Climate Scientists Plead with Green Party Supporters in Key Ridings to Vote Strategically

Three of Canada's leading climate scientists say that Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservatives in this election by voting strategically in 121 key ridings. They are calling on Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to make a clear statement supporting this approach.

The scientists are Dr. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto and Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.

Based on the latest polls, they say that:

• In 81 ridings, Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservative candidate who is currently leading.
• In 40 additional ridings, Green Party supporters can help to ensure that a Conservative does not overtake the current leading candidate at the last moment.

We list the ridings in each category, plus the information sources, below.

We agree that it is about time that Elizabeth May reconsidered her position on strategic voting. On September 30, 2008, she was quoted as opposing strategic voting despite admitting that,

"'We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse,' [...] 'We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And clearly the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper.' [...]

"'I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose.'"

On October 8, 2008, she seemed to recommend strategic voting in key ridings, but on October 9, 2008, she come out strongly against any strategic voting because

"I want Canadians to elect Green MPs."

No wonder that as of October 11, 2008, some of her supporters still sounded confused by May's stance.

We agree with the scientists. We think that Elizabeth May should change her position. She should keep it simple by saying,

"Vote for Green Party candidates everywhere except the ridings where you can help to guarantee a Conservative loss by voting strategically."

Preventing a Conservative win in this election is important for stopping dangerous climate change. This goes beyond any party loyalty, personal ambition, time and effort invested Green Party candidates and supporters or party funding issues.

Update: we agree with greenpolitics.ca about the need to

"...remind greens and Green parties everywhere of the philosophical principles of Green politics should they inadvertently be lead astray by the lure of power, money, glamor, or fame."

We hope that Green Party supporters and the Party Leader, of all people, would understand that some personal sacrifice is justified when the planet's future is at stake.

Still, it should not be up to supporters of one party alone to help defeat the Conservatives by voting strategically. We encourage all progressive voters to check the more general list of key ridings where strategic voting by anyone who is opposed to the Conservatives can make a difference.

Ridings where Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservative candidate who is currently leading (in alphabetic order):

• Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale
• Barrie
• Blackstrap
• Brant
• Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
• Burlington
• Burnaby—New Westminster
• Cambridge
• Cariboo—Prince George
• Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia
• Chatham-Kent—Essex
• Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River / Desnethé—Missinippi—Rivière Churchill
• Durham
• Edmonton Centre / Edmonton-Centre
• Edmonton—Strathcona
• Elgin—Middlesex—London
• Essex
• Fleetwood—Port Kells
• Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
• Haldimand—Norfolk
• Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock
• Halton
• Huron—Bruce
• Jonquière—Alma
• Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo
• Kildonan—St. Paul
• Kitchener—Conestoga
• Lambton—Kent—Middlesex
• Lévis—Bellechasse
• London West / London-Ouest
• Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
• Mégantic—L'Érable
• Nanaimo—Alberni
• NB - Fundy Royal
• NB - Tobique—Mactaquac
• New Westminster—Coquitlam
• Newmarket—Aurora
• Newton—North Delta / Newton—Delta-Nord
• Niagara Falls
• NL - Avalon
• NL - St. John's East / St. John's-Est
• NL - St. John's South—Mount Pearl / St. John's-Sud Mount Pearl
• North Vancouver
• Northumberland—Quinte West
• Nova / Nova-Ouest
• NS - Central Nova / Nova-Centre*
• Oakville
• Okanagan—Shuswap
• Oshawa
• Ottawa West—Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest—Nepean
• Ottawa—Orléans
• Oxford
• Palliser
• Parry Sound—Muskoka
• Perth—Wellington
• Peterborough
• Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission
• Pontiac
• Prince Albert
• Prince Edward—Hastings
• Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
• Regina—Qu'Appelle
• Richmond
• Richmond Hill
• Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
• Sarnia—Lambton
• Saskatoon—Humboldt
• Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
• Saskatoon—Wanuskewin
• Selkirk—Interlake
• Simcoe North / Simcoe-Nord
• Simcoe—Grey
• St. Catharines
• Sud—Mount Pearl
• Vancouver Island North / Île de Vancouver-Nord
• Vancouver Quadra
• Victoria
• West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country
• Whitby—Oshawa
• Winnipeg South / Winnipeg-Sud
• York—Simcoe

* In NS Central Nova, where Elizabeth May is running, the detailed analysis table (source below) shows the Greens as the second place party. The VoteForEnvironment.ca strategic voting choice is to vote Green.

Ridings where Green Party supporters can help to ensure that a Conservative does not overtake the current leading candidate at the last moment (in alphabetic order):

• Beauport—Limoilou
• Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest
• Burnaby—Douglas
• Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
• Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
• Etobicoke—Lakeshore
• Kenora
• London—Fanshawe
• Louis-Hébert
• Mississauga South / Mississauga-Sud
• Mississauga—Erindale
• Mississauga—Streetsville
• NB - Fredericton
• NB - Madawaska—Restigouche
• NB - Miramichi
• NB - Saint John
• NL - Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
• NL - Labrador
• NL - Random—Burin—St. George's
• NS - Kings—Hants
• NS - South Shore—St. Margaret's
• Nunavut
• Oak Ridges—Markham
• Ottawa South / Ottawa-Sud
• PE - Cardigan
• PE - Charlottetown
• PE - Egmont
• PE - Malpeque
• Saanich—Gulf Islands
• Saint Boniface / Saint-Boniface
• Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
• Surrey North / Surrey-Nord
• Thunder Bay—Rainy River
• Vancouver Kingsway
• Vancouver South / Vancouver-Sud
• Welland
• Western Arctic
• Willowdale
• Winnipeg South Centre / Winnipeg-Centre-Sud
• Yukon

Sources:

Scientists' Press Release quoted in the voteforenvironment.ca blog.

