Some Initial Observations on the New Cost / Benefit Analysis for the Maley Drive Extension

A new report was tabled at Greater Sudbury Council tonight - an economic cost/benefit analysis for the Maley Drive Extension, prepared by AECOM.  The report looks at the costs (capital & maintenance) of the project, and compares them to the economic value of certain benefits.  On first glance, the report appears to be incredibly selective in what it identifies as a "cost" and as a "benefit".  I'm sure I'll undertake a more thorough analysis at some point in the near future, but I wanted to jot down my initial thoughts about this report.

First, let me say this about the scope of the project - it looks like the Phase 1 Maley Drive Extension is shrinking again!  According to this report, for $80 million, the new road project will run between Lasalle Blvd. near College Boreal in the west to just east of Lansing - and not all the way over to Falconbridge Road.  Likely the project has shrunk again in order to avoid the rail line / electrical transmission issue east of the Lansing intersection.  Greater Sudburians should know what it is that we're going to get for our money - and it seems to me that with ever new bit of information, the project just keeps getting smaller (see: "Taking a Closer Look at Maley Drive, Part 1: Costs", Sudbury Steve May, April 21, 2015).

Costs

For AECOM, there are only two costs associated with this project: the $80 million capital cost to build Phase 1, which is to be completed in 2019, and the $170,000 annual winter road maintenance costs.  The lifetime of the project is identified as 30 years (which seems very low, given the length of time that other roads have been around).  There is a one-time cost of $75,000 for crack sealing, which will be expensed in 2025.

There is no mention of risks that the costs for Phase 1 might actually be higher, thanks to inflation or whatever it is that seems to drive up the price of road projects over time.  Further, the assumption that the project will be completed in 2019 seems incredibly optimistic, given that the City won't have its 1/3 share of the capital costs available until 2021 at current rates (with $10.5 million in the bank in 2014, and just $2.3 million being added each year through development charges, unless the City chooses to raid the reserves to finance this project, our $26.7 million won't be available until 2021, two years after the AECOM estimates the project will be completed).

There is no mention of lost opportunity costs for other transportation projects, and I think this is a huge hole in the report.  Even if only the City's 1/3 share was to be made available for other projects, such as transit or the Notre Dame road widening, what sorts of benefits might the City achieve, and how do those benefits compare to those identified here for Maley?  Looking at Maley in isolation just isn't acceptable - a real cost/benefit analysis has to consider alternatives.  Certainly a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change mandated environmental assessment process requires an assessment of project alternatives - why hasn't this cost/benefit analysis considered them as well?

AECOM is clear in the preface to the report that its scope was dependent on direction given to it from the City.  So if the opportunity costs from viable alternatives haven't been figured into the equation, it's likely because AECOM was never asked to look at them.  Again, that's just not acceptable when we're talking about a major piece of infrastructure with $80 million worth of capital costs.

About Those Benefits

AECOM looked at a number of benefits, 3 of which it was able to monetize.  The first has to do with a savings in Vehicle Hours Travelled (VHT); the second has to do with the operating costs which vehicles can expect to save as a result of fewer hours spent in travel; the third has to do with the amount of greenhouse gas emissions which can be saved by vehicles spending less time on the road.  Let's look at each of these quickly.

AECOM used traffic modelling based on growth assumptions, likely from the Transportation Master Plan which is still under review.  Let's assume that these models are fine - I'm certainly not in a position to question them, not being a traffic engineer.  The draft TMP is at least based on a realistic growth projection of around 10,000 people over 20 years, so there's that.

Time is Money

AECOM estimates that at peak hours, 457 vehicle hours of travel will be saved.  What, exactly, does that mean?  It looks like that if there were 457 vehicles on the road during the peak hour, they'd each save 1 hour's worth of travel time thanks to Maley.  914 vehicles would save a half hour.  1,828 vehicles would save 15 minutes.

Now, I'm not sure exactly how many vehicles are actually on the City's roads during peak hours, but let's assume it's 15,000 (which is likely low for a City with a total population of over 165,000).  How much would each vehicle save in terms of travel time thanks to Maley?  That's about 1 minute and 40 seconds during peak hours.  Less than two minutes, anyway.

Well, whatever it is, the amount isn't negligible, and according to AECOM, it can be monetized over a year.  AECOM estimates that one hour of travel time is worth $16 for each personal vehicle and $75 for cars.  They've got a methodology to justify this, so again, let's take AECOM's numbers as given.

AECOM estimates a total annual benefit of $11.1 million per year in terms of time saved.  But time saved for whom?  Well, some of that will be time saved for the trucking industry (almost $4 million annually).  The rest will be those few minutes a day saved by the travelling public - or at least, that portion of the travelling public which uses personal automobiles (remember: the draft TMP doesn't look at modal splits for transit/alternative transportation, such as cycling, walking.  It just counts cars).

A couple of minutes a day for car users works out to over $7 million a year at $16 an hour.  But how much of that will individuals really save?

AECOM acknowledges that their report doesn't build in any assumptions with regards to changes in modal split (likely because the TMP doesn't either) between now and 2048 - and again, that's just not realistic, given what we know about the downward trend of car ownership.  Modal split for transit in this community has nearly doubled since data for the first TMP was collected in 2003 - there's no good reason to presume that there won't be additional changes over the next 30+ years.

Vehicle Operating Savings

Next, the report looks at how much vehicle operators can save based on reduced time on the road.  Wear and tear is minimized when cars are parked safely in driveways rather than when they're idling in traffic - so clearly there can be real savings from those 457 less hours on the road at peak times.  AECOM estimates the operating savings for motorists to be $1.15 million for cars and an additional $360,000 for trucks - not huge, but not negligible.  Divided by the total number of drivers (let's again use 15,000 for the sake or argument), that's almost $77 a year, or about 32 cents a business day.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

This one is of personal interest to me. AECOM estimates a savings of $218,000 per year.  It arrives at that figure by estimating fuel savings, and identifying how much carbon pollution would be saved as a result of fewer kilometers being traveled.

Finally, it put a price on carbon pollution.  This is where it gets really interesting.  AECOM estimates a price on carbon of $88.5 per metric tonne.  If  you're not familiar with carbon pricing, let me put that figure into perspective.  Right now in British Columbia, after 7 years of a rising carbon tax, the per tonne price of carbon pollution is just $30 per tonne.  In the recent federal election, the Green Party of Canada had the most aggressive carbon pricing scheme of any federal party - it wanted to see a per tonne price of $30 per tonne.

It is true that most economists believe that the price of carbon should rise to around $200 per tonne by 2030 if we are going to hold global warming at 2 degrees Celsius.  That's considerably higher than the per tonne price AECOM uses for a period much shorter than the 30-year life of Maley Drive.  But is it realistic?  As somebody concerned about the climate crisis, I certainly hope that it may be, but here's the kicker; if carbon is priced at $88.5 per tonne or $200 per tonne, when does that price start to have an impact on lifestyle choices - like driving personal vehicles?

Let's do some quick math here.  Wikipedia tells me that B.C.'s $30 per tonne carbon tax adds 7.2 cents per litre at the pumps (see: "British Columbia carbon tax," Wikipedia), so a carbon price of $88.5 per tonne represents about an additional per Litre charge on gasoline of about 20.5 cents.  Would that additional cost be enough to incent some drivers to leave their cars at home in favour of other modes of transportation?

Not according to the AECOM study, anyway - it assumes a constant number of drivers over time.

