The provincial election is coming up soon, and it’s quite possibly the most important provincial election we’ll see in our lifetimes. There’s a referendum (the first in 80 years) to switch to a proportional representation system, instead of the first-past-the-post garbage we currently have.

If you don’t know what that means or why you need to vote, check out the site and read a primer; all should become clear.

When it comes to the candidates and parties themselves, however, I just can’t bring myself to like anyone at all. It’s just a matter of which particular kind of government is the least bad. The Green Party of Ontario isn’t as market-oriented as the Green Party of Canada, but at the end of the day, it’s just watered down eco-capitalism.

The NDP platform is probably closest to what I’d like to see, as far as policies are concerned. Unfortunately, they haven’t gotten over their irrational fear of nuclear power, and they’d like to ban any further nuclear development in Ontario, saying it’s too ‘risky’.

How many people in Ontario died last year because of nuclear power? Right, no one.

How many people in Ontario died last year because of coal power? 800? 1300? 2000? Depends which stats you look at, but it’s a fuckton more than zero.

I can understand that the average person doesn’t really understand all the issues involved in nuclear power, and that there’s a general fear of all things nuclear, thanks to Chernobyl and the Cold War, but I expect my politicians to think critically.

The Liberal party’s platform isn’t interesting in any way. More promises which they may or may not be able to keep.

Broken Liberal promises are much better than kept Conservative promises, though.

I get the feeling I’m going to end up voting Communist.

20 thoughts on “X

  1. Yeah, those guys are fucking insane. They make Reform look like hippies. Here’s some choice quotes from their ‘review’ of the Conservative platform:

    John Tory’s ideas:

    Maintain a dysfunctional definition of marriage (PC policy states that spouses can be of the same sex) and use public funds to pay benefits and promote the homosexual lifestyle

    Overdo the Liberals, by increasing the “investment” on Health care with $8.5 Billion of our money

    “A commitment to 70% full-time employment for registered nurses in all sectors” (100% of course, would be communist).

    Fund “anti-violence” programs (instead of recognizing and supporting the role of parents in the family).

    $2.4 Billion increase in funding for public education (already one of the most expensive in the world).

    Build “spectacular architecture and new landmarks”, with our money, in Ontario cities (An old national socialist idea: Mussolini did that in Italy 70 years ago. His ugly monuments are there for all to see – all those who did not emigrate for lack of food).

    Propose the government curriculum (read: sex-education and evolution taught as a science) to faith-based schools (I.e.: Bring the faith-based schools into the public system)

    Limit the homework burden on children to a maximum of 10 minutes per grade level per day: “Children need a life outside of school, … not an extra two hours of stress at the end of the day”! I kid you not! Let them be stressed for a lifetime, when their ignorance will limit job opportunities for them.

    The idea of using gas revenues for their intended purpose (roads) is good. But should not we do the opposite?

    Let’s look at how much of the gasoline tax is needed for road construction and maintenance. Then LOWER the provincial tax on gasoline to the minimum level required.

    This would stimulate the economy.

  2. No one may die at the nuclear plants but how much will it affect us down the road?

    I’m torn between two psudo arguments of humanist (go nuclear) and environmentalist (no nuclear).

    As for this vote, I find it sad. Most people don’t know much about it and those that do have not read the pamphlets or checked the website – they just see tidbits on the news. My guess is that so few will know what its about that they will vote in traditional conservative fashion and opt to stay the same.

    Me? I’m still not sure which is better – I keep reading stuff but I don’t have a mind for politics and I can’t decide which will help CANADA (not me) in the long run. In a vote like this you need to be a Nationalist, not think of yourself.

  3. Here’s some reading you might be interested in:

    In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That’s the conviction that inspired Greenpeace’s first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

    Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions — or nearly 10 percent of global emissions — of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power.

  4. I’m not sure how. No matter what protects we put in we will have waste that the planet can’t handle when we are done. Eventually waste will break from from whatever containment we place it in.

    I’ve heard of jettisoning the excess into orbit, of containers that will break it down, even of no-waste nuclear plants. So far however none of these have been implemented that I know of.

