Let Us In. (We’re Cold And There Are Wolves After Us.)

democracy and good government, green party

With the possibility of a spring election in the air, people are starting to talk again about the televised leaders’ debates, and more specifically, whether or not we should be in them. (Shockingly, I think we should.) The decision will be made by a “broadcast consortium,” comprising the executives of the television networks that broadcast the debate, using whatever criteria they want. (I tend to think the decision should be made by Elections Canada using democratically set criteria, but here we are.)

I’m optimistic that they’ll make the right choice this time. We’ve already received some unlikely editorial support, including from the Toronto Sun. About a month ago the Green Party launched demanddemocraticdebates.ca, a website that aruges our case and asks visitors to declare their support. During the last campaign more people signed the Green Party’s petition to be included than sent questions to the actual debates.

A belief that this blog has been generally lacking in bullet points motivated me to outline the following arguments, some new and some old, as to why we should be in the debate.

  • The Green Party of Canada has had increased and sustained presence in the media between elections.
  • The Green Party has held one major policy conference and several smaller policy forums since the last election.
    (those first two points were cited by one broadcast executive last time around as prerequisites for being included in the debate)
  • The Green Party has unique perspectives on issues that are extremely important to Canadians but are not otherwise being discussed. Witness the fact that the climate crisis was completely absent from the last leaders’ debates, and yet is now the number one issue in the minds of the public and the media. That would not have happened if the Green Party had been included, and our democracy would be stronger for it. We have demonstrated an ability to speak to issues that matter to Canadians in ways that other parties are failing to do.
  • Green Party candidates received over one million votes in the last two federal elections. Those Canadians deserve to be represented and heard.
  • The Green Party receives over one million dollars of tax payer money each year. The public deserves to know what we stand for (and where their money is going).
  • The Green Party has demonstrated staying power (vs. the Canadian Action Party and some other small parties, which got popular for one election and then lost ground).
  • Every single Canadian has been able to vote Green for two (and soon three) elections in a row, but has not been allowed the same access to the party’s ideas. The Green Party is only the fourth party in the history of Canada to run a full slate, yet we are the first to do so and be excluded from the leaders’ debates.
  • Elizabeth May received almost as many direct votes to become leader of the Green Party of Canada than Stéphane Dion did for the Liberals (2145 vs. 2541). This highlights the strength of her mandate and the legitimacy of our leadership selection process.
  • Elizabeth May’s inclusion in the debate will make for engaging and compelling television, and will help increase both ratings and interest in democracy, driven both by those who support us and those who don’t.

Just in case the network executives who are making this decision don’t visit my site, you can take action here.

Ministering to the Environment

climate crisis, conservative party, ecology, green party

The Toronto Star reports that John Baird is your new federal minister of the environment. You might think this decision would be of huge importance to me, but I’m finding it hard to react. I want to be optimistic, but I don’t see how this will change anything. I hope I’m proven wrong.

For one, Rona Ambrose never had a chance. Initially, she wasn’t even supposed to be good at her job. The PMO didn’t consider it a priority to maintain our life support systems. Then, when it became clear to him that environment = votes, Harper took over the file and stopped letting Ambrose speak. My first hope for Baird is that he’ll be allowed to do his job.

Defining the nature of his job is the next big challenge. The Conservative government is yet to acknowledge the obvious fact that addressing the climate crisis is priority number one, but they’ll probably have to. Then, they, like the rest of us, will have graduated from if to how. That’s the tricky bit, because as the UN’s Millennium Ecosystem Assessment explained, the climate crisis did not develop in isolation from other problems, nor can it be solved in isolation.

For government, that means two things. First, it means that climate change cannot be addressed unless we also address other environmental problems, including toxicity, over-fishing, air pollution, access to water, etc. Second, it means that much of what has to be done falls under the jurisdiction of other departments, including the ministries of…well, I was about to list them, but I would have had to list almost every single one. (Not to mention the over-arching challenges of addressing cancerous economic growth and destructive cultural assumptions.)

So that’s why I don’t think this shuffle will matter much one way or the other. There’s a joke that the Green Party wouldn’t even have a minister of the environment if we were in government, since we’d take our species’ survival — as opposed to our political survival — into account when making all decisions. (I know, we’re radicals.) And besides, to quote Roy MacGregor, this isn’t about the minister of the environment. “This is about Canada, and the rest of the world, ministering to the environment.”

Poisoning Children and Politicians

conservative party, ecology, health

While scrutinizing for Elizabeth May in London North Centre two months ago, I had an interesting conversation with a Conservative volunteer. She complained to me how outrageous it is for governments to be outlawing pesticides, citing that mainstay of schoolyard arguments that “it’s a free country.”

The problem is, of course, that when you define freedom that liberally (hehe) and approach it in such an ideological way, you back yourself into impossible corners. (Witness Donald Rumsfeld’s famous observation that “Free people are free to…commit crimes and do bad things.”) I asked the Conservative volunteer if she would agree that, even though it’s a free country (whatever that means), the government would be within their rights to, say, prevent people from putting poison in children’s food. (She did.) I then explained to her the process by which toxins like pesticides work their way up the food chain, bioaccumulating and becoming more potent at each level, until ultimately they show up in mothers’ breast milk.

