(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
These are tough times all around. Here in Sudbury, last week one of our mining giants, Xstrata (the Swiss-based owner of the former Falconbridge), announced the layoff of about 700 people, many of them with good paying mining jobs. For a community of 155,000 people, this was a devastating blow. But it was not a surprise. All told, about 1000 mining jobs have already disappeared from our community in the past...what? 4 months? Yikes!
Tough times all around. I read in the paper last week that scientists are now saying that the Nobel Prize-winning International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which provided estimates of the pace of global warming, actually predicted a much slower pace for global warming than science is now expecting. What that means is that for those nations who are basing carbon policies on the IPCC science, those policies will likely not have the desired impact on global warming, and will need to be reassessed. And for those countries which have dithered and done nothing, like Canada, well....Yikes!
Yes. Times are tough all around. Given the challenges on all fronts which we find ourselves in the midst of, Canadians are looking around for real leadership on these very important issues of the day.
And we’re not finding any.
Oh, some are suggesting that Barack Obama will prove to be the man of vision who leads us out of these desperate times. Well, I hope so, because I hope that someone does...but I sincerely don’t expect that it will be the U.S. President. He’s got his own issues with a crippled economy, and a nation beholden to special interests trying to play catch-up on the environment. But, Obama has appointed a bevy of Bill Clinton-era administrators (from the same administration that contributed to the current messes we are in), and offered bail-outs to major corporations, many of whom have done their fair share to get us all into this mess in the first place. His double-edged econmic “stimulus” of throwing money to infrastructure projects while providing massive tax cuts has raised the U.S. deficit into the trillion-dollar a year range. I don’t even want to know that this will do to the U.S. debt; I’m afraid to find out.
But at least Obama appears to be leading. Oh, and at least he’s not George Bush.
But whither Canada?
Last week, Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced that Canada was prepared to do nothing on the “environmental file” which might damage the economy, and that we’ll wait for Obama to move forward first.
And that’s the kind of leadership we have been getting from the Harper Conservatives.
Now, look. I understand. Times are tough. And they are. But...
But we can’t bloody well sit around and do nothing and hope that things will get better. And we can’t keep doing the same old things which have led us to these crises either. Yet....that’s what we’re getting here in Canada.
There’s a good chance that if you’re reading this blog, you are either already in the Green Party, or you recognize that we really do need to start taking action on the climate change, because our days for action are, quite frankly, numbered, before that tipping point is reached. That’s wonderful. I’m glad you’re here. Sincerely.
You, like me, though, have probably been wondering just what it takes to motivate others to start paying attention to these issues. You’ve probably done a double-take or two when you’ve brought up Peak Oil in a conversation, only to be greeted by blank stares. We all want others to understand the issues. And to be as horrified as we ourselves are.
Because that understanding of the mess we’re in might actually lead others to start taking action. And by action, I’m not just talking about replacing old light-bulbs with the energy efficient kind, or biking to work a few times a week (although those things are really great, and we should all do more of that sort of stuff).
No. The Action we need to take is fundamentally a political action. If you are serious about the environment/economy/energy/social justice what-have-you, and you believe the time has come for leadership with vision, leading to action, you must become engaged politically. There really isn’t any other option.
And that’s the message that we need to start delivering to our friends, family and blank-faced colleagues. You and I know that action occurs as a result of a political process, and that’s why we ourselves have become political. Now, it’s time for us to convince others to do the same, to “get political” as well.
And that’s not the same as “playing politics”. “Politics” is a dirty word, but it’s fundamentally about horse-trading...usually for the explicit purpose of getting oneself re-elected, and sometimes about doing what’s good for local constituents (those who one has to face to get onself re-elected). Politics won’t get us out of this mess. It was playing politics which helped get us here in the first place. If we didn’t play politics, maybe we would have implemented Kyoto and at least have been partly on the way to doing something.
Getting political is a lot different than playing politics. At least for the Green Party. Yes, sure, like other political parties, we have an agenda, and we want to be able to influence decision-making at the highest level. But fundamentally our aspirations are different from those of the other main-stream parties. All parties say that they want to do what is good and right. Yet, so far, we haven’t been seeing a lot of that. The Green Party too, wants to do what is good and right. And to actually begin to address the issues which are important to Canadians, and which will become increasingly important over the next decade.
A politician once told me that if he stood up in front of a room and told the people there the truth about what needed to be done, they would never vote for him. I used to think that was just a funny story which had a large dollop of truth in it. No more. I can’t afford to keep thinking that way, and neither can you.
What separates the Green Party from the other parties is that we’re not afraid to tell Canadians the truth about the predicament we’re in, and what we need to start to do to get ourselves out of it. And that’s not just because we’re uniquely positioned to do so (having no one in parliament facing re-election), but because it’s fundamentally the right thing for us to be doing. Canadians aren’t idiots, regardless of what the other parties might want us to think.
And you and I go around every day and tell the truth to people. And some of them have even started listening to us. And a few of those have started to ask us “What can we do?”.
And we need to tell them that the answer lies in getting political. That the way to Action is through a political process. That at the next election there isn’t any other choice for them but to do what they can to get Greens elected. And I’m very serious about this. No other party is going to do a damn thing now. And we can’t afford to do nothing any longer.
