Well, I guess they don't want my vote...

[robkelk]

Canadian Conservative party rejects adding 'climate change is real' to the policy book

Conservative delegates at the party's policy convention have voted to reject adding green-friendly statements to the policy book — including a line that would have stated the party believes "climate change is real" and is "willing to act."

The Portneuf—Jacques—Cartier riding in Quebec, which proposed the policy change, also asked delegates to recognize that "Canadian businesses classified as highly polluting need to take more responsibility" and "reduce their GHG emissions."

The policy proposal also included a call to support "innovation in green technologies" so that Canada can become "a world-class leader" in an emerging industry.

Delegates issued a rebuke to climate-minded Conservatives and rejected the policy shift by a margin of 54 per cent to 46. In fact, it was one of only four policy proposals or modifications on a list of 50 pitched by electoral riding associations (EDAs) that were rejected by the delegates.

I prefer to vote for people who live in the real world, so this decision has lost them my vote.

[Black Aeronaut]

*Sighs* So much for so-called "Conservative Values".

[classicdrogn]

Conservation? That's a Liberal idea, can't have any of that!

[hazard]

It's important to remember that conservatives are rarely conservative. They're more engaged with maintaining the current economic situation, which is conservative, but pursue the idealized social values of 40 of their youth, so often 40 years or more ago, viewed through a lens that leaves them in the best position possible, which is more reactionary and often quite different compared to the current social situation. It also tends to be authoritarian and exclusionary to everyone they do not like.

[GethN7]

Conservation does have some conservative roots, actually, but it means a different definition in that context.

Conservation for conservatives means preserving in order to sustain, like Theodore Roosevelt's policy for preserving national forests and game so there would be some left to hunt sustainably. It's less about preventing NEW damage, more about curtailing existing damage.

Frankly, I can see the logic in limiting damage both in the present and future, as we will have to live both in the short and long-term, but conservation can admittedly be a bit myopic depending on who advocates the idea.

[classicdrogn]

The problem is that long term in politics means "the next election," versus the short term 24-hour news cycle commentary. Intermediate is the weekly approval ratings.

None of those are long enough to have statistically significant changes happen to the climate, which is why it's so goddamn hard to get even politicians whose party platform includes an environmentalist plank to actually do any goddamn thing but view with concern and share thoughts and prayers.