“Why would we do this?”

climate crisis, ecology, liberal party

There’s a feature story in today’s Globe and Mail about Dr. Gordon McBean, one of Canada’s top climatologists. Dr. McBean briefed the federal Liberal cabinet on climate change in 2002. He told them then — five years ago — that the Kyoto targets were only a first step, and that much deeper reductions in carbon emissions were needed. He also explained that climate change could mean “surging sea levels, more frequent violent storms, severe heat waves and droughts,” but added that it would be decades before the effects of any action would be noticeable.

At least one Minister was appalled. “And there will be nothing for us between now and the next election?” the minister asked. “Why would we do this?”

“You do it for your grandchildren,” Dr. McBean replied. (Fortunately for the Minister, and unfortunately for us, Dr. McBean isn’t naming names.)

That story is yet another illustration of why Canadians should be very cautious when considering the born-again policy positions of political parties claiming to have seen the light. In most cases, I suspect, all they’ve really seen are polling numbers.

Also in today’s Globe, Preston Manning argues that politicians must not do to the environment what they did to health care: produce nothing but “sterile, destructive, polarized debate,” that succeeds only in convincing the public that “their No. 1 public-policy concern cannot be resolved by political processes and institutions, and that politics is part of the health-care problem, not part of the solution.” (The fact that Preston Manning is now sounding reasonable is a good demonstration of, 1) how far off-side Stephen Harper is, and 2) how much nicer, smarter, and productive politicians are once they’ve gone through parliamentary detox.)

Keeping that in mind, I suggest there are three things people should ask themselves when assessing which party has the best environmental approach:

  1. Do they have staying power? Do you believe the party is actually committed to addressing the planetary crisis, or will their resolve melt if our next winter happens to be a cold one?
  2. Do they have the best solutions? This is different than asking if they appear to care the most, or if they have the best TV commercials. The benefit of living in a country that’s fallen so far behind on environmental leadership is that there are lots of proven solutions that can be borrowed from other jurisdictions.
  3. Do they understand how different issues are interrelated? Not just the way that the environment is linked to health and economy (though that’s important), but also how climate change relates to resource depletion, toxicity, ocean health, agribusiness, peak oil, etc. Be very skeptical of any party with an environmental platform that claims to be able to solve the climate crisis without addressing these other issues.

Today is Parliament’s first day back. Here’s to hoping they achieve at least the bare minimum.

Thank You

green party, toronto

It’s hard to express in words how grateful and excited I am to be able to represent Toronto Centre again in the next federal election. Those of you who were at our nomination meeting last night know first hand what an energizing and positive event it was. Around forty people (including former Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris and current Green Party of Ontario leader Frank de Jong) were there to celebrate how far our party has come, as well as where we are going.

Thanks go to Joy Vogt and Claire Salloum for organizing a great nomination meeting, and to Bob Traver and Mike McLean for making the night even richer by contesting the nomination and reminding us who we are as a party, and why we do what we do.

Already today the emails have started to fly and the phones have started to ring, as our campaign team comes together and prepares for an election that could come as soon as March 20th. Whenever it is, we will be ready, to keep playing our part as leaders in a movement that is doing nothing less than change the world.

One Year

conservative party, green party, polls

What a difference a year can make. One year ago today Canadians went to the polls, electing a new Conservative government with 36.2% of the vote, the smallest percentage ever won by a first-place party. (The Green Party, as you know, earned 4.5%, which, in a fair electoral system, would mean 14 seats.)

In that election, the environment (also known as “that thing that keeps us alive”) was not an issue that the media or the status quo parties took seriously. It did not play a significant role in any of the televised leaders’ debates, and the winning party didn’t even mention the climate crisis in their election platform once.

Today, the environment is the number one or two issue of importance to Canadians in opinion polls, features prominently in daily news stories and opinion pieces (almost to the point of exhaustion), and Stephen Harper reportedly owns a copy of An Inconvenient Truth.

Last year, it was hard to imagine our archaic electoral system being reformed any time soon. Today, Ontario has the chance to do so as soon as October, which would likely reverberate throughout the country.

Last year, people could still get away with pretending that environmentalism was bad for business. Today, CEOs of some of the largest (and most energy intensive) corporations in America are urging George W. Bush to take action on climate change, which he referred to as a “serious challenge” in his State of the Union address just a few hours ago.

The next federal election could be in less than two months. (I wish our MPs were more willing to work with each other, but here we are.) Let’s make sure we think very carefully about where we want to go from here. Let’s not settle for second best, or the lesser of any evils.

Unlike most reasonable Canadians, I’m looking forward to the next election. If we make the right choices over the next twelve months, just imagine how much better things can be one year from today.

Everything New is Old

climate crisis, conservative party, energy

As you’ve likely gathered, I’ve been away for a week. Out of the country, actually. This morning, the radio kindly informed me that, while I was gone, the Conservative party made a series of announcements and declared themselves “green.” (Clever of them to wait until I wasn’t looking to spring this stuff. Not sure how they got their hands on my travel plans, but I’ll find out.)

“Good,” I thought. Then, I looked into the details. “#$@%,” I thought.

Turns out, there were two main announcements. The first announcement came on Wednesday, with a $230-million investment in “clean energy” research. (Those of you keeping score at home will note that that amounts to 16% of the $1.4-billion of our tax dollars that go to the oil and gas industry which, by the way, really doesn’t need it.) This sounds like a great idea at first, until you realize that the Conservatives have defined “clean” as “coal and oil.” I’m not going to dignify that with any further analysis.

The second announcement regarded energy rebates for home retrofits. Again, a good idea that has been masterfully neutered. With the Conservative plan, all you have to do is pay for an energy audit ($200-$300), then pay for the renovations to your home (say, $1000 and upwards), then apply and wait for your rebate while you hold off the credit card company. Somehow, I don’t predict long line ups for this one. Better than nothing, but not much help to people who don’t have thousands of dollars lying around, or who don’t own their homes.

The really amazing thing about these two plans is that one year ago when “Canada’s Newest Government Ever!” took power, better versions of both these ideas already existed, and were then promptly eliminated. In fact, Stephen Harper’s government has frozen or killed more than a dozen climate-change programs since they took office, including the EnerGuide program.

Of course, those programs were also not enough, and saw Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions rise by 24% through to 2004, and more since then. If these ideas are “green,” it’s because they’re really old and stuff has started growing on them. It’s past time for more than positioning, Harper.