Cameron Wigmore, Green Party Member

BC Liberals cut funding to arts - tell them it was a mistake

2009-10-22T23:37:00.000-06:00

Please consider emailing a short letter to your MLA and the BC arts minister explaining why you support the arts and communicating that the BC Liberals will not receive your vote/support specifically because of their recent cuts. If you don't live in BC you can still speak up on behalf of the arts. Below are a few good statements about why the arts are important and worth supporting.

Cheers,
Cameron

- - - - -

BC Liberal Party
Telephone: 604-606-6000
Toll-free: 1-800-567-2257

BC Arts Minister: KEVIN KRUEGER
TCA.Minister@gov.bc.ca
kevin.krueger.mla@leg.bc.ca

Kamloops-South Thompson Office
Tel: (250) 314-6031 or Toll Free: 1-888-299-0805
Victoria Office
Tel: (250) 953-4246

Deputy Minister's Office
LORI WANAMAKER
Telephone: 250 356-6981

The MLA in Nanaimo is Leonard Krog of the NDP:
leonard.krog.mla@leg.bc.ca

Nanaimo North Cowichan (NDP)
douglas.routley.mla@leg.bc.ca

Parksville-Qualicum is Ron Cantelon of the Liberals:
ron.cantelon.mla@leg.bc.ca

Phoning the constituency office and emailing MLAs sends a message. Attending forums during elections and asking questions that put pressure on them is a good way to make them understand that we won't roll over when they try to destroy our livelihood.

From http://www.stopbcartscuts.ca/
"...Even prior to these cuts, the BC arts and culture sector received almost the least arts funding of any Canadian province, a miniscule 1/20 of 1% of the provincial budget. That amount, while crucially important to the arts sector, is generally considered a negligible portion of the budget. The actual numbers? $47 million will be reduced to $3 million in two years. This is a 91% cut, compared to cuts in other sectors which range from 9%-29%. (For more specifics on how the cuts are being carried out - and it's complicated - see the "Why are the cuts so confusing?" section below.)

No other province has cut arts funding during this recession. Many provinces have actually increased funding, because it is proven that this is a form of stimulus that works for the whole economy, recession or not. Furthermore, the culture industry is a lucrative and growing industry, one that is quickly overtaking many failing traditional sectors. It needs seed investment; we cannot afford not to stimulate culture. Why in a recession are the BC Liberals saying they can't afford this negligibly small subsidy, when they are contradicted by all the available research, including their own?..."

From: http://thetyee.ca/ArtsAndCulture/2009/09/04/FlexYourMuscles/
"...Could it be that the government needs to aggressively target spending in one sector to show that it's tough, that it won't blink as it protects the humble taxpayer from the ravages of this terrible economic downturn (so terrible that even this all-knowing government didn't see it coming)? Could it be that Gordon Campbell's cabinet has decided that arts groups must take this fall for the greater good of its claimed reputation for prudent fiscal management?..."

One person's comments: "...People in BC still don't seem to get it, for the most part. Arts and Culture drive tourism. Without arts and culture (and boy, do we need to grow this sector, since it's one of the only healthy ones we have) the vacation planning conversation goes something like this: "Oh,Vancouver... you mean that place with the nice mountains - and oh, yes, really big social problems - way out there at the edge of the known world? No, not really. They have nothing going on of interest..."

The arts and culture sector is worth 5 BILLION (yes, that's right) to this province's economy each year. People seem to have this idea that arts spending isn't an investment. Well wake up, it is - from the most bare bones economics to the incalculable value of living in a civilized society and educating our children beyond being video-game playing boors. Economically, spending on arts and culture generates a return - A RETURN - of $1.38 for each dollar spent. Artists are not looking for handouts. They are some of the hardest working and most underpaid workers we have. They give far more to communities than many of the things that people like to think deserve support. The auto-workers, corporations and now the forestry sector, all think a hand-out from the government - OUR money - is a good thing ... Why not invest in a sector that still works, even in a bloody recession, one that gives a return? The arts aren't a luxury - they are a necessity, as any short survey of civilizations and even tribal communities will reveal. WAKE UP people!..."

Tell the politicians that they will never get our support because of their actions.

Sincerely,
Cameron Wigmore
Nanaimo, BC
(Green Party candidate, '06 federal election, Crowfoot riding, AB)

--

- - -
Cameron Wigmore
camsax@gmail.com
http://www.myspace.com/cameronwigmore
http://www.youtube.com/CamTheCat
- - -
The saddest thing I ever did see,
was a woodpecker peckin' at a plastic tree.
He looks at me, and "Friend," says he,
"Things ain't as sweet as they used to be."
- Shel Silverstein
- - -

ID scanning at bars banned but bars continue to violate privacy

2009-08-19T12:35:00.001-06:00

Here's an article I submitted to the Nav.

Imagine living in a country where private corporations forced citizens to allow the scanning of their ID as a condition for entry into their businesses. Grocery stores, malls, concerts and festivals might be the sort of places where this ID scanning would occur, and the data collected could be stored by the company for a year or more. It would be simple - and in the company's best interests - to get the ID information they collect synchronized with our medical records, allowing them to prevent anyone with serious health problems from gaining entry. For liability reasons, those businesses could then refuse services to any individuals they wished, based on the criteria they decide, with information gained from our government issued IDs and maybe even medical records.

Now imagine a private company starting along this road of ID scanning, even though the provincial government's privacy commissioner has ordered it to stop. This is happening right now in B.C. at some of our local bars, and this subject is larger than just security at bars.

On July 21st '09 the Information and Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis released Order P09-01, in response to a complaint about the scanning of a bar customer’s driver’s license. The complained was made under B.C.’s Personal Information Protection Act (“PIPA”), which regulates the collection, use and disclosure of personal information by businesses.

Here is an excerpt of the press release (see link below) that accompanied this decision.

Section 7(2) says a business “must not, as a condition of supplying a product or service, require an individual to consent to the collection, use or disclosure of personal information beyond what is necessary to provide the product or service.” The Commissioner accepted that it is “necessary” to collect personal information of certain customers for the purpose of operating a nightlife establishment, but not “to develop and maintain a personal profile containing the personal information of all customers in order to effectively track the few who may be removed from, and subsequently barred from re-entering, an establishment. Certainly, the full scope of information which is collected by Wild Coyote and the length for which it is retained is not necessary to achieve that purpose” (para. 98). The Commissioner therefore found that “a requirement for consent to the collection of personal information through the TreoScope system is a requirement for consent to the collection and use of information ‘beyond what is necessary’ for providing the service of operating a nightlife establishment in the terms I have described” (para. 98).

It seems clear from the excerpt above that storing a person's ID for extended periods of time is not allowed; that doing so is beyond what could be considered reasonable. Still, after this decision was made, the local bars with this data collection system did continue to scan and store ID information. More from the press release:

Section 11 of PIPA says a business “may collect personal information only for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances”. The Commissioner found that, under s. 11 of PIPA, the collection of personal information was not appropriate in the particular circumstances, including given the nature and amount of personal information being collected. He found that “it is reasonable... for it to be able, in order to preserve a safe environment for customers, to identify those individuals who have been determined to be violent, or otherwise undesirable for re-entry from a safety perspective, and thus improve customer safety” (para. 127). He went on to say, however, that “much of the information collected by the TreoScope system”, including driver’s license numbers, “does not further this safety purpose”, adding, “Moreover, I have not been provided with any reason related to improved customer safety for an establishment’s retention of any information at all relating to customers who are not involved in violent incidents” (para. 127).

What this means is that it's not necessary for a company to collect and store personal information of patrons who are not violent. While the businesses obviously need to keep violent people out, it should be able to do so without having to collect and store the personal information of other patrons.

You might ask, "what about our personal safety? Isn't this a good thing?" The commissioner addresses this stating that "I am well aware of, indeed share, public concern about gang violence and public safety in British Columbia... I have decided that it is reasonable for Wild Coyote to be able, in order to preserve a safe environment for customers, to identify those individuals who have been determined to be violent or otherwise undesirable for re-entry from a safety perspective, and thus improve customer safety. For the reasons given above, however, the collection of personal information as a whole does not comply with PIPA. In this light, and in view of the reasons given above, I invite –– indeed, strongly encourage––those involved to seek the views of this Office if they wish to find a solution for collecting personal information of a nature, and in a manner, that complies with PIPA."

Loukidelis's decision to ban scanning of ID at bars upholds Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To hold a prospective patron's personal information as a condition of entry into a bar is an unreasonable invasion of a person's privacy.

Our local bars were told that their efforts were too heavy handed, but they continued to scan IDs, collect personal information and store it for up to a year. Isn't it odd that the bars seemed to think they could avoid B.C.s privacy laws in an effort to curb lawlessness?

The company that gathers our personal information had been collecting more than necessary, and storing it for up to a year. The public, government and media took notice. Recognizing that this data collection system could be shut down, Owen Cameron, the owner of Vancouver-based TreoScope Technologies which created the software used to collect information, contacted the B.C. Privacy Commissioner. A compromise was met. The drivers license numbers of patrons will no longer be collected, and the data that is collected will be stored for no longer than 24 hours. This is similar to recent events in Alberta. It has been one year since Alberta's privacy commissioner ruled scanning licenses is a privacy violation and that decision was upheld by a provincial court in March.

Every society must decide what rights each individual will have, and what power or control the government or corporations may have over the citizens. Here in Canada we tend to value our personal freedoms very highly, while also appreciating the services and protection provided by our government.

recent media coverage:
http://www.vancouversun.com/scanning+comply+with+privacy+laws/1919993/story.html

http://www.bclocalnews.com/news/54005187.html

A previous version of this was published in papers and can be read online here and here.

For more information:
press release (pdf link)
http://www.oipcbc.org/news/2009Releases/1NR-OrderP09-01.pdf

Order (large PDF link)
http://www.oipc.bc.ca/PIPAOrders/2009/OrderP09-01.pdf

additional press release
http://www.oipcbc.org/news/2009Releases/NR-BarWatchConsultation.pdf

Is Canadian Culture Important? Harper Says NO

2008-08-16T10:37:00.005-06:00

Apparently our PM Stephen Harper, who likely enjoys paint by numbers and took lessons as a child to learn how to play the radio, doesn't recognize the economic and other benefits of investing in the arts.

I'll tell you what's wrong with cutting funding for Arts and Culture.

According to a 2001-02 Statistics Canada report, with an investment of $6.8 billion from three levels of government, the arts and culture sector directly employed 740,000 people and generated $26 billion for the economy.

The arts and culture sector employs as many people as the combined sectors of agriculture, forestry, fishing, mining, oil, gas and utilities.

Green Party: Harper's disrespectful attitude towards cultural expression will damage Canada's reputation

"Slashing funds for cultural activities, both domestic and abroad, is damaging to the fabric of our country and further jeopardizes Canada's international reputation," said Ms. May. "This move appears to be more about extending the government's long tentacles of control into the area of cultural expression, but this move will backfire on Canada. Mr. Harper is slashing the arts in cynical attempt to win votes from a base he mis-reads. Most Canadians want to support a vibrant arts community."

CBC: Cultural groups blast additional federal arts cuts

After mostly silence (save for brief statements from department spokesmen) this week, Heritage Minister Josée Verner defended the Trade Routes and PromArt decisions in an interview with the French arm of Canadian Press on Thursday.

"What's being considered … is to examine how we can create a new program or new avenues that will be more efficient and with a stronger impact for our culture abroad," Verner said.

This quote above is interesting. The Cons Heritage Minister says they are seeking better efficiency, but dismantling a working program to possible recreate it at some point in the future seems fairly inefficient to me.

TheStar.com: Tories cut five more arts programs

"The opposition seems to be accusing us of having an agenda to see that the arts is funded to a lesser extent on an ideological basis, and I can say that's not the case (because) we are spending more on the arts than the Liberal government," said Kory Teneycke, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's director of communications.

The above quote is typical of the Harper Tories. Defend their actions by saying the Liberals are worse. This redirect won't work this time, because cutting tens of millions of dollars in funding can't be defended by implying that Liberals might cut even more. They aren't the ones in power cutting funding. The Harper Tories are, and no amount of blame-shifting or weak excuses will change this.

National Post: Frustration builds over federal cultural cuts

"These cuts are shocking and short-sighted, and they certainly aren't business friendly," wrote Waddell in a statement. "Support for arts and culture are among the most efficient investments a government can make. "

Investing in the arts stimulates the economy. Let's say an artist receives a grant to tour. They then need to rent vehicles, buy plane tickets, pay for meals eat at restaurants, stay at hotels and so on. Their shows are at venues which employ people. The public gets dressed up, maybe in nice new clothes, and drive their vehicle (or even better use public transit ;) and pay for parking to go out for dinner and a show to see the artist. I could go, and I know I'm missing some steps, but I think you probably get the picture.

globeandmail.com: Ottawa to axe five more arts and culture programs

Canadian Heritage Minister Josée Verner defended the cuts saying the government only wanted to help arts and culture organizations in a more efficient manner and those being axed failed to demonstrate that they were providing sufficient returns for the dollars invested.

"Culture is an essential element of the identity of a nation and in that sense, will always have its unfailing support," she said.

So it's like that. "I'm hurting you because I love you." If this is what the Harper Tories call "unfailing support", I'd hate to see what they call closed-minded, ideologically based pigheadedness.

Defending these actions on the basis that a program "failed to demonstrate that they were providing sufficient returns for the dollars invested" is ludicrous. The government has done no studies to confirm that there were insufficient returns on dollars invested. Due to the supposed failure to demonstrate, the Tories think they then have a right to act without investigating or checking if their assumptions are correct. Shouldn't this action be based on something more substantial? If they actually proved that there were insufficient returns on dollars invested that would mean something, but there's no proof of that. Instead they say there was a failure by the programs to prove their worth. Shouldn't the government have to prove the inefficiency of a program before they axe it? This is sort of a "it's your fault for not proving your worth to us" kind of an angle.

Tories decimating culture funding

Asked to explain the cuts, the Prime Minister's spokesperson, Kory Teneycke, suggested some of the funding choices made by the programs were inappropriate, and said money was going to fringe art groups that in many cases would be at best, unrepresentative, and at worst, offensive.

The government is cutting cultural programs to please its ideological base. The Conservatives still don't understand that in a free and democratic country, artists should be able to create without fear and what they deserve is help from our leaders, not threats.

During the Conservative tenure, arts and culture has seen its importance diminish and be marginalized by cuts or ideological attacks over and over. Funding for cultural infrastructure, like community museums and cultural promotion has suffered, but freedom of creation has also been under attack, as seen with the debate on bill C-10 and censorship.

We are witnessing true Conservative ideology at work here. They are cancelling, one by one, programs that don't fit their mindset and culture is taking the biggest hit. Worst, hundreds of artists, creators and organization are left in the dark as to which programs will be cancelled next.

Letter - Living Room plans worry south end residents

2008-07-08T16:35:00.002-06:00

The following is a letter I've written to the local papers about VIHAs plan to couple transitional housing with a failed addictions program. I have some experience working in this area.

- - -

VIHA's Living Room attempts appear disorganized and remind some south end residents of a salesperson trying to remarket the same old failed product. Unfortunately, we are the ones who have been paying for VIHA’s learning curve.

The past incarnations of the Living Room, as hard as they were to manage, were in commercial areas. Now they want to put it in the middle of a residential neighborhood, adjacent to transition housing for those trying to get away from the street. Is there some study showing this might actually work, or was this decision simply motivated by dollars and cents?

At the south end community meeting, a VIHA spokesperson said, “we see it as a good thing to have the Living Room coupled with the residence.” No study was offered to back that up. Does the VIHA operate on gut feeling and intuition alone? I thought these services were supposed to be spread throughout the city. In fact there are studies showing that over concentration of these services can have a negative effect.

Because we’re not getting any answers about how our safety will be ensured or protected, I’m uneasy about this planned project. The list of rules we were given by VIHA were both naive and directly solely to the inside of the building.

If I were asked to place money on this venture as a positive thing for our community and those on the street, I think I’d keep my wallet in my pocket. On the other hand, if I was asked to invest in this as a real estate venture, this might be profitable. Maybe that’s where VIHA's heart is at.

Cameron Wigmore
Nanaimo, BC

Stop Cable Bay boundary extension before Aug 5th

2008-07-07T13:27:00.001-06:00

I recently phoned city hall about this controversial development and “negative option” approval process being used to bypass voter involvement. To be clear, the actual development isn’t what’s being voted on; the expansion of the city boundary to include this resort and golf course is the subject. It’s the developer who wants the city boundary expanded and our council has basically made sure that the developer will get their way. This is a big deal because it allows further sprawling of the city, and shows that Nanaimo isn’t serious about sustainable development and urban renewal through increasing population density.

It will take a decade to get proper transit service (as the RDN suggests) if the city doesn’t invest in building up the residential, commercial and industrial areas that already exist WITHIN the city limits. By expanding city limits and allowing developments to GROW our city, they prevent our central Nanaimo population from being concentrated enough to support ½ hr bus wait times instead of the current hour long wait between most busses.

If you wish to get more information you can call Bruce Anderson, Manager of Community Planning at 755-4483. Contact your city council to let them know what you think of this: http://www.nanaimo.ca/cityhall/index_inside.asp?id=213&collection=57

Click on the link below to get the elector response form that you can print and submit, or phone city hall at 250-755-4405 to have them mail it to you.
http://www.nanaimo.ca/uploadedfiles/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/StatutoryAAPPublicNotice.pdf

In the news:
City Deserves Better Effort
http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_central/nanaimonewsbulletin/opinion/23202169.html

Residents hope to stop project
http://www.canada.com/harbourcitystar/news/story.html?id=98be0e77-5e58-4bba-a800-b30c147967b6

Nanaimo Transit Better Service Now

2008-06-20T12:05:00.004-06:00

I recently overheard a young man on the bus speaking with his friend about gas prices. "Well," he said, "I'm taking the bus because it's gotten to the point that I have to choose between feeding my kids or my truck."
When we consider this reality, we must ask why our city isn't hurrying to invest in our public transit services.

From the citizens point of view, there needs to be a viable alternative to driving our own cars. Currently the bus service is too sparse to properly serve the people of Nanaimo. If our city invests more in this green form of transportation, we will see increased ridership, less congestion on the roads and less pollution. By avoiding the costs of running our own vehicle we can choose how to spend the money saved instead of feeling like a slave to our gas tanks.

Upon reviewing the 2008 Nanaimo transit plan I noticed that while the plan seems appropriate, the timeline for implementing service improvements is far too drawn out. On the RDN transit web page it states that "The projected addition of more than 90,000 annual service hours would result in nearly doubling the conventional transit service level in the Nanaimo region over the next decade." Ten years is a long time for us to have to wait for reasonable service so that we can realistically consider commuting to and from work on the bus instead of by car.

It is shown that the net cost for the RDN to implement all short term options (2009-'10) would be $692,000. These improvements include ten new busses offering an additional 24,500 hrs of service. While this is a good start, I think it can be implemented faster.

Where I really want to see faster implementation of the decade long plan is in the medium range service options. Proposed to be implemented by 2018, these increases include 24 vehicles running for an additional 65,900 hrs, at a net cost for the RDN of $1,609,000. When I consider how much our city council went over budget on the PNC, I have to wonder why our city isn't investing in our transit system right away, rather than over the next decade.

I ride the bus. I have asked a lot of people what they'd like from our transit system, and they always remark that more frequent service on existing routes is needed immediately. This transit plan will offer that, but over the next ten years. That's too long to wait. As a member of your city council, I would be a strong advocate for better service now from our public transit. Our transit system isn't up to par with the rest of BC. I will help get it there, and I'll work to make it an excellent example of how a city can really make it's transit system work for its citizens.

Decision to Run for Nanaimo City Council

2008-06-12T10:29:00.010-06:00

(this is a copy of a letter to the editor I recently sent to my local papers)

It was inspiring to learn that NALT (Nanaimo and Area Land Trust) has made a call for council candidates to address sustainability and environmental issues. After speaking with a number of community members, and with their encouragement and support, I have decided to run for city council.

A green development option would be to invest in creating a complete picture for Nanaimo communities, reducing the need for us to go across the city for work or shopping. Devoting lanes to busses and cyclists instead of expanding roads is an effective way to reduce congestion and encourage greener forms of transportation. It’s also less expensive and more sustainable than adding evermore lanes to our roads. I understand that our transit system is considering doubling service within the next decade, but I don’t think we should have to wait that long. The cost savings are considerable for individuals using transit instead of driving, and that money can be spent in our communities rather than pouring it into our gas tanks. This is a case of “build it and they will come”, and I know many people who would commute by bus if routes would run more frequently.

Efficiency and conservation are two of the most powerful tools in our efforts to run a city sustainably. We can strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology. Over the long term these efforts can reduce water, energy and transportation development costs significantly. Experience has shown me that to achieve ecological sustainability and well-being in our community we need to work with local businesses. As a member of city council I would be consulting the residents, community groups and business owners of Nanaimo frequently, rather than paying costly consulting firms to make decisions. I define a fiscally responsible city council as one that keeps a close eye on its budget so it doesn’t have to resort to raising property taxes as a result of overspending. Other local concerns I'm aware of include drug and homelessness problems and development strategies.

Having run for a federal political party, and having served on the national council for that federal party, I know that I have the experience and insight to get things done in our city. I recently attended a Nanaimo city council meeting and realized a strong desire to get directly involved at a local level. Knowing that groups like NALT are encouraging participation in our local political scene gives me hope that we can keep Nanaimo on a sustainable path.

Sincerely,

Cameron Wigmore

- - -

UPDATE! (August '08)

I'm sad to announce that I will not be running for municipal council in the fall.

In late June I suffered a herniated disc in my lower back and had to be taken by ambulance to Victoria for emergency surgery. It'll be a few more months before I'm back up to full speed, but it does seem like I'm on the path of full recovery.

What this means to my campaign is that I've lost a lot of momentum that I would have been building over the summer. Something I learned when I ran in the last federal election for the Green Party of Canada is that for a campaign to be successful it needs good planning including volunteers and fundraising. I have not been able to devote the necessary time and effort to win, and I know that while I'm in rehabilitation I'll be moving too slow to chase down Nanaimo voters on the street.

Thank you for all of your support!

Cameron Wigmore

Seeing Through Spin and Making Messages Stick

2008-04-03T16:10:00.000-06:00

Framing, messaging, communicating, debating and spinning. Like a trip to the dentist, this is stuff that most of us average everyday cats would rather avoid, but once it's dealt with we become better able to chew up those who would try to use these tools against us.

This blog post has been created in an effort to help you to see through the spin; to understand how to communicate purposefully through frames that will help your messages stick.

When I first became involved in electoral politics I discovered that one of the things I loathed most about politics and politicians is their use of frames to message. They can do it so effectively that it's difficult to argue against their message, even when you disagree completely. As I learned how they do this, I became better able to spot the spin in daily news. I became more at ease in discussions about subjects and issues with people who disagreed with me. I may not be able to win every debate or convince every person to agree with me, but I now know how to counter spin and avoid frame traps.

Framing is the practice of influencing how people think and feel about issues by encouraging them to think about them in a particular way. This is done with language that conjures up and appeals to images and values that people know and understand deeply. By that definition it is different from 'spin', which can be defined as a heavily biased portrayal in one's own favor, of an event or situation, made through selectively presenting supporting facts or quotes. To be clear, this definition of framing has nothing to do with the murder mystery novel character who is always accusing the other guy of 'framing' him. "I was framed!"

The website HarperIndex.ca has a great summary of the idea of frames and how the political Right-wing uses them at this link here.

Good ol' Wikipedia also has an entry about political framing, of course.

Rather than bore you with my own rambling about frames, I would like to offer up an interview with George Lakoff exploring the ways that conservatives use language to dominate politics.

In this excerpt he gives us an example of framing:

GL: The phrase "Tax relief" began coming out of the White House starting on the very day of Bush's inauguration. It got picked up by the newspapers as if it were a neutral term, which it is not. First, you have the frame for "relief." For there to be relief, there has to be an affliction, an afflicted party, somebody who administers the relief, and an act in which you are relieved of the affliction. The reliever is the hero, and anybody who tries to stop them is the bad guy intent on keeping the affliction going. So, add "tax" to "relief" and you get a metaphor that taxation is an affliction, and anybody against relieving this affliction is a villain.

"Tax relief" has even been picked up by the Democrats. I was asked by the Democratic Caucus in their tax meetings to talk to them, and I told them about the problems of using tax relief. The candidates were on the road. Soon after, Joe Lieberman still used the phrase tax relief in a press conference. You see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

BP: So what should they be calling it?

GL: It's not just about what you call it, if it's the same "it." There's actually a whole other way to think about it. Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists — vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues — you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.

BP: So taxes could be framed as an issue of patriotism.

GL: It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country — the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation. But what would it take to make the discussion about that? Every Democratic senator and all of their aides and every candidate would have to learn how to talk about it that way. There would have to be a manual. Republicans have one. They have a guy named Frank Luntz, who puts out a 500-page manual every year that goes issue by issue on what the logic of the position is from the Republican side, what the other guys' logic is, how to attack it, and what language to use.

Take notice! That's the same Frank Luntz who advised Harper and the CPC on how to message. It was big news about two years ago, and Harper has been working with this tool ever since. Messaging through framing, that is.

See more from HarperIndex on how they frame issues related to war. (There is a list at the end of the article linked to above that offers ways to reframe the subjects. Check it out and use them liberally.)

Click here for the full story about Harper and Luntz.

Harper and the CPC have been learning how to frame the issues so that their political opponents have to play by their rules in their logical sandbox, and they've also been using a guidebook helping them to strategically paralyze Parliament to their own advantage.

Harper takes this stuff very seriously, as does the 'right-wing' of the political spectrum. They are way better at framing their message than the 'Left'. They spend more money on their efforts to win our minds than the other political parties, and if we don't pay close attention we'll fall for their spin.

One think for those in the business of messaging that is very important: if the Right tries to use a frame and the Left picks it up, the Left will lose every time. Quoting sundog, one of the people who commented on Luntz and his strategy report (available for download and study):

Luntz's tools ARE words and frames, but do not be deceived: most of the tools he talks about are crafted with a very specific purpose and will only hurt us if we try to pick them up.

Luntz's mission is to hijack the english language. This as a way of robbing his opponents (us) of their most important weapons: ideas. Words, after all, have meaning. And Luntz wants to make sure the important words are moored to right-wing ideas.

Look at his advice on "fairness" for example. "Fairness" is a word with strong progressive identifications, it is an idea that consistently and reliably evokes liberal values. If you're a neo-fascist, this is troubling; "fairness" is a weapon liberals have been able to rely upon.

What's Luntz's solution? Redefine fairness. "Remove that [weapon]," he says, "and you will have the majority for a generation." Disconnect "fairness" from the more progressive ideals of justice and morality. Connect it instead with the more 'rightie' ideals of ownership, personal responsibility, etc.

Fairness is an issue we can win on, but sunscribing to Luntz's definition will only hurt our cause. It's a feint. Beware of adopting his prescriptions. Some of the stuff is about beating the other to the punch, some of it's plain poison.

Here's more on Frank Luntz and the language tricks he uses.

Back to Lakoff. Here are a few links to more usefull information.

Linguistics professor George Lakoff dissects the "war on terror" and other conservative catchphrases

Book excerpts: Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think by G. Lakoff

I imagine you either knew about this stuff already and are excited to have access to all of this information, or maybe you just discovered it and are a bit overwhelmed with the whole situation. It could be that you support the CPC, describe yourself as conservative, liberal, eco-socialist, libertarian or some other spot on the political spectrum. No matter what your political leanings are, you can benefit from this information. We're all people, and we all need to recognize and understand when someone else is trying to manipulate us.

