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 Gave Hope to Global Climate Change Negotiators: Elizabeth May

Green Party of Canada Leader, Elizabeth May, writes in an email:

"I write you from Poznan, Poland where I am attending the United Nations climate talks. The mood here is grim. Canada has been blocking agreements and trying to obtain special exemptions from future agreements – claiming we need special consideration because the tar sands are so polluting. The delegates here make no secret that there was great hope for Canada when they heard we might have a change of government to a coalition."

From the blog post to which she links above:

"We are in a race against time and it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with atmospheric chemistry. If we fail to reduce emissions quite sharply and soon, we could trigger a runaway global warming disaster. The atmosphere is not the last bit interested in negotiating with humanity."

Here's hoping that Ignatieff looks at more than just short-term budget numbers when deciding on whether to vote no confidence in January 2009. The Earth needs the Coalition's help at least as much as the Canadian economy -- probably more.

[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]

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.

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).

[Important Notice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The government’s own analysis proves that a $50 carbon tax shift will benefit businesses and individuals, and will achieve deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister should now explain to Canadians why, in the face of this compelling evidence, his government stubbornly refuses to consider the carbon tax option and continues to viciously attack those who do. Mr. Harper must bring some honesty into this debate.”

The Greens propose to do just this:

The Green Party of Canada would implement a $50 per tonne carbon tax shift – with matching cuts in income and payroll taxes – as the cornerstone of a comprehensive plan for a green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

The Liberal Green Shift plan starts at $10 at tonne and increases to $40 a tonne over four years.

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

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

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

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

Compare these three quotes, first and second from their Green Values statement, and the third from a recent official Press Release:

"We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.
[...]
"We acknowledge that human society depends on the ecological resources of the planet, and must ensure the integrity of ecosystems and preserve biodiversity and the resilience of life supporting systems."

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/green_values/ecological_wisdom

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

www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/green_values/sustainability

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

www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/05.09.2008

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

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

[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!