I was fortunate to visit the Big Island of Hawai’i this month. Some of the most important observatories for space and the atmosphere line the summits of the highest volcanos on the islands (Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa).
Moana Loa is of particular interest because it hosts the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) observatory: Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO). It is here that the global atmospheric emissions data is collected (and has been since 1958) to accurately measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You may recall the now infamous graph in “An Inconvenient Truth” where Al Gore shows the upward trend of CO2 in the atmosphere directly correlating to the effects of Climate Change:
global atmospheric CO2 trend
This is where the data is being collected on a daily basis to show the monthly and yearly trends of the carbon cycle. As you can see we are well above the comfort zone of 350ppm we surpassed in 1989. 350 is the magic number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide. The tracker below shows the Dec. readings for the past 3 years. We have just surpassed 387ppms this month btw.
You may draw your own conclusions from this, but essentially, the data is indicating an accelerating increase of atmospheric carbon. The consequences are showing themselves in many ways all around the world and now that we have a new administration in Washington DC, the US can take the lead in reversing this trend.
The economy is broken. Milton Friedman was dead wrong.
Although Harper and Flaherty cling onto the notions of monetary control of interest rates, reducing taxes to the wealthy and BIG business along with free trade restrictions and regulations, they have never and will never solve the global problems we currently face.
While many name the mortgage and credit-default-swap crises as current culprits, they are only the most recent indicators of an economy with fatal design flaws. Our economy has long been based on what economist Herman Daly (my favourite economist) calls “uneconomic growth” where increases in the GDP come at an expense in resources and well-being that is worth more than the goods and services provided. When GDP growth exacerbates social and environmental problems—from sweatshop labour to manufacturing toxic chemicals to the sinking of a BC Ferry—every dollar of GDP growth reduces well-being for people and the planet, and we’re all worse off. Yes, even the tax payers that would prefer tax breaks over regulations and lower interest rates would have to agree here.
Our fatally flawed economy under a monetary capitalist framework creates economic injustice, poverty, and environmental crises. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can create a green economy: one that serves people and the planet and offers antidotes to the current breakdown.
Here are 8 green-economy solutions to today’s economic mess.
1. Green Energy—Green Collar Jobs
A crucial starting place to rejuvenate our economy is to focus on energy. It’s time to call in the superheroes of the green energy revolution—energy efficiency in green building, solar, biomass, geothermal, tidal, wave and wind power, and plug-in hybrids, renewable biofuels (from waste stream)—and put their synergies to work with rapid, large-scale deployment. This is a powerful way to jumpstart the economy, spur job creation (with jobs that cannot be outsourced), declare energy independence, and claim victory over the climate crisis.
2. Clean Energy Bonds
How are we going to pay for this green energy revolution? Partially through Clean Energy Bonds. Modeled after victory savings bonds in World War II (now CSBs), Canadians would buy these bonds from the federal government to invest in large-scale deployment of green energy projects, with particular emphasis in low-income communities hardest hit by the broken economy. These would be long-term bonds, paying an annual interest rate, based in part on the energy and energy savings that the bonds generate.
4. Emissions Tax Shifting and Cap-and Trade
Again, we need BOTH. Capping emissions and generating revenue to the federal government by imposing a $50/tonne on carbon and other GHG emissions rising annually to shift behaviours gradually and offer alternatives as they become more available. At the same time, we need a coherent national (and international cap-and-trade system that big industry and large-scale emitters will be penalized for emitting GHGs. Both policies work hand-in-hand to assist emitters invest in cleaner technologies — or be penalized. The BC government has done well to impose a Carbon Tax last year, but failed to be transparent in how they would spend the earned revenues while continuing to subsidize harmful fossil fuels extraction at home. By spending the earned revenue on renewable energy projects and job training in the RE sector, the direct cause and effect would be clear to the consumer and allow more opportunities for investments in the RE sector and clean transportation (high-speed rail, energy efficient buses, HOV and bike lanes, etc)
5. Reduce, Reuse, Rethink
Living lightly on the Earth, saving resources and money, and sharing (jobs, property, ideas, and opportunities) are crucial principles for restructuring our economy. This economic breakdown is, in part, due to living beyond our means—as a province, a nation and as individuals. With the enormous national and consumer debt weighing us down, we won’t be able to spend our way out of this economic problem. Ultimately, we need an economy that’s not dependent on unsustainable growth and mass consumerism. So it’s time to rethink our over-consumptive lifestyles, and turn to the principles of elegant simplicity (E F Schumacher’s “Small is Beautiful” concept), such as planting gardens, conserving energy, and working cooperatively with our neighbours to share resources and build resilient communities. This includes smaller local energy projects made at home for our own use.