Economic Activity and Safety

AECOM indicates that the intent of the Maley Drive Extension is to "alleviate traffic congestion and promote economic activity while improving safety."  And yet AECOM's own cost/benefit analysis looked only at one of these factors: traffic congestion.  The costs and benefits of economic activity and safety are unknown, unassessed.  A lot of those potential costs would be opportunity costs for unimplemented projects which might generate more economic activity (think here how bike lanes and walkability increase economic activity along cycling/pedestrian routes) and safety (slowing traffic with congestion rather than increasing its rate of flow - there is a direct correlation between a higher incidence of dangerous collisions and speed - if safety is the issue, Maley isn't going to help, according to AECOM's analysis).

Oh, and a quick word about congestion - traffic models throughout North America continue to under compensate for congestion.  When new roads get built, they generally lead to higher levels of congestion.  I'm not a traffic engineer, but there is a great deal of work which looks at this activity - whether Greater Sudbury might be unique among North American cities which buck this trend, I just can't say - but we do have a lot of roads here already, and people seem to complain about congestion.  Does that mean that we don't have enough roads, or that we've made it so that if you want to get around, you've got little choice but to drive?  With that in mind, how will Maley really help ease congestion?

Analysis

The most significant problem with AECOM's Cost/Benefit analysis of a shrunken Maley Drive Extension is the lack of assessment related to alternatives.  Using AECOM's approach, I suspect that the addition of any new road infrastructure would likely reveal a net benefit due to lower vehicle hours traveled versus capital costs (unless those capital costs were incredibly high due to site-related issues, that is - things like rail lines or electrical transmission lines being in the way - but I digress).

For a similar investment in, say, the Barrydowne Extension, would there be a larger net benefit identified?  Barrydowne's costs might be a little higher than Maley (but then again, maybe not, as Maley's costs/scope keeps changing) - but if we're going to blow $80 to $100 million on a new road, let's make sure we can get the biggest bang for our bucks.  Maybe that's Barrydowne.  Maybe it's widening MR 35, or MR 80.  Both of those are identified in the draft Transportation Master Plan as municipal priorities - where is the cost/benefit analysis for these (and other) road projects which we can compare this one to?

Further, what about investing in transit or cycling and pedestrian infrastructure?  Seems to me that this sort of cost/benefit analysis would almost be impossible to undertake if one was interested in evaluating those alternatives, mainly because data for these types of trips haven't been entered into Greater Sudbury's transportation models, which only look at cars.

Oh, and about those cars; let's be clear here - besides the benefits from a reduction to greenhouse gas emissions, the net benefits to Greater Sudbury are primarily accrued by motorized vehicle owners/operators - cars & trucks.  The Sustainability Master Plan identified that 1/3 of Greater Sudburians don't have access to personal vehicles when it comes to making travel choices.  That means 1/3 of the traveling population won't receive any benefit from Maley at all - or at least none that was assessed by AECOM.  So only a certain segment of the population will receive these direct benefits.

The costs, however, will be borne by taxpayers, who receive no benefit whatsoever.  Unless they own vehicles, of course.  Vehicles which travel at peak hours.  As an example, my family owns one vehicle, but it's not usually traveling during rush hour.  We're a family of 5 - we'll get no benefit from Maley, but our property taxes will nevertheless be used to maintain this new road.

The study didn't look at other ways of maximizing benefits, either - such as the imposition of road pricing through tolls or HOT lanes (which might be difficult to implement given that Maley is intended to be a two-lane road).  Sure, right now, municipalities don't have the ability to levy tolls.  But there may be other ways to leverage funds - certainly the 2005 Master Transportation Plan indicated that the City should explore financing options for Maley from those who will benefit most, presumably the trucking industry.  Looks to me like none of those options were explored - or if they were, they've been left out of the benefits column because they've all failed.

When the Benefits Outweigh the Costs...

AECOM concludes that since their analysis shows that the benefits of Maley outweigh the costs, there's no good reason not to pay the price and build the road.  But AECOM failed to look at the costs/benefits of building this road versus legitimate transportation infrastructure alternatives, some of which are roads projects which have been prioritized for the City almost as long as Maley.  An assessment which fails to look at alternatives is, frankly, not very useful.  It provides a single snapshot, rather than looking at the big picture - something which I thought transportation engineers were supposed to do.

Further, since the primary beneficiaries will be vehicle owners/operators, and the costs borne by property taxpayers, developers and federal & provincial taxpayers, it seems that it's quite premature to conclude that the net benefits will accrue to "Greater Sudburians" - which AECOM does.  Again, the opportunity costs of assessing alternatives would have been valuable in looking at whether Maley makes sense.

If this were the only piece of infrastructure that Greater Sudbury could build, AECOM makes a decent, if somewhat flawed case, of the economic value of costs vs. benefits.  But we have options in our community - and those options might prove to be better alternatives than Maley.  Our problem is that we've not looked at the costs and benefits of those other options, so we really have no idea whether Maley makes any sense at all in comparison.

AECOM paints a nice picture, but it's hardly a reflection of reality.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

2015 Election Aftermath: Hard Lessons for Greens

Last Monday’s election results were a disaster for the Green Party of Canada.  Not only did the Green Party lose seats (2 incumbents at dissolution with only 1 returned), but our share of the popular vote continued its downward trend from a high of 6.8% in 2008 to 3.9% in 2011 to 3.5% in 2015.  Although some Greens are trying to spin a modest success story from the election by pointing out that party leader Elizabeth May was returned by a healthy margin in Saanich-Gulf Islands (54%), and that the Party’s total vote share increased by almost 30,000 votes over 2011 (thanks to a higher voter turnout in 2015 – which some Greens are also trying to take credit for), there’s really little good to say about what last Monday’s results really mean for the Party.

Let me tell you in no uncertain terms: what happened last week was very bad news for the Party.  We were wiped out.  Out of 338 contests, we finished in first in one, and in 2nd in one other.  We had a few third place finishes, but in those we were mostly well back, percentage wise..  Even in many of the ridings that we ourselves thought we had a chance in (and poured money and volunteers into), we finished 4th.

These results need to be a strong wake-up call to the Party.  What we are doing is clearly not resonating with voters.

Liberal Tide

I understand that there are many who subscribe to the belief that the Green Party, like the NDP, were largely swept aside by a Liberal tide.  Voters were looking for a strategic option to replace Stephen Harper, and a many turned to the Liberals under leader Justin Trudeau.  The NDP lost 51 seats, including seats held by Deputy Leader Megan Leslie (Halifax) and other prominent MPs like Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar, Pat Martin and Peter Stoffer.

I saw the Liberal tide wash away popular local New Democrat Claude Gravelle here in the Nickel Belt – it should have been a safe riding for the NDP.  Thomas Mulcair barely visited Northern Ontario at all, likely because the polls were all telling him that New Democrats would hold their seats in the region.  It didn’t work out that way for the NDP – and it didn’t work at all for the Greens.

Modest Green Election Strategy

Unlike the NDP, the Green Party had more modest goals to achieve in this election.  With only limited financial resources to spend on a national campaign, the Green Party had to be strategic in selecting which ridings to put in play.  When asked by the media what “success” would be defined as for Greens, Elizabeth May was originally on record suggesting that maybe 15 seats would be a success.  That number continued to trend downward throughout the election.

Our party’s strategy was a good one, in my opinion.  While I wasn’t plugged in to the national campaign, I did help local Greens here in Sudbury and Nickel Belt with their campaigns.  Although I was not a part of the national campaign,  it’s fairly easy to see where our Party was concentrating its resources (and when the financials are filed, it will be even that much easier to determine).

