Okay, I'm getting around to doing the Tories, they take a little longer because small government is a convincing argument, however their track record shows State expansions and social coercion. Which means I have to go to the Parliament website and look up everything they've done (along with researching everything they've said). Plus, the Cons are just going to release a new platform anyway, probably two weeks before anyone can actually vote on it. On top of that, I've had a busy month so I thought I'd take a break and just rip apart the NDP's Environment program.
Enjoy.
2.1 Protecting Nature and Our Ecosystems
1. Protecting the environment as a common good by creating a legal framework to ensure that people have the right to live in a healthy environment with access to natural spaces
The thing about politics is that you have to able to decipher doublespeak. Most of us realize that WMD actually means “an excuse to attack Iraq” and that “stimulus” actually means “printing money.” So where's the doublespeak in this policy? It's the “common good” fallacy. “Common good” essentially means “the State owns it.” Legal framework can be taken to mean, “a way of justifying the State's ownership” and that anyone opposed to their business management is ignored or persecuted.
Instead of allowing many private individuals to own every piece of land in this country, the NDP support State control of what businesses usually consider negative externalities. Examples of this are air, water and soil pollution. It is believed that if the State owns these for the “common good,” business and people that pollute will have pay tax or fines to government. This may be true, but as it's plain to see, nobody in the State represents “the people.” The best solution for externalities is to turn all land over to private property, including water and air. The private owners will have a greater incentive to keep their property's environment clean.
2. Protecting and restoring ecosystems as central to all social and economic planning
There it is, in plain sight for anyone to see: the NDP support social and economic planning. Central to their planning ideas are protecting and restoring areas untouched by man. If taken to its logical conclusion, this means all current green space will remain green. Protecting ecosystems could infringe on human needs, like access to food, water and living space. Essentially, the NDP support putting plant and animal ecosystems above “human ecosystems.”
3. Reducing and eliminating highly toxic substances, especially those threatening life and habitat
DDT is banned, but fluoride is in our water. Obviously, the State is completely incompetent in deciding what is considered toxic. These decisions are best left up to individuals running a business, dependent on voluntary payments to ensure safety in consumer goods and the environment.
4. Protecting our supplies of fresh water by excluding it from all international trade agreements, privatization and deregulation
The claim that Canada's water resources are limited is somewhat of a myth. All resources are scarce, but the level of concern this issue has risen to has reached absurdity. This policy of State control will result in the complete opposite of what the NDP are trying to achieve and what most Canadians probably want.
International trade – okay, we have water but this protectionist policy will most likely result in strained relations and potential boycotts and embargoes. Canada is an export nation; we have the capacity to become “self-sufficient” but without capital (borrowed from abroad for investment) we have no other means to advance other than exporting. Plus, who would loan us the money if we're hoarding a large part of the world's natural fresh water?
As I stated above, words used by statists have different meanings. Like “privatization," a word that usually receives negative feedback, but really only means having private ownership. The problem with the State is that when they privatize, they set prices arbitrarily and could lock out small buyers to award large corporations with little market incentives. Ultimately though, markets work better than coercion and getting the State's hands out of our water will be far more beneficial than any short-term gains. We just have to be careful about how to go about it.
Prohibiting against deregulation not only exacerbates the problem, but ensures that the bureaus will increase in size and costs.
5. Strengthening laws to protect biodiversity and threatened species; and
Biodiversity is another tricky word that enviro-fascists use to mislead popular opinion. For this situation though, it means the same as #3: State coercion that puts threatened species and etc., above human needs.
6. Protecting and developing our national parks and designating new parks.
I'm all for parks that leave nature the way the aboriginals found it thousands of years ago. And this is one of the few areas where the State seems to succeed in their endeavors. Unfortunately, the State is untrustworthy and extracts wealth from society. It'd be better if charities, or co-ops, or etc. owned the land with a true incentive to maintain and protect the parks. The profit motive private ownership brings will, most likely, result in protecting green space and the establishment of new parks. All through voluntary payment of course.
