I had the pleasure of attending last week’s “Moving Forward Together Conference on Climate Change and Social Justice”, hosted by the Nickel District Conservation Authority and the Greater Sudbury Social Planning Council, in partnership with the City of Greater Sudbury and the Greater Sudbury Climate Change Consortium. The Conference took a hard look at the anticipated impacts of climate change on residents in our City, and not surprisingly, determined that impacts would not affect everyone equally.
I found the Conference’s lens through which climate change issues were examined locally took me out of my comfort zone, and challenged me to think about how social justice issues will be impacted by a warming world. I’ve attended many conferences on climate change in the past, most of which have an environmental or socio-economic perspective. The idea that a changing climate will impact equitable access to community services and emergency responses was something which had been at the back of my mind, but which I now I have a much better understanding of.
As someone who has, in the past, hung out on the “environmental” side of things (although I’ve never identified myself as an “environmentalist”, given that I’ve always approached environmental issues from an economic viewpoint), I was also blown away by the level of organization and engagement our emerging partners in the social justice field can bring to the table. And that’s something for everyone who is concerned about the impacts of climate change to keep in mind.
Warmer and Dryer
The conference kicked off on Thursday evening with a public session held in Council Chambers at Tom Davies Square. Dr. Liette Vasseur of Brock University gave a presentation on which focussed on the past 5 or 6 years which have led up to the creation of the Greater Sudbury Climate Change Consortium, along with the scientific assessment of climate change which Sudburians can expect to be impacted by over the next 90 years in low- medium- and high-emissions scenarios (as an aside, Dr. Vasseur indicated that we are currently on track to having emissions exceed the high-emissions scenario, which is troubling to say the least).
Greater Sudbury can expect to experience some fairly significant physical impacts, which can be summarized as “hotter and dryer”. Although precipitation levels may increase in certain seasons, with the additional rise in temperature, there’ll be greater levels of evaporation, leading to lower lake levels, and less water for agricultural purposes (so although the growing season might increase by as much as 3 weeks over the next 90 years, crop yields may actually decline due to a lack of water).
Currently, the City of Greater Sudbury experiences 5.5 heatwaves a year. We can expect a four-fold increase in heatwave days by 2070 (22.6 days), and by 2100, 36 heatwave days a year will be the new norm. Heatwaves, of course, significantly impact the young, the elderly and those with respiratory problems, along with those living in poverty who can’t afford air conditioning.
Organizer and conference facilitator Mike Balkwill then delivered an excellent presentation about how change occurs very slowly…until it happens very quickly. While I understand well the concept of “critical mass” (or the “100th Monkey”), it was interesting to hear Balkwill talk about his own experiences juxtaposed against those leading environmentalists. His critique about environmental organizations often lacking the ability to plan to achieve a critical mass hit home, and while I’ve intuitively known that this has been the missing link of the environmental movement, Balkwill spoke with considered eloquence and challenged the audience to start thinking about where we have to go from here.
Balkwill’s starting point was to acknowledge that all of the individual efforts which we can undertake to reduce our own emissions, while important, unfortunately will not save us from entering the dark territory of tipping points which will trigger runaway climate change. The need for action at the national and international level must accompany individual and community efforts, or else those efforts will be doomed to being overwhelmed and fail.
Councillor Jocelyne Landry-Altman wrapped up Thursday’s session with some very poignant words about climate change, and how it is already affecting people living in Sudbury, often those living on fixed incomes and without the benefit of home or apartment insurance. Landry-Altman’s words were an appreciated and pointed wake-up call to those in our community and nation who seek to adopt a “wait and see” attitude towards climate change. Waiting for someone else to lead in our community, and on a national level, simply isn’t going to cut it any longer, as we are already feeling the adverse impacts of a changing climate.
“The Buffer Between the Middle Class and Survival is a Lot Thinner Than We Think”
Over the next two days, participants identified that the most vulnerable in our society will experience the adverse impacts from a changing climate to a significantly greater degree than those with higher incomes. We often tend to think of climate change impacts only in terms of physical events (such as severe weather events like rainstorms or ice storms), or perhaps as systemic physical changes (such as hotter and drier summers, or an increase in catastrophic hurricanes over the years). What the public often forgets are the expected social and economic impacts which global climate change will have on people, governmental institutions, and the business community.
Climate models show that the areas of the Earth to be most significantly impacted will be the polar areas and the tropics. We here in Greater Sudbury, from a purely physical perspective, will likely experience far less in terms of physical impacts. When it comes to social and economic impacts arising from a changing climate, however, no where on the planet will be immune, due to our globalized economy. As recent events in the Middle East continue to show us (as if we needed more lessons!), what happens in one very far-away part of the world impacts us here in Greater Sudbury.
Conference participants started using the term “global disruption” to describe the anticipated impacts that a changing climate will have on people, governments and businesses, because of the physical-impact-oriented nature of the term “climate change”. I think it’s an apt description for the kind of change that we’re likely going to experience in the coming decades. We can still affect how this kind of change plays out locally and globally, however we must begin taking action if we are to do so. In our changing world, reactionary decisions aren’t going to get us to where we need to be. It’s time to plan for the future.
One of my biggest concerns with the global disruption we are already experiencing has to do with the rising cost of food brought on by shortages as a result of climate change-related crop failures, mainly in Australia, China, Russia and Pakistan. We are already seeing food protests occur in some parts of the world (Bolivia and Central America; as well, the protests in Cairo, Egypt, started in part as a result of the Mubarak regime cutting the bread allowance of ordinary citizens who rely on government-subsidized bread for the majority of their daily calories).
Rising food prices might appear to be an inconvenience to most North Americans. Only those living on fixed incomes are likely to experience first-hand the consequences of more expensive foods. Fresh fruits and vegetables, and meats, will likely see the most significant rise in price, which means that those living in poverty will likely be forced to make choices for less nutritious food.
Yet, we are all relatively well-insulated here in North American and Europe from the worst that rising food prices will bring. China, which faces national shortages of food, has already told its citizens that there is no need to panic, as it can afford to buy food on the international market. This will drive up prices even further, and will impact the poorest nations in the world more severely. While richer nations like China might be able to weather the food shortage storm this time at the expense of poor nations, there’s no guarantee that global food prices will ever recover, as the overall trend for food prices, like CO2 emissions, is onward and upward.
What kinds of impacts might a starving world have on Canada’s economy? If our trading partners begin to go hungry, will they still want to purchase Canada’s raw materials and manufactured goods? We here in Greater Sudbury are very dependent on a global economy which needs our mineral resources for economic growth. What sort of situation might those working in extractive industries find themselves in should the global economy start to shrink as a result of higher food and energy prices?
And that’s why we here in Greater Sudbury are not so very well-insulated from the adverse effects of climate driven global disruption. We in the middle class might soon discover just how close we are to finding ourselves in similar situations to those who are currently living in poverty.
Real Leadership
Greater Sudbury’s massive ecological successes are no secret to those living within our community. Over the years, and through perseverance and partnerships, our community has brought itself back from the brink of severe environmental degradation. But we’re pretty modest here in Greater Sudbury, I think. We don’t toot our own horn enough, and we’re certainly not ones to brag about the hard work and success that our regreening effort brought to our community.
Yet, our story has started to creep out, and it’s not unusual today for those in other places, whether they are elsewhere in Canada, or throughout the world, to point to Sudbury as an environmental leader. Certainly, the resources which exist here in terms of human capital have positioned us to play a leadership role. With increasing national and international expectations that we do so, there is no way that we can shirk off our community’s role to be a leader in showing others the way forward.
This past weekend’s conference is, in my opinion, another notch in Greater Sudbury’s leadership belt. Thank yous go to all of those involved, particularly the Conference organizers and leading agencies, including the Social Planning Council, the City, and the Nickel District Conservation Authority. Although he’ll never admit it, Myles Carter at the Conservation Authority deserves special recognition for overseeing how all of the necessary pieces of the Conference were brought together. Carter has done our community proud!
There remains much work to do, locally, nationally and internationally. I know that I’ve already taken away from this Conference the means to think just a little differently about the things which are important to me and a majority of Canadians. I believe that Greater Sudbury can and will continue to be a leader for other communities throughout the world, who are only now starting to think about their own strategies to address their unique local circumstances. We must continue to share our stories, and build upon the incredible work and on our growing list of accomplishments. Leaders continue to emerge on Council, in our academic institutions, within our business and industrial sector, and within NGO’s and community groups, and within governmental institutions.
Our economic and social health depend on taking action to address the impacts of climate change. We here in Greater Sudbury are positioned to lead, and lead we must and lead we shall. Although the future often seeks dark, it is what we will make of it. That’s why I’m so very optimistic that the future will be so much brighter than we imagine it. We truly can move forward together.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Climate Change: Partisan Political Issue?
I’ve always been one to insist that climate change isn’t a partisan issue. I’ve always subscribed to the notion that finding solutions to address the impacts of climate change are not within the purview of any one political party, environmental organization, or economic think-tank. Solutions to address climate change, however, are clearly within the realm of politics and partisanship, and deserve considered debate and discussion prior to implementation. Often, people are confused by the non-partisan nature of climate change itself and the political solutions put forward by all who have an interest in addressing the problem.
At least that’s the way that I’ve always thought about the subject of climate change. Lately, though, I’m less certain. But let me come back to that, and first try to explain the distinction between the non-partisan issue of a changing climate, and the political solutions needed to address it.
Moving Forward Together
This discussion, I believe, is timely, particularly here in Sudbury, as this week the Nickel District Conservation Authority and the Social Planning Council, along with the City, will be co-hosting the “Moving Forward Together” conference on Climate Change Solutions. This will be a decidedly non-partisan event addressing the non-partisan issues facing Greater Sudbury regarding climate change. The starting point of this conference will be discussions regarding how climate change will affect people, organizations and businesses within our community. I note that there will not be any discussion regarding whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not, as those participating in the conference see no need at all to answer that question, as climate science developed over decades has clearly answered it for us already. That answer being, of course, “Yes, it’s happening, and our industrial processes are the cause.”