More useful links:

Rockridge Institute

Golden Lake Institute

How to respond to conservatives

Making Environmental Messages Sticky

Two posts here and here by a fellow who says Lakoff is 'a brilliant guy' but argues that there's more the subject of frames and framing than Lakoff can offer.

Straw Man - know your enemy!

Political Spin - know their weapons!

2007 Year In Review Environment And More

2007-12-27T15:42:00.000-07:00

This will be my last post of the year.

I'm going to share a few news pieces covering environmental stories of 2007, but before I do I'd like to reflect on my own personal experiences this year.

The year started with talk of a spring election (much like we're seeing again) and I was hard at work organizing and facilitating Green Party training sessions back in southern Alberta. In the end there was no federal election, but my wife did decide to run for the Green Party of Alberta in a provincial byelection in the late spring. I had started full time work at the Tyrrell museum again, and she resigned so she could stay at home with our son. As soon as the byelection was over Jen wanted to work again, so she got a part time job and we saved up a bit of cash. In September a job opportunity opened up for Jen here on Vancouver Island, and obviously she got the job. We made the move from Drumheller AB to Nanaimo BC in about a month. Her job here is great, our son loves the mild weather and the trees, and I'm starting to get some gigs playing around Nanaimo. I also have a part time job to make ends meet. I'm very excited about the direction our lives are moving in! Next move: selling our house back in Drumheller, and possibly buying some land and building some kind of green home. We've been looking at yurts and manufactured homes as well as small condos or townhouses, and we still don't know exactly what move to make.

I've taken up a supportive peripheral role in the local GPC electoral district assoc. We have a great candidate here and I look forward to the next federal election when I'll be door and phone canvassing during the campaign. I left a big hole back in Alberta, but I'm confident that the Crowfoot EDA, working with the provincial organizer, will be able to find a solid candidate for the next election. As of the fall council elections, Alberta has a strong and capable representative on the GPC Federal Council in Mark Taylor.

Throughout the year my blogging efforts had me exploring and learning about energy, economics and how both subjects are so very intertwined with the environment. Thanks to many visitors here on my blog who forced discussion and debate, I'm now much better informed on these subjects.

For more on specific subjects, or to see my posts over the year, please view the right hand columns listing my blog posts by subject and by month.

Here are a few news summaries of 2007 environmental news.

See you in the new year!

2007: The year in environment
22 December 2007 NewScientist.com
Catherine Brahic

The Magnificent '07
The top green stories of 2007
By David Roberts and Lisa Hymas
20 Dec 2007

Twelve Environmental Victories in 2007
Environmental Defense
03-Dec-2007

ABC Australia - Year in Review - Environment
By Elaine Ford - Dec 19, 2007

News review 2007: Reality of climate change hits home
22 December 2007 - New Scientist

Elizabeth May Interview Videos

2007-12-27T13:37:00.000-07:00

Here are some links to videos of Elizabeth May, including some national television interviews.

CTV did some year end interviews with federal party leaders. This one's with Elizabeth May.

On December 12th, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, addressed the Canadian Club of Ottawa. The title of May's speech was "The Climate Crisis: Running out of Time".
CPAC video of the event

CTV interviews Elizabeth May on the Chalk River reactor, medical isotopes and Harpers decision to override the nuclear safety regulator.

Interviews with the Leaders- December 20, 2007
CPAC's Peter Van Dusen conducts a series of interviews with the leaders of Canada's federal political parties. Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, NDP leader Jack Layton and Green Party leader Elizabeth May speak candidly about their visions for the country.
Click here for interview video, and fastforward to the last quarter of the video clip (right after Layton) to see Elizabeth May.

Interview with Don Newman of CBC from Dec 21, '07.

An oldie but a goodie: Leslie MacKinnon of CBC provides an in-depth portrait of Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada.

Seasons Greetings from Elizabeth May

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change

2007-12-27T12:36:00.000-07:00

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change, say Canadian Nobel scientists

This isn't really new news for most of us, but this statement is worth a closer look, as the recommendations are intended to improve the sustainability of our society, among other things. They state that "Individuals, corporations, and all levels of government around the world have a duty to act as global citizens in the face of the danger posed to life on Earth and to the well-being of the human race as whole."

Obviously one must already accept that climate change is happening, that it's human caused, that the effects are negative and will continue to get worse. There are mountains of data available to back this up. Governments around the world understand the problem and are taking action. Unfortunately there are still a few people out there who are falling for the disinformation promoted by the climate change deniers. Before they can understand and accept the recommendations for action on the climate crisis, they must first understand and accept the realities of the climate crisis.

Climate change is a huge issue, and when faced with the enormity of this problem it's tempting to try to deny it's existence. For those readers who are already past this point, please read on, but for anyone reading this who still aren't on board with the international scientific community, please first read How To Beat Denial - A 12-Step Plan, and then read How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, and then go on to the rest of this blog post.

From the news release:

The statement's twenty-seven endorsers include two Canadian members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Price jointly with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

"In the long run, we need to focus on sustainable levels of consumption, which means finding ways to rein in our currently insatiable demand for more and more," said Professor Danny Harvey of the Department of Geography at the University of Toronto, who also served as lead author of the latest IPCC assessment report.

The scientists also cast doubt on the reliance upon nuclear power and large-scale biofuels to prevent climate change. "It is no secret that humankind is already struggling to eliminate hunger and the loss of biodiversity," said Ryerson University Professor Emeritus of Physics Helmut Burkhardt. "To take land away from food production and from rainforests is, in a global perspective, not an option."

The Wasan Action Framework urges governments and international bodies to curb overconsumption, promote lower global birth rates through women's education and empowerment, focus on low-impact renewable energy sources, reduce carbon emissions and preserve forests.

Full declaration & recommendations:
Wasan Action Framework (PDF)

Outdated Nuclear Energy Technology Rest In Peace

2007-12-27T12:09:00.002-07:00

Before the year ends I'd like to post a few links to some information and news on nuclear energy, the outdated technology that won't solve our energy needs, won't lead to sustainability, won't ever be safe, won't solve the climate crisis, and won't ever be fiscally responsible. May it continue its slow disappearing act and rest in peace for the duration of this century and beyond.

Oh, we can't just walk away from nuclear energy and be done with it? We still have spend a LOT of money to 'safely' store huge amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years? Hmm... maybe we should ignore that and just keep building more nuclear power plants to meet our rising energy demands.

Energy efficiency and consumption reduction measures be damned; forget about renewable energies and green technologies and reinvest heavily in nuclear energy because our energy consumption is going up, up, up, and we're going to need more nuclear energy! Hold on, I see a pattern emerging...

Seriously though, here are those items I mentioned.

Dec 10th, '07
Child Cancer Risk Higher Near Nuclear Plants - Study

"Chernobyl taught us that technical deficiencies, human failure, and at present also terrorist attacks, may lead to a
catastrophe of unforeseeable dimensions. But did we learn from the catastrophe? That’s one of the questions we try to explore in this brochure."
Women Active Against Nuclear Energy (PDF)

ATOMIC BALM: NUCLEAR REVIVAL IGNORES CASUALTIES
By Joseph J. Mangano

"It should be a sobering thought for Canadians to face the grim facts that Canadian uranium particularly from Saskatchewan, is being marketed to countries that use the "waste" from nuclear power reactors to be sold or given away to manufacturers of depleted uranium."
Full letter to editor by Oscar found here at this forum.

Nuclear Weapons and the Link to Nuclear Power

Nov '07 Opposition demands debate on joining nuclear club
"...Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader, said she was furious that the decision to join a pro-nuclear group occurred in silence without any public consultation..."

Dec '07 Ireland Greens: Ryan refuses uranium mining licences

Video - Helen Caldicott at Uof Regina speaking on the dangers of the nuclear industry, including nuclear power, mining, waste and weapons.

Canada’s role in depleted uranium weapons worldwide

DU weapons & war crimes
After 3 years of investigation by 60 expert witnesses and jurists at a cost of $1 million raised by Japanese citizens, the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo on March 10, 2004 found President George W. Bush guilty of the war crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons by US forces in the 2001 war against Afghanistan.

Experts agree that a substantial portion of the depleted uranium in the DU weapons used by the US in Afghanistan came from Canadian uranium. Had the Tokyo Tribunal been diligent, it could have found Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who resigned as Prime Minister on December 12, 2003, guilty as an accessory to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, for failing to enforce Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations, and the Canada-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, both of which prohibit Canadian uranium from being used in DU weapons.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) says, “Canada may have the policy, but it’s not enforced. The Canadian government is taking directions and orders from the nuclear industry… “The uranium industry has a vested interest in ensuring its depleted uranium waste makes a profit and is not just left in storage. That’s why some of Canada’s depleted uranium is ending up in weapons, Edwards says. “The Canadian government can’t even think for themselves.”

"We Are Living Through Another Hiroshima," Iraq Doctor Says

Nov '07 'Safe' uranium that left a town contaminated

NUCLEAR ENERGY - A DEAD END

UPDATE: (Feb 18th '08) Out Of Commission
Story from the UK telling us how nuclear power plants will never 'rest in peace'. At least not without rapidly increasing cost to decommission them, and not without massive cleanup efforts.

From the story:

...As costs for decommissioning appear to spiral out of control - rising sharply from £56bn to £73bn over just a few years - the burden on the taxpayer grows ever more. And it doesn't end there...

UPDATE #2 (July 2008)
UK's nuclear clean-up industry in turmoil, report reveals

Chaos at the heart of Britain's nuclear clean-up industry has been laid bare by an internal audit undertaken by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), following embarrassing cost overruns that forced the department to find £400m worth of emergency funds from other budgets to balance the books.

The department admits that there are now "inherent risks" associated with the financial affairs of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and reveals that budgetary problems were exacerbated by misunderstandings, unminuted meetings and lack of sufficiently trained staff.

Green Party at 13% - ahead of NDP in polls

2007-12-27T01:32:00.004-07:00

From the new Strategic Council poll, the GPC is at third place with 13%. This is is the first time ever that the Green Party has polled ahead of the NDP.

The GPC is trending upwards, with many recent polls putting the Greens in the double digits. See this new Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey that has the Green Party at 12%.

- - - - -

UPDATE: (Feb 16th, 2008) For 1st time Greens within 3% of NDP according to Feb 16 Ipsos Reid Poll

"...A long list of polling companies over the last few months have put the Green Party ahead of, tied with or on a 'virtual tie' with the NDP -- Ipsos Reid, Strategic Counsel and Harris Decima among others -- so the Green Party's rise compared to the NDP can no longer be said to be a once-off occurance it's now a clearly emerging trend..."

More here: In Quebec, Green party at 11 per cent and the NDP with 10

- - -

UPDATE: (Apr 4th, 2008) Grits Tories Remain Deadlocked

The latest Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests the Tories have 32 per cent support, with the Liberals at 30 per cent, which is within the survey’s margin of error.

The NDP have 13 per cent, the Greens 12 per cent and the Bloc is at nine per cent...

...In Quebec, the latest poll suggested 37 per cent support for the Bloc, 21 per cent each for the Conservatives and Liberals, 10 per cent for the Greens and nine per cent for the NDP.

In Ontario, the survey suggested the Liberals are at 38 per cent with the Tories at 33 per cent. The Green party has 15 per cent, leading the NDP at 10 per cent...

Continued attention on homelessness, addiction and crime

2007-12-27T01:20:00.000-07:00

...will help us solve the problems.

(this is a letter to the editor I sent to many local papers recently)

In nearly every issue of every paper I read something about our efforts to improve upon the issues of homelessness, addiction or crime. Obviously most of us take these issues very seriously. Helping those who’ve lost their way, or who’ve fallen on hard times, to become productive members of society seems to be the goal. This is a year round challenge for everyone.

Thank you for your continued demonstration of compassion and willingness to tackle and resolve these issues. I have faith that with our attention and collective efforts we will become a part of the solution, and we will find lasting solutions to these problems.

Happiness Is...

2007-12-17T13:46:00.001-07:00

An excellent article by Bill McKibben exploring how the environment that sustains us has become very relevant to economics, and how a new shift in focus on well-being can help people understand the relationship between economic activity, our quality of life and the environment.

The Green Party already has extensive policy (also found here, and in other places throughout the federal party's website) on the interconnectedness of the environment, the economy and societal well being. And if this article isn't enough reading on the subject for you, I've blogged on it before as well.

From the article:

...we were so deeply enmeshed in the rhythms of consumer culture that challenging it in any real way seemed anathema. You could really see this attitude at work in the negotiations around the World Trade Organization. Relentless expansion of the international economy was the central business at hand – labour and environmental concerns could be discussed, but as ‘side agreements’. We were, literally, in the margins; the economic worldview loomed so large that all else was in its shadow.

But that’s begun to change – or soon will. Or could, anyway, if environmentalism begins to transform itself from a fixation on filters and light bulbs to a new fixation – on human satisfaction. For a very long time, ‘happiness’ has been considered a soft topic, something that hippies and sandal-wearers bothered themselves with and the actual world ignored as it went about the important business of More. In the past decade, however, economists, aided by psychologists and sociologists, have begun to question some of their assumptions...

...British economist Richard Layard, who has written a great deal about this work, says: ‘We now know that what people say about how they feel corresponds closely to the actual levels of activity in different parts of the brain, which can be measured in standard scientific ways.’ People who call themselves happy also seem happier to their friends, live healthier lives, and so forth.

Which allows you to start doing something interesting. It allows you to start reversing two centuries of reductionism. Instead of asking: ‘What did you buy?’, you can ask someone: ‘Is your life good?’ And once you’ve asked that, you’re in position to ask the most subversive question there could be: ‘Is “more” better?’

Because if more really is better, then environmentalism is a lost cause. There aren’t enough Powerpoint slides of calving icebergs to turn things around.

But if more isn’t necessarily better, then there are possibilities.

And so here’s the bottom line. We’ve become significantly richer, but not significantly happier...

Leadership Meltdown

2007-12-14T15:47:00.001-07:00

See Chris Tindal's blog through the 'read more' link below on the decision by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the rest of parliament to:
- allow operation of a nuclear reactor with a lack of safety mechanisms
- override the independent federal government agency that regulates the use of nuclear energy and material
- ensure solid profits and stock value of Life Sciences firm MDS

read more | digg story

Building the Green Economy

2007-12-14T12:22:00.000-07:00

I will be posting a series here over the next few months covering different parts of the Green Party of Canada's Vision Green document. The first section I'd like to explore is called Building the Green Economy.

Economics is a subject that is tied directly into the environment. For many decades the field of economics has failed to recognize that our economy is a subset of global ecological systems. Instead, economists have traditionally looked at the environment as something to be values and consumed in the pursuit of economic prosperity; the environment, along with everything else, has been viewed as a subset of the economy.

The logical errors in that outdated model are now becoming readily apparent: as we degrade and consume ecosystems, we pay dearly for the loss of that 'natural capital'. Take the example of how New York City chose to implement a comprehensive watershed protection program to preserve and restore natural filtration services as a more cost effective means of maintaining water quality than water treatment. Here's another link to info on this example. This outside the box thinking is slowly being adopted by economists and some governments, but not many, and certainly not fast enough.

Now past the point of global sustainability, our resource consumption under an economic growth model is becoming a dangerous and obviously outdated model. It was Walter Bagehot who said, "The whole history of civilization is strewn with creeds and institutions which were invaluable at first, and deadly afterwards."

The following selected text excerpts are from the Vision Green introduction on a green economy.

The Green Party approach is to think holistically. How can we achieve the best possible economic result? What are the fiscal and regulatory impediments to economic sustainability?

With the U.S. our largest trading partner, how can we maintain a healthy economy without surrendering our sovereignty and becoming subsumed into the U.S. orbit, as contemplated by the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership?

We strive for stronger local economies with a small business focus, increased national and regional self-sufficiency, economic diversification, more “fair” trade, more value-added manufacturing of resources, more green-certified production and a rapid shift to more renewable energy to create local economic opportunities.

This generation has the potential to capitalize on the single biggest business opportunity in human history – the shift to a low-carbon economy. Whether this is driven by high energy prices, dwindling oil supplies, strategic geo-political threats to foreign oil, the climate crisis, or all of them combined, the country that mobilizes resources to develop and commercialize low carbon technologies (e.g. alternate fuels, renewable energy and energy efficiency) will survive the price shocks of fossil fuel’s last gasps and emerge with a thriving economy. Canada should be that country.

It makes no sense to subsidize the wealthiest companies on earth to make the world’s most profitable product -- a barrel of oil. These perverse subsidies must be removed. It makes sense to reduce taxes on things we want – income and employment – while increasing taxes on things we do not want, like greenhouse gases and pollution that causes smog.

Canadian businesses want two things from their government: predictability and policy coherence. The Green Party government will ensure that the rules are clear, the playing field is level and decision-making is transparent.

Our fiscal plan is straightforward: Use the tax system to help meet societal and ecological goals. Get the prices right. Allow business to pursue profit, with clear signals of environmental and societal objectives.

Canada and the world community face an environmentally linked, energy challenge of historic proportions over the next few decades. The reality of rising fossil fuel prices, increased losses due to extreme weather events caused by the worsening climate crisis, higher global temperatures and worsening pollution levels will make mitigation and adaptation responses absolutely essential. Focusing community economic development and investment towards clean technology and services is both a smart economic development strategy and a superb investment opportunity.

Green technology has been called the greatest business opportunity of this century. All levels of government need to advance this green economic approach through effective tax and policy measures and appropriate skills and trades training at the secondary and post-secondary levels.

As part of the federal government’s contribution to advancing this green economic vision, the Green Party of Canada government will gradually and progressively shift current consumption taxes onto products and services that harm people and the environment while reducing taxes on income, products and economic activities that do no harm. This "green tax shift" will be largely revenue neutral, meaning that as certain taxes increase, other taxes will decrease. In particular, income and payroll taxes will decline. And because the Green Party is committed to eliminating poverty it would ensure that this tax shift would not unfairly burden less fortunate members of our society.

By moving to "true" or "full-cost” accounting, whereby products and services are priced according to the positive or negative impacts they cause throughout their lifecycle, our society can make rational market choices that will guide the economy toward environmental sustainability.

The Green Party believes in reforming our tax system to make it fairer and more in tune with Canadians’ desire for a healthy environment, a sustainable economy and a vibrant, caring society.

It makes no sense to subsidize the wealthiest corporations on earth – the oil companies. We must remove these perverse subsidies immediately, not in the slow, “grandfathered” approach of the Conservatives’ 2007 budget.

The Green Party will reduce taxes on things we all want, like income and employment, and we will increase taxes on things we do not want – things that harm people and our environment.

Our "green tax shift" will be progressive, with a schedule that gives industry time to gear up or down. And it will be revenue neutral because a tax shift is not a tax grab. Income and payroll taxes will decline and the changes will help, not hurt, less fortunate members of our society.

To shift taxes effectively, we have to change to a "true" or "full-cost” accounting method that incorporates economic, social and environmental costs and benefits in the national accounts. Using this method, products and services are taxed, and thus priced, according to the positive or negative impacts caused throughout their lifecycle. We have already done this with tobacco products. Such taxes help consumers make more rational choices.

There are other ways to put taxes to work improving our society. Our tax system must be designed to reduce poverty, encourage environmentally beneficial activities and generate more wealth for the 90 percent of Canadian families who are currently working harder without getting further ahead.

The Green Party’s fiscal plan is straightforward: gradually reduce our debt, give clear tax signals that enable companies to pursue profits on a level playing field, and shift taxes to ensure that both revenue streams and expenditures meet social, economic and ecological goals.

For more, including specific action items, see the full text here.

Click here to see all of my blog posts related to economics.

A Carbon Tax, the Arts and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

2007-12-13T15:26:00.001-07:00

There is a point where ideology can exceed common sense, and one might wonder if that is happening with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

One month ago Maureen Bader, BC director of the CTF, came out against arts funding stating that government subsidies to the arts should be abolished. Bader sees the arts as business activity, but it is more appropriate to compare investment in the arts with investment in things like parks and recreation. Perhaps Bader isn't aware of the difference between investments and subsidies.

According to a 2001-02 Statistics Canada report, with an investment of $6.8 billion from three levels of government, the arts and culture sector directly employed 740,000 people and generated $26 billion for the economy. I'm sure Bader doesn't want to hurt our economy, so it might be that she just doesn't understand the concept of EROI (economic return on investment).

Then Maureen Bader misrepresented carbon taxes while making fun of global warming 'theorists' <--(her term).

Poverty is a serious concern, and Bader's use of the issue to breed fear of a carbon tax is misleading. By suggesting that we imagine carbon taxes "so high that people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter" in the opening of her missive entitled The Carbon Tax Poverty Effect, she tries to scare us out of using critical thinking to examine the situation. By listing "global warming theorists" as beneficiaries of a carbon tax, Bader manages to question the reality of climate change while suggesting that public concerns about climate change are somehow preyed upon by scientists for financial gain. Ridiculous! This suggestion seems more like a call from Bader to question the science of climate change than a sincere concern for Canadians living in poverty.

It is irresponsible of Bader to haphazardly dismiss the seriousness of climate change, and by conflating the subject with poverty she leads the reader to conclude that action on climate change in the form of a carbon tax will invariably lead to widespread poverty. It's also irresponsible to dismiss the concept of a carbon tax without first investigating how it could be implemented correctly, or why many respected economists support the idea.

Only one national political party is calling for a carbon tax and suggesting that the revenue be used in part to reduce income and payroll taxes, as well as kick start green energy industries. This tax shift can be as close to revenue neutral as we want, and Canadians can decide for themselves if they wish to spend their tax savings in ways that reduce or increase carbon emissions and climate change.

In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would likely impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances. The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship. We cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes, and using tax shifting to achieve fairness is a way to make it work.

More reading:

Arts ire for canadian taxpayers federation

Is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Right-Wing?

Canadian Taxpayer Federation being Dishonest with Canadians

Get The Prices Right (on tax shifting and GPC policy)

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

Video: Dr. Mark Jaccard talks about carbon taxes

Carbon Tax FAQ

from the link above:
Q: Won’t low income and rural people be hardest hit by a carbon tax?

* In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances.
* The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship.
* We as a society cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes. It’s much better to use tax shifting to achieve fairness.

- - -

UPDATE (Feb 21st, 2008) Click here for a good blog post on the new BC carbon tax by Vancouver Island federal Green Party candidate Brian Gordon.

Harper not fiscally responsible, yet tax cuts only for show

2007-11-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

In response to the recent announcement on budget surplus and tax cuts by the federal government, I've written the following as a letter to the editor. I grabbed a few points from comments and articles on the internet over the last week. This was printed in at least one local paper, and you may use it or modify it as you see fit.

- - -

Letter to the Editor: Harper not fiscally responsible, yet tax cuts only for show

For years the Conservatives condemned Liberal surpluses as phony surprises. The irony of Harper bringing in a surprise surplus is not lost on me.

I don't disagree with the cuts to income tax and corporate taxes. I actually support a tax shift – reducing income and business taxes while phasing in a carbon tax to replace lost revenue. Most economist agree with this approach.

Unfortunately this ‘surprise surplus’ means that social and environmental priorities, like fighting poverty and homelessness, or meeting the challenge of climate change, have been left off the table by deliberate understatement of available surpluses. That money could fund capital projects such as social housing or transportation infrastructure.

One reason Harper cut taxes is to cut social services, to which his party is ideologically opposed. Harper also doesn’t seem to mind the infrastructure deficit worsening in Canada. The country-wide municipal infrastructure deficit has now grown to about $100 billion.

I keep hearing that the Harper government is offering handouts and tax giveaways (hardly a fiscally responsible practice) but all I’ve noticed is my child tax benefit, much of which will be taxed back by the government. The income trust flip flop was a major campaign promise that Harper didn’t make good on. No tax break there. This federal income tax cut offers savings per taxpayer at about $35. This is only for show.

Lastly, announcing a GST cut before shopping season is going to create purchasing doubt in shoppers minds. Couple that with the strong Canadian dollar and Mr Flaherty’s call for retailers to lower prices, and you have shoppers holding out for better deals.

- - -

Tip: When sending letters to the editor, always include you full name, phone number and address so the papers can verify that you're a real person.

Green Party of Canada releases 'Vision Green'

2007-10-15T13:34:00.000-06:00

PDF version

About the Green Party of Canada and Vision Green

From the GPC website:
Vision Green presents leading-edge thinking and rational, realistic solutions for all the issues facing Canadians. It was developed by a 31-member Green Shadow Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. All the proposals are based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Green Party solutions are rational because the Green Party, unlike other parties, understands the scientifically verified limits to growth set by the carrying capacity of our planet. We must work within these limits. Otherwise, we will exhaust resources, degrade our environment and put our economy, health and children’s future at risk.

Our solutions are realistic because they follow “best practices” already in place in parts of Canada or other countries. These practices are cost-effective, deliver results and benefit people, the economy and the environment.

The Green Party’s down-to-earth solutions will work in Canada because they have worked around the world. Many have been successfully applied in Europe, where Greens are elected at all political levels, including the European Union and national parliaments. Countries where Greens have served in government are the countries creating new high-paying jobs while simultaneously meeting targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are the countries where the gap between rich and poor is small and the standard of living is high. These countries don’t trade off the environment for the economy. Their economies and environmental laws are both strong.

Many people find it hard to position the Green Party on the old political spectrum. We believe in sound fiscal management and strengthening our economy while ensuring that it is sustainable. Does that mean we are “right wing”? We believe that government must provide needed social services while protecting our environment and the rights of women, minorities and disadvantaged people. Does that make us “left wing”? We don’t think so. More and more people are simply thinking of the Green Party as the party of the future.

The Green Party is different from other parties in another important way. We will never place the pursuit of power above principle. We will not allow partisan politics to get in the way of good ideas and needed action. We agree with Canadians who say it’s time for parties in parliament to stop bickering and get on with the job of combating climate change and taking better care of our environment, our health and our economy.

The Green Party of Canada, founded in 1983, is now a major force in Canadians politics. Over 660,000 Canadians voted Green in the 2006 federal election. More than one in ten Canadians are now saying they plan to vote Green.

There is only one true Green Party. We are not like the old line parties who talk green when seeking your vote but sideline green action once elected. You can trust us to stay true to our promises and champion the issues you care about. If you share our vision and agree with our solutions, VOTE GREEN.

Change the climate in Parliament.

The Green Economy

Averting Climate Catastrophe

Preserving And Restoring The Environment

People

The Planet Needs Canada (and Vice Versa)

Good Government

Harper’s “war on drugs” regressive and irresponsible: Green Party

2007-10-13T14:20:00.000-06:00

Harper’s “war on drugs” regressive and irresponsible: Green Party

OTTAWA – The Green Party today denounced Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s proposed drug strategy as an ideologically-driven step in the wrong direction and ignorant of evidence-based research. Last week, Mr. Harper announced his intent to spend $64 million in a war on drugs, focusing on punishment and enforcement – not prevention.

“Mr. Harper is far too eager to sign Canada on to a Bush-style war on drugs that has spent billions and achieved nothing,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “An overwhelming body of evidence supports the notion that an effective drug strategy would focus on prevention, treatment facilities and harm reduction programs.

