Top Green Party vote-getter defects to the Liberals
When Elizabeth May (reputedly) leaked her own election post-mortem to the press, one of her conclusions was that her popularity with the Canadian electorate was the Green party's greatest asset.
This past week, however, may leave many Greens wondering if they haven't just lost their greatest asset, as Monica Jarabek, the Green candidate who got more votes than any other in the country, decided to leave the party for the (pun intended) greener pastures of the Liberal party.
Jarabek may or may not decide to seek the Liberal nomination in London West for the next federal election.
"I'm keeping an open mind about my role in the next election," Jarabek announced. "I won't rule that out. It would be an honour."
Jarabek's goal as a Liberal is very simple: she wants to attract more Green-minded Canadians to the party. "I'm hoping to transfer more 'green thinkers' to the Liberal party, whether they are from the Green party or not," she said.
She, like Elizabeth May, seems to believe that the Liberal party has come a long way from being the party that failed to implement the Kyoto protocol. "Now I realize we are running out of time on the climate crisis and I see the Liberal party has come a long way as far as green philosophies," she said. "The Liberal party is full of excellent people and it has attracted a lot of 'green thinkers' like [MPs] Glen Pearson and Justin Trudeau and Ruby Dhalla. These are people who I think are leaders of the future and I want to work with them to make that change."
Whether or not the Liberal party has truly changed its course regarding the environment is entirely up for debate.
But the bigger question becomes pretty obvious. The Liberal party ratified the Kyoto protocol then promptly allowed its implementation to languish for years. Elizabeth May is willing to deal so closely with a party that failed to live up to the commitments that it, itself, made regarding cliamte change, then one has to wonder if any practical difference remains between the two parties.
When choosing between a party that failed to implement Kyoto and a party that's willing to overlook that in the name of political convenience, perhaps more Greens would be better off choosing to join the party that actually stands a chance of winning political office.
When Elizabeth May became the leader of the Green Party, she was taking it over when many wondered if it even had a reason to exist. May promised an electoral breakthrough -- something that would have provided it with a reason to exist -- that she subsequently failed to deliver. Now that May has proven that the party is willing to sacrifice its principles vis a vis environmental policy in order to get its leader elected -- or at least appointed to the Senate -- many Green party members may be realizing that there is no reason for the party to continue existing. At least not with its current leadership and its current policies.
The Green party is now being viewed by a majority of Canadians as Liberal lite.
Which is another good reason for the Green party to rid itself of May's permanently-bungled leadership.
If the Green party doesn't divest itself of May's leadership and recover its identity, there will be reason for even more Greens -- maybe even May herself -- to continue leaving for the Liberal party.
Monica Jarabek could be only the most recent of many Green party defections.
Showing posts with label Kyoto protocol. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kyoto protocol. Show all posts
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Monday, December 24, 2007
Opposition Leaders Start Election Countdown Clock
Politics as usual promised in new year
The opposition party leaders have spoken: Canadians should expect an election in 2008.
In theory, at least.
Less than two months after insisting Canadians don't want an election, Stephane Dion is once again pledging himself to defeating the upcoming spring budget.
It's like deja vu all over again.
"After two years of this minority Conservative government, the psychological threshold will have been reached," Dion announced. "People may not want, necessarily, an election, but they will not be surprised if there is one."
This coming from the man who so recently led his party into months of avoiding every opportunity to defeat the government. Canadians will probably be forgiven if they're less than convinced.
Jack Layton certainly isn't.
"[Dion] has been propping up Mr. Harper all fall, and abstaining on a throne speech that's explicitly said we'll stay in Afghanistan longer, we will abandon Kyoto and we'll give huge tax reductions to those doing well," Layton sniffed.
Even Gilles Duceppe is looking foward the spring budget with eager eyes. "I don't see how their budget will be supported by any of the opposition parties," he insists.
Yet just as all the government-slaying rhetoric about the budget was overdue this time last year, it's doubly overdue this year, as experts are looking toward a "tame budget".
According to Toronto Dominion bank's Don Drummond, recent economic misgivings expressed by Harper suggest this upcoming budget will be a little less spectacular than usual. "We are so used to, in Canada, to have blockbuster budgets that always have billions and billions of dollars in new spending, or billions of dollars in tax cuts, and I just don't think we're going to have that in 2008," Drummond said.
If the government does, indeed, advance a moderate budget come spring, opposition leaders may have a tough time trying to sell defeating the government to the Canadian people.
After all, Dion started his ruminations about defeating the government bright and early in 2007. It shouldn't shock Canadians that he would do so even earlier with his party tied in the polls.
Although it may cause nervousness in some Conservative party circles, the opposition promises to force an election in 2008 really amount to nothing more than business-as-usual under a minority Parliament.
But the Conservatives have proven to have more tricks up their political sleeve than the opposition gave them credit for in 2007, and one can rest assured that all the opposition talk of defeating the government will vanish without a trace if the government makes it politically inexpedient to do so.
The political doomsday clock may be running, but under a minority parliament, it always is.
The opposition threats to defeat the government in 2008 is really nothing more than business-as-usual, and business-as-usual is precisely what Canadians should expect.
The opposition party leaders have spoken: Canadians should expect an election in 2008.
In theory, at least.
Less than two months after insisting Canadians don't want an election, Stephane Dion is once again pledging himself to defeating the upcoming spring budget.
It's like deja vu all over again.
"After two years of this minority Conservative government, the psychological threshold will have been reached," Dion announced. "People may not want, necessarily, an election, but they will not be surprised if there is one."
This coming from the man who so recently led his party into months of avoiding every opportunity to defeat the government. Canadians will probably be forgiven if they're less than convinced.
Jack Layton certainly isn't.
"[Dion] has been propping up Mr. Harper all fall, and abstaining on a throne speech that's explicitly said we'll stay in Afghanistan longer, we will abandon Kyoto and we'll give huge tax reductions to those doing well," Layton sniffed.