With only limited resources at our disposal, our leader could only visit so many ridings.  The National Post has maps of all of the Party leaders campaign trail visits (see: "Follow the Leaders," the National Post), and in comparison to the 3 old line parties, May’s travel plans were very modest. Since leaders are likely to mostly visit the ridings they are looking to win, we can put together a pretty good list of those ridings which the Green Party had identified as “to win” ridings.

"To Win" Ridings

Clearly, all of Vancouver Island was in play for the Party.  Vancouver Island includes 7 ridings, one of which was held by the Party at dissolution (Saanich-Gulf Islands).  Redistribution shook up the boundaries of Island ridings, leaving 2 of 7 ridings open.  North Island-Powell River (where Conservative Laura Smith was in the running), Courtenay-Alberni (where Conservative John Duncan ran), Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke (held by the NDP’s Randall Garrison) and Victoria (held by the NDP’s Murray Rankin. In a by-election in Victoria in 2012 when Rankin was elected, Greens came within 3 percentage points of winning there) all fielded incumbents from at least a portion of earlier ridings.

On the mainland of B.C., Greens were focusing efforts on a few Vancouver-area ridings, including the open ridings of Vancouver East (where long-term NDP MP Libby Davis had stepped down) and  Burnaby North-Seymour (a newly created riding), along with North Vancouver (held by Conservative Andrew Saxton), and West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country (held by Conservative John Weston).

In Ontario, Greens tried to defend the Northern Ontario riding of Thunder Bay-Superior North, held by Deputy Party Leader, Bruce Hyer.  Hyer had been elected in 2011 under the NDP banner, but ended up leaving that party in 2012 to sit as an independent in the nether regions of the lower chamber (beside Elizabeth May).  In late 2013, he joined the Green Party.

Guelph was also targeted by the Greens, with former Ontario Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller carrying the flag.  Interestingly, Miller’s connection to the community of Guelph was not all that firm – in many respects, he was a candidate parachuting into a “winnable” Ontario riding.

Deputy Leader Daniel Green’s Montreal-area riding of Ville Marie-Le Sud-Ouest-Iles des Sœurs also appears to have been in play, if only marginally.  And further east, the Fredericton riding in New Brunswick and the Charlottetown riding in PEI were also marginally in play, after provincial Greens David Coon and Peter Bevan-Baker managed to get themselves elected recently in similar geographies.

Crash and Burn

These 16 ridings (along with maybe Vancouver Centre, the riding in which former Deputy Party Leader Adriane Carr used to run) represented the best and brightest hopes for the future of the Green Party in 2015.  We fielded star candidates (and former CBC on-air personalities) Jo-Ann Roberts and Claire Martin to run in Victoria and North Vancouver.  Simon Fraser University professor and arrested Burnaby Mountain pipeline protester Lynne Quarmby ran for us in Burnaby-North Seymour.  These 3 candidates, along with May, Miller and Green, gave the party a certain small degree of star power in 2015 that, for the most part, the party lacked in previous elections.

(Note: Information about these ridings, along with 2015 election results, appear at the bottom of this post)

Despite having a modest, workable election strategy to contest to-win ridings, and despite having some modest star candidates and two incumbents (three, if you count Jose Nunez-Melo, who joined the Party after dissolution – and I don’t count him), the Green Party crashed and burned on Monday, October the 19th, with but 1 Green MP elected: our leader, Elizabeth May.

And going forward – unless something beyond our control is to give – it looks to me like we’re going to face considerable hardship in the next general election as well. Here’s why.

Progressive Competition

Throughout this election, the Green Party came under fire from the NDP (especially in the west) for essentially having the audacity to challenge New Democrats in “their” ridings.  This notion of riding ownership is a peculiar one, in my opinion.  But the NDP seems to think very highly of it – especially since one of their rallying points in the election was “35 more” – a reference to the seats that the NDP thought they needed to win in order to form government. Of course, when you add 35 to zero – which was the number of NDP ridings they held throughout the election campaign, you get just 35.  Clearly, the NDP were also counting the 95 ridings they held at the time of dissolution, believing (wrongly, considerably wrongly, as it turns out) that they would hold all of these ridings.

Nevertheless, the NDP’s message about the Green Party clearly resonated with the electorate on the west coast.  New Democrats, never ones to let facts get in the way of their spin, were actually only facing real competition from the Green Party in two ridings where their incumbents were running (Victoria & Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke; although the NDP might also have felt that the open riding of Vancouver East was also “theirs” given Libby Davis’ retirement).  In all other non-Green held “to win” ridings, Greens were facing off against Conservative or Liberal incumbents, or the ridings were open.

New Democrats claimed that a Green vote was either a wasted vote, because Greens weren’t going to form government, or a vote for the Conservatives, because it split the progressive vote. Environmental groups and others (including strategic voting advocates) eventually bought into this narrative, and voters were being urged to vote for the NDP or the Liberals in west coast ridings (the NDP on Vancouver Island –except for Elizabeth May; and a mix of NDP/Liberals in the Vancouver metro area), rather than for the Greens.  Voters followed up by electing just one Green MP – Elizabeth May.

Clearly, this narrative was a powerful one, and it’s one that the Green Party is going to face in 2019 as well.  Only in 2019, more than 2 ridings are likely to be held by NDP incumbents.

"Fortress" Vancouver Island

Prior to the election, Green Party members were hearing about something called, “Fortress Vancouver Island”.  Apparently, the Party had done some polling throughout the Island which pointed to the Greens having a decent shot at electing MP’s in every riding (some, like Victoria, were better positioned than others - but all were "in play").  With a power base in Saanich-Gulf Islands and a party leader readily on hand to campaign throughout the Island, everything about the idea of a Green Fortress on Vancouver Island made sense.

What the 2015 election showed was the following: After all the votes were counted, Vancouver Island can appropriately be compared to a "fortress" of Green support.  Some of our best results of the election were on the Island, and voter turnout on the Island was higher than the Canadian average (you may have heard that when Greens do well, voter turnout increases - while that's happened in certain ridings, it's not actually a universal truth. Look no further than the two 2012 by-elections in Victoria and Calgary Centre).  Clearly, we had picked a winner with our Fortress Vancouver Island strategy.

Vancouver Island proved to be the most hopeful geography for Green supporters in the entire nation.

And yet we still failed to elect any additional MP’s beyond Elizabeth May.  Outside of Saanich-Gulf Islands, the NDP swept the other 6 ridings – a feat which they accomplished despite the national trend of seeing New Democrats going down in defeat elsewhere.  A near-sweep of Vancouver Island was one of the few election-night highlights for the New Democrats.

Going forward in 2019, Greens will face strong, progressive incumbents throughout the one region of Canada where we have a higher level of support than average.

Favourable Circumstances

Similarly, on the mainland, the Liberals swept away Green hopes in the Vancouver area ridings we had targeted to win.  The same results occurred in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes.  In 2019, our 2015 “to win” ridings – those ridings we had identified as areas of strength for the party – will be held by Liberal incumbents, some of whom may end up in cabinet.