I’ll come back to this starting point later. For now, though, suffice it to say that the starting point of the conference is to focus on solutions and strategies which can be implemented at a local level to mitigate against, and adapt to, a changing climate.
The topic of climate change, therefore, is likely to be “top of mind” in Greater Sudbury throughout the week, with a public evening session of the Moving Forward Together conference kicking things off at Tom Davies Square in Council Chambers. Two more days of the conference follow, open to registered participants (with the price of registration being a mere $25 for students and seniors, and just $35 for everyone else, which is incredibly reasonable for this two days worth of conference activity).
With the focus on finding solutions to climate change at the local level, and in the specific context of the City of Greater Sudbury, there would be, at first glance, a marked decrease in opportunities for partisan politics to intervene. After all, in Ontario at least, there are no political parties at the municipal level of government, which anyway would only be one partner in implementing any solutions to be discussed. Other partners will include public organizations, such as the Conservation Authority, Health Units, School Boards, etc., along with our very vibrant business community and industrial sector.
Here in Greater Sudbury, the mining sector plays a very important role in the business community. This is one sector which understands that business impacts of a changing climate, and which has a vested interest in decisions made at all levels of government in how best to deal with climate change. There is a belief out there that mining sector is somehow in denial about anthropogenic climate change, and aspire to see the status quo maintained. That’s not my own observation, and indeed the more that I hear about the mining sector’s desire to find appropriate solutions to address climate change, the more optimistic I become that eventually we here in Canada, and indeed throughout the world, are going to start to take meaningful action to address climate change.
That the mining industry is not in denial about climate change is important, particularly given that this sector of industry is a significant net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and throughout the world. The mining industry’s issues, however, are illustrative of the notion that any proposed solution to climate change must perforce be political in nature. And that must include solutions at the local level.
Political Will and Partisan Politics
Finding the will to act on climate change will be an exercise in the use of political will. Individual actions can only go so far to mitigate against and adapt to climate change. For significant and meaningful action, we must look to decision makers in each and every capacity to lead, plan, and implement actions. Exercising political will, however, requires debate and discussion. It will be interesting to see what local solutions are proposed at the Moving Forward Together conference, and whether participants understand that all solutions will be political in nature, even though climate change itself is not a partisan issue (or so I have always thought).
Does the exercise of political will require partisanship? Clearly, the answer is “no”. Non-partisan, political decisions are made all of the time, especially at local levels. For example, the allocation of municipal resources for traffic calming on one street in preference to another is a political decision, but with non-partisan overtones. However, despite the absence of party affiliation at the municipal level of government in Ontario, sometimes municipal decisions can be truly identified as “partisan”. One needs to look no further than to discussions taking place in the City of Toronto regarding subways versus light surface rail to see partisan politics affecting decisions to be made at the municipal level.
For decisions makers at all levels of government, sometimes decisions are made simply because it’s the right thing to do, and not for political gain. Stephen Harper’s 2006 apology to First Nations attendees of residential schools comes to mind. Or perhaps the declaration of War against the Empire of Japan made by the U.S. Congress, endorsed by both parties after the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. While I suppose it could be argued that even these decisions were made for partisan reasons, given their lack of opposition, at least within the decision-making bodies of Parliament and Congress, respectively, I believe that a strong case can be made that these were not partisan decisions.
The mistreatment of aboriginals through the residential schools is a fact of history, just as the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour can not be disputed, along with the fact that our climate is changing as a result of human industrial activity. These facts are not in dispute (despite Canada’s choice to long ignore the very real problems and issues with residential schools; and despite suggestions that the U.S. might have had advanced warning of Pearl Harbour; and despite the amount of time it has taken for science to definitively conclude that human industrial processes are leading to climate change). And since we expect our decision makers to make decisions based on facts, and not fallacies or fantasies, clearly the starting point of the discussions needed to make those decisions can not be treated as political in nature, or partisan. The starting points are factual, and are not in dispute.
Or are they?
Sowing the Seeds of Confusion
With regards to anthropogenic climate change, clearly there are individuals and organizations which do not accept human activity is leading to a changing climate, despite the overwhelming science. Often, these individuals and organizations have a vested interest in manipulating discussions regarding solutions to climate change, although in some cases it’s clear that wilful ignorance is at work. Why dispute the indisputable facts of climate change, though, if really the matters for debate should be occurring at the “So what are we going to do about it?” stage?
That’s easy: to accept anthropogenic climate change as a fact requires that we also accept that we probably should, as a society, address the impacts of climate change. And right now, many of those discussions, which have been going on for decades, are leading to the overwhelming conclusion that we can no longer continue to treat our atmosphere as an open sewer, and that the time is coming that we need to put a price on carbon emissions in order to reduce those emissions. There are businesses and organizations throughout the world who perceive this solution as a threat to their economic vitality. Therefore, rather than engage in discussions on how best to price carbon, there’s more of a pay-off for these businesses to confuse regular citizens and decision makers about the facts.
Sowing confusion about scientific conclusions is really pretty easy when you get down to it. Scientific arguments are based on data, and usually postulated by specialists who seem to be speaking a different language from you or me most of the time (and most of the time they are using a different language – the language of math and statistics – to prove their hypotheses). The very nature of scientific investigation itself leaves significant room for non-fact-based critiques. Unlike with Pearl Harbour, which everyone knows happened because we could see it with our own eyes on the film footage which was shot during and after the raid, understanding the facts of science requires a considerably higher level of engagement. And when it comes to the science of climate change, to suggest that “it’s complicated” is a significant understatement.
However, so it understanding nuclear fission, however we derive the benefits and experience the harmful side effects from that scientific “fact” every day. Science also postulates a “Theory of Gravity”, which is something that we rely on when doing everything from flying in aircraft to, well, just walking to work. Yet some would suggest that since gravity is just a theory, we should not rely on it as an explanation for how the world works.
Just because you or I might not understand how or why something complicated works doesn’t mean that it should be disregarded. The science behind climate change is no different. Yet, there are too many who have bought into the unsubstantiated and non-fact-based notion that somehow the science behind climate change can not be trusted.
Many of the high-priced climate change deniers are the same bunch of people who for years tried to sow confusion regarding whether smoking actually caused cancer. They experienced a certain degree of success with this campaign, at least up until a strong majority of decision-makers decided that they could no longer overlook the proven scientific link between tobacco and cancer. The campaign of confusion worked well right up until it didn’t.
Climate Change as a Partisan Issue
In Canada, and especially in the United States, this debate regarding the factual starting point of the discussion has become a partisan issue. This is clearly manifest in the U.S., where one political party (the Republican Party) has questioned the science of climate change, and many of its elected members in Congress have outright claimed that they do not believe human industrial processes are changing our climate, despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I, like many Canadians (and I’m sure a significant number of Americans), have trouble relating to this point of view. For me, it’s like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbour didn’t happen. For us, this sort of nonsense belongs in the realm of fantasy, along with a belief in elves and gnomes, or that the Apollo moon landings were filmed in a studio in Burbank, California. Yet elected Republican decision makers hold these views. What about here in Canada?
As far as I understand it, our government has time and again acknowledged that climate change is happening, and that we are the cause of it. That includes Stephen Harper, who said as much in Berlin back in 2007, when he referred to climate change as a “growing menace” and “the most important public policy challenge of our time”. In 2002, Harper referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a “money-sucking socialist scheme”. Note that Harper accepts the notion that climate change is happening (fact) but does not agree with one of the solutions on how best to address it (partisan).
There are others elected decision-makers in Canada, however, who would suggest that climate change is, in fact, a partisan issue. Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith has come out of the closet on climate change, and declared that she believes that the jury is still out on the science of climate change, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Smith and her Wildrose Alliance are currently positioning themselves to lead the Province of Alberta, in which is located the single dirtiest industrial project in the history of Canada, that being the Alberta Tar Sands. Certainly this is cause for concern.
Although I continue to believe that climate change is not a partisan issue, clearly it is to some. As with smoking, however, there will come a time when the denial campaign will peter out, and a broad consensus that there is a problem will be reached. Canadians thought that we had achieved that consensus back in 2006, when the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the 2006 4th Assessment Report, for which they shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, however, money has poured into the denial industry, and politicians have been purchased through astroturf movements like the Tea Party.
Moving Inevitably Towards Action
As with the pro-tobacco lobby, however, the climate change denial efforts are doomed to fail. Unfortunately, it may take an increasing loss of life and damage to property from severe weather events before climate change truly becomes a non-partisan issue. But that day is coming.
The majority of Canadians have already moved on, and have entered the debate about how best to address climate change. Those Sudburians participating in the Moving Forward Together conference later this week have made up their minds about where to begin the discussion, and are eager to find solutions which are locally implementable. As with putting a price on carbon, even local solutions may require political decisions. Those decisions will require leadership and vision, as well as local buy-in (but not unanimous support).
Those decisions, which will be made in the near future, will be the points of reference for future generations to measure whether our response to the crisis was successful or not. History will condemn us for our inaction up to this point. It is my hope, however, that history will ultimately come to praise the bold and brave political decisions yet to be made to address the climate crisis.
At least that’s the way that I’ve always thought about the subject of climate change. Lately, though, I’m less certain. But let me come back to that, and first try to explain the distinction between the non-partisan issue of a changing climate, and the political solutions needed to address it.
Moving Forward Together
This discussion, I believe, is timely, particularly here in Sudbury, as this week the Nickel District Conservation Authority and the Social Planning Council, along with the City, will be co-hosting the “Moving Forward Together” conference on Climate Change Solutions. This will be a decidedly non-partisan event addressing the non-partisan issues facing Greater Sudbury regarding climate change. The starting point of this conference will be discussions regarding how climate change will affect people, organizations and businesses within our community. I note that there will not be any discussion regarding whether anthropogenic climate change is happening or not, as those participating in the conference see no need at all to answer that question, as climate science developed over decades has clearly answered it for us already. That answer being, of course, “Yes, it’s happening, and our industrial processes are the cause.”
