The Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the Embassy of Germany present Dr. Günther Bachmann at the IPAC conference “Climate Change and Canadian Public Policy: Adaptation"
Oct 29, 2008, Le Meridien King Edward Hotel, Toronto
Dr. Bachmann has been Director of the German Council for Sustainable Development since its establishment in 2001 and has emphasized "creative ways to communicate our common challenge" to the public and to governments. The Council is an independent body of 17 representatives from environmental NGOs, consumer groups, churches, trade unions, local communities, economists and scientists, that champion sustainability at all levels of government and in the private sector.
Wednesday October 29, 2008, 12:00 noon – 2:00 pm, Le Meridien King Edward Hotel, Toronto. Tickets $75,-
For more information go to the conference's website:
"The Hour with George Stroumboulopoulos, Canada’s late-night talk show, and Cisco are partnering to spearhead a massive, nationwide environmental movement. This fall, CBC and The Hour will mobilize Canadians to commit One Million Acts of Green. In partnership with Cisco, and the power of their ‘Human Network Effect’, the collective goal is to change how we live and how we treat the planet, one act at a time.
It’s not about overhauling your life; it’s about one act from each individual amassing to a million. Maybe it’s switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, making the decision to walk or bike to work, or to buy locally-grown organic food. It can be as simple as recycling your cell phone or as ambitious as building a green roof space. One small thing can have a huge impact. Young and old, parents and kids, small towns and big cities, The Hour wants Canadians to take action for the sake of the environment.
All Canadians have to do is commit one act of “green” (or more), then register the act. There will be a highly interactive One Million Acts of Green (OMAoG) website (www.onemillionactsofgreen.com) where anyone can log their acts and see an immediate impact via an extensive green calculator designed by GreenNexxus. The site will also be a hub of information about OMAoG, and will serve as an educational resource of “green” content. Registrants will be able to learn more, inspire and challenge others to act."
Climate change is happening much faster than the world's best scientists predicted and will wreak havoc unless action is taken on a global scale, a new report warns.
Extreme weather events such as the hot summer of 2003, which caused an extra 35,000 deaths across southern Europe from heat stress and poor air quality, will happen more frequently.
Britain and the North Sea area will be hit more often by violent cyclones and sea level rise predictions will double to more than a metre putting vast coastal areas at risk from flooding.
The bleak report from WWF - formerly the World Wildlife Fund - also predicts crops failures and the collapse of eco systems on both land and sea.
And it calls on the EU to set an example to the rest of the world by agreeing a package of challenging targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions to tackle the consequences of climate change and to keep any increase in global temperatures below 2ºC.
"French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-country European Union, said that despite some misgivings about the cost, 'climate change is so important that we cannot use the financial and economic crisis as a pretext for dropping it.'"
Central- and eastern-European countries that depend heavily on coal will get help from the other EU members.
In contrast, in Canada, faced with the fear of an oncoming recession, we've just reelected a Conservative government whose "intensity-based" climate change plan will not work. Both the Green Party/Liberal plan (carbon tax/income tax cuts plus emissions trading) and the NDP plan (just emissions trading) were defeated.
The EU's ambition on climate change is indeed "made of sterner stuff" (Shakespeare: Caesar). Canada has missed another chance to show the world some real leadership and resolve.
Along with others who were concerned about climate change, we promoted strategic voting in the 2008 election. It didn't work this time: we still have a Conservative minority government. But at least there is no Conservative "majority" government. In any event, a backlash against strategic voting is not justified. Acting within the law in a democracy to maximize the chances of a good outcome for the planet is a good thing. The strategy did not reach its ultimate goal because other people's actions. But the strategy's ethical value remains intact.
I was sad to see our local Liberal MP lose out to a Conservative despite my strategic vote. So I can sympathize with ScruffyDan who seems to be in a similar situation. Moreover, our MP was fairly progressive/green long before Dion, so this is a loss on many levels. Under Proportional Representation I would have probably voted Green because they are even closer to my values. Unlike ScruffyDan, though, I don't feel that my strategic vote was wasted. I feel like a person who had done the right thing but lost.
