The Shotgun Blog
Friday, January 25, 2008
Greens on Emery
Just got wind of this press release. The Green Party, including all the people running in the by-elections, has come out to ask Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to intervene in the Marc Emery case.
Here is the press release from the 21st:
Green Party calls on Nicholson to intervene in Emery extradition
VANCOUVER – Dan Grice, the Green Party candidate in the Vancouver-Quadra by-election, is condemning Justice Minister Rob Nicholson’s refusal to intervene in the Marc Emery extradition case.
“We need to ensure the independence of the Canadian justice system,” said Mr. Grice. “Our citizens have the right to be protected and punished according to our legal standards, not those of other governments. This case is a clear infringement of Canadian sovereignty and sets a dangerous precedent. Minister Nicholson’s willingness to abandon a Canadian whom we are unwilling to charge ourselves is disturbing.”
Vancouver resident Marc Emery and two of his employees have been facing extradition to the United States for mailing cannabis seeds across the border, where draconian legislation could have forced them to spend life in prison. Mr. Emery is set to agree to serve a five year sentence on the condition that his employees, including one who has Crohn’s disease and uses medicinal marijuana for her condition, are not charged. Selling cannabis seeds is typically considered a summary offense in Canada and Mr. Emery has not been charged domestically.
“Canadian law enforcement officials have been aware of Mr. Emery’s activities for years yet have chosen not to penalize him. By turning a blind eye to his activities, Canada has implicitly acknowledged that our marijuana laws are nothing short of ridiculous,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “The United States’ ideologically-motivated pursuit of Mr. Emery has gone far enough. We should either enforce our laws, or change them. Justice is not served when actions are penalized only when requested by another country.”
Mr. Grice added that the Green Party would heed the call of the Canadian Senate’s 2002 Special Committee on Drugs by legalizing the adult use of marijuana and taxing the substance at a rate similar to tobacco.--30--
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Greens on Emery:
The Watermelons will do anything for publicity - preferably free publicity because that's all their budget can afford.
I wonder if people know that May sold the Greens to the Liebral/Corporate alliance for a bag of magic beans (i.e. her seat and the perks that go along with it). She's a hack, nothing more.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 7:15:11 PM
But wasn't it the Gov't of Canada as practiced by the Liberal Party of the day that let other goverments practice their legal standards on Canadian citizens with nary a peep by either the Greens or the Liberals.
I'm thinking of Sampson in Saudi Arabia and that poor woman murdered in Iran for taking pictures.
Murder and horrendous torture swept under the rug, but hey, let's worry about a pot grower who faces a stiff fine and a few years in prison.
Where are their priorities?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 7:24:15 PM
1. Bash America
2. Get elected
Somehow it works.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 7:40:25 PM
The Green Party have never accepted violence against Canadians overseas. We've been very vocal on supporting human rights here and around the world.
We are releasing a press statement because this is relevant today, the other issues we would have been vocal about when they were happened years ago.
I can assure your readers that the Green Party very much stand for personal freedoms and human rights.
Visit my website www.votegrice.com, to learn more about our policies.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 7:47:48 PM
"The Green Party have never accepted violence against Canadians overseas. We've been very vocal on supporting human rights here and around the world. "
I guess I missed that announcement once you hitched your wagon to the Libs.
In short... The Greens aren't credible.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 7:50:34 PM
"the Green Party very much stand for personal freedoms and human rights."
Yeah right. They sold out to the corporations when May made a deal with the Liebrals. They're morally bankrupt.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 7:50:54 PM
The only deal that was made was not to run against Stephane Dion. I guess at the time we kind of felt sorry for him.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 7:53:21 PM
Dan, Dan! Don't run away. Welcome to the site, and let's have a chat. I have a couple of questions:
1. Do you, or the Green Party, think marijuana should be legal?
2. What is either your position, or the Green Party's position, on the Alberta Human Rights Commission complaint against our own Ezra Levant? I took a quick peek around, but I still can't figure out where the Green Party stands on it.
Hope you're still coming back to read this...
