What are my three key take-homes from Copenhagen?
1) Let's begin with the positive: this event has mobilized Canadians and world citizens around climate change like never before, and that mobilization will now ramp up to find the political pathways that work. Beware the politician that stands in the way of the green economy.
2) While we ended up with a vague statement rather than the needed binding commitments, at least the terms of the debate have now been clarified, which shows a certain seriousness of nations at the table. It will be hard for countries to walk away from this new understanding, since the stakes have now been accepted as incredibly high. Countries must return to the table to work through their differences as soon as possible. We have little time.
3) Canada is a mess. Our Prime Minister hasn't been paying attention and it showed. Our country's reputation lies in tatters. Canadians are embarrassed and many are mad as hell. There is something rotten in Ottawa and it is up to the citizens of Canada to fix it. Watch for action in 2010.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Deconstructing the Canada speech
Even though Prime Minster Harper was in Copenhagen, he gave the "privilege" of giving Canada's speech to the climate summit to his Minister Jim Prentice.
It's not hard to see why since the speech was so so so lame - another embarrassment heaped onto the others for Canada these past 2 weeks.
So, let's deconstruct IN CAPS the Canada speech:
"We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement.
WE WERE FORCED TO SHOW UP IN COPENHAGEN BECAUSE OBAMA CAME.
We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth.
AND BY "US" WE MEAN "YOU" SINCE WE'LL BE RAMPING UP THE TAR SANDS.
An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.
AND BY "SHARED" AGAIN, WE MEAN "YOU ALL" RATHER THAN US, SINCE WE'RE GOOD, THANKS.
Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.
TOO BAD WE DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE INTERESTED WILL VOTE FOR OUR PARTY.
A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.
WE'D LIKE A NEW AGREEMENT SINCE WE WERE THE ONLY RICH COUNTRY TO WALK AWAY FROM OUR COMMITMENTS IN THE OLD ONE AND WE'D REALLY LIKE NOT TO HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.
AND AS THE CBC POINTED OUT WITH ITS LEAKED DOCUMENTS, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE LOWERING OUR AMBITION.
It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.
LIKE MORE SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES MAKING MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS IN THE TAR SANDS TO PURSUE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE - A TECHNOLOGY THAT AT ITS BEST WON'T STOP THE TAR SANDS FROM TAKING UP ALL OF CANADA'S CARBON BUDGET.
And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
JUST NOT ACTION FROM US.
Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.
AND, SINCE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OTHER COUNTRIES IN SAYING HOW MUCH OR HOW, PLEASE DON'T THINK WE DON'T MEAN THAT.
Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.
MAN, POND HOCKEY IS SCREWED.
Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.
SEE HOW WE THREW OBAMA IN THERE? THE ONLY THING WE FEAR IS THAT THE AMERICANS WILL REALIZE WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEIR CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM, SO WE HAVE TO COZY UP TO THEM AND SPIN BABY SPIN!"
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
It's not hard to see why since the speech was so so so lame - another embarrassment heaped onto the others for Canada these past 2 weeks.
So, let's deconstruct IN CAPS the Canada speech:
"We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement.
WE WERE FORCED TO SHOW UP IN COPENHAGEN BECAUSE OBAMA CAME.
We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth.
AND BY "US" WE MEAN "YOU" SINCE WE'LL BE RAMPING UP THE TAR SANDS.
An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.
AND BY "SHARED" AGAIN, WE MEAN "YOU ALL" RATHER THAN US, SINCE WE'RE GOOD, THANKS.
Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.
TOO BAD WE DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE INTERESTED WILL VOTE FOR OUR PARTY.
A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.
WE'D LIKE A NEW AGREEMENT SINCE WE WERE THE ONLY RICH COUNTRY TO WALK AWAY FROM OUR COMMITMENTS IN THE OLD ONE AND WE'D REALLY LIKE NOT TO HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.
AND AS THE CBC POINTED OUT WITH ITS LEAKED DOCUMENTS, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE LOWERING OUR AMBITION.
It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.
LIKE MORE SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES MAKING MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS IN THE TAR SANDS TO PURSUE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE - A TECHNOLOGY THAT AT ITS BEST WON'T STOP THE TAR SANDS FROM TAKING UP ALL OF CANADA'S CARBON BUDGET.
And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
JUST NOT ACTION FROM US.
Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.
AND, SINCE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OTHER COUNTRIES IN SAYING HOW MUCH OR HOW, PLEASE DON'T THINK WE DON'T MEAN THAT.
Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.
MAN, POND HOCKEY IS SCREWED.
Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.
