Iggy's Budget Amendment Ignores Climate Change

What a downer! All of Dion's idealism and coalition-building, all of Ignatieff's bluster, and it has come down to this: support for the Harper's budget, conditional on mere progress reports. The topics of the progress reports (see sidebar at the link above) would not even include the impact of the budget on the environment in general, or on Greenhouse Gas emissions in particular. In any event, this reporting "condition" was so easy that Harper & Co. agreed to accept Iggy's budget amendment within hours.

The whole thing was clearly just a face-saving move by a Liberal leader who wanted to avoid bringing down the Conservative government -- while appearing to be tough with empty talk of "Conservatives on probation". Instead of real progress toward a sustainable economy, we will have four more wasted years of Harpernomics HarperIggiocy.

Now that the Liberal-NDP coalition is sadly R.I.P., it is time to take the pro-coalition badge off the sidebar of this blog. The only federalist opposition in Parliament to the new Conservative-Liberal Coalition Alliance Mish-Mash is the NDP. The Greens have been busy keeping their eye on the ball at post-Kyoto negotiations and promoting a green economic recovery. But they are still being kept out of Parliament due to our antiquated voting system, despite getting the votes of almost 1 million Canadians.

For more on the missed environmental opportunities in this budget, see this Toronto Star article. (The CBC story on this topic has clearly missed the point.)

Alas for our children and their children.

[Important Notice]

Coalition, Stimulus and a "Green New Deal" - Open Letter to Liberal and NDP Leaders

Here is the email that I sent to the Liberal and NDP leaders via http://www.smartvote2008.ca/coalition/ (h/t Dave for this link). As you will see, I modified the suggested email text to include the need to integrate economics and ecology in the coalition's stimulus package. I also pared down some of the political verbiage to focus on the critical need for a "Green New Deal".

-----------

Français suit

An Urgent Message to Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton: Only a Coalition Government Can Provide the Leadership Canada Needs

Dear Leaders,

At this critical moment, a coalition government would be the most capable of delivering the kind of stewardship the economy AND ECOLOGY needs, and the least likely to put partisan interests ahead of responsible government.

The stimulus package must be the start of a New Green Deal, as recommended by the U.N. Environment Program: see http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/06/f-savory-unep.html and http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=en

In the medium and long term, not making Canada's economy sustainable can lead to results that are at least as devastating as the current crisis.

Thank You

+++

Message urgent à Stéphane Dion et Jack Layton : seul un gouvernement de coalition peut offrir le leadership dont le Canada a besoin

Chers dirigeants,


En ce moment critique, le mieux placé pour offrir le genre d’intendance dont a besoin l’économie ET L'ÉCOLOGIE, et pour faire passer la responsabilité gouvernementale avant les intérêts partisans… serait un gouvernement de coalition.

La stimulation doit être le début d'un « new deal écologique mondial », tel que recommandé par le Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement: voir http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/11/06/f-savory-unep.html et http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=548&ArticleID=5957&l=fr

À moyen et à long terme, ne pas construire l'économie durable au Canada peut conduire à des résultats qui sont au moins dévastateurs que la crise actuelle.

-----------

[Important Notice]

Strategic Votes Were Not Wasted

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.

[Important Notice]

The Globe's wishful thinking, and a cartoon that says it all!

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.

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."

[Important Notice]

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.

[Important Notice]

Green Party of Canada Support Grows, Conservatives Stagnant Despite Liberal Woes: CTV Poll

"Stephen Harper has fraudulently played down the dangers of climate change and should be removed as prime minister as soon as possible, says the head of the Green party [of Canada, Elizabeth May]" (CP News via While the Earth Burns).

According to the latest CTV News poll, a growing number of Canadians seem to agree. The Liberals have lost 4% in popular support due to troubles since August 10-12, 2007, but the Conservatives have gained only 1%. The Green Party of Canada, on the other hand, has gained 4%. Are Liberals disaffected by Dion's ineffectual leadership and party infighting moving over to the Greens? The longer-term trends, since the last elections, show that the Greens must be gaining supporters at the expense of other parties as well:

"The Green Party has more than doubled its support since the 2006 election, suggesting the party is benefiting from voter discontent with the traditional parties: (percentage-point change from 2006 results in brackets):

* Conservatives: 34 per cent (-2)
* Liberals: 29 per cent (-1)
* NDP: 15 per cent (-3)
* Bloc Quebecois: 10 per cent (-1)
* Green Party: 12 per cent (+7)

"On Monday, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said her party is ready if Prime Minister Stephen Harper triggers an election over the throne speech.

"So far, she's the only party leader who has publicly said she wants a fall election.

"'This may be naive, but I have faith in democracy,' she told reporters in Ottawa.

"'Most Canadians do not like Mr. Harper's policies. Most Canadians are desperate for leadership that really speaks to issues and is respectful about them. Most Canadians want a politician who keeps his word, or her word. They don't see that in the Harper government.'"

"May's press conference coincided with the release of her party's 160-page Vision Green, the official six-part policy document."

For more on her party's platform: see Green Party Press Release and the Green Vision document.

I have not had the time to read the entire document. From what I've read so far, the federal party 's "tax shift" strategy also aims to reduce poverty and make income taxes more progressive. May's federal proposal seems to be more balanced than the Green Party of Ontario's platform during the recent provincial election. This could help the federal Greens to gain broader appeal.

[Important Notice]

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click on the post's title for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!

