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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...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...

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...

read more | digg story

Leadership Meltdown

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

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

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

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'

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