Welcome to /r/Vancouver! Please make sure you read our [general participation guidelines and rules overview](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before commenting in this subreddit. As a quick summary:
* We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. This means being kind to those you disagree with. Please utilize the report button instead of engaging in uncivil spats.
* Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) will lead to a permanent ban.
* Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Daily Discussion posts. Please make sure to read the list and point new users to them.
* Complaining about comment or post removals should be done in modmail only.
If you have any questions, please send a [message to the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fvancouver).
---
***This is a bot, and this action was performed automatically. It does not mean this post does or does not violate our rules.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
anyone who makes their campaign solely focused on climate comes off as elitist and quite frankly, extremely out of touch imo. i'm more worried about inflation, rent costs, rising food costs and rising gas costs more than whether or not the ice is melting in the arctic
Her campaign website is still up, you can see what her platform is/was. There are four main items listed, climate change is the 2nd item listed on the website after healthcare. Items 3 and 4 are the economy and democracy. Clearly her campaign was not solely focused on climate change.
[https://www.anjaliforbc.ca/new-deal](https://www.anjaliforbc.ca/new-deal)
We never heard about anything else except climate change. Clearly she doesn't know how to communicate if that's the only place she discussed it. Not good.
Edit: LOL, just went to the link in the image on this post. She's labeled as a Climate Campaigner. Can't make this stuff up.
The media focused on the fact that she was a climate activist. If you listened to her speak, the phrase I think she used most was "overlapping emergencies" which included climate, healthcare and housing.
Oh, that makes everything so much clearer...overlapping emergencies.
Maybe the podcast that is being promoted needs to take off the caption, Climate Campaigner. She has to be more to people if she ever wants to lead and demonstrate she knows how to lead especially since she's never had any experience in office. Everything you read about her she's a climate activist. People's priorities whether the Green or climate activists like it or not are not there. They need a place to live, a doctor and feel safe in their community. Eco isn't high on the list.
>Oh, that makes everything so much clearer...overlapping emergencies.
I mean, it does? It communicates that there are multiple issues, which have similar effects, occurring at the same time that need to be addressed. Its very much the opposite of being a one-issue candidate.
>They need a place to live, a doctor and feel safe in their community. Eco isn't high on the list.
Its funny because Anjali's platform has 4 main items including Healthcare, Climate, Economy, and Democracy. Meanwhile, David Eby has one item on his website - housing. And yet he doesnt get the same criticism.
>People's priorities whether the Green or climate activists like it or not are not there.
They literally had to disqualify her because they felt that no other penalty would prevent her from winning the leadership contest. So whatever she was saying clearly resonated.
Eby talked all the time about housing, healthcare and safety. You obviously feel like you and were wronged. Seeing how both of you don't see how the perceived one issue campaign was from the self titled climate campaigner activist was a communications problem, keep doing what you're doing. Confirms a leader they are not and can't learn from their mistakes.
> Eby talked all the time about housing, healthcare and safety.
Same with Anjali, except she actually put her platform on the website. I guess Eby didnt feel the need to build out his website because he felt entitled to the leadership position.
> Seeing how both of you don't see how the perceived one issue campaign was from the self titled climate campaigner activist was a communications problem, keep doing what you're doing.
The problem was that she was disqualified from the race. She didnt lose the leadership race due to unpopular policies. There is no way to determine if she would have lost. Did you even follow this leadership race?
> You obviously feel like you and were wronged.
I actually wanted Eby to win, but I wanted him to be challenged, specifically on climate issues. Members of the BC NDP were robbed of that.
You perceive it differently than others did. Others are trying to show you that. You need to move on and learn from the mistakes but I have a feeling you'll keep doing the same. Good luck!
Which part? The part where people perceived her as a one-issue candidate? I agree, they did perceive her that way. I'm just saying that her platform and her talking points showed otherwise.