I’ll come back to this starting point later. For now, though, suffice it to say that the starting point of the conference is to focus on solutions and strategies which can be implemented at a local level to mitigate against, and adapt to, a changing climate.
The topic of climate change, therefore, is likely to be “top of mind” in Greater Sudbury throughout the week, with a public evening session of the Moving Forward Together conference kicking things off at Tom Davies Square in Council Chambers. Two more days of the conference follow, open to registered participants (with the price of registration being a mere $25 for students and seniors, and just $35 for everyone else, which is incredibly reasonable for this two days worth of conference activity).
With the focus on finding solutions to climate change at the local level, and in the specific context of the City of Greater Sudbury, there would be, at first glance, a marked decrease in opportunities for partisan politics to intervene. After all, in Ontario at least, there are no political parties at the municipal level of government, which anyway would only be one partner in implementing any solutions to be discussed. Other partners will include public organizations, such as the Conservation Authority, Health Units, School Boards, etc., along with our very vibrant business community and industrial sector.
Here in Greater Sudbury, the mining sector plays a very important role in the business community. This is one sector which understands that business impacts of a changing climate, and which has a vested interest in decisions made at all levels of government in how best to deal with climate change. There is a belief out there that mining sector is somehow in denial about anthropogenic climate change, and aspire to see the status quo maintained. That’s not my own observation, and indeed the more that I hear about the mining sector’s desire to find appropriate solutions to address climate change, the more optimistic I become that eventually we here in Canada, and indeed throughout the world, are going to start to take meaningful action to address climate change.
That the mining industry is not in denial about climate change is important, particularly given that this sector of industry is a significant net contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and throughout the world. The mining industry’s issues, however, are illustrative of the notion that any proposed solution to climate change must perforce be political in nature. And that must include solutions at the local level.
Political Will and Partisan Politics
Finding the will to act on climate change will be an exercise in the use of political will. Individual actions can only go so far to mitigate against and adapt to climate change. For significant and meaningful action, we must look to decision makers in each and every capacity to lead, plan, and implement actions. Exercising political will, however, requires debate and discussion. It will be interesting to see what local solutions are proposed at the Moving Forward Together conference, and whether participants understand that all solutions will be political in nature, even though climate change itself is not a partisan issue (or so I have always thought).
Does the exercise of political will require partisanship? Clearly, the answer is “no”. Non-partisan, political decisions are made all of the time, especially at local levels. For example, the allocation of municipal resources for traffic calming on one street in preference to another is a political decision, but with non-partisan overtones. However, despite the absence of party affiliation at the municipal level of government in Ontario, sometimes municipal decisions can be truly identified as “partisan”. One needs to look no further than to discussions taking place in the City of Toronto regarding subways versus light surface rail to see partisan politics affecting decisions to be made at the municipal level.
For decisions makers at all levels of government, sometimes decisions are made simply because it’s the right thing to do, and not for political gain. Stephen Harper’s 2006 apology to First Nations attendees of residential schools comes to mind. Or perhaps the declaration of War against the Empire of Japan made by the U.S. Congress, endorsed by both parties after the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. While I suppose it could be argued that even these decisions were made for partisan reasons, given their lack of opposition, at least within the decision-making bodies of Parliament and Congress, respectively, I believe that a strong case can be made that these were not partisan decisions.
The mistreatment of aboriginals through the residential schools is a fact of history, just as the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbour can not be disputed, along with the fact that our climate is changing as a result of human industrial activity. These facts are not in dispute (despite Canada’s choice to long ignore the very real problems and issues with residential schools; and despite suggestions that the U.S. might have had advanced warning of Pearl Harbour; and despite the amount of time it has taken for science to definitively conclude that human industrial processes are leading to climate change). And since we expect our decision makers to make decisions based on facts, and not fallacies or fantasies, clearly the starting point of the discussions needed to make those decisions can not be treated as political in nature, or partisan. The starting points are factual, and are not in dispute.
Or are they?
Sowing the Seeds of Confusion
With regards to anthropogenic climate change, clearly there are individuals and organizations which do not accept human activity is leading to a changing climate, despite the overwhelming science. Often, these individuals and organizations have a vested interest in manipulating discussions regarding solutions to climate change, although in some cases it’s clear that wilful ignorance is at work. Why dispute the indisputable facts of climate change, though, if really the matters for debate should be occurring at the “So what are we going to do about it?” stage?
That’s easy: to accept anthropogenic climate change as a fact requires that we also accept that we probably should, as a society, address the impacts of climate change. And right now, many of those discussions, which have been going on for decades, are leading to the overwhelming conclusion that we can no longer continue to treat our atmosphere as an open sewer, and that the time is coming that we need to put a price on carbon emissions in order to reduce those emissions. There are businesses and organizations throughout the world who perceive this solution as a threat to their economic vitality. Therefore, rather than engage in discussions on how best to price carbon, there’s more of a pay-off for these businesses to confuse regular citizens and decision makers about the facts.
Sowing confusion about scientific conclusions is really pretty easy when you get down to it. Scientific arguments are based on data, and usually postulated by specialists who seem to be speaking a different language from you or me most of the time (and most of the time they are using a different language – the language of math and statistics – to prove their hypotheses). The very nature of scientific investigation itself leaves significant room for non-fact-based critiques. Unlike with Pearl Harbour, which everyone knows happened because we could see it with our own eyes on the film footage which was shot during and after the raid, understanding the facts of science requires a considerably higher level of engagement. And when it comes to the science of climate change, to suggest that “it’s complicated” is a significant understatement.
However, so it understanding nuclear fission, however we derive the benefits and experience the harmful side effects from that scientific “fact” every day. Science also postulates a “Theory of Gravity”, which is something that we rely on when doing everything from flying in aircraft to, well, just walking to work. Yet some would suggest that since gravity is just a theory, we should not rely on it as an explanation for how the world works.
Just because you or I might not understand how or why something complicated works doesn’t mean that it should be disregarded. The science behind climate change is no different. Yet, there are too many who have bought into the unsubstantiated and non-fact-based notion that somehow the science behind climate change can not be trusted.
Many of the high-priced climate change deniers are the same bunch of people who for years tried to sow confusion regarding whether smoking actually caused cancer. They experienced a certain degree of success with this campaign, at least up until a strong majority of decision-makers decided that they could no longer overlook the proven scientific link between tobacco and cancer. The campaign of confusion worked well right up until it didn’t.
Climate Change as a Partisan Issue
In Canada, and especially in the United States, this debate regarding the factual starting point of the discussion has become a partisan issue. This is clearly manifest in the U.S., where one political party (the Republican Party) has questioned the science of climate change, and many of its elected members in Congress have outright claimed that they do not believe human industrial processes are changing our climate, despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I, like many Canadians (and I’m sure a significant number of Americans), have trouble relating to this point of view. For me, it’s like saying that the attack on Pearl Harbour didn’t happen. For us, this sort of nonsense belongs in the realm of fantasy, along with a belief in elves and gnomes, or that the Apollo moon landings were filmed in a studio in Burbank, California. Yet elected Republican decision makers hold these views. What about here in Canada?
As far as I understand it, our government has time and again acknowledged that climate change is happening, and that we are the cause of it. That includes Stephen Harper, who said as much in Berlin back in 2007, when he referred to climate change as a “growing menace” and “the most important public policy challenge of our time”. In 2002, Harper referred to the Kyoto Protocol as a “money-sucking socialist scheme”. Note that Harper accepts the notion that climate change is happening (fact) but does not agree with one of the solutions on how best to address it (partisan).
There are others elected decision-makers in Canada, however, who would suggest that climate change is, in fact, a partisan issue. Wildrose Alliance Leader Danielle Smith has come out of the closet on climate change, and declared that she believes that the jury is still out on the science of climate change, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Smith and her Wildrose Alliance are currently positioning themselves to lead the Province of Alberta, in which is located the single dirtiest industrial project in the history of Canada, that being the Alberta Tar Sands. Certainly this is cause for concern.
Although I continue to believe that climate change is not a partisan issue, clearly it is to some. As with smoking, however, there will come a time when the denial campaign will peter out, and a broad consensus that there is a problem will be reached. Canadians thought that we had achieved that consensus back in 2006, when the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the 2006 4th Assessment Report, for which they shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, however, money has poured into the denial industry, and politicians have been purchased through astroturf movements like the Tea Party.
Moving Inevitably Towards Action
As with the pro-tobacco lobby, however, the climate change denial efforts are doomed to fail. Unfortunately, it may take an increasing loss of life and damage to property from severe weather events before climate change truly becomes a non-partisan issue. But that day is coming.
The majority of Canadians have already moved on, and have entered the debate about how best to address climate change. Those Sudburians participating in the Moving Forward Together conference later this week have made up their minds about where to begin the discussion, and are eager to find solutions which are locally implementable. As with putting a price on carbon, even local solutions may require political decisions. Those decisions will require leadership and vision, as well as local buy-in (but not unanimous support).
Those decisions, which will be made in the near future, will be the points of reference for future generations to measure whether our response to the crisis was successful or not. History will condemn us for our inaction up to this point. It is my hope, however, that history will ultimately come to praise the bold and brave political decisions yet to be made to address the climate crisis.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Industry Minister Clement to Review CRTC Decision Regarding Unlimited Internet Downloads
Federal Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, today announced that his office will review the recent decision of the CRTC to effectively remove the ability of small internet service providers to offer unlimited downloading options to their customers. This intervention by the government of Canada into the simmering dispute regarding the internet is welcome by all who are concerned with keeping the internet as accessible as possible.
