Canadian scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) call upon May to use her vote power and influence to help defeat Conservatives

Strategic voting is tough for party loyalists. Using your party to help defeat another, rather than use any gains in perception, strength, breadth and membership to continue building your own party - well that's a hard road to travel for many. But it might be the right road to travel for those in a position to really make a difference.

Three Canadian climate change scientists are asking Canadians to look within their hearts and consider smart strategic voting. This builds upon the momentum the popular movement Vote For Environment has achieved and which, I believe, offers real hope for our country. What makes Vote for Environment effective is that its an organized effort to maximize our power as individuals.

A list of ridings (PDF) where progressive / green oriented voters can really make a difference is attached to this post. (Source: voteforenvioronment.ca).

VICTORIA – Three senior Canadian members of the 2007 Nobel Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are calling on Elizabeth May to lead Greens to make the difference in more than 50 close ridings where the Conservatives are set to win with a fraction of the expected Green Party vote. The leading Canadian climate scientists making the call are Dr. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto and Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.

Riding projections on VoteForEnvironment.ca and seat models from various polling companies show that in the so-called 519 and 905 regions, and across southern BC the Green Party vote is many times greater than the Conservative margin of victory.

"We face a critical moment," said Dr. Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC report.

"It looks like the unprecedented desire to vote for the environment could result in a terrible three way split of environmental voters in key ridings. Elizabeth May and her appeal have an extraordinary opportunity to make the change the Green movement wants to see in our government. Ms. May and the Greens alone can help make the difference between the Harper majority that the climate scientists fear and a Liberal minority under which great progress can be made to fight climate change." More

Consider this: if Stephen Harper wins a majority, we shall likely see him at the helm of this country for at least four more years but more likely he'll strive to gain at least eight years with which he can fundamentally change the country. One of his goals is to cripple any real progress on the important issue of our generation, climate change. Another, perhaps less obvious goal but no less important to environmentalists, is that Harper is, and will continue to, permanently hobble the power of the federal government to enact new national programs.

In short, by continuing to slash taxes - whether it puts Canada ultimately in a deficit or not - Harper has made it nigh on impossible for the government to put any significant new program in place. There simply won't be the money, and it'll be extremely difficult to go to the public to ask for funds. Its Harper's strategic yet simple (all the most workable diabolical are simple) to destroy the power of federalism.

This is not an abstract problem green or progressive or indeed any voter can afford to dismiss. Weakening the authority of the federal government, whether by treaty or by reducing taxation revenue, helps Harper build a case for increased provincial autonomy. That sounds good as a sound bite but when one considers the deeper issues, its a terrible idea.

We live in one large but connected country. What Alberta or British Columbia or Nova Scotia does, affects others. Environmental issues do not halt at provincial boundaries. Harper wants a weaker federation so that provinces can be emboldened to cater to their own narrow interests while ignoring issues and concerns which are in fact national in scope - like climate change.

This stuff isn't sexy to talk about on the campaign trail, but its fundamentally important.

The bottom line is Harper doesn't believe the federal government should even exist beyond a very narrow definition. Its not merely that he doesn't like Ottawa but that he wished it didn't exist at all. He will concede that defence is a natural federal obligation. But if he could wheel back the hands of time, Canada would not have a national health care system. Canada would not sign on to international treaties such as Kyoto, which obligate the entire country to meet certain standards. Harper wants no national authority to have teeth to take on provinces when its required.

There certainly will never be a national pharmacare or real day care system under his watch, and by cutting government revenue to the bone, any future government will have to raise taxes in order to create such a program. As you've no doubt witnessed through this election, the very spectre - real or artificial - of raising taxes is enough to make a villain out of any politician.

There'll be no real movement on the environment if Harper stays in office, minority or not. For even with a minority government we've seen Harper slash taxes deeply and he won't stop until he hits bone. He's not doing it because its the best plan for the country, he's slashing taxes because it helps win elections so that he can finish the job of dismantling government. We'll be adding to the national debt soon and that will give Harper an excuse to start slashing program spending. What's he going to cut?

In an upcoming article I'll demonstrate how his aggressive tax give-away is likely to push Canada into the largest annual deficit seen in over a decade.

Greens and NDP are not the only ones who have had to wrestle with these questions. I'm sure Liberals have at times thrown their votes elsewhere to stop an unworthy candidate or party. I've voted strategically myself. As a Progressive Conservative (readers will understand my emphasis has always been on progressive) I have voted strategically more often than not. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I voted against the Conservatives in the last two elections even through I was an member of the Conservative Party, however unenthusiastic. Why? I could no longer support a weak local candidate, one I knew had no chance of a) winning or b) standing up to Stephen Harper any more than I would cast a vote for Stephen Harper directly myself.

But this is not news. My lack of enthusiasm for the new more muscular Conservative Party was not because it did not measure up to expectations. The party, led by Harper, has met and exceeded my darkest expectations. At the time of the merger it was more than clear that the resulting party would be the Reform / Canadian Alliance, just with a new name. That first impression is exactly what we have today - a western rump protest party which doesn't truly believe in a strong united Canada is actually now a national party running the country, only the party's brain trust remains indifferent to whether Canada ends up being 10 little "canadas" or 1 big one. Incroyable!

For those who live in a riding on the edge, and who, like me, are concerned that any more time Harper spends in office is like a death sentence not only for the environment but for all social issues and future national aspirations, then I urge you to think carefully about voting strategically and encouraging your friends and neighbours to help in this great effort to take back our country from the most destructive prime minister it has ever seen.

The Conservatives need to go to the penalty box for bad environmental, bad fiscal, bad social, and bad federal behaviour. Lets do one better and eject them from the game!

Please consider strategic voting if it makes sense for your riding. You can determine if your riding is in play by consulting the Vote for Environment web site.

The author is a former Progressive Conservative former Conservative that has never voted for Stephen Harper directly or indirectly in his life. Progressive Conservatives fought for years against Stephen Harper and his Canadian Reform Conservative Alliance Party. Some still do.