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 7:53:31 PM
Wow, same sentiment posted within 30 seconds of each other.
Perhaps the Greens needed a better PR machine.
Either that or principles based on historical Western traditions.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 7:55:39 PM
(Incidentally, I got a chance to meet Jim Harris at the Toronto Liberty Seminar this past weekend. Nice guy, some pretty good fiscal conservative credentials. We'll be posting video of his talk here on the Shotgun in the not-too-distant future.)
Actually, an addendum to question no. 2 above: What is your, and/or the Green Party's position on freedom of speech and expression in general? Should the Western Standard be allowed to publish cartoons that offend people?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 7:56:22 PM
BTW. What corporations are you talking to? The oil companies and dirty industries who we propose taxing for treating out environment and air like a waste bin.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 7:56:49 PM
"The only deal that was made was not to run against Stephane Dion. "
Ok, if you feel that this was a benign accomodation, please make deals not to run against conservative candidates.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 7:58:08 PM
"BTW. What corporations are you talking to? The oil companies and dirty industries who we propose taxing for treating out environment and air like a waste bin."
During the blackout of 2003, we found out gov't was the biggest energy hog. Can you say McGuinty?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 8:00:16 PM
h2o.. deals are a two way streak. Harper can call Mrs. May anytime he feels.
P.M.J.. Most cartoons offend people. However, I've blogged about the Mohammed Cartoons here --> (http://www.dangrice.com/?q=node/5)..
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 8:23:43 PM
"deals are a two way streak. Harper can call Mrs. May anytime he feels."
but you said
"I can assure your readers that the Green Party very much stand for personal freedoms and human rights. "
But only when waiting by the phone for calls from the prime minister where offering a quid pro quo is concerned?
Is that how I should read your quisling weasel words responding to your party's support of the leader of another party instead of providing Canadian citizens with their right to decide for themselves for whom they should vote?
If you stand for human rights then why does your party not oppose the leader of a party that has a terrible track record definding the human rights of Canadians abroad...as you insist?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 8:32:16 PM
Thanks, Dan, but the link just takes me to your blog, and I'm not sure exactly where you blogged about it (I'm looking through it, so I might find it before you have a chance to respond).
But maybe you can repeat what you said here.
The Green Party has always struck me as a potentially interesting fusionist vehicle between the fiscally conservative and socially liberal. A kind of quasi-libertarian Party with a focus on the environment. That may have been more true under Harris than it is now under May, but I at least think lowering/abolishing income and property taxes is a great idea.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 8:32:27 PM
In your blog post on the carttons you wrote: "I could post the cartoons on my website without fear of government punishment, as can nearly any of our newspapers if they choose to." In light of the HR case against the Western Standard for just doing this, I'd say you were incorrect. Too bad.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-25 8:35:22 PM
The WS blog software does not know where to end URL links when there is no space at the end of them. So when you click the link you get the bracket and dots included and it won't take you to the article. Dan's blog post is here:
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-25 8:38:18 PM
You beat me to the punch, Fact Check...
I did a quick Google search to find the blog post, and got it. Then I copied the following out of Dan's blog post:
"However, there is a point when you should realize free speech does not justify inciting hatred. Papers that are republishing this are only creating dangers for their citizens overseas, and are giving ground to those around the world who rally against personal liberties. I could post the cartoons on my website without fear of government punishment, as can nearly any of our newspapers if they choose to. So what point would there be in publishing it? They are not a great work of art, nor do they have any message that couldn't be conveyed 1000 times better in words..."
My comment was going to mirror yours: Ezra is in front of a Human Rights Commission, facing potential fines and, since he's already said he won't comply, possible jail time for "contempt of court" (if it goes that far). We don't, in short, have the kind of freedom of speech that would permit posting the cartoons in Canada.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 8:40:45 PM
Actually, I was also going to disagree with your news judgment, Dan. I think it is important and relevant to show the cartoons that are causing so much fuss. When I heard about it, the *very first thing* that I did was a Google search to try and find the reason for the commotion. That was after reading several news stories about it. If a news reader has to do this, not for the sake of interest or whatever but to get the full context of the story, then the news writer has made an error, and has failed to include a relevant piece of information in the story.
