Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Runaway Climate Change? Massive Methane Release off Siberia? Nah, Let's Talk About Wall Street Instead!

On the upper decks of our "Titanic", everyone is worried stiff about a crisis on Wall Street. At Harpers' request, "Gone are the opening and closing statements by respective leaders [in the TV debate]. Instead, they’ll devote the first 30 minutes of the two-hour debate to the economy." According to the Conservatives, "...the economic discussion should occur first, before debate on less urgent issues". What might the "less urgent issues" be? Health care, child care, elder care, First Nations poverty, the Afghan War, the need for artists to have more babies -- or are they hoping that most people would tune out before they get to talk about climate change?

As we've said before, you cannot debate the economy without debating the environment. We hope that the other party leaders would make this point very strongly as all of them know it. Here's an example why it's urgent that they make the link:

(Insert ominous music here.) Scientists have found methane bubbling up from the sea at 100 times the background level over huge areas of the Russian arctic. Methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas, 21 times stronger than CO2. The additional trapped heat may melt more permafrost, releasing more of the methane underneath. More methane -- more melting -- more methane -- it could be a vicious cycle, the much-dreaded "runaway warming" that we may not be able to stop.
"For the average person, it's one more piece of evidence... that the urgency of addressing the issue is there"

-- Dale Marshall, David Suzuki Foundation (see "Canadian Reaction" below).
Here are more details:
"The scientists who have studied methane levels along Russia's northern coastline are aboard the Russian research ship Jacob Smirnitskyi.

"Örjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden told the Independent newspaper in an email from the vessel: 'An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane.

"'Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instrument].'

"At some locations he said concentrations of the gas were 100 times the background level. These anomalies were documented in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres.

"Gustafsson added: 'The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place.

'The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leaking methane.'"

Source: Methane release off Siberian coast prompts concern over runaway climate change | Environment | guardian.co.uk (bolding added)
More details:
"The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane 'hotspots', which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

"Dr Semiletov has suggested several possible reasons why methane is now being released from the Arctic, including the rising volume of relatively warmer water being discharged from Siberia's rivers due to the melting of the permafrost on the land.

"The Arctic region as a whole has seen a 4C rise in average temperatures over recent decades and a dramatic decline in the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by summer sea ice. Many scientists fear that the loss of sea ice could accelerate the warming trend because open ocean soaks up more heat from the sun than the reflective surface of an ice-covered sea."

Source: Exclusive: The methane time bomb - Climate Change, Environment - The Independen

Note the upcoming publication of a scientific study based on the findings by the American Geophysical Union.

Canadian reaction:

"Marianne Douglas, the head of the Canadian Circumpolar Institute at the University of Alberta, said this latest research raises some important questions.

"'It's a time bomb because, as the permafrost thaws -- and we don't know how fast it will thaw -- it's going to slowly and maybe catastrophically at some point, release all that methane that's trapped underneath as a solid,' she said.

"Some scientists believe that the sudden release of methane may have been responsible for sudden spikes in global temperatures millions of years ago.

"'In the geological record, there's evidence about 55 million years ago about this having happened as well in the past,' Douglas said, adding a huge burst of methane warmed the temperature of the Earth by up to 6C over a 20,000 year period.

"'From the geological record, they can see that this actually ended up with some extinctions of small micro-organisms and the onset of new organisms, like mammals.'

"Instead of losing hope over this scenario and giving up on fighting climate change, Dale Marshall, an Ottawa-based climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation, said people should interpret this research as being another reason to combat global warming.

"Scientists say polar sea ice is melting, which allows more sunlight to penetrate ocean water. That water heats up, melting the permafrost on the ocean floor that has, up until now, prevented large releases of methane.

"'For the average person, it's one more piece of evidence and one more confirmation that the urgency of addressing the issue is there,' Marshall said.

"'This is one of the pieces of evidence that may point to the fact that we're approaching that kind of a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions accumulate in the atmosphere to the point where you get a cascading series of events that leads to more and more climate change that's hard to turn around at that stage.'"