Canadians already pay higher rates on average to access the internet. There used to be a time when smaller internet service providers (ISP’s) proliferated, but as new, expensive and expansive fibre optic infrastructure was laid out, and the bigger telecoms entered the scene in a serious way, competition has dwindled and prices have risen. With the telecoms now commanding the lion’s share of network clientele, they’ve targeted the few remaining crumbs by attacking their ability to provide the services that their customers want.
It’s true that internet users continue to take up more and more bandwidth as an increasing number of videos are viewed and downloaded. And it is also true that the larger telecoms were the ones who stepped forward into the (admittedly favourable) gap to provide the infrastructure which makes this possible. The telecoms, however, have also financially benefited to a significant degree through their investments, as have all Canadians. It’s been a win-win situation for those who now enjoy high speed internet.
But let’s be clear: not everyone in Canada yet enjoys high speed. The telecoms stopped short of extending expensive networks into sparsely populated regions of the country, because they were concerned about a return on investment. That’s worth remarking on: they were able to realize profits by building the networks in areas where it made financial sense; where a financial case couldn’t be made, investment didn’t occur.
So, the telecoms have built the infrastructure and continue to profit from it. What’s the problem here? Well, like many massive businesses, they’ve decided that they’re not making enough profit. To further increase their bottom lines, they have hit upon a strategy which will drive their smaller competitors out of business and provide fewer, more expensive options, to consumers.
Clearly, Canadian consumers have an interest in internet accessibility, and the prevention of innovation-killing oligopolies which act as de facto monopolies. Without proper regulation and government intervention, the so-called “free market” can quickly become anything but free to small businesses which try to offer superior service to their customers.
Today, both the Liberals and NDP are saying that they would unilaterally reverse the ruling of the CRTC as it relates to metered internet usage and the imposition of a downloading cap. While this approach will undoubtedly score quick political points, the CRTC underwent a thorough hearing process before siding with the telecom giants. I’m not suggesting that I’m at all in agreement with the CRTC, but it seems to me that the government of Canada under Clement is taking a more pragmatic approach in this case, by committing to a review of the CRTC’s decision.
The opposition parties probably fear that the Conservatives will use a delaying tactic in order to prevent this from becoming an election issue. Let's hope Clement's "review" is scoped in terms of time. However, we also hear that none of the political parties want an election. I'm willing to take Clement at face value on this for now. One of the duties of government is to look into the concerns raised with arms-length regulators, like the CRTC. The government of Canada certainly doesn't meddle in these kinds of decisions every day. Clement here recognized the need for review, due to the importance of this issue. As far as I'm concerned right now, this is just the government doing its business.
Of course, my opinion could change depending on the review unfolds.
Calls to unilaterally undermine the CRTC in this circumstance are, in my opinion, premature, and could lead to a loss of confidence in the regulator’s ability to do its own job. The CRTC has spoken; now let the government do its job, and let’s wait and see what Clement has to say.
Let’s hope that the Minister Clement and the Conservative government recognize the need to keep the net accessible. The decision by the CRTC will undeniably hurt small businesses in local communities, and ultimately will prove to be bad for consumers. As we get deeper into the 21st century, we Canadians have an increasing interest in keeping prices down, and promoting local businesses. An economic model which promotes the needs of international conglomerates in preference to local consumers needs to be fixed. Clement’s review won’t accomplish that outcome, but it may end up saving the internet’s accessibility here in Canada.
Canadians already pay higher rates on average to access the internet. There used to be a time when smaller internet service providers (ISP’s) proliferated, but as new, expensive and expansive fibre optic infrastructure was laid out, and the bigger telecoms entered the scene in a serious way, competition has dwindled and prices have risen. With the telecoms now commanding the lion’s share of network clientele, they’ve targeted the few remaining crumbs by attacking their ability to provide the services that their customers want.
It’s true that internet users continue to take up more and more bandwidth as an increasing number of videos are viewed and downloaded. And it is also true that the larger telecoms were the ones who stepped forward into the (admittedly favourable) gap to provide the infrastructure which makes this possible. The telecoms, however, have also financially benefited to a significant degree through their investments, as have all Canadians. It’s been a win-win situation for those who now enjoy high speed internet.
But let’s be clear: not everyone in Canada yet enjoys high speed. The telecoms stopped short of extending expensive networks into sparsely populated regions of the country, because they were concerned about a return on investment. That’s worth remarking on: they were able to realize profits by building the networks in areas where it made financial sense; where a financial case couldn’t be made, investment didn’t occur.
So, the telecoms have built the infrastructure and continue to profit from it. What’s the problem here? Well, like many massive businesses, they’ve decided that they’re not making enough profit. To further increase their bottom lines, they have hit upon a strategy which will drive their smaller competitors out of business and provide fewer, more expensive options, to consumers.
Clearly, Canadian consumers have an interest in internet accessibility, and the prevention of innovation-killing oligopolies which act as de facto monopolies. Without proper regulation and government intervention, the so-called “free market” can quickly become anything but free to small businesses which try to offer superior service to their customers.
Today, both the Liberals and NDP are saying that they would unilaterally reverse the ruling of the CRTC as it relates to metered internet usage and the imposition of a downloading cap. While this approach will undoubtedly score quick political points, the CRTC underwent a thorough hearing process before siding with the telecom giants. I’m not suggesting that I’m at all in agreement with the CRTC, but it seems to me that the government of Canada under Clement is taking a more pragmatic approach in this case, by committing to a review of the CRTC’s decision.
The opposition parties probably fear that the Conservatives will use a delaying tactic in order to prevent this from becoming an election issue. Let's hope Clement's "review" is scoped in terms of time. However, we also hear that none of the political parties want an election. I'm willing to take Clement at face value on this for now. One of the duties of government is to look into the concerns raised with arms-length regulators, like the CRTC. The government of Canada certainly doesn't meddle in these kinds of decisions every day. Clement here recognized the need for review, due to the importance of this issue. As far as I'm concerned right now, this is just the government doing its business.
Of course, my opinion could change depending on the review unfolds.
Calls to unilaterally undermine the CRTC in this circumstance are, in my opinion, premature, and could lead to a loss of confidence in the regulator’s ability to do its own job. The CRTC has spoken; now let the government do its job, and let’s wait and see what Clement has to say.
Let’s hope that the Minister Clement and the Conservative government recognize the need to keep the net accessible. The decision by the CRTC will undeniably hurt small businesses in local communities, and ultimately will prove to be bad for consumers. As we get deeper into the 21st century, we Canadians have an increasing interest in keeping prices down, and promoting local businesses. An economic model which promotes the needs of international conglomerates in preference to local consumers needs to be fixed. Clement’s review won’t accomplish that outcome, but it may end up saving the internet’s accessibility here in Canada.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Canada Should Send a Clear Message to Egypt: Mubarak Must Go
Hundreds of thousands of people are protesting in the streets of Cairo, Alexandria and Suez. What do they want? Democracy! When do they want it? Now! For over 30 years, the Egyptian people have lived under the thumb of dictator Hosni Mubarak. The pace of democratic reform in Egypt has been akin to that of a paralyzed slug. Finally, Egyptians are telling the world that they've had enough. They are asking the world to figuratively stand with them in the streets of Cairo, as they demand the ouster of Mubarak.
But...for the western world at least, Mubarak isn't someone our governments want to abandon quickly. While the west tends to talk a good talk when it comes to democracy, and go so far as to demand and enforce "regime change" when dictators of middle eastern nations become non-compliant (read: Saddam Hussein), when it comes to Mubarak and our friendly dictators in other nations (such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Yemen and, up until lately, Tunisia), democracy seems to take a back seat to political expediency.
Just what are western governments afraid of? All of this pussy-footing around really isn't helping the situation on the street. If anything, it's providing Mubarak with a false sense of confidence that maybe he and his regime can survive the protests. He can't, however. The people of Egypt won't let that happen. Mubarak's regime may survive long enough to implement transition measures, and perhaps hold those "free and fair" elections western nations are now calling for (and isn't funny how those buzz-words appeared magically in the media of many western nations just today. Almost as if they were sharing script writers and spin doctors).
Again, what are western nations afraid of? Oh yes...there's the spectre of radical Islam. They talk a lot about that on Fox News to be sure, but from all reports, these protests are not being led by radical muslims. Indeed, the protesters appear to cut through all socio-economic classes, and when religion is raised as an issue at all by the protesters, it's when they're going out of their way to identify the need for christians and muslims to work towards the same goal: an Egypt without Mubarak.
Sure, I'd be naive to believe that the revolution couldn't at some point be highjacked by radical groups. Throughout history, when revolutions have occurred, all too often that's what ends up happening. But it doesn't always happen. As far as Egypt goes, the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party slash charitable organization, seems to be the group often identified in western media as the "radical" organization to be feared. Personally, I'm not completely sold on the notion that the Brotherhood can be equated with Al Qaeda, although I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that they are as benign as Turkey's ruling AK party.
Should Canadians be afraid regarding what might happen in Egypt should Mubarak be forced out? No, we shouldn't be. What we should be doing is standing with the people of Egypt, and letting them know that we share their desire for democratic decision making. We should be telling Egyptians that there is no higher aspiration than to achieve true democracy for one's community, state, or nation. If the democratic door is opened and radical Islam walks inside, then perhaps (and only then) should the west temper its stance with Egypt. Yet, even in such a circumstance, what right does any western nation have to thwart the will of a government elected by people?
Oh wait. I guess Canada thought that was the right thing to do when the people of Gaza elected Hamas in a "fair and free" election. I guess it's possible that the people of Egypt might also elect an Egyptian version of Hamas. But possibility of doing so is not reason enough to deny the people of Egypt the opportunity to participate in a democratic election.
For the "fair and free" election to happen, the primary prerequisite is that Hosni Mubarak must go. Otherwise, there will be no legitimacy to the electoral process. Further, Egyptians might not be satisfied to wait until the fall of this year to hold those elections. An interim government, one without Mubarak, should carefully gauge the will of the people, and call for an election for an appropriate time.