6. Go Green and Local
Organic or local? BOTH. When we do buy, it is essential that those purchases benefit the green and local economy—so that every dollar helps solve social and environmental problems, not create them. Our spending choices matter. We can support our local communities by moving dollars away from conventional GMO fossil-fuel intensive agribusiness and big-box stores towards supporting local workers, businesses, and organic farmers.
7. Community Investing
All over the country, community investing banks, credit unions, and loan funds that serve hard-hit communities are strong, while the biggest banks required bailouts. The basic principles of community investing keep such institutions strong: Lenders and borrowers know each other. Lenders invest in the success of their borrowers—with training and technical assistance along with loans. And the people who provide the capital to the lenders expect reasonable, not speculative, returns. If all banks followed these principles, the economy wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today.
8. Shareholder Activism
When you own shares, you have the right and responsibility to advise management to clean up its act. Had GM listened to shareholders warning that relying on SUVs would be its downfall, it would have invested in greener technologies, and would not have needed a bailout. Had CitiGroup listened to its shareowners, it would have avoided the faulty mortgage practices that brought it to its knees. Engaged shareholders are key to reforming conventional companies for the transition to this new economy – the green economy that we are building together.
It’s time to move from greed to green. Now is the time.
As the casino-style speculative basis of our boom-bust growth economy continues to plunge deeper into recession without a remedy in sight, it is high time we look at alternative measures to shift our economy towards greater stability based on living standards and encompassing the limits of our resources. This can be done with a shift to a steady state economy as outlined by economist Herman Daly.
Let us begin with the 38th Parliament (Oct. 2004-Nov. 2005) under PM Paul Martin in which Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper ganged up with Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc, and Jack Layton, Leader of the NDP to bring down the minority government. Here is Harper’s letter to the Governor General:
September 9, 2004
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1
Excellency,
As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister
to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program.
We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.
Your attention to this matter is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada’
Given this factual historic data, it is absolutely rhetorical and unjust to presume that the Parliamentary conventions that Canada’s democracy follows according to our Monarchical multi-party Westminister system are “undemocratic”. Nearly 62% of the 59.1% of the electorate that actually participated in the election did not vote for Harper’s Conservatives. So, if the Government refuses to realize that they are governing in a minority rule, then the majority Opposition coming together is a perfectly legitimate alternative to overcome the arrogance and dictatorial leadership in order to focus on the economic crisis, Climate Crisis and further rolling back of public infrastructure and bring back confidence to the Parliament of Canada.
Harper had the opportunity to clarify the situation to Canadians in a television address (Dec. 3). He took the publicly paid opportunity to tell Canadians NOTHING of his intentions on how he and the Conservative government would attempt to reverse this economic downward spiral and bring stability back to Parliament in a cohesive way. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The shift of cohesion has already begun at the civic level in BC with enormous landslide victories of coalition the slate (Vision, COPE and Greens) in Vancouver, the grassroots democratic ideals that helped get Obama elected in the US are now being demonstrated by the bi-partisan appointments to important leadership roles in his government. Instead of taking Obama’s example, Harper has chosen to bring divisive “separatist” rhetoric back to the forefront knowing full well that the Bloc MPs will not be a part of Cabinet or have any direct influence in the Coalition. They will only support the Throne Speech and Budget in the next year. Coming from Quebec, any talk of “separatists” is pure slander and marginalizing the people of Quebec and down right hypocritical (see letter above).
Finally, the Green Party of Canada and Ms. May adds legitimacy to the Coalition with her endorsement with a fantastic website. This could reward her well with a Senate seat which would serve as a progressive gesture to work in a cohesive and non-partisan way towards a more functional and fair Parliament. This does not mean that we should not move forward on electoral reform to prevent all this from happening again.
Until then, let’s wizen up, leave our egos and partisan/regional differences at the door and get moving at fixing this mess!
Take a deep breath, Canada. It’s going to be a very bumpy ride until we decide to improve our electoral system to becoming more representative of the electorate. The continued slump in voter turnouts (the 40th General Election was the lowest in Canada’s history) within a dysfunctional minority government will undoubtedly continue until we restore faith in voter confidence. Meanwhile, on the other side of the 49th parallel, Barrack Obama’s overwhelming victory has restored faith in a truly battered bi-partisan presidential system and where the real loser (this time) was apathy.
