As I complete my housekeeping from the election campaign, a letter from Bill Forst of Gibsons (“Green misreads vote,” Oct. 25) came to my attention.
Before I address the comments relating to other parties’ climate action plans, I wish to address his characterization of my remarks made in response to your reporter’s question about my “take” on the results. I certainly stand by my words.
I did lament the results and was disappointed; however, there was and is no bitterness in any of it. I spoke to Mr. Weiler Oct. 22 to convey my congratulations and wished him well. While coming third wasn’t my preference, I was pleased that the Green party message resonated with so many and that was expressed to me on the doorsteps and in meetings throughout the campaign. I feel gratitude, not bitterness from the experience.
I merely stated what appears to me to be a political fact – that voters, in the majority, voted traditionally, having given their votes to those with whom they were most comfortable. It is surely difficult to argue that the urgency of a climate emergency was expressed in many of those choices.
If Mr. Forst is, as he claims, “passionately concerned about the need for climate action,” I think we can both agree that neither the PPC denials nor the CCP plans offered much in the way of action.
As for the Liberals – what is there in a platform that declares an emergency then buys and continues to promise to expand the TMX, as well as endorsing fracking and natural gas exploration and distribution, that possibly constitutes recognition of an “emergency”?
Now for your party, Mr. Forst – the NDP. I admit that your offerings late in the campaign contributed to the most confusion. By seeming to up the ante, borrowing heavily from the Greens – to stop subsidies (when?), increasing CO2 reductions (45% versus 60% by 2030), and paying lip service to opposing the TMX (what exactly did Singh say?), there was the appearance of a plan. But as a person “passionately concerned,” even you must see the hypocrisy of a party that continues to support LNG production, and the trade-offs offered for coalition don’t spell urgency of response to an emergency. It will certainly be interesting to observe what dance Messrs. Singh and Trudeau do to meet their promised objectives.
So, this isn’t about having “a monopoly on climate change concern and action plans.” Rather it is about actually having an action plan that addresses the emergency. I am not blaming the voter for a retreat to traditional parties – logic rarely wins over loyalty in first past the post.
I too have tallied the “progressive” vote – it was split between two parties that seek power for power’s sake and one that sought to solve a problem.
Finally, I commend Ms. Wilson, indeed all the candidates for their efforts in the campaign. We shared a sense of purpose, including with Ms. Wilson a recognition that progressives perhaps needed to work together. It remains to be seen just how that may be so. Transformative versus incremental – those were the choices.
Dana Taylor, West Vancouver