If you care (and you do), you want action. If you want action, you need to get political. If you get political, you’ll see that action can only occur through one of the Canadian political parties out there, and that’s the Green Party, because all of the other parties fundamentally do not want to take action on these issues. Not even the NDP, led by Jack “Carbon Taxes Will Be The Death Of the Little Guy” Layton. Why is the Green Party the only political party which can be trusted? Because we have always told you the truth, and will continue to tell you the truth. You may not like to hear it, but we’re still going to tell it to you.
And the truth is we’re in the midst of some pretty tough times. Times which demand leadership in our government. And the truth is...we don’t have any. And the truth is we can’t afford to waste any more time. Because the truth is, we’re going to be in quite the pickle in the very near future if we don’t start taking action.
This is not the time to play politics. It’s time to get political.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
No Leadership in Ottawa. We Need Action, Not Abdication
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Just lovely. It is even more abundantly clear today that Harper's Conservatives just do not understand the most important issues facing the future of Canada. In an announcement today from Jim Prentice, Federal Minister responsible for the Environment, the Conservatives have decided that doing anything right now to help fix the environment is off the table, saying that it would negatively impact the economy. The old "jobs before environment" argument is trotted out yet again.
I'm getting sick and tired of this. The Conservatives don't understand, or don't want to understand, which amounts to the same thing. Climate change, rising energy prices, and a switch from a brown to green economy is fundamentally not about a trade-off between jobs and the envrionment. It is not about having to make a choice of one over the other. Yet here is Jim Prentice, arguably one of the more socially-progressive of Harper's dinosaurs, saying just that (see today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/586526).
Not only are Harper and Prentice claiming that action on the environment needs to be placed on hold as a result of the economic slow-down, they are saying that they will not take any action until the United States comes up with its own plan. Not only does this tactic delay the government from having to do anything, it completely abdicates any leadership on this matter. This kind of the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not what we have elected our government to do. These people were voted in to make decisions, take actions, not abdicate their responsibilities in favour of putting off decision making until such a time when someone else has done the hard thinking.
And rest assured, when Obama does put his mind to looking at a cap and trade system, which is apparently what he's eyeing, when he writes the rules, guaranteed that the needs of Canada and Canadian industries are not going to be at the top of the list. Why in heavens name has our Conservative government abandoned any position on creating the rules in which our Canadian-based industries will have to operate in the future?!?! If anything, Harper should be showing leadership on this one issue, less Canadian industries get shafted.
Yes, I'm sure that Obama will be talking about an integrated cap and trade system, given the way our two economies are entwined. That's all well and fine, but if the Americans are dictating the terms, how can that possibly be good for Canada?
And say what you want about Obama and all of the good things that he's done already and the good things he's said he intends to do, at the end of the day much of what he is proposing to do for the environment is not the approach Canada will need to take. Instead of abdicating decision making on the environment until such a time as the U.S. comes to the table, Canada should be persuading and prodding, planting ideas, working with our U.S. partners on a cap and trade system to spur industry to make real reductions to green house gas emissions.
But a cap and trade system can only ever be a part of the solution. What about stimulating alternative energy development? There's no need to have to even pretend to wait for Obama to take action on that. Yet Harper and the Conservatives are abandoning alternative energy, taking away matching federal tax dollars for funding new alternative energy projects.
The crisis facing the world today isn't going to be solved by "either/or" thinking, which places jobs over the environment (as if the environment is somehow an issue which neatly fits into a single box), and it's certainly not going to be solved by more waiting and doing nothing. Yet that's the approach now being proposed by this government. We can no longer afford to let our leaders abdicate decision-making and action-taking. The cost to us and our children is going to be unbearably high. We have to act. We just have to act.
I know this is cliche, but write to your local media outlets, copy your MP's, post your letter to your blogs and email them to your friends. If there is enough of an outcry about the Conservative's abandoning doing anything for the environment until a "better time", maybe they can be forced to take action in the face of public opinion. If we make this an issue, they will listen. Harper is nothing if not motivated by public opinion, as we have seen recently.
Just lovely. It is even more abundantly clear today that Harper's Conservatives just do not understand the most important issues facing the future of Canada. In an announcement today from Jim Prentice, Federal Minister responsible for the Environment, the Conservatives have decided that doing anything right now to help fix the environment is off the table, saying that it would negatively impact the economy. The old "jobs before environment" argument is trotted out yet again.
I'm getting sick and tired of this. The Conservatives don't understand, or don't want to understand, which amounts to the same thing. Climate change, rising energy prices, and a switch from a brown to green economy is fundamentally not about a trade-off between jobs and the envrionment. It is not about having to make a choice of one over the other. Yet here is Jim Prentice, arguably one of the more socially-progressive of Harper's dinosaurs, saying just that (see today's Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/586526).
Not only are Harper and Prentice claiming that action on the environment needs to be placed on hold as a result of the economic slow-down, they are saying that they will not take any action until the United States comes up with its own plan. Not only does this tactic delay the government from having to do anything, it completely abdicates any leadership on this matter. This kind of the "follow-the-leader" mentality is not what we have elected our government to do. These people were voted in to make decisions, take actions, not abdicate their responsibilities in favour of putting off decision making until such a time when someone else has done the hard thinking.
