(E/m)^-2 =

Give me one good reason why I should ever vote Green:

I've been taking transit because it was the right thing to do since BEFORE it was politically correct. While most people get a warm fuzzy feeling "doing their part", recycling tin cans and Tetra Paks, how many are actually willing to modify their lifestyles? By that I don't mean cutting back on toilet paper either. I'm talking about the tough decisions; like parking the car, and quit buying unnecessary, and resource-intensive consumable Chinese JUNK.

Most people stop "doing their part", just short of feeling anything. Especially, pain.

Did you ever notice how the dirtiest cities are found among the poorest developing countries? Know why? Because to do things properly cost more, and the developing world is more concerned with finding their next meal than the environment. Can you believe that? They actually think its more important to eat than recycle! Jeesh! Since I've yet to hear a Green platform that explains how economic goals are going to be achieved, why would I ever vote Green? So that they can collapse the economy? The problem is that 90% of the Green message is hippy-hogwash from LaLaLand, and only serves to hide feasible solutions from voters. Canada is in a fantastic position to lead the world in the emerging green economy, and it's such a shame there's been no sign of feasible green leadership.

Leaders seem void of strategic plans that would validate green initiatives either scientifically or economically. -Just look at the billions the Canadian Government has invested in Ballard Power Systems' starting way back with the Mulrooney Government. All that time and tax dollars to fund a fuel cell technology that was never feasible to begin with. Hydrogen powered car? So what? That might work on the Jetsons, but the fact is that there's never been a feasible means to generate hydrogen, deliver it, or even safely store it.

Then there's the 'Ethanolgate' corn scandal the American's are facing: the science says that even if 100% of their food crops were converted to corn, it wouldn't even put a dent in their foreign oil dependency. Of course the special interests, the squeaky wheels, specifically, the farmers, were all for it. The whole fiasco only damaged their economy and does nothing for the environment.

There's been far too much time and money wasted pursuing lofty goals: Governments continue to throw money at the problem in an attempt to appease voters that, "something is being done." In reality, voters, although concerned with the issues at hand, are by in large naïve, and ill-equipped to understand the viability of proposed solutions. Voters need to scrutinize business plans that are based on solid science: Stronger partnerships with the scientific, technology and the academic communities are desperately needed.

Greens will never elect a single candidate with their present platform because the majority of obvious environmental concerns are already being appeased through existing government policies; HOV lanes, natural gas buses, in-stream power generation and alternative fuel research projects. This is further complicated by the perceived single-issue Green mandate. Separate the rhetoric from reality and take the issues seriously: study and educate yourself on the underlying feasibility. No jurisdiction will ever elect a hippy.

Increasingly, mainstream parties are seen as the same as they converge to capture the centre vote. Given that both the left and the right wings cut down the same trees for different reasons, the Green Party is somewhat uniquely positioned to realize votes from those disillusioned by both mainstream parties. The Green Party simply needs to demonstrate that their mandate is not a single-issue and have a well-rounded plan in alignment with progressive sustainable development based on science and technology. -Voters are ready for Green representation if they demonstrated a feasible platform.