I understand that a lot can change in 4 years.  But Greens ought to keep in mind that the circumstances in 2019 are likely to be less favorable for a Green breakthrough than they were in 2015.  In 2015, Canada had an unpopular Conservative government with an even more unpopular leader.  The NDP were certainly strong in the beginning of the election campaign, and that likely did hold Greens back to an extent, but once the NDP’s support started to collapse, the Green Party might have capitalized on that collapse in some of our “to win” ridings, like those on Vancouver Island (and Burnaby-North Seymour, where a strong New Democrat was running, and to a lesser extent, Thunder Bay-Superior North, which the NDP had taken in 2011).  As for the Liberals, one might think that there are enough differences between the Liberals and the Green Party in the minds of voters that at least some of the anti-Harper sentiment that the NDP lost in the latter weeks of the campaign might have ended up with us.

But none of that happened.  Poll after poll continued to show that the Green Party was out of the race.  If anything, our support actually declined during the last two weeks of the campaign, and we finished with the lowest level of support that we’ve had since pre-2006.

Campaign Challenges

It’s certainly true that Greens faced significant challenges in getting our message out during the campaign.  At the very outset, voters were once again told not to take the Party seriously by those organizations holding leader's debates.  The fact that Elizabeth May was only in 1 of the English-language debates (and the very first one, held at a time that few voters were paying much attention) really did hurt the Party’s credibility.  As a result, the media coverage that we had hoped for never materialized. National media organizations (and especially the CBC) ignored our Party – failing in many circumstances even to acknowledge that Greens existed in much of their election coverage.

The polling companies followed up with polls that showed Green support was not growing, and a vicious circle was created.  Voters were ultimately offered little in the way of reason to vote for Greens – and that allowed the NDP’s strategic voting narrative to resonate with voters in many of our “to win” ridings (and especially those on Vancouver Island).  Eventually, even those like-minded organizations who support environmental progress, are against pipelines, and who are demanding action on climate change either refused to endorse the Green Party (think here about the Leap Manifesto people) or told their members and supporters to vote for other parties (think here about anti-Kinder Morgan group Forces of Nature - see: "Kinder Morgan pipeline protesters back NDP and Liberals over Greens," CBC, October 14, 2015).

Look, we knew that a number of things had to break our way in 2015 if we were going to experience even the modest successes that we were hoping we might.  We were at risk of being squeezed out by an NDP in Official Opposition and a third party led by a charismatic young leader.  We knew the challenges, and anticipated some of the curveballs that might be thrown at us.

Debates and Media Coverage

Our first order of business was to get Elizabeth May into the debates – something we almost achieved until Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair opted out of the Broadcast Consortium’s debates, which ultimately killed the nationally televised debates..  Being in the debate would have garnered us more mainstream media attention – both before and (especially) after the debates.  It was critical that May be seen to perform well on a national stage, so that the media could continue to speak well of her performance.  In this election, the national stage never materialized - and the smaller, off-broadway debate productions mostly opted to exclude her.

The second order of business would be moot if we didn’t accomplish getting our leader in the debates.  Getting the message out that a vote for a Green MP was a safe, progressive anti-Harper vote just didn’t matter if voters didn’t believe that Greens were electable in the first place.  That we had star candidates in Roberts, Martin, Quarmby and Miller – that didn’t matter.  That our policies were at least as good or better on important issues just didn’t matter.  That we had the best leader in the race – didn’t matter.  Voters were told that voting for the Green Party was a wasted vote. This was proved correct, as every single vote for a Green candidate outside of Saanich-Gulf Islands DID NOT MATTER.

Looking Ahead to 2019 - Wild Cards

Will these challenges be any different in 2015?  There’s a chance they might be.  It is within the realm of possibility to think that there may be a concerted effort made to establish some integrity and actual rules around the broadcast leader’s debate process.  If Green members and supporters want to take up any task over the next four years, this is one that we ought to focus on. Let's ensure that a real process for the debates is established – one that provides us with some certainty that our party leader has a presence as of right at all of the debates.

A bigger wild card, of course, is whether Justin Trudeau and his Liberals follow through on their commitment to change our electoral system.  I think that they will – but I also think that they’ll do it in such a way that won’t benefit the Green Party.  Trudeau is already on record as favouring a ranked ballot process over more comprehensive reforms which move us toward some form of proportional representation.  Ranked ballots will not help elect Greens.  Instead, the old three parties will simply tell their voters to preference one another in order to shut Greens out of the running.  Although these decisions regarding preferences are ultimately left to individual voters, the mainstream media narrative will again be “the Green Party just isn’t serious. Even a second place preference for a Green candidate will be a wasted vote”.  It will become another self-fulfilling prophecy.

If the Liberals, however, do bring in some sort of proportional representation, that will be a game-changer – and it will benefit our Party significantly.  Along with advocating for rules to leader’s debates, Greens ought to get involved in whatever grassroots initiatives spring up which advocate PR. Trudeau is going to be lobbied hard by right-wing anti-democracy extremists to abandon needed electoral reforms.  It's already happening (see: "Tasha Kheiriddin: Why proportional representation will be bad for Conservatives," the National Post, October 28, 2015).  Canadians should be prepared to be bombarded by illy, counter-factual arguments against PR in our media - arguments like "PR is less democratic" and "PR is radical" or "PR leads to a lack of national vision".  In this hostile environment, will Trudeau ever seriously entertain real reforms to our anti-democratic system?

Unfortunately, I just can’t see the Liberals opting for PR over a ranked ballot.  There's too much risk - for the Liberal Party.  I've not given up hope on Justin Trudeau yet.  But I still don't think it's likely to happen.

The Green Party - Next Steps

Where then do we go from here?

Short answer: Right now, nowhere.  Let’s let Elizabeth May get through Paris, and then let’s let the rest of us get through Christmas before we do much of anything.  Although some (not many - and the most vocal aren't Greens. see: "It's time for Elizabeth May to go," Maclean's, October 27, 2015) are calling for May to step down as leader, I think we all know that if she were to do so right now or in early 2016, that would be a death-blow to our party.  We don’t have a “leader in waiting”, and a leadership contest after our dismal 5th place/1 MP finish isn’t going to generate much in the way of media interest for the Party.  Unless some hugely impressive leadership candidate crawls out of the woodwork (like a David Suzuki or a, well, I don’t know who else), for the sake of the Party’s health, May better not step down.

It may be in all of our collective interests to do a little more wait-and-seeing, too – to wait and see what form of electoral reform the Liberals adopt.  Trudeau’s plan is to have something in place in 18 months.  That’s a good timeline for us (although even sooner would be better).  If proportional representation is on the table, well, it’s game on for the Greens in 2019.  But anything other than some form of proportional representation should cause our Party significant consternation – and in those circumstances, I think we should re-evaluate the need for our existence.

What Will New Democrats Do?

Another wild card that could be thrown at the Green Party comes from the New Democrats. Although Tom Mulcair has vowed to stay on as leader, there remains a possibility that he might still step down – or be forced out by his own Party’s members at a mandatory leadership review scheduled for the new year (see: "NDP Leader Tom Mulcair promises to stay 'for the long haul'," CTV News, October 21, 2015).  If Mulcair quits/is forced out as leader, the NDP will have a real opportunity to begin a rebuilding process along the lines of what the UK’s Labour Party recently went through.  If the NDP opts for a positive, progressive leader who talks like a Green, well, that could be it for our Party.  In the UK, many Greens supported Corbyn’s leadership bid (see: "Corbynite Greens beware: Corbyn-led Labour is unlikely to benefit the Green Party," Psycho Politico, August 4, 2015).  The same could happen with the NDP under, say, Nathan Cullen, or Naomi Klein.  If such a leader arose in the NDP - and actually managed to move the party towards a more sensible course, what relevance would there be for a Green Party?