And rest assured, when Obama does put his mind to looking at a cap and trade system, which is apparently what he's eyeing, when he writes the rules, guaranteed that the needs of Canada and Canadian industries are not going to be at the top of the list. Why in heavens name has our Conservative government abandoned any position on creating the rules in which our Canadian-based industries will have to operate in the future?!?! If anything, Harper should be showing leadership on this one issue, less Canadian industries get shafted.
Yes, I'm sure that Obama will be talking about an integrated cap and trade system, given the way our two economies are entwined. That's all well and fine, but if the Americans are dictating the terms, how can that possibly be good for Canada?
And say what you want about Obama and all of the good things that he's done already and the good things he's said he intends to do, at the end of the day much of what he is proposing to do for the environment is not the approach Canada will need to take. Instead of abdicating decision making on the environment until such a time as the U.S. comes to the table, Canada should be persuading and prodding, planting ideas, working with our U.S. partners on a cap and trade system to spur industry to make real reductions to green house gas emissions.
But a cap and trade system can only ever be a part of the solution. What about stimulating alternative energy development? There's no need to have to even pretend to wait for Obama to take action on that. Yet Harper and the Conservatives are abandoning alternative energy, taking away matching federal tax dollars for funding new alternative energy projects.
The crisis facing the world today isn't going to be solved by "either/or" thinking, which places jobs over the environment (as if the environment is somehow an issue which neatly fits into a single box), and it's certainly not going to be solved by more waiting and doing nothing. Yet that's the approach now being proposed by this government. We can no longer afford to let our leaders abdicate decision-making and action-taking. The cost to us and our children is going to be unbearably high. We have to act. We just have to act.
I know this is cliche, but write to your local media outlets, copy your MP's, post your letter to your blogs and email them to your friends. If there is enough of an outcry about the Conservative's abandoning doing anything for the environment until a "better time", maybe they can be forced to take action in the face of public opinion. If we make this an issue, they will listen. Harper is nothing if not motivated by public opinion, as we have seen recently.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Could Liberal MP's Rejection of the Budget Lead to the Rise of a Newfoundland and Labrador Party?
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
And so it begins. Reports are coming out today that two Liberal MP’s are ready to vote against the Harper-Ignatieff budget when it comes to a vote. Both MP’s are from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province whose Premier is Danny Williams, who has been very vocal about the budget. Recall that immediately after the budget was announced, Danny Williams took to the airwaves and called on Ignatieff to defeat it. Looks like at least two of the six Liberal MP’s from Newfoundland and Labrador are heeding his call, even if their Leader Ignatieff isn’t.
And why shouldn’t those MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador listen to Williams? Certainly Williams’ A-B-C (“Anybody But Conservative”) campaign during the last Federal election contributed to the success of the Liberals (and NDP) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Aside from being one of the most anti-Harper public figures in the country, Williams is very concerned that the budget shorts his province about $1.5 billion dollars in equalization payments, as per the Atlantic Accord. Quebec Premier Jean Charest has also been grumbling about his province being short-changed as well. The difference is, in Quebec, there is a regional party on the national stage which always speaks out for the interests of that province, and Gilles Duceppe has been very vocal in his opposition to the budget already. Newfoundland and Labrador don’t have such a party. But it is interesting to wonder if they might in the future.
Danny Williams has already been laying this groundwork. A fiscal conservative who largely believes in social equity, Williams has been at odds with Harper over Harper’s vision of small national government, particularly one which pays little or no attention to smaller players like Newfoundland and Labrador. With the help of the A-B-C campaign, voters in Newfoundland and Labrador returned results during the last Federal election which ran counter to national results, returning zero Conservatives to parliament.
Now, with Liberal MP’s threatening to split ranks from a Liberal Party which has already started consolidating power in it’s Leader at the expense of the rank and file, can it be long before a Newfoundland and Labrador Party starts to take shape in that Province? Such a party would likely reflect Williams’ own mentality of fiscal conservatism.
Think its far fetched? No way. There has always been a strong sense among many Newfoundlanders that Canada has really bungled the deal it made to bring Newfoundland into confederation. Although the collapse of the cod fishery is now old news, it is a glaring example of how Canadian mismanagement of a Newfoundland resource so critical to that Province’s well being (not to mention pride and heritage) has led to discontent with the national government. For long, such discontent boiled below the surface, bubbling up only occasionally. But with Danny Williams now on the scene, such displays of discontent are become more the rule than the exception. As Newfoundland and Labrador begins to explore its new self-esteem on the national stage, bouyed by increased oil revenues, it is finding its own voice. And it is finding that voice to be one which is often counter to the mainstream political parties in Canada. And I unfortunately have to include our own Party in that equation, for although Williams financial point of view might be a good fit with our Party, his environmental record leaves a lot to be desired.