2.2 Climate Change
1. Establishing binding targets and clear standards to cut greenhouse gas emissions
Let's assume the evidence for man-made climate change isn't pseudo-science. There's still a legitimate scientific debate, but it's increasingly looking like climate catastrophe computer models are as correct as Keynesian economic computer models. But for the sake of argument, let's assume cutting greenhouse gas emissions will benefit all.
Why do we need State coercion to do this? If a mass of people truly believed that this was an issue that threatened human existence, than why do we need to look to government for solutions? The market will, and to some extent already has, responded to incentives to at least give the illusion of a “green economy.” Granted, a lot of these incentives arise from State coercion, but it's arguable that these incentives would have arisen from the market itself if conditions were better. The “Great Recession” (brought about by the State) has put a damper on “going green.”
2. Creating a revenue-generating carbon market to ensure industry reduces greenhouse gas emissions to targets set by government; and
Everyone should be able to point out the doublespeak in this policy. TANSTAARGCM – There ain't no such thing as a revenue-generating carbon market. This is either doublespeak for carbon taxes or cap and trade or – most likely – both. Carbon taxes will hurt everyone, not just polluting industries. All life is carbon-based, human beings exhale Co2 – it's perfectly logical to conclude that bureaucrats will expand their mandate to cover all carbon related acts (if it's carbon – we can legally tax it). That kind of mentality will ensure an ever increasing load of taxes without any real justification other than “it helps the environment.” which it obviously won't.
A cap and trade system will benefit businesses that walk hand in hand with the State. The rest of us will be poorer.
3. Imposing strict energy efficiency and emissions standards for motor vehicles, appliances, and buildings.
It's nice the NDP are getting more honest as their platform develops. Here is an open call for “imposing” or forcing people to drive certain cars, use certain appliances and run or construct a building in a certain way. What's actually considered energy efficient is debatable, and since not one individual signs a voluntary contract to be governed, the government is quite capable of defining and redefining the term as they see fit. Even if there were an emergency situation where all consumer and production goods were in dire need of being “energy efficient,” State coercion still wouldn't be able to pull this off.
2.3 Energy
1. Promoting clean, renewable energy to mitigate the negative effect of non-renewable energy such as fossil fuels
Promoting as in stealing from one group to benefit another group. In this case, taxing smoke stacks and rewarding wind turbines. Both are eye sores.
2. Investing in research and development to create new sources of alternative energy and develop incentives to encourage their use
The market is already doing an amazing job at this and State interference is bound to screw it up. The best kind of incentives are market incentives.
3. Promoting coordination between provinces and territories to share clean energy sources and ensure better energy security, including, where appropriate, an east-west energy grid
The centralization of energy, or more appropriately, the centralization of electricity. Anyone that lives in Ontario and has a fair bit of knowledge about our electricity situation knows full well how fucked up things really are. I wouldn't be surprised if blacks-out become common once its established that the State is completely bankrupted. Having the federal government get involved isn't going to help solve things.
4. Rescinding tax breaks and subsidies for fossil fuel industries, while protecting workers, communities, and the surrounding environment
This is one of those scenarios where one action creates a ripple through society and the economy. Raising taxes on fossil fuel industries will cause unemployment. It may even destroy entire communities (see Hamilton, Ontario). This one action will require more actions to “fix” the problem. One argument is that the increased tax revenue will go towards readjusting worker and community lives. But this stance ignores economic logic and is based on the assumption that the State not only knows what it is doing, but is benevolent in its actions.
5. Halting nuclear expansion and upgrading the safety and security of current nuclear energy and waste management facilities
Nuclear energy is, right now, the best alternative to fossil fuels. Halting this and taxing CO2 will completely shut down the Canadian economy. Blacks-out will be common. This is not fear-mongering, this is just the reality of these moronic policies.
Chernobyl is the perfect example for why State control of nuclear power plants is a dangerous, dangerous thing. Private businesses with incentives to provide efficiency, safety and security are always preferable to State monopoly.
6. Developing strong standards and incentives for energy conservation and creating public awareness about its importance; and
Propaganda for austerity. Cuba had similar programs after the USSR collapsed and the country was sent back to the stone age. Conserving energy is common sense, with an economic incentive arising from the fact that people don't want to pay for something they don't have to do. Most of us shut off the lights when we leave the room, not because of “our carbon footprint” (although a lot do), but because we don't want higher electricity bills. If the NDP's energy plan were taken seriously, then the kind of energy conservation they'd be raising awareness about is the kind where basic necessities are rationed and the public must be misinformed to remain docile.