In all seriousness, what are the policy issues which currently differentiate us from the NDP?  I think there are a few, but most are more of a question of nuance and degree than anything else.  We have a better policy for the climate crisis, for sure.  But with a new leader who talks like a Green, the NDP could certainly play catch-up.  Arguably, the NDP already has better health care and education policies.  And as for fiscal responsibility, what does that even mean any more after both the Greens and the NDP ran the last election on “no deficit spending”?

We party insiders might have our own specific issues with NDP policy (I really despise the Sherebrook Declaration, for example), but in the mind of the average voter, where’s the difference?  Maybe they think that Greens are a little better on the environment, and the NDP a little better on everything else.  Whatever they think is influenced by the pitiful amount of media coverage our party generates, along with simplistic voter identification tools like the CBC’s Vote Compass, which placed the NDP and the Greens in almost the exact same position on its two-axis chart.

In the minds of voters, the biggest difference between the NDP and the Greens is this: the NDP is electable, and the Greens are not.

Electoral Success - Worth Pursuing?

Policy and quality local candidates have little to do with electoral success at this time in Canada’s history.  As the NDP proved in 2011, you don’t have to campaign in a riding to get elected.  As the Liberals proved in 2015, you don’t have to have much in the way of concrete policy proposals to get elected.  For electoral success, it's the debates, the polls, and media mentions – that’s what matters.  I realize that may be a difficult message for many in my party to hear, but even those who rebel at the notion of electing a government on the basis of spin and PR (in this case, 'public representation') know in their heats that this is true – and that the past few federal elections, outside of a handful of ridings, have laid a firm foundation for this assessment.

Indeed, if Greens are seriously to contest the next election, whatever else we do, we should focus only on between 3 and 5 issues/messages, period.  And we should do so in an easily understood, positive, media-friendly way.  Our candidates throughout Canada should talk about nothing else, other than these 3 to 5 points.  If we truly want to leave voters with an impression of what the Green Party is all about, 3 to 5 succinct talking points from the 5th Party is likely the best that we can do.

Think back to what message we may have left with voters during this past election.  Other than supporting free tuition and opposing pipelines and fossil fuels, what were our key messages?  I can think of maybe one more: Electing more Green MP’s – and that’s hardly an earth-shattering message that’s going to resonate with voters.  All of those other good things we had to say about free trade agreements, carbon pricing, pharmacare, seniors and cities – nothing.  No one remembers them today – probably including many of my readers.

Of course, the strategy that I've outlined here really goes against a lot of what led many of us to join the Greens in the first place.  We like having good policy. We don't care for the PR side of campaigning.  We really don't like being told what to say.  If a strategy like this is implemented, will we even recognize our Party any longer?  But if we are to experience success at the ballot box, it's pretty clear to me that we have to get serious about message control. The question that we should reflect on as a political party is whether we want to experience success at the ballot box.  And that's been an existential question facing our Party long before I became a member.

Greens Can't Wait for the Green Party

Unless the electoral system is changed in such a way that every vote in 2019 is made to matter, it may be that the best vehicle to achieve the policy goals that are important to grassroots members of our party will be one that is built outside of the Green Party.

As someone who joined the Green Party because of my concern with the climate crisis, I can’t help but recognize that we are rapidly running out of time to take real and meaningful action.  I don’t believe that Canada’s new Liberal government is serious about the climate crisis, and had Canadians elected Tom Mulcair’s NDP last Monday, I don’t believe that they would have taken the climate crisis seriously either.  To me, climate change is far more important than party politics.  I just want something to get done – and I know that many of those reading this blog feel the same way.

If Greens can’t wield influence inside of parliament as Greens, maybe we need to think about becoming something other.  Of course, at the present moment, there does not appear to be any legitimate options for Greens in our parliament, other than to continue to support Elizabeth May.  We must do what we can to ensure that there are real rules in place for the next leader’s debates, and we must advocate for PR.  That’s what we can do ourselves.

If, however, circumstances within the NDP change – meaning, should the NDP finally get serious about climate change, ditch their neo-liberal austerity policies and abandon their culture of spin and fear-mongering in the process, by electing a Corbyn/Sanderson-type leader, than it may be time to admit to a re-evaluation of our circumstances.

I’ll leave you with this final, unlikely thought - one which no one in their right mind would dare think.  What if New Democrats reject Tom Mulcair’s leadership next year?  What if a grassroots movement within the NDP starts to seriously call for new, green leadership, and what if the person that they turn to is Elizabeth May?  Could May cross the floor and run for leader of the NDP?  If she did, would you go with her and help her with that task?  It wouldn’t be easy – but nobody in their right minds think Bernie Sanders will get the Democratic Party's nomination, and nobody in their right minds thought Jeremy Corbyn could become leader of the UK Labour Party, either - much less on the first ballot.

I know, I’m dreaming in technicolour here – but what if Orange really did become the new Green?

(opinions expressed in this blogpost are my own, and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and/or Canada)

Green Party of Canada "To Win" Election Night Results

“Fortress” Vancouver Island

• Saanich-Gulf Islands. Incumbent: Elizabeth May, Green. Green Candidate: Elizabeth May. Finish: 1st Place, 54%
• Victoria. Incumbent: Murray Rankin, NDP. Green Candidate:Jo-Ann Roberts. Finish: 2nd Place, 33% Winner: Murray Rankin, NDP, 42%.
• Nanaimo-Ladysmith. Incumbent: None. Green Candidate: Paul Manly. Finish: 4th Place, 20% Winner: Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, 33%.
• Esquimalt-Saanich-Sooke. Incumbent: Randall Garrison, NDP. Green Candidate: Frances Litman. Finish: 3rd Place, 20%. Winner: Randall Garrison, NDP, 35%
• Cowichan-Malahat-Langford. Incumbent: None. Green Candidate:Fran Hunt-Jinnouchi. Finish: 4th Place, 17%. Winner: Alistair MacGregor, NDP, 36%.
• Courtenay-Alberni. Incumbent: John Duncan, Conservative. Green Candidate: Glenn Sollitt. Finish: 4th Place, 12%. Winner: Gord Johns, NDP, 38%
• North Island-Powell River. Incumbent: Laura Smith, Conservative. Green Candidate: Brenda Sayers. Finish: 4th Place, 8%. Winner: Rachel Blaney, NDP, 40%)

Vancouver and the Lower Mainland

• Vancouver Centre. Incumbent: Hedy Fry, Liberal. Green Candidate: Lisa Barrett. Finish: 4th Place, 6%. Winner: Hedy Fry, Liberals, 56%.
• Vancouver East. Incumbent: None (held by Libby Davis, NDP, at dissolution). Green Candidate: Wes Regan. Finish: 4th Place, 9%. Winner: Jenny Kwan, NDP, 50%.
• North Vancouver. Incumbent: Andrew Saxton, Conservative. Green Candidate: Claire Martin. Finish: 3rd Place, 8%. Winner: Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, 57%.
• West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country. Incumbent: John Weston, Conservative. Green Candidate: Ken Melamed. Finish: 4th Place, 9%. Winner: Pam Goldsmith-Jones, Liberal, 55%.
• Burnaby-North Seymour (Lynne Quarmby) 4th Place, 5% (winner: Terry Beech, Liberal, 36%)

Ontario

• Thunder Bay-Superior North. Incumbent: Bruce Hyer, Green. Green Candidate: Bruce Hyer. Finish: 4th Place, 14%. Winner: Patty Hajdu, Liberal, 45%.
• Guleph. Incumbent: None (held by Frank Valeriote, Liberal, at dissolution). Green Candidate: Gord Miller. Finish: 4th Place, 11%. Winner: Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, 49%.