Even Gilles Duceppe is looking foward the spring budget with eager eyes. "I don't see how their budget will be supported by any of the opposition parties," he insists.
Yet just as all the government-slaying rhetoric about the budget was overdue this time last year, it's doubly overdue this year, as experts are looking toward a "tame budget".
According to Toronto Dominion bank's Don Drummond, recent economic misgivings expressed by Harper suggest this upcoming budget will be a little less spectacular than usual. "We are so used to, in Canada, to have blockbuster budgets that always have billions and billions of dollars in new spending, or billions of dollars in tax cuts, and I just don't think we're going to have that in 2008," Drummond said.
If the government does, indeed, advance a moderate budget come spring, opposition leaders may have a tough time trying to sell defeating the government to the Canadian people.
After all, Dion started his ruminations about defeating the government bright and early in 2007. It shouldn't shock Canadians that he would do so even earlier with his party tied in the polls.
Although it may cause nervousness in some Conservative party circles, the opposition promises to force an election in 2008 really amount to nothing more than business-as-usual under a minority Parliament.
But the Conservatives have proven to have more tricks up their political sleeve than the opposition gave them credit for in 2007, and one can rest assured that all the opposition talk of defeating the government will vanish without a trace if the government makes it politically inexpedient to do so.
The political doomsday clock may be running, but under a minority parliament, it always is.
The opposition threats to defeat the government in 2008 is really nothing more than business-as-usual, and business-as-usual is precisely what Canadians should expect.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Stephane Dion to Canadians: No Election After All
But can Canadians trust him?
Deciding that discretion is the better part of valour, Stephane Dion has apparently decided that he will not vote in favour of his stated convictions, and will instead pull some slick political maneuvering in order to let the throne speech pass.
Good news for Canada, but bad news for Stephane Dion.
After all, the Kyoto protocol has been the centrepiece of Dion's policy platform, both before and after his ascension to the leadership of the Liberal party.
Yet Kyoto will be a no go under the government's new legislative agenda, as foreshadowed in the throne speech. "Canada's emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period which begins … just 77 days from now," Governor General Michaelle Jean announced during the speech.
Suddenly, Kyoto has become less important to Dion than avoiding an election he has to know he can't win.
Yet, Dion's earstwhile bosom buddy, Elizabeth May, was eager to see the government toppled over the speech.
"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 insisted.
May also remains committed to Kyoto, despite its unattainability. "We'll never get near it if we don't begin," she pouted.
Apparently, Dion doesn't share her commitment -- although he'll certainly insist that he does.
But Kyoto isn't the only issue that Dion has vaccilated on.
Afghanistan -- particularly the mission in Khandahar -- has been an issue that Dion has indulged his indiscretions on.
It's amazing how easily Liberals have forgotten that Stephane Dion was in Jean Chretien's cabinet in 2003 when Canadian forces were sent into Afghanistan, and again in 2005 when Paul Martin sent them into Khandahar. It's amazing how easily Dion himself has forgotten.
In fact, in March 2006, Dion was recorded as saying "it's a very important mission and we want to be there." A few days later, he supported the mission again. "will succeed in Afghanistan if we show a lot of determination. We need to be resolute and to succeed."
Yet Dion would later vote against the extension of the "very important mission". It wouldn't be the last time Dion voted against something he supported -- at least verbally.
If one were to ask Dion for comment on the matter, he would insist that Canadians don't trust Stephen Harper. As a matter of fact, he has.
Yet, one should wonder if Canadians trust Stephane Dion as he lags well behind in leadership polls.
Given his proclivity for voting against issues that he claims to support, they shouldn't.
Deciding that discretion is the better part of valour, Stephane Dion has apparently decided that he will not vote in favour of his stated convictions, and will instead pull some slick political maneuvering in order to let the throne speech pass.
Good news for Canada, but bad news for Stephane Dion.
After all, the Kyoto protocol has been the centrepiece of Dion's policy platform, both before and after his ascension to the leadership of the Liberal party.
Yet Kyoto will be a no go under the government's new legislative agenda, as foreshadowed in the throne speech. "Canada's emissions cannot be brought to the level required under the Kyoto Protocol within the compliance period which begins … just 77 days from now," Governor General Michaelle Jean announced during the speech.
Suddenly, Kyoto has become less important to Dion than avoiding an election he has to know he can't win.
Yet, Dion's earstwhile bosom buddy, Elizabeth May, was eager to see the government toppled over the speech.
"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 insisted.
May also remains committed to Kyoto, despite its unattainability. "We'll never get near it if we don't begin," she pouted.
Apparently, Dion doesn't share her commitment -- although he'll certainly insist that he does.
But Kyoto isn't the only issue that Dion has vaccilated on.
Afghanistan -- particularly the mission in Khandahar -- has been an issue that Dion has indulged his indiscretions on.
It's amazing how easily Liberals have forgotten that Stephane Dion was in Jean Chretien's cabinet in 2003 when Canadian forces were sent into Afghanistan, and again in 2005 when Paul Martin sent them into Khandahar. It's amazing how easily Dion himself has forgotten.
In fact, in March 2006, Dion was recorded as saying "it's a very important mission and we want to be there." A few days later, he supported the mission again. "will succeed in Afghanistan if we show a lot of determination. We need to be resolute and to succeed."
Yet Dion would later vote against the extension of the "very important mission". It wouldn't be the last time Dion voted against something he supported -- at least verbally.
If one were to ask Dion for comment on the matter, he would insist that Canadians don't trust Stephen Harper. As a matter of fact, he has.
Yet, one should wonder if Canadians trust Stephane Dion as he lags well behind in leadership polls.