“Mr. Harper preaches prevention, yet spends many times the funds allocated to prevention on enforcing antiquated drug laws and punishing drug users. This approach is akin to simply burning tax dollars and is severely damaging to society. Instead of listening to the facts, Mr. Harper is trying to appear tough on crime in a desperate attempt to grab votes.”

Jared Giesbrecht, Justice Critic for the Green Party, added that the 2002 Senate Special Committee on Drugs and examples from European countries have led the Green Party to the conclusion that it is time to legalize the adult use of marijuana, developing a taxation rate for the substance similar to that of tobacco.

“Mr. Harper’s plan to impose tougher penalties on users of marijuana and other drugs is a misguided approach. Substance abuse is a medical issue, not a criminal issue. Simply spending more tax dollars on drug law enforcement is not the answer. Canadians want to see a comprehensive anti-drug strategy that gets to the root of the problem, not Harper’s patch-work agenda that seeks the quick fix.”

Mr. Giesbrecht added that the Green Party would fund and expand safe injection sites, like the Insite clinic in Vancouver, that are proven to save lives.

Green Party demands federal action on cell phones and wireless networks

2007-10-12T21:03:00.000-06:00

I wish it wasn't so, but the latest research is pointing to a very likely reality that radiation poisoning from cell phones and wireless networks is a serious problem. It is very likely that Canada's government will do little that would be considered significant in the face of mounting evidence that many people are getting sick when exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Some 'official' studies done in the recent past on a link to leukemia or cancer say there's no proof of causation, or even correlation, but newer 'official' studies show that there is a link between electromagnetic radiation and other illnesses. Like most things, it depends on which 'official studies' one wants to believe.

I said that I wish it wasn't so. That's because a lot of people are unknowingly exposing themselves to possibly dangerous levels of this type of radiation. It's also because I like my wireless gadgets. Cordless phones & cell phones are obviously very handy, and my recent purchase of a wireless optical mouse has made it fun to use a mouse. Still, I've already made a few changes in my lifestyle in order to ensure that exposure to electromagnetic radiation is limited. My wife and I got rid of our microwave oven two years ago and we don't miss it. Actually it blew up and we never bothered to replace it.

I've seen enough to know that keeping my alarm clock beside my head on the night stand could disrupt my sleep. I know that I don't want to live near a high voltage transmission line. I try to limit my cell and cordless phone use, and when I am on a cordless phone for any length of time I use a headset. In exercising the precautionary principle when it comes to this stuff, I actually don't notice any 'sacrifice' to my lifestyle.

I can play it safe by adjusting a few things in my life - it's no biggie - and I know that even though some 'experts' are telling us not to worry, my decision to listen to the advice of other experts is one more way that I can take care of the health of my whole family.

- - - - -

Green Party demands federal action on cell phones and wireless networks

OTTAWA - Green Party leader Elizabeth May today called on Health Minister Tony Clement to issue an immediate warning on the potential danger posed by radiation from cell phones and wireless networks in Canada.

Germany recently warned its citizens to avoid wireless technology whenever possible and the EU’s European Environment Agency (EEA) followed suit with a call for immediate reduction in exposure to radiation from phones and wireless networks. The EEA suggested that a delay could precipitate a health crisis similar to those caused by asbestos exposure and smoking.

"There is growing scientific evidence that exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) from cell phones and wireless networks can cause significant harm to people, especially children,” said Ms. May. “Until all the facts are in, it is foolish to turn a blind eye to the potential health effects of EMR. The Green Party urges the federal government to apply the precautionary principle and warn citizens of these risks now.”

Citing several studies that link cell phone use to cancer, the Green Party’s Health Promotion critic, Jake Cole, demanded rapid action from Mr. Clement.

“More and more Canadians are being exposed to EMR through wireless networks at work and at home,” said Mr. Cole. “The long-term effects of exposure aren’t known with certainty, but evidence suggests that health impacts can occur at extremely low levels of radiation, far below public safety limits.

"Canada must quickly issue some sensible public warnings on this matter, following the lead of other jurisdictions like Germany and the EU, and develop principles and regulations to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.”

In accordance with the precautionary principle, the Green Party recommends:

• Children under the age of 12 should not use cell phones, except in emergencies.
• Cell phones should not be used in schools, except in emergencies.
• A moratorium on the installation of all wireless equipment and cell phone masts within 300 metres of a home or school
• Turning off all electronic equipment when not in use

To read A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), the international scientific review on wireless radiation and health cited by the European Environment Agency, please see http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

- - - - -

More links:
The Radiation Poisoning Of America

Death by Blackberry?

Electromagnetic Pollution

Wi-fi: should we be worried?

Electromagnetic smog fears grow

Green Economics - Stephen Leahy

2007-10-12T20:15:00.000-06:00

I'd like to share with you a few articles on the economics of going green by Stephen Leahy.

Enjoy!

Like Enron, Earth Inc. Sliding Into Bankruptcy

All economies depend on the natural capital lying within nature’s lands, waters, forests, and reefs, but humans have often treated them as if they had little value or were inexhaustible.

Global Warming Is Real But I Didn’t Do It

The vast majority of North Americans now declare that they want action on climate change. But whether people are truly willing to embrace “carbon-neutral” lifestyles — including giving up their gas-guzzling sports utility vehicles — remains an open question, say experts.

How to Kick-Start the 21st Century Eco-Economy

Farming and forestry in nearly all countries is only about maximising food or lumber production, but that has to start including maximising the ecological goods and service those ecosystems also offer. And since they are extremely important services, the stewards of these lands to ought to [be] compensated so these services will be preserved and enhanced.

57 Tips On Going Green and Saving Money

The reason I spotted Stephen Leahy is that I read Adbusters magazine, and there is a great article in the latest issue called 'Earth Inc. - Staying in the black now means going green'. For more on this subject, as explained by Adbusters, click here.

No seats, but Greens up in support

2007-10-11T10:02:00.000-06:00

Last night the Ontario provincial election came to an end, and the Green Party of Ontario made huge gains in support. Shane Jolley finished a very close second, with the highest support for a Green candidate ever in Canada. Here are a few news stories covering the rise in Green Party support.

'Part of the landscape,' but not the Legislature

The Greens did come closer than ever: Their best hope, bike shop owner Shane Jolley in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, finished a strong second behind Conservative Bill Murdoch, a 17-year MPP.

Win or lose, "it's a huge victory," Jolley said last night. "This is the strongest Green campaign ever run in Canada."

Green's great hope

The Mark Messier look-a-like – complete with drop-the-gloves stare – and former high school star athlete in football and track is now a star on another field, regardless of outcome. In the last federal election, he had the best vote percentage (12.9 per cent) of any Green candidate in the county. In this election, he came within a few polls of winning.

Second best still a victory, Jolley says; Candidate calls run most successful Green campaign in Canadian history

"It's a success because we've brought a lot of issues to the table that otherwise wouldn't have made it," Jolley said in an interview. The Green candidate's surprising run also moved the Greens from marginal support here four years ago to what looked late Wednesday night to be a clear second-place finish behind veteran Progressive Conservative campaigner Bill Murdoch.

It was also by far the best result yet posted in Canada by a Green candidate, Ontario deputy party leader Victoria Serda said.

"For Shane to come in a relatively close second is amazing," Serda said at Meaford Hall. "It shows we're electable. This is going to change politics across Canada."

Ont. Green party scores 8 per cent of vote

No Green party candidates made it to the Ontario legislature in Wednesday's election, but that defeat was sweetened by a swell in their share of the popular vote, which more than doubled.

Harpers Drug Policy For Getting Votes

2007-10-08T23:22:00.000-06:00

Harpers Drug Policy For Getting Votes - Not Saving Lives Or Making Canada Safer

A friend pointed out this article in Le Devoir by Gil Courtemanche commenting on Harpers doomed War on Drugs. The original publication is in French, and this link will take you to the English translation of the article. Here are a few paragraphs.

...We also learned Thursday that Stephen Harper will keep his old Beatles records even if his children wonder about certain lyrics that sing the praises of forbidden substances. Here's a wonderful example of the Prime Minister's openness of mind, a tolerance that extends only as far as the words to songs. For the poor teens who might be tempted to follow the smoking trails of the Fab Four, it will be zero tolerance. We're far from the time when the Chrétien and Martin governments pondered decriminalizing the simple possession of marijuana. The times have changed and the police have clearly felt it. In 2006, in Canada's principal cities, including Montréal, arrests for simple possession of cannabis have increased 20 to 50%, depending on the city. At the same time, a UNICEF study discovered that Québec is the champion of cannabis consumption among industrialized countries. According to that study, 40% of youth aged 11 to 15 consume some cannabis from time to time. These are not addicts, but occasional consumers. Nonetheless, under Mr. Harper's ferule, they will be considered veritable criminals. That's almost half our adolescents who run the risk of finding themselves with a criminal record. Mr. Harper also announced that we will establish minimum sentences for dealers. The teen who buys five joints and sells three to his pals will become a dealer just like some Hell's Angel.

In its fight against drugs, in its fight against juvenile crime, in its approach to border security, the Conservative government has resolutely adopted the American approach of repression and ever-longer prison sentences. In the United States, this policy has not changed the crime rate and has had the effect of growing the prison population at a vertiginous rate. The United States is the country with the highest rate of incarceration among all industrialized countries. And, of course, the majority of that population is constituted of minority citizens and poor people who can't pay for competent lawyers. That's the road down which the Conservative minority government wants to take Canada. And meanwhile, in Ottawa, the opposition is desperately looking for a gimmick so that elections can be avoided and Stephen Harper allowed to pursue his Americanization of Canada.

Here is a first draft of a letter to the editor I'll be sending off to the Nanaimo News Bulletin:

Letter to Editor Re: War On Drugs Doomed Again (Nanaimo News Bulletin Oct 6th)

I’d like to give thanks to the Harper government for a new ‘war’.

Like in the USA where the ‘war on drugs’ has been ongoing for decades, this Canadian effort will likely create many jobs in the areas of law enforcement. We will, over the long term, likely need to build more jails (as they have needed to do in the USA) in order to house non-violent offenders, and our recently announced federal tax surplus will surely help to pay for this ongoing cost. Never mind that incarceration will cost more than rehabilitation; Mr. Harper clearly believes that the jobs created are more important than the negative costs to our society. These fellow Canadians – these neighbours, coworkers, family and friends of ours – they’re only addicts after all, right? Mr. Harper says lock ‘em up!

Treatment and rehabilitation sounds too ‘nice’ for Harper government’s ‘every man for himself’ ideology. Although treatment and rehabilitation are proven to be effective, long term incarceration sounds braver & more prideful. Thank you Mr Harper for choosing to create a job for our country which the USA has already proven we will never be able to complete.

I am a recovered addict with seven years clean & sober. I’ve just brought my family to Nanaimo, and soon we’ll be purchasing a house. After using drugs for nearly a decade, I managed to make it out of active addiction disease free and with no criminal record, and this is largely due to the community support and addiction recovery services that were available to me prior to getting clean. I’m not shy about this fact; I’m proud of the man I am, and I’m grateful to be living in this country with a history of giving and sharing that shows we take care of ours.

Thank you Mr Harper for trying to take these opportunities away from other Canadians.

Cameron Wigmore
Nanaimo, B.C.

From the 2006 Green Party of Canada Platform:
Green MPs will work to:
- Support a public health framework to reduce the use of psychoactive drugs through rehabilitation and prevention especially for children.
- Assist provinces to increase the number of detox and treatment beds for drug and alcohol rehabilitation, create safe injection clinics, needle exchange programs and access for certified addicts to prescriptions for safe doses.

More background on me and the GPC policy on addiction & drugs here.

A few more links on this...

U.S.-style war on drugs will fail

What's Harper Smoking? (<---this is a great article!)

PM's Anti-drug Drive 'Uninformed'

Minimum sentences for pushers called repugnant READ THIS STORY!

Harper drug strategy `depressing,' Insite head says

Green Cat Goes West

2007-09-20T11:33:00.000-06:00

My wife has decided to pursue her career in Theatre Arts Administration, and she's landed a job at the Port Theatre in Nanaimo B.C. This has happened very suddenly, although we've been preparing and planning an eventual move out of Drumheller for a few years now.

I'll be staying involved with the Green Party at the Provincial and Federal level. I have found it very rewarding to run as a candidate for the Green Party here in Crowfoot, serve as the Alberta Representative on the GPC Federal Council for the past year, and sit as CEO of the Crowfoot Green Party Association. All of these positions will be filled by other active volunteers, and I'm sure they'll find the experience as wonderful as I did.

I'm going to miss the crew at the Tyrrell Museum! What a great place to work. As a Gallery Interpreter & Security staff I was right in the thick of the tourist season there year after year. I had a lot of fun sharing information about palaeontology and the Drumheller Valley with many thousands of tourists. The staff there were the best co-workers a person could hope for! If anyone reading this has not been to the Tyrrell Museum, you really have to consider visiting soon. It's an amazing museum!

The Badlands Drug Coalition was a great way for me to get involved in the community. Thanks everyone for your goodbye emails! Do keep up the fantastic work to raise awareness about drugs, addiction & recovery in Drumheller and the surrounding areas. I'm sure you'll all be busy during the National Addictions Awareness Week coming up in November.

I'll likely be very busy gigging and teaching music once I'm settled on the West Coast. Regardless of how busy I'll be, I'm going to miss everyone in the Band-O-Coots very much! You've all been very good friends, and our shows over the years will be some of my best memories of my time in Drumheller. I never thought I'd be adding R&B and classic rock to my repertoire, but building the set lists with you all has been a super fun time! If anyone asks where the sax player is at your next show, tell them that 'those unreliable sax players just can't be trusted to show up to gigs!'

To everyone in Alberta, please continue to fight the good fight. Make use of your new Alberta Rep for the Green Party. Hold the provincial government accountable for their actions. Write letters to your local papers.

BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION!

GPC Media Release: Labour Rights Are Human Rights

2007-09-03T12:03:00.000-06:00

The following media release is a reminder that the Greens are a Federal Political Party that exists to promote policies regarding social justice, in addition to the obvious focus on the environment and sustainability. The credibility of the GPC in this area has been steadily increasing, with extensive policy on issues related to social justice, the distinction of being the only federal party with a set of key values - one of which is Social Justice - and the recent appointment of John Fryer, an internationally respected former union leader and authority on labour relations and human resource issues, as labour critic on the party's Shadow Cabinet.

- - -

Labour Rights Are Human Rights

09.02.2007

The Green Party today called on the federal government to take immediate action to guarantee that all workers in Canada have the right to organize and participate in the free collective-bargaining process.

"On Labour Day and throughout the year, the Green Party supports workers," said federal party leader Elizabeth May. "We believe in pay equity and in every worker's right to fair wages, healthy and safe working conditions as well as working hours compatible with a good quality of life.

"Labour rights are human rights," said Ms. May, "and we strongly endorse the Supreme Court's June 8 decision that the right to collective bargaining is a constitutional right guaranteed and protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

Green Party labour critic John Fryer said that the federal government must now take action in three areas to guarantee these rights for Canada's workers. "Firstly, all federal labour statutes should be updated to expressly guarantee the right to collective bargaining for all covered employees," he said.

"The Harper government also must find a way to ensure compliance with International Labour Standards, not only by the federal government but also by all provincial and territorial governments. Canada's disgraceful International Labour Organization record of violating these standards must end. The shocking fact is that our country has no formal mechanism for ratifying international treaties and obligations and this needs immediate remedy.

"Finally, we call upon the Prime Minister to demonstrate his support for Canadian workers by signing the Worker's Bill of Rights that has already been endorsed by all other party leaders."

Said Elizabeth May, "This Labour Day, the Green Party of Canada calls upon our government to give labour rights issues much greater priority in both its policy and its action agendas. After all, our own Supreme Court has made it clear that labour rights are guaranteed under Canada's Constitution."

Contact:

John Chenery － 613-562-4916 ext. 227

jchenery(AT)greenparty(DOT)ca

- - -

Update from GPC Alberta Representative

2007-09-03T11:50:00.000-06:00

As your Provincial Representative over the last year I've worked hard to bring your thoughts, opinions and concerns to Federal Council. The other goal of mine has been to make information about the activities of our Federal Council available to GPC members in Alberta.

Through email, phone and my blog I've enjoyed regular contact with many members and I want to thank you for making my term as Alberta Representative an exciting and rewarding one. Serving on Federal Council has been a very memorable experience!

You're probably aware of the current GPC Federal Council election. We have two great people running for the position of Alberta Representative, and I think either of them would be a great addition to our Federal Council. They are Mark Taylor and Peter Johnston. Don't forget to vote!

While I will no longer be serving the party in the role of Provincial Representative, I will continue to stay active in the Crowfoot riding, as CEO of the Electoral District Association and currently nominated candidate in Crowfoot for the next federal election. Volunteering with the Green Party is a lot of fun and a great way to make a difference in your community. To get involved, go to 'find your riding' Click on your riding, and contact your local representative via email or phone.

Thank you to everyone for your support. I strongly believe that the Green Party of Canada is an important part of the positive change we need in our country. While I will no longer be your Alberta Representative, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, concern or comments, or would just like to talk with another Green Party member. :-)

Sincerely,

Cameron Wigmore
Alberta Representative, Federal Council (outgoing)
Crowfoot Candidate, '06 election & current
CEO, Crowfoot EDA
Drumheller, AB
403-770-2962
cwigmore(AT)greenparty(DOT)ca
http://www.greenparty.ca
http://crowfoot.greenparty.ca
http://greencameron.blogspot.com

Albertans Or Industry Alberta Government Must Choose

2007-08-08T09:58:00.000-06:00

In September of '06 I wrote a submission to the Oilsands Consultation Committee and posted it on my blog. Now the committee has released their final report. You can download it as a 2.5 MB PDF file here.

Make your way to section 3, starting on page 33, for a list of non-consensus actions that were recommended but will very likely not be implemented. Observe how the industry and government representatives often side against the majority of the other panel members.

The general feeling is that we need to slow down. Infrastructure and services are lagging behind the huge increases in population & industrial activity, among other problems, but Premiere Stelmach says that he won't 'tap the brakes'. Yes, Alberta is in a speeding car and the driver won't use the brakes, even when it's apparent that we're heading towards a brick wall.

The Council of Canadians suggested a few things to the committee that make sense.

The Council of Canadians is demanding a National Energy Security Strategy that would:
1. Restrict foreign ownership of our energy sector, regulate the energy industry and renegotiate or scrap NAFTA so that Ottawa can limit fuel exports and reclaim our energy sovereignty.

Over 50 per cent of Alberta's Athabasca tar sands production is already U.S.-owned. These companies pay a 1 per cent royalty to the Alberta government for the right to extract oil - one of the lowest rates paid anywhere in the world for similar privileges.

Canada exports 65 per cent of our oil to the U.S. and yet we have to import 55 per cent of the oil that Canada needs from Algeria, Venezuela and Norway. The proportionality clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ties us to these export levels so that even in the event of energy shortages, we would have to continue piping oil and gas south at the same rate as we do now.

2. Put a moratorium on new tar sands developments and environmentally catastrophic resource extraction projects like the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the Athabasca tar sands expansion.

As reported by the Globe and Mail on March 16, 2007, "Alberta's production of heavy crude...from its oil sands reserves will more than quadruple by 2025...Alberta will produce 1.7 billion barrels of bitumen in 2025, or 4.65 million barrels of crude a day, well up from current output of just over one million barrels a day, said Neil McCrank, chairman of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board...While there's been plenty of conjecture over the possible extent of oil sands output growth, the figures given by Mr. McCrank are the first officially made by a regulator that estimate the scale of Alberta's development by 2025."

On January 18, 2007 CBC News reported that, U.S. and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada. That media report also noted, "A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports." The CBC also reported, as noted in the minutes of the January meeting, the proposed expansion would require Canada to "streamline" its environmental regulations.

3. Support cleaner, renewable sources of energy and reduce consumption.

Tar sands production is destroying the environment at an alarming rate. Alberta is poised to become one of the world's main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Tar sands development destroys vast tracts of land and clears forests. It takes up to six barrels of water to extract just one barrel of oil. The resulting toxic wastewater cannot be put back into circulation.

As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press on January 24, 2007, "Projects now on the drawing board will produce 4.8 million barrels a day by 2020, almost five times current output. At that level, says Pembina's Dr. Matthew Bramley, the tar sands' annual greenhouse gas emissions will skyrocket from 25.2 megatonnes to as much as 141.6 megatonnes, almost double that now created by all the nation's cars and trucks." And as reported by the Globe and Mail on February 17, 2007, "Based on 2000 emissions data, collected by the U.S.-based World Resources Institute, the tar sands could soon match the CO2 output of the Czech Republic, while producing twice as much as Peru, three times as much as Qatar and 10 times as much as Costa Rica."

4. Return to Canada's previous policy of maintaining multi-year reserves for use by Canadians in hard times and to assist in the transition to greener energy alternatives.

On January 24, 2007, the Calgary Herald reported that, "The U.S. Department of Energy said Tuesday it plans to increase the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels from 691 million barrels...The U.S. government this spring will start buying 100,000 barrels of oil a day to fill the stockpile to its current capacity of 727 million barrels...The expanded reserve, stored in salt caverns along the U.S. Gulf Coast, would be equal to about 97 days of U.S. oil imports."

In short, the U.S. currently has a strategic petroleum reserve capacity of 727 million barrels which would theoretically replace about 60 days of oil imports for them. The U.S. Energy Secretary is now saying that it is a "wise and prudent policy decision" to expand this reserve to 1.5 billion barrels, which would be equal to about 97 days of oil imports.

Canada does not have a strategic petroleum reserve. If expanding the strategic petroleum reserve in the United States is "a wise and prudent policy decision to provide additional layer of protection" as their energy secretary says, what does it say about the Harper government that has not set aside a single barrel of oil for ourselves, wants to export a "fivefold" increase in oil from the northern Alberta oil sands, and wants to further entrench a trade agreement that prohibits us from cutting back these exports even in times when we run short?

5. Implement a distribution system which would ensure a west-east energy sharing arrangement, so that Canadians rely more on our own energy and less on off-shore imports.

In Canada, most of the oil we consume is imported. Overall Canada imports 58 percent of the oil we consume. About 40 percent of the oil used in Ontario is imported, while about 90 percent of the oil used in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is imported. 25 percent of the oil Canada consumes comes from the unstable regions of the Middle East or North Africa. (This is a higher percentage than U.S. dependence which is at about 23 percent of their consumption from these regions.)

Straight Goods also reviews the situation and has some interesting things to say.

Last week, the Alberta Government released the much anticipated final report and recommendations of the Oil Sands Multi-Stakeholder Committee — the committee charged with carrying out a broad-based consultation with Albertans and making recommendations on the future of the Alberta tar sands.The report includes 120 different recommendations for action, all based on what was heard in public meetings, in written submissions and from expert symposiums over the course of the last 12 months.
Of those recommendations, 96 were presented as items on which there was consensus. These include some important and valuable recommendations on questions of reclamation of tar sands areas and community infrastructure.
The remaining 24 recommendations were items on which there was not consensus, but that were included in the report nonetheless in order that the government might consider them along with the others.
The problem is that among those 24 recommendations lie the key issues requiring government attention. These include questions about slowing the pace of development (or an outright moratorium); setting hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions; increasing royalty rates; and looking closely at both the health impacts on local populations and the long-term investment of resource revenues.
The fact that these are listed, as "non-consensus" items should not be taken to mean that the public submissions on these topics were evenly split. In fact, in some cases, quite the opposite is true.
On the question of the pace of development, for example, most of the submissions made called for a drastic slow-down and many went as far as to call for a moratorium on new leases and permits. Likewise, with the amount of support shown in the submissions for hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions and for increasing royalty rates.
The reason that these are listed as "non-consensus" items is that some of the members of the Multi-Stakeholder Committee did not agree with the recommendations. In other words, even though the committee was charged with carrying out a public consultation, and reporting back on the public's wishes, these members determined that their own personal opinions should override public input.
It should not come as a surprise to anyone that industry representatives lined up squarely against consensus on the issues above. Clearly, these folks were on the committee to protect their bottom lines from what they saw as unreasonable public interest demands.
For them to actually agree to recommendations of slower development, emissions caps and higher royalties would be completely contradictory to their reason for participating in the process in the first place.
What is more disconcerting, however, is the fact that the Government of Alberta reps on the committee lined up shoulder to shoulder with industry and against the public interest on every one of the issues above. In other words, the government reps on the committee chose to disregard the expressed wishes of Albertans and sided instead with industry.

Now the Pembina Institute has reviewed the recommendations, and points out that the committee has fallen short of what the people of Alberta & those who submitted recommendations were calling for.

Jul 25, 2007
Oil Sands Multistakeholder Committee Recommendations Fail to Address Runaway Pace of Oil Sands DevelopmentResponsibility Now Rests With Premier Stelmach's Government
The recommendations of the Oil Sands Multistakeholder Committee released today by the Government of Alberta fail to address the main concerns of Albertans, according to the Pembina Institute. The final report was submitted to the Government of Alberta on June 30, 2007, and is currently being reviewed by the Ministers of Energy, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. The Ministers have not yet responded to either the consensus or non-consensus recommendations of the committee.
"The consensus recommendations of the committee fail to address Albertans' number one concern: the runaway pace of oil sands development. Now it's up to Premier Stelmach to tackle this concern head-on and make a decision about slowing the pace of development," noted Dan Woynillowicz, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Pembina Institute and one of three environmentalists on the committee. "Unfortunately some members of the committee were more interested in defending the status quo than in addressing the growing concerns that Albertans have about how oil sands development is occurring."

Joan Russow through the PEJ News site contributed to a recent piece on the oilsands.

So what will the Alberta Government do? Side with industry or the people of Alberta? See this post of mine for a clue to the likely answer. If we don't do anything, there's no reason why Stelmach should consider our collective needs or concerns. It seems to me that the Industry shouldn't need handouts or extra help from the government, but apparently land owners and municipalities aren't as good at lobbying the government as the oil & gas industry, so the industry has continued to get and do pretty much what it wants.

I'm a reasonable man, and all I'm asking for is that the government respect the wishes of and stand up for the people in this province. I don't want to shut down oil & gas operations. That would cause more problems than it would solve, and it would put many of my friends and family members out of work.

An interesting thing to note is that Alberta is unique in that it sees fit to cap wind power production. Think about that: no brakes for oil & gas, but the Alberta government is aggressively interfering with the renewable energy industry.

Steady Eddie needs to 'tap the brakes' and live up to his reputation, rather than speed ahead haphazardly and allow the industry to walk all over him and his government. Make the decision to proceed wisely. The people will support you, and the industry will get along just fine.

SLOW IT DOWN STELMACH!

Nuclear Energy Not Needed Not Wanted

2007-07-18T22:56:00.000-06:00

I thought I was done for now with posts on nuclear energy, but before I move on to other subjects on my blog, here are a few more recent news stories and some more thoughts on the subject. I don't have much to add here. I think these stories and the information at the links below speak for themselves.

Japanese nuclear leak bigger than first reported
cbc news July 18, 2007

A leak of radioactive water from a Japanese nuclear power plant was 50 per cent larger than first reported...

...The tremor initially triggered a small fire at an electrical transformer in the sprawling plant. It was announced 12 hours later that the quake also caused a leak of water containing radioactive material.

The company also said a small amount of the radioactive materials cobalt-60 and chromium-51 had been emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack...

More about this here, here and here.

Strangely, there are some serious problems with the nuclear energy industry in Germany occurring at about the same time.

