade. One small step – many more needed!
  • published this page in Make a suggestion 2017-01-31 11:48:39 -0800
Donate Get Involved