Just like with Chocolate Jesus and Piss Christ, and a hundred other "offensive" works of art that make the news. In those cases, the news writers were happy to include the images, because they are relevant, important, and provide context for the story. They did not see the clear analogy to this in the case of the Muhammad cartoons, but that just means they had poor judgment.
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 8:44:46 PM
I must be careful to be clear, that the Green Party does not have any policy as far as this lawsuit, nor are we likely because this is a matter of interpretation of the law and not whether the law is in fact valid and should be changed. My post was written before the human rights issue came about.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 8:48:53 PM
"In those cases, the news writers were happy to include the images, because they are relevant, important, and provide context for the story. "
But cartoons in Europe that led to riots in the Middle East are newsworthy despite the hypocrisy and blatant double standards of other N.American news outlets.
Ezra was journalistically correct as well as standing on sturdy historical legal grounds.
The fact that he is required to explain himself before gov't today is scary.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 8:48:58 PM
Sure, Dan, no worries. We'll be happy to accept that you do not speak for the Green Party, unless you explicitly say so (like this: "I, and the Green Party, hold the position that the Canadian government should intervene in the case of Marc Emery...")
But I am curious: Do you stand by your earlier blog post? The one that simply took it for granted that, in Canada, freedom of expression was held in such high esteem that posting the cartoons was a matter not for the government to decide? Do you think that the Western Standard ought to be *legally* permitted to show the cartoons? Is it wrong for the Human Rights Commission to be chasing down Ezra for doing what he did as publisher of a magazine?
Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-01-25 8:58:24 PM
As to some of your earlier questions, we think cannabis should be legalized and taxed.
One of your other readers is going on and on about the deal, and I think this is a pretty lame discussion because there is no party cohesion.. On the day Harper formed government, he accepted David Emerson, a Liberal Cabinet minister to serve with him! Does that not mean Harper is in collusion with the Liberals?
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 9:02:42 PM
As for the cartoons, I will have to say I'm not entirely sure what to say or my opinion really is.
I don't really believe that the cartoons violated anyone's human rights not were they really discriminatory.
However, I also think that one can do something that is legal in an irresponsible way knowing that there will be negative results and as such are responsible for the costs.
If any Canadians were harmed overseas or there was added costs to protecting our embassies when the standard knew very well that other papers that had reprinted that had incurred such costs then you could very well reasonably be found liable.
However, under no circumstances would I agree that Mr. Levant should be extradited..
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 9:27:57 PM
The Greens made a deal with the Liebral Party, which exempted Ontario's auto industry from Kyoto. No integrity whatsoever.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 9:30:14 PM
"The Green Party have never accepted violence against Canadians overseas. "
"On the day Harper formed government, he accepted David Emerson, a Liberal Cabinet minister to serve with him! Does that not mean Harper is in collusion with the Liberals?"
Does Harper accept violence against Canadians overseas?
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 9:30:40 PM
h2o. You would have to ask him as "accept" is a value judgement. I don't think he "accepts" violence even if I disagree with him about whether our actions could result in it. However:
• This government has withdrawn legal protection for Canadians facing the death penalty in the US. The Green Party opposes the death penalty as state sanctioned violence.
• The Green Party thinks that failure to implement a poppy for medicine agreement with afghanistan farmers and using a NATO force from predominantly NA/European nations has increased violence against Canadian soliders.
• When four UN peacekeepers died in Lebanon including one Canadian in an air strike, the government did not speak out against it.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 10:01:05 PM
Anyways, feel free to email me at [email protected] if you have any questions as I might not respond to all comments.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 10:02:54 PM
Nice to see that no matter what the Greenies do, they'll never be elected. May made her deal with Dion so she can take advantage of MP's perks. The party should be renamed the Greedy Party if the name weren't already applicable to their masters in the Liebral and Dipper parties.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 10:13:13 PM
"You would have to ask him as "accept" is a value judgement. "
"The Green Party have never accepted violence against Canadians overseas. "
Well, I see you are quite good at outlining policy differences. That's fair. Yet this contradictory use of the phrase "accept" as a value judgement as good when the ascribed to the Greens and neutral when applied to Harper is problematic.