Given his proclivity for voting against issues that he claims to support, they shouldn't.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego vol. 5 - Stelmach vs. McGuinty: The Showdown
Stelmach and McGuinty play game of political chicken, both lose
This past week's First Ministers conference became the scene of a political grudgematch, as Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Ed "the Stomper" Stelmach locked up with Ontario Liberal premier Dalton "Flying" McGuinty over the issue of climate change.
The battle pretty much shaped up as such: Stelmach refused to accept any hard caps on industrial emssions, so McGuinty refused to accept California emissions standards for cars produced in Ontario.
"If we were to have in place (cap and trade) by 2020 we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 90 megatonnes," McGuinty insisted. "If all we do is put in place California emissions standards by 2020 we will reduce our ghg's (greenhouse gases ) by eight megatonnes. We can do 10 times more by way of reduction of greenhouse gases if all of us adopt (cap and trade)."
On the other hand, if McGuinty had kept his promise to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants, Ontario would be 70% closer to its share of Canada's Kyoto targets.
One may remember what was said about "he who has no sin..."
In the midst of all this, one may remember that both Dalton and his brother in federal politics, David, have both fallen firmly on the side of the eco-egos, due to their embarrassing exploitation of the climate change issue for political capital. Stelmach, however, has not been evaluated.
To this regard, Stelmach certainly isn't any hero. He also exploits the climate change issue for political capital, to the extent that he can't seem to admit the obvious: that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Alberta's oil industry do have an effect on climate change, and as such, it is only wise to start eliminating them.
This doesn't necessarily have to entail the industry suffering under a crushing regulatory regime. Stelmach would better serve the citizens of his province by negotiating a reasonable time frame, and perhaps a deal in which the other provinces -- particularly those like Ontario and Quebec who are so concerned about climate change -- help out on the funding end by accepting smaller transfer payments from Alberta.
McGuinty actually says is pretty well when he insists, "this is a national challenge. It requires a national response, not an Ontario response alone."
Then again, McGuinty would better serve the citizens of his province by doing something at all about climate change. Not only has he already racked up a litany of broken climate change-related promises, but he's actually re-made the promises in the leadup to the coming provincial election so he can re-break them if he wins.
Canada will be closer to a national response when the provinces and activists who stress the need for action most actually do something, as opposed to talking, then doing nothing.
McGuinty is a would-be environmental visionary who won't pull his weight. Stelmach, on the other hand, is the premier of an oil-rich province that can afford to invest heavily in the green technologies necessary to supplant fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy. While this would, by necessity, also supplant the oil and gas industry that makes Alberta so prosperous, such investment into renewable energy could make Alberta a global industry leader.
Yet such investment could be interpreted as threatening to the oil and gas industry that employ so many of his constituents. Furthermore, transforming Alberta into a green energy hotbed doesn't guarantee the abundance of work available for unskilled labourers and tradespeople that oil and gas provides.
Transforming Alberta into a renewable energy giant would be risky; Stelmach would very much be risking losing face with his political supporters, both within and outside of the Progressive Conservative party.
Stelmach's reluctance could be viewed as out of obligation to his party -- it's his responsibility to keep the party strong. It could, alternatively, be viewed as out of a desire to not be the man who managed to lose Alberta -- Canada's strongest bastion of Conservative support.
Either way, Stelmach has to be seeded right alongside Dalton McGuinty, with the eco-egos.
Then again, with McGuinty facing an election and clearly emulating Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert by campaigning against a seemingly more vulnerable proxy than their provincial opponent, McGuinty comes off as just plain disengenuous.
Climate change may not be the inevitable catastrophic threat that many of the activists insist it is, and the impact of human activity on it may not be as pronounced. That being said, eliminating the impact of human activity on climate change is only the wise and prudent thing to do.
It's to this end that when the eco-egos refuse to make any meaningful attempt at reaching a compromise, it doesn't really matter which of them wins. In the end, it's the rest of us who stand to lose most.
This past week's First Ministers conference became the scene of a political grudgematch, as Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Ed "the Stomper" Stelmach locked up with Ontario Liberal premier Dalton "Flying" McGuinty over the issue of climate change.
The battle pretty much shaped up as such: Stelmach refused to accept any hard caps on industrial emssions, so McGuinty refused to accept California emissions standards for cars produced in Ontario.
"If we were to have in place (cap and trade) by 2020 we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 90 megatonnes," McGuinty insisted. "If all we do is put in place California emissions standards by 2020 we will reduce our ghg's (greenhouse gases ) by eight megatonnes. We can do 10 times more by way of reduction of greenhouse gases if all of us adopt (cap and trade)."
On the other hand, if McGuinty had kept his promise to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants, Ontario would be 70% closer to its share of Canada's Kyoto targets.
One may remember what was said about "he who has no sin..."
In the midst of all this, one may remember that both Dalton and his brother in federal politics, David, have both fallen firmly on the side of the eco-egos, due to their embarrassing exploitation of the climate change issue for political capital. Stelmach, however, has not been evaluated.
To this regard, Stelmach certainly isn't any hero. He also exploits the climate change issue for political capital, to the extent that he can't seem to admit the obvious: that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Alberta's oil industry do have an effect on climate change, and as such, it is only wise to start eliminating them.
This doesn't necessarily have to entail the industry suffering under a crushing regulatory regime. Stelmach would better serve the citizens of his province by negotiating a reasonable time frame, and perhaps a deal in which the other provinces -- particularly those like Ontario and Quebec who are so concerned about climate change -- help out on the funding end by accepting smaller transfer payments from Alberta.
McGuinty actually says is pretty well when he insists, "this is a national challenge. It requires a national response, not an Ontario response alone."
Then again, McGuinty would better serve the citizens of his province by doing something at all about climate change. Not only has he already racked up a litany of broken climate change-related promises, but he's actually re-made the promises in the leadup to the coming provincial election so he can re-break them if he wins.