And it may very well take time for Egyptians to bring themselves to a point where a "fair and free" election can be held. It's not as if the democratic tradition in Egypt is particulary strong, and political parties, with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling National Democratic Party, just don't have the depth and experience to participate in a fair and free election. Even Egyptians currently protesting in the streets realize that democracy isn't going to happen over night.
Only the biggest democraphobes out there would deny the people of Egypt their opportunity to form their own government. Pundits worldwide agree that Mubarak's days are numbered. Why aren't western governments saying as much? What do they (and we) have to lose now by simply stating that Mubarak must go? Indeed, to me it seems that the west has everything to lose by not endorsing the Egyptian people's demand for Mubarak's ouster. It's possible that our lack of resolve today might lead to the very outcome which the west fears: a radical Islamic government brought to power in Egypt.
Morally, the west should be calling for Mubarak's ouster. But, as with so many things which prove to be intransigent, Hosni Mubarak represents "sunk costs" to the west. We've invested considerable resources in the Mubarak regime, in an effort to keep the peace, especially as far as Israel is concerned. Abandoning anyone or anything for which a hefty price has been paid is never easy politically, especially when the political gain for doing so is uncertain at best. It's difficult to abandon an ally even when the political reality staring you in the face is that it's all going to come crashing down anyway.
Today, CBC's The National was reporting the leaders of the three main national political parties were calling for measured responses in Egypt. Fair and free elections, sure, but nothing about Mubarak. All this while the people in Cairo, Alexandria and Luxor are clamoring to get rid of Mubarak as the first step. Only Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May were specific in their calls for the Canadian government to tell Mubarak to exit, stage left. May in particular had a number of things to say about the importance of democracy. May understands that, when it comes to democracy, the west shouldn't try to suck and blow at the same time.
I wasn't at all surprised that Harper and Ignatieff were reluctant to abandon Canada's erstwhile ally Mubarak, given that the Conservative government and previous Liberal governments have done what they could to support the dictator in the past. I was much more surprised to hear (or not hear) the NDP's Jack Layton take the same position. Again, the NDP disappoints me.
Either we believe that people around the world deserve a healthy democracy or we don't. While the situation in Egypt is anything but black and white, democratic principles don't inhabit a greyscale. People throughout the world should be able to participate in the decision-making processes of their governments. Full stop. Democracy can not be paid lip service. Either you're all in, or you're playing a different game.
The people of Egypt aren't playing a game. They are deadly serious, and they are certainly "all in".
But...for the western world at least, Mubarak isn't someone our governments want to abandon quickly. While the west tends to talk a good talk when it comes to democracy, and go so far as to demand and enforce "regime change" when dictators of middle eastern nations become non-compliant (read: Saddam Hussein), when it comes to Mubarak and our friendly dictators in other nations (such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Morocco, Yemen and, up until lately, Tunisia), democracy seems to take a back seat to political expediency.
Just what are western governments afraid of? All of this pussy-footing around really isn't helping the situation on the street. If anything, it's providing Mubarak with a false sense of confidence that maybe he and his regime can survive the protests. He can't, however. The people of Egypt won't let that happen. Mubarak's regime may survive long enough to implement transition measures, and perhaps hold those "free and fair" elections western nations are now calling for (and isn't funny how those buzz-words appeared magically in the media of many western nations just today. Almost as if they were sharing script writers and spin doctors).
Again, what are western nations afraid of? Oh yes...there's the spectre of radical Islam. They talk a lot about that on Fox News to be sure, but from all reports, these protests are not being led by radical muslims. Indeed, the protesters appear to cut through all socio-economic classes, and when religion is raised as an issue at all by the protesters, it's when they're going out of their way to identify the need for christians and muslims to work towards the same goal: an Egypt without Mubarak.
Sure, I'd be naive to believe that the revolution couldn't at some point be highjacked by radical groups. Throughout history, when revolutions have occurred, all too often that's what ends up happening. But it doesn't always happen. As far as Egypt goes, the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party slash charitable organization, seems to be the group often identified in western media as the "radical" organization to be feared. Personally, I'm not completely sold on the notion that the Brotherhood can be equated with Al Qaeda, although I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that they are as benign as Turkey's ruling AK party.
Should Canadians be afraid regarding what might happen in Egypt should Mubarak be forced out? No, we shouldn't be. What we should be doing is standing with the people of Egypt, and letting them know that we share their desire for democratic decision making. We should be telling Egyptians that there is no higher aspiration than to achieve true democracy for one's community, state, or nation. If the democratic door is opened and radical Islam walks inside, then perhaps (and only then) should the west temper its stance with Egypt. Yet, even in such a circumstance, what right does any western nation have to thwart the will of a government elected by people?
Oh wait. I guess Canada thought that was the right thing to do when the people of Gaza elected Hamas in a "fair and free" election. I guess it's possible that the people of Egypt might also elect an Egyptian version of Hamas. But possibility of doing so is not reason enough to deny the people of Egypt the opportunity to participate in a democratic election.
For the "fair and free" election to happen, the primary prerequisite is that Hosni Mubarak must go. Otherwise, there will be no legitimacy to the electoral process. Further, Egyptians might not be satisfied to wait until the fall of this year to hold those elections. An interim government, one without Mubarak, should carefully gauge the will of the people, and call for an election for an appropriate time.
And it may very well take time for Egyptians to bring themselves to a point where a "fair and free" election can be held. It's not as if the democratic tradition in Egypt is particulary strong, and political parties, with the exception of the Muslim Brotherhood and the ruling National Democratic Party, just don't have the depth and experience to participate in a fair and free election. Even Egyptians currently protesting in the streets realize that democracy isn't going to happen over night.
Only the biggest democraphobes out there would deny the people of Egypt their opportunity to form their own government. Pundits worldwide agree that Mubarak's days are numbered. Why aren't western governments saying as much? What do they (and we) have to lose now by simply stating that Mubarak must go? Indeed, to me it seems that the west has everything to lose by not endorsing the Egyptian people's demand for Mubarak's ouster. It's possible that our lack of resolve today might lead to the very outcome which the west fears: a radical Islamic government brought to power in Egypt.
Morally, the west should be calling for Mubarak's ouster. But, as with so many things which prove to be intransigent, Hosni Mubarak represents "sunk costs" to the west. We've invested considerable resources in the Mubarak regime, in an effort to keep the peace, especially as far as Israel is concerned. Abandoning anyone or anything for which a hefty price has been paid is never easy politically, especially when the political gain for doing so is uncertain at best. It's difficult to abandon an ally even when the political reality staring you in the face is that it's all going to come crashing down anyway.
Today, CBC's The National was reporting the leaders of the three main national political parties were calling for measured responses in Egypt. Fair and free elections, sure, but nothing about Mubarak. All this while the people in Cairo, Alexandria and Luxor are clamoring to get rid of Mubarak as the first step. Only Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and Green Party Leader Elizabeth May were specific in their calls for the Canadian government to tell Mubarak to exit, stage left. May in particular had a number of things to say about the importance of democracy. May understands that, when it comes to democracy, the west shouldn't try to suck and blow at the same time.
I wasn't at all surprised that Harper and Ignatieff were reluctant to abandon Canada's erstwhile ally Mubarak, given that the Conservative government and previous Liberal governments have done what they could to support the dictator in the past. I was much more surprised to hear (or not hear) the NDP's Jack Layton take the same position. Again, the NDP disappoints me.
Either we believe that people around the world deserve a healthy democracy or we don't. While the situation in Egypt is anything but black and white, democratic principles don't inhabit a greyscale. People throughout the world should be able to participate in the decision-making processes of their governments. Full stop. Democracy can not be paid lip service. Either you're all in, or you're playing a different game.
The people of Egypt aren't playing a game. They are deadly serious, and they are certainly "all in".
Friday, January 28, 2011
No! No! No! to Yes! Yes! Yes! CPC Attack Ads
Last week I asked (and answered) the question as to whether or not recently unveiled Conservative Party attack ads were backfiring on Stephen Harper, as a result of a number of controversies swirling around those ads. I had indicated that we would have a clearer picture when next week’s polls came out. I predicted a very moderate, yet identifiable slippage in the Conservatives polling numbers.
If the latest poll from EKOS is any indication, however, the attack ads had no bearing one way or the other. The EKOS poll, released today, shows a relative flatline in support of the Conservative Party. Indeed, all parties support remains flatlined. If a conclusion based on this one poll can be made, it’s that the attack ads have had neither a positive or negative effect on the fortunes of the CPC. All things being equal, I would normally have said here that I’d adopt a further wait and see attitude.
However, in politics, all things rarely remain equal for very long. It looks like the Conservative Party has just today acknowledged that it’s shot itself in the foot with the release of two new attack ads yesterday. In an effort to minimize self-inflected damage, the Globe & Mail is reporting this evening that the CPC has pulled the two ads after they enraged Canadians in twittersphere.
These two ads used a clip from Liberal Leader Michael’s Ignatieff speech to party faithful earlier in the week, in which he asked (and answered) his own questions regarding whether the Liberal Party was ready to fight for Canadian families. His answer, a resounding “Yes! Yes! Yes!” proved to be far more memorable than the questions themselves, apparently. The Conservative Party’s ads used the Yes! Yes! Yes! completely out of context, so that Ignatieff appeared to be answering different questions related to his desire to force an unwanted election (in these uncertain economic times, no less!).
The use of the Ignatieff clip out of context really burned a lot of Canadians, and outrage spilled across blogsites and the comment sections of mainstream media. I have to express my own surprise here, as I hadn’t anticipated the level of outrage to the ads. I just sorta kinda thought that Canadians were growing more used to these American-style ads which seek to vilify opponents by using their own words taken out of context against them. Maybe it’s just me, having watched too many ads on American TV during last year’s U.S. mid-terms.