German Mishaps Put Nuclear Power under Scrutiny
Spiegel Online July 16 '07

The company at first said it was just a small fire. But the blaze at Vattenfall's Krümmel reactor has since become a political wildfire. Now, Germany's pro-nuclear energy politicians have gone into hiding.

(snip)

Nuclear power has received a tremendous boost since climate change has made Germans suddenly fearful about the future. Regional politicians like Oettinger, Roland Koch of Hesse and Edmund Stoiber of Bavaria, as well as CDU General Secretary Ronald Pofalla, have become increasingly vocal proponents of extending the shelf life of nuclear power plants. But during the last two weeks or so, amid thick clouds of smoke enveloping a nuclear power plant in Krümmel and reports of technical failures, human error and corporate incompetence, opponents of nuclear power see their arguments gaining credence once again. Suddenly the Social Democrats, especially Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, see themselves justified in taking the position that nuclear energy is a "risky technology." "German nuclear power plants are the safest worldwide," Gabriel said acerbically last week, "aside from the occasional explosion or fire."

(snip)

The reason for the change in thinking is clear. Whereas most of the some 130 reactor incidents reported annually in Germany are minor and go unnoticed, smoke pouring out of a transformer as happened in Krümmel tends to attract attention. It took the fire department hours to extinguish the blaze. Even worse, the plant operator's claim that a fire in the transformer had no effect on the reactor itself proved to be a lie.

In short, the incident has made it clear that nuclear energy is by no means the modern, well-organized high-tech sector portrayed until recently by politicians and industry advocates. Indeed, the frequency of problems occurring at Germany's aging reactors is on the rise. Just as old cars will eventually succumb to rust, the country's nuclear power plants, built in the 1970s and 80s, are undergoing a natural aging process.

The problems are complicated by maintenance and supervision issues among aging and unmotivated employees. A dangerously lackadaisical attitude has taken hold that is making Germany's nuclear power plants increasingly unsafe. Most incidents to date have proven to be relatively minor, and yet each new incident becomes yet another link in a chain of problems with the potential to end in a serious accident.

(snip)

Vattenfall has now come under increased scrutiny. "We are taking a careful look at what's happening in Germany," says Peter Rickwood, a spokesman of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After an incident at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden last year, in which two backup generators broke down and the reactor had to be operated "flying blind" for 20 minutes, Vattenfall submitted a report to the IAEA that clearly glossed over the seriousness of the situation. The same pattern seems to have emerged in the Krümmel incident, as well as at the Brunsbüttel plant, where the reactor was temporarily shut down because of a "network problem." In both cases Vattenfall's report assigns the lowest problem classification -- "N" for normal -- to the incidents.

This blatant effort to downplay problems at the reactors has even led to ill will against Vattenfall management among employees. "Our people working in the nuclear power plant are not permitted to say anything, but they are furious," says Uwe Martens, the managing director of the Hamburg branch of the services union Ver.di. Indeed, Thomauske chose to blame others at the lower end of the hierarchy for the Krümmel incident. According to Thomauske, a "misunderstanding" between the reactor manager and the shift manager led to the inadvertent opening of valves. Another unanswered question is why up to 25 people were congregated in the reactor's operating room at the time of the accident.

(snip)

Some of these problems are attributable to constant repairs at the plants, repairs that are also long overdue at German nuclear power plants. In a 55-page report, Germany's Reactor Safety Commission (RSC), which advises Gabriel's environment ministry, writes about "containing the aging processes" and that some age-related problems are only being discovered by chance. According to the RSC, these problems are difficult to correct, partly because "suppliers and manufacturers are no longer in business."

The 31-year-old Neckarwestheim I reactor -- along with the Biblis A reactor, Germany's oldest reactor still in operation -- is one of a group of nuclear dinosaurs where problems have become the rule rather than the exception. When a fire broke out in a major incident in October 2005, the reactor had to be shut down manually. The state environment ministry in Stuttgart had imposed a €25,000 fine on the plant's operator shortly before the incident. It had taken the operator, EnBW, about 20 days to discover a leak of radioactively contaminated water into the Neckar River, and another nine days to report the problem.

More on this story here & here.

The following are some bits of information relevant to my recent discussions with some nuclear energy advocates. Some pro-nuclear lobbyists prefer to avoid issues of social justice relating to DU weapons and Canada's role. Others have argued that we simply 'need nuclear energy', which is a false statement, unless we collectively avoid renewable technologies and efficiency/conservation measures, and we assume that our consumption rates will increase evermore unsustainably. Other nuclear advocates have tried to say that nuclear energy is cheap and safe, but both points are relative, meaning we have to decide for ourselves if continued government subsidies of taxpayer dollars and frequent accidents qualify as 'cheap' or 'safe'. Don't believe the hype if you're told that nuclear is a solution to climate change. One can easily dig up articles and studies on why nuclear is not a solution to climate change.

If the stories in this post leave you wanting more, please see my previous posts on nuclear energy.

An interesting article by Tom Adams (executive director of Energy Probe) carried in the Globe & Mail July 16 '07 called The Nuclear Shield states that "acts of gross negligence by suppliers of nuclear goods and services – the kind of mistakes that might cause nuclear reactors to explode – will no longer be protected from liability under a proposed law that passed first reading in the House of Commons last month."

This story goes on to state the following:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new law will also provide more time for victims of radiation poisoning to claim compensation. Under existing law, any cancers that turn up more than 10 years after an accident cannot be compensated; the new version would give victims 30 years. However, research on survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows radiation-induced cancers even 60 years after their exposure.

Mr. Harper's generosity with nuclear accident victims knows other bounds, too. When the original Nuclear Liability Act was passed in 1970, damage compensation was limited to $75-million – about $415-million in today's currency. The new liability limit is $650-million. But in the 1970s, Canada's nuclear neighbourhoods had many fewer inhabitants. For example, Pickering, which now hosts six working reactors and two retired ones, had a population of 24,800 when its municipal boundaries were set in 1974. It was 94,700 last year. Each Pickering resident's liability coverage has shrunk to about 40 per cent of what it was in 1974 – if their community was contaminated by an accident, the new liability limit would be exhausted after paying out 10 cents per dollar of dwelling value, leaving no coverage for household contents, commercial property, disruption, lost income, injuries or death.

Nor would nuclear neighbours get any help from their own insurance, since all homeowner's and renter's policies contain a nuclear exclusion clause. There is no disagreement among professional risk experts on this one issue – the insurance and nuclear industries agree that the risk of a reactor accident is just too scary to bear without special protection.

Will CANDU Do? walrusmagazine.com by Paul Webster Published in the September 2006 issue

According to a recent mostlywater.org article, the Tar Sands will Need 20 Candu Nuclear Plants in Northern Alberta. Wayne Henuset, head of Energy Alberta, could not be reached for comment.

Nuclear reactor a rerun, according to research team Whitecourt Star May 16/2007
(I find this story interesting because Wayne Henuset, President of Energy Alberta, tries to defend his choice to pursue a CANDU nuclear reactor.)

Here's an interesting exploration of the economics of CANDU reactors from Wikipedia, a site where information is usually fairly reliable but always deserves a further fact checking.

More about CANDU reactors from the Energy Probe site.

Here's a long list of problems with CANDU reactors and nuclear energy.

An article, archived in The Canadian Encyclopedia from Maclean's magazine, called CANDU Flawed shows a snapshot of problems from ten years ago.

Harper embraces the nuclear future (Macleans.ca May '07)

REALITY CHECK: Robert Sheppard
Is a Candu really the answer for Alberta's oilsands? (cbc.ca January 11, 2007)
Check out the comments after the article.

Towards a Nuclear-Free Canada (Sierra Club of Canada)

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer (Sierra Club of Canada)

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

OUR DEADLY SECRET: Tracing Saskatchewan's Role in the Proliferation of Nuclear WMD By Jim Harding, Ph.D.

Canada's Role in Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons worldwide

Depleted Uranium and Canada's Role

US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'

Canadians neither need nor want nuclear energy.

Fossil Fuel Free in 20 Years

2007-07-02T22:46:00.000-06:00

Prospects for renewable power are promising. But it means nothing if the public interest is drowned by corporate power...
George Monbiot Tuesday July 3, 2007 The Guardian

Before I get to the comment piece by George Monbiot, I'd like to reflect on my last few posts about energy.

Lately I've been under attack on my blog from a few pro-nuclear folks. They have been trying unsuccessfully to argue that we need nuclear energy, and that it's a good idea. In the end they've all been unable to argue against the many reasons why nuclear is a bad idea, they continually quote biased studies that rely on assumptions that energy demands will definitely rise (not true, if we embark on aggressive conservation and efficiency measures) and there's no other way to meet them, which is also untrue, since along with conservation, renewables can meet our demands.

We can meet energy demands by reducing consumption and enforcing energy conservation, while significantly ramping up renewable energies.

The problems with using nuclear energy include a lack of long term focus on conservation, threat of terrorist attacks, no acceptable solution to long term radioactive waste storage, providing materials for depleted uranium weapons, not a solution to climate change, unsustainable (especially without ample fossil fuels to provide energy for construction, maintenance, decommissioning and allowing for proper future storage for nuclear waste), and the extreme cost to taxpayers in form of industry subsidies.

Please see my previous posts on energy and nuclear power for more reference documents, studies, articles and discussion comments.

Now for the Monbiot comment piece published today in the Guardian online. Here's a different link to this article, along with a few quotes below.

Reading a scientific paper on the train this weekend, I found, to my amazement, that my hands were shaking. This has never happened to me before, but nor have I ever read anything like it. Published by a team led by James Hansen at Nasa, it suggests that the grim reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be absurdly optimistic...

...Unaware of the causes of our good fortune, blissfully detached from their likely termination, we drift into catastrophe.

Or we are led there. A good source tells me that the British government is well aware that its target for cutting carbon emissions - 60% by 2050 - is too little too late, but that it will go no further for one reason: it fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry. Why this body is allowed to keep holding a gun to our heads has never been explained, but Gordon Brown has just appointed Digby Jones, its former director-general, as a minister in the department responsible for energy policy. I don't remember voting for him. There could be no clearer signal that the public interest is being drowned by corporate power...

...Until recently I guessed that the maximum contribution from renewables would be something like 50%: beyond that point the difficulties of storing electricity and balancing the grid could become overwhelming. But three papers now suggest that we could go much further.

Last year, the German government published a study of the effects of linking the electricity networks of all the countries in Europe and connecting them to north Africa and Iceland with high-voltage direct-current cables. This would open up a much greater variety of renewable power sources. Every country in the network would then be able to rely on stable and predictable supplies from elsewhere: hydroelectricity in Scandinavia and the Alps, geothermal energy in Iceland and vast solar thermal farms in the Sahara. By spreading the demand across a much wider network, it suggests that 80% of Europe's electricity could be produced from renewable power without any greater risk of blackouts or flickers.

At about the same time, Mark Barrett, of University College London, published a preliminary study looking mainly at ways of altering the pattern of demand for electricity to match the variable supply from wind and waves and tidal power. At about twice the current price, he found that we might be able to produce as much as 95% of our electricity from renewable sources without causing interruptions in the power supply.

Now a new study by the Centre for Alternative Technology takes this even further. It is due to be published next week, but I have been allowed a preview. It is remarkable in two respects: it suggests that by 2027 we could produce 100% of our electricity without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, and that we could do so while almost tripling its supply: our heating systems (using electricity to drive heat pumps) and our transport systems could be mostly powered by it...

This is exciting to me, as it reaffirms my own position that we can and must meet our energy needs through a combination of conservation & efficiency measures, as well as renewable technologies, with no fossil fuels or nuclear power, and the effect to our lifestyles would be minimal.

Now when I say 'minimal', what I mean is that a big chunk of the responsibility sits with our government to provide energy efficiency incentives, rebates, and to have the political will to remove taxpayer subsidies from oil & gas and nuclear energy industries and invest them instead in renewable energies. Still, much of the responsibility sits with the citizens, and we must be diligent in our personal efforts to use energy wisely. The really good news is that it saves us money when we use less energy, so in the end it's a win for our wallets too.

More from Monbiot on energy related matters:

Thanks, But We Still Don’t Need It - July 11, 2006 - Some of the arguments against nuclear power are no longer valid, but it remains the wrong technology.

Two Kinds of Mass Death - September 7, 2004 - The argument for nuclear power has strengthened, but it’s still not good enough.

What if the Oil Runs Out? - May 29, 2007 - Though the government is planning a massive expansion of transport networks, it has never considered this question.

A Lethal Solution - Posted March 27, 2007 - We need a five-year freeze on biofuels, before they wreck the planet.

Alberta Becoming A Petro-Tyranny

2007-06-25T23:54:00.000-06:00

I attended a presentation by Mr. Nikiforuk in Rockyford a few months ago. He presented, to a room full of concerned farmers and land owners, an excellent slide show about CBM (coal bed methane) and the Tar Sands. He's a great journalist and this audio file offers very good information on what's happening with the Alberta government and our energy resources.

Click here (or for direct 'real media' file link click here) for the audio interview on CBC radio show The Current with Andrew Nikiforuk. Look for part two at the bottom of the page.

For the full written article 'Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?' by Andrew Nikiforuk, click here. (highlights below)

June 11, 2007 Monday
ANDREW NIKIFORUK
Calgary journalist and columnist for Canadian Business magazine
Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?

Every day, the First Law of Petropolitics quietly insinuates its way into the nation's political blood like a rogue parasite. The law, first coined by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, posits that the price of oil and the quality of freedom invariably travel in opposite directions.

As the price of crude oil goes higher in an oil-dominated kingdom, the average citizen will experience, over time, less free speech, fewer free papers and a steady erosion of the rule of law. The reason, argues Mr. Friedman, is simple: Oil and gas regimes don't need to tax their citizens to survive because they can simply tax another tar sands project, so they really don't have to listen to their people either...

...Alberta's politics mirror a global phenomenon. In a recent study of 105 oil-rich states between 1971 and 1997, political scientist Michael Ross consistently found that reliance on oil exports made a country less democratic regardless of its size, location or ideology. Oil corrupts and corrupts absolutely. Given that Canada is now ruled by Albertans and claims to be an "emerging energy superpower" as well as a "secure source of almost limitless energy resources" for North America, can Canada defy the axiom of our age?

Politicians serve those first who deliver the most revenue.

Energy Efficiency Better Than Expected

2007-06-24T22:06:00.000-06:00

Energy Efficiency and Conservation: The Cornerstone of a Sustainable Energy Future

Here are a few highlights from a July '06, PDF report (985kb file) from the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance on how conservation and efficiency measures have proven highly effective in an effort to meet energy demands. It's simple: we can meet demands by reducing them.

Energy efficiency is the least cost, most reliable, and most environmentally-sensitive resource, and minimizes our contribution to climate change.
—California’s Energy Action Plan II *1

Energy efficiency is likely to be the cheapest and safest way of addressing all [of our energy] objectives, while also strengthening energy security and improving our industrial competitiveness as we develop cleaner technologies, products and processes.
—UK Energy White Paper *2

Fortunately, energy efficiency and conservation are the lowest cost option for meeting energy needs, and they provide many other environmental, economic and social benefits as well:
· overall cost savings from lower expenditures on energy;
· a lower environmental load from avoiding the greenhouse gas and local air, water and land emissions associated with energy production and consumption;
· local economic-development opportunities and associated new jobs;
· an energy system with enhanced reliability and less price volatility; and
· improved energy-supply security.

*1 California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Energy Action Plan II, p. 3.
*2 Department of Trade and Industry. 2003. UK Energy White Paper, Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf

Recommendations for Provincial Strategies

1 Set a goal of meeting all new growth in energy demand over the next two decades through energy efficiency and conservation. Set energy efficiency targets for each sector along with appropriate intermediate milestones for energy utilities and industries. Make these milestones into legal requirements by using Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards and tradable permit (white certificates) programs.

2 Treat energy efficiency as a resource and given priority over supply resources. All resources should be assessed using social, environmental and economic cost criteria.

3 Mandate an independent dedicated agency to coordinate and deliver energy efficiency and conservation programs, and recommend policy changes.

4 Establish permanent funding sources through the budget process to support a building code and equipment standard review cycle.

5 Provide a shared savings DSM incentive mechanism for energy utilities, technical support provided for smaller utilities, and coordinate DSM programs across the Province.

6 Establish regular review cycles of energy efficiency requirements in building codes and minimum efficiency requirements for equipment. Changes in codes and standards should be negotiatedwith all stakeholders and supportive incentives provided to builders and suppliers in the lead up to changes.

7 Provide comprehensive energy efficiency programming covering all sectors and geographic areas in the Province. Market transformation programs should target the whole supply chain – manufacturers/builders, suppliers, contractors, users/consumers.

8 Provide targeted financial incentives to kick start market transformation and raise efficiency levels between code and standards cycles, providing effective support to suppliers, users, or contractors as appropriate.

9 Build an infrastructure to deliver energy efficiency products and services through training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

10 Partner with municipalities and First Nations to deliver community energy plans and community based energy efficiency programs.

Recommendations for Federal Enabling Policies and Support

1 Develop and implement a national energy efficiency strategy and action plan with targets and timelines, based on best practices, individual and joint initiatives across Provinces, and participation in international initiatives on energy efficiency.

2 Establish a permanent review cycle of the national model energy code for buildings, EnerGuide for Houses, and vehicle efficiency requirements, in cooperation with the Provinces.

3 Use the Energy Efficiency Act to raise minimum efficiency standards for all energy using equipment to the highest levels in North America in cooperation with Provinces and harmonized with the most progressive US States.

4 Provide enabling legislation and protocol support for energy performance and best in class labeling programs.

5 Promote and support the use of measures that provide value to energy efficiency labels so that they reflect the full environmental and social benefits of high efficiency. These should include tradable energy efficiency permits or “white” certificates, green mortgage concessions, preferential tax treatment, and targeted incentives.

6 Make market transformation the primary objective of federal energy efficiency programming, working with Provinces, Territories, Municipalities and all stakeholders to transform new and retrofit building, appliance, lighting, electronic equipment, and industrial equipment and process markets.

7 Provide national support for training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

8 Show leadership and support for market transformation by expanding the Federal Buildings Initiative into a full green procurement strategy where all federal facilities are built, leased, upgraded, equipped and operated to the highest levels of efficiency on a life cycle cost basis.

9 Establish a national energy efficiency finance fund in cooperation with the finance industry, private sector investors, and municipalities. Reduce financial incentives and tax concessions for fossil fuels and nuclear and divert them toward new incentives for energy efficiency (and renewable energy).

10 Put special programs in place to reduce “energy poverty” and raise building standards for First Nations communities and low income families.

11 Expand Canadian participation in international partnerships such as REEEP, NAFTA, and the IEA, providing support for energy efficiency in developing countries as well as North American and international discussions.

Also related, here is a link to a summary of an article on energy efficiency from a September '06 Scientific American issue on energy.

Excerpts from “An Efficient Solution,” by Eberhard K. Jochem, Scientific American, September 2006.

Energy Efficiency Is The Solution

Wasting less energy is the quickest, least expensive way to stem carbon emissions. The huge potential of energy efficiency measures for mitigating the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere attracts little attention when place alongside the more glamorous alternatives of nuclear, hydrogen or renewable energies. But developing a comprehensive efficiency strategy is the fastest and cheapest thing we can do to reduce carbon emissions. It can also be profitable and astonishingly effective, as two recent examples demonstrate...

...Improved efficiencies can be realized all along the energy chain, from the conversion of primary energy (oil, for example) to energy carriers (such as electricity) and finally to useful energy (the heat in your toaster). The annual global primary energy demand is 447,000 petajoules (a petajoule is roughly 300 gigawatt-hours), 80 percent of which comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. After conversion these primary energy sources deliver roughly 300,000 petajoules of so-called final energy to customers in the form of electricity, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, and so on.

The next step, the conversion of electricity, gasoline, and the like to useful energy in engines, boilers and lightbulbs, causes further energy losses of 154,000 petajuoules. Thus, at present almost 300,000 petajoules, or two thirds of the primary energy are lost during the two stages of energy conversion. Furthermore, all useful energy is eventually dissipated as heat at various temperatures. Insulating buildings more effectively, changing industrial processes and driving lighter, more aerodynamic cars would reduce the demand for useful energy, thus substantial reducing energy wastage.

Given the challenges presented by climate change and the high increases expected in energy prices, the losses that occur all along the energy chain can also be viewed as opportunities–and efficiency is one of the most important. New technologies and know-how must replace the present intensive use of energy and materials...

...Little heralded but impressive advances have already been made, often in the form of efficiency improvements that are invisible to the consumer. Beginning with the energy crisis in the 1970's, air conditioners in the U.S. were redesigned to use less power with little loss in cooling capacity and new U.S. building codes required more insulation and double-paned windows. New refrigerators use only one quarter of the power of earlier models. (With approximately 150 million refrigerators and freezers in the U.S., the difference in consumption between 1974 efficiency levels and 2001 levels is equivalent to avoiding the generation of 40 gigawatts at power plants.) Changing to compact fluorescent light-bulbs yields an instant reduction in power demand; these bulbs provide as much light as regular incandescent bulbs, last 10 times longer and use just one fourth to one fifth the energy...

The Importance Of Policy

To realize the full benefits of efficiency, strong energy policies are essential. Among the underlying reasons for the crucial role of policy are the dearth of knowledge by manufacturers and the public about efficiency options, budgeting methods that do not take proper account of the ongoing benefits of long-lasting investments, and market imperfections such as external costs for carbon emissions and other costs of energy use. Energy policy set by governments has traditionally underestimated the benefits of efficiency. Of course, factors other than policy can drive changes in efficiency–higher energy prices, new technologies or cost competition, for instance. But policies–which include energy taxes, financial incentives, professional training, labeling, environmental legislation, greenhouse gas emissions trading and international coordination of regulations for traded products–can make an enormous difference...

...Other similar projects abound. The Board of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, for instance, has suggested a technological program aimed at what we call the 2,000-Watt Society–an annual primary energy use of 2,000 watts (or 65 gigajoules) per capita. Realizing this vision in industrial countries would reduce the per capita energy use and related carbon emissions by two thirds, despite a two-thirds increase in GDP, within the next 60 to 80 years. Swiss scientists, including myself, have been evaluating this plan since 2002, and we have concluded that the goal of the 2,000-watt per capita society is technically feasible for industrial countries in the second half of this century.

To some people, the term “energy efficiency” implies reduced comfort. But the concept of efficiency means that you get the same service–a comfortable room or convenient travel from home to work–using less energy. The EU, its member states and Japan have begun to tap the substantial–and profitable–potential of efficiency measures. To avoid the rising costs of energy supplies and the even costlier adaptations to climate change, efficiency must become a global activity.

Finally, on the subject of the economics & profitability of going green with your business, have a look at the book Natural Capitalism. Click on the link to read selected chapter excerpts online.

Green Party Speaks Out Against Nuclear Energy

2007-06-18T18:52:00.000-06:00

Here are two recent media releases by the Green Party of Canada about problems with nuclear energy.

Tritium study shows nuclear power is still too dangerous

Our governments and the nuclear industry have consistently downplayed mounting scientific concerns.

14.06.2007
Ottawa – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today called for an immediate moratorium on the development of all new nuclear generating capacity and refurbishment of existing reactors pending a full investigation into the health impacts of radioactive tritium emissions on people living near nuclear plants.

“The federal and provincial governments and the nuclear industry have consistently downplayed mounting scientific concerns about the levels of tritium in the Great Lakes and around nuclear reactors,” said Ms. May. “Canadians have the right to know the truth about tritium before we rush headlong into a nuclear-powered future.”

The CANDU reactors used in Canada are among the world’s largest sources of tritium, producing much more of the radioactive hydrogen isotope than other types of reactors. Health Canada’s standard for tritium levels in drinking water is 100 times higher than the level permitted in Europe.

In a new study released this week, British radiation expert Ian Fairlie said that emissions of radioactive tritium from Canadian reactors are so high that children under age four and pregnant women shouldn't live within 10 kilometres of a nuclear power plant and those living within five kilometres shouldn't eat food grown in their gardens. Mr. Fairlie, who worked on a British government committee set up in 2001 to review the safety of tritium and other radioactive substances, published a report earlier this year in which he concluded that the danger of tritium is being underestimated.

“It is extremely worrying that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), our key legislation to protect human health and the environment from threats posed by man-made substances, does not include radio-nuclides such as tritium,” said Ms. May.

“The tradition of secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry has relegated radioactive tritium and other emissions from nuclear plants to a regulatory limbo. This must be remedied by bringing toxic radio-nuclides under the control of CEPA.”

- - - - -

Not safe, not long-term – Green Party blasts plan to bury nuclear waste

"Out of sight, out of mind" approach a crippling mortgage on future generations of Canadians.

15.06.2007
Ottawa – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today condemned the federal government's plan to bury nuclear waste, calling it a crippling mortgage on future generations of Canadians.

"Environment Minister Gary Lunn proudly calls underground disposal a safe, long-term approach," said Ms. May. "That could only be true if your idea of safe is 'out of sight, out of mind' and you think long term means 'until I'm no longer in office.'

"This plan falls woefully short of providing a long-term solution to the ongoing problem of nuclear waste. It's a short-term management strategy. The NWMO proposal calls for final decisions to be made in 300 years.

"And it means that at an as yet undetermined point in the future, residents of some isolated Canadian community will be asked to live beside a pile of waste that will be deadly for thousands of years."

Minister Lunn announced this week that the government is accepting the plan put forward by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to keep the waste where it is – at reactor sites in four provinces – for the next 30 years and then move it to a central repository where it will be kept either above the ground or in shallow underground storage. After another 30 years, it will be moved 500 to 1,000 metres underground. At all stages, the waste will be retrievable.

"Making it retrievable means that it could eventually be used to produce nuclear weapons or to fuel nuclear breeder reactors, which are even more dangerous that the current fission reactions."

Ms. May said the nuclear industry's favourable reaction to the plan came as no big surprise. "It is, after all, the work of the NWMO whose board consists entirely of individuals representing the Canadian nuclear industry."

I've posted on my blog three times in the past on nuclear energy. See here, here and here.

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

2007-06-18T18:35:00.000-06:00

Here are two recent press releases on the green tax shift that the Green Party is proposing, along with some background documents below.

A green tax shift is also known as ecological fiscal reform (EFR) and you'll find more info on EFR at this link.

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party
12.06.2007
OTTAWA – The Green Party of Canada warned today that Canada will enter a period of sustained and escalating price shocks at the gas pump unless the federal government moves quickly to protect Canadians from the financial toll of declining oil supplies in an era of growing global demand for oil.

“The current spike in Canada’s transportation fuel costs is just the start,” Green Party leader Elizabeth May said today. “It is going to get much worse if, like Prime Minister Harper, we simply accept that there is nothing we can do because the price increase is due to the imbalance between global oil supply and demand.”

The Green Party’s recently-released climate change plan – A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe – sets out a detailed strategy to simultaneously stabilize transportation costs and protect personal disposable income while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution.

This comprehensive and integrated green economic plan maximizes the energy efficiency of vehicles, significantly expands public transit alternatives, introduces environmentally sustainable smart urban planning and agricultural practices, promotes development of renewable energy and encourages aggressive energy conservation measures.

The plan’s key policy lever is the Green Tax Shift, which cuts income and payroll taxes and introduces a variable carbon tax on different types of fuel. The tax shift is revenue-neutral: there would be no net gain to the government’s tax coffers because individual income and payroll taxes would be cut by the same amount as the revenue collected by the carbon tax.