In times of economic and ecological crises, people want to know that they will be supported and properly represented by a functional and effective government. Instead, we’ve been ripped off by our electoral system. Sigh…
The facts: 37% of voters amongst 59.1% of the electorate (that actually voted in the election) and a 1% gain for the Conservatives from the previous election does not a mandate make. And yet, Harper and the Conservatives are again forming a minority government under the vision and leadership of a man who clearly doesn’t represent the values of most Canadians while the majority opposition parties are left scrambling.
To compare, the recent US election drew 64.1% of registered voters and EU countries have an average mean average voter turnout of 83%. It is no coincidence that most of the nations in Europe have proportional representational electoral systems.
Does this mean that average Canadians are losing faith in democracy or simply doesn’t care? Did they figure their votes wouldn’t make a difference and are largely apathetic? Did Elections Canada’s change in rules making it more difficult to vote to effect voter turnout? Did the media give ample coverage and notification that a federal election was under way?… Take your pick at pointing the finger, none of these nail down the greater problem of getting ripped off royally.
Our first-past-the-post system is largely to blame. Citizens are disgruntled with the lack of representation of their values and are not motivated to participate in an election where their ballot does not have any more value than the paper it is written on. Additionally, politicians and political parties are failing to effectively engage citizens who do not feel as if they are being properly represented in Parliament. FPP is an archaic system that is largely a popularity contest amongst candidates in their ridings. In a multi-party system, this often encourages strategic voting which was more apparent this election than ever before.
In most cases, voters are confused over which candidate has a better chance to eliminate the candidate (or party) that they least want to win. In other words, strategic voting is not effectively strategic and FPP is failing to democratically represent the citizens’ intentions.
A good example of this was seen in Saanich-Gulf Islands constituency in BC where incumbent MP, Gary Lunn, a contentious Conservative who was acting Minister of Natural Resources, squeeked into victory despite the dropping out of NDP candidate, Julian West, who’s name remained on the ballot and 3,667 voters still voted for (5.7% of the vote). Although the difference was over the .1% required for a recount, the margin needed to strategically oust him by voting Liberal was 2,625 votes — far less than those who voted for a party without a candidate.
The moral of the story here is that despite what 3rd party interest groups that were out in full force in this riding attempting to encourage voters to vote strategically failed to convince NDP supporters not to waste their votes (literally in this case). Voters should ALWAYS vote for the best candidate and party preference to represent their constituency and their interests.
Once elected, the political party in power (whether in a minority or majority) almost always dominates the direction of policy and spending with a top-down structure of implementation. The PM is not supposed to be presidential, like the US system, but is officially “Head of Government”. However, somehow these past elections have been based largely on leadership and not the platforms or policies and local issues of the riding it represents. The trend of stronger PMOs that has been on the rise for decades since the charismatic Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the strengthening of structure and responsibilities of PMO office under Brian Mulroney and later Jean Chretien. This further frustrates the representation of the voter and the conduct of parliament.
So who got ripped off? Nearly 51% of Canadians voted for a candidate that did not win a seat. So, most Canadian were “orphaned voters”.
Over 941,000 voters supported Elizabeth May and the Green Party and sent no one to Ottawa, setting a new record for the most votes cast for any party that gained no parliamentary representation. By comparison, 813,000 Conservative voters in Alberta alone were able to elect 27 MPs. In the prairies, Conservatives received roughly twice the vote of the Liberals and NDP, but took seven times as many seats.
Like the previous election, a quarter-million Conservative voters in Toronto elected no one and neither did Conservative voters in Montreal and Vancouver. The NDP attracted 1.1 million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 49 seats, the NDP 37.
So, regional parties that would prefer separating from the country all together benefit the most from our current system.
Unless you are a Bloc supporter living in Quebec (the only province where they run), this rip off affects all stripes. Our system is failing to achieve a truly democratic and representational portrayal of our citizens.
So what’s the solution?…
1) On a federal level, a Mixed Member Proportional system would benefit the intentions of voters in Canada most fairly without needing to change the electoral boundaries.
2) For an effective and representative Senate, Single Transferable Vote system would benefit a badly needed change to our appointed and inefficient status quo
The result would be very few “orphan voters”, a more representational and democratic system, a more functional Parliament and greater participation from the electorate.
We need to shift our electoral system more than ever. We can agree on that much, can’t we?
Canadians have an opportunity to send a clear message to Ottawa tomorrow: we must change the climate of status quo rhetoric in Parliament.
On a personal level, I have the tremendous good fortune to have 1 more reason to vote for the future on this election. My new-born baby daughter, Ruby.
When I look into her fresh face I see hope and reason to care for the future of our country and our planet.