Nonetheless, these ads from Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party were disgusting attempts to distort the truth and confuse Canadians. I guess he thinks so very highly of Canadians that he believes that we’ll fall for this kind of complete distortion of reality (because apparently we’re pretty adept at falling for other distortions of reality as proffered by the CPC). I suppose it’s a good thing that his Party’s braintrust massaged out their collective braincramp and pulled the ads. Certainly these latest ads are going to go down in Canadian political advertising history, ending up right beside Kim Campbell’s unflattering portrayal of Jean Chretien’s face.
So, now I’m really expecting to see a slight, but discernible, slip in Conservative polling numbers in next week’s polls. These attack ads are proving to be a disaster for Harper and his Conservative Party (and a completely self-inflicted one). If the 15% of Canadians allegedly paying attention to federal politics have anything to say about things, I can’t see how the Cons can spin these ads into a success.
Or perhaps a slight bump to the Liberals and NDP might be more indicative of the really decent week that both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton have had. Ignatieff in particular, since he started taking a populist stance on killing unnecessary tax cuts for corporations, and questioning the need for expensive jet fighters, has started to come into his own this week, from a political perspective. While his one-issue wonder approach to growing Liberal support really galls me for its lack of comprehensiveness, I’m not blinded to the fact that attacking wasteful corporate tax cuts clearly resonates with Canadians.
Layton’s cat and mouse game with the election issue has also left him looking pretty good. He wants to be perceived as the reasonable guy in the midst of the election madness. Maybe he even believes that Harper will bend on the one or two concessions Layton wants to see in the budget – removing HST from home heating being the biggest. At least he’s not demanding $5 billion dollars all for one province as Gilles Duceppe is doing.
All of this, of course, is bad news for the Green Party of Canada. While our support remains flat, it’s clear that we’ve not been able to capitalize at all, even in the midst of all of this rhetorical nonsense. Now, I know Green Party members and supporters will point to the obvious – the Green Party of Canada isn’t built in such a way as to participate in this kind of partisan rhetoric. Indeed, it’s because of the sort of nonsense going on these past weeks that most of us joined the Green Party in the first place, because we’re just all too frustrated with the way that gotcha politics seems to have replaced policy discussion and debate in this country.
Nonetheless, as a Green pragmatist, I can’t help but point out the almost complete absence of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the mainstream media this week. That’s not to say she isn’t working her guts out for the Party (because I know that she is), but it is to say suggest that a lack of press at this time isn’t helping the Green Party. Canadians might want to know where Greens stand on eliminating corporate tax cuts, or cancelling the unsourced fighter jet deal. Instead, we get treated with May’s take on the revamped Mark Twain classic “Huckleberry Finn”.
So, let’s wait and see what the polls have to say. Perhaps the Conservative attack ad fiasco will prove to be a tempest in a teapot, as many Canadians just aren’t paying attention right now. Or maybe Conservative support really is as solid as it appears, and there isn’t anywhere to go for the CPC but up. By all rights, though, these attack ads really should be damaging to Stephen Harper and Conservatives. If there isn’t any damage recorded, however, one wonders exactly what the Conservatives might have to do to seriously rock their own boat.
How big of a disaster might be necessary for the 35+% of Canadians who support the Conservatives to question whether they’re backing the right horse? I continue to be perplexed by these polling numbers, given the lack of interest and regard (not to mention the outright hostility) the Conservative Party of Canada has shown time and again to middle-class Canadians. The middle-class continues to vote against its own interests when they cast ballots for Conservative candidates. I guess maybe as with the Conservative Party itself, Canada’s middle-class might prove to be its own worst enemy in the long run.
If the latest poll from EKOS is any indication, however, the attack ads had no bearing one way or the other. The EKOS poll, released today, shows a relative flatline in support of the Conservative Party. Indeed, all parties support remains flatlined. If a conclusion based on this one poll can be made, it’s that the attack ads have had neither a positive or negative effect on the fortunes of the CPC. All things being equal, I would normally have said here that I’d adopt a further wait and see attitude.
However, in politics, all things rarely remain equal for very long. It looks like the Conservative Party has just today acknowledged that it’s shot itself in the foot with the release of two new attack ads yesterday. In an effort to minimize self-inflected damage, the Globe & Mail is reporting this evening that the CPC has pulled the two ads after they enraged Canadians in twittersphere.
These two ads used a clip from Liberal Leader Michael’s Ignatieff speech to party faithful earlier in the week, in which he asked (and answered) his own questions regarding whether the Liberal Party was ready to fight for Canadian families. His answer, a resounding “Yes! Yes! Yes!” proved to be far more memorable than the questions themselves, apparently. The Conservative Party’s ads used the Yes! Yes! Yes! completely out of context, so that Ignatieff appeared to be answering different questions related to his desire to force an unwanted election (in these uncertain economic times, no less!).
The use of the Ignatieff clip out of context really burned a lot of Canadians, and outrage spilled across blogsites and the comment sections of mainstream media. I have to express my own surprise here, as I hadn’t anticipated the level of outrage to the ads. I just sorta kinda thought that Canadians were growing more used to these American-style ads which seek to vilify opponents by using their own words taken out of context against them. Maybe it’s just me, having watched too many ads on American TV during last year’s U.S. mid-terms.
Nonetheless, these ads from Stephen Harper’s Conservative Party were disgusting attempts to distort the truth and confuse Canadians. I guess he thinks so very highly of Canadians that he believes that we’ll fall for this kind of complete distortion of reality (because apparently we’re pretty adept at falling for other distortions of reality as proffered by the CPC). I suppose it’s a good thing that his Party’s braintrust massaged out their collective braincramp and pulled the ads. Certainly these latest ads are going to go down in Canadian political advertising history, ending up right beside Kim Campbell’s unflattering portrayal of Jean Chretien’s face.
So, now I’m really expecting to see a slight, but discernible, slip in Conservative polling numbers in next week’s polls. These attack ads are proving to be a disaster for Harper and his Conservative Party (and a completely self-inflicted one). If the 15% of Canadians allegedly paying attention to federal politics have anything to say about things, I can’t see how the Cons can spin these ads into a success.
Or perhaps a slight bump to the Liberals and NDP might be more indicative of the really decent week that both Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton have had. Ignatieff in particular, since he started taking a populist stance on killing unnecessary tax cuts for corporations, and questioning the need for expensive jet fighters, has started to come into his own this week, from a political perspective. While his one-issue wonder approach to growing Liberal support really galls me for its lack of comprehensiveness, I’m not blinded to the fact that attacking wasteful corporate tax cuts clearly resonates with Canadians.
Layton’s cat and mouse game with the election issue has also left him looking pretty good. He wants to be perceived as the reasonable guy in the midst of the election madness. Maybe he even believes that Harper will bend on the one or two concessions Layton wants to see in the budget – removing HST from home heating being the biggest. At least he’s not demanding $5 billion dollars all for one province as Gilles Duceppe is doing.
All of this, of course, is bad news for the Green Party of Canada. While our support remains flat, it’s clear that we’ve not been able to capitalize at all, even in the midst of all of this rhetorical nonsense. Now, I know Green Party members and supporters will point to the obvious – the Green Party of Canada isn’t built in such a way as to participate in this kind of partisan rhetoric. Indeed, it’s because of the sort of nonsense going on these past weeks that most of us joined the Green Party in the first place, because we’re just all too frustrated with the way that gotcha politics seems to have replaced policy discussion and debate in this country.
Nonetheless, as a Green pragmatist, I can’t help but point out the almost complete absence of Green Party Leader Elizabeth May from the mainstream media this week. That’s not to say she isn’t working her guts out for the Party (because I know that she is), but it is to say suggest that a lack of press at this time isn’t helping the Green Party. Canadians might want to know where Greens stand on eliminating corporate tax cuts, or cancelling the unsourced fighter jet deal. Instead, we get treated with May’s take on the revamped Mark Twain classic “Huckleberry Finn”.
So, let’s wait and see what the polls have to say. Perhaps the Conservative attack ad fiasco will prove to be a tempest in a teapot, as many Canadians just aren’t paying attention right now. Or maybe Conservative support really is as solid as it appears, and there isn’t anywhere to go for the CPC but up. By all rights, though, these attack ads really should be damaging to Stephen Harper and Conservatives. If there isn’t any damage recorded, however, one wonders exactly what the Conservatives might have to do to seriously rock their own boat.
How big of a disaster might be necessary for the 35+% of Canadians who support the Conservatives to question whether they’re backing the right horse? I continue to be perplexed by these polling numbers, given the lack of interest and regard (not to mention the outright hostility) the Conservative Party of Canada has shown time and again to middle-class Canadians. The middle-class continues to vote against its own interests when they cast ballots for Conservative candidates. I guess maybe as with the Conservative Party itself, Canada’s middle-class might prove to be its own worst enemy in the long run.
Ending the Per-Vote Sudbsidy Detrimental to a Democracy in Crisis
I read with interest an article appearing in my local Sun Media paper today, from Brian Lilley. I didn’t have much hope for the article, “$2-per vote subsidy needs to be killed” based on its headline, so I was surprised to discover that Mr. Lilley advanced a decent argument, low on political rhetoric, as to why the $2 per vote subsidy should be terminated. Of course, this article is simply another voice in the Conservative Party’s echo-chamber. Sun Media ceased being non-partisan a long time ago, having replaced true journalism with infotainment. Sun Media isn’t a news source; it’s a soap box.
The latest tactic being used to convince voters that the per-vote subsidy needs to go is to go on the attack against the very argument being used by those in favour of maintaining the subsidy. And that’s whether or not the subsidy is actually beneficial for promoting the democratic health of our nation. Proponents of the subsidy have long relied (almost entirely) on the argument that removing the subsidy is bad for democracy in Canada. Opponents are now questioning this argument, which frankly was never the strongest or best argument for maintaining the subsidy, in my opinion.
Some of the reasons as to why I’ve personally been troubled by the per-vote subsidy are outlined effectively by Mr. Lilley in his article. But I can’t agree with the assertion that the per-vote subsidy harms our democratic process. In theory, it appears that giving money to political parties while not providing it to Independents is problematic for democracy. And if our democracy operated in practice as we would like it to in theory, perhaps there would be harm.