SEE HOW WE THREW OBAMA IN THERE? THE ONLY THING WE FEAR IS THAT THE AMERICANS WILL REALIZE WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEIR CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM, SO WE HAVE TO COZY UP TO THEM AND SPIN BABY SPIN!"
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Cuts and Money
After all the acronyms and details are stripped away, the international negotiations at Copenhagen come down to two things: cuts and money.
Cuts are reductions in global warming pollution. Money is needed for poorer countries to both reduce their emissions and to adapt to the climate change already happening.
The rich countries arrived at Copenhagen largely set in their proposed cuts. There were varying degrees of ambition - with Canada pretty much the weakest - and they did not add up to what scientists say is needed to stop runaway climate change.
The poorer or developing countries showed up more willing than in the past to make some cuts of their own, but still largely arguing that most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, since they dissipate only over many decades, were put up there by the rich countries. The poorer or developing countries therefore believe the burden of cuts belongs to others.
On the money front, now the richer countries are rallying around a proposal to up the fund for poorer and developing countries to $100 billion a year. It's unclear whether the developed countries will go for it, or go for the conditions that come attached - including "meaningful" pollution reductions and transparency in reporting.
One can't escape the feeling that Copenhagen hasn't been so much a negotiation as a forum where the richer countries have put their cards on the table and said "take it or leave it." You don't get the sense there has been any meaningful back and forth, nor a spirit of compromise. There is also little trust.
Canada has played its own part in undermining that trust through revelations that it cannot meet even the weak cuts it put on the table due to its obsession with dirty oil growth in the tar sands. It will therefore join the $100 billion push and hope it can buy off those who would call foul.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Cuts are reductions in global warming pollution. Money is needed for poorer countries to both reduce their emissions and to adapt to the climate change already happening.
The rich countries arrived at Copenhagen largely set in their proposed cuts. There were varying degrees of ambition - with Canada pretty much the weakest - and they did not add up to what scientists say is needed to stop runaway climate change.
The poorer or developing countries showed up more willing than in the past to make some cuts of their own, but still largely arguing that most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, since they dissipate only over many decades, were put up there by the rich countries. The poorer or developing countries therefore believe the burden of cuts belongs to others.
On the money front, now the richer countries are rallying around a proposal to up the fund for poorer and developing countries to $100 billion a year. It's unclear whether the developed countries will go for it, or go for the conditions that come attached - including "meaningful" pollution reductions and transparency in reporting.
One can't escape the feeling that Copenhagen hasn't been so much a negotiation as a forum where the richer countries have put their cards on the table and said "take it or leave it." You don't get the sense there has been any meaningful back and forth, nor a spirit of compromise. There is also little trust.
Canada has played its own part in undermining that trust through revelations that it cannot meet even the weak cuts it put on the table due to its obsession with dirty oil growth in the tar sands. It will therefore join the $100 billion push and hope it can buy off those who would call foul.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Spin Baby Spin
Finally caught in an "untruth" about giving the tar sands a special break after all, Canada's Conservative government is in full damage control mode at the worst possible time - on the world stage at an international climate conference.
Remember those denials about special treatment for the tar sands some months ago? Well, turns out that the federal government in fact meant the opposite of what it said.
CBC broke the story about a leaked cabinet document confirming that the petroleum sector will get weaker pollution targets than others, plus all polluters will get the loophole of paying into a technology fund instead of reducing emissions.
Now, Environment Minister Jim Prentice is confirming that he hasn't ruled out special treatment for the tar sands - but wait: it's because the Americans are making him do it!
By ridiculous logic, Prentice is now saying that the tar sands qualify as "trade exposed" - the label used by the Americans for those industries (like steel companies) likely to re-locate elsewhere due to local carbon laws. Yes, that's right, the tar sands deposit, all 173 billion barrels, is going to pick up and move somewhere else.
Moreover, all Canadian polluters will need to be able to pay into a tech fund rather than reduce emissions because the Americans said so, even though American companies are given no such loophole under draft climate legislation there.
How the Canadian delegation can walk into negotiations here in Copenhagen and keep a straight face with other countries regarding its sincerity to meet even its own inadequate targets is in serious doubt given these latest reports.
How the Canadian people will feel about the Conservative government letting tar sands pollution explode while everyone else is supposed to be making reductions is another matter.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Remember those denials about special treatment for the tar sands some months ago? Well, turns out that the federal government in fact meant the opposite of what it said.
CBC broke the story about a leaked cabinet document confirming that the petroleum sector will get weaker pollution targets than others, plus all polluters will get the loophole of paying into a technology fund instead of reducing emissions.
