Referring to the Canadian Green Party, atheist David Suzuki "blames political groups, such as the Green Party, for ghettoizing environmental issues. “When there's a Green Party, all of the other parties are able to act like they don't have to deal with the environment. It marginalizes the Greens."

 

Now I realize we're really a tiny party in the US, but how realistic is his claim? If we grew in strength, would that make Democrats feel as if they don't have to deal with the environment?

 

There's no reason Climate Destabilization should be narrowly construed as merely an environmental issue, since it impacts health, agriculture, the military, the insurance industry and other business, the stability of civilization, and even human survival. Doesn't his interpretation assume that Climate Destabilization is just an environmental issue?

Tags: Change, Climate, marginalization

Views: 23

Replies to This Discussion

The Green Party in Canada has zero effect on environmental policies. That is not the role of a political party which does not hold office anyway. Voting for a party that is not among the two leaders is simply an exercise in democracy. Until the day when there is proportional representation in the sham we call democracy in North America. I vote for greens because both leading parties are too despicable to even mention in a non hateful sentence. It's completely ridiculous that Suzuki would say it's ghettoising environmental issues. A majority of Canadians don't even know greens exist. Oddly enough, during this electoral campaign, the greens are barely raising any environmental issues. The reason? To increase votes! Protecting the earth upon which we live is that unimportant to people. One must remember one thing about the "federal greens": each new electoral campaign brings a new message... of course we're all greens, but the "leadership"'s challenge is to find a way to bring greens more to the forefront of the political scene. Suzuki's also wrong about the Green Party letting the other parties off the hook environmentally. Most leading parties eventually integrate a certain amount of green rhetoric into their electoral platforms, it's called lip service.

 

My conclusion, as always, is the way to change the political system, in this climate of complete corruption of leading parties, is to overhaul the system completely. Our democracy is a sham used to appease the masses, voting for any of the main parties brings about no more change than voting green. But at least greens get people in the streets talking about real issues instead of the pseudoscience/religion we call "The Economy".

 

My love for Suzuki is quite split. In a spiritual context, he's a bit of an oddball. He is known to be atheist, yet he buys into a lot of Canadian First Nation "spirituality" which is 90% Christian and 10% old style native "beings" worship. He is a very interesting, intelligent, and committed man, I simply disagree with the whole "spirituality" and political rhetoric. He is a media man and needs to nurture certain funding sources. Always follow the money.

Sounds like Suzuki is not accurate in his assumption. Every party should care about the environment, regardless if there is a Green Party. Yes, I think his interpretation assumes Climate Destabilization is just an environmental issue.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service