Wendy Andrews is running for the wrong party

If you've traveled through the intersection of Stony Plain Road and 142 st in Edmonton, you may have noticed a billboard that looks like this:

Initially reading it, you could be confused: the leafy green background and promise of "fresh thinking" would have you thinking that the candidate was strongly focused on changing the dismal environmental record of this province --  then you'd see the PC Alberta logo, and, if you're like me, wonder if this background was a bit misleading. Given the PC's performance, I would think this billboard to be more accurate if the background image showed fumes billowing from some upgrader smokestacks, possibly behind a massive tailings pond, maybe beside a giant burning pile of the boreal forest that used to occupy the area filled by the smokestack and tailings pond.

To put this in other words, I find it curious that Andrews is running on an environmental platform (at least as portrayed by her billboard and recycled-paper brochures) as a candidate in a party that has, as a government, an environmental record that can only be described as dismal.  In just the last few weeks we've seen news of the government withholding from the public a report on climate change they commissioned Mark Jaccard to write (to be fair, this is as much of an insult to democracy as it is to the environment), industry asking government for a moratorium on the issuing of new tarsands leases, the Conservation Voters of Alberta report card that put the PC's platform in last place with a "D," and Ed Stelmach making up ludicrous job loss estimates that he says would result from any serious attempt to cap emissions, and then refusing to back these claims up. Does this qualify as "fresh thinking?"   

I'm not necessarily questioning Andrews' environmental convictions (although it does concern me that on the front page of her campaign website she trumpets an endorsement from this guy, who among other things refers to the Kyoto accord as a "socialist wealth transfer scheme"). It's likely she wants to work as an "agent for change" within the PC Party; my contention is that she should have thought this through. Does she think that the environmental goals she's made the centrepiece of her campaign would be best accomplished by her getting elected as a PC and attempting to to single-handedly and drastically shift the course of the most recalcitrant government in the country? Particularly in a province where the head of government (i.e. the premier and his inner circle) is so powerful (relative to even other Canadian governments) and steadfastly promises not to "touch the brake," the likelihood of this happening is basically nil. In fact, I would say that the tendency of several Tory partisans and the party itself to co-opt and parade around candidates like Ms. Andrews and a similar candidate in Calgary (Leah Lawrence) as evidence that they care about the environment does more harm than good to furthering environmental goals.

Looking at her record and ideas, she seems like she would be a good candidate, if she were running for a party that's record demonstrated it actually gives a rat's ass about environment. It's either naïve, disingenuous, careless, or some combination of the three for her to run on the platform she is for the party she is, and for that reason alone I would strongly question supporting her. However, I don't live in Edmonton-Riverview, so she won't have to worry about me...

Now: bring on the comments calling me a partisan Liberal for attacking someone making a challenge to Taft's seat!

Comments

[Parker]

Thanks for that comment about Wendy Andrews. Yes it may seem unusual that someone with an environmental interest would be running as a Tory, to those that haven't followed the continual and ever-evolving nature of the Progressive Conservative party.
I am proud of Wendy, and our party for moving forward in areas that are of interest to Albertans - that is what good elected officials do...represent the interests of their constituents.
There is a movement, that was well articulated by Preston Manning, that there is a natural fit between fiscal sense (the Conservative part of our name) and environmental issues (the Progressive part of our name). Balancing economic growth and environmental benefit is a key part of Wendy's beliefs.
It's time for a change in Edmonton Riverview, and Wendy Andrew's Fresh Thinking is the way.
Changing thinking is the way our party has governed this province so well for the last number of years.
Cheers!

[Avi]

The PC Environment rhetoric makes me literally sick. In Edmonton, so many PC candidates are running on the PC “commitment to the environment”. I'm sure you've seen Hancock's blog (and Chapmans post) about the PC's (and Hancock’s) record and vision for the environment. It’s a farce.

[DMFB]

Changing thinking is the way our party has governed this province so well for the last number of years.

Did you even, like, read this post?

There is a movement, that was well articulated by Preston Manning, that there is a natural fit between fiscal sense ... and environmental issues...

There most certainly is a natural fit between these issues, which makes the PC stance even more ridiculous. The only ones currently advocating something like that in Alberta are the Greens.

[eh]

I wonder why Andrews and Lawrence aren't included here:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/features/albertavotes/story.html?id=204ccb33-49d2-48e3-91a8-27ba2e7b782b&k=646

[EdTV]

I wonder what Ms. Andrews and her gang of merry Stelmach apologists would say about this comment from Ed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWBW6xZX6uU

[LV]

When I first glanced at this page, I actually thought the picture was an advertisement for President's Choice "green" products line (you know, Superstore brand).Perhaps new subliminal marketing techniques?

Progressive Conservatives= President's Choice?

I smell a conspiracy. ;)

[Ken Chapman]

HI GRODT...there are lots of PC who get the green agenda and are prepared to say so aggressively. Don't be surprised - it is a good thing. The Pembina Institute has even linked to the Blog of Heather Klimchuk in Edmonton Glenora - another green PC.

[jk]

Thanks for the comment Ken. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that 3 candidates talking about environmental issues do not a green party make. The espoused values of these candidates simply do not align with those of a government who vows not to "touch the brake" on the oilsands, and, in face of criticism from the population and even the business community refuses to do anything of significance about climate change (except for blame it on the NEP).

Therefore, I think candidates like Andrews are bad for the environmental movement, because they steal the votes of environmentally concerned citizens away from candidates who's parties would actually do something if elected.