Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts

Thursday, November 01, 2012

NY Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Obama, Citing Climate Change, Storms, Civil Rights,

Well, better late than never.

Bloomberg's original op-ed: http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/a-vote-for-a-president-to-lead-on-climate-change.html

He says that storms have forced NYC to evacuate neighborhoods twice in the last 14 months, which is unprecedented. And the risk that climate change is making things worse requires action.

Background from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/nyregion/bloomberg-endorses-obama-saying-hurricane-sandy-affected-decision.html?hp&_r=1&&pagewanted=all
(note: possible paywall - free access limits may apply).

Now if Obama finally gets a backbone and stands up for real emissions cuts, rather than talking in generalities and promoting oil and gas along with renewables...  One can only hope.

[Edited to correct typo in Mayor's name. That was a bad one. Sorry.]

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

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.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Coalition? Vote Strategically in Key Ridings First!

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).

Sunday, October 12, 2008

TheStar.com - It isn't easy being Green

Looks like May was already thinking along these lines.

TheStar.com - It isn't easy being Green:

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.

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Climate Scientists Plead with Green Party Supporters in Key Ridings to Vote Strategically

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.'"
On October 8, 2008, she seemed to recommend strategic voting in key ridings, but on October 9, 2008, she come out strongly against any strategic voting because
"I want Canadians to elect Green MPs."
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.

Update: we agree with greenpolitics.ca about the need to
"...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):
  • Beauport—Limoilou
  • Brampton West / Brampton-Ouest
  • Burnaby—Douglas
  • Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
  • Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca
  • Etobicoke—Lakeshore
  • Kenora
  • London—Fanshawe
  • Louis-Hébert
  • Mississauga South / Mississauga-Sud
  • Mississauga—Erindale
  • Mississauga—Streetsville
  • NB - Fredericton
  • NB - Madawaska—Restigouche
  • NB - Miramichi
  • NB - Saint John
  • NL - Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor
  • NL - Labrador
  • NL - Random—Burin—St. George's
  • NS - Kings—Hants
  • NS - South Shore—St. Margaret's
  • Nunavut
  • Oak Ridges—Markham
  • Ottawa South / Ottawa-Sud
  • PE - Cardigan
  • PE - Charlottetown
  • PE - Egmont
  • PE - Malpeque
  • Saanich—Gulf Islands
  • Saint Boniface / Saint-Boniface
  • Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot
  • Surrey North / Surrey-Nord
  • Thunder Bay—Rainy River
  • Vancouver Kingsway
  • Vancouver South / Vancouver-Sud
  • Welland
  • Western Arctic
  • Willowdale
  • Winnipeg South Centre / Winnipeg-Centre-Sud
  • Yukon

Sources:

Scientists' Press Release quoted in the voteforenvironment.ca blog.

Detailed riding-by-riding analysis table (PDF).

Conservatives Cheer More McJobs and Unsustainable "Growth" -- Oh, And Where are Those Numbers From, Anyway?

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?'"

There are other reasons to be a bit sceptical. Recently, we've seen suppression of studies on the benign effects of carbon taxes (discussion) and the negative health effects of climate change, allegations of outright political interference with government scientists, plus fudged numbers of the cost of the Afghan war. “Et tu, StatsCan”? (Their own statement on data quality is here.)

Also, if you believe the numbers,

With September's increase, part-time work has increased by 131,000 so far in 2008, nearly double the increase in full time.” (StatsCan).

In other words, more McJobs.

(See also Relentlessly Progressive Economics blog.)

Conservative

“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.

By the way, “Information, culture and recreation” was at -4.9 % so far this year -- so much for Harper's famous rich artists' galas.

The IMF's “growth” projections are suspect for similar reasons. The IMF had started with the Conservative government'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. ”

(Statistical Appendix [PDF], screen pages 2-3 of 12)

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.

[Important Notice]

Friday, October 10, 2008

Key Ridings - Strategic Vote to Save the Climate

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'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.

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

On Noah, the ark, and who gets a ticket...

Sent a letter to the editor of the G&M today:

Re: Harper's comment comparing himself to Noah in the ark.

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

Here's a modest proposal: Grit-NDP-Green-Bloc accord

From a column by Judy Rebick in the Globe and Mail:

globeandmail.com: Here's a modest proposal: Grit-NDP-Green-Bloc accord:
"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."

Tuesday, October 07, 2008

Vote on environmental issues, scientists urge

More support for strategic voting!

TheStar.com - Vote on environmental issues, scientists urge:

"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."


Here is the link to the original letter, and some quotes (emphasis added):

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.


Visit VoteForEnvironment.ca

Proposed Election Ad: Harper - Not a Leader on Climate Change - Not Worth Risk of 4 More Years

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:

Stephen Harper - Not a Leader on Climate Change - Not Worth the Risk of 4 More Years - Upload a Document to Scribd

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.

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.
Hmm...

"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

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."


NDP: B

"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 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

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

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.