Canada will be closer to a national response when the provinces and activists who stress the need for action most actually do something, as opposed to talking, then doing nothing.
McGuinty is a would-be environmental visionary who won't pull his weight. Stelmach, on the other hand, is the premier of an oil-rich province that can afford to invest heavily in the green technologies necessary to supplant fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy. While this would, by necessity, also supplant the oil and gas industry that makes Alberta so prosperous, such investment into renewable energy could make Alberta a global industry leader.
Yet such investment could be interpreted as threatening to the oil and gas industry that employ so many of his constituents. Furthermore, transforming Alberta into a green energy hotbed doesn't guarantee the abundance of work available for unskilled labourers and tradespeople that oil and gas provides.
Transforming Alberta into a renewable energy giant would be risky; Stelmach would very much be risking losing face with his political supporters, both within and outside of the Progressive Conservative party.
Stelmach's reluctance could be viewed as out of obligation to his party -- it's his responsibility to keep the party strong. It could, alternatively, be viewed as out of a desire to not be the man who managed to lose Alberta -- Canada's strongest bastion of Conservative support.
Either way, Stelmach has to be seeded right alongside Dalton McGuinty, with the eco-egos.
Then again, with McGuinty facing an election and clearly emulating Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert by campaigning against a seemingly more vulnerable proxy than their provincial opponent, McGuinty comes off as just plain disengenuous.
Climate change may not be the inevitable catastrophic threat that many of the activists insist it is, and the impact of human activity on it may not be as pronounced. That being said, eliminating the impact of human activity on climate change is only the wise and prudent thing to do.
It's to this end that when the eco-egos refuse to make any meaningful attempt at reaching a compromise, it doesn't really matter which of them wins. In the end, it's the rest of us who stand to lose most.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Green Party Behind Times on Nuclear Power
Outdated ideology preventing the embrace of most viable climate change solution
By perusing the Canadian Green Party's website, one thing quickly becomes apparent: they support the Kyoto Protocol, almost to the point of obsession. Yet, what also becomes apparent is that the Green party lacks the one thing that is most crucial to implimenting Kyoto successfully: a viable energy alternative to fossil fuels.
In the western world, we have known these alternatives exist for a long time. Yet, the Green party stringently opposes the one alternative energy source that could concievably entirely supplant fossil fuels: nuclear energy.
"Climate change [came] along and transformed nuclear power from a total bad guy into a total good guy in terms of carbon-dioxide emissions," says Stewart Brand, the environmentalist author of The Whole Earth Catalogue (one of the most important publications in the historty of the environmental movement).
It seems the Green Party of Canada is sadly behind the times in terms of their opposition to nuclear power. In two recent press releases, the Greens pontificate against nuclear power. In one release , the party announced that Elizabeth May had called for a moritorium on nuclear power development, claiming that levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope generated by nuclear fuel, makes living within 10 km of nuclear plants potentially dangerous.
In other words, May is calling for a stall on developing nuclear energy facilities, while at the same time promoting policy that requires drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. The fact that reducing fossil fuel consumption is actually a good idea aside, how does May presume Canadians will get their energy from, considering that solar and wind energy are too expensive and unreliable, and hydro electricity not available nationwide?
In the other release, the party raises the issue of waste disposal, claiming that burial of nuclear waste is "not safe, not long-term."
Yet, burying nuclear waste is precisely what is done in France. According to environmentalist James Lovelock, French reactor waste is encased in glass, packed in stainless steel containers, then buried. Lovelock took readings at a burial site, and found that they represtented scarely one twentieth of the radiation generated by a single passenger plane.
According to Brand, romanticism overwhelms trust in science for many environmentalists. "A feeling with nature is profound and engenders heartfelt emotion and action that has a quasi-religious quality to it."
"They'll probably never admit to mistakes," Brand explains of romanticist environmentalists. "Whereas the best scientists will -- it's what science is."
"Antinuclear positions get posed in an absolute way, usually with the argument 'this is not natural. We humans don't really know what we're doing, and we'll unleash forces that will surprise us in terrible ways'," Brand explains.
Brand and Lovelock are not alone in their advocacy of nuclear energy. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has also identified nuclear energy as having the potential to help prevent (or at least reduce the intensity of) climate change.
These are not merely individuals who are environmentalists: they are individuals who helped craft the environmentalist agenda, including the initial opposition to nuclear energy, often for precisely the same reason sited by Brand: a romanticism-driven fear of nuclear holocaust.
Even while the environmental movement moves to cannibalize these progenitors, the quandry raised by the about-face in attitude toward nuclear power by these individuals cannot be ignored.
If they are willing to change their attitudes toward nuclear energy, certainly Elizabeth May and the Green Party can, too. Whether or not they are willing to is a bigger question.
They may want to keep in mind that the solution to climate change they so desire probably depends on it.
By perusing the Canadian Green Party's website, one thing quickly becomes apparent: they support the Kyoto Protocol, almost to the point of obsession. Yet, what also becomes apparent is that the Green party lacks the one thing that is most crucial to implimenting Kyoto successfully: a viable energy alternative to fossil fuels.
In the western world, we have known these alternatives exist for a long time. Yet, the Green party stringently opposes the one alternative energy source that could concievably entirely supplant fossil fuels: nuclear energy.
"Climate change [came] along and transformed nuclear power from a total bad guy into a total good guy in terms of carbon-dioxide emissions," says Stewart Brand, the environmentalist author of The Whole Earth Catalogue (one of the most important publications in the historty of the environmental movement).
It seems the Green Party of Canada is sadly behind the times in terms of their opposition to nuclear power. In two recent press releases, the Greens pontificate against nuclear power. In one release , the party announced that Elizabeth May had called for a moritorium on nuclear power development, claiming that levels of tritium, a radioactive isotope generated by nuclear fuel, makes living within 10 km of nuclear plants potentially dangerous.