So, what could happen if we saw the rise of a new Newfoundland and Labrador Party on the national stage to advocate for the interests of that Province (whether within confederation or, like the Bloc, outside of it, remains to be seen)? Certainly such a party would continue to fracture the make-up of parliament, as it would likely be successful right away at putting MP’s in the House. Potentially, this could lead to a situation where the other political parties might have to work together even more, likely on a case by case basis, to further their own political interests. That likely means a greater chance that more formal coalitions might develop.
If we Greens are thrown into such a parliamentary mix as well, by electing our own MP’s, the outcome would likely be more minority governments, more opportunities for coalitions of interest to develop, and a greater chance at finally reforming our electoral system. So, in this brief analysis, although the rise of a Newfoundland and Labrador Party doesn’t appear to help the Green Party, there may be some helpful impacts down the road.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any immediate opportunities for the Green Party in Newfoundland and Labrador as a direct result of this budgetary mess. But I have to wonder, if Liberal MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador are ultimately expelled from the Liberal caucus for voting against Ignatieff’s direction, how deep ultimately is their commitment to Stephane Dion’s platform on which they ran and were elected? As it seems unlikely that Ignatieff’s Liberals, or any other Party currently in parliament will be campaigning on the basis of an Income Tax shift to carbon revenue in the next election, might there be an opening for a Green conversion? And I don’t know enough about the personalities involved to make such an assessment. But I hope others start looking into it.
And so it begins. Reports are coming out today that two Liberal MP’s are ready to vote against the Harper-Ignatieff budget when it comes to a vote. Both MP’s are from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, a province whose Premier is Danny Williams, who has been very vocal about the budget. Recall that immediately after the budget was announced, Danny Williams took to the airwaves and called on Ignatieff to defeat it. Looks like at least two of the six Liberal MP’s from Newfoundland and Labrador are heeding his call, even if their Leader Ignatieff isn’t.
And why shouldn’t those MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador listen to Williams? Certainly Williams’ A-B-C (“Anybody But Conservative”) campaign during the last Federal election contributed to the success of the Liberals (and NDP) in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Aside from being one of the most anti-Harper public figures in the country, Williams is very concerned that the budget shorts his province about $1.5 billion dollars in equalization payments, as per the Atlantic Accord. Quebec Premier Jean Charest has also been grumbling about his province being short-changed as well. The difference is, in Quebec, there is a regional party on the national stage which always speaks out for the interests of that province, and Gilles Duceppe has been very vocal in his opposition to the budget already. Newfoundland and Labrador don’t have such a party. But it is interesting to wonder if they might in the future.
Danny Williams has already been laying this groundwork. A fiscal conservative who largely believes in social equity, Williams has been at odds with Harper over Harper’s vision of small national government, particularly one which pays little or no attention to smaller players like Newfoundland and Labrador. With the help of the A-B-C campaign, voters in Newfoundland and Labrador returned results during the last Federal election which ran counter to national results, returning zero Conservatives to parliament.
Now, with Liberal MP’s threatening to split ranks from a Liberal Party which has already started consolidating power in it’s Leader at the expense of the rank and file, can it be long before a Newfoundland and Labrador Party starts to take shape in that Province? Such a party would likely reflect Williams’ own mentality of fiscal conservatism.
Think its far fetched? No way. There has always been a strong sense among many Newfoundlanders that Canada has really bungled the deal it made to bring Newfoundland into confederation. Although the collapse of the cod fishery is now old news, it is a glaring example of how Canadian mismanagement of a Newfoundland resource so critical to that Province’s well being (not to mention pride and heritage) has led to discontent with the national government. For long, such discontent boiled below the surface, bubbling up only occasionally. But with Danny Williams now on the scene, such displays of discontent are become more the rule than the exception. As Newfoundland and Labrador begins to explore its new self-esteem on the national stage, bouyed by increased oil revenues, it is finding its own voice. And it is finding that voice to be one which is often counter to the mainstream political parties in Canada. And I unfortunately have to include our own Party in that equation, for although Williams financial point of view might be a good fit with our Party, his environmental record leaves a lot to be desired.
So, what could happen if we saw the rise of a new Newfoundland and Labrador Party on the national stage to advocate for the interests of that Province (whether within confederation or, like the Bloc, outside of it, remains to be seen)? Certainly such a party would continue to fracture the make-up of parliament, as it would likely be successful right away at putting MP’s in the House. Potentially, this could lead to a situation where the other political parties might have to work together even more, likely on a case by case basis, to further their own political interests. That likely means a greater chance that more formal coalitions might develop.
If we Greens are thrown into such a parliamentary mix as well, by electing our own MP’s, the outcome would likely be more minority governments, more opportunities for coalitions of interest to develop, and a greater chance at finally reforming our electoral system. So, in this brief analysis, although the rise of a Newfoundland and Labrador Party doesn’t appear to help the Green Party, there may be some helpful impacts down the road.