Canadians employers and workers would pay more for energy but this would be offset by lower payroll and income taxes. Canadians on lower incomes, who pay no income tax, would be given a carbon tax rebate similar to the GST rebate.

According to the Green Party’s Industry and Entrepreneurship Advocate, Eric Walton, by gradually increasing the cost of energy in clearly prescribed stages, the carbon tax will drive rapid technological innovation, vehicle fleet conversion, appropriate government regulations and personal transportation adjustments that will in turn reduce energy consumption.

“Over time, this will reduce demand and protect Canadians from rapid, uncontrolled gas price increases by reducing the percentage of an individual’s or family’s budget spent on transportation costs,” said Mr. Walton. “It is a win/win strategy that protects both the environment and the disposable income of Canadians through the Green Tax Shift.

“Maintaining the status quo will continue to damage the atmosphere and provide no financial rebate on income and payroll taxes. That is the lose/lose proposition."

- - - - -

Averting Climate Catastrophe: Green Party lays out roadmap to Canada’s low-carbon future

06.06.2007
OTTAWA – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today unveiled the party’s Environment Day gift to Canada – a comprehensive blueprint for a thriving low-carbon economy and a clean, green energy future that will reinstate Canada as a leader in the global campaign to prevent catastrophic climate change.

Ms. May released the Green Party Climate Plan: A New Energy Revolution to Avert Global Catastrophe, in Ottawa today – World Environment Day – with an urgent message for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Environment Minister John Baird and opposition party leaders:

“Please steal these ideas. They are decisive but workable and they will drive rapid progress towards achieving our Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and keeping global temperature rise below 2 degrees Celsius. There is no time to lose.”

As the Prime Minister joins leaders of the G-8 industrialized nations in Heiligendamm, Germany – with climate change top of the agenda – Ms. May also urged Mr. Harper to reject the defeatist attitude being promoted by the Bush administration and to reaffirm Canada’s commitment to Kyoto and further medium- and long-term emissions reduction targets.

“This is no time to align ourselves with the laggards of the world,” said Ms. May. “It is a time for vision and ambition. The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy represents the greatest business opportunity the world has ever seen. The federal government’s dogged refusal to recognize and seize that opportunity is a failure of leadership that puts Canada’s future prosperity in great jeopardy.”

The cornerstone of the Green Party plan is an immediate $50/tonne carbon tax, rising to $100/tonne by 2020 if necessary. Experts agree that a carbon tax is the most efficient and effective way to cut greenhouse gas emissions, but some say it is politically dangerous to enact a carbon tax. (See what experts say in the attached backgrounder.)

A $50 carbon tax adds 12 cents to the cost of a litre of gas at the pump. That revenue will be used to progressively reduce other taxes, including income and payroll taxes, and to provide tax incentives for reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

The plan also includes a cap-and-trade CO2 market for Large Final Emitters – the big mining, manufacturing, oil, gas and thermal electricity companies responsible for about half of Canada’s total emissions. Trading of CO2 allocations will be overseen by a non-governmental body.

The Green Party plan also calls for:
Rapid development of Canada’s renewable energy sources through tax incentives, research funds and new policies, including carbon conditionality clauses requiring provincial adoption of Advanced Renewables Tariffs.
Tax incentives, regulation and funded programs to cut vehicle emissions 30% by 2015 and 85% by 2040, including incentives for the Canadian manufacture of electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.
A retrofit of all Canada’s buildings to a high level of energy efficiency by 2025 and zero net energy after 2025 using refundable tax credits, tax-deductible Green Mortgages, 100% Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance, revolving federal loans and changes to Canada’s Building Code.
Regulations requiring all appliances to meet Energy Star rating by 2015 with most inefficient appliances and light bulbs phased out by 2010.
Adaptation strategies to cope with climatic disruption that is no longer avoidable, including a special task force to prepare area-specific strategies and a Climate Change Adaptation Fund to assist areas hard hit by “natural” disasters linked to global warming.
Withdrawal of federal funding for programmes such the Pacific Gateway Programme, that encourage urban sprawl and increase vehicle use.
Removal of all subsidies to coal, oil, gas and coalbed methane production, a cap on overall extraction levels of fossil fuels, and phasing out of coal, oil, gas and nuclear electrical generation.
Payments to farmers for carbon sequestration in soils within a domestic carbon market.
A carbon tax or carbon rebate for forest companies to reflect either the net loss of carbon storage or the net gain of carbon sinks from their lands.
A methane tax on all landfills and mandatory methane capture after 2015.
Global verification and certification standards for carbon credits and the establishment of a Canadian Carbon Bank along with a federal framework for local and provincial carbon banks to encourage the purchase of local offsets.
Expansion of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 to include international aviation and shipping and commitments to ramp up solar energy, electric vehicles and other low carbon technologies.

Green Party Climate Plan (PDF)

Summary Plan & Carbon Tax Quotes (PDF)

Key Points on Climate Plan

Carbon Tax FAQ

Nuclear Energy Very Problematic

2007-06-11T22:31:00.000-06:00

This post is my reply to a pro-nuclear comment on a previous post of mine covering this issue.

Nuclear energy is NOT a good option for our current or future power needs.

Regarding greenhouse gases, many are produce in the production of materials to build, shipping of materials, and building of nuclear power plants. Then there is a large amount of greenhouse gases produced in the further transporting, storage and reprocessing of nuclear waste. The energy is not entirely emissions free unless one unrealistically removes all indirectly related emission from surrounding activities.

People will still want to drive their cars once oil is gone, but if you look at the numbers, it just can't happen, nor can we all freely fly around the world at will. There will not be enough energy, even if you build dozens of nuclear power plants. An interesting side note is that it would take about twenty nuclear power plants to replace the level of energy used from natural gas to fuel operations in the Athabasca tar sands, and that's just so that they can get the oil out of the ground so it can be shipped to the U.S. to be processed.

In articles all over the media, people are talking about the future need to replace oil, as peak oil might be upon us in at most a few decades, and at soonest... right now. The problem isn't that we will need to find a way to meet our growing energy demands. I think that will prove to be impossible without cheap abundant fossil fuels. Instead the problem is that somehow people across the entire world will need to learn to live on far less energy. In the future the grid distribution system may prove so inefficient that it will be entirely unusable. Decentralized local energy generation will likely be the solution, but without oil, we'll have trouble even maintaining and replacing those systems. So, how easy will it be for our future society to maintain, replace or decommission nuclear power generators, or to ensure that radioactive waste continues to be stored in a safe and secure manner?

Nuclear energy is NOT an option for our power needs.

Nuclear power will never be completely GHG free. There are so many other things that we need to do before we try to promote nuclear energy as some kind of solution to global warming. Isn't it completely possible that our society would simply continue to consume fossil fuels at the same pace, regardless of how much extra energy for other purposes is from nuclear power? If we build nuclear power plants, will we drive less? Ship goods by truck less? Heat our homes less?

The waste issue which is thoroughly understood by the anti-nuke community is a very big issue. Waste can be reprocessed, but as France is discovering, eventually the leftover waste that cannot be reprocessed will build up and huge amounts will have to be dealt with. Nuclear waste could be put back in the ground, but there will always be a risk of contamination. This process has been utilized by the French for many years and they are starting to realize that there are issues with the sustainability of this strategy that is simply burying the problem and delaying the inevitable.

Radiation release is a concern with nuclear plants. No one has experienced radiation exposure from working in a solar panel or wind turbine factory.

I lived in Toronto many years ago when it was discovered that the Pickering Nuclear Power plant was not living up to promises.

Ontario Hydro failed to report decades of copper and zinc emissions from steam condenser tubes 1,800 tones into Lake Ontario, Southern Ontario's and northern New York States drinking water. Ontario Hydro admitted that groundwater at Pickering nuclear power plant has been contaminated with high levels of tritium since 1978. Ontario Hydro disclosed that up to 150,000 liters of waste oil had been illegally dumped in a landfill in the late 1970s. Both the tritium contamination and the oil dumping were brought to light by whistle-blowers not Ontario Hydro.

In October 1997 it was revealed and widely reported in the media that the Pickering nuclear power plant had 30 fires the previous year thats more than two a month. This nuclear power plant is just outside Toronto in a densely populated area on the shores of Lake Ontario. The water of Lake Ontario is used as a coolant in the reactors and then pumped back into the lake - the drinking water of Southern Ontario and Northern New York.

For more on Tritium see this story:
Canada vs. U.S. Tritium Standards in Drinking Water (A Primer on Tritium)

Also, terrorist attacks weren't on the top of peoples minds back then, but we seriously need to consider the fact that a nuclear power plant is a possible target for terrorists. They wouldn't need to try to break in to get the fuel rods to try to make bombs, as some might suggest. There is a concern about the nuclear plants themselves being possible targets.

Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. There is a tremendous amount of concrete and steel that goes into their construction. They are heavily subsidized with taxpayers money and the ongoing costs including the costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant make nuclear energy one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Some might try to say that only small amounts of fuel are needed to yield huge amounts of energy, and while this is technically true, 'small' does not equal safe, or manageable, or responsible, or even adequate, meaning that we will need 'large' amounts of fuel if we are to try to attempt to run the grid on nuclear energy. Very large amounts.

A lot of those who are pro-nuclear mistakenly dismiss people who are anti-nuclear as being uninformed or not in possession of the facts. I'm not 'crying out' that we'd all need a power plant in our backyards. In my well informed opinion, one nuclear power plant is one too many. We'll all be leaving behind highly toxic waste for our children's children's lives and beyond.

Nuclear power is a horrible source of energy.

Here are some links to some must read stuff that will help inform the pro-nuclear individuals who are not in full possession of the facts.

Nuclear energy 'not a viable response to climate change' - enviro group

Earlier this week, Sancan criticised State-owned Eskom for being “misinformed” about the sustainability of nuclear energy as a response to the threat of climate change, arguing that the full fuel cycle of nuclear power generation was fossil-fuel intensive and that nuclear energy was emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
By March, Eskom would complete a business case for new nuclear investment, which would be predominantly conventional projects and could see the current installed nuclear base rise from 1 800 MW to over 20 000 MW over the next 20 years.

The action group also stated that the mining, milling, processing and transportation of uranium fuel for reactors were all carbon-intensive industries and that nuclear power was releasing three to four times more CO2 per unit of energy produced than compared with renewable energy.

Worthington said that renewable energy initiatives involved smaller power generation units, which was opening up opportunities for greater employment.

He also said that risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as was evident in the international attempts to get Iran to shut down its uranium enrichment, was showing that enrichment for power generation and enrichment for the proliferation of weapons were one industry.

“There is no such thing as peaceful nuclear,” he said, adding that South Africa had enough renewable energy resources to provide energy for the whole of Africa.

The Long Emergency - James H. Kunstler (book review)

...Nevertheless, he does not see nuclear power as more than a short-term stopgap. Its ultimate limitations come first from safety issues with regard to plant operations and the disposal of waste fuel (although he points out that coal has cost far more lives than nuclear power, especially in the West). Second is the large amount of oil needed to mine and process nuclear fuel and to build and maintain nuclear plants. And the third, formidable objection Kunstler makes is that "Atomic fission is useful for producing electricity, but most of America's energy needs are for things that electricity can't do very well, if at all. For instance, you can't fly airplanes on electric power from nuclear reactors"—although, as he notes, the U.S. military has tried...

The Peak Oil Crisis: Alternatives – Decentralized Power

Most electricity is generated in massive remotely located plants – be they powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear reactors. These edifices, on average, waste two-thirds of the fuel that goes into them. Most energy is lost as waste heat that goes into the air or a local body of water, and the rest in line loses while bringing the power tens or hundreds of miles from the generator to the user.

In terms of green house gases, we could have the same lights, appliances, heating and air conditioning for half the carbon emissions if we simply switched from the current paradigm to decentralized power generation. If we toss some user conservation into the equation -- more efficient lights, appliances, insulation, and whatever – it just might be possible to stretch dwindling supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium far enough to allow time to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy.

Government can’t solve energy crisis it created

...Americans are expected to consume 28 percent more oil in 2030, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, as global demand for oil increases more than 50 percent. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, alternative fuels, including nuclear, hydropower and renewables like ethanol, will account for less than 20 percent of our total energy profile...

My note: Interestingly, this article completely ignores that global warming and the climate crisis is human caused, and that fossil fuels are a huge part of that. It goes on to suggest that the government relax regulations and provide incentives to the oil & gas industry so that companies can get to the oil as fast as possible. The numbers indicate that even with aggressive increasing of nuclear power it will be impossible to meet the energy needs of North Americans.

The nuclear energy option - Why environmentalists go silent when it's raised

Last week, John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corp., speaking at the CERES conference in Boston where hundreds of environmental officers from major corporations were in attendance, advocated the use of nuclear power to meet future energy needs.

The room went silent.

This is a telling sign of the state of the energy industry as a whole: "Environmentalists" create a lot of noise about creating alternative energy sources. The oil and gas industry quietly goes about its business. And when the nuclear option is brought up...no one has much to say about it.

The silence from the environmentalists can be attributed to the fact that nuclear power doesn't create carbon emissions. And it's readily available. It's an answer to the issue of global warming.

However, nuclear power isn't "clean energy" like solar or wind power. It's source and waste are radioactive material and therefore dangerous.

I personally don't want to bet the long-term future of the planet on whether we can find a solution to the carbon emissions from fossil fuels with nuclear power that in the short term can decimate pretty much every living thing on the planet.

There has to be a solution to meeting the world's energy demands, predicted to increase by 50% over the next 25 years. But nuclear power isn't it. There are too many hazards to consider.

There is NO solution save for reducing our levels of consumption of energy. Not solar, not hydro, not wind and not nuclear. Nuclear energy will meet part of the demand, but this is akin to widening the freeway to accommodate more cars in order to reduce congestion, only to see more and more cars and renewed congestion, or buying bigger pants and a bigger belt to accommodate weight gain.

Nuclear is NOT an option.

Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Power and Global Warming

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events-a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian-most likely non-U.S.-nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants-from accidents and acts of terrorism-are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

Countries Undecided on How to Store Nuclear Waste

France Deals with Legacies of its Nuclear Programs

PBS.org - Why the French Like Nuclear Energy

Here's an informative video clip about Frances nuclear waste crisis. It's surprising free of anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Greenpeace on Frances Nuclear Waste

Jennifer and Alberta Greens shocked by great local support

2007-06-04T20:51:00.000-06:00

Below is a recent letter to the editor that Jen & I wrote. It has been carried widely throughout our constituency.

Jennifer did very well at the recent forum in Stettler. I have uploaded her speeches onto YouTube. You can view them by searching her name in YouTube or by going to my account at http://www.youtube.com/greencameron

In the Q&A in Stettler Jen owned the subject of landowner surface rights, came across very credibly and informed on CBM issues, and set the pace with the subjects of trade, integration, and the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement. She also covered water transfer issues with Balzac and the Special Areas very well, and of course she brought up a number of policies from our platform. Jennifer didn't miss a beat, while the other candidates did, and Jennifer has gained the support of many local farmers, ranchers and landowners. It could have something to do with her knowledge of landowner rights, her ability to communicate the solutions that are within the Alberta Greens policies, and her ability to gain media attention on how our regulatory bodies are failing us.

After the forum, I went to the Legion parking lot where we were parked and noticed a couple of tables full of happy people. I said surprised, "this legion has an outdoor patio in the shade?!? That's awesome!"

They all smiled and laughed, and asked if I was from out of town. I told them I was just on the other side of the Legion at the political forum and a couple of people remarked that they wanted to be there (but not as much as they wanted to enjoy the evening outside on the patio - I can't blame them ;-).

I handed them a pamphlet and said "it's a little light reading, if you want to check it out and pass it along." One lady remarked, "Oh! The Green Party! That's the one I want to see. I've told my friends I'm voting Green!"

I replied, "Excellent! I'm hearing that a LOT."

See her bio here.

Jen is participating in a forum in Hanna right now. I had to work late and watch our son so I was unable to attend. On June 6th, 7pm, there's another forum at the Drumheller Inn at 100 South Railway Ave.

Door knocking and phone canvassing is going well, and we've received a number of donations from people around the constituency. Jen has more support than I did in the last federal election. I'm very proud of her.

Here is the letter to the editor we've sent out.

Letter to the editor regarding water and landowners rights

Submitted by Jennifer Wigmore
Drumheller-Stettler Candidate for the Green Party of Alberta

A water transfer proposal for the Special Areas in Drumheller-Stettler sits on the shelf, while the Province fast tracks a plan to get water to a mega mall in Balzac. Their priorities do not lay with the people, the farmers or the small business persons; their priorities lay with the foreign and big business interests. Big business is being put ahead of our agricultural industry, and while this government tries to keep agriculture afloat with subsidies, they are avoiding any real solutions to our problems.

Rather than pursuing made in Alberta plan that will strengthen our economy an make it flourish in a sustainable fashion, they are looking to the United States through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Agreement for ways to complete the sale of our national independence.

In April of this year CanWest News reported that a series of closed-door conferences for the North American Future 2025 Project will include the discussion of “water transfers” and diversions, according to the outline for the project, a trilateral effort to draft a “blueprint” on economic integration for the governments of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

The project was launched to help guide the ongoing Security and Prosperity Partnership, a wide-ranging effort to further integrate the countries’ practices on everything from environmental rules to security protocols and border controls.

“It’s no secret that the U.S. is going to need water. It’s no secret that Canada is going to have an overabundance of water.” said Armand Peschard-Sverdrup, director of the project, which is spearheaded by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a powerful Washington think-tank.

An 'overabundance of water'? Is this what they think we have here in Alberta? Why is our government allowing the US to discuss our water and resources as if they are something they own?

This is bigger that the proposed Balzac water transfer, which, in my informed opinion, will probably be coming from the WID (Western Irrigation District). This is about fast-tracking without public consultations.

A proposed 1,607-kilometre cross-country oil pipeline will run from Hardisty, southeast of Edmonton to Superior, Wisconsin. The pipeline is aimed at transporting Alberta tarsands crude to U.S. markets, and it will run right through our agricultural land.

David Core, President of the Canadian Alliance of Pipeline Landowners Associations, who is active with the Green Party, is saying, “pipeline landowners can no longer pretend that pipelines crossing their farms are out of sight and out of mind, and can no longer make excuses when dealing with pipeline companies and the boards that regulate them.”

Landowners must spread the word and stand up for their rights. Joining together with other landowners to form associations is a must, as Joe Anglin of the Lavesta Area Landowners Group, and declared Green Party of Alberta candidate in Lacombe-Ponoka, knows all too well.

The Lavesta Area Landowners Group represents more than 800 landowners in the area that are battling Alta Link, a controversial $495 million power line that would cut through Central Alberta to help provide power to the City of Calgary.

A high powered transmission line was considered and pursued by Alberta's provincial government, before any real consultation with or approval from the landowners and farmers it will directly affect.

The public has been misled into believing this transmission line was only needed for Calgary’s growth. The EUB has utilized fear tactics of possible rolling blackouts in Calgary in 2009 if this line isn’t built but they have never addressed why there wouldn’t be rolling blackout when this line is used 100% for export in 2010.

To quote Mr. Anglin, “No one is allowed to say no to any type of oil and gas development and that is fundamentally wrong. The real question for the province is how do we get from where we are today, of an environment of unsustainable oil and gas development, to a sustainable development of energy resources? Our future will not lie in oil and gas development. Our future will rely on our ability to develop new technologies. Who best to help protect the environment than people who own the land and who work the land? People should have the right to say no to development on their land. You should have the right to protect your water and soil and that will protect the environment in your community."

The Green Party has hit on something that is directly related to us in this riding, to Alberta, and the entire country. It's the security of our energy and our resources. The Green Party recognizes that it is extremely important that we act now on this information.

On January 23rd 2006 the Harper minority government was elected to parliament. Shortly after, Harper made it very clear that he would not participate in the traditional media scrum in Parliament, but would instead enter and exit Parliament through a back door and then directed his entire Party to issue only prepared statements through his office.

Eight months later, some of North America's most powerful political, business and military leaders gathered in Banff for three days in order to decide on how to create a North American super-state. No media was notified, invited or even allowed, except for one reporter from the Wall Street Journal.

The guest list included then US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Canadian chief of Defense staff General Rick Hillier, Canada's public safety minister Stockwell Day, and Lockheed Martin executive Ron Covais.

In the last federal election Canadians voted out a government that had forgotten that it was there to represent it's citizens. We recognized their self-serving pattern, and got rid of them.

Here we are today in this great province, with the same patterns from our provincial government. Their lack of real consultation or follow through on what Albertans have said shows that they are no longer representing us.

Jennifer Wigmore
Candidate, Drumheller-Stettler
Green Party of Alberta
403-770-2962

-30-

Jennifer Wigmore - Alberta Greens Drumheller-Stettler Candidate

2007-05-24T12:04:00.000-06:00

The byelection is underway for the Alberta ridings of Calgary-Elbow and Drumheller-Stettler. Jennifer Wigmore is running here in Drumheller-Stettler and last night at the first public candidate forum in Oyen she swept the crowd off of their feet with a fantastic speech and some no-nonsense policy proposals.

For more info click here to go to Jennifer's page at the Alberta Greens website.

Go Jen Go!!!

Nuclear Energy - Many Links & Great Info

2007-05-14T08:37:00.000-06:00

Below is a collection of recent info on nuclear that I put together after reading a story on alternative energies.

First, I have a letter to the editor written by Elaine Hughes from Saskatchewan, also found here, and reproduced on my blog with her permission.

Published February 3, 2007 in Saskatoon Star Phoenix

Dear Editor

. . . let’s not be coy about uranium!

If the Saskatchewan government follows the advice given by Mr. Percy in his frenzied article, “It’s a make-or-break year for Sask.” (SP Jan.06.07), they should just stop “being coy about supporting expanded uranium development…”.

They must knowingly ignore the wisdom of those who understand uranium - the price for uranium is high and getting higher – we don’t want to miss making all that money!

The threat, from radiation or bullets, to the entire planet posed by removing uranium from its protected location under the earth, hauling it many miles to mills for processing, then on to Saskatoon for shipment to the US and out into the world market, is enormous.

In its many forms, uranium is a killer – inevitable – contaminating everything it touches: water, soil, plants, animals and residents: fishermen, mothers, even babies.

To those of us who know and love northern Saskatchewan, and wish to visit it one more time - go now, before it’s too late!

Elaine Hughes

Archerwill, SK

I was recently inspired to collect all of my recent items on nuclear energy. I've added some other reference links for more info on nuclear energy and/or the tar sands. Click on the links to see the full stories.

Cheers,

Cameron
--
Cameron Wigmore
Alberta Representative, Federal Council
Crowfoot Candidate, '06 & current
CEO, Crowfoot EDA
cwigmore(AT)greenparty(DOT)ca

First, my previous blog on nuclear, and on the oilsands.

- - - - -
Geothermal vs. nuclear in the tar sands
http://www.thestar.com/article/211080
Silence on geothermal deafening
May 07, 2007
Tyler Hamilton

Three months ago, the Toronto Star ran a lengthy story about an oil-industry consortium that is quietly exploring the use of geothermal heat as an alternative to using natural gas in the oil sands.

Today, natural gas is burned to produce the hot steam that's needed to extract bitumen from the tar sands. Alberta's world-famous sands are already the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases in the country, and on the current growth path, emissions are expected to jump more than four-fold over the next 10 years.

Replacing much of this natural gas with clean, emission-free heat under the Earth's crust, a completely feasible option according to a recent research report out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, would go an enormous way toward achieving a halt, and eventually a decline, in Canada's carbon emissions.

The problem is, nobody is making noise about it. Not Ottawa. Not the provinces. Not even environmental groups.

When the Harper government released its much-anticipated "green plan" in late April, there was no mention of geothermal in the oil sands. Gary Lunn, federal minister of Natural Resources Canada, has never publicly touted the option.

The situation is perplexing, to say the least.

On the other hand, Lunn has been quite vocal in pushing nuclear power and its potential as a source of energy in the oil sands...

(snip)

- - - - -
Canadian Oil Sands Nuclear Plant Seen for 2016
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40669/story.htm
CANADA: March 5, 2007
OTTAWA - The first in a series of nuclear power plants planned for the oil-rich tar sands of Western Canada should be operating by 2016, the head of the project said Thursday.

The Energy Alberta Corporation says it wants to place a C$5.5 billion (US$4.3 billion) Canadian-built Candu twin reactor plant in northern Alberta to provide the massive amounts of power needed to extract oil from the sticky sands...

- - - - -
Nuclear Power No Sure Cure for Climate Ills - Groups
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41673/story.htm
US: May 3, 2007
WASHINGTON - Nuclear energy may not live up to its promise as the solution for global warming, according to separate reports released this week by an environmental group and an independent think tank...

- - - - -
Australian Labor Party Scraps Ban on New Uranium Mines
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41613/story.htm
AUSTRALIA: April 30, 2007
SYDNEY - Australia's centre-left Labor Party scrapped its 25-year ban on new uranium mines on Saturday after a divisive debate at the party's national policy conference in Sydney...

- - - - -
Canada's Role in Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons worldwide

DU & Public Health: The public health effects of the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons are such that their use can be considered per se violations of the war crime of Genocide under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The documented devastating effects of DU weapons on public health include:

3.0 Findings: The negative impacts of radiation from nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power and nuclear reactors, and depleted uranium weaponry, include but are not limited to the following.
3.1 Cancer
3.2 Birth defects
3.3 Chronic diseases caused by neurological and neuromuscular radiation damage
3.4 Mitochondrial diseases (Chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinsons nad Alzheimer's; Heart and brain disorders)
3.5 Global DNA damage in men's sperm; Infertility in women.
3.6 Learning disabilities
3.7 Mental illness
3.8 Birth rates & death rates
3.9 Diabetes
3.10 Infant mortality and low birth weights
3.11 Atmospheric testing impact on Environment
3.12 It is hereby found that the only feasible remedy to cease the damage to the environment and public health caused by ionizing radiation, and to safeguard the future of humanity and all living things, is to permanently abolish all nuclear technologies...

- - - - -
BOOK: WOLVES OF WATER - A Study Constructed from Atomic Radiation,
Morality, Epidemiology, Science, Bias, Philosophy and Death by Chris
Busby
http://www.llrc.org/wolflyer.pdf

"Come then all of you, come closer, form a circle Join hands and make
believe that joined Hands will keep away the wolves of water Who howl
along our coast. And be it assumed That no one hears them among the
talk and laughter." - Louis MacNeice

Light and Dark. Good and Evil. Themes from the night time recesses of our folk memories. They recur in literature, poetry, film: they are as old as time itself. In the scientific daylight of 2006, with the planet in danger, with massive expansion of industry, of pollution, of war, terrorism, threats of the effects of global warming, species loss, new diseases, even in this rationalist western world, illuminated by the stark light of scientific rationalism, no one can quite bring themselves to laugh about these deep ancient fears and pass them off as fantasy, or the stuff of dreams and cinema. There has always been an underlying public suspicion that the superficial events that influence their lives and the explanations of these events, which are common currency, do not address the underlying political truths. They suspect there is a real story that they are not being told. They are right. And, from time to time, stories emerge that demonstrate this. This is one such story. The message of this book is that the developments and advances of science have brought in their train devastating illnesses, and an even more devastating change in the way in which we now see the world...

- - - - -
How green is nuclear power?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html?swklyenv
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html
Some call it a carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels, but others point to significant environmental costs.

