(public).sospep.subjects ~ view article ~ poll-shows-huge-support-for-leap-manifesto

<h1 style="text-align: center;">The pundits were wrong: Poll shows huge support for Leap Manifesto</h1>
<h2>[WHAT]</h2>
<ol>
<li>] by Martin Lukacs @guardian.com -</li>
</ol>
<h2>[WHY]</h2>
<ol>
<li>]&nbsp;</li>
</ol>
<h2>[WHERE]</h2>
<ol>
<li><strong>] READ THE FULL ARTICLE</strong></li>
<ol>
<li>]&nbsp;<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2016/apr/29/surprise-the-pundits-were-wrong-poll-shows-huge-support-for-leap-manifesto" target="_blank">Surprise, the pundits were wrong: poll shows huge support for Leap Manifesto</a>,&nbsp;</li>
<li>] poll - <a href="http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/04/wise-crowds-and-the-future/" target="_blank">http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/04/wise-crowds-and-the-future/</a></li>
</ol></ol>
<h2>[WHEN]</h2>
<ol>
<li>] 2016-04-29</li>
</ol>
<h2>[EXAMPLE]</h2>
<p>For weeks, the corporate media has spouted a stern prediction: Canadians will flee in horror from the Leap Manifesto. The NDP, merely by endorsing to debate the document, would court &ldquo;irrelevance.&rdquo;</p>
<p>A new <a href="http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/04/wise-crowds-and-the-future/" target="_blank">poll</a> shows just how wrong they were: far from recoiling from the Leap Manifesto, people are embracing it. Amongst those aware of it 50% support it,&nbsp;</p>
<p>Considering the relentless smears by the media, these figures are astonishing. What they demonstrate is that Canadians are hungry for dramatic government action on climate change and inequality&mdash;and are ready to ignore the huffing and puffing of the pundits. Little wonder that not a single major outlet has reported the poll&rsquo;s results.</p>
<p>http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/clean-disruption-renewable-energy-canada-1.3470590</p>
<p>Canadians may be more in touch with the reality and implications of climate change than they(media) are. a full transition from fossil fuels to green energy by 2050 is not just based on science and technologically possible&mdash;it is necessary and beneficial.</p>
<p>While the media amplifies the corporate myth that we must rely on oil forever, Canadians know better: we can dramatically reduce emissions while unleashing massive amounts of jobs in renewables, energy efficient housing, public transit and in the already low-carbon teaching, health and caring sectors of the economy. And we can stop building pipelines that will lock us into escalating pollution for decades ahead.</p>
<p>Nor are Canadians blind to how this could be paid for. They&rsquo;ve watched as Canadian banks and companies hoard billions of dollars at home or funnel them into tax-havens off-shore&mdash;a scale of private wealth that puts the lie to the notion that we must tighten our belts, allow our public services to erode, keep Indigenous peoples shackled in poverty, and treat refugees with suspicion instead of solidarity.</p>
<p>an appetite for ambition and boldness instead of small steps&mdash;is quickly becoming more mainstream. Yet it remains for a political party to raise these ideas, build support, and ensure they become national policy. That is the kind of leadership Canadians want&mdash;leadership for people and the planet, not for the pundits.</p>
<p>You can choose to believe that policies that don&rsquo;t attract media tirades&mdash;more pipelines that ensure we break our climate commitments, being lax on the corporate accumulation of wealth and power&mdash;will capture the feeling of the country and reverse the NDP&rsquo;s precipitous decline. But that is the real fantasy. The other option is to take the ideas that the powerful pretend are marginal&mdash;but which are in fact common-sensical and integral to a liveable environment and just society&mdash;and champion and fight for them.</p>
<h2>[HOW-TO]</h2>
<ol>
<li>]</li>
</ol>
<h2>[REFERENCE]</h2>
<ol>
<li>] # 6138 - <a href="/view/task?id=6138" target="_blank">CREATE-article#</a>&nbsp;</li>
<li>] SRC = HN, comments</li>
</ol>
<div>
<h1 style="text-align: center;">comments mind</h1>
<div><strong>scottld</strong></div>
<div><strong><br /></strong></div>
<div>
<div>The actual headline from the people who did the survey is "Canadians dead split on merits of Leap Manifesto" and it includes this "these responses should be taken with caution given the low fluency about the actual proposal and the very limited description we were able to provide in the poll question. ".</div>
</div>
<p><strong>CanadaChuck</strong></p>
<div>The Green Party in Canada and the UK get about 3% of the vote.They are basically cults for young people that have just completed their high school indoctrination and still remember the words of the great sage Kermit who said: "it is hard to be green". Their plan is to save the world.</div>
<div>As they get older they will outgrow this, usually before age 30. But there is always a new batch coming up.</div>
<div>I've been watching Conservatives and Liberals since the 1950s. Conservatives will promise less and deliver some of it. Liberals will promise much more because they have 'vision', but they will deliver the same as the Conservatives. The only difference is in the rhetoric.</div>
</div>
<div>
<p><strong>Peter mclure&nbsp;</strong></p>
<div>When I worked for Revenue Canada (back when it was still called that) a favourite scam of large Canadian corporations was to set up a charitable trust. At the end of every fiscal year, they would put all their profits into the trust, where it was tax-exempt, then lend it back to themselves at nominal interest. Combined with all the other tax breaks, they never paid a penny in taxes.</div>
<div>The scam was shut down in the late '70s, but I cited it simply as an example of the cute tricks that you can play if you have good accountants and the ear of the government.</div>