The Green Party did pretty well in this election, considering our unfair voting system (more on this below). They will survive without the few bucks that my vote would have given them in added funding. It would also be easy to send them a small cheque to make up not voting for them if I decide that this is justified by the Green Party's direction.
Some Green party members apparently want to oust Elizabeth May for her (admittedly vague) stance on strategic voting. They claim that
"the Green party needs a leader who supports the Green party over other political parties".
I thought that the Green Party is different from the others because it aims to serve the planet and humanity, not its own partisan interests. In fact, when other parties adopt major parts of the Green Party platform (as in the Liberals under Dion), the Green Party might want to ask,
"what do the Earth and humanity need us to do?"
In any case, I doubt that the Greens would elect any MPs until Proportional Representation is in place. Alas, this is total "Political Science Fiction" in federally right now. Quebec just voted massively for the Bloc. When push comes to shove, this party would probably oppose any system that would results in fewer seats for them. They might even turn it into another "wedge" issue in favour of separation/sovereignty/sovereignty-association/[insert new euphemism here]. Most of the other political parties would also oppose Proportional Representation for fear of losing seats in Parliament, if not right away, then eventually. The recent story about the NDP refusing to support Proportional Representation in 1980 is instructive (h/t Democratic Space).
And as Ontario voters have seen, mere lip service by a major party like the Liberals in the MMP Referendum is not enough to get Proportional Representation in place.
The country is also facing a potential recession. Many people are unlikely to have the time or stomach for citizens' assemblies and referenda on electoral reform. Harper's fantasy about abolishing the Senate if it cannot be reformed is also likely to fail. Nobody wants to talk about constitutional issues. Quebec and other regional interests would oppose the idea as well.
Strategic voting will continue to make sense in some ridings in future elections as long as the current electoral system is in place.
Greenpolitics.ca is calling for progressive parties to act decisively after the election, to form a coalition government. Great idea! Four more years lost to Conservative Government inaction would only mean greater climate risk and the need for more drastic measures later. But first, we need to maximize the number of non-Conservative MPs. Any progressive coalition would be stronger if it outnumbered the Conservatives in Parliament by a large margin. On Election Day, voting strategically in key ridings is the way to go. If you would normally vote Green Party, please check the list of key ridings where you can make a difference here. If you normally support other progressive parties, please check the more general list of key ridings here. Please think of today's children and their children, then get out and vote!
For more background, please see all our posts on strategic voting here (after clicking the link, please scroll down past this post to see the previous messages).
Green Leader Elizabeth May has called on her candidates to consider whether their participation in a close contest could help elect a Conservative MP – an outcome she opposes.
Three of Canada's leading climate scientists say that Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservatives in this election by voting strategically in 121 key ridings. They are calling on Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to make a clear statement supporting this approach.
The scientists are Dr. Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria, Dr. William Peltier from the University of Toronto and Dr. John Stone from Carleton University.
Based on the latest polls, they say that:
In 81 ridings, Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservative candidate who is currently leading.
In 40 additional ridings, Green Party supporters can help to ensure that a Conservative does not overtake the current leading candidate at the last moment.
We list the ridings in each category, plus the information sources, below.
We agree that it is about time that Elizabeth May reconsidered her position on strategic voting. On September 30, 2008, she was quoted as opposing strategic voting despite admitting that,
"'We are too close to the edge of a global apocalypse,' [...] 'We have got to grab the opportunities we have. And clearly the contribution Canadians can make to a global solution is to get rid of Stephen Harper.' [...]
"'I'd rather have no Green seats and Stephen Harper lose.'"
No wonder that as of October 11, 2008, some of her supporters still sounded confused by May's stance.
We agree with the scientists. We think that Elizabeth May should change her position. She should keep it simple by saying,
"Vote for Green Party candidates everywhere except the ridings where you can help to guarantee a Conservative loss by voting strategically."
