Climate Change

“The make it or break it year”

Brian Gordon posted a Twitter thread today that makes numerous points about Anjali Appadurai’s bid to capture leadership of BC NDP. It is repeated here with permission:

  • Why I do NOT support supporting Anjali for leadership of the BC NDP, even though she seems awesome:
  • Let’s say Anjali wins, and she does seem like she really ‘gets it.’ Now she has the entire NDP old guard and 57 caucus members who 100% lied about and then voted for LNG, logging old growth, SIte C, stomping on Indigenous rights, secretive government, privatising health care…
  • …sweeping money laundering under the rug, doing nothing about the housing and opioid crises, and general climate denial. She’ll get nowhere. Voting for a saviour is foolish.
  • Best case, Anjali loses but exposes the gross climate hypocrisy of the BC NDP. If she becomes a Green candidate or that boosts the Greens, maybe that helps. Otherwise, so what?
  • I ran for the Greens against the NDP’s Lana Popham in 2009. I almost dropped out to give her the advantage because she totally, obviously got the danger of climate change. How did that work out? She and Bowinn Ma are sending out cupcake recipes while BC burns.
  • Anjali is a science-denier. She is running around maskless, so she’s bought the NDP line that COVID is over. More people are dying per day of COVID in BC now than at any time previously, which she should know. So she’s either a COVID-denier or is pandering to those who are.
  • The NDP simply do not get climate change or Indigenous rights. They are wilfully blind to both because it doesn’t fit the socialist agenda of mega-projects and centralized power – both energy and political power.
  • Read the socialist magazines like Jacobin and there are passing mentions of climate change between praise for mega-projects like Site C. They even admit that there will be some people and areas sacrificed for the greater good – like Site C. Socialism has sacrifice zones, too.
  • I am not a partisan and I vote for the party most likely to take serious action of the greatest threat facing us, the climate emergency. The NDP are actively making it worse.

Like Brian Gordon, I do not question the motives of Anjali Appadurai and her supporters. It is a sincere effort to influence policy in British Columbia and, as the ancients wrote in various forms, desperate times call for desperate measures. However, we do question their strategy.

At the start of WW2, the massive French Maginot Line was supposed to be an impenetrable barrier to stop northern invaders. Instead of trying to break through the obstacle, using their mobile blitzkrieg strategy, German forces went around it. Weeks later, France surrendered.

Perhaps this is a reach but I see a lesson. The NDP is a secure organization unlikely to be penetrated by a few thousand new sign-ups. There is an option to go around that party and affect change. That is for climate activists to strengthen an already credible organization led by a person committed to addressing climate change. No time or energy would be lost because common goals are shared.

The Green Party does not have to win 44 seats in 2024 to influence policy. By winning six to ten seats, BC Greens could hold an effective balance of power two years from now. Less than two years if Eby sees an opportunity for victory and calls another early election. BC’s most successful Premier, WAC Bennett faced eight elections from 1952-1972. If WAC didn’t have an issue to campaign with, he manufactured one.

Expanding the Green Party’s influence will not be easy, but delay reduces the chance of success. Earth is showing us the need for immediate action. Politicians and business leaders are ignoring these messages; citizens who want future generations to survive, should not.

At the launch of The World Meteorological Organization’s report on Global Climate, calling it a frightening report, UN Secretary-General Guterres said 2021 must be the year for climate action – “the make it or break it year.”

Of course, decision makers in the world paid little attention. Their preference is to defer action but promise to meet targets sometime in the future, even though previous targets were unmet and largely forgotten.


You can support In-Sights by following this link

Categories: Climate Change

8 replies »

  1. Good Morning Norm

    I read the score card Norm and you can’t believe the damage. I
    have said before …fine but who put these sociopaths in the
    position to govern and who keeps re-electing them? It really
    does not say much for the citizenry of this province.

    Either they are lacking in critical thinking skills to ascertain
    the propaganda and lies they are being fed or if they do they
    just don’t care because their lifestyle has not been impacted yet.
    You don’t like the heat just go and buy an air conditioner response.

    Unfortunately by the time they are impacted in some form
    it will be to late.

    BC is a complete Green washed province. No exceptions.
    You see the social break down south of the border and totally
    ignore the same major fractures happening here. Go figure.

    Like

  2. Due to our FPTP voting system, our political system is broken. The Greens obtaining the balance of power was an anomaly. And even though it ‘ might ‘ work again, it’s only green wash that comes off once the BC Liberals take power. That’s how our system works. The back and forth lurch.

    So someone comes forth that ‘ might ‘ shake things up. Someone who has deep climate change campaigning. What’s wrong with that. She’s smart, organized and she might just do it. Even though I’ve campaigned for decades for electoral reform and lost, I’m not as cynical as you and Brian. I hope she wins. I hope she shakes up the party, implements PR ( which she sees as a must if we want to see real change ). Starts steering the ship in a different direction. Possible? Maybe but not likely, regardless, a nice thought.