<div>But here's another one that's in the public domain. The purchaser of a local meat-packing plant transferred sufficient assets into his private accounts to bring the company to the edge of bankruptcy. That would have cost to economy hundreds of jobs, so he went to the government demanding subsidies and tax breaks. When they delivered, he shuffled all those funds into those same accounts, then shut the company down. Several of his accountants quit in protest, but the damage was done.</div>
<div>Bottom line: If there is a tax dodge out there, you can be guaranteed that some rich bastard will take advantage of it.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><a style="font-family: 'Guardian Text Egyptian Web', Georgia, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;" href="https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/3061807" target="_blank">JeffreyBeaumont&nbsp;</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>If the author would even take a cursory glance at the polling data linked in the article he'd see that a) only 27% of the sample are 'clearly aware' of the manifesto and b) that the question over support flagged the parts of it which are obviously going to attract more support. The problem with the manifesto isn't that it wants to move to clean energy or implement the UNDRIP, the problem is that it seems to want to move the country to some Etsy based economy. Among the more obvious insanity in it:</div>
<div>
<p>1) The local food movement doesn't make any sense because transport only accounts for about 12% of fossil fuel emissions in agriculture. If you are worried about how food production hurts the environment then the conversation really needs to start and end with encouraging people to eat less meat/dairy. Development of cultured meat is another key to this process.</p>
<p>2) The anti-GMO stuff is based on pseudo-science and wild conspiracy theories. It's pretty much the exact same phenomenon as the anti-vax movement.</p>
<p>3) There is a hopelessly romantic picture of Indigenous Peoples in the manifesto. Indigenous Peoples don't need to be put on a pedestal or placed in a museum exhibit, they need to be seen as ordinary people like everyone else.</p>
<p>4) "The new iron law of energy development must be: if you wouldn&rsquo;t want it in your backyard, then it doesn&rsquo;t belong in anyone&rsquo;s backyard" is a hopelessly stupid principle. I don't want a wind turbine in my backyard, nor do I want a hydroelectric dam. I, however, don't mind if land elsewhere is used for industrial purposes.</p>
<p>5) Solar panels, wind turbines, etc all actually require raw materials to be constructed and maintained. This requires, shock and horror, mining and plastics.</p>
<p>6) There is a lot of language that means absolutely nothing apart from trying to convince the reader that the authors are smart people. Here's an example: "We want training and other resources for workers in carbon-intensive jobs, ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy. This transition should involve the democratic participation of workers themselves." What on earth does this mean??</p>
<p>7) To further the last point, retraining oil-line engineers to be daycare workers is a really terrible idea. The country actually needs to produce something, we can't sustain an economy where everyone is an elementary school teacher, a day-care worker, or the proprietor of an arts-and-crafts shop.</p>
<p>8) Canada doesn't have the population density to support these high-speed rail projects, unlike Europe, Japan or the Chinese coast. Btw how do we build trains without metals or plastics?</p>
</div>
<div>Where does this stuff come from? Well it doesn't come from scientists or economists, that's for sure, they are actually trying to solve problems. This document was put together by a cabal of minor celebrities, social activists, priests, people who purport to be First Nations leaders, and public sector unions. I actually recently had to go to one of these conferences where this sort of stuff is produced. It's like walking into a really weird cult. A feminist conference on sustainability where none of the invitees is a scientist or an economist or who is actually in agriculture.&nbsp;</div>
</div>
<div>
<div><strong>mijnhr</strong></div>
<div>I don't see anything in the Leap Manifesto about GMO. Have I missed something or have you been overdosing on Margaret Wente?</div>
<div>The Manifesto calls for "respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land. Indigenous communities have been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and reset our relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples." Is that "hopelessly romantic"?</div>
<div>I don't see anything about "retraining oil-line engineers to be daycare workers" and of course there is no such demand. You already quoted the bit about "ensuring they are fully able to take part in the clean energy economy." In debate, there's something called the principle of charity, which says you should interpret your opponent's argument in the most rational, not least rational, light. Rationally interpreted, it looks like the Manifesto is calling for carbon-industry workers to be retrained to work in clean-energy industries.</div>
<div>Like the sainted Wente, you imagine that the Manifesto rejects modern technology and wants a return to a more primitive way of life. Only a very uncharitable, even perverse, reading of the Manifesto would reach that conclusion. The Manifesto declares a clean-energy economy is possible by 2050 because "Technological breakthroughs have brought this dream within reach."</div>
<div>I will grant you one thing: The Manifesto says nothing about the environmental havoc being wreaked by industrial animal agriculture. Neither does Naomi Klein address that in her book. As the documentary Cowspiracy points out, that seems like an issue that is too sensitive for most environmentalists to touch.</div>
</div>

~ view article ~ Chapter] political-issues-federal FROM [ Book] canada IN [ libraries] nations