Don't worry. We all do it. I just don't pretend otherwise.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-25 10:22:30 PM
h2o.. I can easily say the Green Party does not "accept violence", because "non-violence" is defined in our party's constitution as one of our core values.
The 6 core values of the Green Party are:
REspect for Diversity
I don't know what Harper or the Conservative's core values are.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-25 10:33:19 PM
What good are values if your own leader sells them to the Corporations for some perks?
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-25 10:40:40 PM
Based on those core values, a more appropriate name would be the Politically Correct Platitude Party. Could the Greens be more mercurial if they tried? If they could just get used to grovelling to unions and drop their lip service to market-based solutions, they would make perfect little NDPers.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-01-26 12:42:14 AM
I LIVE IN NEW YORK STATE OF THE UNITED STATES - I AM IN FAVOR OF MARIJUANA USE FOR MEDICAL PRESCRIPTION USE FOR PEOPLE WHO SUFFER EITHER MENTAL OR PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT. IF DRUG COMPANIES MANUFACTURE MEDICATIONS FOR PATIENTS WHO ARE IN PAIN OR MENTAL DEPRESSION AND HAVE SIDE EFFECTS INCLUDING USE OF MORPHINE NARCOTIC OR ZYPREXA MADE BY ELI LILLY USED FOR DEPRESSION AND HAVE SIDE EFFECTS SUCH AS ONE WHO MIGHT HAVE DIABETES AS A RESULT FROM ZYPREXA OR EVEN OTHER MEDS THEN WHY NOT HAVE POT MEDICALLY PRESCRIBED AND NOT HAVE HARMS WAY FOR ALL PATIENTS . THE DRUG COMPANIES ARE GREEDY FOR PROFIT INCLUDING HAVING ONLY COPY RIGHTS ON NON GENERICS THERE FOR SKY ROCKETING THERE SALES FOR HUGE PROFITS INCLUDING STOCKS ON THE WALL STREET MARKET AND NOT FOR ONES WHO SUFFER FROM NUNZIO BAGLIERE SYRACUSE N.Y. E MAIL [email protected] .NET E MAIL YOUR RESPONSE TO ME AND LETS TAKE A VOTE FOR CAHNGE OUR AMERICAN LAWS AND NOT LIVE IN THE DARK AGES " WAKE UP AMERICA "
Posted by: NUNZIO BAGLIERE | 2008-01-26 1:16:24 AM
The same could be said of the Conservatives, although I think they've already begun grovelling to auto unions and dropping market-based solutions.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-26 9:44:44 AM
Virtually all of the opinion on this blog centres on whether or not marijuana ought to be legal. That is beside the point. These people have allowed moral outrage to hijack their objectivity. The fact of the matter is that the unauthorized importation of any product, whether legal or illegal in itself, is called smuggling, and is still illegal and subject to severe federal sanction. This would be true even if marijuana were legal in both Canada and the U.S.
If Emery imported into the States a crate of untaxed cigarettes, they'd charge him. If he imported an undeclared spoon, they'd charge him. Smuggling is illegal both in Canada and the U.S. (and around the world, incidentally). And if Emery had been smuggling alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, most of those posting on this blog would cheerfully throw away the key. But because he was smuggling their drug of choice, he somehow automatically deserves and exemption and suddenly it's a sovereignty issue. It is to laugh.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-26 9:51:31 AM
Nunzio, marijuana also has side effects. They include lethargy, delusional states, paranoia, hallucinations, and other psychotropic symptoms. It was for just this reason that medical marijuana was outlawed in 1942, several years after the much-maligned Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 that outlawed recreational use but continued to allow medical use.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-26 9:53:30 AM
Ultimately, for those who believe in freedoms, the Green Party is for you.