Unfortunately, I don’t see any immediate opportunities for the Green Party in Newfoundland and Labrador as a direct result of this budgetary mess. But I have to wonder, if Liberal MP’s in Newfoundland and Labrador are ultimately expelled from the Liberal caucus for voting against Ignatieff’s direction, how deep ultimately is their commitment to Stephane Dion’s platform on which they ran and were elected? As it seems unlikely that Ignatieff’s Liberals, or any other Party currently in parliament will be campaigning on the basis of an Income Tax shift to carbon revenue in the next election, might there be an opening for a Green conversion? And I don’t know enough about the personalities involved to make such an assessment. But I hope others start looking into it.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Harper About To Miss Green Opportunity
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca; cross-posted to www.greenpartysudbury.blogspot.com)
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is about to unveil its much awaited budget to address the stated goal of providing stimulation to our economy in these increasingly troubled times.
If what we have been hearing about the budget over these past few days through leaks to the media holds true, the budget will miss a historic opportunity to start addressing the many challenges we Canadians face. Most importantly, today's budget needs to begin the process of creating a truly sustainable Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and the Conservatives are lacking in vision.
In these difficult times, international organizations such as the IMF and APEC have recommended an increase to public spending roughly equal to two per cent of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. Such spending, however, needs to be strategically targeted to ensure that the results we achieve prove to be beneficial to the costs incurred. Investment in green municipal infrastructure through sharing GST revenues directly with municipalities will permit shovel-ready green projects to move forward. Projects that promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness will create jobs in our communities, as well as benefit our families in the long term.
Investments in manufacturing and the auto sector that capitalize on a shift to a low-carbon economy will also produce results good for Canada. Investing in energy production from renewable energy sources will begin the process of shifting from our old brown economy towards a more sustainable model.
Cutting revenue sources such as taxes, if not offset by new revenue sources, will decrease opportunities for public investment and hamper our ability to begin paying off the deficits we will be accumulating. If income taxes are to be cut, new revenue sources need to be explored. Since it makes economic sense to derive revenue from activities which are ultimately harmful to ourselves and our communities, such as taxing cigarettes, it seems sensible that we look first for these opportunities. A good way of freeing up needed revenue would be to end corporate welfare by eliminating the massive subsidies our government makes to the fossil fuel sector, which total approximately $1.4 billion a year. Putting charges on carbon emissions would also assist with shifting revenues away from income taxes.
I sincerely hope the Conservative government will attempt to face these challenges head on by offering targeted investment in green infrastructure and cutting taxes for the least well off in our communities, along with the caveat that new green revenue sources are put in place to make up the difference.
While I hope for these outcomes, I don't believe that Harper will have the vision necessary to begin moving Canada in this direction. We will all find out soon.
If we see tax cuts in the budget without new revenues from green sources, and calls for investment in brown infrastructure, we'll know that Harper and Conservatives truly don't understand the needs of Canadians.
-Published as the Letter of the Day in the Sudbury Star (a division of Sun Media), January 27 2009.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government is about to unveil its much awaited budget to address the stated goal of providing stimulation to our economy in these increasingly troubled times.
If what we have been hearing about the budget over these past few days through leaks to the media holds true, the budget will miss a historic opportunity to start addressing the many challenges we Canadians face. Most importantly, today's budget needs to begin the process of creating a truly sustainable Canadian economy. Unfortunately, it seems Harper and the Conservatives are lacking in vision.
In these difficult times, international organizations such as the IMF and APEC have recommended an increase to public spending roughly equal to two per cent of a nation's Gross Domestic Product. Such spending, however, needs to be strategically targeted to ensure that the results we achieve prove to be beneficial to the costs incurred. Investment in green municipal infrastructure through sharing GST revenues directly with municipalities will permit shovel-ready green projects to move forward. Projects that promote healthy lifestyles and physical fitness will create jobs in our communities, as well as benefit our families in the long term.
Investments in manufacturing and the auto sector that capitalize on a shift to a low-carbon economy will also produce results good for Canada. Investing in energy production from renewable energy sources will begin the process of shifting from our old brown economy towards a more sustainable model.
Cutting revenue sources such as taxes, if not offset by new revenue sources, will decrease opportunities for public investment and hamper our ability to begin paying off the deficits we will be accumulating. If income taxes are to be cut, new revenue sources need to be explored. Since it makes economic sense to derive revenue from activities which are ultimately harmful to ourselves and our communities, such as taxing cigarettes, it seems sensible that we look first for these opportunities. A good way of freeing up needed revenue would be to end corporate welfare by eliminating the massive subsidies our government makes to the fossil fuel sector, which total approximately $1.4 billion a year. Putting charges on carbon emissions would also assist with shifting revenues away from income taxes.
I sincerely hope the Conservative government will attempt to face these challenges head on by offering targeted investment in green infrastructure and cutting taxes for the least well off in our communities, along with the caveat that new green revenue sources are put in place to make up the difference.
While I hope for these outcomes, I don't believe that Harper will have the vision necessary to begin moving Canada in this direction. We will all find out soon.
If we see tax cuts in the budget without new revenues from green sources, and calls for investment in brown infrastructure, we'll know that Harper and Conservatives truly don't understand the needs of Canadians.
-Published as the Letter of the Day in the Sudbury Star (a division of Sun Media), January 27 2009.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Good News! Globe & Mail Editorialist Margaret Wente Shares With Us All That Global Warming Has Been Proven To Be ON HOLD
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
Wow. Some "good and unexpected" news from the Globe and Mail today. That Margaret Wente, boy, she's some cutting edge, ain't she? I'm glad that she's here to share the good news with the rest of us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...