Now, Environment Minister Jim Prentice is confirming that he hasn't ruled out special treatment for the tar sands - but wait: it's because the Americans are making him do it!
By ridiculous logic, Prentice is now saying that the tar sands qualify as "trade exposed" - the label used by the Americans for those industries (like steel companies) likely to re-locate elsewhere due to local carbon laws. Yes, that's right, the tar sands deposit, all 173 billion barrels, is going to pick up and move somewhere else.
Moreover, all Canadian polluters will need to be able to pay into a tech fund rather than reduce emissions because the Americans said so, even though American companies are given no such loophole under draft climate legislation there.
How the Canadian delegation can walk into negotiations here in Copenhagen and keep a straight face with other countries regarding its sincerity to meet even its own inadequate targets is in serious doubt given these latest reports.
How the Canadian people will feel about the Conservative government letting tar sands pollution explode while everyone else is supposed to be making reductions is another matter.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Approaching That Other Tipping Point - Beware
(Updated below)
The usual meaning of climate related "tipping points" are those scary feedback loops that may lead to runaway climate change - like the release of vast amounts of methane from melting permafrost.
But, in Canada we're probably approaching instead a climate-related tipping point in the political sphere, and one that holds its own dangers.
Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to to much of anything on climate change. This is in keeping with the fact that he once denied the science itself, and has continued to surround himself with deniers even recently.
But, events of the past weeks have built to a point where his government must at least be seen to be doing something, or else face a growing political risk coming from many directions.
A strong indicator that we're approaching a political tipping point is Harper's recent messaging that he will be seeking a "binding" deal in Copenhagen. This seems to run counter to his government's strategy of not wanting any international responsibility at all - indeed, his is the only government on the planet to simply walk away from ratified Kyoto targets. Remember also that until a week ago, Harper was saying he'd not go to Copenhagen, and that nothing much was likely to happen there anyway.
Harper is likely recognizing that he needs to come away from Copenhagen with some kind of result that turns the tide of public perception that has gone dramatically against his government recently on this file.
The label for Canada as "the dirty old man of the climate world" has started to stick in the international media in the past few days, building on events in Canada that saw both the two most populous provinces and the majority of MPs in Parliament chastise the Harper government for not doing enough. Public opinion polls also consistently show Harper to be offside with Canadians on this issue. When ridicule is starting to set in, you know you have a problem.
So, Harper needs to be seen to be doing something different on climate change to turn the tide. We've seen this movie before, though, when his government was caught off guard by the upsurge in public concern following Al Gore's documentary and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and made all kinds of promises to get "tough" on all kinds of polluters.
But of course, nothing actually happened then, and if left to their own devices, the Harper government will seek to repeat the empty promise play once more. Its support of tar sands growth is simply incompatible with real action, and there are no signs of that changing.
Here are the key rhetoric vs. reality details that will separate a Harper government PR offensive to turn the perception tide from any actual seriousness to address Canada's growth in emissions:
1) The Harper government will stop "ragging the puck" and start doing something. Now. The line has been we are waiting for the Americans. Or waiting for the Chinese. But waiting. And waiting. The media has given Harper a pass when using this line, rather than pointing out that we can get moving today on the regulatory process to regulate large polluters, since that will take some time and we know enough already to move ahead. We cannot afford to wait another day.
2) The Harper government will stop saying it will at least match the Americans, but actually do it. This involves renouncing the loopholes it wants to give to large polluters, such as intensity targets for the tar sands (which, despite recent media stories, it has never specifically ruled out for that sector) and tech fund payments in place of reductions. This will also involve a dramatic scale up in renewable and efficiency investments to catch up to Obama.
3) Finally, the Harper government will stop claiming that even matching the Americans on pollution reductions and clean economy investments is enough to stop dangerous climate change - because it isn't - and instead begin to lobby Obama to go further. The Americans are the lowest common denominator on fighting global warming, and Harper is happy to hide in that slip-stream. But, if we are to actually come out of this crisis, we need to listen to science, and not the U.S. Congress.
I would welcome action by the Harper government on all three of these points, but will not hold my breath. Time and again our government in Ottawa has mouthed the words they think the public wants to hear and has done nothing, or worse, has tried to slip in loopholes that secretly undermine any forward motion.
As Canadians, our public and our media must stand on guard. Our kids are depending on it.
UPDATE: Don Martin confirms that the PMO has done an about face and now wants a "win for the boss." He writes:
"The last image Stephen Harper wants to project is Canada intransigently blocking a meaningful deal leaving him as the leadership face of a doomed-to-fail result."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
The usual meaning of climate related "tipping points" are those scary feedback loops that may lead to runaway climate change - like the release of vast amounts of methane from melting permafrost.