• Legalize Cannabis
• Market based solutions to climate change as endorsed by preston manning and major economists.
• Muncipalism and bioregionalism that shifts spending powers to cities and communities for effective use of spending power
• An elimination of lowest bracket of income taxes
• Cutting subsidies to oil companies and nuclear industry
• Moving to a Guaranteed livable income negative taxation systems similar to the idea that originally launched the social credit as an alternative to a state run welfare systems.
• Protection for open source software and resistance to heavily commercialized copyright schemes.
• Fixing the UN, WTO, and world bank.
• Cutting currency speculation by implementing a tobin tax on currency manipulation.
• Opposing deep integration schemes
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-26 9:54:30 AM
All I see coming from that platform is increased taxes and Alberta's economy being ruined. No thanks.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-26 9:57:59 AM
"Ultimately, for those who believe in freedoms, the Green Party is for you."
"Fixing the UN, WTO, and world bank."
Ride that tiger, Dan. Yeehaw!
Freedom and a functioning UN? You don't say!
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-01-26 10:03:47 AM
On the plus side, if those ideas were ever implemented and Alberta would have to pay for them, Alberta's immediate secession would be a certainty. I suppose this is the metaphorical silver lining.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-26 10:23:48 AM
Who started turning this thread into a free forum to promote the Green Party anyways?
Mark Emery is a felon. He is being extradited to the United States to face criminal charges. That is as it should be. What he did to warrant these charges is not material to the issue at hand.
Personally, I hope he gets enough time in jail to allow him to grow up and become a responsible adult rather than in his present state as a crybaby juvenile delinquent.
Posted by: atric | 2008-01-26 11:13:55 AM
Dan. Your points answered:
1. "This government has withdrawn legal protection for Canadians facing the death penalty in the US. The Green Party opposes the death penalty as state sanctioned violence."
No such legal protection ever existed. The policy was to appeal for clemency, as there is no legal recourse. If Canadians don't think American policies such as the war on drugs should apply to Canadians, why do they think that Canada's policies on capital punishment should apply to Americans?
2. "The Green Party thinks that failure to implement a poppy for medicine agreement with afghanistan farmers and using a NATO force from predominantly NA/European nations has increased violence against Canadian soliders."
Sounds like a protection racket to me. The Green Party thus demonstrates that is has no potential as leaders, only as slaves. Good to know.
3. "When four UN peacekeepers died in Lebanon including one Canadian in an air strike, the government did not speak out against it."
And when 3,000 Americans died on September 11, several Canadian leaders publicly mused that they had it coming.
If "To Kill a Mockingbird" is no longer required reading in schools, it should be. Then perhaps people would better understand the trap of selective standards.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-26 11:21:21 AM
Dan wrote: “The green party is the party of freedoms.”
No, the Green Party is the party of the freedoms the Green Party considers important, which largely concentrate around those things that will make so-called “free spirits” able to engage in maximum feel-good hedonism while shifting most of the responsibilities to the “fat cats” without compensation. His points one by one:
1. “Legalize Cannabis.”
And thus make the organized crime problem even worse, because the rest of the world WON’T legalize it. Canada’s moral superiority did not stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and automatic weapons, yet they expect it to stop the use of reefer? Ha, ha.
2. “Market based solutions to climate change as endorsed by preston manning and major economists.”
The Greens have no concept of markets and subscribe to the dogma that profits are evil. If the Greens had their way, humans would be extinct.
3. “Muncipalism and bioregionalism that shifts spending powers to cities and communities for effective use of spending power”
That would not survive a major test by an upstart region trying to assert that power. No party, once it has power, relinquishes it willingly. More regional power would be nice, but it’s not needed badly enough that we have to turn to these pinheads for it.
4. “An elimination of lowest bracket of income taxes”
Subject to the rest of taxpayers being willing to pick up the slack. Good luck with that.