Quebec

• Ville Marie-Le Sud-Ouest-Iles des Soeurs. Incumbent: None. Green Candidate: Daniel Green. Finish: 5th Place, 5%. Winner : Marc Miller, Liberal, 51%.

New Brunswick

• Fredericton. Incumbent: Keith Ashfield, Conservative. Green Candidate: Mary Lou Babineau. Finish: 3rd Place, 12%. Winner: Matt DeCourcey, Liberal, 49%.

Prince Edward Island

• Charlottetown. Incumbent: Sean Casey, Liberal. Green Candidate: Rebecca Viau. Finish: 4th Place, 6%. Winner: Sean Casey, Liberal, 56%.

Trudeau No Climate Champion

Monday's election, which saw Justin Trudeau's Liberals swept into power, has given rise to optimism that Canada will play a more positive role at December's Paris climate summit. Success in Paris is critical for a new international treaty limiting global warming to just 2 degrees Celsius. Trudeau is set to overturn Canada's reputation as a climate laggard, after Stephen Harper's multiple “Fossil of the Year” awards, driven by the Conservative's refusal to take the climate crisis seriously.

During the election, Trudeau committed to going to Paris with Canada's 10 provincial premiers.  The Liberals also promised to sit down with the provinces within 90 days of the summit to produce a strategy to meet Canada's emission reduction target (see: “A New Plan for Canada's Environment and Economy,” Liberal Party of Canada, August 2008).  Had Monday's election returned Harper's Conservatives to power, Canada would almost certainly have been doomed to miss yet another emissions target – the woefully unambitious target of 30% of 2005 levels by 2030.  Although Harper had long insisted that targets would be in keeping with those of our largest trading partners, Canada is now out of step with the U.S. and Mexico, as both NAFTA nations have pledged deeper reductions.

Like Ontario's Premier Kathleen Wynne, Trudeau has been talking about putting a price on carbon pollution, which is a critical step needed to begin reducing emissions.  Right now, business and industry are free to pump climate changing greenhouse gas pollution into the air for free – a practice former U.S. Vice President Al Gore says treats our atmosphere as an “open sewer”.

It may be that Trudeau can walk into the Paris talks and convince the world that Canada is ready and willing to take climate change seriously.  His charm and personality, backed up by the participation of the provincial premiers, should be enough to change the tone and perception of Canada among the international community. Don't look for Canada to win 2015's Fossil of the Year award, even though Trudeau will have only been in power for a few weeks.

Yet, at a time when national leadership is needed to begin the process of decarbonizing our economy, Trudeau's approach to climate change has been criticized as one that leaves the actual heavy lifting to the provinces.  Trudeau has made it clear that carbon pricing should happen at the provincial level.  This will likely lead to balkanized pollution pricing schemes where some provinces are doing more for the national good than others.

Although committed to restoring the environmental assessment process gutted by Stephen Harper, and reforming the National Energy Board, Trudeau has often characterized these changes as a first and necessary step to approving bitumen pipelines (see: “Pipelines, reassuring business on lengthy to-do list for Canada's next finance minister,” Embassy, October 21, 2015).  More pipelines are only needed if the intention is to expand tar sands production  – and that's completely incompatible with a serious climate change plan.

Dr. David Suzuki revealed that in a personal conversation with Justin Trudeau in June, Trudeau called Suzuki's science-based observation that  80% of the tar sands will need to stay in the ground, “sanctimonious crap”.  This revelation made headlines for the Suzuki's response to Trudeau (Suzuki admitted to calling him a “twerp”), but the real story appears to be that Trudeau and the Liberals lack a firm understanding of the best available climate science (see: “Why David Suzuki called Justin Trudeau a 'twerp',” Maclean's, September 26, 2015).

Despite Trudeau's desire to price carbon pollution, don't expect Canada to suddenly emerge as a climate champion under our new Liberal regime.  What Canada opted for on Monday was a government committed to building pipelines and expanding the tar sands, albeit in a kinder, gentler way.  Without a science-based plan to reduce emissions, Canada under the Liberals will continue to miss out on creating 21st century jobs that fuel the green economy while tackling the climate crisis.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star as "Trudeau no climate champion," on October 24, 2015 - without hyperlinks.

Can we Finally Retire Useless Poll-Based Seat Projections?

Another election, another problematic night for Canada's pollsters.  Although national polling picked up the late election Liberal surge (some say the polls themselves were responsible for that surge - but that's another blogpost), they failed to predict the magnitude of upset.  The Liberals finished with 39.5% of the popular vote - fractionally lower than the Conservatives received in 2011.  At the end of the night, the Liberals finished with 184 (54.4%) of the seats, giving Canada yet another false majority government (in 2011, the Conservatives finished with 166 of 308 seats, or 53.9% of available seats).

The extent of the Liberal surge wasn't the biggest surprise for pollsters - the collapse of the New Democrats, and to a lesser extent, the Conservative parties proved to be the biggest story of the night for pollsters - or more specifically, how those collapses played out on the ground.

I'll use one pollster as an example here, as all of the pollsters either under-predicted the Liberal surge, or over-predicted the Conservative/NDP vote to a degree.

EKOS released its final poll of the election on October 18, 2015.  That poll had the Liberals at 35.8% - almost 4 points lower than where they actually finished.  The Conservatives were pegged at 31.9% (which was actually bang on what the Cons ended up with), and the NDP were at 20.4% (less than 1 point of where the ended up at 19.7%). EKOS once again over-estimated the Greens, giving them 5.6% on the 18th, compared to our election-night finish of 3.5%,  To a lesser extent, EKOS also over-estimated the Bloc, awarding them 4.9% on the 18th versus their actual finish of 4.7%.

Those numbers aren't out in left field when it comes to final tallies - at least not percentage-wise.  Election night surges appear to be more commonplace now that we find ourselves in a 24-hour polling cycle, so it stands to reason that there may be big shifts happening on that last day of voting.  Certainly the trends for all three parties over the final week showed that the Liberals were heading for a victory of some sort (although few were predicting a majority - shoutout to Mainstreet Technologies here, who predicted the majority two weeks ago), and that the NDP was in free-fall.

The real big polling failures, however, happened when the polling numbers were used by pollsters and others to forecast the number of seats each party was likely to have on election night.  Most seat-based projection methodologies start with a snapshot from the last election, and use national and/or regional polling data to predict outcomes in various ridings.  A lot of the criticism leveled at this
approach has to do with the fact that local personalities, issues and other factors are left out of the equation.  However, for those watching Canada's elections, it is increasingly becoming apparent that the "local" aspects of electoral success have little to do with election outcomes - save maybe for

having a strong ground game in place in various ridings to pull the vote on election days.  Local issues, candidate's personalities and credentials, are having less and less of an impact on which way the vote goes.  The national campaign is everything.

Given the lack of importance of the "local" in electoral outcomes at the riding level, it should be that the job of the pollster's is made easier for seat projection forecasts.   And yet, instead of accuracy, what we've seen is a failure.

The Liberals ended up with 184 seats; EKOS projected just 151.  Poll aggregator ThreeHundredEight dot com predicted 146, with a range between a low of 124 and high of 161.  The Toronto Star's The Signal had the Liberals at 160, ranging between 140 and 177.

The NDP finished with just 44 seats, yet EKOS projected 54, ThreeHundredEight 66 (range: 51 to 90), and The Signal 50 (range: 29 to 71).  