In other words, May is calling for a stall on developing nuclear energy facilities, while at the same time promoting policy that requires drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. The fact that reducing fossil fuel consumption is actually a good idea aside, how does May presume Canadians will get their energy from, considering that solar and wind energy are too expensive and unreliable, and hydro electricity not available nationwide?
In the other release, the party raises the issue of waste disposal, claiming that burial of nuclear waste is "not safe, not long-term."
Yet, burying nuclear waste is precisely what is done in France. According to environmentalist James Lovelock, French reactor waste is encased in glass, packed in stainless steel containers, then buried. Lovelock took readings at a burial site, and found that they represtented scarely one twentieth of the radiation generated by a single passenger plane.
According to Brand, romanticism overwhelms trust in science for many environmentalists. "A feeling with nature is profound and engenders heartfelt emotion and action that has a quasi-religious quality to it."
"They'll probably never admit to mistakes," Brand explains of romanticist environmentalists. "Whereas the best scientists will -- it's what science is."
"Antinuclear positions get posed in an absolute way, usually with the argument 'this is not natural. We humans don't really know what we're doing, and we'll unleash forces that will surprise us in terrible ways'," Brand explains.
Brand and Lovelock are not alone in their advocacy of nuclear energy. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has also identified nuclear energy as having the potential to help prevent (or at least reduce the intensity of) climate change.
These are not merely individuals who are environmentalists: they are individuals who helped craft the environmentalist agenda, including the initial opposition to nuclear energy, often for precisely the same reason sited by Brand: a romanticism-driven fear of nuclear holocaust.
Even while the environmental movement moves to cannibalize these progenitors, the quandry raised by the about-face in attitude toward nuclear power by these individuals cannot be ignored.
If they are willing to change their attitudes toward nuclear energy, certainly Elizabeth May and the Green Party can, too. Whether or not they are willing to is a bigger question.
They may want to keep in mind that the solution to climate change they so desire probably depends on it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Kyoto Protocol : Hypocrisy Thy Name is Liberal
Liberals all talk on climate change
The truth, as the old adage says, hurts. This being said, the current Kyoto debate in Canada should send the Liberal party scurrying for a helmet.
The Liberals have certainly found Kyoto to be a politically productive issue. Despite their recent branding of a Conservative party election war room as a “fear factory”, the Liberals recently released a new ad clearly aimed at provoking terror amongst Canadians, on the issue of climate change (the terrified-looking baby is a nice – but hypocritical – touch).
Yet, when one looks closer at the Liberal party stance on Kyoto, one finds layers upon layers of hypocrisy, threatening to undermine what was a very tender policy point to begin with.
The Liberals point with pride toward the December 2005 United Nations Climate Change Conference, wherein Stephan Dion brought 182 countries to agreement on further commitments to fight climate change.
For Dion, that’s pretty much where the story ends. Previously, on November 29, 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government – in which Stephan Dion served as minister of the environment – lost a confidence vote in the house of commons. Dion’s success at the Montreal conference was little more than an empty triumph of a dying government.
Equally unfortunately for Dion – and the Liberals – that isn’t where the story begins, either.
Under the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002. Canada committed to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 (interestingly, Chretien chose the 6% figure merely to one-up the American commitment of 5%). Yet, by 2004, greenhouse gas emissions had continued to rise until they were 27% above 1990 levels.
Under Stephan Dion, greenhouse gas emissions only continued to rise. This undoubtedly paints a less-than-flattering image of Stephan Dion: the man who could bring 182 countries together to agree to fight climate change, but who himself did nothing to actually do so.
Another revealing point is that posed by Liberal Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty (brother of Liberal party environmental critic David McGuinty).
McGuinty had previously promised to deactivate all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2007. McGuinty has extended this deadline to 2014 – two years after the deadlines laid out in the Kyoto protocol. Had McGuinty lived up to his original promise, Ontario would be 50-80 closer to its Kyoto targets.
This from the premier who accused the federal government of letting the Alberta oil industry “off easy”.
McGuinty – who, just to reiterate, supports Kyoto – has also demanded that Ontario’s car manufacturers be given favorable treatment. “we will not abide is any effort on the part of the national government to unduly impose greenhouse-gas emission reductions on the province of Ontario at the expense of our auto sector," McGuinty said.
McGuinty was, at the time, responding to Conservative musings about imposing emissions standards on Canadian car manufacturers similar to those in effect in California. According to a graph released by Environment Canada in 2004, transportation-related emissions accounted for 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The oil, gas and coal industries accounted for 20%.
In other words, McGuinty – a Kyoto supporter – was in favor of regulating an industry that produces 20% of Canada’s greenhouse gases, but not in favor of regulating cars – producers of 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gases.
Unfortunately for McGuinty, it’s all too similar to Quebec supporting Kyoto while it stands to profit from its hydroelectric resources (GHG free), while less fortunate provinces struggle to meet their share of Canada’s Kyoto targets.
If Canada is to meet its Kyoto targets, Ontarians – who support Kyoto – will have to make sacrifices as surely as Albertans will.
At the end of the day, however, it seems some Liberals have forgotten the purpose of the Kyoto protocol. On CTV’s Canada AM, David McGuinty (just to reiterate, Dalton’s brother), complained, “We as a country signed onto Kyoto and one of the mechanisms in the Kyoto Treaty is to allow our emitters to trade credits internationally between countries to help reduce the cost, per tonne, of greenhouse gases. This government has ruled that out."
Apparently, according to McGuinty, the Kyoto protocol was never about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To McGuinty, Kyoto was about forcing industry to send their money to other countries in order to meet the government’s diplomatic obligations.
The Liberal party stance on Kyoto is nothing short of hypocrticial. While the Conservative government may need to work well outside the Kyoto deadlines in order to meet Canada’s obligations, it is Liberal inaction that has forced them to do so.