Stuff like this really really irritates the hell out of me. So much of the good work of public education just kinda goes down the drain when someone like this is given a pulpit to preach from.
Time to flood the Globe with some emails providing some real facts on climate change in place of this nonsense?
Wow. Some "good and unexpected" news from the Globe and Mail today. That Margaret Wente, boy, she's some cutting edge, ain't she? I'm glad that she's here to share the good news with the rest of us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM...
Stuff like this really really irritates the hell out of me. So much of the good work of public education just kinda goes down the drain when someone like this is given a pulpit to preach from.
Time to flood the Globe with some emails providing some real facts on climate change in place of this nonsense?
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Looking Into My Crystal Ball for 2009
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
You know, I’ve always kind of wanted to be a journalist...all those wonderful travel opportunities to exciting locales around the world. The free buffet lunches. Mostly, though, because journalists always get to gaze into their crystal balls this time of year and prognosticate. I always envied those journalists for being allowed to do so, and to share their visions with an unsuspecting, yet rapturous public.
Well, this is my first year of blogging, and what the heck, is there any reason why I can’t do the same? And share it with you, oh unsuspecting blog-readers? Nope. No reason at all. So, here is my first attempt at predicting the future (well, first written attempt anyway...I’m sure my friends and family are bored silly with my annual musings, especially over this past Christmas).
Here’s what I’m expecting in 2009:
1. More War.
OK, that was probably an easy one to call. But let me explain a bit more. I think that many will soon discover that Barack Obama isn’t the President of Peace many out there thought he would be. He’s been talking about, for quite some time now, the need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and widening that conflict to include areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government has effectively lost control. The increase of US troops in Afghanistan will lead to more violence in Pakistan. Coupled with a weak government, a growing threat to Kashmir by India, and an increasingly out of control security apparatus, Pakistan could implode.
Oh, and all of those troops coming home to America from Iraq? Don’t look for the total troop withdrawal Obama had been promising. There will remain a strong U.S. presence in Iraq at the end of 2009.
Also watch out for an Israeli air assault on Iran, taking out nuclear reactors.
2. Another General Election in Canada
But not until the fall of 2009. Ignatieff will kill talks of a coalition after Harper introduces a budget with significant economic stimuli for many sectors. The NDP will howl, but at the end of the day, the Liberals will support the budget, likely by absenting enough of themselves from the vote that the budget gets passed. This will give Ignatieff the time he needs to brand himself to Canadians, likely as a consultative strong-man who knows what the economy really needs.
A fall election will have the lowest voter turn-out in Canadian history, with the Liberals gaining seats at the expense of the Bloc and the NDP, but ultimately an extremely minorly reduced Conservative minority government led by Stephen Harper will be the result. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
3. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
Oh, I predicted that one already, right? Well, even if there is no General Election, there may be a by-election or two. I know I’m hedging my bets here. But either way, I don’t see us electing an MP at this time. Why? It’s the economy, stupid. And frankly, our Party is not taken seriously as a potential saviour of the economy. Voters (those who actually cast their ballots anyway) will not be willing to take a risk on a party known for a putting a single issue above all others. It’s not our time (which is incredibly unfortunate).
I’m particularly concerned about this in the context of a General Election. Our Leader will not be invited to the televised debate, and there will be only a little public outcry as a result. We will again run a full slate of candidates, including some excellent ones with higher profiles who we will recruit over the next several months. But the economy will kill us. Few will want to hear our message in the face of the economic disaster sweeping the world. Even if we’re the only Party to offer viable solutions.
This situation will lead to great strife within our Party, which should be a growing concern, but which likely will not start to have a huge impact until after the next election.
4. Establishment of a North American Cap and Trade System
To be seen to be doing something, Barack Obama and Stephen Harper will begin discussions on a North American Cap and Trade program, modelled on that being used by Pacific Northwest states, albeit in a watered-down form. It will not come into effect until 2012, and there will be all sorts of exemptions, particularly for the struggling oil and gas industry and for the auto sector. The mining and forestry sectors will take the biggest hits, because their lobbyists aren’t as effective.
Ultimately, greenhouses gases will continue to rise; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Taxes will continue to increase, except at the Federal level of government, which, ironically, will be the level spending the most money.
OK, none of these are exactly earth-shattering predictions. But they’re what I’ve got today. Oh, wait. You want a happy prediction? Something not so doom-and-gloom?
The best I can do: The Vancouver Canucks win the Stanley Cup. There you go.
You know, I’ve always kind of wanted to be a journalist...all those wonderful travel opportunities to exciting locales around the world. The free buffet lunches. Mostly, though, because journalists always get to gaze into their crystal balls this time of year and prognosticate. I always envied those journalists for being allowed to do so, and to share their visions with an unsuspecting, yet rapturous public.
Well, this is my first year of blogging, and what the heck, is there any reason why I can’t do the same? And share it with you, oh unsuspecting blog-readers? Nope. No reason at all. So, here is my first attempt at predicting the future (well, first written attempt anyway...I’m sure my friends and family are bored silly with my annual musings, especially over this past Christmas).