Harper and the Conservatives have shown Canadians and the world that they do not care for the well-being of Canadians and the dire state of the environment. Popularity in such organizations and blogs (like Avaaz.ca and Votefortheenvironment2008.ca, Sierra Club Canada, etc). All worthy sites and opinions if the voters followed the polling of their ridings and followed closely to the issues of the parties and the candidates, but the reality is that this is not the case.
If there is one issue to ride on this election, it’s the environment/Climate Change/energy — and by that I mean the economy. Because it is one in the same. Everything comes from the environment, hence the value we place on it (commodities, resources). When we attempt to separate the 2, we all lose.
Given that the NDP have decided to focus their attacks on the Liberals while the Liberals have attempted to attract the “progressives”, I can only deduce that the NDP strategy team is out to lunch and don not deserve the votes they will receive (count the number of ridings that will go to the Tories as a result of this grand scheme of pouncing on Dion in unison with the Tories (which caused the previous election in the first place!). Don’t get me wrong — I’m not saying to vote Liberal here, but at least they understand the importance of pricing carbon — and the economy. So, while I do not endorse the Liberal Party of Canada no Stéphane Dion, I hope he pulls off a minority government that would enable a strategic alliance of progressive MPs to tackle the Tories in Parliament. Long shot, I know…
So, given that the NDP has taken such a hard stance on the carbon tax and blindly states the possibility of forming opposition while placing all the financial burden on corporations (yes, even small ones) and hard caps on heavy polluters that will pass on the burden back to the consumers, it is clear to me that Canadians should respond with a clear message that focusses on solving the current environmental and economic crises:
My strategy: ABCNDP and Green when it will not mean a possible Tory. In other words, vote for the FUTURE!
Truthfully, I’m tired of disagreeing with Layton and Duceppe. Their petty partisan political wrangling focussed on the Liberals only pursuades the centre-right Canadians farther to the far-right-warmongering-ideologically-driven-mean-spiritted Conservatives OR the centre-left towards the angry-ideologically-driven-ordinary-Canadians-not-able-to-pay-bills-at-the-end-of the-month.
I respect May’s position because she refuses to get sucked into the partisan bickering, focusses on solving the issues with concrete science-based policies and exemplifies the role of a true leader rallying and growing her grassroots base support base while still able to play in the sandbox with others instead of constantly throwing sand in other’s eyes.
Even so, is it safe to vote Green if a coalition agreement can be negotiated in a First-Past-the-Post electoral system?
Absolutely, and here’s why:
QUEBEC: Sovereignty is a dead issue. While Quebecers are wanting representation in Ottawa (as the Bloc have “represented” over the past decade), the Party that will prove the worthiest to the electorate will take the House with Quebec swing seats. The newly emerging NDP federalist position will only further strengthen the possibility of a Conservative lead here, despite the emergence of “culture cuts” as a predominant issue. If the Liberals and Stephane are unable to persuade the Quebec electorate of representing the best interests of Quebeckers and their culture, we are more likely to see a Conservative minority or worse — a “false” Conservative majority. Many seats are up for grabs here and the Tories are honing into the rural regional Bloc ridings. The Bloc held 48 seats at the dissolution of Parliament, compared to 11 each for the Conservatives and Liberals. The NDP had one, and there were two Independent members and two vacant seats (source: CBC.ca). The sneaking through the middle syndrome is all too apparent here and Harper knows it.
Climate change is regarded as the most important issue of our time to many more Canadians from across the spectrum who care deeply about the state we will leave our children and grandchildren with. The Greens and May are the only political party to accept that the economy and the environment are intricately linked without basing this as a mere election issue to get elected. Their policies reflect the report put out by Chief Economist of Nicholas Stern which sums: “The costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly.” While Dion understands the science, the need to put a price on carbon with the Green Shift has been misunderstood due to a lack of communicating the terms effectively. The NDP put all their eggs in one basket with cap-and-trade without a good understanding of the economics. May can effectively communicate the importance of this issue and take Harper and Baird to the cleaners like no one else.
We are in stagflation (inflation is up on food and energy and a recession is creeping across the border faster than we can say “recession”). This means that conservative-neo-liberal theory or traditional Monetary Economics supporting free trade and globalization, tax reduction to the wealthy (trickle-down economics) with massive deregulations has failed — miserably. Altering the bank rate will not calm the storm either. A major change from traditional economics is needed with a balanced and fiscally conservative approach. While following the status quo is arguably the most dangerous path, a move to a socialist approach is equally unrealistic and poised for failure.
Most Canadians believe the Afghanistan war is unwinnable. A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for more military spending and a larger deficit in times we should be focussing our expenditures internally and putting our blue helmets back on. The NDP want to pull out immediately which is also unrealistic and potentially more damaging.