But, in Canada we're probably approaching instead a climate-related tipping point in the political sphere, and one that holds its own dangers.
Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to to much of anything on climate change. This is in keeping with the fact that he once denied the science itself, and has continued to surround himself with deniers even recently.
But, events of the past weeks have built to a point where his government must at least be seen to be doing something, or else face a growing political risk coming from many directions.
A strong indicator that we're approaching a political tipping point is Harper's recent messaging that he will be seeking a "binding" deal in Copenhagen. This seems to run counter to his government's strategy of not wanting any international responsibility at all - indeed, his is the only government on the planet to simply walk away from ratified Kyoto targets. Remember also that until a week ago, Harper was saying he'd not go to Copenhagen, and that nothing much was likely to happen there anyway.
Harper is likely recognizing that he needs to come away from Copenhagen with some kind of result that turns the tide of public perception that has gone dramatically against his government recently on this file.
The label for Canada as "the dirty old man of the climate world" has started to stick in the international media in the past few days, building on events in Canada that saw both the two most populous provinces and the majority of MPs in Parliament chastise the Harper government for not doing enough. Public opinion polls also consistently show Harper to be offside with Canadians on this issue. When ridicule is starting to set in, you know you have a problem.
So, Harper needs to be seen to be doing something different on climate change to turn the tide. We've seen this movie before, though, when his government was caught off guard by the upsurge in public concern following Al Gore's documentary and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and made all kinds of promises to get "tough" on all kinds of polluters.
But of course, nothing actually happened then, and if left to their own devices, the Harper government will seek to repeat the empty promise play once more. Its support of tar sands growth is simply incompatible with real action, and there are no signs of that changing.
Here are the key rhetoric vs. reality details that will separate a Harper government PR offensive to turn the perception tide from any actual seriousness to address Canada's growth in emissions:
1) The Harper government will stop "ragging the puck" and start doing something. Now. The line has been we are waiting for the Americans. Or waiting for the Chinese. But waiting. And waiting. The media has given Harper a pass when using this line, rather than pointing out that we can get moving today on the regulatory process to regulate large polluters, since that will take some time and we know enough already to move ahead. We cannot afford to wait another day.
2) The Harper government will stop saying it will at least match the Americans, but actually do it. This involves renouncing the loopholes it wants to give to large polluters, such as intensity targets for the tar sands (which, despite recent media stories, it has never specifically ruled out for that sector) and tech fund payments in place of reductions. This will also involve a dramatic scale up in renewable and efficiency investments to catch up to Obama.
3) Finally, the Harper government will stop claiming that even matching the Americans on pollution reductions and clean economy investments is enough to stop dangerous climate change - because it isn't - and instead begin to lobby Obama to go further. The Americans are the lowest common denominator on fighting global warming, and Harper is happy to hide in that slip-stream. But, if we are to actually come out of this crisis, we need to listen to science, and not the U.S. Congress.
I would welcome action by the Harper government on all three of these points, but will not hold my breath. Time and again our government in Ottawa has mouthed the words they think the public wants to hear and has done nothing, or worse, has tried to slip in loopholes that secretly undermine any forward motion.
As Canadians, our public and our media must stand on guard. Our kids are depending on it.
UPDATE: Don Martin confirms that the PMO has done an about face and now wants a "win for the boss." He writes:
"The last image Stephen Harper wants to project is Canada intransigently blocking a meaningful deal leaving him as the leadership face of a doomed-to-fail result."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Ragging the Puck
As a guy who grew up in Wales playing rugby, North American sports metaphors need some repeating for them to sink in.
Luckily, that's precisely what's happening with the phrase "ragging the puck" - and all on the climate file.
I think federal Liberal environment critic David McGuinty started it in this article when he accused the Harper government of wanting to kill time on doing anything on global warming pollution until after the next election.
Then, incredibly, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall goes to DC to tell US lawmakers that they need to "rag the puck a bit" on their global warming legislation so that it doesn't impact the Canadian fossil fuel industry, much of which is now in his home province - a reason why Saskatchewan has the highest per capita emissions in the country, ahead of even Alberta.
And finally the Toronto Star weighs in with an editorial accusing the Harper government of "ragging the puck" in the hopes that another country will scuttle the Copenhagen climate talks, letting Harper off the hook since his government doesn't really want to do anything anyway.
All this stands out for me since recently US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu also latched onto a hockey metaphor, quoting Gretsky by saying the US wants to be "where the puck is going to be" on clean energy. As a result, the US is leaving Canada in the dust on investing in the creation of new jobs in the next industrial revolution, de-carbonizing the economy.