Detailed riding-by-riding analysis table (PDF).

[Important Notice]

Vote on environmental issues, scientists urge

More support for strategic voting!

TheStar.com - Vote on environmental issues, scientists urge:

"More than 120 of Canada's top climate scientists have signed an open letter criticizing Conservative government policy and urging Canadians to vote 'strategically' for the environment in next week's federal election.

'Global warming is the defining issue of our time,' said Andrew Weaver, a lead author with last year's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Here is the link to the original letter, and some quotes (emphasis added):

We have been disturbed by what we perceive to be a lack of attention to the environment during this election campaign. While it’s clear the public accepts that global warming is a threat, it seems people have simply no idea how serious this issue is. Global warming is without a doubt the defining issue of our time, and we cannot let economic turmoil in the USA dissuade us from addressing the problem. Dealing with the environment means dealing with economics in a sustainable way.

Global warming is a problem that must be dealt with now, before it’s too late. Any further delay will only increase the risks of damage and costs of action. The world needs to start down a path of greenhouse gas reduction to avert the most serious consequences of global warming. Many may not realize that even if we immediately stabilized atmospheric greenhouse gases at current levels, the Arctic would still go ice free in the summer, between 10% and 25% of the world’s species would still be committed to extinction, and weather will continue to become more extreme.

Economists around the world agree. There is only one way to deal with global warming. And that is to put a price on emissions. This can be done through either a carbon tax, a cap and trade system, or both.

The carbon tax provides price certainty, is easier to implement, more transparent, easy to make revenue-neutral and less open to abuse. Cap and trade systems require self-regulation and reporting, cumbersome bureaucracy to administer and take a long time to implement while details, such as credit for early action, process of awarding emissions permits, and reporting requirements get worked out.

In both cases the price is passed on to the consumer through an increase in the price of carbon-intensive products. In the carbon tax case the consumer sees what price is added whereas it is obscured in the cap and trade system.

Visit VoteForEnvironment.ca

(Way past) time to put a price on carbon!

Two more items that support the need for a price on carbon:

Today's Quirks and Quarks featured an interview with Dr. Andrew Weaver, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, one of Canada's most eminent climate scientists, and an important contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dr. Weaver has written a book called Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.

In the interview Dr. Weaver says "we have to go to zero emissions eventually" in order to stay below 2 degrees of warming and stabilize the climate. He says that the best way of dealing with this is to price emissions, using a mechanism like the BC Carbon Tax. According to Dr. Weaver, "the only real means to go to zero emissions is to put a high price on emissions".

Dr. Weaver said "We are at a turning point", where option number one is a fundamentally different technological and behavioural world, where we think very carefully before releasing CO2 to the atmosphere. The other path is a world in strife. "We will be having environmental refugees on a scale where we won't know how to deal with it."

In support of carbon taxes, yesterday the Green Party released a report commissioned by the government to determine the economic impacts of a carbon tax. (Thanks to Challenging the Commonplace for the tip.)

The report – Cost Curves for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Canada: The Kyoto Period and Beyond – concludes that the GDP impact of a $50/tonne tax shift is less than 0.1% of GDP per year until 2010, is virtually zero during the next five years and is then positive after 2015 (see chart below).
Further, the report projects net financial savings to those who take action as a result of the tax shift, after taking into account the investment in emissions reductions. At $50 per tonne, that windfall comes to $13.8 billion by 2010 and climbs from there (see chart below).

“Mr. Harper’s ridiculous claim that taxing carbon will bring about economic ruin and a recession is starkly contradicted by his own research,” said Ms. May. “In fact, this report shows a positive impact on GDP beginning in 2015. With this in the public domain it is clear that Mr. Harper is deliberately distorting the evidence. Mr. Harper’s fear mongering on a carbon tax is a deliberate and premeditated effort to demonize a sensible plan.

“The government’s own analysis proves that a $50 carbon tax shift will benefit businesses and individuals, and will achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister should now explain to Canadians why, in the face of this compelling evidence, his government stubbornly refuses to consider the carbon tax option and continues to viciously attack those who do. Mr. Harper must bring some honesty into this debate.”

The Greens propose to do just this:

The Green Party of Canada would implement a $50 per tonne carbon tax shift – with matching cuts in income and payroll taxes – as the cornerstone of a comprehensive plan for a green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The Liberal Green Shift plan starts at $10 at tonne and increases to $40 a tonne over four years.

Update: The Green Party had originally released the "Cost Curves" report on June 20, 2007. They re-released it on September 12, 2008, linking back to their original 2007 announcement. But the Conservatives are still trying to scare people away from the mild Liberal version of the plan with talk of a recession and even a threat to national unity.

Of course, the other way to price carbon is using a cap-and-trade system, as is proposed by the NDP. They plan to sell carbon credits starting at $35 a tonne.

Which way is best? I don't know - but we need to decide and move forward with one of these options very soon!