Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. 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.]

Monday, December 01, 2008

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.
-----------

Sunday, November 30, 2008

Sign the petition for a coalition!

Visit: www.progressivecoalition.ca


Show Your Support for a Coalition Government

I've added a simple Blogger "poll" gadget in the top right corner of this blog to let readers stand up and be counted in favour of a coalition government to help save the economy and the environment.

It would be nice if this sort of gadget were easy to share, with anyone being able to put it on their blog or web site, and a central server keeping score of all the unique users who vote on each site. We could just make this "go viral"!

Do you know how to do this or where to look for this type of widget? Please tell me in the Comments. Thanks.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

COALITION! CO-A-LI-TION!

The federal opposition parties have finally seen the light, and are working on putting together a coalition government. I had supported this idea, and I continue to think that it would be good for the country -- and the planet. The potential coalition partners agree that total emissions should be priced, not just emissions per unit of product ("intensity targets"). The NDP and Liberals also agree on the importance of promoting green technologies and jobs. The details can be worked out, and differences (how to price carbon emissions: tax shifting and/or cap-and-trade) can be settled by compromise -- unlike Harper, responsible politicians know how to do it.

I hope that Harper's procedural move to delay the confidence vote does nothing more than postpone the inevitable. As I said during the last election, we cannot afford to risk four more years of Harper inaction on climate change.

So Go Coalition Go!

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).

Thursday, October 09, 2008

Canadian group protests the 'politicization of science'

TheStar.com - Canadian group protests the 'politicization of science':

"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.


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

Sunday, September 07, 2008

Dion Wants to Link Environment and Economy - Video Clip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, November 24, 2007

One down, two to go!

BlogThis!
John Howard is gone. We are counting down the days to the end of the Bush administration (only 422 more sleeps!). Can the Harper government be far behind? For the sake of the planet, we can only hope we they either get with the program, or get turfed out in February.

For now, Canada is attempting to block real agreements on climate change. How embarrassing!

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


Monday, October 15, 2007

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.


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!


Thursday, September 27, 2007

Ontario Green Party Still Best for Environment Overall?


In my last blog post, I said that I supported many parts of the Green Party of Ontario platform, but I was critical of one of their central themes, shifting taxes from income to carbon. Today, a coalition of major environmental groups has, in effect, given the Green Party the highest overall score on a large number of environmental issues. The NDP were very close behind, though. And the Liberals were a close third -- but the Tories (er, Progressive, ahem, Conservatives) were so far behind that they barely even registered (Toronto Star story -- original coalition report).

The coalition unfortunately did not seem to ask about many economic policies that relate to environmental issues. What about pollution taxes, cap-and-trade, road subsidies and support for car-makers? Among other things, the report did nothing to reduce my unease with the Green Party's carbon tax plan.

Still, it's great to see that three out of the four parties are moving so close to the green side of many issues. The Green Party can probably take credit for keeping the topic on the agenda and goading other parties along. But this means that Ontario voters who care about the environment can now put more weight on other factors. I would still suggest looking at the parties' general social and economic policies.

[UPDATE September 28, 2007: speaking of social policies, I agree with Michelle Mann's view that on the issue of school funding,
"...the only party that has it right is the Greens, whose leader, Frank de Jong, supports moving to one publicly-funded school system."
Mann says that this would be constitutional, as proven by Manitoba, Newfoundland and Quebec. (See the above link for the legal mechanism.)

Sure fixing the general school funding formula is important, as the NDP's Howard Hampton keeps saying, but why waste any of of the added funds on duplication of services? Mann suggests that removing the duplication would save a lot of money that
"...could be directed to funding for autistic students, accessible post-secondary education and revitalizing a flailing public education system."
I would add that there could also be more funds for environmental education and energy-efficiency school retrofits.

Deciding which party to support is not easy, given the sheer number of issues and policy options on offer. That's another reason why I would love to have MMP. With two votes, one for local/party candidate, and one for party list, I could express my wishes views more accurately. I could in effect support two parties if both of them have good ideas.]



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!


Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Ontario - A Vote for MMP is a Vote Against CO2



I've argued in this blog that voting for MMP in the October 10 Referendum would be good for the environment and climate change policy. Cameron Smith obviously agrees, for reasons that are complementary to mine. He writes in the Toronto Star that
"Right now, the most important environmental issue facing Ontario is whether proportional representation will be adopted. Voters in the Oct. 10 election will make the decision.

"The current system of voting delivers unequal representation, which inevitably distorts the wishes of the public. How else to explain why the government at Queen's Park has kept a weak minister in the environment portfolio while the public has made it clear that environmental deterioration is a top-of-the-mind concern?"

He says that this happens because
"The current [Ontario electoral] system breeds instability. It's a blood sport, where opposition parties focus more on gaining power than on good government, largely because they have little hand in creating policies and have no commitment to them.

"As a result, government policies often have a short life span. In the face of global warming, short-term, ever-changing policies are a recipe for disaster."