Source: Study says methane from ocean floor is 'time bomb' (CP via CTV News)

For now, the Globe & Mail says, "Harper majority a concern to more than half of Canadians: poll":

"More than half of Canadian voters say they're worried about the thought of giving Stephen Harper a majority government, but most wouldn't change their vote to prevent it.

"Strider: Are you frightened?
"Frodo: Yes.
"Strider: Not nearly frightened enough."

(Lord of the Rings: Fellowship... movie)
Vote strategically to save the climate, before it's too late -- any of the opposition parties are much better than the Conservatives!

Monday, September 29, 2008

Halton Solar Fair, Saturday October 4

Copied from an email sent by the Halton Environmental Network, which is organizing home owners who want to install solar systems (solar thermal or photovoltaic) in Halton region (Oakville, Burlington, Milton, Georgetown areas). (We hope to install a solar water heater at our house.)

The Halton Environmental Network (HEN) is organizing a Solar Fair for Saturday, October 4 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. The Fair will be held in the Auditorium of the Halton Regional Centre, 1151 Bronte Road (Regional Road 25) in Oakville, just north of the QEW.

Eight solar vendors will be displaying and discussing their solar water heating and photovoltaic (solar electricity) systems.

The first series of public meetings for the HRSP is currently underway, with meetings last week in Oakville and Burlington drawing a total of 175 attendees. Upcoming meetings are scheduled for Wed. Oct. 1 at the Milton Sports Centre and Thurs. Oct. 2 at the Georgetown Cultural Centre. Both meetings start at 7:00 p.m.

The Solar Fair on Oct. 4 is a follow-up to the evening meeting series, but people who could not attend the evening meetings are welcome to attend.

An information session will run from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., including an overview of solar power and the HRSP. Guest speaker will be Ken Traynor of the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op (TREC). Traynor was a key organizer of the West Toronto Initiative for Solar Energy (WISE), which saw 86 solar systems installed in one ward of Toronto in 2007.

The opportunity to hear from vendors will come from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Attendees will be able to move around the room from vendor presentation to vendor presentation every 10 minutes. There will be time for questions.

Energy advisors will also be on hand at the Solar Fair to enable people to sign up for home energy audits. An audit by a qualified energy advisor is required in order to receive more than $1,000 in rebates for solar hot water systems.

For more information on the Halton Residential Solar Project, visit halton.ourpower.ca.

Green the Bailout

An interesting perspective on the financial crisis:

Op-Ed Columnist - Green the Bailout - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com: "“I cannot help but ponder about how quickly we are ready to act on fixing the transmission, by pumping in almost one trillion dollars in a fortnight,” said Sridhar. “On the other hand, the engine, which is slowly dying, is not even getting an oil change or a tuneup with the same urgency, let alone a trillion dollars to get ourselves a new engine. Just imagine what a trillion-dollar investment would return to the economy, including the ‘transmission,’ if we committed at that level to green jobs and technologies.”"

Save & Share

CTV NewsNet Refusing to Talk Issues, Treating Election as Just a "Horse Race"

This has nothing to do with climate change as such, but it's a great example of the mainstream media wilfully refusing to talk about the issues in this election. I just couldn't resist blogging about it. Here's a copy of an email that I've sent to CTV NewsNet:
To the editor of CTV NewsNet:

I like some aspects of your election coverage, especially the fact that you put detailed video clips on the web. But I am deeply disappointed with your recent refusal to focus on the issues.

Two Recent Examples:
  1. Your Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife today ignored the substance of Stephane Dion's latest speech. Fife was covering the election as if it were just about polls, leaders' poularity and tactics (the video clip is at http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/liberal-strategies/#clip96747). It was also the perfect "set-up" for the next segment.
  2. A CTV NewsNet anchor (Kate Wheeler?) interviewed Susan Smith, a Liberal strategist. The video clip is at http://watch.ctv.ca/news/election-2008/liberal-strategies/#clip96749. All the anchor asked about were polls and tactics. After responding to this, Ms. Smith also talked about Dion and the following issues (starting around 00:30 mm:ss):
  • Representation and status of women,
  • Child care
  • Poverty
  • Education
  • Seniors
  • Economic policy.
The anchor responded,

"Sure, and those are all issues that are important to many voters, but I guess my question was more specific, I guess why this last-minute addition for him to appear at this rally?"