Preventing a Conservative win in this election is important for stopping dangerous climate change. This goes beyond any party loyalty, personal ambition, time and effort invested Green Party candidates and supporters or party funding issues.
"...remind greens and Green parties everywhere of the philosophical principles of Green politics should they inadvertently be lead astray by the lure of power, money, glamor, or fame."
We hope that Green Party supporters and the Party Leader, of all people, would understand that some personal sacrifice is justified when the planet's future is at stake.
Still, it should not be up to supporters of one party alone to help defeat the Conservatives by voting strategically. We encourage all progressive voters to check the more general list of key ridings where strategic voting by anyone who is opposed to the Conservatives can make a difference.
Ridings where Green Party supporters can help to defeat the Conservative candidate who is currently leading (in alphabetic order):
Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale
Barrie
Blackstrap
Brant
Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound
Burlington
Burnaby—New Westminster
Cambridge
Cariboo—Prince George
Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia
Chatham-Kent—Essex
Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River / Desnethé—Missinippi—Rivière Churchill
Durham
Edmonton Centre / Edmonton-Centre
Edmonton—Strathcona
Elgin—Middlesex—London
Essex
Fleetwood—Port Kells
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell
Haldimand—Norfolk
Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock
Halton
Huron—Bruce
Jonquière—Alma
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo
Kildonan—St. Paul
Kitchener—Conestoga
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex
Lévis—Bellechasse
London West / London-Ouest
Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière
Mégantic—L'Érable
Nanaimo—Alberni
NB - Fundy Royal
NB - Tobique—Mactaquac
New Westminster—Coquitlam
Newmarket—Aurora
Newton—North Delta / Newton—Delta-Nord
Niagara Falls
NL - Avalon
NL - St. John's East / St. John's-Est
NL - St. John's South—Mount Pearl / St. John's-Sud Mount Pearl
North Vancouver
Northumberland—Quinte West
Nova / Nova-Ouest
NS - Central Nova / Nova-Centre*
Oakville
Okanagan—Shuswap
Oshawa
Ottawa West—Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest—Nepean
Ottawa—Orléans
Oxford
Palliser
Parry Sound—Muskoka
Perth—Wellington
Peterborough
Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission
Pontiac
Prince Albert
Prince Edward—Hastings
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre
Regina—Qu'Appelle
Richmond
Richmond Hill
Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean
Sarnia—Lambton
Saskatoon—Humboldt
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar
Saskatoon—Wanuskewin
Selkirk—Interlake
Simcoe North / Simcoe-Nord
Simcoe—Grey
St. Catharines
Sud—Mount Pearl
Vancouver Island North / Île de Vancouver-Nord
Vancouver Quadra
Victoria
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country
Whitby—Oshawa
Winnipeg South / Winnipeg-Sud
York—Simcoe
* In NS Central Nova, where Elizabeth May is running, the detailed analysis table (source below) shows the Greens as the second place party. The VoteForEnvironment.ca strategic voting choice is to vote Green.
Ridings where Green Party supporters can help to ensure that a Conservative does not overtake the current leading candidate at the last moment (in alphabetic order):
The Conservatives and their supporters are trying to claim credit for the latest job figures. They also tout the the IMF's “economic growth” projections for next year. But even if we believe the numbers, most of the new jobs are part-time. It is also unclear how many of them are ecologically sustainable. The IMF's “growth” forecast takes the Conservative government's budget projections as the starting point – hardly an impartial source. The IMF's measure of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) also does not seem to substract growing pollution, health costs and resource depletion from the “growth” numbers. People who have to pull out ducks from the Tar Sands tailings ponds could tell you just how “Gross” the Gross Domestic Product can be. It is time to start creating real, full-time jobs in green-collar sectors, and ensuring that “growth” numbers are real and verifiable.