He argues among other things that
"...proportional representation will result in more minority governments and coalitions, which means responsibility for government policies would lie with more than one party." [Bolding added throughout.]
According to Arend Lijphart
Lijphartconclusions on environmental policies? Consensus democracies have lower carbon dioxide emissions, fertilizer consumption, deforestation and higher energy efficiency" [bolding added].
I take it that "consensus democracy" means that more than one party has to agree on policy, because governments are formed by coalition. That's more frequent under forms of Proportional Representation (like MMP) than under our current "first-past-the-post" or "winner take all" system. I would have to read the book to find out more.

General theories aside, as I've argued, MMP would probably mean Green Party members in the Legislature by 2011. No MMP would likely mean this Party being shut out again. The same applies to the federal Parliament and many other provincial Legislatures. This hard reality makes it critical for the the MMP side in Ontario to win -- and for similar reforms to prevail Canada-wide in the coming years.


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


Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Baird's moving targets

Well, so much for targets that will be "among the toughest in the world". According to a story in the Star, the Tories are still considering a 45-60% reduction by 2050 - but a reduction below 2006 levels! When Ambrose announced these same targets they were relative to 2003 levels.

"We need to constantly pay attention to the base year," said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May at a news conference Tuesday.

"They have actually weakened the target Madame Ambrose announced last fall with the Clean Air Act, which is actually a target for a shrinking Great Lakes, disappearing Arctic ice, storms on our coasts and a dust bowl on our prairies."


I guess the Tories really do think they can pull the wool over our eyes!

Friday, April 13, 2007

"the planet does not have time for the old, tired, cynical game of politics"

I'm coming rather late to the Dion/May blogging party, but I need to say my piece...

May and Dion are absolutely right. I'm very impressed that M. Dion has taken this step to move beyond partisan politics and support Ms. May in Central Nova. In my opinion, we need more of this kind of action. We don't have time to stand around slinging mud at each other. We don't have time to wait for proportional representation.

We need a coalition of progressive, environment-aware politicians to stand together now and get things done - before time runs out. In the end, it won't matter which party they were in, or which party got the most votes or most seats, or who scored the most points in the leader's debate.

We know you can do it - look at the new Bill C-30!

Here is a quote from the Dion/May joint statement:

We have agreed that the country needs a strong signal that puts progress ahead of partisanship. To achieve Kyoto, Canada needs MPs and a government that actually understand the threat of climate change and the need for urgent action. This reality has impelled us to seek limited cooperation. While the need for cooperation may be obvious to the average Canadian, within political parties, one is not supposed to allow even limited cooperation.

We admit we are different from most adversarial, political leaders. We respect each other. We will always put the country and the planet first.


And from Elizabeth May's letter to Green Party members (thanks to Saskboy):

Today, we change the face of Canadian politics. Today we will demonstrate that the Green Party is a serious political party, running to win in ridings across Canada. We will also be making it clear that the planet does not have time for the old, tired, cynical game of politics. We do not have time for games at all. We are serious and we need to put our country and the planet first.



I also enjoyed reading these blog posts on this topic:

Layton whines about May


Lizzie an' Stephane, Huggin' a Tree...

I couldn't agree more!

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

NOT A Green Federal Budget

The CBC has a good summary of reactions to yesterday's Canadian Federal Budget from environmental groups and others, including Green Party leader Elizabeth May: 'Green' budget falls short for environmental groups. As expected, throwing a few goodies at the problem simply does not cut it. The lackluster green car rebate/gas guzzler levy (more here and here), reviving a few Liberal programs in reduced form -- without a plan on how to actually implement the Kyoto Protocol -- without even mentioning Kyoto by name -- is not nearly enough.

Tax subsidies for the Oil Sands would be phased out -- but not until 2015.
"They're going to continue to subsidize the big oil and gas companies at the same level as today for another three years," said NDP Leader Jack Layton. "That's billions of dollars shoveled into the bottom lines of Exxon and such companies while they continue to pollute."
The absurdity of helping the world's wealthiest -- and most polluting -- corporations to destroy the planet to the tune of $1.4 billion per year is apparently not enough for this Government to end it immediately.

Spending most of the water strategy budget on Coast Guard ships does little to address the looming water quality and shortage issues of the 21st century -- which would be made worse by lack of action on Climate Change.

The list goes on and on.

For more opposition reaction, see Bloc to support budget; Liberals, NDP say no.

Elizabeth May summed it up best:
"We're just losing time and we can't afford to lose time."
Beyond these criticisms, there is no National Transit Strategy, and no linking of infrastructure spending to success in curbing urban sprawl.

In general, the Conservative Government has no vision on how to transition Canada to a sustainable economy based on renewable energy. Thirty-four years after the publication of the Canada as a Conserver Society by the Science Council of Canada (in 1973!), the federal budget does not even try to make environmental and social costs part of the economic bottom line. This unscientific approach amounts to economic and ecological negligence, almost guaranteeing the continuation of "uneconomic growth" (some of these issues are also covered in the interview with David Suzuki on the Treehugger Radio podcast).

