You aren’t adding anything by simply dismissing the point raised in my post because it relies on ‘Liberal sources’

Especially when you consider Jaccard a ‘Liberal source’. He is nothing of the sort. Yes he has done work for the BC Liberals (as well as many other governments, but that is what happens when you are the nations foremost economist on issues such as these), but that doesn’t mean he isn’t above criticizing them. He also did work for the Federal Conservatives, but that didn’t stop him from criticizing them. In fact he also done work for the BC NDP. Also note that even the commenter ADHR (who is an NDP supporter and a strong critic of both the BC Liberals and DeSmogBlog) said that Jaccard was clean.

The same thing goes for environmental groups such as The David Suzuki Foundation, the Pembina Institute and ForestEthics who traditionally have been much more alligned with the BC NDP. And the Conservation Voters of BC could also not be called a Liberal source.

And if that wasn’t enough we also have Andrew Weaver (Climatologist from UVic), John Robinson (Professor in the UBC Institute of Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, and was a lead author of the last three reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change), Shi-Ling Hsu and David Duff (Both are Associate Professors in the UBC Faculty of Law, Nancy Olewiler (Director and Professor of the Public Policy Program at Simon Fraser)University, the Ottawa citizen, and even former BC NDP Premier MIke Harcourt.

Are you still willing to stand by your claim that I relied solely on Liberal sources?

However, I wonder what the amusement factor will be in, say, 24 or 48 month’s time? Just as an aside, here’s something I would really like to see included in Scott Simpson’s Energy Blog in the Sun:

http://www.theprovince.com/Technology/Ministry+Environment+officials+lodge+pages+complaints+against+Harrison+Lake+river+project/1702821/story.html

I could care less if Jaccard or Suzuki are bipartisan, while at the same I will dare them to continue on their damaging criticism of the NDP. If the NDP lose the election, then Jaccard and Suzuki’s role will become apparent, and this will become another divide between one-issue activists such as self-titled environmentalists, and the NDP.

You need to remember, the NDP and environmentalists are not friendly with each other. There’s history here in BC (Clayoquot Sound, being a somewhat recent example). It’s bitter and full of anger, and even hate.

If the environmentalists were hoping to affect change in NDP policy, they sure as hell picked the wrong manner in which to do it. They will not force any change in the politics, but further to drive the NDP and supporters away into a fighting stance.

Where the hell is the diplomacy? Where the hell is the environmentalist getting on the phone with Carole James, day after day, demanding she release the NDP policy on cap and trade?

Even sitting here on the rez, hundreds and hundreds of kilometres away from Victoria, I could smell something wrong about the NDP cap and trade. But I’m no expert. I just do whatever little I can do, and hope those in charge have some idea that we’re muddling away in the right direction. I know that we ain’t, but I got the hope in me while voicing whatever questions I can think of. Never got any serious answers, but I was never afraid to ask them.

I hoped the experts were speaking out on their fears and concerns about the NDP cap and trade policy, trying to goad the leadership into releasing details, but for months and months, even after the federal NDP had released their own, which is pretty much what the provincial parties will follow, I’ve heard absolutely nothing from Suzuki or Jaccard.

And then the election happens, and suddenly when the NDP finally releases its fast ferry of a cap and trade policy, the environmentalists finally speak up? Talk about arm-chair activism!

And where are our brave environmentalists on issues such as poverty? Crime? Joblessness? Homelessness? Inequality? Racism? Police brutality?

Speaking on oh-so-grand ideas of a green economy and how it can fix all that and pretty much everything else, but only if we do the right thing, whatever that is, since it’s always changing day to day (we just don’t measure up, I suppose). But all they do is talk. They don’t offer anything. And they bitch and complain that we all aren’t doing nothing. And yet they don’t have the courage to speak on any other issue than the environment. They will not dare risk their name speaking on behalf of Robert Dziekanski. Or the war in Afghanistan. Or the military industrial complex. Or the failed state of Mexico. Or broken treaties between Canada and First Nations.