    Like

    • I admit to being skeptical about the words of politicians. Skepticism, which some prefer to call cynicism, is a condition based on experience, so it typically rises during or after midlife.

      English philosopher Julian Baggini wrote about the importance of healthy cynicism:

      I often feel that “cynical” is a term of abuse hurled at people who are judged to be insufficiently “positive” by those who believe that negativity is the real cause of almost all the world’s ills. This allows them to breezily sweep aside sceptical doubts without having to go to the bother of checking if they are well-grounded…

      If we were all habitually trustful and credulous of human goodness and sincerity, then there would be no questioning of dubious foreign interventions, infringements of civil liberties or sharp business practices… But at its best, cynicism is a greater force for progress than optimism.

      Famed American columnist Mike Royko wrote:

      Show me somebody who is always smiling, always cheerful, always optimistic, and I will show you somebody who hasn’t the faintest idea what the heck is really going on.

      My views are built by university training in political science and long experience as a participant in or observer of political actions. (I first joined a political party in the early 1960s.) The main point of my writing about Anjali Appadurai is not criticism of her stated policies — I view climate action as most important — but of the undemocratic party where she is a member.

      If I were told to lift and move a 2,000 pound rock, no matter how hard I tried, it would stay in place. That would cause me to seek a different approach, which might involve leaving the rock in place and finding a path around it. To me, Anjali Appadurai’s rock is the party she seeks to lead. If it is immovable, as I believe, she should follow a different path to reach her goal.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Apparently, politically potent and focused big business interests get catered-to regardless of which of the major parties rules; and it’s always one or the other. As such, the big business interests can’t really lose.

        On the federal-politics scene, I’d have figured the very intelligent and well-educated then-justice-minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, and others like her, would have known this long before running for office. One wonders how many other governing politicians got elected without being aware.

        I say: anyone wanting to run for office should have to first pass a post-secondary political science course that teaches this in length and detail. Therefore they cannot claim innocent-ignorance if they ever, unlike Wilson-Raybould, get caught making the ethically wrong political choice as an elected official.

        Like

      • Norm’s example of moving the large rock reminds me of a story told to me by a colleague.

        The family owned a cottage on the coast and they felt that a huge boulder was spoiling their beach. Rather than getting expensive machinery (and Fisheries) in, Dad got a bunch driftwood logs and bound them to the rock at low tide.

        Tide came in… the logs lifted the rock… and Dad rowed the rock out to deeper water before letting it go.

        Sometimes, the simplest solution is sitting right there, waiting to be discovered. I suspect there were cynics and doubters in the crowd, thinking Dad was a crazy old fool!

        Like

    • The First Past The Post electoral system barely qualifies as democratic rule within the democracy spectrum.

      FPTP does seem to serve corporate lobbyists well, however. I believe it is why power/corporate interests generally resist attempts at changing from FPTP to proportional representation electoral systems of governance, the latter which dilutes corporate influence. Low-representation FPTP-elected governments, in which a relatively small portion of the country’s populace is actually electorally represented, are likely the easiest for lobbyists to manipulate or ‘buy’.

      As it is, corporate lobbyists actually write bills for our (Canada’s) governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, supposedly to save the elected officials their own time. I believe the practice has become so systematic here that those who are aware of it (that likely includes mainstream news-media political writers) don’t bother publicly discussing it.

      Regardless, powerful business interests can, and sometimes do, debilitate our high-level elected officials through implicit or explicit threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ‘requests’ aren’t accommodated.

      It’s a political crippling that’s worsened by a blaring news-media that’s permitted to be naturally critical of incumbent governments, especially in regards to job and capital transfers and economic weakening.

      Like

  3. B.C.’s governing NDP are becoming increasingly conservative toward fiscal and big business matters. They’re also increasingly realizing that, sadly, they/we are governed by a seemingly solidified system in which corporate lobbyists heavily manipulate even our top elected officials. (Albeit, some elected heads will be better at concealment via their habitual general practice of secrecy with the news-media.)

    One wonders how many other governing politicians got elected without being aware? I say: anyone wanting to run for office should have to first pass a post-secondary political science course that teaches this in length and detail.

    Lobbyists will even write bills for our governing representatives to vote for and have implemented, supposedly to save the elected officials their own time. In the national-level case of the Trudeau Liberals, they, like the Conservatives when in power, pander to corporate objectives, and the very wealthy, albeit the Liberals maintain their traditional liberal social policies (notably those involving race, gender and sexuality).

    Apparently, politically potent and focused big business interests get catered-to regardless of which of these two parties rules; and it’s always one or the other. It seems they can’t really lose, at least as long as the federal NDP stay out of high office.

    Like

Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s