Canadian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Fall in 2005 - Let's Make Sure It Becomes a Trend, Not a Blip

There was an encouraging story in the Toronto Star today:

"Gloomy forecasts about Canada's efforts to halt global warming brightened yesterday with the release of new figures showing that greenhouse gas emissions dropped slightly between 2004 and 2005, the most recent period for which figures are available.

"According to a national emissions inventory that will be presented to the United Nations tomorrow, an anticipated increase in the gases that contribute to climate change failed to materialize in 2005.

"Instead, Canada's emissions dropped to 747 megatonnes in 2005 from 758 megatonnes in 2004, according to government calculations.

"Overall emissions in 2005 were still 32.7 per cent above the greenhouse gas cuts called for under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012."

Could it be that the Canadian economy can actually turn around and reduce total emissions (not just "emission intensity" per dollar of output) without causing a massive recession -- contrary to Conservative fear-mongering? Might former Ontario Premier Mike Harris deserve a footnote to his otherwise abysmal environmental record for helping with these emission cuts (though at the expense of creating more nuclear waste)? Can Liberal Leader Stephan Dion stop his valiant attempts to defend the Liberals' record on grenhouse gas emissions, and take pride in making Kyoto part of industrial planning in this country?

(UPDATE May 27, 2007, 9:31 AM: LNeumann disagrees with giving the former Harris Conservative Government in Ontario credit for greenhouse gas reductions from coal power generation. She says that Dalton McGuinty's Liberal Government should get credit for actually reducing the use of coal for electricity in Ontario since the 2003 election. The McGuinty Government says that

"From 2003 to 2005... progress includes:

"* Closing the single-largest contributor to smog in the GTA — the Lakeview Generating Station in Mississauga — in April 2005.

"* Reducing total coal-fired electricity generation in Ontario from 36.2 terawatt-hours to 30.1 terawatt-hours, a drop of 17 per cent.

"* Reducing carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, by 15 per cent.

"* Reducing sulphur dioxide emissions by 28 per cent.

"* Reducing nitrogen oxide emissions by 34 per cent."

See also their News Release, bringing the data up to 2006.)

Unfortunately for politicians of all stripes, one year does not make a trend. As the Toronto Star article itself points out,

"There have [sic.] also been modest declines in emissions in 1991 and 2001 that proved to be just one-year anomalies."

Getting 2006 Canada-wide data ASAP, to compare with the 2005 numbers, would be great.

In any event, we need sustained, multi-year reductions in total emissions to reach or even come close to our Kyoto obligations. The latest Baird scheme does not even aim to comply with Kyoto; in fact, his scheme would not guarantee any reductions in total emissions (see the stories under the "Baird" label in this blog for more details).

(Update May 28, 2007, 1:03 AM: Unfortunately, Dalton McGuinty is not really getting it either. First came the delay in shutting down Ontario's remaining coal power stations. Next was an emissions-trading proposal to Northeastern U.S. jurisdictions where Ontario would have tried to claim credit for emissions cuts due to decisions predating the agreement (i.e. cuts that would have happened anyway). Recently another McGuinty's "cap and trade" emission proposal failed to get support even from Quebec, never mind Alberta. Now there's an agreement with California to follow their standards for carbon content in fuels -- but not their standard for efficient cars.

How many more delays, half-measures, creative accounting exercises and ineffectual proposals would it take before the Ontario Government realizes that it's time to get serious? That would mean doing the right thing consistently, regardless of who else may come on board.)

[Important Notice]

Canadian Government Goes From Failing to Plan to Planning to Fail Kyoto Targets

"The new program does not bring Canada into compliance with its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol—a reduction of emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Canada’s emissions are currently 30% above 1990 levels, and the new goal puts Canada 11% above its Kyoto targets. Under the new plan, Canada will meet its Kyoto targets in 2025, 13 years late."

(Source: Green Car Congress, based on Globe & Mail and Government Website; emphasis added.)

Of course, Baird's latest scheme would actually regulate "intensity" i.e. GHG emissions per unit of production, not total emissions. If production increases enough, it might wipe out the gains from "intensity". Reaching Kyoto targets may take even longer -- if ever.

So the Harper Government has gone from failing to plan on addressing this issue at all after the last election to deliberately planning to fail our international obligations.

This may end up costing Canada much more than expected. The Harper Government's most detailed document [PDF] explaining their scheme fails to mention that Kyoto has "teeth":

"If a Party [to the Kyoto Protocol] fails to meet its emissions target, it must make up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. It must also develop a compliance action plan, and its eligibility to “sell” under emissions trading will be suspended."

(Source: UNFCCC; bolding added; italics in original.)

So much for the Harper Government's scheme reliance on Kyoto Protocol emissions trading to reach some of their goals.

There is also the cost of not directing new business to a greener path right away:

"New facilities will be granted a three-year grace period before they have to meet an emissionintensity reduction target in order to provide sufficient time for the facilities to reach normal operating levels. After the third year, the initial greenhouse gas emission-intensity target will be based on cleaner fuel standards. New facilities will also be required to improve their emission intensity each year by 2%, as with existing facilities. New facilities are defined as those whose first year of operation is 2004 or later."

(Source: Environment Canada)

[satire]

In other news:

• The Government will introduce a motion in the House of Commons to change the word "Nation" to "Procrastination" in all official documents.
  

• The book How to Lose Your International Credibility and Wreck the Planet for Canadians for Dummies, with a Foreword by Rona Ambrose, is headed for the top of the bestseller list.

[/satire]

[Important Notice]