Writing about the Conserver Society idea in the Canadian Encyclopedia, Dixon Thompson notes:
"As we move to the 21st century... capitalism has begun to look beyond its own horizons and has seen the profitability of conservationism blooming on the hillsides. Advanced conserver societies may thus have better prospects for the future."
In the U.S., 65 financial companies and investment groups representing USD $4 trillion have just called for:
  • "Long-term greenhouse gas reductions by 2050, in line with the 60 to 90 percent cuts below 1990 levels that are urgently needed to avoid worst case scenarios — including 'mandatory market-based solutions, such as a cap-and-trade system, that establish an economy-wide carbon price, allow for flexibility and encourage innovation.'
  • "Realignment of U.S. energy and transportation policies to promote research, development, and deployment of new and existing clean technologies at the scale required.
  • "Clear guidance from the SEC [U.S. Securities Exchange Commission] on what companies should disclose to investors relative to climate change."
(Sources: Wired Blogs - Autopia; Boston Globe).
One of these days, Canadian businesses will wake up, too. If the message comes from a business lobby, perhaps the Conservative Government would start to listen.

More realistically, it would take an election to displace the Conservatives before we see real progress.

This is where the parochialism of the Bloc Québécois endangers us all: their own web site links to a brochure [PDF] titled "Save Kyoto" that opposes the oil-sands subsidy (on p. 1), and says says (on p. 2):
"If nothing is done to combat climate change, future generations may well end up living on an uninhabitable planet where natural disasters are the rule rather than the exception.

"Kyoto is an all-round winner for Quebec. We need it to save the planet and allow our children to continue to live comfortable lives.

[...]

"Each barrel of oil that Quebec doesn’t consume enriches us and helps reduce pollution.

"Kyoto is necessary for the environment and essential for Quebec’s economy."

[...]

[Bolding added.]
Yet somehow, just increasing federal transfers to Quebec, without even a mention of Kyoto, has made this budget good for Quebec in the Bloc's view. They will support this budget, and let this Government stand.
"Après moi, le déluge" -- literally, and by their own admission.


Saturday, March 03, 2007

Canadian climate change news...

I woke up to the following news stories this morning:

Stephane Dion says carbon tax not under consideration after all (Canada Press)

A day after Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said the Liberals would consider a carbon tax, his office denied it is under consideration.


But if not a carbon tax, then what? Meanwhile, Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute is quoted as saying
the best way to reduce emissions is to put a carbon tax in place. “Use some of the carbon tax revenue to pay for carbon reduction and invest it in new technologies. Use the carbon tax to offset income tax and corporate tax. Tax the bad and not the good.”


(From Kyoto Bill could have crucial impact on Nisku industrial area, CNews)

Wow - I never thought I'd be saying this, but maybe M. Dion should get together with the AEI people!

And in other news:

Report calls on Ottawa to end oil sands subsidies (CTV)

This story reports that the House of Commons natural resources committee is recommending dropping subsidies to oil sands projects, and that this is being considered for the next budget. (Hooray!)

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Tories still planning "intensity" targets

The Tories are still planning to bamboozle us with "intensity targets", according to a draft climate change plan obtained by the Globe and Mail. The article says:

The leaked government documents were analyzed for The Globe by two environmentalists: Louise Comeau of the Sage Foundation, who provided policy advice to the Liberal government for Mr. Dion's 2005 plan, and Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute, who recently released a proposal that would see oil sands companies comply with Kyoto by adding about $1 to the production cost of each barrel of oil.

"The federal government's proposal for industry regulation on greenhouse gases is a fraud," Ms. Comeau said. "Fabricating numbers so the current government's intensity approach looks better than the last government's intensity approach is no more acceptable today than it was two years ago. Intensity targets are dishonest. The time to regulate real reductions is now."


Now compare this approach, with what top scientists say is really needed:

Governments must pour tens of billions of dollars more than they are into clean energy research and enforce sharp rollback's in fossil fuel emissions if the world is to head off the worst of climate change, an expert scientific panel told the United Nations on Tuesday.

They said global carbon dioxide emissions should be levelled off by 2015-2020, and then cut back to less than one-third that level by 2100 - via a vast transformation of global energy systems toward greater efficiency and away from fossil fuels and toward biofuels, solar and wind energy and other renewable sources of energy.

That changeover would be spurred by heavy "carbon taxes" or "cap-and-trade" systems, whereby industries' emissions are capped by governments, and more efficient companies can sell unused allowances to less efficient ones.


Obviously, intensity targets will not achieve this, and Baird has rejected both a carbon tax and an emissions trading system.

All Harper cares about is getting re-elected with a majority. So, they'll try to "greenwash" us with a plan that does nothing, and then buy our votes with our own money (i.e. more tax cuts). The question is - are we dumb enough to fall for it?

Sunday, February 25, 2007

If you were Prime Minister...

David Suzuki has a quick and easy way to tell the PM and other party leaders what YOU would do if you were the Prime Minister.

You can also see what other people wrote. Here's what I wrote:

If I were Prime Minister...

I would stop the bickering in the House, and work with all of the parties to come up with a climate change action plan as soon as possible.

We don't have time to wait. We must act now!