In practice, however, pretty much all of the aspects of the democratic process have become partisan in nature. With the centralization of true power first in the hands of Cabinet, and then in the Prime Minister’s Office, the de facto role of elected Members of Parliament have deteriorated over time to that of a chorus line, used only to enliven the key solo performance of the Party Leader or Prime Minister. For the most part, our elected MP’s have little influence on the direction of government, and much less than their counterparts did even 30 years ago.
While political parties are not mentioned in our nation’s Constitution, parties have evolved over time into influential components of our democratic system. Personally, I firmly believe that the Party system in this nation is an impediment to a healthy democracy – but it’s the system itself which is problematic, and not the per-vote subsidy. I believe the per-vote subsidy is helpful for the promotion of democracy in a deeply flawed democratic system.
Canadian democracy is in crisis mode. Recent attacks from the ruling party regarding the removal of the per-vote subsidy are simply one more component of the crisis, and if the per-vote subsidy is removed without our system undergoing transformational change, it will be yet another setback for democracy. Simply put, in our current system, money talks. And this is so quite literally.
Yesterday it was revealed that the government of Canada spent more on monitoring the media than it did on polling in order to ascertain the perspective of Canadians. Polling itself has always been a bit of a problematic (and expensive) way to judge Canada’s political will, as it took a “focus group” approach to policy development. Media scans and monitoring, however, is far inferior to even the focus group approach to policy development because of the concentration of media ownership in this nation.
Our mainstream media is not representative of mainstream Canadian sentiment, and that’s a fact born out again and again by pollsters who ask Canadians for their opinions on policy. One needs to look no further than the opinions of Canadians who demand real action to combat the climate crisis (which, in a recent poll, was identified as being just under 85%), versus the views of many “mainstream” media outlets, some of which have taken the editorial position that global warming has yet to be proven to exist by science. Just who is the mainstream media really speaking for? Certainly, the answer is often: not you or me. Which means that different media outlets clearly have their own agenda.
And since the government of Canada (not the Conservative Party, by the way; I’m talking about your tax dollars and my tax dollars here) are increasingly monitoring the media in order to develop policy to guide our nation, it’s no wonder that the government’s agenda is increasingly divergent from the real needs of Canadians. If the media isn’t representative of the opinions of Canadians, and if the media has increasing influence on policy development, it’s really no wonder that we get what we get. And it’s no wonder at all that our democracy is in crisis.
In an environment where the wealthy right-wing dominates the media, taxpayer-funded subsidies to political parties, whether they are based on votes or the more financially important subsidies which are provided through deferred taxation to Party contributors (in the form of tax receipts for three quarters of your donation to a Party), are one way of levelling the playing field. Certainly it’s not the best way, in my opinion, but at least we’re financing opportunities for other representative voices to be heard (albeit partisan ones).
It’s easy to say that political parties should be allowed to either flourish or die on their own. I don’t disagree with that sentiment in theory. If a political party can’t attract a critical mass of support, including financial support, perhaps there is a problem with its policies or message or leader or whatever which is holding it back. It might therefore deserve to die. More successful parties will be the ones which appeal to a broader base of support, and end up meriting financial contributions to further their own ends.
However, in the real world, it doesn’t work that way, and it all has to do with the concentration of wealth in this nation. Simply put, the minority rich can afford to drive the political agenda at the expense of the majority middle class. And they do so by following Marshall McLuhan’s advice by controlling the message through the media. How do you control the message? You prevent alternative messages from being heard.
All of which makes things that much harder for other representative organizations and groups (including political parties) to get their message out to Canadians. By shutting down the message, our media effectively severs opportunities to for Canadians to make connections with others who share their opinions and beliefs.
For political parties, the issue isn’t that their message doesn’t resonate with Canadians; it’s far more often the case that their message doesn’t resonate with media. In our sound-bite political world, discussion and debate about policy has devolved to name-calling and character assassination. Shooting the messenger has become a viable policy debating option to the point that it’s often the only aspect of the debate to be covered by the media.
Non-media friendly messages are forced to muscle their way into the media, and these efforts unfortunately cost money. Hence the importance of tax-payer funding.
My preference would be to do away with having taxpayers fund political parties, but only after we transform our current system into one which is truly representative of the political will of Canadians. Right now, our “first past the post” electoral system is the primary culprit responsible for the growing democratic deficit. When most votes cast by electors in this country simply do not matter, how can we expect to end up with a government which represents the will of Canadians?
The urban \ rural divide between the relative power of votes is another culprit. The effective weight of urban votes is almost one half less powerful than that of votes cast in rural ridings, because of the numbers of electors in different ridings.
The concentration of real power into the hands of an increasingly “Presidential” Prime Minister which effectively limits the power of all other elected MP’s, including those serving in Cabinet, is yet another blow to democracy in our nation.
And then there’s the unelected Senate, filled with political partisans, which has now started to position itself as a body which will thwart the will of our elected House. Here I’m talking about the recent defeat of Bill C-311 in the Senate; this Bill had been passed by parliament, but Conservatives in the unelected upper house killed it without so much as debating it. When unelected appointed political operatives can thwart the will of elected Members of Parliament who came together across party lines to approve legislation, it can no longer be argued that Canada isn’t in a democratic crisis.
Keep those things in mind when you head to the polls to cast your ballot. For all of its flaws, the per-vote subsidy is one small attempt at levelling the playing field so that issues important to the majority of middle-class Canadians can be heard above the monied right-wing cacophony of our mainstream media. Right now, your vote is worth real money to the Party you choose to support. Yes, it’s unfortunate that, as Brian Lilley points out, it isn’t worth anything to an Independent candidate who you may choose to support. But that flaw is not a reason to do away with the subsidy altogether, especially when so much is at stake for the health of our Canadian democratic system.
The latest tactic being used to convince voters that the per-vote subsidy needs to go is to go on the attack against the very argument being used by those in favour of maintaining the subsidy. And that’s whether or not the subsidy is actually beneficial for promoting the democratic health of our nation. Proponents of the subsidy have long relied (almost entirely) on the argument that removing the subsidy is bad for democracy in Canada. Opponents are now questioning this argument, which frankly was never the strongest or best argument for maintaining the subsidy, in my opinion.
Some of the reasons as to why I’ve personally been troubled by the per-vote subsidy are outlined effectively by Mr. Lilley in his article. But I can’t agree with the assertion that the per-vote subsidy harms our democratic process. In theory, it appears that giving money to political parties while not providing it to Independents is problematic for democracy. And if our democracy operated in practice as we would like it to in theory, perhaps there would be harm.
In practice, however, pretty much all of the aspects of the democratic process have become partisan in nature. With the centralization of true power first in the hands of Cabinet, and then in the Prime Minister’s Office, the de facto role of elected Members of Parliament have deteriorated over time to that of a chorus line, used only to enliven the key solo performance of the Party Leader or Prime Minister. For the most part, our elected MP’s have little influence on the direction of government, and much less than their counterparts did even 30 years ago.
While political parties are not mentioned in our nation’s Constitution, parties have evolved over time into influential components of our democratic system. Personally, I firmly believe that the Party system in this nation is an impediment to a healthy democracy – but it’s the system itself which is problematic, and not the per-vote subsidy. I believe the per-vote subsidy is helpful for the promotion of democracy in a deeply flawed democratic system.
Canadian democracy is in crisis mode. Recent attacks from the ruling party regarding the removal of the per-vote subsidy are simply one more component of the crisis, and if the per-vote subsidy is removed without our system undergoing transformational change, it will be yet another setback for democracy. Simply put, in our current system, money talks. And this is so quite literally.
Yesterday it was revealed that the government of Canada spent more on monitoring the media than it did on polling in order to ascertain the perspective of Canadians. Polling itself has always been a bit of a problematic (and expensive) way to judge Canada’s political will, as it took a “focus group” approach to policy development. Media scans and monitoring, however, is far inferior to even the focus group approach to policy development because of the concentration of media ownership in this nation.
Our mainstream media is not representative of mainstream Canadian sentiment, and that’s a fact born out again and again by pollsters who ask Canadians for their opinions on policy. One needs to look no further than the opinions of Canadians who demand real action to combat the climate crisis (which, in a recent poll, was identified as being just under 85%), versus the views of many “mainstream” media outlets, some of which have taken the editorial position that global warming has yet to be proven to exist by science. Just who is the mainstream media really speaking for? Certainly, the answer is often: not you or me. Which means that different media outlets clearly have their own agenda.
And since the government of Canada (not the Conservative Party, by the way; I’m talking about your tax dollars and my tax dollars here) are increasingly monitoring the media in order to develop policy to guide our nation, it’s no wonder that the government’s agenda is increasingly divergent from the real needs of Canadians. If the media isn’t representative of the opinions of Canadians, and if the media has increasing influence on policy development, it’s really no wonder that we get what we get. And it’s no wonder at all that our democracy is in crisis.
In an environment where the wealthy right-wing dominates the media, taxpayer-funded subsidies to political parties, whether they are based on votes or the more financially important subsidies which are provided through deferred taxation to Party contributors (in the form of tax receipts for three quarters of your donation to a Party), are one way of levelling the playing field. Certainly it’s not the best way, in my opinion, but at least we’re financing opportunities for other representative voices to be heard (albeit partisan ones).
It’s easy to say that political parties should be allowed to either flourish or die on their own. I don’t disagree with that sentiment in theory. If a political party can’t attract a critical mass of support, including financial support, perhaps there is a problem with its policies or message or leader or whatever which is holding it back. It might therefore deserve to die. More successful parties will be the ones which appeal to a broader base of support, and end up meriting financial contributions to further their own ends.