The Canadian unemployment rate apparently held steady in September 2008, with new jobs being created despite the economic turmoil on the horizon in that month. This fits nicely into the Conservative election strategy, but it sounds just a bit too good to be true. Private-sector economists are scratching their heads:
"'It seems like everyone has a paper route these days,' said Avery Shenfeld, economist at CIBC World Markets. 'How else to explain how Canada created 97,000 part-time jobs in a single month during a period of severe economic strain across the country?'"
“Finance Minister Jim Flaherty had a muted reaction to the data. “'This is not a time for unfounded optimism. This is a difficult time'... '"But our economic fundamentals are good. [...]'” (canada.com)
Good economic fundamentals in an economy that is not ecologically sustainable? StatsCan does not say exactly how many of the new jobs depend on depleting non-renewable resources and/or pollute the environment without paying the true cost. But in the “goods-producing sector” so far this year, the job number changes were:
Agriculture
-6.0 %
Natural resources
+4.2 %
Utilities
+6.8 %
Construction
+10.4 %
Manufacturing
-2.1 %
How many of these jobs are truly sustainable is anyone's guess. It would be nice to have a Green Jobs Index for a more realistic picture.
The IMF's “growth” projections are suspect for similar reasons. The IMF had started with the Conservativegovernment's budget numbers and growth projections from way before the current crisis had hit:
“Canada. Projections use the baseline forecasts in the 2008 federal budget and the 2007 Economic Statement. The IMF staff makes some adjustments to this forecast for differences in macroeconomic projections. The IMF staff forecast also incorporates the most recent data releases from Statistics Canada, including provincial and territorial budgetary outturns through the first quarter of 2008. ”
Just how much they believe the Harper/Flaherty budget numbers and how much they “adjust” is unclear.
Again, even if we believe the numbers, the GDP is notorious for not counting the real costs of pollution, health problems and depletion of resources. For example, The IMF projects China's GDP “growth” in 2009 to be 9.3% but in recent years
“Independent estimates of the cost to China of environmental degradation and resource depletion have for the last decade ranged from 8 to 12 percentage points of GDP growth.[2] These estimates support the idea that, by this measure at least, the growth of the Chinese economy is close to zero” (Wikipedia: “Green GDP” and the sources quoted there).
Searching for “Green GDP” on the IMF's web site produced no results as of today. In fact, searching the full text of the IMF report (PDF) for “pollution” produced nothing. Resource depletion is mentioned only once, as a challenge for older middle-eastern oil fields (screen page 77 of 321) – as if depleting non-renewable resources elsewhere does not count. Memo to IMF: these resources are not coming back. Using up your natural capital as if it were annual revenue is hardly good accounting – or economics.
Let's stop kidding ourselves about “jobs and growth” and start creating sustainable jobs in a sustainable economy. Voting strategically to defeat the Conservatives on October 14 would be the first, vital step.
As we've said before, we think that it's vitally important to vote strategically to get the most climate-friendly MPs in Parliament. The polls show that the election race is tighter than it was at the start of the campaign. Strategic voting is becoming more and more viable. Here is a list of the key ridings from www.voteforenvironment.ca, with links to their recommended candidates and reasoning:
The Globe and Mail "endorsed" Harper for PM today (really, they damned him with faint praise). Most of their editorial is comprised of this kind of wishful thinking (emphasis is mine):
We also urge Mr. Harper to revisit his wholly inadequate climate-change plan. Canada and the world need to develop alternatives to fossil fuels. Counterintuitively, Mr. Harper may be the best-positioned Canadian politician to lead on this important issue, should he ever condescend to take it seriously. Given the impregnability of his Alberta base, he could strike a modern Nixon-to-China on climate change.
If you need cheering up after reading the Globe editorial, check out the Star's editorial cartoon.
As we've said before, the world and the climate cannot afford to wait for Harper to have a change of heart. Sure, circumstances may eventually force him to act in a meaningful way (as he is now being forced to do in the banking crisis), however by that time Canada will be far, far behind the rest of the world.
We need action now. We need the kind of leadership Mr. Dion is showing on this file.
