You are here

TO THE DELUSIONAL COALITION-MAKERS: How Do You Vote For The Environment In A One-Party Growthist State?

According to those who track the affiliations of voters with environmental
concerns, if they were to vote along strictly partisan lines,


If we split our votes:
Conservative 135
Liberal 83
NDP 37
Green 0
Bloc 51

But on the other hand, if “we” who cared about climate change cast
aside our traditional love toward our favourite party and voted for that
party best able to defeat the Conservative in our own riding, the result
would be a parliament with only 75 Conservatives but 123 Liberals, 52
NDP, 55 Bloc, 1 Green and 2 IND .

Kevin Grandia and his campaign to vote strategically
against the Harper government is based on the fallacy
that the opposition parties do not share the government’s
ecologically suicidal commitment to economic growth.
Growth which is fuelled by runaway immigrant driven
population growth and per capita consumption. The green
coalition which Kevin works to fashion in fact favours 38%
higher immigration levels than the Conservatives, which
would result in 38% more GHG emissions, and about
29% of what the tar sands are putting out now.

And since neither Layton nor May would actually decommission
the tar sands but only stop its further expansion, and Dion will
continue it but vaguely promise to make it “green”, then
immigration is what separates the opposition and the government.
The decision goes to Harper on climate change, although neither
deserve accolades.

But climate change is only the flavour of the month, the loss of
biodiversity services is more pressing and its relationship to population
growth is more obvious to most than global warming. When biodiversity
services are undercut, when 24% of 12 of its vital services are compromised
our survival is imperiled. As it stands, 536 of Canada’s species at risk
lie just at the margins of those cities bulging with immigrant growth.
Those who advocate such growth, the fastest of all countries in the G8
group, are sitting in all 308 seats in all four parties on both sides of
the aisle in the Canadian House of Commons. How, then, as environmentalist
Brishen Hoff asks, can we vote for the environment?

For all intents and purposes, we live in a Growthist one party state.
The contest Kevin describes, between corporate climate changers vs. noble
climate saviours is a sham. We don’t need a change in government. We need a
change in the SYSTEM of government. Direct democracy. And a change in



I am not an expert on Canada, but if we had not removed John Howard Australia's equivalent of Stephen Harper, this country would effectively be a dictatorship today. That creep squandered over AU$120million in taxpayers money in order to indoctrinate Australians into accepting the his slave labour (so-called) Work Choices legislation that he had not even put to them in the previous 2004 elections. Had he gotten away with this and won the 2007 elections an unbelievably dangerous precedent would have been set (and this is only one of a large number of examples I could give). It may well have undermined the morale of grass roots activists for years and his power would have been entrenched practically forever.

Obviously Kevin Rudd leaves a great deal to be desired and his raising of immigration levels was particularly concerning. Nevertheless, having asserted in 2007 the principle that corrupt incompetent governments prepared to spend almost unlimited amounts of taxpayers' funds to keep themselves in office can indeed be thrown out, we are in a much stronger position to stand up against high immigration and other anti-environmental policies of this Government. Indeed Rudd is considering at this moment cutting back immigration, due in part to the fact that he is a little more vulnerable to activism than a re-elected Howard/Costello dictatorship would have been.

So, I suggest you think very carefully about what is at stake in these elections in Canada. If Harper is anything like our former Prime Minister John Howard, then Canadian democracy itself may be at stake, and if you lose that then you lose any ability to control your population. (Clearly Canada's totally brain dead first-past-the-past voting system doesn't help either. Its replacement with some form of preferential voting system, that at least makes far less likely the possibility that a political party opposed by the majority of Canadians will able to form government, must be fought for as a matter of utmost urgency.)

Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

James, the following statement by Biodiversity First President Brishen Hoff should suffice except I will say this. Polls show that Harper has no chance of forming a majority government. Secondly, as I have shown in two articles, the opposition parties, are actually worse for the environment if you look at it objectively, despite their green rhethoric. Our group has NO interest in proportional representation, as it deals only with the distribution of power BETWEEN political parties. We are only concerned with radical reform that would re-direct power FROM politicians to the people in the form of popular initiatives (referenda) modelled by several US states. Polls consistently have shown that the public have little use for government forced population growth. Witness Katherine Betts' latest study and US, British and Canadian poll results on immigraton. An official attitude of neutrality in this election is a victory for the Liberals, NDP and Greens. They really deserve a vote for Harper, if truth be told. But he doesn't deserve our support either, obviously. Here's what Brishen had to say:
October 13, 2008

Why I won't be voting in tomorrow's federal election

I am not apathetic. I care about the issues. Some issues are more important to me than others.

The economy is far less important to me than the environment.

Any economic problem is fixable unless environmental limits are the reason for the problem. More money can always be printed and/or moved around with taxes and subsidies.

Environmental problems are much more serious. Species extinctions, pollution, alien species invasions, loss of farmland, and deforestation can't be fixed within a lifetime if ever.

My criterion is the environment. I want to vote for whatever party will prove that they will not let biodiversity or natural resources per capita decline any further.

But all of the parties have the same position on the environment.

In Canada, all parties are committed to growthism -- endless human population growth in a finite world.
All parties wish to reward and encourage the overpopulated nations by letting them export their people here and giving them foreign aid so that they will breed more.

As people move from countries of high concentration to countries of lower concentration such as Canada, global overpopulation is maximized.

As people move to countries like Canada where consumption per capita is high due to our cold climate, they almost always multiply their ecological footprint.

There are only four parties in my riding: Liberal, Conservative, Green and NDP.

None of them have a population policy based on what they believe to be an optimum population for Canada.

They all share the same religious belief. They all believe that 33 million people isn't enough for Canada and are determined to destroy more of Canada's wilderness ecosystems, biodiversity, and farmland with the additional of more consumers.

They say we need more people because Canadians lac k the skill to fill abundant jobs that are going begging. They say that we need more people because Canada's population is aging and that old people are more expensive than young people. They say that we need a younger work force to pay for the pensions of the old. They say that Canada needs multiculturalism.

But their prescription is not a solution if it requires population growth. Population growth is unsustainable.

Immigrants get old too. Who will pay for their pensions? Cultures assimilate. How long can we keep injecting more people for multiculturalism? If good jobs are so abundant, why are so many Canadians unemployed, underpaid or overworked? Is flooding the workforce with cheap labour right for Canadians or just corporations? Isn't there an ecological limit to growth?

Why haven't politicians told us where they are taking this country?

Are they taking us to 40 million? 100 million? 1 billion? Where will we import our resources from once we lack sufficient farm land to feed ourselves? How will we heat our homes when our oil, natural gas, and forests are gone? Surely, even in the mind of a politician, there comes a point where further population growth is no longer in our best interest. Why don't they tell us what this point is or what metric they would use to determine it? How many more species extinctions are considered perfectly acceptable to them?

All of the political parties believe that the biodiversity loss we have suffered is perfectly acceptable because they all would like to order more of the same -- population growth. Human population and biodiversity are negatively correlated. That is scientific fact.

For me to vote for a party, they must at very minimum promise population stabilization if not population reduction. However, the Greens, NDP, Conservatives and Liberals all promise the doom and gloom of more population growth.

Either we stop population growth voluntarily while we st ill have some quality of life left, or nature will stop it for us in cruel ways such as starvation and wars over scarce resources.

I am on strike. I won't be voting until either:

A) there exists a party who plans to voluntarily stop population growth
B) a "direct democracy" allows me to vote on the issues directly instead of flaky political personalities like Harper, Dion, May and Layton