5. “Cutting subsidies to oil companies and nuclear industry”
Very well. You will please deliver up all your personal possessions that are made of plastic, synthetic fibres, and synthetic laminates (all products of the petrochemical industry), and take your home off the electrical grid. Set a good example.
6. “Moving to a Guaranteed livable income negative taxation systems similar to the idea that originally launched the social credit as an alternative to a state run welfare systems.
Again, subject to the taxpayer’s willingness to pay.
7. “Protection for open source software and resistance to heavily commercialized copyright schemes.”
Canada has already required a reputation as the Amsterdam of intellectual property rights. We don’t need any more bad press on this issue.
8. “Fixing the UN, WTO, and world bank.”
You’ll have to fix the population of Earth first.
9. “Cutting currency speculation by implementing a tobin tax on currency manipulation.”
More taxes. I’m shocked.
10. “Opposing deep integration schemes”
Like the federal government?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-26 11:35:57 AM
P.S. That should be "acquired" a reputation, not "required" it. Oopsie.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-26 11:39:31 AM
Green Party = Potheads = Idiots
Already have enough jackasses like this in power (mostly in the opposition, Thank the Lord)
Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-26 11:46:15 AM
They MUST have been high when they came up with that platform.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-01-26 2:08:37 PM
You know what, I don`t care what the politics are that could help keep Canadians out of prison in the states because of selling seeds. The Americans admitted that Marc Emery`s political actions are what singled him out as a target. Which incidentally is really bending our extradition laws to the very breaking point. The laws in the states have done nothing to win their war against drugs and they want to export them and their insane sentences to Canada. I for one would rather that our criminal system approaches dealing with drugs using logic, experience and science. The American`s approach of blaming the drugs they have chosen to make illegal for all the ills of society and being fine with the rest of them because of arbitrary moral choices is not something our country needs more of. Our citizens do not need to be punished under that system in our own country.
Whatever political party is willing to stand up the DEA officers hanging around Ottawa and the U.S. ambassadors sent over to explain why we`re wrong has my respect, no matter what their reasons are.
Sad thing is, that sounds like paranoid conspiracy talk, but it`s true. Kudos to anyone who`s willing to take a stand for Canadian principles. We`re doing too much for their war already.
Posted by: Lily | 2008-01-26 7:01:54 PM
Don't have time to reply to most of these comments and many have been argued to death else where, however:
"2. “Market based solutions to climate change as endorsed by preston manning and major economists.”
The Greens have no concept of markets and subscribe to the dogma that profits are evil. If the Greens had their way, humans would be extinct."
-Entirely not true. A huge portion of our candidates are economists and are policies are almost identical to the report filed by the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy. Listen to me interview Mark Jaccard here:
For an understanding of the economic policy we are pushing. Carbon pricing has been endorsed by Preston Manning and Mike Harris (although he was useless when he was in power), TD Chief Economist Don Dummond and many others.
We believe in what is known as True Cost Accounting, which mean we have to provide a real market value for resource deletion as well as health costs.
We propose shifting taxes off of income (we can't completely do it) and on to pollution and resources. Ultimately, we feel that for too long oil and energy has been underpriced and as such we've failed to use other measures economically.
For those in ALberta, realize that it takes almost 750 cubic feet of natural gas to produce a barrel of oil, and as such you are killing your natural gas reserves to produce oil because we don't have alternative measures to run on. Plus you are redirecting all of your water sources which is causing a massive problem in lack of underground water supplies. However, ultimately you could have an option to use resource depletion and pollution pricing rather than strict per barrel royalties to drive oil companies to increase your efficiency.
If you don't think CO2 is causing massive problems with our global situation, then ultimately I have no doubt that you will not support the Green Party. But then again, I'm quite confident that I have both more scientist and economists supporting my party than are supporting whichever party you support.
Anyways, as a Green, I also have to say that the Western Standard's forums are actually less rabid than the NDP dominated Rabble.
If anyone is from BC and would make a donation to my by-election campaign, you can do so are www.dangrice.com.
Posted by: Dan Grice | 2008-01-26 7:10:27 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.