The engineer of the Green Train
The reason it is so difficult to place the Greens on the traditional left-right spectrum is because they do not fit in any one category. Some policies promote social justice while maintaining a balanced budget with income sharing and reducing taxes on payroll and income. A recent poll conducted by the CTV came up with a very interesting result: The survey identified the Greens as the second choice for 28 per cent of Conservative respondents, 27 per cent of Liberals, 34 per cent of New Democrats and 19 per cent of Bloc supporters polled. (Canadian Press) This shows that, unlike the NDP or the Liberals, Conservatives are more willing to give the Greens a chance to govern.
The smartest thing Layton has done as leader of the NDP was hint at a coalition. Instead of focussing on bringing about electoral reform with legislation in Parliament (when something could have been done), the ABC must pull the majority together to take on the minority Conservatives in order to prevent a Con majority. A majority would only ignite vehement and bitter opposition in-House AND out while preventing positive change for progressive Canadians (that truly make up the true majority in Canada). However, instead of further splitting the progressive vote by dreaming he will be driving the coalition bus, he has to learn to play nice in the back seat with Gilles and Liz. Meanwhile, Stephane still needs to get his driver’s license. Canadians still see a big “L” in the back window of the vehicle that is swerving without clear direction. If Elizabeth May was driving, it’d be a whole different story.
By delivering tax cuts to income, payroll along with income splitting while investing in the future makes Elizabeth May, leader of the GPC, the “mother of all tax cuts”. So, conservatives and Conservatives of Canada, I ask you to consider your vote in this turbulent time of a failing economy to put your vote behind a leader and a Party that understands how to conserve money with fiscal responsibility that will allow investment towards innovation and the economy of the future.
BC is following a seemingly “responsible” and harmless path that turns out to have an expensive and unsustainable destination. An attempt to backtrack and find out just where we went wrong may be an unsettling reality we could face in the near future if we continue down the current path. The drive to promote biofuels has shown this to be true in a very short time frame.
This is how I foresee the current ‘Independent Power Producer’ scenario with BC Hydro and the BC Government.
Having worked on a research project for BC Hydro’s Power Smart Green Power Certificates, I could not figure out why we imported so much energy from thermal coal while taking so much pride in producing and selling clean, “green” hydro to our neighbours down south. Keeping cheap prices has been their number one mantra over the years, the result from saving expenses by shutting down dams over night and buying cheap, subsidized coal power from Alberta and the US to cover the peak hours has tarnished its “green” public image and caused a tremendous backlog of power generation. IPPs are only concerned with generating a profit and that means selling power to the US market at a cheap rate.
The panic button seems to have been pressed by shifting the “responsibility” to private producers that are out to make a quick buck by generating quick-fix small hydro and run-of-river in a rush to fulfill the energy demand (with no more feasible rivers in close proximity to urban centers) and make BC self-reliant. The need to build Site C (and it will be 10 years too late, over budget, and ecologically destructive) becomes a must-build option that the public will find hard to swallow. So, the question really is: what is the cost of cutting costs, allowing private companies to capitalize on selling BC power and saving for a rainy day?
Well, in my opinion it’s pouring. There are 44 operating IPPs and dozens more signed on to produce for 20 years. Licenses are being granted to dozens of IPP micro and small hydro projects as if the land was free and the amount of rivers to be tapped is seemingly endless. Speculation reigns as the new determinant of price. It is a gold rush. The environmental assessments measure the projects individually without accounting for the cumulative affect. Glacial melt, salmon runs, damage to transmission lines from forest fires and other ecological determinants are unmentioned. Much like the tar sands in Alberta, we suffer the impacts at home while the energy goes elsewhere in a very unsustainable fashion. Is this “responsible” and “accountable”? Do all British Columbians and grid power recipients benefit? No, and it certainly isn’t “sustainable”.
Here is the real crisis: Cheap energy dependency alongside the Climate Crisis.
BC should produce more green energy (less micro, more wind, tidal, wave and solar – creating a model similar to Germany’s which has established thousands of green collar jobs in this shift to green power), sell less abroad, buy none from abroad (another important step), and conserve more at home. `Net metering’ is a fantastic step forward. The carbon tax as well. We need to focus on these demand-side energy reduction mechanisms with incentives. On the supply-side, we should support renewable energy projects that are publicly owned and operated for greater accountability, supporting elimination of all existing oil and gas subsidies to shift towards developing infrastructure in proven renewable energy infrastructure (not just research grants).
BC could and should be a leader here and it has tremendous potential to make this a reality. Even in times of crisis, opportunities abound.