However, in the real world, it doesn’t work that way, and it all has to do with the concentration of wealth in this nation. Simply put, the minority rich can afford to drive the political agenda at the expense of the majority middle class. And they do so by following Marshall McLuhan’s advice by controlling the message through the media. How do you control the message? You prevent alternative messages from being heard.
All of which makes things that much harder for other representative organizations and groups (including political parties) to get their message out to Canadians. By shutting down the message, our media effectively severs opportunities to for Canadians to make connections with others who share their opinions and beliefs.
For political parties, the issue isn’t that their message doesn’t resonate with Canadians; it’s far more often the case that their message doesn’t resonate with media. In our sound-bite political world, discussion and debate about policy has devolved to name-calling and character assassination. Shooting the messenger has become a viable policy debating option to the point that it’s often the only aspect of the debate to be covered by the media.
Non-media friendly messages are forced to muscle their way into the media, and these efforts unfortunately cost money. Hence the importance of tax-payer funding.
My preference would be to do away with having taxpayers fund political parties, but only after we transform our current system into one which is truly representative of the political will of Canadians. Right now, our “first past the post” electoral system is the primary culprit responsible for the growing democratic deficit. When most votes cast by electors in this country simply do not matter, how can we expect to end up with a government which represents the will of Canadians?
The urban \ rural divide between the relative power of votes is another culprit. The effective weight of urban votes is almost one half less powerful than that of votes cast in rural ridings, because of the numbers of electors in different ridings.
The concentration of real power into the hands of an increasingly “Presidential” Prime Minister which effectively limits the power of all other elected MP’s, including those serving in Cabinet, is yet another blow to democracy in our nation.
And then there’s the unelected Senate, filled with political partisans, which has now started to position itself as a body which will thwart the will of our elected House. Here I’m talking about the recent defeat of Bill C-311 in the Senate; this Bill had been passed by parliament, but Conservatives in the unelected upper house killed it without so much as debating it. When unelected appointed political operatives can thwart the will of elected Members of Parliament who came together across party lines to approve legislation, it can no longer be argued that Canada isn’t in a democratic crisis.
Keep those things in mind when you head to the polls to cast your ballot. For all of its flaws, the per-vote subsidy is one small attempt at levelling the playing field so that issues important to the majority of middle-class Canadians can be heard above the monied right-wing cacophony of our mainstream media. Right now, your vote is worth real money to the Party you choose to support. Yes, it’s unfortunate that, as Brian Lilley points out, it isn’t worth anything to an Independent candidate who you may choose to support. But that flaw is not a reason to do away with the subsidy altogether, especially when so much is at stake for the health of our Canadian democratic system.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Cambrian College Students Help Promote Cycling in Sudbury
This blogpost is long overdue, and I must offer my sincere apologies to Professor Brian Vendramin’s graphic design class at Cambrian College for the delay.
I had the pleasure of attending presentations put on by Mr. Vendramin’s class back on Monday, January 17th. The Graphics Design class had been diligently working on a project for the Sudbury Cyclists Union, after Union members had visited with the class back in October of 2010. The class had been tasked with producing promotional materials and a marketing strategy to address the priorities of the Cyclists Union (whatever those are!). Last Monday, the efforts of the entire class were on display for me and other Union members. And I can tell you that, if I were Prof. Vendramin, everyone would be getting an “A”.
The Sudbury Cyclists Union is a new organization to Sudbury. It was founded only on Earth Day, 2010, and really started to take off after our first in-person meeting, held in June of last year. We’re still an organization trying to figure out what it wants to be (which I’m sure created headaches for the marketing students…but also apparently offered opportunities to apply some seriously creative ideas…more on that later).
The SCU wants to focus on a number of things, which can be summed up as the desire to promote a culture of cycling within the City. To do so, the SCU has to be an advocate for cycling, as well as the go-to organization for cyclists when it comes to cycling safety and other issues which impact cycling in our community. We want to work with other stakeholders to advance our interests in a safe and financially sustainable way. Growing our organization is also a priority.
The strategies developed by the students in Professor Vendramin’s class will be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the SCU, and when the SCU formalizes an organizational structure (which will be before the end of the winter), the SCU Executive will have an informed discussion with the membership about where we are to go from here. The strategies and materials developed by our Cambrian College student partners are going to play a big role in moving us forward.
5 groups of Cambrian students presented their strategies, and were asked tough questions by SCU members. The first group focused on attracting new members, identifying a to-be-targeted demographic between the ages of 15 and 50, with a health and fitness bent. Their promotional materials, to be made available at gyms and health food stores, were stellar.
The second group to present came up with an idea which would force the SCU to create partnerships with local cycling-friendly businesses (which was very appealing to me) as part of a City-wide game (which was interesting, and something the SCU might consider as part of a campaign to attract new members and potentially some media interest). The game, which would see cyclists biking around the City throughout any given month, receiving stamps from area-businesses, was to be driven by a powerful on-line video (which had great production value, and I’m sure would go viral locally!).
The third group to present offered a very clear strategy for growing the organization, with an emphasis on promotional materials. This group put a lot of thought into the notion of what it means to be a “member” of the Sudbury Cyclists Union, and their promotional materials, which incorporated the Union’s logo, would definitely assist in “branding” the Union, making it recognizable to the larger community.
The fourth group identified the need for the Union to position itself strongly with a demographic which they believed would be very supportive of the Union, and which would lead to further growth. Their message was succinct, and one that I’ll personally be advocating for at the next meeting: get into the schools. When I questioned this group regarding a statement they had made relating to the difficulty which the Union might experience with getting into the schools, I was presented with what I felt was the best answer of the day: you can’t afford to miss the opportunity, so do whatever it takes.
The fifth group offered some practical solutions for growing membership locally, through organizational branding and transferable promotional materials. They had put a lot of thought into how the organization could promote itself at every opportunity possible, and provided information on expected expenses.
All of these strategies and materials were very well thought out, offering the SCU different ideas and approaches to growth and marketing. Now, if only we had some money…
But the good news for the SCU remains that we’ve accomplished a lot already without any budget whatsoever. We’ve been able to tap into some kind of community zeitgeist related to cycling. We can’t fail, because the community understands that cycling is here to stay, now more than ever.
And with the enthusiastic help of Professor Vendramin’s Cambrian College class, the SCU will be well positioned to move forward in 2011. I was just blown away by these presentations, and I am so very thankful for the assistance offered to our organization by Professor Vendramin and his very capable students.
I had the pleasure of attending presentations put on by Mr. Vendramin’s class back on Monday, January 17th. The Graphics Design class had been diligently working on a project for the Sudbury Cyclists Union, after Union members had visited with the class back in October of 2010. The class had been tasked with producing promotional materials and a marketing strategy to address the priorities of the Cyclists Union (whatever those are!). Last Monday, the efforts of the entire class were on display for me and other Union members. And I can tell you that, if I were Prof. Vendramin, everyone would be getting an “A”.
The Sudbury Cyclists Union is a new organization to Sudbury. It was founded only on Earth Day, 2010, and really started to take off after our first in-person meeting, held in June of last year. We’re still an organization trying to figure out what it wants to be (which I’m sure created headaches for the marketing students…but also apparently offered opportunities to apply some seriously creative ideas…more on that later).
The SCU wants to focus on a number of things, which can be summed up as the desire to promote a culture of cycling within the City. To do so, the SCU has to be an advocate for cycling, as well as the go-to organization for cyclists when it comes to cycling safety and other issues which impact cycling in our community. We want to work with other stakeholders to advance our interests in a safe and financially sustainable way. Growing our organization is also a priority.
The strategies developed by the students in Professor Vendramin’s class will be discussed at an upcoming meeting of the SCU, and when the SCU formalizes an organizational structure (which will be before the end of the winter), the SCU Executive will have an informed discussion with the membership about where we are to go from here. The strategies and materials developed by our Cambrian College student partners are going to play a big role in moving us forward.
5 groups of Cambrian students presented their strategies, and were asked tough questions by SCU members. The first group focused on attracting new members, identifying a to-be-targeted demographic between the ages of 15 and 50, with a health and fitness bent. Their promotional materials, to be made available at gyms and health food stores, were stellar.
The second group to present came up with an idea which would force the SCU to create partnerships with local cycling-friendly businesses (which was very appealing to me) as part of a City-wide game (which was interesting, and something the SCU might consider as part of a campaign to attract new members and potentially some media interest). The game, which would see cyclists biking around the City throughout any given month, receiving stamps from area-businesses, was to be driven by a powerful on-line video (which had great production value, and I’m sure would go viral locally!).
The third group to present offered a very clear strategy for growing the organization, with an emphasis on promotional materials. This group put a lot of thought into the notion of what it means to be a “member” of the Sudbury Cyclists Union, and their promotional materials, which incorporated the Union’s logo, would definitely assist in “branding” the Union, making it recognizable to the larger community.
The fourth group identified the need for the Union to position itself strongly with a demographic which they believed would be very supportive of the Union, and which would lead to further growth. Their message was succinct, and one that I’ll personally be advocating for at the next meeting: get into the schools. When I questioned this group regarding a statement they had made relating to the difficulty which the Union might experience with getting into the schools, I was presented with what I felt was the best answer of the day: you can’t afford to miss the opportunity, so do whatever it takes.
The fifth group offered some practical solutions for growing membership locally, through organizational branding and transferable promotional materials. They had put a lot of thought into how the organization could promote itself at every opportunity possible, and provided information on expected expenses.
All of these strategies and materials were very well thought out, offering the SCU different ideas and approaches to growth and marketing. Now, if only we had some money…
But the good news for the SCU remains that we’ve accomplished a lot already without any budget whatsoever. We’ve been able to tap into some kind of community zeitgeist related to cycling. We can’t fail, because the community understands that cycling is here to stay, now more than ever.
And with the enthusiastic help of Professor Vendramin’s Cambrian College class, the SCU will be well positioned to move forward in 2011. I was just blown away by these presentations, and I am so very thankful for the assistance offered to our organization by Professor Vendramin and his very capable students.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)