Here’s what I’m expecting in 2009:
1. More War.
OK, that was probably an easy one to call. But let me explain a bit more. I think that many will soon discover that Barack Obama isn’t the President of Peace many out there thought he would be. He’s been talking about, for quite some time now, the need to send more troops to Afghanistan, and widening that conflict to include areas of Pakistan where the Pakistani government has effectively lost control. The increase of US troops in Afghanistan will lead to more violence in Pakistan. Coupled with a weak government, a growing threat to Kashmir by India, and an increasingly out of control security apparatus, Pakistan could implode.
Oh, and all of those troops coming home to America from Iraq? Don’t look for the total troop withdrawal Obama had been promising. There will remain a strong U.S. presence in Iraq at the end of 2009.
Also watch out for an Israeli air assault on Iran, taking out nuclear reactors.
2. Another General Election in Canada
But not until the fall of 2009. Ignatieff will kill talks of a coalition after Harper introduces a budget with significant economic stimuli for many sectors. The NDP will howl, but at the end of the day, the Liberals will support the budget, likely by absenting enough of themselves from the vote that the budget gets passed. This will give Ignatieff the time he needs to brand himself to Canadians, likely as a consultative strong-man who knows what the economy really needs.
A fall election will have the lowest voter turn-out in Canadian history, with the Liberals gaining seats at the expense of the Bloc and the NDP, but ultimately an extremely minorly reduced Conservative minority government led by Stephen Harper will be the result. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
3. The Green Party will not elect a single MP.
Oh, I predicted that one already, right? Well, even if there is no General Election, there may be a by-election or two. I know I’m hedging my bets here. But either way, I don’t see us electing an MP at this time. Why? It’s the economy, stupid. And frankly, our Party is not taken seriously as a potential saviour of the economy. Voters (those who actually cast their ballots anyway) will not be willing to take a risk on a party known for a putting a single issue above all others. It’s not our time (which is incredibly unfortunate).
I’m particularly concerned about this in the context of a General Election. Our Leader will not be invited to the televised debate, and there will be only a little public outcry as a result. We will again run a full slate of candidates, including some excellent ones with higher profiles who we will recruit over the next several months. But the economy will kill us. Few will want to hear our message in the face of the economic disaster sweeping the world. Even if we’re the only Party to offer viable solutions.
This situation will lead to great strife within our Party, which should be a growing concern, but which likely will not start to have a huge impact until after the next election.
4. Establishment of a North American Cap and Trade System
To be seen to be doing something, Barack Obama and Stephen Harper will begin discussions on a North American Cap and Trade program, modelled on that being used by Pacific Northwest states, albeit in a watered-down form. It will not come into effect until 2012, and there will be all sorts of exemptions, particularly for the struggling oil and gas industry and for the auto sector. The mining and forestry sectors will take the biggest hits, because their lobbyists aren’t as effective.
Ultimately, greenhouses gases will continue to rise; the rich will get richer, and the poor will get poorer. Taxes will continue to increase, except at the Federal level of government, which, ironically, will be the level spending the most money.
OK, none of these are exactly earth-shattering predictions. But they’re what I’ve got today. Oh, wait. You want a happy prediction? Something not so doom-and-gloom?
The best I can do: The Vancouver Canucks win the Stanley Cup. There you go.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
The Green Party and the Coalition: Are We Becoming a "One Issue" Party?
(originally posted at www.greenparty.ca)
I just recently read the blogpost from Attila Nagy, who ran for our Party in Scarborough Rouge River in the recent election. I don’t know Mr. Nagy, and I think this may have been the first time that I had read his blog, but I believe that Attila raises some good points. I thought of maybe writing a quick response post to his blog, but instead I’ve decided to make a new post in my own blog, because I am feeling a growing sense of unease about a number of things, and would like to expand on what Attila has communicated.
With regards to our “decision” to support the Coalition, I ask everyone to contemplate what might have happened if the Green Party took the “high road” here and decided to come out in support of neither the Conservatives or the Coalition, but instead in support of the people of Canada, their jobs, and democracy in general. What if we had moralized and urged our elected officials to find a way to work together for a change, for the good of our nation, and point out at the same time that Greens stand for something bigger than partisan politics, because we’ve got real issues to tackle and would very much like to get on with tackling them. I ask you to think about those outcomes, and wonder whether we might have missed an opportunity here.
As a Canadian, I personally would support any government which did not include Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party. Given the current alternatives, the Coalition seems to be the much more palatable of the two. That’s important to me personally, and I believe that a Coalition government would be for the good of Canada.
But as the CEO of an EDA, I really have to question why the Party has positioned itself as we have done. I’m not sure what we gain out of “supporting” this Coalition, given that we have no sitting members in parliament. I believe that we really should have thought this through a little bit more before rushing to embrace the Coalition (which I just heard being referred to as “the New Libs on the Bloc”). Unlike the other Parties, because we have not been directly involved in the situation, we actually had time to sit back and consider our options. I’m not sure that this happened.