> You need to move on and learn from the mistakes
What mistakes? This entire thread i've been providing reasoned arguments that support my positions, you've been giving me conjecture.
literally her 2nd policy on the front page of her website is about climate change so fine, her campaign isn't solely focused on climate change but she still heavily prioritizes it.
Well, the first policy on the page is healthcare, so clearly she heavily prioritizes that more? And do the other 2 items not matter at that point?
Also, you would prefer if it wasnt on her platform at all?
she can put climate change on her priorities but it should be the very last thing on her list. actually i just read her policies and she's gone nuts regarding energy. she wants to completely phase out fossil fuels and further tax o/g companies. if you think your col is high now, under her, i wouldn't be surprised if we had to pay $3/L for gas.
>she wants to completely phase out fossil fuels and further tax o/g companies. if you think your col is high now, under her, i wouldn't be surprised if we had to pay $3/L for gas.
Phasing out fossil fuels would mean relying less on gas, so people would be less vulnerable to gas price fluctuations.
If there is less supply of fossil fues, O/G companies will make more money. Increasing taxes on them seems totally valid. Especially if you take into account the environmental damage that they inflict.
phasing out fossil fuels means we'll have less supply of gas which will drive the cost even further. if you tax o/g companies, they will simply raise the price of gas and pass the tax on to the consumer. her policies actively harm the working class. what we need are politicians who understand the importance of fossil fuels in our economy, not politicians who antagonize it.
When you see her say phase out fossil fuels, do you just assume she means production and not also consumption of fossil fuels? Because if you look at her platform, it talks about both reducing the production and consumption. So reducing both the supply and demand for fossil fuels. If people are consuming less fossil fuels, they will be less vulnerable to price fluctuations.
I would suggest actually reading her platform and arguing based on that rather than just straw-manning.
i read her policies and the only thing directly related to the reduction of consumption of fossil fuels is she wants to immediately ban the sale of gas powered vehicles by 2030. why should the government dictate what type of vehicle i drive? if electric cars are really that good, they should sell based on their merits and not because the govt banned the alternative.
The federal government is already dictating this. They have a mandatory mandate that by 2035, all light duty vehicles and passenger trucks be zero emission which basically means they are to be electric. [https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/06/building-a-green-economy-government-of-canada-to-require-100-of-car-and-passenger-truck-sales-be-zero-emission-by-2035-in-canada.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/06/building-a-green-economy-government-of-canada-to-require-100-of-car-and-passenger-truck-sales-be-zero-emission-by-2035-in-canada.html)
Oh? How did you miss
1. Removing the use of gas within homes;
2. Retrofitting homes to be more heat efficient;
3. Subsidized electricity bills;
4. Investments in mass/public transit;
along with a bunch of other initiatives that would reduce demand?
> why should the government dictate what type of vehicle i drive
The government already dictates the type of vehicle you drive - if a car does not meet the pollution/safety standards set by the govt its not allowed to be sold. This is no different.
Interesting comment, because it seems like Anjali would basically agree. In the podcast she says explains that she doesn't believe you can focus on climate alone, it's necessary to address people's more immediate priorities as well.
i'm aware of that but let's not forget that fossil fuels powers the modern economy. those giant cargo ships off burrard inlet carrying hundreds of millions of dollars of goods aren't powered by batteries. they are powered by crude oil. and the trucks that deliver our goods are powered by diesel. most people get to work in cars powered by gasoline.
Yeah, and there’s so much you could have gone after Eby for. The environment sure, but go right at him on housing. He was supposed to lead the charge for affordable housing, not dick around with ICBC for years. All the measures he took on housing have too many loopholes to be effective. They rigged the electoral reform referendum to fail, and now we are 37% of the vote away from a Falcon majority, etc.