(See around 01:45 mm:ss; my transcript.)

Your journalists sure knows how to stay "on message", and the "message" is that important issues are not worth discussing! It's all about the "horse race".

I'm not a Liberal party member. I strategically support the local Liberal candidate for action on climate change (I would have supported the Liberal, NDP or Green candidate, depending on who had the best chance to win the riding: see this blog entry for reasons).

But this goes beyond just climate change or party politics. It's about responsible journalism in general.
This election is a debate about the future of Canada and the world. Please treat it as such.

Thanks in advance for considering this feedback.

Note: The above represents my personal views only, not those of my employer or any other person or organization.
Stephane Dion's actual speech in Toronto is here: video, followed by a Q & A with reporters: video. Both clips are well worth watching. As Susan Smith pointed out,
"Stephane Dion came to an event with 500 people today. He had stood at a raucus rally, a fantastic rally, that demonstrated not only the depth of his candidates but of the women in his caucus."

Friday, September 26, 2008

Baird, Harper get failing grade on climate change

The Sierra Club of Canada has ranked the federal party platforms on climate change (no big surprises here):

Conservatives: F+

"Comments: Needs to acknowledge the climate crisis, and stop obstructing progress at international meetings. It is essential for Canada to commit to an absolute reduction target with a 1990 baseline. Should abandon the misleading approach of intensity targets."

Bloc Quebecois: B
"Comments: Develop a more detailed plan, and specify a price for carbon emissions."

Green Party: A-
"Comments: A significant part of the revenue raised should be directed to achieve further greenhouse gas reductions."

Liberals: B+
"Comments: Outline how the price on carbon will increase to a level to achieve a minimum 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Make a firm commitment to a target of a minimum 25% reduction in emissions by 2020."


"Comments: Either include a carbon tax to put a price on carbon sooner, or provide details for how the plan will reach its target."

Click here (PDF) for the full report.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

How to vote strategically to stop dangerous climate change

In the Globe today, their analysts were talking about the vote split on the centre-left. Greg Lyle (a pollster) was down on strategic voting, saying that "The problem with this strategy is that it is just not realistic. Many voters, particularly swing voters, do not have the information they need to make this choice."

A new website can fill the information gap: http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/
They figure out if strategic voting would make a difference in defeating the Conservatives in your riding -- and then recommend who to vote for.

This site's methodology is a bit different from the other site that tries to do this, http://www.voteforclimate.ca/, but the recommendation for our riding happens to be the same from both sites.

Check out both of these sites. Do your own research. Think about the future of your children, grandchildren (or any child that you know). Think about the risk of wasting the next 48 months (out of the 99 months that we may have left to avert climate disaster) with a climate-hostile government. Then go out and vote to defeat the Conservatives!

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Ninety-Nine Months Left To Take Action

"We have one hundred months to save the planet. When the clock stops ticking, we could be beyond the climate's 'tipping point', the point of no return."

This is according to the onehundredmonths.org site, supported by Andrew Simms of The Guardian, and numerous organizations (scroll through the list at the bottom - it's pretty impressive).

The reasoning behind one hundred months (they started counting in August - therefore there are 99 months left) is explained in this Guardian article, and is also nicely summarized at Treehugger.

If you accept this timeline, preventing a Harper majority government becomes even more urgent! Four more years of going in the wrong direction is 48 months too long.

Here in Canada, this month's action must be to support your local candidate with the best shot at defeating the Harper Conservatives (with money, time, and your vote). Then, we can all work together on our own version of the New Green Deal.

Monday, September 15, 2008

When will they stop reporting Harper's lies?

