TO THE DELUSIONAL COALITION-MAKERS: How Do You Vote For The Environment In A One-Party Growthist State?

James, the following statement by Biodiversity First President Brishen Hoff should suffice except I will say this. Polls show that Harper has no chance of forming a majority government. Secondly, as I have shown in two articles, the opposition parties, are actually worse for the environment if you look at it objectively, despite their green rhethoric. Our group has NO interest in proportional representation, as it deals only with the distribution of power BETWEEN political parties. We are only concerned with radical reform that would re-direct power FROM politicians to the people in the form of popular initiatives (referenda) modelled by several US states. Polls consistently have shown that the public have little use for government forced population growth. Witness Katherine Betts' latest study and US, British and Canadian poll results on immigraton. An official attitude of neutrality in this election is a victory for the Liberals, NDP and Greens. They really deserve a vote for Harper, if truth be told. But he doesn't deserve our support either, obviously. Here's what Brishen had to say: http://ecologicalcrash.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-i-wont-be-voting-tomorro... October 13, 2008 Why I won't be voting in tomorrow's federal election I am not apathetic. I care about the issues. Some issues are more important to me than others. The economy is far less important to me than the environment. Any economic problem is fixable unless environmental limits are the reason for the problem. More money can always be printed and/or moved around with taxes and subsidies. Environmental problems are much more serious. Species extinctions, pollution, alien species invasions, loss of farmland, and deforestation can't be fixed within a lifetime if ever. My criterion is the environment. I want to vote for whatever party will prove that they will not let biodiversity or natural resources per capita decline any further. But all of the parties have the same position on the environment. In Canada, all parties are committed to growthism -- endless human population growth in a finite world. All parties wish to reward and encourage the overpopulated nations by letting them export their people here and giving them foreign aid so that they will breed more. As people move from countries of high concentration to countries of lower concentration such as Canada, global overpopulation is maximized. As people move to countries like Canada where consumption per capita is high due to our cold climate, they almost always multiply their ecological footprint. There are only four parties in my riding: Liberal, Conservative, Green and NDP. None of them have a population policy based on what they believe to be an optimum population for Canada. They all share the same religious belief. They all believe that 33 million people isn't enough for Canada and are determined to destroy more of Canada's wilderness ecosystems, biodiversity, and farmland with the additional of more consumers. They say we need more people because Canadians lac k the skill to fill abundant jobs that are going begging. They say that we need more people because Canada's population is aging and that old people are more expensive than young people. They say that we need a younger work force to pay for the pensions of the old. They say that Canada needs multiculturalism. But their prescription is not a solution if it requires population growth. Population growth is unsustainable. Immigrants get old too. Who will pay for their pensions? Cultures assimilate. How long can we keep injecting more people for multiculturalism? If good jobs are so abundant, why are so many Canadians unemployed, underpaid or overworked? Is flooding the workforce with cheap labour right for Canadians or just corporations? Isn't there an ecological limit to growth? Why haven't politicians told us where they are taking this country? Are they taking us to 40 million? 100 million? 1 billion? Where will we import our resources from once we lack sufficient farm land to feed ourselves? How will we heat our homes when our oil, natural gas, and forests are gone? Surely, even in the mind of a politician, there comes a point where further population growth is no longer in our best interest. Why don't they tell us what this point is or what metric they would use to determine it? How many more species extinctions are considered perfectly acceptable to them? All of the political parties believe that the biodiversity loss we have suffered is perfectly acceptable because they all would like to order more of the same -- population growth. Human population and biodiversity are negatively correlated. That is scientific fact. For me to vote for a party, they must at very minimum promise population stabilization if not population reduction. However, the Greens, NDP, Conservatives and Liberals all promise the doom and gloom of more population growth. Either we stop population growth voluntarily while we st ill have some quality of life left, or nature will stop it for us in cruel ways such as starvation and wars over scarce resources. I am on strike. I won't be voting until either: A) there exists a party who plans to voluntarily stop population growth B) a "direct democracy" allows me to vote on the issues directly instead of flaky political personalities like Harper, Dion, May and Layton