What I’m trying to say is, the environmentalists are going to have to change themselves before they can affect any serious change here in BC. They can’t just sit back and do nothing about the other problems normal people have to face everyday. They gotta get their hands dirty helping us to till the earth. They gotta muck about with us, and get to know us, and our way of life too, cause we cannot afford to live like they do. We’ve got kids to look after. We’ve got grand parents to care for. We’ve got a whole world of problems that environmentalists simply choose to ignore in lieu of pursuing utopia.

What I’m trying to say is, environmentalists have got to come to us too. They can’t just demand we meet them where they are. We ain’t all got that sort of luxury. And when they run off to the Aspers to get their comments published nationally, it stinks like grandstanding than actual activism.

We ain’t famous like Suzuki. We ain’t power players like Jaccard. We ain’t rich like Green Peace. We ain’t crazy like PETA. And we don’t even know who the hell Sierra Club is other than they keep sticking their noses into our business while giving us no alternatives to what we’re doing to keep ahead of the bills and taxes.

Put your feet on the ground where the rest of us have to stand, and speak with us rather than lecturing. Maybe then, environmentalists will find some sort of progress.

First, they want to influence the election. This doesn’t mean it is a partisan attack, however, it is just an attack on ineffective policies.

Secondly, the BC NDP just recently released the details of this plan. They couldn’t criticize it before (except perhaps in the broadest of strokes) because they didn’t know the details.

As for your criticisms of how the tax revenue is redistributed, remember that “one-third of the carbon tax revenues are paid by individuals and two-thirds by industry, two-thirds of the tax reductions benefit individuals and one-third corporations.“.

Now you might argue that more money should be returned to people with low incomes, and that is fair enough, but that isn’t the NDP’s position and it isn’t the point of this post.

I won’t reiterate anything, but I will expand on a few of my thoughts.

Just how politically boneheaded are Jaccard and Suzuki? I respect their intelligence, but right now, I’m questioning their wisdom. To release their criticisms right now, in the intense heat of the election? The optics is horrible, for one thing, as Dippers and supporters will see this a partisan attack. I hardly consider myself partisan in any sense – I vote NDP because there’s no viable socialist party for me – and yet even I’m somewhat questioning these guys’ motives.

Another reflection I have is a carbon tax is by its very existence a difficult policy to implement. Oh, it could work, in a perfect world. But consider BC. It has a growing homeless population. The working poor are becoming poorer. Bills are increasing. The interest on payments due just keep increasing. And whatever taxes are collected are used on corporations rather than on infrastructure and the social safety net. And our leaders are saying we’re in a recession, even though for us on the bottom, it’s been that way for years. Doesn’t the carbon tax in an unfair society seemingly further increase the burden on those who already can’t even afford the basics in society?

Personally, I wish the NDP would rather promise to revisit the carbon tax, to make it more fair, whatever that means, and to crack down on heavy emitters, whoever they are. Vagueness in politics is good, and so is in-depth policy.

But the fact is, the NDP will gain more votes promising to axe the tax than to reform it. Whether that’s sad or not is really up to whoever cares.

Another fact is, if the NDP are facing opposition from environmentalists, then that’s probably a positive, at least here in BC.

I remember the nineties, and so do many people. In fact, there are loads more people who remember the eighties, and the seventies too. I won’t pull my punches here. Environmentalists might be book smart, but when it comes to people, they’re complete meatheads.

You can tell I’m rather fatalistic when it comes to environmental policy here in BC.

And whether they know it or not, environmentalists have gotta start with changing their public image before they actually begin to influence public opinion.

Thanks though, glad you liked it.

I did see the NYT article, and am planning to write a post on it.

All I am suggesting is that in regards to carbon pricing (IMO the most important aspect of any GHG reduction policy) the Liberals have a much better plan than the NDP.

Is that enough reason to vote for them? That is up to you.