In this article in the Star, Harper claims that Ontarians would be better off trusting him than to trust any of the opposition parties. However, his reasons are all - well... untruthful:

"Harper said, Dion's carbon tax would devastate the economy." As discussed in a previous post, this is blatantly untrue, and Harper knows it. (And yet the Star printed it without any comment!)

Also, Harper continues to claim that Dion would repeal the GST cut and child care "allowance", despite Liberal claims to the contrary.

I guess he's hoping that the more times you repeat a lie, the more people will believe it.

Hopefully, most Ontarians still remember what happened the last time guys like Flaherty, Clement and Baird were in power. These are the last people we should be trusting!

Sunday, September 14, 2008

"...a real but mild softening of Conservative support"

Hat tip to Impolitical for pointing out another sign of hope, this time from a dissenting pollster:
"Based on a total sample of 4,975 cases allocated over the period Monday to Thursday of this week, our nightly tracking has shown Tory support drop from 39 per cent on Monday to 34 per cent Thursday.

"Coupled with a mild strengthening of Liberal support from 24 per cent to 27 per cent over this same period, the net effect has been to narrow a formidable 15 point advantage (which was just in majority territory) to a much more modest 7 point advantage (which places the Conservatives back into minority territory). So, we do think that there has been a real but mild softening of Conservative support."

--Frank Graves (Ekos Research)
Source, more details and pollster debate: Globe & Mail

(A dissenting pollster making a minority prediction - about a minority government? Oh, and why do I feel a bit like I'm reading a scene from Philip K. Dick's Minority Report? Are pollsters the "Precogs" of our day? Will Canada commit the "international crime" of violating the Kyoto Accord, or will the Conservative Juggernaut be stopped in time? Stay tuned!)

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Party Platforms on Climate Change

We've added a list of links to the Federal party Climate Change Platforms near the top right of this blog. (Yes, we know, the word "Platform" is a bit of a stretch for the Conservative one. Update: and yes, we know that the BQ can hardly be called "federal" -- but in any event...)

Here's a site for additional info: Vote for Climate - Choose Your Future

(Way past) time to put a price on carbon!

Two more items that support the need for a price on carbon:

Today's Quirks and Quarks featured an interview with Dr. Andrew Weaver, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, one of Canada's most eminent climate scientists, and an important contributor to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Dr. Weaver has written a book called Keeping our Cool: Canada in a Warming World.

In the interview Dr. Weaver says "we have to go to zero emissions eventually" in order to stay below 2 degrees of warming and stabilize the climate. He says that the best way of dealing with this is to price emissions, using a mechanism like the BC Carbon Tax. According to Dr. Weaver, "the only real means to go to zero emissions is to put a high price on emissions".

Dr. Weaver said "We are at a turning point", where option number one is a fundamentally different technological and behavioural world, where we think very carefully before releasing CO2 to the atmosphere. The other path is a world in strife. "We will be having environmental refugees on a scale where we won't know how to deal with it."

In support of carbon taxes, yesterday the Green Party released a report commissioned by the government to determine the economic impacts of a carbon tax. (Thanks to Challenging the Commonplace for the tip.)

The report – Cost Curves for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction in Canada: The Kyoto Period and Beyond – concludes that the GDP impact of a $50/tonne tax shift is less than 0.1% of GDP per year until 2010, is virtually zero during the next five years and is then positive after 2015 (see chart below).
Further, the report projects net financial savings to those who take action as a result of the tax shift, after taking into account the investment in emissions reductions. At $50 per tonne, that windfall comes to $13.8 billion by 2010 and climbs from there (see chart below).

“Mr. Harper’s ridiculous claim that taxing carbon will bring about economic ruin and a recession is starkly contradicted by his own research,” said Ms. May. “In fact, this report shows a positive impact on GDP beginning in 2015. With this in the public domain it is clear that Mr. Harper is deliberately distorting the evidence. Mr. Harper’s fear mongering on a carbon tax is a deliberate and premeditated effort to demonize a sensible plan.