In Kansas, where winds blow strong, the push for clean energy includes not only new wind turbines but also new nuclear-power plants as part of a "carbon-free" solution to climate change.

It's an idea that may be catching on. At least 11 new nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, including Virginia, Texas, and Florida, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute website.

But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global warming?

"Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch."

Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says...

- - - - -
From the "Frying Pan of Global Warming into the Nuclear Fire":
Five reasons to oppose the uranium and nuclear industry
– April 2007 By Jim Harding, Ph.D.
Nuclear power is aggressively being promoted as the magic bullet for global warming, and the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) is again on our national airways bombarding us with the totally misleading message that nuclear is "clean." Here are five reasons to reject the nuclear propaganda.

1. Nuclear produces greenhouse gases
The nuclear industry is very energy-intensive, using massive fossil fuels, from mining, refining and enriching uranium to transporting and storing nuclear wastes. The most potent of the greenhouse gases - the otherwise banned ozone_depleting CFC's - continue to be released through uranium enrichment. And Saskatchewan's uranium, which accounts for one-third of world production, is enriched in the U.S. using a coal-fired plant.

At best, a nuclear plant is responsible for one-third of the green-house gases of an equivalent gas-fired plant. And an expanding nuclear industry will increasingly be forced to use lower grade uranium, requiring even more fossil fuels along the nuclear fuel system, with less and less net energy gain.

2. Nuclear is a Cancer Industry
Calling nuclear "clean" is Orwellian and obscene. Nuclear power spreads radioactivity in the earth's biosphere, and these radioactive particles will continue to bio-accumulate in the food chain long after nuclear power plants have shut down. Radiation released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident spread cancer and suffering widely, leaving some areas in Europe unsafe for growing food for as long as 600 years.

Fuelling the 435 reactors worldwide leaves hundreds of thousands of tonnes of radon-generating radioactive tailings in mining regions, such as Northern Saskatchewan. Reactors "legally" release hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and elements yearly. Each reactor produces ever-accumulating radioactive wastes as spent fuel that will have to be managed for millennia. Ever since the industry began in 1945, we have been asked to make a very risky and costly "leap of faith" that the storage problem will be solved. No safe and secure system of storing nuclear wastes in perpetuity has been created.

Cameco and other nuclear proponents tell us a majority of Saskatchewan people support uranium mining for the "economic development." But this is not informed consent. And even if a majority actually supported the export of this carcinogen, this would not make it right.

3. Nuclear is Not Peaceful
A 1,000 megawatt reactor yearly produces 500 pounds of the very carcinogenic element plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,400 years. That means that in 24,400 years - over 800 generations from now - it will still be half as radioactive. Only ten pounds of plutonium is required to make an atomic bomb, and Canada's CANDU reactor has already played a part in nuclear proliferation, most notably in the arms race between India and Pakistan.

Saskatchewan uranium was a primary source for thousands of American and British nuclear weapons in the arms race between 1953_66. Since the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) depleted uranium (DU) -left from enriching Saskatchewan's uranium exported for U.S. nuclear power plants - still remains available to the military for producing nuclear weapons, including H-Bombs. DU Bullets used in Yugoslavia and Iraq continue to spread radioactivity and cancer. As the world's major uranium-producing region, Saskatchewan is directly complicit in this low-level nuclear war. Our ever-denying governments and corporations will likely be seen as "war" and "ecological" criminals by future generations. They should be brought to account now.

France is the most nuclear-dependent country at 70% electricity. It has an interlocked military-industrial nuclear system and only recently stopped aboveground nuclear tests and signed the NPT. It relies on Saskatchewan uranium. The largest single source of uranium for the U.S. military-industrial nuclear complex is also Saskatchewan.

4. Nuclear Is Impractical
Nuclear electricity has been massively subsidized by a handful of nuclear weapons powers (mostly France, the U.S, Britain and Russia) which now try to profit through exporting nuclear technology to the industrializing (mostly Asian) world. Yet after 60 years nuclear power only supplies 17 percent of electricity, while coal produces 64 percent of electricity, worldwide. Even if coal dependent China built 30 new nuclear plants, nuclear would produce only 5 percent of its energy, which wouldn't mitigate its rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Also, uranium, like oil, is nonrenewable. If nuclear power could replace all coal presently used for generating electricity, we would run out of accessible uranium in less than a decade. Spending money on expanding nuclear therefore just postpones the inevitable - the need to convert to sustainable, renewable energy. And it squanders capital needed for this transformation, while increasing the burden of toxic radiation and huge decommissioning costs for future generations. This is immoral in every sense of the term.

Conservation, energy efficiency and perhaps "clean coal" are the realistic, cost-effective means of transitioning to sustainable, renewable energy to address global warming. This conversion, however,

continues to be stalled by huge taxpayer's subsidies to nuclear, which distort the energy market. George Bush's 2005 Energy Bill, for example, committed U.S. $13 billion to help the fledgling nuclear industry, something Helen Caldicott rightly calls a "theft from the production of cheap renewable electricity."

According to Ontario's Energy Probe, when you consider debt and interest costs over the last five decades, the Canadian nuclear industry has received $75 billion in public subsidies. Think what this scale of investment could have achieved if it were invested in renewables?

5. There's a Revolution in Renewables
Renewables include wind, solar, biomass, co_generation, geothermal, and kinetic energy. They also include "marine energy" (tidal and wave) which the British government-created Carbon Trust has said could produce 20 percent of the U.K.'s electricity. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has calculated that in the year 2004 alone, the amount of electricity supplied by renewables (excluding large hydro dams) added 500 times the total capacity worldwide that nuclear contributed. A political and techno-logical revolution towards ecological sustainability is currently underway.

The EU is now committed to reducing greenhouse gases by percent by 2020 through increased reliance on wind and solar power. In Canada, hydro produces 60 percent of our electricity, coal produces 22 percent and nuclear produces 14 percent. Between them, conservation and renewables can phaseout both nuclear and coal. Meanwhile the Harper Federal & Calvert Provincial governments continue with nuclear expansion. With support from the Sask Party,Calvert's NDP is promoting a uranium refinery, and Harper's Conservatives fantasize using nuclear power to increase the extraction of the west's heavy oil - the dirtiest of all oils.

If we continue on this destructive and dangerous path, we could become an international nuclear waste dump. We need a fundamental redirection of energy policy to address global warming and truly contribute to sustainability and world peace. Accepting the deception of the nuclear industry amounts to jumping from the frying pan of global warming into the nuclear fire.

Produced with research from Helen Caldicott's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer" (2006), and Jim Harding's "Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System" (forthcoming, Fernwood, 2007).This was originally produced for the Non_Nuclear Network and can be used by any environmental/ non_nuclear group.

See also: OUR DEADLY SECRET: Tracing Saskatchewan's Role in the Proliferation of Nuclear WMD1 by Jim Harding, Ph. D., Retired Prof. of Environmental and Justice Studies
http://www.icucec.org/edu-hardingsecret.html

- - - - -

Political Polling Trends - Greens Go Up

2007-05-14T08:05:00.000-06:00

A new story on a study of all recent Decima polls shows a few trends. See full article here.

Interesting trends emerging in weekly polls
Updated Sun. May. 13 2007 4:12 PM ET
Bruce Anderson, Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Anyone watching polls lately might be forgiven for their frustration at the range and unpredictability of the swings from week to week. But beneath the surface of weekly who-might-you-vote-for polls, some fascinating trends are taking shape.

Canadian voters have loosened the attachments that anchored them to traditional party choices. They're now being propelled by currents that confound those who prefer simple, clear signals from polls...

...People are much less angry at the Liberals, and much less fearful of the Conservatives. The good news is this allows people to vote for a positive reason. The bad news is there's no sign that's happening. Instead, there's a lack of passion of any sort. The volatility in weekly horse race polls looks like a passionate electorate, but it is probably more a reflection of the rather casual nature of how some voters feel about the choice...

...Elizabeth May has managed to create an impression among the majority of the Canadian electorate, and most of those impressions are good. She has a truly remarkable rating among voters under 25. May shares a distinction with Layton: more voters say their opinion is improving rather than fading of both leaders...

...Given this new competitiveness, its useful to take a look at what sort of shifting among parties has been going on. We've analyzed our last 7000 surveys on voting intention (between March 22 and May 7), and here's what we see:

The Conservatives have done better at retaining the support of those who voted for them in 2006, losing only 15 per cent of their supporters. The lost points went to the Liberals (six per cent), the NDP (four per cent) the Green Party (three per cent) and the BQ (one per cent).
The Liberals have lost 22 per cent of their 2006 voters. Ten per cent went to the Conservatives, five to the NDP, five to the Greens and just one per cent to the BQ.
The BQ has lost 23 per cent of its support, with six per cent siphoned off by the Conservatives, six per cent to the Greens, five per cent to the NDP, and only three to the Liberals.
The NDP has lost a quarter of its support an even 25 per cent. Ten per cent went to the Liberals, seven per cent to the Greens, 5 per cent to the Conservatives, and 1% to the BQ...

...In Ontario, almost one in three of the voters who have left the Liberals say they are voting Green, as do one in four who have left the Conservatives. In Quebec, voters who have left the BQ are almost twice as likely to say they will vote Green as vote Liberal...

Interesting trends!

From this site comes a graph that's frequently updated:

I've highlighted the Green Party's rise from 6% in the polls to over 10%. The Greens are the only national federal political party that is trending upwards like this.

I think this is not only because Canadians are aware of environmental and climate change issues and see the Green Party as best able to deal with these subjects, but also because Canadians see the Green Party, with a platform and policies that cover all issues, as a real viable option.

On Pesticides, More Or Less

2007-05-09T09:24:00.000-06:00

I sometimes wonder how we've come to the point where food that was simply food just a few decades ago has become specialty 'organic' food, and our every day grocery store food is now generally accepted as normal food.

Rather that label organic food and separate it from the regular stock, I think we should label the majority of non-organic foods as 'specialty toxic foods', or 'discount reduced quality foods', and organic foods can reclaim a place on our grocery store shelves as our generally accepted food.

Although I'm not a farmer and do not come from an agricultural background, I've learned a lot in the last few years about the realities of the transition to organic farming. Organic farming is a whole different thing, and it takes years to make the transition. I know a lot of farmers who say they'd rather not work with all of the pesticides and fertilizers they use, but our government doesn't really provide many opportunities for them to switch over to organic farming. I'm excited that the Green Party recognizes this dilemma, and would assist the industry in the transition to organic farming. Many of the new agriculture related policies adopted at the August '06 GPC convention in Ottawa, where I was present and participated, are very exciting and insightful. Watch for them in our next election platform!

Farmers should never ever be vilified by people in the city who've never been to rural areas to learn about the realities of agriculture. Not only have many people forgotten about how admirable, respectable and valuable this profession is, sadly farmers in Canada don't get their fair share of the consumer dollar, and something needs to be done about that right now.

Here's a recent Green Party media release on the subject of raising allowable pesticide levels...

Protect our children; don’t weaken pesticide rules, says Green Party

08.05.2007
OTTAWA – The Green Party is calling on the federal government to protect the most vulnerable members of Canadian society – children and the unborn – by resisting pressure to raise limits on pesticide residues for hundreds of fruit and vegetable products.

Commenting on a report that Canada is about to raise pesticide residue limits to harmonize rules with those of the United States, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said, "Once again, we see Canada joining a race to the bottom in the name of NAFTA.”

Today's Ottawa Citizen reports that Canada's regulations are stricter than those south of the border for 40 percent of the chemical residues it regulates. The different rules are described as a "trade irritant." Under NAFTA, Canadian and U.S. regulators have been working for more than a decade to harmonize regulations but the negotiations are now being fast-tracked as part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership.

"If harmonization is the goal, then we should insist on harmonizing upwards," said Ms. May. "The U.S. has some of the weakest pesticide residue rules in the developed world. These are not the standards to which Canada should aspire."

She said that the harmonization model adopted successfully by the European Union – where all countries must measure up to the member country with the strictest rules – should become standard practice in North America.

"If the cost of NAFTA is exposing Canadians to higher levels of toxic chemicals then that's too high a price to pay," said Ms. May. "It certainly validates the long-standing Green Party position that Canada should renegotiate NAFTA to eliminate mechanisms that erode Canada's sovereignty and environmental laws.”

From the Wikipedia entry on pesticides:

History
Since before 2500 BC, humans have used pesticides to prevent damage to their crops. The first known pesticide was elemental sulfur dusting used in Sumeria about 4,500 years ago. By the 15th century, toxic chemicals such as arsenic, mercury and lead were being applied to crops to kill pests. In the 17th century, nicotine sulfate was extracted from tobacco leaves for use as an insecticide. The 19th century saw the introduction of two more natural pesticides, pyrethrum which is derived from chrysanthemums, and rotenone which is derived from the roots of tropical vegetables.

Pesticide use has increased 50-fold since 1950, and 2.5 million tons of industrial pesticides are now used each year.

On the environment
Pesticides have been found to pollute virtually every lake, river and stream in the United States, according to the US Geological Survey. Pesticide runoff has been found to be highly lethal to amphibians, according to a recent study by the University of Pittsburgh.

Pesticides are strongly implicated in pollinator decline, including through the mechanism of Colony Collapse Disorder.

Dangers of Pesticides
Pesticides can present danger to consumers, bystanders, or workers during manufacture, transport, or during and after use [28]. There is concern that pesticides used to control pests on food crops are dangerous to the consumer. These concerns are one reason for the organic food movement. Many food crops, including fruits and vegetables, contain pesticide residues after being washed or peeled.

A new study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, has discovered a 70% increase in the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease for people exposed to even low levels of pesticides.

For a great video on environmental toxins and their cumulative effects on people, by CBC Marketplace's Wendy Mesley, click here and go to the box on the right with the RM video clip. From the intro to the story...

"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," says the old adage. But with so much focus on treatment, drugs and finding the ever-elusive cancer cure, prevention isn't a popular word in the cancer community.
"I can accept that I have cancer; I can't accept how common it is," says Mesley. "If it was just me, I could live with that. But the number of people getting cancer is wrong. Our failure to do better fighting this disease is wrong. I just think we need to be a little wiser about the world we are creating."

Pesticides In The News (collection of updated news stories)

Beyond Pesticides Daily News Blog

Pesticide.net (US News)

Green Party Leader Sets The Pace For Climate Change Debate

2007-05-02T11:20:00.000-06:00

Elizabeth May was giving a sermon in church last Sunday and something she said was picked up by Stephen Harper and spun negatively to try to use it against her.

One thing that interests me is that the other political parties have realized that they are in a losing battle when it comes to criticizing Green Party policies (not only on climate change but also on economic stability & sustainability, social justice, etc) and now have turned to attacking the Leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May.

I, as well as many other Greens, will continue to keep the focus on the solutions that the Green Party represents. It's up to the other national parties to choose whether they want to offer Canadians some policies that will lead to a healthy country with a healthy economy & healthy people, or more disinformation, spin, rhetoric and personal attacks.

We know that Canadians want solutions, not more finger pointing and childish back-and-forth attacks. While the Green Party offers common sense solutions in its policies and continues to rise in the polls, the other parties continue to sit at the same level of support or go lower.

May gets backing from Brits

Bruce Cheadle, Canadian Press - Published: Wednesday, May 02, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - Elizabeth May was sharply criticized Tuesday, ...but the unapologetic Green party leader got some unexpected support from British royalty.

While Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion and New Democrat Jack Layton all took turns denouncing the analogy, Prince Charles was making much the same point as May in a speech in London.

"I do not want my children and grandchildren, or anyone for that matter, saying to me, 'Why didn't you do something when it was possible to make a difference and when you knew what was happening?" the prince told a business conference Tuesday at St. James Palace.

"We can do it, just think what they did in the last war. Things that seemed impossible were achieved almost overnight."

In an interview Tuesday, May said the tempest over her weekend remarks to a church group were being both misrepresented and overblown.

May explained that the controversial quote attributed to her in news reports was actually her repeating the comments of a British journalist and environmental writer, George Monbiot.

Monbiot had told a conference on Saturday that there is a "new axis of evil" on climate change, naming U.S. President George Bush, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Harper as the offending trio.

According to May, who says she took notes, Monbiot called the three "more culpable in the eyes of history than (former British prime minister) Neville Chamberlain's attempt to appease the Nazis."

May says she repeated Monbiot's opinion on Sunday when she spoke to a church group in London, Ont., at the invitation of the local Liberal MP who had defeated her there in a fall federal byelection.

The point, May said Tuesday, is that Monbiot was comparing the moral failure of meeting the targets of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions with Chamberlain's failure to appreciate the dangers of Nazi Germany.

"We run the risk of losing civilization," said May.

(snip)

Curiously, Britain's foreign secrectary, Margaret Beckett, also used the Second World War analogy in a speech last week.

Beckett described climate change as a matter of "climate security" and recalled the pre-war actions of Chamberlain's political opponent and eventual successor, Winston Churchill.

"It was a time when Churchill, perceiving the dangers that lay ahead, struggled to mobilize the political will and industrial energy of the British Empire to meet those dangers," said Beckett. "He did so often in the face of strong opposition and not always with success."

Green Party Leader dismayed that comments were distorted

01.05.2007
Statement by Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada.

“I am dismayed that members of the Harper government have chosen to distort my comments to create a firestorm of controversy designed to distract attention from their failure to live up to Canada's Kyoto commitments.

"I can assure the Canadian Jewish Congress and all Canadians that I did not compare Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to any current issue. The evil of the Nazi regime is without parallel and stands alone for its deliberate, systematic and inhuman genocide.

“George Monbiot, best-selling author of HEAT and respected journalist at The Guardian, echoed the views of many people around the world when he expressed his deep distress at Canada's abdication of responsibility in the current climate crisis. As a failure of leadership and moral courage, he compared it to the appeasement efforts of Neville Chamberlain.

“I made reference to Mr. Monbiot’s statement to highlight the damage being done to Canada’s international reputation, something that should concern all Canadians.

“I deeply regret that the inflamed rhetoric around this issue has caused pain or offence.”

I would rarely if ever compare anything to controversial subjects for fear that it would make light of those events and distract from my point. Unfortunately, the inflamed rhetoric put forth by Harper distracted from May's point, and that hostile political opponent spun her words in a way to make it seem that she might have been making light of WW2, when in fact it is Harper who is making light of Climate Change.

Update: Macleans.ca - Selective Memory - Let he who has not made a Neville Chamberlain reference cast the first stone

Aaron Wherry, Macleans.ca | May 2, 2007 | 9:11 am EST
Scrumming with reporters after Tuesday's Question Period, NDP leader Jack Layton was asked for his take on Elizabeth May's questionable use of a Neville Chamberlain reference to describe the Conservative government's stance on the environment. Layton did not mince words.

"Well, we certainly would have never made any such comparison," he said. "I think it's very unfortunate and certainly not something that we consider to be wise or appropriate."

Pity Layton. His memory obviously fails him.

Now, I'm not generally in the business of doing the Green Party's homework, but a quick review of Hansard finds more than a few Chamberlain references on the record. In fact, here's Layton questioning then-prime minister Paul Martin about the Liberal government's failure to meet Kyoto targets:

"Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. We have been hearing those kinds of comments from the Prime Minister for 16 years since he began promising to clean up the air for Canadians and instead we have worse pollution than ever. He makes Neville Chamberlain look like a stalwart in standing up to a crisis. Smog is sending people to emergency wards at unprecedented levels. The prairies are drying up. We have forest fires like we have never had before. All we get are promises of plans to be brought forward some day. Will he bring forward a plan, yes or no?"

After QP, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion added his voice to those calling for May to withdraw the comments. One assumes he said the same thing to Liberal MP Robert Thibault, who, just a little more than a month ago, mustered this during a budget debate:

"I listened to the Minister of Finance when he was reading his budget speech. He said that the long days of bickering between the federal and provincial governments were over. I have not heard a quote like that since I read about Neville Chamberlain talking about peace in our times right before the second world war."

And before the Conservatives get cocky, let's remember this year-old gem from Peter MacKay, during a debate over extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan:

"I do not expect members of the NDP to understand this. I fully expect that the Neville Chamberlains of the 21st century in the NDP do not want to be part of an effort that is aimed at elevating the lives of the people of Afghanistan. It is unfortunate that they would take this off track and try to debase the real activity, the important quality of life changes that are taking place because of our forces being in Afghanistan."

MacKay was at least speaking in reference to a military operation. But then, if a reference to Neville Chamberlain is always "inappropriate," a multi-partisan apology seems in order.

Going green is an economic plus, but Tories won't do it

2007-04-30T18:03:00.000-06:00

While surfing the news online (I mostly use the highly customizable Google News but I have other alternative sources too) I spotted The Province, a canada.com CanWest Global paper from Vancouver BC. Here are a few links and story excerpts on the latest green plan from the Harper Government...

Tory Green Scheme Kills Kyoto With Hot Air

CLIMATE CHANGE: Greenhouse gases to continue rising under weak plan
James McNulty, The Province
Published: Sunday, April 29, 2007

Perched on a sunny Vancouver hotel rooftop last fall, Stephen Harper pitched his then-new Clean Air Act as the golden eagle of climate-change plans.

It would soar through greenhouse gases like a bird and sting pollution like a bee, Harper told the glorious photo-op, which cost taxpayers $75,000 to stage.

Nuts, said the opposition parties. The Liberals and NDP claimed the Clean Air Act was a partisan time-waster, when GHGs and smog-causing pollutants could be regulated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

Nuts, said Harper, claiming CEPA wasn't strong enough. The Clean Air Act was declared "dead" by the opposition and a stalemate ensued.

Instead of standing by the CEPA argument, the opposition -- and Harper -- bought into NDP Leader Jack Layton's plan to revive the act for rework by a House committee.

The act was then bolstered with GHG caps and returned to Harper three weeks ago. The revisions were too tough for his liking.

Harper's solution? Abandon the big-sell act and have green foghorn John Baird announce that Canada's environment would now be saved . . . with new CEPA regulations.

The impenetrable haze of climate-change politics is thicker than ever for bamboozled Canadians.
(snip)

The opposition, having spent months rebuilding the act it once said was unnecessary, now argues that it trumps CEPA.
(snip)

Layton, the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois were suckered when Harper agreed to rework his act. The PM clearly had no intention of honouring the committee's work, using the sop to waste time on a file already years behind schedule.

Harper and Baird's new plan is called the Clean Air Regulatory Agenda. It amounts to unambitious, unbalanced, half-slices of old Liberal policy, weak "intensity-based" GHG-reduction targets that allow total GHG output to continue rising, and a feebly low carbon tax of $15 per tonne for non-compliers.

It abandons Canada's Kyoto targets, even as a new Strategic Counsel poll shows that a clear majority of Canadians -- 61 per cent -- want the signed targets honoured.

Harper is trying to have it every which way, voting last week to support a BQ motion to meet Kyoto objectives while simultaneously trashing Kyoto.
(snip)

Harper is willing to bring in hard caps on smog-causing pollution, but avoids GHG caps, not wanting to annoy tar-sands producers counting billions in profits in all-Tory Alberta.

"The government of Canada is the only government of 165 nations to officially announce we have no intentions of ever trying to reach our targets," says Green party leader Elizabeth May. "It's really very shameful."

Economists polled by the Canadian Press said the Harper government overstated Kyoto costs while claiming one of the world's "most aggressive" climate-change plans.

Denmark, for one, has far tougher carbon penalties, yet its economy continues to grow as GHGs come down faster than in Canada.
(snip)

Dirty Canada Failing Global Test

CLIMATE CHANGE: Smart nations move as Canada's record worsens
James McNulty, The Province
Published: Sunday, January 28, 2007

The heat is on, and Canada is running cold. The Great White North is falling far behind the world's enlightened nations in the growing push to cut greenhouse-gas emissions hastening global warming.

As the Conference Board of Canada notes in a new report, Canada has the highest rate of increase in greenhouse-gas emissions of any G8 nation. The growth in emissions under Stephen Harper's Conservative government is even greater than that of the previous do-nothing Liberal regime.

The Conference Board, urging a cap on industrial emissions, warns that Canada would be "ill-advised to wait" and "risks being left behind" the United States, Europe and Japan in moving to a cleaner, greener economy.

Even the great climate-change skeptic George W. Bush, one of Harper's top ideological soulmates, has changed his tune from denial to urging conservation in gasoline use.
(snip)

Ten major U.S. corporations, including General Electric, BP, DuPont, Duke Energy and Alcoa, joined environmental groups last week in urging Congress to "significantly reduce greenhouse-gas emissions" with mandatory caps and a carbon-trading market to speed the inevitable conversion to greener energy sources.
(snip)

Canadian climate-change deniers falsely argue that there is no scientific consensus on global warming. In fact, there is consensus, to be demonstrated again this week in the latest UN report from top world scientists.

The need for action has never been clearer. Under Harper, Canada marches backwards.

Going 'green' makes eminent economic sense

Letter
Published: Thursday, February 01, 2007

I'm concerned about climate change and feel it's crucial our government takes urgent action.

It should commit to clean energy sources and reduce emission targets and guidelines as well as stop coal-fired power plants.
(snip)

As an entrepreneur and a capitalist, I believe there is greater economic opportunity for all communities that pursue a greener path. B.C. has a chance to lead the country and the world by adopting policies that deal with climate change.

If we ignore climate change and work only to maintain the status quo, our economy and lifestyle will suffer rather than flourish.

See two recent related Green Party media releases on this here and here.

As many people expected, the GPC Green Plan Squared (pdf link) continues to be the most economically sound and the best plan currently around.

Water and Oil - Tough to Mix, Easy to Sell

2007-04-28T22:44:00.000-06:00

I've been following a lot of recent developments in Alberta on water and energy. There's a lot for us to be concerned about.

The aquifers are significantly depleted, yet the government continues to allow industry to use copious amounts of fresh water for their operations. Mexico, the USA and Canada are looking to share water. Guess who has the most? Where's the consultation with the people of this province & country who will be affected?

A power transmission line was approved without proper consultation with local landowners, and now it seems the government just wants to continue to ignore the concerns of Albertans who's money is being spent to build this power line. Other questions surround that issue.

Over the years the EUB has not heeded the advice to do baseline testing of water in order to allow for a benchmark to test against when complaints of water pollution come forward. Here we are many years later with water wells showing pollutants that shouldn't be there, but no record that they were or weren't there before nearby CBM drilling & fracing occurred.

The bottom line is that we Albertans, the people who elected our political representatives to represent us - are being ignored. Our concerns fall on deaf ears.

There must be a way to fix this.

(note: for reference documents and data email me directly at camsax(at)gmail.com)

Methinks they doth protest too much

2007-04-20T08:18:00.000-06:00

Layton A Hypocrite About Deal, May Says

From the Nova Scotia Chronicle Herald article by Stephen Maher:

"There’s something wrong with Jack Layton if he’d rather open up discussions with the Taliban than the Green party," Ms. May said.

The NDP has angrily denounced Ms. May and Liberal Leader Stephane Dion for agreeing not to run candidates in each other’s ridings. Ms. May says she has tried many times to persuade Mr. Layton to discuss similar co-operation, but he refuses to talk with her.

It’s strange, given that Mr. Layton is happy to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Ms. May said.

"We know that Mr. Layton meets regularly with Stephen Harper," she said. "As a matter of fact Stephen Harper has praised Jack Layton as the leader of the opposition with whom he meets most often and finds the most co-operative."

But Karl Belanger, Mr. Layton’s spokesman, brushed aside her comments.
"If, and that is a big if, she ever gets elected to Parliament, we might answer her silly attacks," he said.