"A group of scientists is urging Canada's campaigning political leaders to take action on what they call 'the mistreatment of science.'
An open letter to the five party leaders bears 85 signatures from a group calling itself Canadian Scientists Against the Politicization of Science.
'I think people are very concerned that we cannot have an educated, evidence-based discussion in the current environment,' Dr. Julio Montaner, director of the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV-AIDS and president of the International AIDS Society, said in an interview Thursday from Vancouver.
'Whenever you say something that it doesn't match the purely political biases of the landlord, you are in trouble.'
The scientists highlighted some of their concerns, including the closing of the office of the national science adviser, 'political appointments' to the board of Assisted Human Reproduction Canada and the firing of the head of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
In addition, the group said there has been misrepresentation of climate change science and muzzling of Environment Canada scientists."
...
"Scientists of all disciplines have been faced with examples where the government has chosen ideology over scientific process," Weaver said in a statement.
"We can no longer stand idle while ideology trumps scientific proof," Hwang added.
Harper's analogy seems very apt, when put in the context of climate change, as under his platform we are likely to see much more melting of glaciers and sea ice, and in some places arks may well be needed.
However, the question that needs to be asked is: who gets to ride in the boat? My guess is that it's Harper and his oil-industry buddies!
Don't waste the next four years on these guys! Vote for action on climate change! Vote for your candidate most likely to beat the Conservative in your riding. Visit VoteForEnvironment.ca
"If Canada had a democratic electoral system and the polls are right, next week we'd have a majority government that supports strong action on climate change; government intervention to create jobs and defend ordinary Canadians against the impact of the global economic crisis; an end to the war in Afghanistan; public support for the arts; implementation of at least the Kelowna Accord to raise the standard of living for aboriginal people; and a national child-care program that includes the creation of thousands of new child-care spaces. In the latest polls, the parties that agree on these policies have the support of more than two-thirds of Canadians. Yet my morning paper is still talking about how the Harper Conservatives may still craft a majority."
"In a new report, the University of Toronto's Munk Centre says the massive refinery expansions needed to process tar sands crude, and the new pipeline networks for transporting the fuel, amount to a “pollution delivery system” connecting Alberta to the Great Lakes region of Canada and the U.S.
It warns that the refineries will be using the Great Lakes “as a cheap supply” source for their copious water needs and the area's air “as a pollution dump.”"
"More than 230 academic economists have signed an open letter to the leaders of the federal political parties, urging them to acknowledge that putting a price on carbon is 'the best approach' to combatting climate change."
Soon Harper will be the only one left in the room who wants to do nothing on climate change.
"'Economists disagree on many things, but on what needs to be done about climate change there is considerable agreement,' explains Ross Finnie, one of the three authors of the letter and an Associate Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. 'The signatories come from a wide range of political persuasions and will vote for different parties, but we all agree that effective policies for addressing climate change must be based on sound economic principles. Our goal is to help inform public debate on climate change at a time when people are really paying attention to this issue – during the federal election. Our hope is that whichever party forms the next government will act on these principles.'
"'It’s remarkable how much agreement there is among economists on this key point – the best climate change policy is to put a price on carbon,' says Nancy Olewiler, another of the authors and director of SFU’s Public Policy Program. David Green, the third author and professor at UBC, adds 'We also want people to be clear that all policies that alter carbon emissions will affect the prices they face – some more than others.'
"The signatories agree on these 10 principles:
"Canada needs to act on climate change now.
"Any substantive action will involve economic costs.
"These economic impacts cannot be an excuse for inaction.
"Pricing carbon is the best approach from an economic perspective.
a. "Pricing allows each business and family to choose the response that is best and most efficient for them.
b. "Pricing induces innovation.
c. "Carbon is almost certainly under-priced right now.
"Regulation is the most expensive way to meet a given climate change goal.
"A carbon tax has the advantage of providing certainty in the price of carbon.
"A cap and trade system provides certainty on the quantity of carbon emitted, but not on the price of carbon and can be a highly complex policy to implement.