“The government’s own analysis proves that a $50 carbon tax shift will benefit businesses and individuals, and will achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister should now explain to Canadians why, in the face of this compelling evidence, his government stubbornly refuses to consider the carbon tax option and continues to viciously attack those who do. Mr. Harper must bring some honesty into this debate.”
The Greens propose to do just this:
The Green Party of Canada would implement a $50 per tonne carbon tax shift – with matching cuts in income and payroll taxes – as the cornerstone of a comprehensive plan for a green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.
The Liberal Green Shift plan starts at $10 at tonne and increases to $40 a tonne over four years.

Update: The Green Party had originally released the "Cost Curves" report on June 20, 2007. They re-released it on September 12, 2008, linking back to their original 2007 announcement. But the Conservatives are still trying to scare people away from the mild Liberal version of the plan with talk of a recession and even a threat to national unity.

Of course, the other way to price carbon is using a cap-and-trade system, as is proposed by the NDP. They plan to sell carbon credits starting at $35 a tonne.

Which way is best? I don't know - but we need to decide and move forward with one of these options very soon!

Canadians prepared to vote strategically to prevent Tory majority: poll

Good news from a poll at last:
"It doesn't really look like the Conservatives are pushing into majority territory," said Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid. "Ontario tells a lot of the story and the only way they can break through is if they somehow get even with the Liberals."


"The poll showed that more than half of Canadians - 54 per cent -reject the idea of a Conservative majority government, while 35 per cent support it. Also, 38 per cent of Canadians reported they would be prepared to vote strategically, by switching their vote to another party, to prevent the prospect."
Source: Global News

Tuesday, September 09, 2008

The Real "Strong Leadership" that Canada Needs -- Canadians for Climate Leadership

Tired of the macho posturing between the party leaders (especially Harper and Layton) about who is the "strong leader" that Canada needs? A group of prominent Canadians (including former Prime Ministers Joe Clark and Kim Campbell, both Progressive Conservatives, and Liberals Paul Martin and John Turner) is calling for real leadership on the issue that matters most to us and future generations: climate change.

Layton Links Environment and Economy - Sort Of

NDP Leader Jack Layton's campaign-opening speech included some good bits linking economic and environmental policy:
"... invest ... money with companies that provide training, and are innovating in the new energy economy and green collar jobs."


"We’ll make sure Canada lives up to the challenge of climate change – not with Mr Harper’s idle words or by taxing you and your family – but with tough laws that force polluters to clean up the mess they’ve made.

"We’ll invest in solutions that’ll create thousands of sustainable jobs and make environmental choices more affordable for you and your family."

While he objects to carbon taxes, Layton agrees with the Liberals and the Greens on the need for meeting Kyoto targets, tougher emission controls on large polluters, and the desirability of creating "green jobs".

Still, Layton's opening speech did not show an integrated vision such as those of Dion's Liberals and the Green Party, explicitly connecting economy, ecology and social justice. In fact, Layton provided a "laundry list" of promises, clichés ("winds of change"..?) and shallow accusations (criticizing Harper's handling of the tainted meat scandal, but not taking the opportunity to comment on meat consumption as such, despite the UN climate chief's recent call to eat less meat).

NDP Press Releases against fast-tracking tar-sands development, and Layton calling for a moratorium (video clip), are great stuff.

But flying an air plane that emits CO2 to show reporters tar sands projects that emit CO2 is just a little odd. Could Layton not have used existing photos (including air and satellite images) to make the same point?

"Pierre Sadik, a senior policy adviser at the David Suzuki Foundation... says parties can curb the environmental costs of campaigning by limiting personal appearances and using more video links, the Internet and other means to get their messages out." (CP via CTV)

I know, the NDP are offsetting their campaign emissions -- but if the tar sands companies declared tomorrow that they are offsetting all of their emissions, too, would Layton rescind his call for a moratorium?

While the Liberals and the Greens also plan to offset their campaign emissions, the Green
"...Leader Elizabeth May plans to travel by train as much as possible and drive a Toyota Prius hybrid 'slowly' around her Pictou County, N.S., riding." (CP via CTV)
In fairness, Layton had been a steady promoter of public transit and cycling as well. It's just that he looked so comfortable on that NDP plane in the video.