Which ultimately leaves Stephan Dion and the flying McGuinty brothers facing an unpleasant revelation: the truth hurts.
The truth, as the old adage says, hurts. This being said, the current Kyoto debate in Canada should send the Liberal party scurrying for a helmet.
The Liberals have certainly found Kyoto to be a politically productive issue. Despite their recent branding of a Conservative party election war room as a “fear factory”, the Liberals recently released a new ad clearly aimed at provoking terror amongst Canadians, on the issue of climate change (the terrified-looking baby is a nice – but hypocritical – touch).
Yet, when one looks closer at the Liberal party stance on Kyoto, one finds layers upon layers of hypocrisy, threatening to undermine what was a very tender policy point to begin with.
The Liberals point with pride toward the December 2005 United Nations Climate Change Conference, wherein Stephan Dion brought 182 countries to agreement on further commitments to fight climate change.
For Dion, that’s pretty much where the story ends. Previously, on November 29, 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government – in which Stephan Dion served as minister of the environment – lost a confidence vote in the house of commons. Dion’s success at the Montreal conference was little more than an empty triumph of a dying government.
Equally unfortunately for Dion – and the Liberals – that isn’t where the story begins, either.
Under the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002. Canada committed to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 (interestingly, Chretien chose the 6% figure merely to one-up the American commitment of 5%). Yet, by 2004, greenhouse gas emissions had continued to rise until they were 27% above 1990 levels.
Under Stephan Dion, greenhouse gas emissions only continued to rise. This undoubtedly paints a less-than-flattering image of Stephan Dion: the man who could bring 182 countries together to agree to fight climate change, but who himself did nothing to actually do so.
Another revealing point is that posed by Liberal Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty (brother of Liberal party environmental critic David McGuinty).
McGuinty had previously promised to deactivate all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2007. McGuinty has extended this deadline to 2014 – two years after the deadlines laid out in the Kyoto protocol. Had McGuinty lived up to his original promise, Ontario would be 50-80 closer to its Kyoto targets.
This from the premier who accused the federal government of letting the Alberta oil industry “off easy”.
McGuinty – who, just to reiterate, supports Kyoto – has also demanded that Ontario’s car manufacturers be given favorable treatment. “we will not abide is any effort on the part of the national government to unduly impose greenhouse-gas emission reductions on the province of Ontario at the expense of our auto sector," McGuinty said.
McGuinty was, at the time, responding to Conservative musings about imposing emissions standards on Canadian car manufacturers similar to those in effect in California. According to a graph released by Environment Canada in 2004, transportation-related emissions accounted for 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The oil, gas and coal industries accounted for 20%.
In other words, McGuinty – a Kyoto supporter – was in favor of regulating an industry that produces 20% of Canada’s greenhouse gases, but not in favor of regulating cars – producers of 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gases.
Unfortunately for McGuinty, it’s all too similar to Quebec supporting Kyoto while it stands to profit from its hydroelectric resources (GHG free), while less fortunate provinces struggle to meet their share of Canada’s Kyoto targets.
If Canada is to meet its Kyoto targets, Ontarians – who support Kyoto – will have to make sacrifices as surely as Albertans will.
At the end of the day, however, it seems some Liberals have forgotten the purpose of the Kyoto protocol. On CTV’s Canada AM, David McGuinty (just to reiterate, Dalton’s brother), complained, “We as a country signed onto Kyoto and one of the mechanisms in the Kyoto Treaty is to allow our emitters to trade credits internationally between countries to help reduce the cost, per tonne, of greenhouse gases. This government has ruled that out."
Apparently, according to McGuinty, the Kyoto protocol was never about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To McGuinty, Kyoto was about forcing industry to send their money to other countries in order to meet the government’s diplomatic obligations.
The Liberal party stance on Kyoto is nothing short of hypocrticial. While the Conservative government may need to work well outside the Kyoto deadlines in order to meet Canada’s obligations, it is Liberal inaction that has forced them to do so.
Which ultimately leaves Stephan Dion and the flying McGuinty brothers facing an unpleasant revelation: the truth hurts.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Opposition Parties and "Environmental" Lobby Breathes Hot Air Over Clean Air Act
Warm front sweeps over Parliament as hit parade begins
Yesterday, Stephen Harper’s government tabled its long-promised Clean Air Act.
Predictably, Canada’s opposition parties and so-called environmental lobbies have taken up the cause – of preventing effective long-term environmental legislation.
“They're not going to do anything: This is a (law) for inaction," said the Sierra Club’s John Bennet, complaining that the Clean Air Act calls for consultations with industry over the next three years.
"Instead of using existing legislation and acting immediately, the Conservatives have delivered vague promises to regulate polluters sometime in the coming decades," Hugh Wilkins, a lawyer with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Of course, one would expect that Bennet and Wilkins, two obvious experts in environmental law to understand that all the current agreements with industry, struck by the Liberal party, only call for voluntary compliance. This law will be in effect until 2010.
In other words, for the next three years, the Conservative government has no option but to consult with industry about what the standards (which will be mandatory) should be. Previous Liberal governments made certain of that, arrogantly legislating in such a way that not only handcuffed their own government, but also future non-Liberal governments.
After 2010, the government will set fixed caps on air pollutants, as well as stricter emissions standards for vehicles, modeled after California’s much-applauded standards.
By 2050, the Conservative plan is to cut total emissions by 45 to 65%. These are well in excess of Canada’s current Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012.
The number one complaint about the Clean Air Act seems to be that it does not explicitly mention Kyoto. Like complaints about George W. Bush after 9/11 – sulking, “he didn’t mention Canada!” – the so-called environmental lobby complains that the Act doesn’t mention Kyoto.
Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, complained, “[This] means that we have killed Kyoto as far as Canada is concerned. We've violated our international responsibilities. I don't take that lightly and I hope that no one else does."