It was pointed out to me that the term 'silly' is a word used little to describe men, except maybe to try to emasculate a man, and that when used to describe women it is a sexist term.

- - -

NDP makes issue of Elizabeth May in the leaders debates
Two NDPers say yes; two say no.

From the Globe & Mail article by Brian Laghi:

MP Peter Stoffer, while agreeing with Mr. Layton that his party should run a candidate against Ms. May in the riding of Central Nova, said he thought she had the right to take part in the debate.

"I have no problems with her being in the televised debates, regardless of what happened in Central Nova. I honestly believe that she should have the right to be in the televised debate."

Meanwhile, Jim Laxer, a former party leadership candidate in the early 1970s and a political scientist, said he supports the idea of not running a candidate against Ms. May. A pact could help unite the opposition against Mr. Harper, Mr. Laxer said.

"I kind of think the deal is interesting because it's got some potential for a way for opposition parties who don't want to be divided up by Stephen Harper," he said.

He said Mr. Harper is dealing with the opposition against him piecemeal, which makes it difficult for the opposition to coalesce.

Mr. Laxer also said Ms. May should be part of the debate.

"I think she should be in the debate, but based on some kind of rule like 5 per cent [of the vote]," he said.

Mr. Laxer said the Greens, with 660,000 votes in the last election "clearly deserve a member of Parliament. . . . People should think of this on a higher level."

The party was not represented at the debates during the last election. Only parties with seats in Parliament and a comprehensive national platform were allowed last time.

Mr. Layton has said that the television networks decide who can take part. Typically, however, the networks require the agreement of all party leaders over who should be in on the contest.

Interestingly, a poll from January of this year showed that Canadians want the Green Party leader in debates.

- - -

NDP urged 2004 deal, ex-Green leader says

From the Toronto Star article by Susan Delacourt:

OTTAWA–Former Green party leader Jim Harris says NDP Leader Jack Layton sought a deal with him before the 2004 federal election, so he's baffled why New Democrats are suddenly saying that it's wrong for the Greens and Liberals to co-operate in the next campaign.

"Methinks they doth protest too much," Harris said in an interview yesterday, describing a meeting he held at a College St. café in Toronto with Layton before the 2004 campaign.

But according to Harris, Layton asked for the Greens not to run candidates in 2004 and to endorse the NDP instead. A 2004 newspaper story makes mention of the meeting and includes confirmation from an NDP strategist that Layton was looking for the Greens to back his party.

Layton, however, recalled yesterday that it was Harris looking for the NDP's support. "He asked for the meeting," Layton said, noting that Harris brought a list of demands, one of which was a request for the NDP not to run candidates against Greens.

That's not how Harris remembers things. He said he had gone to Layton to ask for his backing in getting into the televised leaders' debates during a future election campaign. Layton replied that Greens would need to do something for the NDP in return for their support. According to Harris, the question was something like: "Why don't you just not run any candidates and endorse the NDP and me?"

Harris said he couldn't see what the Green party would get out of that proposal.

Sometimes I'm left baffled and exhausted from trying to figure out whether the old-line political parties are being honest or just playing chess games. Our country still desperately needs transparency and accountability in our government, and I expect that electing Green MPs will help make this happen.

The Greens, under heavy fire, have to be careful and continue to respond to attacks with a pro-green message, rather than an 'anti-other' counter attack. Non-violence is one of the key values of the Green Party, and that includes non-violent communication.

Democratic Space analysis & article from Ottawa Citizen

2007-04-16T11:43:00.000-06:00

Can Elizabeth May win Central Nova? Click HERE.

Even with the Liberals not running a candidate in Central Nova, there are many who question whether Green Party leader Elizabeth May can defeat Conservative incumbent Peter MacKay. People typically look at previous results and see the Greens so far back that they discount the possibility that May could actually win. People would be wise to re-think that position. I, for one, think it’s certainly possible for the Greens to win...

The comment section is a great discussion.

Grit-Green pact rattles
Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, April 16, 2007
LINK

Jack Layton, with trademark piety, expressed disappointment that May has climbed into "the muck" with the Liberals. "If she wants to be a Liberal, why doesn't she just run for the Liberals?" sniffed his former aide, Jamey Heath. For the Conservatives, the deal is further evidence -- along with the Ottawa Senators' second-game loss and this month's miserable weather, presumably -- that Dion is a "weak leader."...

...Pay them no mind, Ms. May. These are the delusional mutterings of a dying cult. These are the custodians of politics as it always has been: stupidly partisan, pathologically afraid of innovation, mean-spirited and self-interested. Faced with a bold gesture -- particularly a gesture motivated by idealism -- they are, naturally, frightened and confused. But only for a moment. Too soon they fall back into the cynicism that sustains their tired, increasingly-exclusive little club...

...So why didn't May pursue an alliance with Layton, whose green credentials go back farther than Dion's, whose environmental policy has long been more progressive?

Well, she tried. She says she phoned Layton a number of times, but got no response. So she called an old friend, Stephen Lewis, to see if he would intervene. Layton has characterized this as "backroom wheeling and dealing," and accuses May of betraying her own high standards. As for his private meetings with Harper last fall (a relationship that has since cooled?) that was a noble attempt at co-operating in the public interest, of course -- a distinction that may escape outsiders.

"What the hell is wrong with Jack Layton that he can't answer a phone call?" May retorts, when asked." I don't understand this. He talks to Harper all the time. Surely, the shared values are much closer between the NDP and Greens."

Layton, however, has a history, a venerable institution and a fragile footing in the polls to defend -- not just a climate change plan. The Greens are competitors as much as allies. As for May, if her goal is electing a green government (and it is), cold calculation comes into play: Dion is more likely to become prime minister than Layton...

...May will have trouble beating MacKay, no matter what. But she really is doing politics differently, not just claiming to. She is fearless and Dion isn't weak. No wonder the old guard is closing ranks against them.

A specific google news search netted me 180 stories on the internet today. One hundred and eighty internet hits on the Green Party of Canada.

Open Letter - May & Dion - Democratic Nonpartisan Politics

2007-04-15T22:07:00.000-06:00

First, a link to a video clip of May being interviewed on this.

Click on the 'watch this video' link next to the picture of Elizabeth May.
- - -
Here is my letter, written in reply to a concerned GPC member in Alberta.

Thank you for your very well written and engaging letter.

I respect your opinion, and want to share with you that I don't see May's actions as treachery, as you put it. The specifics of this arrangement are that the Green Party will not be running a candidate in Dion's riding - a riding where there is no Green Party EDA or nominated candidate. Dion (someone that is not too popular in my neck of the woods) has agreed to not run a Liberal candidate in the riding of Central Nova where Elizabeth May is the nominated Green Party candidate. This has been called treachery and back-room dealing some wishing to label it that way. It has been called admirable, courageous and an effort towards co-operative teamwork by many others. Dion's decision to support May has been made because the Liberal Party wants May to be elected. Interestingly, many Greens, who are understandably shaken up, are asking 'why not just vote Liberal?' At the same time many Liberals are asking 'why not just vote Green?' To be clear, this is an agreement involving two ridings, and two leaders of federal political parties. This is not a wholesale endorsement of either party, by either leader, nor should it be.

A point of interest: Apparently the Liberal riding association is supportive of this arrangement.

Another point of interest: A number of very prominent members of the now dead Progressive Conservative Party were instrumental in helping May achieve a respectable second place in the London North Center byelection with 25% of the vote, ahead of the NDP and Conservative candidates. Last time I checked, those green conservatives and blue conservationists were fine with the Green Party's efforts to work above partisan lines.

In my short time with the Green Party I've come to realize that running 308 candidates in 308 ridings was nothing short of a miracle. For the Green Party to do this in two elections in a row was unbelievable! Here is the Green Party, a national party, with over 600,000 votes, 30% of Canadians supporting the Green Party and considering to vote Green, polls putting the Greens in the double digits, and no elected MP's. Then I hear that some might say the Green Party is a 'fringe party', but with a platform and policies that cover all issues, the ability to organize 308 candidates, and this level of support, one has to acknowledge that the Green Party is a force to be reckoned with.

I believe that it is our dysfunctional electoral system that has failed us through the years. While the other national parties have claimed to support some kind of electoral reform in the past, once in power they quickly forgot about fairness and equality. Elizabeth May managed to arrange a very high profile agreement, and the message it sends to me is that the old-line parties will have to change their ways or face the Greens head on. We will not be denied!

I am a spiritual person. In my life I live by principles that are very important to me. They include honesty, open-mindedness, patience, tolerance and hope, to name a few. I've found that if something doesn't fit with these principles it's probably not worth doing. I've looked long and hard at this decision, as well as the six key values and the constitution of the Green Party of Canada, and I cannot agree that this was the wrong thing to do.

Under Article 4 - Purpose, from the GPC Constitution, 4.1 reads "fielding and electing candidates in federal elections." This action is made in an effort to ensure that the Green Party elects a candidate in the next election. It is not made in lieu of continuing to work hard at the grassroots level. It is not a short cut. It is acting in accordance with the Party's constitution. Rest assured, the Green Party is working to have candidates running (no, not literally 'running', although one Liberal-loathing fellow had me on the 'run' today ;-) in the 307 remaining ridings.

Under Article 6 - Accountability, it reads: "All units and individuals within The Party are accountable to:
6.1) the membership in general meetings of members, and
6.2) the Federal Council when the membership is not in general meetings
To me this is very important. It means that I, as the Alberta Provincial Representative, must represent the federal members within the province of Alberta. I take this volunteer position very seriously, and since I've been elected by the members in Alberta to represent them and make decisions on their behalf, I must listen to what their thoughts and opinions are. I wouldn't have it any other way, and I will continue to bring the comments, questions and concerns of members in Alberta to Federal Council and the entire Federal Green Party.

From our Key Value of Social Justice it is stated that "there is no social justice without environmental justice, and no environmental justice without social justice", and that this requires "a new vision of citizenship built on equal rights for all individuals regardless of gender, race, age, religion, class, ethnic or national origin, sexual orientation, disability, wealth or health." This reminds us all that we can never discount a persons value, nor can we elevate a persons status based on any of the points from the list above. Green Party members within the two ridings, non members in those ridings, Green Party members across Canada and Canadians of all political leanings will be heard equally by my party. I will make sure of it. Whether or not there is an electoral district association formed, the members of the Green Party of Canada are on equal footing with the Leader of the Green Party of Canada. They are no greater or lesser that any other member of this party.

From our Key Value of Participatory Democracy it is stated that "building grassroots institutions that enable decisions to be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected, based on systems which encourage civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility." Will this agreement facilitate this value? How can we judge if this value has been upheld? Will this deal encourage civic vitality, voluntary action and community responsibility, or will it discourage it? Has this deal been made in contradiction of this value? How does it apply to each riding that it directly affects, and how does it apply to the big picture of Canadian politics? I'm certainly no political strategist, but I can comment on the relevancy of this value to this arrangement. I believe it will lead to the fulfillment of this value, and I believe that the actions of Dion and May are examples of real participatory democracy.

It could be wonderful if Canadians had a right to vote for every registered federal party, a right that could be enshrined in the Canadian constitution, but there is no such right. Like driving in our vehicles, being able to vote for the party of our choice in the riding where we reside is a privilege that we must never take for granted. We must participate in supporting our party of choice in ways above and beyond offering our vote. We must work to ensure that our local ridings are organized and able to elect candidates. I want to see this done more at the grassroots level in the ridings by the riding associations, and less by Ottawa through the National Office.

While we all have a right to vote, we must recognize that our vote is burdened by our electoral system. So much so, in fact, that many people speak of so-called 'strategic voting', as if there's any strategy or even measurable logic to our electoral system. Many Canadians are stuck with whoever has the overwhelming majority of support in their riding, and no matter what other party they vote for, it will only be effective as a protest vote. That voter can do their best to organize, support their underdog party, assist in any way they can to help grow their party, but in the end, election after election, in that particular riding, nothing will change. The old-line parties will continue to see their support bleed to the other party, they will read the polls, they will message accordingly in order to re-attract their support, but in the end nothing will change. For how many decades are we willing to subject ourselves to this?

Then there are the close ridings, the ones where every vote 'matters' (the system is bizarre in that it puts more or less value on your vote, based on your riding stats), or at least they 'matter' until the results are in, and the parties that lost have to lick their wounds and tell their voters "sorry, we tried, but your votes were cast for naught". In those ridings Canada's first-past-the-post electoral system has caused extreme partisanship and Canada's federal parties have focused their efforts time and time again on strategy rather than on people. I say if nothing changes, nothing changes! If we allow the old-line parties to continue to be so negatively affected by this electoral system, we are selling ourselves short and giving up on our hopes for positive change in Canada. Things need to change and they need to change now.

I ask myself how my country came to this point and I look back on recent political developments in Canada. What has happened to the Right? It became 'united', meaning that Harper and Mackay destroyed a Canadian institution by dissolving the Progressive Conservative Party and reducing voter options. Talk about back room deals and a loss of voter choice!!!

What has happened to the Left? This is now the Green party's dilemma. They could risk being possibly seen as the Party that split the Left (after it's already been split previously) and caused the election of a Harper majority. No, that would not be a good thing, but really neither would a majority under any other party right now. Alternatively the Greens, along with other progressive parties, can work together to ensure that progressive values, a healthy environment, healthy Canadians and a sustainable economy are made a reality. We are the electorate choosing our representatives - in some cases nonpartisan selections based on the strengths the candidate possesses. I want to stress that this is democratic nonpartisan politics.

While the Greens are neither Left nor Right, they do have to show Canadians why it's worth voting for them. There are so many reasons that we need the Green Parties in all of the countries around the world to continue to fight for real positive change. The Left, as well as the Right, must continue to welcome the Green Party as the new progressive and responsible option. I see so many ex-Progressive Conservative supporters joining the Green Party, as well as disillusioned NDPers fed up with a lack of real progress, that I stand in amazement. I've seen people with no previous partisan leanings join the Green Party, as well as long time Liberals who know that the greenwashing of the old line parties isn't going to bring about real action. The Green Party is a national party that appeals to Canadians from across the political spectrum. This is now the new face of Canadian politics.

This was an open and transparent agreement, not a back-room deal. It was proudly announced with no effort to conceal or otherwise deny the agreement. This was a leap of faith in the spirit of kindness & hope, not a sin. Collaboration is not a sin, although some people including NDP's one time research and communications director Jamie Heath would have you think that working together isn't what Canadians want their elected representatives to do.

This agreement takes our dysfunctional first past the post electoral system and throws it back in the face of the political parties who've been unable to fix it. It allows Greens across Canada a better chance of representation in parliament. Democratic values have remained uncompromised. We've now realized the next logical step to the electoral system that our country uses. Unless some kind of electoral reform takes place, we will only continue to see more frustrated Canadians voting in long shot riding for a party with little chance, and more frustrated Canadians voting in neck-and-neck ridings where the fight to win power continues to take on ever more ugly form of partisanship that, in May's own words, "exceeds sense". Until Canada's democracy is reformed to become a truly fair and equal democratic government, I will continue to fight for real change, and I will do so through my efforts within the Green Party of Canada.

Elizabeth May & Dion Work Together

2007-04-13T13:20:00.000-06:00

Cooperation in Canadian Politics?!?

Well, I suppose these days it's becoming a bit more common.

The Harper Government and Jack Layton worked together on the Clean Air Bill (C-30) and now Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada has agreed to not run a candidate in Dion's riding, while Dion will not run a Liberal candidate in Central Nova, the riding that May has chosen to run in.

Leaders' ridings have always been treated differently in party politics. In the past, no other leader has ever taken the Green Party leadership seriously. This reciprocal leadership non-contestation is simply a statement of principle that we need urgent action for the planet. There is a tradition of “leaders’ courtesy”. For many years, Canadian political leaders observed a tradition of not contesting each others ridings. This tradition existed for decades and has included such people as John A. Macdonald, Wilfred Laurier and William Lyon Mackenzie-King.

Canadians want their elected officials to work together for the good of our country. It looks like the Greens are bringing a spirit of kindness and helpfulness to politics. This answers the question of whether May would change politics or politics would change May.

It's now been demonstrated that the Green Party of Canada is a serious player. The Greens are running to win in ridings across Canada. The Green Party of Canada puts our country and our planet above partisan political games, and cooperation, not competitiveness, is our core value. The Green Party will always put principle and progress above petty partisanship.

Elizabeth May continues to tell the truth. When she ran for leadership, Elizabeth May promised to be a relentless truth-teller, even if that might be to a short-term disadvantage. May’s experience with Mr. Dion is that he is honest, intellectually rigorous and thoroughly committed to Kyoto. She formed and expressed that opinion before he became Liberal leader, and she continues to express that opinion now. May’s comments about politicians and their records has no ideological bent. It is based only on their records. This announcement shows that Elizabeth May is telling the truth when she says we’re doing politics differently. The Green Party wouldn't be where it is today if not for her leadership.

Both parties were motivated by wanting a better Parliament. Stéphane Dion wants Elizabeth May to be in Parliament. Both leaders want more MPs in Parliament who recognize the serious threat of climate change.

This announcement doesn’t change the fact that outside the leaders’ ridings Green Party candidates will be running hard to defeat Liberal MPs and candidates. We are committing to electing a solid caucus, not just one or two MPs. We cannot expect other parties to keep a clear focus on issues Greens care about: social justice, the need for a peace-making approach and independence in our foreign policy, or on climate, unless we have many Green MPs in the House. The Party is working hard to ensure that Adriane Carr, Deputy Leader, wins in Vancouver Centre, where she’s running against Liberal MP Hedy Fry.

The Green Party does not conduct it's business like other parties. We think there is far too much partisanship getting in the way of real progress. Greens will always put the health of the planet above short-term partisanship, and in doing so, the heath of Canadians and the path to a sustainable and vibrant economy as well.

In Elizabeth May's own words, “I have discovered a lot about politics since becoming Leader of the Green Party less than eight months ago. I have discovered that there is a nastiness to partisanship that exceeds sense. It is essentially a form of tribalism, and quite primitive tribalism at that. As Leader of the Green Party, some would prefer I never said that Mr. Harper’s policies are the biggest threat to our planet and our country, even though they know that to be true. They would prefer I never said that Mr. Dion is a man of integrity (even if we can all agree his Party has appalling baggage). I promised when I ran for leadership to be a relentless truth-teller. Even if that might be to a short-term disadvantage.

The Green Party will always put principle and progress above petty partisanship. So I am proud of what Stéphane and I have agreed to do. In addition to not running against me in Central Nova, he has signaled a willingness to reform our electoral system. This is real progress toward Green goals.”

Statement by the Hon. Stéphane Dion, Leader, Liberal Party of Canada and Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada

Harper Governments Income Trust Mess

2007-04-09T11:45:00.000-06:00

First this: (click this link for full story)

Excerpt:

Surprise move breaks major Conservative campaign promise to avoid taxing trusts
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said he had no choice because he feared that increasing numbers of corporations were preparing to convert to trusts — a trend he said threatened Ottawa's tax base.

Then this: (click here for full story)

Excerpt:

There have been 12 takeovers of trusts announced or proposed in the five months since the Harper government announced a surprise 31.5-per-cent tax on income trusts, according to Deloitte & Touche...

...Finance Minister Jim Flaherty sold the trust tax as a way to recoup tax revenue that these corporate structures were not paying, but critics say the measure will ultimately cost Ottawa money as takeovers put trusts in the hands of entities, including foreign private equity funds, that won't pay Canadian federal taxes.

New foreign owners of trusts would pay less Canadian tax, says Ogilvy Renault LLP's Leonard Farber, a former Finance official. "Foreign takeover will result in less tax at both the federal and provincial levels," he said yesterday.

Now this: (full article here)

Excerpt:

The rash of recent income trust takeovers that critics blame on the Harper government's trust levy will cost Ottawa tens of millions of dollars in annual lost tax revenue, Bay Street investment experts say.

That's tax revenue that would have been paid by trust unitholders and will now be lost to tax avoidance by predominantly foreign entities that have snapped up most of the trusts in the last five months.

It's a sign of how misguided the income trust tax was, critics say, arguing that the levy sold by Ottawa as a solution to tax leakage is actually causing its own bleed of revenue from federal coffers...

...“If so-called tax fairness was intended to accelerate the sale of Canadian companies to foreign entities, then it is a success,” Mr. McIntyre said. “If it was intended to increase Canadian tax revenues, it is a failure.”

Mr. Flaherty justified the 31.5-per-cent trust tax by saying it was necessary to stem tax avoidance by trust investors that the Finance Department had estimated was at least $500-million a year.

It would only take slightly more than 15 per cent of the trust sector to be bought out by foreign private equity, and non-Canadian firms before Ottawa was losing annual tax revenue equivalent to what it said eluded its grasp before the trust tax.

What a mess.

Was this simply a big mistake made by a party unable to govern, or was this done on purpose?

I know a great number of ex-PCers who absolutely will not place their vote with the Harper Conservatives. This party is failing to represent their voter base. The Harper government has taken Alberta's oil&gas revenues and used the cash in the spring budget to buy votes in Quebec. They have not demonstrated transparency or accountability.

So where does a Canadian, who wants to see the power to make choices concerning their land and municipalities actually put back in the hands of the land owners and municipal representatives, where does a Canadian concerned with fiscal responsibility, social justice, and ecological sustainability place their political support?

Edited to Update: Green Party Income Trusts Media Release Here.

A Geologist Talks Peak Oil & Canada

2007-04-05T21:32:00.000-06:00

I'm always on the lookout for articles like the one below.

I know that we have a choice to either stay with a major focus on using the oilsands to drive our economy or invest instead in cleaner and more sustainable forms of energy. Eventually we (and our descendants) will be left with depleted supplies of fossil fuels. It's up to us now to decide on how fast we want this to occur. It's obvious to me that the faster we extract oil from the oilsands, the faster we'll use it up, or rather the faster the United States will use it up. What's the rush? It's not going anywhere sitting in the ground, except for maybe up in value.

I like to focus on solutions. The problem is that our economy is driven by the destruction/development of the oil sands. The development of oilsands is causing massive greenhouse gas emissions (in turn contributing to global warming), illnesses due to pollution, ecological degradation, and is attached to other unresolved issues.

The solution starts with ending government subsidies for the most profitable substance in the world. Instead of offering the oil companies incentives to invest in the oilsands (they need our tax money to help them operate?!?) Our government - the one we elected to represent us* - should instead invest that money in renewable energy technologies. Jobs will be created. We will be able to work in wind, geothermal & solar technologies. Our economy will shift away from being resource based and instead Canada will develop sustainable green energy &amp;amp; export that energy technology. We have to act now though; other countries are already doing this and realizing great profits. Their citizens are healthier. Their economies are stable and sustainable. Why hasn't Canada done this? Because our government lacks the political will.

* (due to our dysfunctional first past the post electoral system, our government doesn't actually represent the majority of this country. That's a post for another day though... ;-)

Back to the article...

David Hughes on Canada's Oil and Natural Gas

Here are some excerpts from this interview. Read the whole transcript here.

DH: I am Dave Hughes. I work for the Geological Survey of Canada. I have been there for 31 years. I've worked on energy for my entire career, and I've been concerned about the whole global supply issue, and Canadian and North American supply issues, for more than 10 years...

...DH: Really, all you have to do is look at the last 10 years at what's happened. Even take it back 15 years to 1990. In 1990, we had a gas production probably of around 14 Bcf a day, and we had an overall decline rate of about 13%. So, if you didn't drill a well, gas production would drop by 13%. Going forward to 2004, the overall decline rate on a slightly higher production is now 20%. But, even more important, it's the initial productivity of the gas wells. Back in 1996, the average gas well - when it came on production - it came on production at about 600 Mcf per day. The average gas well, today, is around 200 Mcf/day - a little bit better than that.

JD: That's a thousand cubic feet.

DH: Thousand cubic feet. So, we have to drill 2-3 wells to get the initial productivity of a well that was drilled back in 1996. And you can see it in the overall drilling rates. In 1996, we drilled 4,000 successful gas wells. The price of gas spiked in 2001 - we drilled 11,000 gas wells. We've had about a 10% increase in productivity by drilling three times as many wells. 2003: even though we drilled 14,000 wells, gas production fell by about 3%. So, it basically hit a peak in 2001, maintained that plateau till mid-2002, declined 3% in 2003. We're now drilling nearly 16,000 gas wells per year, as of 2005, and production is about what it was back in 2002... We have to drill more and more wells each year - hopefully to stay flat - but, eventually, even to hold declines, to relatively small, incremental levels...

JD: Turning to the tar sands, the oil sands. Can you explain what kind of oil is extracted from the tar sands?

DH: I like to talk about the food chain when it comes to oil - conventional and unconventional. When we drill an oil well - really, this is a comment on energy return on investment - so, how much energy do we spend developing the resource versus the energy that we get back from the resource that we recovered? And when we drilled a vertical well in Saudi Arabia back in the 1950s, the energy that it took us to drill that well versus the energy in the 20 thousand barrels a day that we got back, was 100:1, or greater... If you look at oil sands - again, they're very low-grade oil, they require upgrading to turn it into synthetic crude, which is something that can actually be used - I think the ratio is something like two tonnes of oil sand for one barrel of oil - that's moved by trucks (hydrocarbons, diesel fuel). It's upgraded with natural gas, water. So, the energy input for tar sands is on the order of two to one. So, we burn a barrel to get two - with all of the greenhouse gas implications of doing that. So, as we move down the food chain, from 1950’s Saudi Arabia to oil sands in 2006, we're committing more and more hydrocarbon consumption, just to get hydrocarbons. And you can see the greenhouse gas implications of doing that. How much can the oil sands can grow? ...by my calculations, if we spend $90 billion (which is on the table right now), we may be able to get the oil sands to 2 million to 2.5 million barrels per day. And, again, that's going to keep Canadians in oil. It's going to result in a huge increase in greenhouse gas emissions. And, if you fire up GoogleEarth and go north of Fort McMurray and have a look at the surface - environmental impact of those oil sands - we're going to have a major ecological issue for those 2.5 million barrels per day of oil, a lot of which will be exported to our neighbors to the South...

JD: What do you think of Canada being trumpeted as having more reserves than - or, at least, being equivalent to the new Saudi Arabia?

DH: I think it's very misleading. I don't question that the reserves are there. The whole issue is how fast can you convert them to supply. And that's the whole problem with oil sands: it takes a long time to build the infrastructure, and to grow deliverability, compared to drilling a 1950 well in Saudi Arabia. So, it's a deliverability issue, not a resource issue. There's a study done at Uppsala University in Sweden on the oil sands, the implications of a crash program - if you didn't worry about natural gas limitations, water limitations, environmental impact limitations - how fast - or, the whole inflation situation that's happening in Fort McMurray because of all the development. If we didn't worry about any of that, and said, how much could we get if we just went flat out, and their analysis was that the oil sands would peak in 2038 at about five million barrels per day. And that's, again, significant, but the forecast [global] demand at that time is over 120 million barrels a day. So, compared to what the world needs, it's still a small part. And, the other thing about that analysis is, by 2050, all of the surface mineable oil sands will be gone, so we'll be left just with what we may, or may not, be able to recover from the in-situ [resources].

JD: The greenhouse gas situation in terms of Canada and Canadian politics is not exactly clear cut, but it does seem to have taken a - it does seem to be heading in the direction of being less worried about it. What light can you shed on that picture?

Can you comment on the greenhouse gas situation in Canadian politics?