In any event, Harper did not even walk the 395 metres from his residence to the Governor-General's office when he asked for Parliament to be dissolved: "He arrived in a four-vehicle motorcade that included a gas-gulping van and SUV". And no, they will not even try offsetting the emissions. Once again, the difference between the Conservatives and the other parties could not have been clearer.

Monday, September 08, 2008

Greens shut out of TV debates

I can't believe they've shut her out again! What are Harper and Layton so afraid of?!? (Apparently, the Bloc has never said they'd pull out if Ms. May was included.)

Please sign the petition! I'll be boycotting (not watching) the debate unless she is included.

Edited to add:

Interesting to read the quote from Gerald Caplan in the G&M (in response to the question "Should she have been included?"):

Gerald Caplan ( former NDP campaign manager): Very forcefully yes.

I'm dismayed at the decision to keep Ms. May out of the debate. It's contrary to democracy, common sense and civil decency. I'm hugely disappointed that the NDP is party to this exclusion. I'm shocked that the Conservatives and NDP apparently have threatened not to participate if she had been included. I'm incredulous that Mr. Layton would use the Liberal-Green deal in a single seat to argue that they're virtually the same party. I can hardly believe Mr. Harper's brazenness in saying, without an iota of proof, that Ms. May intends to endorse Mr. Dion.

"Shun meat, says UN climate chief"

Great story to find, esecially after visiting the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair:

"Shun meat, says UN climate chief"

(Source: BBC)

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Green Party Knows Environment & Economy Should Be Same Thing -- But Their Own Pollsters Forget

Compare these three quotes, first and second from their Green Values statement, and the third from a recent official Press Release:
"We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.
"We acknowledge that human society depends on the ecological resources of the planet, and must ensure the integrity of ecosystems and preserve biodiversity and the resilience of life supporting systems."


"Creating a world economy which aims to satisfy the needs of all, not the greed of a few; and enables those presently living to meet their own needs, without jeopardising the ability of future generations to meet theirs."


"Overwhelmingly, Guelph voters say the environment is the most important issue: 50% rating it as the #1 or #2 issue vs. 37% for the economy and 28% for health care."

Again, the environment and the economy are treated as if they were two separate issues. Where is the polling question about reconciling our economy with the ecosystem? By failing to make the connection, this Press Release and poll are undermining the Green Party's core message.

(Edited to fix links, change "unofficial blog" characterization as this was an official Press Release, make contrast between Values and last quote easier to see, and strengthen the last paragraph.)

Dion Wants to Link Environment and Economy - Video Clip

Dion shows again that he sees the issues as related, and even links them with social fairness:

Speech video: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/liberals-vision/#clip90399

Whether his policy is the best one on the combined environment/economy/social justice question remains to be seen.

(Q & A session video:http://watch.ctv.ca/news/latest/liberals-vision/#clip90400)

But he shows that he "gets it" by posing the issue the right way. The Tories are not even close.

Hey Pollsters and Canadians, "Economy" and "Environment" is the SAME Question!

The depressing thing about the hoopla leading up to today's Canadian election call was the poll results. It's not just that the Tories, who continue to score lowest on Climate Change policy, might be set to win a "majority" government. Or that despite all evidence to the contrary, "On climate change, 68 per cent of us think Harper's government is taking the right approach" (CBC). The trouble is also at a deeper level: pollsters asked Canadians which party is best able to manage the economy and which party is better for the environment -- and got two different answers!

Remember folks, the economy and the environment are really the same issue:
  • As the saying goes, "the economic system is a wholly owned subsidiary of the ecosystem".
  • You cannot have a good economy on a wrecked planet.
  • Any economic policy which destroys the ecosystem is bound to result in disaster.
So pollsters should ask, "which party is best able to transform our economy so that it stops destroying the ecosystem on which it -- and we -- depend?" And Canadians should start thinking about it quickly, before it's too late.