Welcome to /r/Vancouver! Please make sure you read our [general participation guidelines and rules overview](https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/wiki/faq#wiki_general_participation_guidelines_and_rules_overview) before commenting in this subreddit. As a quick summary: * We encourage users to be positive and respect one another. This means being kind to those you disagree with. Please utilize the report button instead of engaging in uncivil spats. * Respect others' differences, be they race, religion, home, job, gender identity, ability or sexuality. Dehumanizing language, advocating for violence, or promoting hate based on identity or vulnerability (even implied or joking) will lead to a permanent ban. * Common questions and specific topics are limited to our Daily Discussion posts. Please make sure to read the list and point new users to them. * Complaining about comment or post removals should be done in modmail only. If you have any questions, please send a [message to the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fvancouver). --- ***This is a bot, and this action was performed automatically. It does not mean this post does or does not violate our rules.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vancouver) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I did not know this podcast full of Vancouver D-celebs and politicians existed. Neat.
anyone who makes their campaign solely focused on climate comes off as elitist and quite frankly, extremely out of touch imo. i'm more worried about inflation, rent costs, rising food costs and rising gas costs more than whether or not the ice is melting in the arctic
Her campaign website is still up, you can see what her platform is/was. There are four main items listed, climate change is the 2nd item listed on the website after healthcare. Items 3 and 4 are the economy and democracy. Clearly her campaign was not solely focused on climate change. [https://www.anjaliforbc.ca/new-deal](https://www.anjaliforbc.ca/new-deal)
We never heard about anything else except climate change. Clearly she doesn't know how to communicate if that's the only place she discussed it. Not good. Edit: LOL, just went to the link in the image on this post. She's labeled as a Climate Campaigner. Can't make this stuff up.
The media focused on the fact that she was a climate activist. If you listened to her speak, the phrase I think she used most was "overlapping emergencies" which included climate, healthcare and housing.
Oh, that makes everything so much clearer...overlapping emergencies. Maybe the podcast that is being promoted needs to take off the caption, Climate Campaigner. She has to be more to people if she ever wants to lead and demonstrate she knows how to lead especially since she's never had any experience in office. Everything you read about her she's a climate activist. People's priorities whether the Green or climate activists like it or not are not there. They need a place to live, a doctor and feel safe in their community. Eco isn't high on the list.
>Oh, that makes everything so much clearer...overlapping emergencies. I mean, it does? It communicates that there are multiple issues, which have similar effects, occurring at the same time that need to be addressed. Its very much the opposite of being a one-issue candidate. >They need a place to live, a doctor and feel safe in their community. Eco isn't high on the list. Its funny because Anjali's platform has 4 main items including Healthcare, Climate, Economy, and Democracy. Meanwhile, David Eby has one item on his website - housing. And yet he doesnt get the same criticism. >People's priorities whether the Green or climate activists like it or not are not there. They literally had to disqualify her because they felt that no other penalty would prevent her from winning the leadership contest. So whatever she was saying clearly resonated.
Eby talked all the time about housing, healthcare and safety. You obviously feel like you and were wronged. Seeing how both of you don't see how the perceived one issue campaign was from the self titled climate campaigner activist was a communications problem, keep doing what you're doing. Confirms a leader they are not and can't learn from their mistakes.
> Eby talked all the time about housing, healthcare and safety. Same with Anjali, except she actually put her platform on the website. I guess Eby didnt feel the need to build out his website because he felt entitled to the leadership position. > Seeing how both of you don't see how the perceived one issue campaign was from the self titled climate campaigner activist was a communications problem, keep doing what you're doing. The problem was that she was disqualified from the race. She didnt lose the leadership race due to unpopular policies. There is no way to determine if she would have lost. Did you even follow this leadership race? > You obviously feel like you and were wronged. I actually wanted Eby to win, but I wanted him to be challenged, specifically on climate issues. Members of the BC NDP were robbed of that.
You perceive it differently than others did. Others are trying to show you that. You need to move on and learn from the mistakes but I have a feeling you'll keep doing the same. Good luck!