Even for the Conservatives, the seat projections were off the mark, despite the polls coming closest to predicting that party's popular vote count.  The Conservatives finished with 99 seats.  EKOS had the Cons pegged for 116.  ThreeHundredEight - 118 (ranging between 100 and 139).  The Signal - 120 (ranging between 109 and 133).

Although the popular vote polls all experienced some problems predicting outcomes, the seat projections for the parties proved to be quite out of synch with where the parties ended up on election night.  How can it be that projections based on data that was only somewhat off led to such wildly problematic seat forecasts?

Frankly, the seat projectors starting points are in the wrong place.  Just as pundits were quick to point out that when the writ is dropped, it's a whole new ball game (made in response to the NDP's on-going claim that they just needed 35 more seats to form government - a claim that failed to recognize the fact that some or many of their seats at dissolution might have been at risk of loss - and perhaps the NDP believed it's own hype, and mistakenly took those 2011 electoral successes for granted during the 2015 campaign), so too should pollsters come to recognize this fact: Past results are a poor predictor of future outcomes.

That's something that PunditsGuide's Alice Funke has been on about for years (see: "Pundits' Guide weighs in with a caution against strategic voting," Scott Piatowski, Rabble.ca, October 1, 2008).  PunditsGuide, of course, is storehouse for actual election data.  Funke has done a lot of analysis to come to this conclusion - and yet, election after election (federal, provincial, municipal), pundits fail to take into consideration the wisdom she's gleaned from crunching the numbers.  

As a result, a great disservice is done to Canadian voters - voters who are likely far more influenced by the polls than the parties - or the pollsters - want to give them credit for.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

If the Green Party Can't Count on Environmentalists...

What the hell?  The CBC reported yesterday that anti-Kinder Morgan pipeline protest uber-group, Forces of Nature, has decided to throw its support behind the Liberals and the NDP – and is specifically supporting the NDP candidate in the riding of Burnaby-North Seymour, which is a pretty big deal (see: "Kinder Morgan pipeline protesters back NDP and Liberals over Greens," CBC, October 14, 2015).  The Green Party is running Simon Fraser university professor Lynne Quarmby in Burnaby-North Seymour – who was arrested in the riding for protesting Kinder Morgan’s plan to run its pipeline through Burnaby Mountain.

Forces of Nature is apparently endorsing Elizabeth May to win in Saanich-Gulf Islands, but everywhere else in BC, it’s telling its supporters to vote for the Liberals or the NDP in a strategic voting effort to oust Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

Force’s of Nature’s pro-NDP, pro-Liberal announcement is actually a pretty big deal.  Here’s how I see it:

1)      It shows that grassroots pro-environmental organizations which are concerned about climate change and pipelines can engage in hypocritical activities by publicly supporting organizations which are at odds with their core issues.  In this case, that’s pipelines and climate change.  Both the NDP and Liberals want to build more pipelines and expand the tar sands, which will exacerbate climate change.  Seems to me like a no-brainer for an organization like Forces of Nature to oppose that thinking, but Forces of Nature has apparently bought into the strategic voting hype.

2)      Left-leaning organizations continue to believe that “strategic voting” works despite the monumental evidence that it doesn’t.  This is especially true in new ridings like Burnaby-North Seymour, and at times of dramatically shifting voter loyalty as we’re seeing now with the Orange Crash well underway.  Let me repeat: guessing the way the voters will cast their ballots on e-day in a particular riding is often a mug’s game.  You can’t use a point in time snapshot from a month ago (as Leadnow is doing) on which to base a “logical” outcome.  The Left needs to get its act together on the crazy idea of strategic voting and toss it in the trash once and for all.

3)      A party can do everything it can to create policies which appeal to a certain voting block – only to be abandoned by those whom should be their natural supporters at the last minute.  Does Forces of Nature’s defection to the pro-pipeline crowd signify its own hypocrisy, or a glaring overwhelming weakness of the Green Party in BC and throughout Canada? Probably, it’s both.  It’s really not all that different than so much that I’ve heard during this election campaign, from climate change crusaders and ordinary Canadians: “You guys have the best policies – they align with my values.  But I’m still going to vote for the Liberals or the NDP, because you’re hopeless.”  However, I think it’s one thing for an individual to act this way, but quite another for an organization like Forces of Nature, whose very existence is due to its anti-pipeline stance.

Rift Between Greens and Environmentalists

What I think this might signal is a growing rift between the environmental movement and the Green Party. In many respects, grassroots organizations that have coalesced around particular issues have gone out of their way to remain non-partisan, in order to attract the widest range of support possible.  In many cases, these ad-hoc initiatives are spear-headed and supported by people who are apolitical – or have given up on Canada’s political system to the point that they’re going to lump all of our political parties together on a list with the heading “Failing Canada”.  I understand that this says something more about our political system – but it’s a system that we in the Green Party have chosen to act within.  And maybe that’s been to our detriment.

NDP - Not Taking Climate Change Seriously

Some in the NDP have been trying to make the case that the Green Party is actually detrimental to environmental and climate change action in Canada because Greens are perceived as having a monopoly on the issue.  That monopoly means taking the environment and climate change largely out of the realm of political discourse amongst the other parties.  While they may talk a little of these things, there is no sense of issue ownership – the climate crisis becomes just another single-serving tid-bit on the dim sum tray, rather than a main course.

Personally, I don’t think the presence of the Green Party on Canada’s political scene should deter any other party from talking about important issues and adopting appropriate policies to address the climate crisis.  I don’t believe that “issue ownership” should have any legs – and when an issue gets to be very important to voters (like health care, for example), all parties get in on the action with solid policy development that differs from one another more in nuance than substance.  The same should be true of climate change – but the fact is, it’s not – and while that sort of justifies the NDP’s critique of the Greens, I think it says a lot more about their poorly developed, poll-driven populist policy-making.  I’ll continue to blame the NDP for falling down on the job on this issue.

But clearly there’s resonance out there.  Many just don’t trust the NDP to do the things that they’ve said they want to do.  They don’t trust the NDP to build more pipelines, and to expand the tar sands.  They believe that the NDP (and to a lesser extent, the Liberals) will actually act in the best interests of Canada and reverse its course on climate change should they come to power.  Sort of like a conversion on the road to Ottawa.  Well, I’m sorry, but Tom Mulcair is not Saul/Paul – I, for one, believe he’ll remain true to his convictions (and to his union backers) and find a way to get those pipelines built.

(as for the Liberals, well, while there are some who continue to believe that the Liberals are a party of the progressive left, I’m not one of them – and I’m not going to waste my time here writing a whole heck of a lot more about that).

Ideological Compatibility Does Not Translate into Support for the Green Party

The release of the Leap manifesto should have scored us some points, but once again, Leap authors wanted to remain non-partisan, even though their manifesto most closely aligned with the Green Party’s vision.  Leap, too, failed to inspire much of a conversation about their issues during this election campaign – probably because the NDP had to ignore them, because the mainstream media painted them with the brush of the “disgruntled dipper” – and as “champagne socialists”.  That’s not to say that Leap might not find its legs after the election campaign – but it is to suggest that what it’s proposing is out of alignment with the old line political parties, and likely with a majority of Canadians.  The fact that even Leap in the circumstances that it found itself in couldn’t say anything positive about the Green Party spoke volumes to me.