At this point, she uncomfortably changed the subject. I don’t remember what to, but I’m pretty sure it had something to do with “liberal corruption.”

I was reminded of that by two main news stories today, which report that some children’s necklaces have been recalled due to lead poising risk, and that politicians are even more toxic than humans. Er, I mean, more than other humans. (Apparently, Jack Layton is particularly fire retardant.)

The Globe and Mail reports that the testing, done on Jack Layton, Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, and Liberal environment critic John Godfrey, “found a bewildering cocktail of contaminants…[that] have been found to cause cancer, disrupt normal hormone function, and lead to birth defects,” including DDT, which has been banned for decades but will continue to circulate in the environment for decades to come.

The politicians had between 49 and 55 pollutants in their bodies, slightly more than what most Canadians are carrying around. Most upsetting for me is that, according to Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence who did the study, the politicians “were surprised as heck by the results.” They shouldn’t be. This is neither news nor new. I wonder if Rick had to resist an urge to slap them.

Regardless, I just wanted to take this opportunity to say, on record, that I don’t think we should be poisoning children, or, heck, even politicians. I know, I know, it’s a controversial position, but I think it’s important to take a principled stand on this one, public opinion be damned. In fact, a well-known Green Party member once suggested to me that we use the following campaign slogan: “The Green Party: We don’t want to poison your kids.” Catchy, ain’t it?

New Year’s Resolutions

energy, food, toronto

Today’s Metro Morning asked people to call in with their new year’s resolutions for the city of Toronto, which were then commented on by guest Glen Murray. They only had time for three callers (unless I missed the beginning), and their resolutions were:

  1. Close Bay Street to private vehicles.
  2. Increase the number of recycling options.
  3. More affordable housing.

Based on these calls, I will now conclude that if an election were held tomorrow, I’d get 66.6% of the vote and Michael Shapcott would get the other 33.3%. (Note: not a scientific poll.)

The question got me thinking though, and I decided to create my own top ten environmental new year’s resolutions for anyone wondering what they can do. The catch is that these kinds of lists are already everywhere, and I didn’t want to be boring. So, things like “drive less, replace your light bulbs, and recycle” didn’t make the cut. I’m assuming you already know that. These resolutions also ask a little bit more of you. Sorry about that.

Here, off the top of my head, are ten other things you may or may not have thought of or already be doing.

  1. Eat less meat. We already eat too much for our health anyway, and meat is a very inefficient (albeit admittedly delicious) way of producing food energy. It takes more resources (food, land, water, etc) to produce meat than it does to eat lower on the food chain.
  2. Eat more locally. The average meal travels further than it needs to, which contributes to climate change, damages local economies, and generally makes your food less yummy.
  3. Eat more organically. (Yes, I did skip breakfast.) Did you know that agribusiness uses petroleum and natural gas-based fertilizers and pesticides? And that it’s only because of this infusion of oil that we’re able to grow as much food as we do? And that oil production will likely peak sometime between last year and ten or twenty years from now? Because I didn’t know that until a few years ago, and it’s a pretty big deal that we should all be aware of. We are, in effect, “eating oil,” in that much of the food we grow wouldn’t have been possible otherwise. Buy foods that avoid the use of artificial fertilizers.
  4. Take transit less. I actually got this tip from the now defunct One Tonne Challenge (this link is pretty funny and demonstrative), which advised me that since I don’t drive very much, and since even public transit uses energy, biking and walking would further reduce my carbon emissions. Also, biking is awesome.
  5. Start a garden. This relates to #2. If you’ve got a back yard, this should be fairly simple. If you live in an apartment building or condo, you’ve got a little more work to do, but it’s still possible.
  6. Buy less. My brother is returning from a trip to Kenya today, and he’s assured me that the impoverished Kenyans he met are, on average, happier and more life-loving than us wealthy Canadians. Almost everything we buy ends up in the garbage eventually anyway. The first and most forgotten R (of the three R’s) is the most important.
  7. Produce some of your own power. If wind or solar (either passive or active) work where you live, consider getting them installed. If not, maybe you have a geothermal option. If you live in a condo this isn’t impossible, but obviously you’ll have to either talk your board into it or get elected to the board yourself.
  8. Buy power from Bullfrog. Easier than #7, as they’ve already done the legwork.
  9. Reduce your overall footprint. Using this ecological footprint calculator may give you some insight into what sorts of actions have the greatest effect.
  10. Add your own tip by commenting on this page. (Note: Blogger comments have been buggy recently, but they’re still being saved. Even if it says “0 Comments” below, clicking on that link may reveal that there actually are comments.)

Hope that’s been helpful and/or interesting, and, of course, not too preachy. If not, that’s what tip number ten is for.