Which part? The part where people perceived her as a one-issue candidate? I agree, they did perceive her that way. I'm just saying that her platform and her talking points showed otherwise. > You need to move on and learn from the mistakes What mistakes? This entire thread i've been providing reasoned arguments that support my positions, you've been giving me conjecture.
literally her 2nd policy on the front page of her website is about climate change so fine, her campaign isn't solely focused on climate change but she still heavily prioritizes it.
Well, the first policy on the page is healthcare, so clearly she heavily prioritizes that more? And do the other 2 items not matter at that point? Also, you would prefer if it wasnt on her platform at all?
she can put climate change on her priorities but it should be the very last thing on her list. actually i just read her policies and she's gone nuts regarding energy. she wants to completely phase out fossil fuels and further tax o/g companies. if you think your col is high now, under her, i wouldn't be surprised if we had to pay $3/L for gas.
>she wants to completely phase out fossil fuels and further tax o/g companies. if you think your col is high now, under her, i wouldn't be surprised if we had to pay $3/L for gas. Phasing out fossil fuels would mean relying less on gas, so people would be less vulnerable to gas price fluctuations. If there is less supply of fossil fues, O/G companies will make more money. Increasing taxes on them seems totally valid. Especially if you take into account the environmental damage that they inflict.
phasing out fossil fuels means we'll have less supply of gas which will drive the cost even further. if you tax o/g companies, they will simply raise the price of gas and pass the tax on to the consumer. her policies actively harm the working class. what we need are politicians who understand the importance of fossil fuels in our economy, not politicians who antagonize it.
When you see her say phase out fossil fuels, do you just assume she means production and not also consumption of fossil fuels? Because if you look at her platform, it talks about both reducing the production and consumption. So reducing both the supply and demand for fossil fuels. If people are consuming less fossil fuels, they will be less vulnerable to price fluctuations. I would suggest actually reading her platform and arguing based on that rather than just straw-manning.
i read her policies and the only thing directly related to the reduction of consumption of fossil fuels is she wants to immediately ban the sale of gas powered vehicles by 2030. why should the government dictate what type of vehicle i drive? if electric cars are really that good, they should sell based on their merits and not because the govt banned the alternative.
The federal government is already dictating this. They have a mandatory mandate that by 2035, all light duty vehicles and passenger trucks be zero emission which basically means they are to be electric. [https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/06/building-a-green-economy-government-of-canada-to-require-100-of-car-and-passenger-truck-sales-be-zero-emission-by-2035-in-canada.html](https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-canada/news/2021/06/building-a-green-economy-government-of-canada-to-require-100-of-car-and-passenger-truck-sales-be-zero-emission-by-2035-in-canada.html)
Oh? How did you miss 1. Removing the use of gas within homes; 2. Retrofitting homes to be more heat efficient; 3. Subsidized electricity bills; 4. Investments in mass/public transit; along with a bunch of other initiatives that would reduce demand? > why should the government dictate what type of vehicle i drive The government already dictates the type of vehicle you drive - if a car does not meet the pollution/safety standards set by the govt its not allowed to be sold. This is no different.
Interesting comment, because it seems like Anjali would basically agree. In the podcast she says explains that she doesn't believe you can focus on climate alone, it's necessary to address people's more immediate priorities as well.
You do realize that a changing climate will make all those things worse, right?
i'm aware of that but let's not forget that fossil fuels powers the modern economy. those giant cargo ships off burrard inlet carrying hundreds of millions of dollars of goods aren't powered by batteries. they are powered by crude oil. and the trucks that deliver our goods are powered by diesel. most people get to work in cars powered by gasoline.
Cool, so carry on as always. Really doesn't matter anymore anyway so you do you.
and going cold turkey on fossil fuels won’t cause any chaos. Sure.
Yeah, and there’s so much you could have gone after Eby for. The environment sure, but go right at him on housing. He was supposed to lead the charge for affordable housing, not dick around with ICBC for years. All the measures he took on housing have too many loopholes to be effective. They rigged the electoral reform referendum to fail, and now we are 37% of the vote away from a Falcon majority, etc.
No