Kyoto “expert” Olivastri may or may not be aware that the 65% by 2050 figure is very similar to a target provided under the Kyoto protocol – Britain’s targets. Britain, under the Kyoto protocol, has accepted a goal of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 65% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Conservative government has just pledged to meet these much more ambitious targets.
Given this little factoid, one has to wonder exactly what it is that the so-called environmental lobby wants.
It’s difficult to ascertain if the environmental groups in question are Liberal party members, voicing their criticisms via their Liberal party talking points, or if the environmental groups in question have been completely enveloped by the anti-conservative movement.
Either way, the point becomes abundantly clear: this was never about the environment. It was about politics all along.
The Clean Air Act – The Wrong-Colored Lollypop?
It can be likened to an unruly child in a grocery store, demanding a red lollypop.
“I want the red lollypop!” the child demands. The red lollypop, for whatever reason, is unattainable.
“I’m sorry honey,” the beleaguered mother says soothingly, “we can’t have the red lollypop. How about a green lollypop with a chocolate center instead?”
“NO!” the petulant child screams, jumping up and down frantically. “I want the red one!”
Such is the condition of Canada’s “environmental” lobby. The Conservative party, handcuffed until 2010 by Liberal party-initiated voluntary industrial emissions standards, has instead opted to act beyond 2010, and act to a greater extent – within a time frame that is, in fact, still within the Kyoto protocol’s time frame – and the “environmental” lobby is responding with a temper tantrum because the plan isn’t Kyoto.
Is it better than Kyoto? You’re damn skippy.
Is it Kyoto? No. And that’s what the problem is.
The Conservative government has come forth with a firm plan for action. A plan that won’t allow Canada off the hook, doing noting while paying billions of dollars in order to buy emissions credits from countries that aren’t required to do anything to meet their Kyoto requirements. Unlike the Clean Air Act (merely one part of the Conservative party Green Plan), under the Kyoto protocol, Canada’s ability to do nothing is reinforced by further inaction. With money! Kyoto is not a plan for action.
For its part, the Sierra Club has already been caught playing politics with the environment. On June 16 of this year, the Sierra Club issued its annual “environmental report cards”. The Harper government, in power for all of six months, was given a failing grade. Fs across the board.
"We are recommending that the Harper government attend summer school in order to see improvement next time," said the ever-so-clever Stephen Hazell, the then-acting executive director the Sierra Club.
The Harper government had, at that point, no opportunity to formulate its environmental policy.
The government of Prince Edward Island, however, was given a B average. In particular, it was given a B for biodiversity – even after a serious incident in which over 100 tons of raw sewage were simply pumped to Charlottetown harbor instead of being cleaned up.
Whoops.
Interestingly, the Sierra Club also opposes the Conservative government’s biofuel initiative, which would require that all gasoline in Canada be composed of 5% ethanol by 2010, which would reduce Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gas by that same 5%.
Once again, whoops.
One really has to wonder what side the Sierra Club is buttering their bread on. One might expect that an environmental lobby group would put some effort in to ascertaining the achievements of each government honestly, in stead of trying to act as a defacto opposition party.
Playing Politics With the Future
Canada’s opposition parties have pledged to vote against the Clean Air Act.
It’s interesting to note that, given that the item allegedly occupies a central point on the current agenda, that Canada’s opposition parties are promising to play partisan politics with the Clean Air Act – and have been promising to do so before it was even tabled.
“The whole Clean Air Act, for me, is a cynical exercise by the Conservatives," opined Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s environment critic. "Even if the committee rushed, and even if we pushed this thing as fast as we could, there's little to no chance at all of this thing coming into effect prior to the next election. That's unfortunate."
Unfortunate, indeed. The opposition parties instead favor private member’s bill C-288, which would require the federal government to somehow magically implement the Kyoto protocol, despite the constraints placed upon this by current legislation. Somehow, a party that has always favored increasing environmental legislation has come to deride the government’s impulse to introduce new legislation. “Our argument has always been that they have the legislation already," Cullen continued. "Why are they recreating it? If that's not a delay tactic, I don't know what is."
The “environmental” lobby and opposition parties desperately need to get their talking points straight on this one. Either the legislation in place is sufficient, as they claim – in which case criticizing the government for not proposing new policy (as was being done) should be considered an untenable position – or the new legislation, which plans over the long term should be accepted as a valuable tool for protecting the environment for the next 44 years.
At the very least, the lobby groups and opposition parties could do something really crazy, like – oh, I don’t know – cooperating with the government via the committee process, suggesting perhaps some – gee, what would… -- amendments to the act in question.
Otherwise, the message these parties are sending to Canadians may be that the opposition parties favor short-term inaction, as opposed to long-term planning and action. This certainly isn’t the message most people would want to send if they were part of an environmental lobby group or allegedly progressive political party, but this might be entirely immaterial.
Who cares about protecting the environment when there are political points to be scored?
Obviously, not the Liberals, NDP or Bloq Quebecois. The “environmental lobby”?
Obviously, not any less.
Yesterday, Stephen Harper’s government tabled its long-promised Clean Air Act.
Predictably, Canada’s opposition parties and so-called environmental lobbies have taken up the cause – of preventing effective long-term environmental legislation.
“They're not going to do anything: This is a (law) for inaction," said the Sierra Club’s John Bennet, complaining that the Clean Air Act calls for consultations with industry over the next three years.
"Instead of using existing legislation and acting immediately, the Conservatives have delivered vague promises to regulate polluters sometime in the coming decades," Hugh Wilkins, a lawyer with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Of course, one would expect that Bennet and Wilkins, two obvious experts in environmental law to understand that all the current agreements with industry, struck by the Liberal party, only call for voluntary compliance. This law will be in effect until 2010.
