What the Parties Want - Greens

It is tough to get a read on the Green Party. In Elizabeth May they have found a formidable leader - she talks tough as a Tory, speaks smart as a Liberal, but her fashion sense is unmistakeably Green. She preformed extremely well in the leader's debate, matching Layton and Harper in her grasp of the issues, and getting in a number of decent jabs at the Prime Minister. She displayed a mastery of all of the major issues, stepping well beyond purely environmental concerns - she certainly seemed like a serious candidate, which is how she seeks to present herself in her campaign advertising as well. However, go to the Green Party website. Go ahead, I'll wait. See the folk singer? Listen carefully to the lyrics. That's about all you need to know about the Green Party agenda.

Scandinavia, but with Unicorns

It must be an odd feeling to lead a party which simultaneously enjoys a high public profile and an long odds for a single seat in Parliament, none at all for forming a government. The Party will never be held to any of the promises it makes, and thus is free to make whatever crazy promises it wants, which is where the Unicorns come in. Amid the typical litany of goodies for everyone - benefits for seniors! universal pharmacare! more childcare benefits! - comes a chapter on the promotion of beauty in civic spaces.
The Green Party has a radical vision for the future of Canada. The Canada they want is one which is environmentally sustainable, and they have a sober appreciation for the sort of drastic changes that such a goal requires. Canadians would need to pay more for goods as the environmental costs of consumption began to be factored into the price at the till. Transportation costs would increase dramatically as the price of fossil fuels would experience one of the most intense rises. This would crimp people's lifestyle - a cross-country plane ride might cost so much as to be a once-a-year indulgence for middle class Canadians. Likewise, the cost of goods produced abroad - or in distant parts of Canada - would spike considerably, especially given the Green pledge to revisit NAFTA in a manner the Americans are likely to reject out of hand. Local economies would begin to make a lot of sense, as lower transport costs made small, local business competitive. This would be felt across the board, but most intensely with food - producing fresh, organic produce in the vicinity of big cities would be a relatively profitable venture, and the health and diet of Canadians would benefit from higher quality ingredients (and also for all of the summer time bike transport, which keeps you fit and saves a bundle). However, out-of-season produce would be a thing of the past, and the gains experienced by farmers would be provided by the higher prices paid by consumers. The new type of agriculture that the Green Party envisions - local, small-scale, super-organic - would be much more labor intensive than current factory or factory-organic production. The proportion of Canadians working in agriculture would spike dramatically - local farmer would be a hot job. However, consumption of other goods would also be seriously effected - no more endless Walmart shelves of cheap Chinese schlock. Instead, go to your local store for a small selection of expensive Canadian schlock, perhaps of better quality but orders of magnitude more expensive. No more trouble finding adequate closet space! Only the ultra rich will be able to afford enough fabric to have that problem.
Although Canadians will have to sacrifice a significant level of material consumption to live in Green Canada, the exact extent of that sacrifice - whether we are talking about the equivalent of $20000 income for a family of four or a $2000 one - will depend on technological developments. If clean sources of electricity and transport energy can be devised, then much of the bite of pollution taxes is removed - not all of it by any stretch of the imagination (no matter, you will have less stuff than you do now) - but enough for technological development to be a real priority for the Greens. No alternative fuels (except nuclear power, which is ruled out by the Green Party) have demonstrated large scale viability. Some seem to have potential (especially wind power), but there is no guarantee that such sources can make up for a drastic increase in fossil fuel costs.
Although the cost of material goods will increase and Canadians will have to make do with less, the Greens suggest that social benefits can be maintained and even expanded. I do not know how this can be paid for, especially given the commitment to balanced budgets that's written into the Green Party platform - this does not seem to be a credible claim. One claim which the Greens make that is credible concerns the amount of free time that Green Canadians will enjoy. The expense of travel will make long trips unfeasible, the slow down of the economy through the adjustment to sustainable levels of consumption will reduce labor demand, and there will be fewer frivolous entertainments to fritter our time away with. Instead, Canadians will be able to devote themselves to friends, family and community (perhaps growing their own food, or volunteering at educational and health centers to make up the shortages of paid workers) reenergizing Canadian public life. Whether this is a good or bad thing likely depends on your personal feelings - I myself can't decide if this sounds heavenly or hellish.
Although the changes would be drastic, they would result in an ecologically sustainable society, and any growth achieved through technological breakthroughs or process rationalization could be enjoyed guilt-free, and might slowly allow the material standard of life to clawback to its pre-Green level. Such drastic changes might be enough to avert catastrophic climate change, thus saving more lives and resources in the long run. Further, the Greens build in significant social supports for those at low incomes - this would likely be a very equalizing transition, as there are fewer opportunities for status consumption and a greater need for communal living, if only to kill the boredom of the strictly local economy. Either that, or rampant drug use (which is actually also part of the Green Party agenda. I guess we'll feel better about having less stuff if we're stoned all the time).
The Green Party agenda, while radical, has two substantial x factors that are both unpredictable and crucially effect the final outcome. The first, which I already mentioned, is technology. If you get cold fusion working tomorrow then all we need to sacrifice are plastic supermarket bags. If you can't get wind power working, then every meal is by candlelight. The second question concerns the behavior of other countries - unless there is a real global commitment to the Green project, than Green Canada may find that it gets the double whammy of climate change and economic sacrifice, thanks to the Texan refusal to ditch their SUVs. Jerks.

Elizabeth May wants Canada to resemble: Tofino BC, but with thirty million people
Best-case scenario: Norway, but with jam bands instead of alcoholism
Worst-case scenario: Medieval Scotland, complete with witch trials (though they will be trials by, rather than of, witches)
Her plan for the economic crisis: She won't be Prime Minister, so she doesn't need one.
Likelihood of success: 0% Let's be real.