DH: Canada has been a bit of a bad offender when you look at greenhouse gas emissions growth. Since 1990, Kyoto was supposed to get us down to 6% below 1990 by 2012, I believe. What's actually happened is we're now about 30 odd percent above 1990 levels, which requires a horrific decrease in greenhouse gas emissions. The Liberals said we were going to do it, but if you look at what happened, greenhouse gas emissions just kept rising. The Conservatives are backing off on Kyoto. In a way, I sort of agree with them. I can't see [with] people committed to business as usual, how we're going to get a cut of 36% by 2012. I see a lot of inertia. I don't see things happening - in fact, I can see things getting worse with the developments at Fort McMurray. So, they might have been realistic in assuming that we can't meet those targets. What really disturbs me is we're looking around the world to try to maintain business as usual without realising that we have an oil problem, a natural gas problem. There are things that we could and should be doing to reduce our consumption of those resources, as opposed to desperately trying to find more to keep business as usual going. I think we have to kind of wake up and smell the roses, and start doing those things. And that's the only way we're going to manage the greenhouse gas problem, or the long-term energy sustainability problem...

That's a lot to read, but well worth the time.

Final thought goes to Folke Günther:

"After 1850, the human population changed from using a flow (sun and its derivatives) to using a storage (fossil fuels). This is reflected in the population growth curve. When speaking of a change from a store to a flow, (renewable energy sources), you also have to invent a new (logistic) economy, since our current economy is adapted to the energy extraction from a storage."

How Will Our Grandchildren See Us? [article]

2007-04-05T14:13:00.000-06:00

I found the article below interesting because stories like these are becoming very frequent, regardless of whether the source is on the left or right of the political spectrum. The climate crisis issue is not a partisan one. The realities of the climate crisis are being realized by Canadians and people all over the world, and the effects are being seen right now, from the loss of habitat and traditional native lifestyle in Northern Canada to the Pine Beetle infestation made worse through warmer and shorter winters.

So what can we do?

While we can change our own lifestyles, I believe that our government needs the political will to make the changes that we Canadians collectively want. Shifting our industries away from an unsustainable resource based one to a sustainable renewable energy technologies one is something that will be good for our economy today and for the next seven generations. That's the time frame that Green Party policies operate under.

We can strengthen our economy by conserving our ecology.

See the GP2 document by clicking here (PDF file) for more info on where the Greens are coming from with regards to energy, the economy, and climate change.

Back to the article...

The US Counterpunch website posted this article by Scott Bontz on April 3rd, '07. Here are a few selected passages. For the full article click the link just below.

The Great Depletion
How Will Our Grandchildren See Us?

Thirty years ago, Alex Haley's "Roots" on television inspired millions to sleuth their blood ties to history. On this anniversary, let's imagine what our own descendants will make of us when they look back.

What they will see is that Earth's people more than tripled between 1950 and 2050. They'll see that halfway through this explosion, American material consumption had grown so voracious that four Earths would be needed for everyone on the planet to live the same way. And they'll see that billions tried.

They'll see that this combination exhausted and poisoned water supplies, exterminated hundreds of thousands of species, and plowed under forests and grasslands, eroding essentially irreplaceable soils.

They'll see that what fueled the "free market" was humanity's biggest free lunch: We exploited energy accumulated over millions of years -- coal, oil and natural gas. And we did it even though we knew we'd run out.

They'll see that burning these fossil fuels raised temperatures and sea levels to drive tens of millions from coastal cities and drown rich delta soils, turned rich midcontinent farmland into desert, and made storms in wetter regions destructively stronger and erratic.

They'll see that even during this delayed reaction to the Big Burn, fossil fuels petered out, and with them the irrigation and fertilizer that made it possible to feed so many extra billions.

And they'll see that before the resulting hardships, people in the richest countries got much fatter, yet no happier.

They -- the Children of the Great Depletion -- will see that we squandered Earth, their birthright, for the sake of the "good life."

Since the free market has failed us here, we need new rules of taxation, regulation and treaty. So:

-- Make the American way of life negotiable. Our fuel burning pumps into the atmosphere more global-warming carbon dioxide than any other nation, even though No. 2 China has more than four times as many people. We have to lead the way out.

-- Do this by taxing fossil fuels to slash release of greenhouse gases. Price these fuels at their true, long-term cost, including illness from pollution and food production lost to climate change. Invest the revenue in sustainable alternatives. Do it soon: Leading NASA climate scientist James Hansen reckons we have a decade at most to start reducing greenhouse gases before drastic climate change becomes inevitable.

-- And for policy and individual conduct in general, recognize that what we call economic growth, running now on so much principal from the natural world, cannot last. Instead of spending like there's no tomorrow, conserve -- make this the United States of Conservation -- and pass along a good life to our descendants.

What could make them prouder?

Scott Bontz wrote this for the Prairie Writers Circle, a project of the Land Institute, Salina, Kan. He edits institute publications.

Our Military & Media Release on Iran

2007-04-02T14:36:00.000-06:00

See below for more info on our policies on Canada's military and foreign policy...

Media Release - Green Party calls on government to speak out clearly against accelerating tensions in Iran

April 02/07 Green Party Leader Elizabeth May today called on the Harper government to speak out clearly against accelerating tensions in Iran and to dissociate Canada from the war games in the region.

The arrests of British military personnel by Iran are part and parcel of the continuing escalation of tensions in the Persian Gulf, said Ms. May. The Green Party is asking Prime Minister Harper to spell out the connection between American military build-up in the region and the recent arrests of British forces.

“The tit-for-tat war games going on at this very volatile time and place in the world are dangerous and irresponsible. Where is Canada’s independence and leadership on this issue? This is no time to take sides. It is a time to take diplomatic action, a tool the Harper government has simply abandoned,” said Ms. May. "Foreign affairs Minister Peter MacKay should be making peace-making efforts in the region a top priority."

The Green Party acknowledged that the spectre of American military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities is becoming clear. Canada has long advocated that attacks against nuclear facilities can have catastrophic consequences on the environment and human health.

Green Party Peacebuilding Advocate, Shodja Ziaian, called on the Harper government to initiate an open and comprehensive dialogue between American, British, European and Iranian diplomats to resolve the boundary dispute between the United Kingdom and Iran, and urged the Bush administration to abandon its hard-line stance against discussion. Mr. Ziaian also called on Ottawa to name a Canadian peace envoy to assist with diplomatic efforts.

Ms. May has instructed her Critic for International Cooperation, Janina Komaroff, to immediately take the initiative of contacting and exploring the coordination of a common action with European and American Green Parties in this respect.

As International Affairs consultant Jillian Skeet has noted, despite our difficulties with the Islamic Republic of Iran, Canada has never completely slammed the door on contact with the Iranians or their government. This fact, combined with our diplomatic ties with the United States and the United Kingdom, and our status as a non-nuclear country, provide us with an opportunity to actively engage in diplomacy.

Mr. Ziaian further emphasized that “in Canada we have an opportunity to change the tone and restore rationality to this limited dialogue – let’s use it”.

-30-

Contact:

Shodja Ziaian

Peacebuilding Advocate

416-987-9158

- - -

I'd like to add a bit more background about where the Green Party stands regarding Canada's military. I respect and support our country's soldiers, and I'm proud of the Green Party's policies in this area.

The Green Party would maintain funding for the armed forces budget. We support mandating the funding of our military forces and support reallocation of resources to alternate conflict resolution, ecosystem protection, disaster relief, and strengthening of the UN.

The Green Party of Canada calls for an end to Canada’s current involvement in the NATO-led military campaign in southern Afghanistan, and advocates that Canada instead strictly confine its efforts to peacekeeping, rebuilding infrastructure, and humanitarian work to improve the lives of the people of Afghanistan. The military security aspect would strategically best be undertaken by the United Nations or other appropriate nations and Canadian troops would cease undertaking offensive military operations.

On defense policy, the Green Party of Canada is committed to the international Green pillar of nonviolence, working for a culture of peace and cooperation between states, the rejection of militarism, and the commitment to economic and social development, environmental safety and respect for human rights.

We are committed to our historic policy of promoting multilateral disarmament, peaceful resolution of conflict, military conversion, support for United Nations peacekeeping operations, and the strengthening of the United Nations through reform of the Security Council and the expansion of the role of the General Assembly.

The Green Party of Canada supports international law, the general principles of the United Nations, and the right of all countries to self-determination and democracy. We also support the key founding principle of the Organization of American States, of which Canada is a member: the right of all countries to be free from military intervention by other countries except under the United Nations Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

A Green Party of Canada government would undertake to enforce the World Court decision which affirmed that the use or threat of nuclear weapons is contrary to international humanitarian law.

A Green Party of Canada government would undertake to promote the banning of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and land mines.

A Green Party of Canada government would undertake to improve Canada's contribution to conflict resolution, and peace building.

- - -
From the 2006 election platform:
Foreign Policy - Keeping the Peace

- - -

Related Green Party media releases:

Canada should focus effort on relief in Afghanistan, not combat

Green Party conference to take hard look at Canada’s foreign policy

May calls on Harper to condemn military provocation in Middle East

Focus Afghanistan development on alternatives to illicit opium, says May

Alberta Green Party Training Session a Success!

2007-04-02T13:46:00.000-06:00

I am proud to announce that our candidate & electoral district association (EDA) training session was a huge success. We had great presentations, about 30 people attended, and we had many fantastic discussions while staying on schedule and adhering to the agenda. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to organize and facilitate both this training session and the first one held in February.

We chose a roundtable discussion format for the workshop and had a number of presentations throughout the day as well. The focus in the morning was on EDA’s
campaigning, and the afternoon focused on candidacy and messaging.

Mark M was up first to do a short presentation on
fundraising, with Stephen S speaking afterwards on different aspects of messaging.

George Read, Leader of the Green Party of Alberta and former Federal Green Party Campaign Manager, was one of our featured speakers. His afternoon presentation was very well received and I noticed people scrambling to write notes on his excellent suggestions for messaging & campaigning.

For this event I created a training CD with over 600 files and 650 MBs of data on anything and everything related to campaigning, candidacy, messaging and more. The files on the disc came from almost two years of collecting and researching the Green Party, ‘green’ related subjects (see our Key Values) and politics in general. I think the training disc will be very useful.

It looks like there will be enough interest to continue this training session as a monthly event. We had one person down from Edmonton who intends to reproduce our efforts there with a local training session for Edmonton & area. As more candidates step forward and are elected by their EDA’s, and as more EDA’s are formed and registered with Elections Canada, the interest in these training sessions will continue to increase.

Thanks to everyone who helped to make this a productive and successful event!

View this post on my GPC hosted blog by clicking HERE.

GPC Training Sessions taking place

2007-03-29T09:02:00.000-06:00

Green Party training sessions are taking place across Canada. This post is about the one I've organized for Calgary on March 31st.

March 31st 2007 Green Party Training Session
Westwinds Superstore community room, Calgary, AB
3633 Westwinds Drive NE, near 64th Ave & 36th Street NE

On March 31st from 10am to 3pm a training session for candidates, EDA positions & volunteers is being held at the Westwinds Superstore community room in Calgary, Alberta. This is a free event, and all are welcome. Federal & Provincial members, volunteers and green curious are invited to join us!

The main purpose of this event will be to allow newcomers and those who have worked in previous campaigns to share their experience. By discussing the tools that we've found most useful we can empower new and prospective future candidates and EDA executives to run successful campaigns.

The other purpose of this event is to strengthen the Green community in Alberta. It is my hope that we'll be able to bring together many newer GPC members for this day of sharing and networking.

As the facilitator for this event I've prepared a format for each component for the day. By doing this I hope to guide the discussion and keep the day on track and productive. I am not a professional facilitator, but it's only through practice that I'll get better. I learned a great deal from the last training session in February and have built on that experience. Also, after printing materials for the last training session (yes, double sided and on 100% recycled paper;-) I've decided to limit paper use this time and instead I will also be handing out a CD full of information for candidates and EDAs.

RSVP not necessary. Contact me if you'd like more information.

Cheers,

Cameron
--
Cameron Wigmore
Alberta Representative, Federal Council
Crowfoot Candidate, '06 & current
CEO, Crowfoot EDA
403-770-2962
cwigmore(at)greenparty.ca
http://crowfoot.greenparty.ca
http://greencameron.blogspot.com

I'll post a more personal entry on how the event went when it's all done. The previous training session that I organized in February was a great hit and I expect this one to have a lot more people in attendance!

Greens make big gains in provincial election

2007-03-29T08:59:00.000-06:00

Vive le Québec vert! Greens make big gains in provincial election

Yet another sign that voters are hungry for real change...

Ottawa (27 March 2007) – Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May said today that the provincial election in Quebec, in which the ADQ made a major breakthrough and the Greens had their best-ever result, is yet another sign that voters are hungry for real change.

“The result in Quebec provides further evidence that Canadians from all regions and backgrounds are tired of the same old parties offering the same old choices,” said Ms. May. “Voters are now prepared to listen to new voices with new ideas, and they are liking what they hear.”

She congratulated the leader of the Green Party of Quebec, Scott MacKay, and his team for delivering the party’s best-ever result in a Quebec election campaign and adding to the party’s growing momentum nationwide.

The Green Party of Quebec took 3.9% of the popular vote, a near nine-fold increase on its 0.44% in the 2003 election. Thirty-one of the party’s record slate of 108 candidates finished with more than 5% of the vote.

The party’s best showing was in the riding of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce where Peter McQueen won almost 16% of the vote. Three other candidates topped the 10% mark: Patrick Daoust in Westmount-Saint-Louis (12.64%); Ryan Young in Jacques-Cartier (11.11%); and Luc Côté in Outremont (10.8%). McQueen and Daoust finished in second place in their ridings.

Spring Federal Budget Gets Thumbs Down

2007-03-23T08:22:00.000-06:00

Green Party gives thumbs down to “bits and pieces” budget

Harper budget heavy on PR but lacking in substance.

Ottawa – The Green Party has rejected the federal budget brought down today by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty. “This is a budget that is heavy on public relations but lacking any real substance when it comes to the key issues,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May.

“The government has included lots of small goodies for just about everyone but all those bits and pieces don’t add up to much,” she said. “It’s a most unimpressive budget and the Green Party would certainly join with the Liberal Party and the NDP in voting against it.”

Ms. May singled out the budget’s climate change initiatives for particular criticism, calling them piecemeal and, in the final analysis, insignificant.

“There is no way this government will ever be able to deliver credible climate policy while it insists on adhering to the regressive greenhouse gas reduction targets of 45-60% below 2003 levels by 2050,” she said. “That translates to about 30% below 1990 levels and we need to reach that by 2020. These targets are a formula for disaster.”

Ms. May did welcome Mr. Flaherty’s decision to borrow a plank from the Green Party platform by introducing a “feebate” tax incentive to shift drivers out of gas guzzlers and into fuel-efficient vehicles but said that one eye-catching initiative did not constitute effective climate policy.

“If this was part of an overall strategy that included a suite of similar initiatives, we could actually look forward to significant progress on climate change,” she said. “By itself, it will hardly make a dent in Canada’s emissions.”

She also criticized the budget’s weak response in the areas of child care, support for aboriginal communities and tax relief for poor and middle class families. “They included some personal finance breaks but exclude broad-based income splitting,” she said. “In almost every area, Mr. Flaherty has chosen to tinker around the edges rather than take substantive action.”

- - -

Canadian Conference of the Arts

Thursday, March 22 2007

Deconstructing the Federal Budget 2007 from a cultural point of view

...What then do this year’s current Main Estimates tell us at first look?

First, they confirm the first impression that if the government has a strategy for the cultural sector in Canada, it has not started to implement it. While there are laudable items in the budget concerning culture in the broadest sense of the word, and while there is a concern for grassroot financing and for involving the private sector, there is no obvious plan or policy the announced expenditures can be linked to, nor any long term commitment to anything, all allocations having a maximum lifespan of two years...

A friend of mine had this to say on the Harper budget:

I'm glad to see they are finally enacting the long-time Green Party policy of a feebate on new cars, although it is too little too late and not enough by itself to reduce our wasteful fuel use - we need a more comprehensive program, and something that influences everyone's habits, not just the lucky new car buyers. A new carbon tax balanced by a labour/income tax cut would be more effective, as would stricter emissions standards for all cars.

They are cutting some tarsands subsidies, but waiting 8 years to do so! Not sure why they feel they have to wait so long to stop subsidizing Canada's most profitable billion-dollar industry.

(RRSP extension to 71) Their approach to seniors [is to say] “hey, you can work a few more years before you retire.”

There is no plan to end poverty, no real plan to address child poverty (instead, the same old overstatement of benefits - the $2000 tax credit is only $301 in your pocket, even worse than last year's $1200 universal child care that meant as little as $360 take-home cash)

There is no sign of a shift away from taxing what we want (goods) to what we don't want (bads)

There is no focus on preventive health care - instead of money to wait in a shorter line when I'm sick, I'd rather just not get sick! Knowing how to prevent 50% of what makes us sick, why are we still spending pennies on the dollar on prevention?

In general, they are tinkering around the edges of business as usual. Canadians have given Harper the gift of a huge surplus, but rather than use it on a vision to transform Canada to a more sustainable economy, Harper is squandering it on pre-election goodies.

- - -

I noticed that a lot of the environmental programs to be funded by the Harper government are just the 'regifting' of previous programs that were in existence before but cut last year by Harper.

The amount of spending has been criticized by a great many political analysts as being far more Liberal and spend thrifty that previous governments. It seems clear to me that the Green Party of Canada would be a more fiscally responsible party.

Perhaps the Harper government feels confident in the thought that voters who are somewhat on the right ('red tories', 'Green conservatives' & 'blue conservationists') have nowhere else to go, but they should think again. The Greens did very well in Alberta in the last federal election, and this is because we draw votes from across the political spectrum. Many ex-PCers are not happy with this new Harper government and they are taking a serious look at the Green Party.

Does anyone else get the sense that this government is not actually governing our country, but rather they are positioning themselves for the next election? Buying votes in Quebec and Ottawa with massive amounts of spending, providing band-aid solutions for issues in Alberta and the rest of Canada where long term plans are deserved, and ingnoring our Native communities is not what I call good government.

Water, Water, Everywhere

2007-03-17T08:48:00.000-06:00

New Trail Magazine
University of Alberta
Spring 2007
by Kim Green

Alberta development, drought, and ongoing climate change could transform an oasis of prosperity into a future mirage.

Full Article here

There is no such thing as new water. The Earth is a closed system and the water that quenched the thirst of dinosaurs is the same recycled water we’re drinking today. In fact, it’s been estimated that eight people before you have consumed every glass of water you drink so the same molecules of H2O that passed over the lips of Napoleon, Columbus, Joan of Arc or Shakespeare could be snaking their way through an underground labyrinth of pipes to a faucet in your home or office...
...Alberta, like much of B.C. and Saskatchewan, lies in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains and the southern portions of these provinces comprise the driest large area of southern Canada. And although in recent years precipitation in Alberta has been sufficient to sustain growth, there’s no reason to believe that this circumstance will continue. Research conducted at the U of A by David Schindler and William Donahue, ’87 BSc, ’90 BSc (SpecCert), ’00 PhD, found that the region’s climate has been unusually stable and moist in the 20th century and that the drought that occurred in what is commonly known as the Dirty ’30s was mild in comparison to earlier centuries where several droughts per century were common, often lasting as long as several decades.

David Schindler - Thinking Globally

“It amazes me,” says Schindler, “that there are people who still think that the glaciers that are at the headwaters of all the major rivers in this province don’t provide any discernable flow quotient to the rivers. It’s clear that about 15 percent of the water in the rivers is coming from these glaciers, and they’ve all experienced significant decline in recent history, some of them retreating up the mountainsides by almost two kilometres during the last century.
“We also think that the 20th century has been normal in the province in terms of our precipitation patterns. But nothing could be farther from the truth. It’s been unusually moist and stable compared to previous centuries and we could be facing a drought in the future that will make the one we experienced in the so-called Dirty ’30s look pale by comparison. I think sometime, probably in the next quarter century, we are going to find ourselves in a several-year drought and then we’re going to know what water scarcity is all about.”

I've been watching the Drought Watch maps at Ag Canada and I'm a bit concerned. It's been a dry winter, and the 30, 60, & 90 day rolling maps show just how dry. Less glacial meltwater for the rivers, increased water usage by the oilsands operations, possible water table damage by CBM fracing, megamall proposals proposing to draw water from one river and dump their wastewater in another... it all smells of mismanagement and impending water shortage.

If we want the government to step in and ensure that our resources are used in a sustainable fashion, then we have to ask ourselves what sort of government will do this for us. If we want a government that will consider the well being of the people and the stewardship of our land, rather than just the industries competing for our land and water, then we have to ask what the track record of our previous government has been.

The information I wish to convey most of all is that the Green Party has a plan to conserve our ecology while preserving our economy. The Green Party has an economic plan that considers our health, our land & our children. It is head and shoulders above the other parties. Check it out here, here & here.

Green Party Leader Visits Airdrie

2007-03-15T00:16:00.000-06:00

Party leader brings ‘green’ to city

Scott Mitchell
Echo Reporter
Wednesday March 14, 2007

(for full article click on link above)

On Friday, Green Party leader Elizabeth May – along with Wild Rose Green Party candidate Sean Maw – was in Airdrie at Page and Turner’s Book Store for a book signing and to talk politics...

..."One wonders why we accept income tax when carbon taxes make so much more sense," she said. "Why do we tax the things we do want, like income and jobs? We should tax the thing we don’t want ... pollution and chemicals that cause cancer."
According to May, the way to avoid a carbon tax is simple.
"All you have to do is to figure out how to use less energy," she said. "Overall, the average Canadian will be better off."
Earlier in the day, May was in Cochrane, as the Green Party unveiled a $3 billion per year plan to create six municipal superfunds that will fund the reconstruction of crumbling municipal infrastructure.
The Green Party – popular with younger voters and women – has shown momentum in the polls recently and is now tied with the NDP for the first time in Decima polling, with 13 per cent nationally.

Read more Alberta related Green Party news here, here, here, here & here.

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

2007-03-14T08:09:00.000-06:00

Green Party proposes Super Six fix for municipal infrastructure

Cochrane, AB (9 March 2007) – The Green Party today unveiled a $3 billion-a-year plan to create six municipal superfunds that will fund the reconstruction of crumbling municipal infrastructure and transform Canada’s cities and towns into green and vibrant communities.

Delivering the first policy announcement from the party’s new platform at the contaminated Domtar brownfields in Cochrane, Alberta, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said that the Super Six superfund initiative is a simple, clear and decisive plan to develop green solutions to urgent and long-standing municipal infrastructure needs.

“It’s time to reinvest in communities,” said Ms. May. “We need to rectify the fiscal and infrastructure deficit facing municipalities by bringing all levels of government together around the key concerns of health, safety and a clean environment.”

The Green Party proposes replacing the obsolete and generic Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund with separate funds to target six specific areas of municipal concern: brownfield remediation, water and wastewater treatment facilities, sports and recreation facilities, mass transit, cycling and pedestrian promotion, and affordable housing.

“It’s a larger strategy for ensuring that all Canadian communities get the opportunity to have clean water, better transit and affordable housing,” said Sean Maw, candidate for Wild Rose and the Green Party’s Community Development Advocate.

“Every municipality in the country has its own problems, not just those cities that need an extended subway line. In Alberta alone, communities need federal commitments to cleaning up brownfields like the one here in Cochrane, Calgary’s mass transit is overcrowded and Fort McMurray desperately needs housing and other services.”

The Green Party’s Green Municipal Infrastructure plan is based on the belief that local government has the potential to be the driving force for improving the environment and the quality of life of Canadians. Creating opportunities for municipalities to clean up the local environment, promote more physically active lifestyles among residents and focus on energy efficient buildings and other infrastructure translates into reduced health care costs and energy consumption. These savings will then be passed on to Canadians through reduced personal taxes and better services in their communities.

“Both the previous Liberal and current Conservative governments have squandered a wonderful opportunity to partner with municipalities in a broad-based commitment to building strong and healthy communities,” said May. “The Green Party will rebuild that partnership – and our local communities – to the benefit of all Canadians.”

Click here for more Green Party media releases.

Click here for Green Party news.

Harper government taxing childcare benefits

2007-02-25T08:09:00.000-07:00

The Harper government is taxing your childcare benefits.

I sent the following letter as an op/ed to all of my local papers. So far I have not encountered one single person who was aware that their benefits are being clawed back. Feel free to copy and send to your local papers.

- - -

I wonder how many people are aware that their childcare benefit payments count as income and are being taxed back by the Harper government.

Recently my wife and I, along with all other parents with a child under six years old, received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency which included a universal child care benefit statement (RC62). Our new government is now taxing back a large portion of that benefit. Instead of $1200 per year per child under six, you will only get to keep $460 of this if your combined family income is between $30,000 & $40,000 per year. The rest is taxed back.

So not only was the $100 per month too little to pay for early childhood development services (and not nearly enough for one parent to stay at home) now it may even put my family income over a certain tax bracket, and it could cause me to lose a significant portion of my tax return.

Tricky.

REFERENCES
The following links spell out the situation very well.
http://www.childcareadvocacy.ca (Harper Plan PDF)
-

Harper Plan tax info
-

Video: Cameron Wigmore on Green Party Resolution

2007-01-18T15:17:00.000-07:00

This footage is from the Green Party of Canada's August '06 convention in Ottawa. I'm seen here speaking against a resolution that called for reduced revenue sharing to electoral district associations. The resolution did not pass.

Let Green leader into televised debates

2007-01-18T11:21:00.000-07:00

Stephane Dion says that Elizabeth May should be allowed into the televised leaders' debates.

Full story here.

"I don't see why not," he said when asked whether May should be allowed to take part.

"I don't agree with her about everything," Dion added. "I'm pleased to be in a party that has a long experience about combining different goals. We're not a one-issue party."

He's referred to the Green Party as a "one-issue" party before and he knows better. As I've said before, the Green Party of Canada has policies and a platform that covers all issues, and a strategy for implementing them that considers the immediate and long term consequences. When Dion says the Greens are only about one issue, he shows that either he doesn't understand the Green Party or he's just trying to tell Canadians to dismiss the Green Party because he says the Greens don't have a platform or policies that cover other areas.

If Elizabeth May is allowed into the leaders debates Canadians will find out that the Green party is ready, willing and able to bring positive change to government.

The environment is now the single most important issue on the minds of Canadians, and while the Green Party has policies on all issues, making environmental policy work for Canadians is a specialty. Recent polls show that Canadians understand this, with the Green Party at over 10% nationally.

One in every 22 Canadians who voted in the last federal election – 665,940 voters – cast their ballot for the Green Party.

Voters have a right to hear where ALL the major parties stand on the issues. That’s one of the cornerstones of democracy – an informed electorate.

As far as vote quantity goes, the next highest after the Green Party was 'Independent' with 76,696 votes, about one tenth the amount the Green Party received.

As far as percentages go, the next highest federal party after the Green Party had only zero point two percent.

I've heard some people say that if the Green party is included in the televised debates during the next election, we'd have to include all federal parties. Unfortunately for democracy the networks have the authority to say who's included and who's not, and in the end they have the authority decide to let only the Green Party be added, based on information including the above information.

There have been times in the past when other major federal parties had few or no seats in parliament, yet they were not ignored. With rising support, national interest, and your tax dollars helping to fund the federal parties including the Greens, why not let the Green Party have it's voice heard?

For more on this subject go to Demand Democratic Debates

And here, here, here, here, and here.