"Although carbon taxes have the most obvious effects on consumers, all carbon reduction policies increase the prices individuals face.
"Price mechanisms can be regressive and our policy should address this.
"A pricing mechanism can allow other taxes to be reduced and provide an opportunity to improve the tax system."
"More than 120 of Canada's top climate scientists have signed an open letter criticizing Conservative government policy and urging Canadians to vote 'strategically' for the environment in next week's federal election.
'Global warming is the defining issue of our time,' said Andrew Weaver, a lead author with last year's Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
We have been disturbed by what we perceive to be a lack of attention to the environment during this election campaign. While it’s clear the public accepts that global warming is a threat, it seems people have simply no idea how serious this issue is. Global warming is without a doubt the defining issue of our time, and we cannot let economic turmoil in the USA dissuade us from addressing the problem. Dealing with the environment means dealing with economics in a sustainable way.
Global warming is a problem that must be dealt with now, before it’s too late. Any further delay will only increase the risks of damage and costs of action. The world needs to start down a path of greenhouse gas reduction to avert the most serious consequences of global warming. Many may not realize that even if we immediately stabilized atmospheric greenhouse gases at current levels, the Arctic would still go ice free in the summer, between 10% and 25% of the world’s species would still be committed to extinction, and weather will continue to become more extreme.
Economists around the world agree. There is only one way to deal with global warming. And that is to put a price on emissions. This can be done through either a carbon tax, a cap and trade system, or both.
The carbon tax provides price certainty, is easier to implement, more transparent, easy to make revenue-neutral and less open to abuse. Cap and trade systems require self-regulation and reporting, cumbersome bureaucracy to administer and take a long time to implement while details, such as credit for early action, process of awarding emissions permits, and reporting requirements get worked out.
In both cases the price is passed on to the consumer through an increase in the price of carbon-intensive products. In the carbon tax case the consumer sees what price is added whereas it is obscured in the cap and trade system.
I got sick and tired of Conservative attack ads against Dion. Then I realized that they could be turned right around to point at Harper as the non-leader, especially on climate change. I have not figured out how to make snazzy videos for YouTube with sound and animation yet. But I wanted to post the "storyboard" at least, so here's a simple "slide show" version:
Note: this is released under a Creative Commons "Attribution, No Derivatives" license, to avoid this being abused as a "template" for causes that I would not support. If you would like to develop this ad further (e.g. add sound, animation, better content and linking), while preserving its original spirit and intent, please leave me a comment on this blog with your contact info. I will not publish this type of comment unless you consent.
According to DeSmogBlog.com, a Health Canada report -- that the Harper Government had tried to suppress -- predicts:
More heat waves leading to more heat-related deaths
Heat, drought and cold snaps leading to more injuries and stress disorders
Increased air pollution (as I wrote two years ago) and pollen leading to more respiratory and cardiovascular disease
Walkerton and Listeria may turn out to be just previews of things to come: "Outbreaks of E. coli, typhoid and other water-borne pathogens are also expected as drinking and recreational water is contaminated by run-off from heavy rainfall. And the report predicts new infectious diseases - and a comeback of others previously eradicated in Canada - will crop up across the country."
DeSmogBlog comments:
"The authors call on the government to act quickly to prepare for these sweeping threats. "The findings of this Assessment suggest the need for immediate action to buttress efforts to protect health from current climate hazards."
"But Health Minister Tony Clement's response was that Canadians will 'have to get used to' the gloomy scenario laid out in the report, adding, 'This report makes it clear that if you have bad health outcomes now, you're likely to be more impacted by extreme weather events than if you're at the top of the health ladder.'"
DeSmogBlog have actually posted the report on www.scribd.com which allows direct embedding of documents in blog posts (like a YouTube for docs). So here for your reading pleasure is the Report's Synopsis (JavaScript and Flash Player needed - click on link below documents if you cannot read them it here - or you want to download the reports for squint-free reading :-)
