Actually there are three different types and I am of the third that falls into the category which would like to see a combination of your to previous clasifications. In saying that though I am not going to see the farm sold and my family move into a 1 bedroom condo for the betterment of some "pie in the sky" fishery mandates.
Pippen, that last sentence is one of your hyperboles of which you are very fond. You make the on-going assumption throughout your post that policies that encompass green principles, must by definition, be pie in the sky and that somehow that is immediately going to impoverish you. This theme comes through again and again in your post – no impoverishment and no reduction in the standard of living must ever be contemplated. Whether that happens or not through green principles is irrelevant. You think it is and so you lampoon and blast green policies and principles our of this fear.
Oh and by the way, how do you define being between the two classifications I have set out? Do you think this means we should head towards a planet with about half the species extinct, and CO2 levels that will “only” increase average temperatures by 3C, and where the ocean is only partly polluted – like some sort of crazy political compromise. Putting the environment #1 does NOT mean the end of all economic activity. It means you start out with that as a principle and then all economic activity is built with that as a constraint. If that was done at the outset we would not be having these “oh ****” problems that have to be cleaned up afterwards because things would have been done differently from the outset – even if it “cost more” to begin with.
Well.....you can say I am wrong all you want. I have stated nothing other than I respect other's opinions but don't think I have said that they are outright wrong.
Sorry if I offended you. Perhaps I should have said “
The Honorable Forum member Pippen may wish to check his facts”.
Absolutely.....in this province if the environment goes is destroyed....EVERYTHING DOES GO DOWN. We are a province that has not developed alternate industries but we do rely (just like AB, SK MB) on our resources as a source of revenue. We are NOT an anomally and if you can tell me how this province is going to make money in the short term I would be interested.
We do rely on our resources – no problem. But will our children and their children be able to rely on those resources.? If you think that way at the outset. i.e. one of stewardship not rape and pillage to maximise this quarter’s or this year’s earnings you might develop those resources entirely differently, or even leave some in the ground. Sorry, I know that will sound like blasphemy to a rabid capitalist like you!
Let me ask you to clarify your stance.............so you are NO to forestry, mining, fishing, farming etc? Yes....the latter two will raise questions but commercial fishing (aside from quota issues) is a resource based employer in this province.....as is farming (not fish farming as I abhor it). WHERE is this province going to find it's dollars? Do you not think we are taxed pretty heavily? Do you want more taxes?
OK to clarify, I am not NO to all industrial development. I am NO to industrial development that does not align with environmental protection and stewardship. I am NO to clear cuts that destroy watersheds and yes to selective logging. I am against logging that removes biomass faster than it can be replaced. What will our children do if all the forests are gone? I am NO to mining that creates vast abandoned tailing ponds and point sources of pollution so bad that it affects human health, with no effort or plan to clean up the waste and mess beforehand. I am NO to farming that insists on using vast quantities of fertilisers and pesticides that pollute waterways, destroy ecosystems, and create human health hazards. Organic farming is the only method that puts the environment as #1. And yes I know that would cost more and that is absolute anathema to you!
Oh.....and by the way.......don't even waste my time in this discussion with bee colonies. Show my some FACTUAL evidence with CREDIBLE sources.
Well there is plenty of information on that on the web, which you say you use as a resource to inform you. This is the wikepedia article which contains many links to source papers. Colony collapse disorder IS happening, The controversy is what is causing it. There is growing evidence that some pesticides are to blame. Another example of industrial development done without putting environment as #1. Of course the pesticide companies are fighting this idea – like true capitalists they must put corporate profits as #1!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/bee-deaths-colony-collapse_n_2979959.html
Hahaha.....that is funny. You are saying Labourists from way, way back in the Industial Revoloution made our world, workplaces, environment and the planet a "Happier Place"? Maybe that is why the Mayor of Vancovuer owns a Company called Happy Planet. If you think we have not evolved immensely as a society beyond the mentality of "radicals"......that have fashioned the world.....you are likely so far Green/Pinko that you will never see through your hemp poncho and "I love Birkenstocks" t-shirt.
There you go with your hyperbole again. If you do not know anything about the working conditions of the regular man in the 19th century and early 20th century you are clearly not as informed as you claim to be. Of course those labour radicals made the world a better place. They had to fight hard nosed reactionaries like you who wanted to protect their businesses (aka wealth and privilege) in order to do it and the society you enjoy and take for granted came about from their efforts, NOT from enlightened capitalists!
Hippy's did NOT fight for all that you mentioned..........their fundamental ethos since the mid 60's — including harmony with nature, communal living, artistic experimentation particularly in music, and the widespread use of recreational drugs — spread around the world. They did NOT make the world a healthier and safer place unless you consider massive protests to a war, buring pachoolie and driving up the cost of granola....."safer and healthier".
You used the term “hippy/socialists” as a all embracing derogatory term in the first place. I was simply pointing out that radicals like them, who were considered dangerous radicals by your contemporaries back in the day, WERE the ones who made our world a better place. Check up on your history. As to the actual hippies of the 60s’ they had ideas all over the map. Some good some bad. But even you have to agree their stance against the stupid Vietnam war was the right one. Or do you….??
Haha......ya.....making the world better via capitalism has done jack squat for the betterment of the world. Good luck in your dugout canoe....and sealguy fishing line dragging for fish. The statement above is so leftist and so narrow-minded I have trouble even comprehending that you made it?
As to narrow mindedness, I could level the same accusation. Capitalist based economic development has brought many benefits. But those benefits have come at great costs to our environment, health and our children’s future. You cannot see those problems and you treat all criticism of economic development as currently practiced as some kind of heresy. And because your “religion” is threatened you make crazy statements about “dugout canoes”.
Hey.....I have some good things and bad things to say about Suzuki. I applaud his fight against fish farms........but I also think his stance on hunting and the BS propoganda he pulls about grizzly bear and wolf populations in this Province is a massive load of ****. No issues saying that at all as his plebes/disciples who are city dwellers and have ZIPPO idea as to what ACTUALLY happens outside of city limits are the ones who PAY HIS SALARY. I will not dispute he has done some good things and I am on board with some of his green intiatives.....but the BS propaganda against hunting is something I do have inside knowledge of and it's a load shat.
Well I am glad you agree with some things he is advocating. Rampant capitalists still go on about loss of jobs if fish farms are threatened. Yet they are the classic example of an economic activity that goes against ecological principles and violates the environment at every turn. Who could possibly think it is good husbandry and stewardship to keep carnivores in feed lots!!?
PART1