    If you know something I’d love to hear about it – nuclear is the best solution only for short term that I can see. :/

  5. Nuclear waste is seriously overhyped. The only reason we have ‘so much’ nuclear waste is because that reprocessing it is largely illegal. A large reactor produces (at most) 30 tonnes of waste a year. If it were reprocessed and vitrified, it would be about 3 cubic metres of waste a year. This is not a whole lot.

    Deep Geological Disposal is a valid and perfectly safe way of removing waste. The (naturally-forming) Oklo reactors produced 7 tonnes of plutonium that were geologically immobilized and isolated for 2000 million years. There is no good reason not to contain the waste a kilometre-deep within a batholith in the Canadian Shield.

  6. See, this is what I mean. “Radioactive land!” doesn’t mean anything (many things in the earth are already radioactive), but it sounds scary.

    I’m familiar with The Suzuki Foundation platform on nuclear power, and I would love nothing more than to be using solar/tidal/wind power to fuel the world’s energy needs, but it’s just not possible right now. The technologies and economies of scale aren’t there yet. Renewable energy can reduce the burden, but that’s it. They can’t shoulder it yet.

    What’s happening right now is that the majority of the world’s energy needs are fueled by coal and oil. Coil and oil are killing people every day, right now. We have the technology, money, and ability to swap out coal right now for an energy source that scales and is many orders of magnitude cleaner.

    Our fossil fuel use is a cancer that is killing this planet, and by holding back nuclear technology because of a cultural fear of ATOMS! we are saying “well, we have all these cancer treatments, but we don’t want to use them because we’re concerned about the potential for toxicity”. But don’t worry, promising new technologies are probably right around the corner!

  7. I watched those politicians children doing their debate arguing last night. They’re all immature assholes and none of them deserve to live, let alone lead.

  8. >Broken Liberal promises are much better than kept Conservative promises

    You know, this one line sums up my feelings about our/U.S. elections better than anything I’ve heard to date.

  9. “But should not we do the opposite?”

    Wow. It’s all the retardation of evangelical republicans with none of the public relations budget necessary to produce writing above a 5th grade level.

    Maybe they should write rock songs…

    “We don’t need no education” – Pink Floyd
    “well that’s a double negative so apparently you do” – a comedian who’s name escapes me

  10. The impact from Chernobyl no one talks about is the incredible amount of fossil fuel pollution caused by the public rejection of nuclear power.

    Chernobyl is the kind of incident that could not happen again. It’s just not physically possible anymore, with modern reactor design.

    The whole subject just makes me sad.

  11. Here’s hoping this thread isn’t dead yet – I just got back from Timmins :)

    The key problem I see with current nuclear sequestering policy is that somewhere along the line we decided that waste must be sequestered forever.

    2000 million years, etc etc. Plutonium’s half-life is on the order of 24,000 years. Engineering million+ year sequestering systems is both costly and unnecessary. Add to that the fact we’re probably only going to be generating this kind of waste for a few hundred years (if that) and you’ve got a relatively small problem with a relatively straightforward solution.

    As you well know, the real basis of this issue is security for security’s sake. Nobody wants to be the one to propose being “less secure” than the next guy. Yes, our servers are made with six inch thick high-carbon steel, they’ll be much more secure than those aluminum boxes when they’re under your desk.

  12. As for the referendum, while I really like the idea of changing the system to be more fair, and it’s more fair in theory, the proverbial devil is in the details.

    There are at least three glaring omissions in the current proposal:
    1. Who picks the list of 90.
    2. When seats are filled, how is the list used (i.e. is it like batting order or do they pick at random or is someone [who?] in charge of choosing)?
    3. What about party status? Is everyone with 3% now magically a party?

    Look to the aftermath in New Zealand – all the micro-parties and their one-issue wonder candidates nearly destroyed their economy.

    Sweden has got it pretty much sorted out (it took about 4 election cycles) but they had a specific and well-defined new voting system.

    Our new system looks to be a half-finished spec. The theory is sound but unlike our existing first past the post rules there is no fixed set of rules and therefore no way to even begin to predict the outcome over time.

Leave a Reply