7. Working with all levels of government to achieve large-scale energy efficiency, especially through major retrofit programs.
Retrofit programs are the State's way of funding “energy-saving” projects that never would have arisen in the free voluntary market. Despite some short-term gains for the group involved, there is a net-loss for society, with everyone being poorer than they would have been if these projects had been funded by private capital.
2.4 Towards a Green and Sustainable Economy
1. Reviewing all economic decisions to assess their environmental impact
Toward a Communist economy should have been the title. Can you imagine if the State actually reviewed every single economic decision to “assess” their environmental impact? First off, they would need to define what kind of environmental impact they're “assessing” and then furthermore, unless this country becomes a totally planned economy, this policy is completely impossible.
There are over 33 million people in this country making hundreds of economic decisions everyday. Even if the NDP were to generalize certain acts (like driving to the grocery store) they still run into economic calculation problems.
This is by far the dumbest policy I've ever read. Technically, about 15% of Canadians support this idea for an Idiocracy.
2. Establishing a major research and development fund for green technologies
Either make it a voluntary tax or allow private charities, businesses or investors to develop these funds.
3. Including environment sustainability in corporate social responsibility codes
State meddling in private affairs; should be cast off as immoral but the word corporate blinds many people to the truth. Also, “sustainability” is one of those doublespeak words. It doesn't really mean anything in this context.
4. Consulting with communities on the development of local sustainability initiatives; and
In this context sustainability means something – whatever the local community decides it means. This is a first-step to realizing that the market will define environmental sustainability. There is no need for State involvement here, move along.
5. Investing in the development of “green cars”.
What about red cars? Or blue, or yellow? Having the State invest in the colour of a car is just as ridiculous as the State investing in the type of fuel engine. Plus, the State cannot invest money. It only destroys wealth by taxation.
6. Directing infrastructure stimulus spending in a strategic way that focuses on public transit, retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency and following urban design models to make our communities more energy efficient.
We really are on borderline communist-style planning with initiatives like this. First off, the State cannot allocate resources in any efficient way. Strategically? Perhaps, Russia survived with this kind of planning for almost a century, but living standards dwindled. And so will Canada's if the NDP is persistent in using State power to plan communities, even with the best of intentions.
2.5 Showing Green Leadership to the World
1. Taking leadership internationally to prevent environmental damage to the planet and implement environmentally sustainable practices worldwide
Despite massive poverty and death at home, the Soviet Union was the world leader in Communism and the model for all the world's socialist countries. Likewise, Canada can be the world leader in Enviro-Fascism. Replace "the collective" or "socialism" with "climate change" or the "environment" and what the NDP is proposing is basically communism.
2. Adhering to international agreements to reverse climate change, including those with binding regulations; and
Without trying to sound like an NWO survivalist, I think World Government is here and they're using climate change as a justification. A quick Google search will bring up all kinds of influential people and bureaucrats that talk of "global governance" to conform nations to various international climate treaties.
3. Demanding environmental standards in all trade agreements to which Canada is a signatory.
That's stupid.
So as one can clearly see now, the NDP are advocating a communist style enviro-fasicsm dictatorship. And dictatorship it would be, if carbon taxes are introduced and every human action is assessed by a central planning body. For those that still see fascism and communism as two different entities – please go read something. There is no "left" or "right", just individual freedom and the State's tyranny.
If protecting the environment is high on the NDP value scale, regardless of the scientific merits of man-made climate change, then their best bet is to eliminate taxes completely.
The State cannot protect the Earth. If we are to learn anything from history it is that the State is incapable of protecting or maintaining anything but itself (and even that is hard to maintain for a long period).
The State has developed nuclear weapons that can obliterate the planet and bio-weapons that can wipe out all life.
The State is the biggest threat to the environment.
"What about red cars? Or blue, or yellow? Having the State invest in the colour of a car is just as ridiculous as the State investing in the type of fuel engine."
ReplyDeleteLMFAO!