Instead, we were almost stepping over ourselves to get our Leader in front of the camera and tell Canadians where the Green Party stands on this issue. And frankly, it was embarrassing to hear discussion about having Elizabeth May appointed to the Senate. I don’t think that Canadians really wanted to hear about that, nor did it add to the debate.
We like to think of ourselves as “grassroots”. We could have had a little bit more canvassing of opinion before our declaration of support. Careful consideration might have led to a different outcome. All of this need not have been framed as a choice between only two alternatives - Harper and the Coalition - and instead a third way, a better way, a Green way may have been found and acted upon.
We may have lost an opportunity here to take a different approach. So, where then, does the proverbial buck stop?
I have been growing increasingly concerned regarding the direction in which the Party has been going. I was personally dismayed by events which played themselves out during the final days of the election when our Leader urged Canadians to not vote for us. Yes, her message was mangled by the media, but confusion of her message to the media should have been expected, given the media's track record presenting nuanced discourse. And now we, as a Party, have come out in favour of a Coalition in which we won’t have any say, and which will also likely take Canada in a direction which is not in keeping with the policies of our Party. Policies which, I might add, have been given the benefit of careful consideration by grassroots members. For one example I offer up that Stephane Dion has already nixed the idea that the Coalition would be pursuing a Carbon Tax. While certainly the discussion of a cap and trade system is much better than Harper’s do-nothing approach, it still won’t get the country to where it needs to be.
I believe that we had a golden opportunity to stake out our position, finding a third alternative to present to the Canadian public in an election which is sure to come sooner rather than later, whether the Coalition takes over from Harper or not. Instead, we have chosen to remain the Party which is beginning to appear to be a true one-issue Party; that issue being to promote at all costs the need to remove Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.
I’m not sure this is what I signed up for. I know others are beginning to feel the same way.
I just recently read the blogpost from Attila Nagy, who ran for our Party in Scarborough Rouge River in the recent election. I don’t know Mr. Nagy, and I think this may have been the first time that I had read his blog, but I believe that Attila raises some good points. I thought of maybe writing a quick response post to his blog, but instead I’ve decided to make a new post in my own blog, because I am feeling a growing sense of unease about a number of things, and would like to expand on what Attila has communicated.
With regards to our “decision” to support the Coalition, I ask everyone to contemplate what might have happened if the Green Party took the “high road” here and decided to come out in support of neither the Conservatives or the Coalition, but instead in support of the people of Canada, their jobs, and democracy in general. What if we had moralized and urged our elected officials to find a way to work together for a change, for the good of our nation, and point out at the same time that Greens stand for something bigger than partisan politics, because we’ve got real issues to tackle and would very much like to get on with tackling them. I ask you to think about those outcomes, and wonder whether we might have missed an opportunity here.
As a Canadian, I personally would support any government which did not include Stephen Harper and his Conservative Party. Given the current alternatives, the Coalition seems to be the much more palatable of the two. That’s important to me personally, and I believe that a Coalition government would be for the good of Canada.
But as the CEO of an EDA, I really have to question why the Party has positioned itself as we have done. I’m not sure what we gain out of “supporting” this Coalition, given that we have no sitting members in parliament. I believe that we really should have thought this through a little bit more before rushing to embrace the Coalition (which I just heard being referred to as “the New Libs on the Bloc”). Unlike the other Parties, because we have not been directly involved in the situation, we actually had time to sit back and consider our options. I’m not sure that this happened.
Instead, we were almost stepping over ourselves to get our Leader in front of the camera and tell Canadians where the Green Party stands on this issue. And frankly, it was embarrassing to hear discussion about having Elizabeth May appointed to the Senate. I don’t think that Canadians really wanted to hear about that, nor did it add to the debate.
We like to think of ourselves as “grassroots”. We could have had a little bit more canvassing of opinion before our declaration of support. Careful consideration might have led to a different outcome. All of this need not have been framed as a choice between only two alternatives - Harper and the Coalition - and instead a third way, a better way, a Green way may have been found and acted upon.
We may have lost an opportunity here to take a different approach. So, where then, does the proverbial buck stop?
I have been growing increasingly concerned regarding the direction in which the Party has been going. I was personally dismayed by events which played themselves out during the final days of the election when our Leader urged Canadians to not vote for us. Yes, her message was mangled by the media, but confusion of her message to the media should have been expected, given the media's track record presenting nuanced discourse. And now we, as a Party, have come out in favour of a Coalition in which we won’t have any say, and which will also likely take Canada in a direction which is not in keeping with the policies of our Party. Policies which, I might add, have been given the benefit of careful consideration by grassroots members. For one example I offer up that Stephane Dion has already nixed the idea that the Coalition would be pursuing a Carbon Tax. While certainly the discussion of a cap and trade system is much better than Harper’s do-nothing approach, it still won’t get the country to where it needs to be.
I believe that we had a golden opportunity to stake out our position, finding a third alternative to present to the Canadian public in an election which is sure to come sooner rather than later, whether the Coalition takes over from Harper or not. Instead, we have chosen to remain the Party which is beginning to appear to be a true one-issue Party; that issue being to promote at all costs the need to remove Stephen Harper as Prime Minister.
I’m not sure this is what I signed up for. I know others are beginning to feel the same way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)