In other words, for the next three years, the Conservative government has no option but to consult with industry about what the standards (which will be mandatory) should be. Previous Liberal governments made certain of that, arrogantly legislating in such a way that not only handcuffed their own government, but also future non-Liberal governments.
After 2010, the government will set fixed caps on air pollutants, as well as stricter emissions standards for vehicles, modeled after California’s much-applauded standards.
By 2050, the Conservative plan is to cut total emissions by 45 to 65%. These are well in excess of Canada’s current Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012.
The number one complaint about the Clean Air Act seems to be that it does not explicitly mention Kyoto. Like complaints about George W. Bush after 9/11 – sulking, “he didn’t mention Canada!” – the so-called environmental lobby complains that the Act doesn’t mention Kyoto.
Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, complained, “[This] means that we have killed Kyoto as far as Canada is concerned. We've violated our international responsibilities. I don't take that lightly and I hope that no one else does."
Kyoto “expert” Olivastri may or may not be aware that the 65% by 2050 figure is very similar to a target provided under the Kyoto protocol – Britain’s targets. Britain, under the Kyoto protocol, has accepted a goal of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 65% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Conservative government has just pledged to meet these much more ambitious targets.
Given this little factoid, one has to wonder exactly what it is that the so-called environmental lobby wants.
It’s difficult to ascertain if the environmental groups in question are Liberal party members, voicing their criticisms via their Liberal party talking points, or if the environmental groups in question have been completely enveloped by the anti-conservative movement.
Either way, the point becomes abundantly clear: this was never about the environment. It was about politics all along.
The Clean Air Act – The Wrong-Colored Lollypop?
It can be likened to an unruly child in a grocery store, demanding a red lollypop.
“I want the red lollypop!” the child demands. The red lollypop, for whatever reason, is unattainable.
“I’m sorry honey,” the beleaguered mother says soothingly, “we can’t have the red lollypop. How about a green lollypop with a chocolate center instead?”
“NO!” the petulant child screams, jumping up and down frantically. “I want the red one!”
Such is the condition of Canada’s “environmental” lobby. The Conservative party, handcuffed until 2010 by Liberal party-initiated voluntary industrial emissions standards, has instead opted to act beyond 2010, and act to a greater extent – within a time frame that is, in fact, still within the Kyoto protocol’s time frame – and the “environmental” lobby is responding with a temper tantrum because the plan isn’t Kyoto.
Is it better than Kyoto? You’re damn skippy.
Is it Kyoto? No. And that’s what the problem is.
The Conservative government has come forth with a firm plan for action. A plan that won’t allow Canada off the hook, doing noting while paying billions of dollars in order to buy emissions credits from countries that aren’t required to do anything to meet their Kyoto requirements. Unlike the Clean Air Act (merely one part of the Conservative party Green Plan), under the Kyoto protocol, Canada’s ability to do nothing is reinforced by further inaction. With money! Kyoto is not a plan for action.
For its part, the Sierra Club has already been caught playing politics with the environment. On June 16 of this year, the Sierra Club issued its annual “environmental report cards”. The Harper government, in power for all of six months, was given a failing grade. Fs across the board.
"We are recommending that the Harper government attend summer school in order to see improvement next time," said the ever-so-clever Stephen Hazell, the then-acting executive director the Sierra Club.
The Harper government had, at that point, no opportunity to formulate its environmental policy.
The government of Prince Edward Island, however, was given a B average. In particular, it was given a B for biodiversity – even after a serious incident in which over 100 tons of raw sewage were simply pumped to Charlottetown harbor instead of being cleaned up.
Whoops.
Interestingly, the Sierra Club also opposes the Conservative government’s biofuel initiative, which would require that all gasoline in Canada be composed of 5% ethanol by 2010, which would reduce Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gas by that same 5%.
Once again, whoops.
One really has to wonder what side the Sierra Club is buttering their bread on. One might expect that an environmental lobby group would put some effort in to ascertaining the achievements of each government honestly, in stead of trying to act as a defacto opposition party.
Playing Politics With the Future
Canada’s opposition parties have pledged to vote against the Clean Air Act.
It’s interesting to note that, given that the item allegedly occupies a central point on the current agenda, that Canada’s opposition parties are promising to play partisan politics with the Clean Air Act – and have been promising to do so before it was even tabled.
“The whole Clean Air Act, for me, is a cynical exercise by the Conservatives," opined Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s environment critic. "Even if the committee rushed, and even if we pushed this thing as fast as we could, there's little to no chance at all of this thing coming into effect prior to the next election. That's unfortunate."
Unfortunate, indeed. The opposition parties instead favor private member’s bill C-288, which would require the federal government to somehow magically implement the Kyoto protocol, despite the constraints placed upon this by current legislation. Somehow, a party that has always favored increasing environmental legislation has come to deride the government’s impulse to introduce new legislation. “Our argument has always been that they have the legislation already," Cullen continued. "Why are they recreating it? If that's not a delay tactic, I don't know what is."
The “environmental” lobby and opposition parties desperately need to get their talking points straight on this one. Either the legislation in place is sufficient, as they claim – in which case criticizing the government for not proposing new policy (as was being done) should be considered an untenable position – or the new legislation, which plans over the long term should be accepted as a valuable tool for protecting the environment for the next 44 years.
At the very least, the lobby groups and opposition parties could do something really crazy, like – oh, I don’t know – cooperating with the government via the committee process, suggesting perhaps some – gee, what would… -- amendments to the act in question.
Otherwise, the message these parties are sending to Canadians may be that the opposition parties favor short-term inaction, as opposed to long-term planning and action. This certainly isn’t the message most people would want to send if they were part of an environmental lobby group or allegedly progressive political party, but this might be entirely immaterial.
Who cares about protecting the environment when there are political points to be scored?
Obviously, not the Liberals, NDP or Bloq Quebecois. The “environmental lobby”?
Obviously, not any less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)