This May Be It

So, whither the Green Party? After this election, a lot is going to be written about how my party failed (once again) to inspire Canadians to actually vote for them, despite throwing a lot more money into the campaign and having a very popular party leader in parliament for the past 4 years.   Sure, Greens were squeezed throughout the campaign due to other 3 parties having been bunched up in the polls for so long (the Greens needed some room to grow – we didn’t find any).  And yes, Elizabeth May not being in the debates was massively problematic for the party, because her absence reaffirms with voters that the Greens aren’t a serious political party (and clearly this isn’t just an issue about the debates – a lack of national news coverage from the mainstream media hurt us equally or more).  I said before this election that a number of things needed to break our way for the Greens to make an impact – frankly, none of them have.

So if the Green Party can’t inspire new voters, and we can’t inspire those voters who should make up our core (like Forces of Nature and Leap) to vote for us, how much longer will there be a Green Party?

I don’t like the idea of abandoning my principles just so that I can make a little headway in my opposition to “the other” (in this election, that would be Stephen Harper).  I understand that politics is the art of the compromise, but for me at least, there are certain core principles which simply can’t be set aside.  Support, even tacit, for organizations which are working at odds to one’s core well-being and beliefs is one of them.  That’s why I can’t support the NDP or the Liberals in the way that Forces of Nature has so publicly and hypocritically. 

The Victory of Progressive Incrementalism

But maybe that’s just me.  I also understand the power of incrementalism – I did study urban planning as my undergraduate, after all.  Incrementalism is a powerful force.  But unfortunately, when it comes to the climate crisis, it’s also an impediment.  The incrementalist approach espoused by the NDP (and to a lesser degree, the Liberals, whom I don’t believe are in any way actually serious about climate change) isn’t going to get us to where we need to be in the time that we need to be there. 

But if incrementalism seems to be the best that we can do, who am I stand in its way?  Well, perhaps I’m just too much of an idealist – because I don’t believe it’s the best that we – that Canada – can do.  And it angers me to no end when people and organizations who know better instead hypocritically champion incrementalism and mediocrity. 

Yet, maybe the Green Party’s policy ambition has ultimately proven to be its downfall.  There’s something to be said about “neither left, nor right, but out in front” – but if we’re so far out in front that when we look behind we can’t see the next float in the parade, perhaps we’ve let ourselves get away a little too much.

If the environmental movement isn't ready to embrace the Green Party, maybe it's time to think about packing it in as a political party.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

On Climate, the Times Are a-Changing

Three stories out of the United States this week offer hope to those concerned about the climate crisis.

Pope Francis visited the United States, where he interjected himself firmly into the 2016 Presidential election narrative.  After meeting with President Obama at the White House, Francis addressed both houses of Congress with what was surely for some Republicans, an unsettling message: our generation must be the one to take serious and responsible action to address climate change (see: “Read Pope Francis’ speech that he gave at the White House,” ABC News, September 23, 2015). While many Republican Presidential hopefuls continue to deny the reality of human-made climate change, they are increasingly finding themselves offside with an American public that understands how science works.

Earlier in the week, Democratic Presidential hopeful Hilary Clinton announced her opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.  Clinton cited her belief that approving the pipeline, which would see dirty Alberta bitumen pumped to Gulf coast refineries, was not in keeping with the need to combat climate change (see: “Hilary Clinton breaks silence on Keystone XL pipeline: ‘I oppose it’,” the Guardian, September 22, 2015).  Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the other Democratic frontrunner, have formed a united front on Keystone XL.

And, in what is turning out to be one of the worst corporate scandals of this century so far, German auto manufacturer Volkwagen was caught by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for installing “defeat devices” in their vehicles (see: “How a minor emissions experiment put Volkswagen in hot water,” the Globe and Mail, September 23, 2015).  The U.S. has some of the most stringent vehicle emissions standards in the world.  VW’s defeat devices were used to trick emissions tests, allowing as many as 11 million vehicles to emit hundreds of thousands of additional tonnes of nitrous oxide - a potent greenhouse gas. Consumers who turned to VW for a “greener” vehicle purchase are up in arms (see: “Overview of Greenhouse Gases, Nitrous Oxide,” the United States Environmental Protection Agency). Since the scandal broke, Volkswagen has lost around US$28 billion of its market value (see: “Volkswagen emissions scandal – as it happened on Tuesday,” the Telegraph, September 22, 2015).

As Bob Dylan sang about a different shift of perspective that washed over America in the 1960s, ‘the times they are a-changing’.  In the lead-up to critical international climate negotiations in Paris this December, a new sense of optimism is in the air, thanks to what’s happening south of the border.

The United States of America is the world’s foremost economic powerhouse.  Where the U.S. leads, other nations are often forced to follow.  If the U.S. chooses to take the Pope’s exhortations to heart and begin the process of vigorously decarbonizing its economy, climate laggards like Canada may have little choice but to do the same – or potentially face retaliatory border tariffs for exports that don’t have built-in costs for carbon pollution.  The choice may become one of getting with the program, or paying the price for our obstinacy.

The sheer size of the U.S. economy means that if anyone wants to sell a product in the States, they’re going to have to follow U.S. rules and play ball with regulators.  While some multinational corporations like Volkswagen might try to game the system to their advantage, as VW is now finding out, scandalous corporate trickery can have multi-billion dollar consequences.  Major corporations will now think twice about playing similar games with the EPA.

President Obama visited the front lines of the climate crisis on a recent trip to Alaska.  As Air Force One over-flew the island of Kivalina, and the President had a chance to see first-hand how the rising ocean is slowly swallowing the island – along with its human inhabitants (see: “Obama Takes on Climate Change: The Rolling Stone interview,” Rolling Stone, September 23, 2015).  In 2008, Obama claimed that his election to the Presidency signaled the moment when the rise of the seas started to slow.  While that hasn’t happened yet, Obama remains keen to leave behind a legacy of climate action.  It is widely expected that the President will show an iron resolve to push forward a meaningful climate treaty in Paris.  Our children and grandchildren will benefit from his efforts.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)

Originally published in the Sudbury Star without hyperlinks, September 26, 2015 - print and online - as "Times are a-changing"

Nickel Belt MPP France Gelinas Sides with Bigots to Score Cheap Political Points

Whether one thinks that there may be problems with Ontario's proposed sex-ed curriculum or not, what is clear is that there are many who oppose the curriculum based on bigoted, and frankly, homophobic ideas. In this article, one of my fellow citizens, Paulette Bonin, is quoted as saying that she wants to protect children from "certain lifestyles" which is newspeak for homosexuality. That's disgusting to me, and it absolutely detracts from what otherwise might be legitimate concerns of those who oppose parts of the new curriculum.

It's also an embarrassment to my community that attitudes like this continue to persist in the year 2015.

What's also a real embarrassment, however, is my MPP tacit support for these bigoted protesters who were outside of her office on Wednesday. Instead of condemning their homophobic attitude, in her statement to the Sudbury Star, France Gelinas acts as their apologist, claiming that the Liberals brought this homophobic attitude on themselves because they failed to follow through on a commitment to consultation.

There are two things wrong with that. First, no level of consultation is going to ever change the mind of a bigot. France should know this.

Second, where our NDP MPP ought to be leading the condemnation of this backward attitude, she instead decides to use the episode to score cheap political points by bashing the Liberals - with whom she agrees with on the sex-ed curriculum by the way - instead of making a point to her constituents that bigotry and homophobia have no place in our community.

For Shame!

See: "Sex-ed critics take to Sudbury streets," the Sudbury Star, September 3, 2015.

(opinions expressed in this blog are my own and should not be interpreted as being consistent with the views and/or policies of the Green Parties of Ontario and Canada)