So, what's it going to be Canada? The ploy of staying in our own end and trying to hang onto the puck by desperately defending the Tar Sands? Or, seeking to get out there and score goals by recognizing that our competitors are moving ahead on the clean energy economy, and we'd better catch up?
And, would it wreck the hockey metaphor to point out the ice is melting?
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Luckily, that's precisely what's happening with the phrase "ragging the puck" - and all on the climate file.
I think federal Liberal environment critic David McGuinty started it in this article when he accused the Harper government of wanting to kill time on doing anything on global warming pollution until after the next election.
Then, incredibly, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall goes to DC to tell US lawmakers that they need to "rag the puck a bit" on their global warming legislation so that it doesn't impact the Canadian fossil fuel industry, much of which is now in his home province - a reason why Saskatchewan has the highest per capita emissions in the country, ahead of even Alberta.
And finally the Toronto Star weighs in with an editorial accusing the Harper government of "ragging the puck" in the hopes that another country will scuttle the Copenhagen climate talks, letting Harper off the hook since his government doesn't really want to do anything anyway.
All this stands out for me since recently US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu also latched onto a hockey metaphor, quoting Gretsky by saying the US wants to be "where the puck is going to be" on clean energy. As a result, the US is leaving Canada in the dust on investing in the creation of new jobs in the next industrial revolution, de-carbonizing the economy.
So, what's it going to be Canada? The ploy of staying in our own end and trying to hang onto the puck by desperately defending the Tar Sands? Or, seeking to get out there and score goals by recognizing that our competitors are moving ahead on the clean energy economy, and we'd better catch up?
And, would it wreck the hockey metaphor to point out the ice is melting?
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Iggy Creates Green Daylight
Significant daylight is starting to show between the federal Liberals and the Harper government on the environment. With his second major environmental speech today (the first was in Vancouver some weeks ago), Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff continued to flesh out how his party would do things differently, including the welcome promise to pass a federal Clean Energy Act.
Significant pieces of that daylight are:
Harper is clearly starting to feel the heat on global warming, despite once questioning the science, by announcing today he'll go to Copenhagen after all. When he gets there though, he'll show up with no plan, weak targets, and a track record that clearly says to the world "I don't care."
We welcome even more daylight from the Liberals in the weeks and months to come. We also welcome more collaboration with the other opposition parties who, to their credit, have been saying strong things on climate change for a long time already. And, ultimately, we welcome an about-face by Harper himself so that either he or another Prime Minister is able to credibly tell the world at some point that "Canada does care."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Significant pieces of that daylight are:
- While Harper repeatedly says he'll be the last to move on global warming (is it America or China he's hiding behind today?), and when he does do something it will fall far short of what scientists are telling us is needed, Ignatieff says that Canada will move ahead regardless, as a leader should, and base reductions on scientific facts.
- While Harper lets the ecoEnergy program run out of money, incredibly hobbling Canada in the ongoing green industrial revolution now underway, Ignatieff is pledging the most significant investment in renewables the country has ever seen.
- While Harper refuses to rule out giving special treatment to the tar sands so that it can continue to increase its pollution at a time when we need to dramatically reduce it, Ignatieff is pledging a cap and trade system for Canada that covers all industries ("no exceptions") and is equitable across the country.
Harper is clearly starting to feel the heat on global warming, despite once questioning the science, by announcing today he'll go to Copenhagen after all. When he gets there though, he'll show up with no plan, weak targets, and a track record that clearly says to the world "I don't care."
We welcome even more daylight from the Liberals in the weeks and months to come. We also welcome more collaboration with the other opposition parties who, to their credit, have been saying strong things on climate change for a long time already. And, ultimately, we welcome an about-face by Harper himself so that either he or another Prime Minister is able to credibly tell the world at some point that "Canada does care."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Harper's Climate Isolation
Stephen Harper has made the political calculation that he can simply weather the criticism for being such a climate laggard. But, seemingly by the hour he appears more and more isolated - going against other countries, against the provinces, and against public opinion.
Yesterday, the Government of Quebec just slammed Ottawa for not doing enough as it laid out its own 2020 targets that go well beyond those of Harper.
Today, the Government of Ontario is telling Ottawa that the progress it is making shutting coal plants cannot be squandered by increases in tar sands pollution.
And, since Harper's favourite line these days is that he simply can't stop tar sands polluters until he knows what the Americans are doing, word comes that the U.S. is ready to show up in Copenhagen with a target to table - not a great target, but an indicator that they are moving, and so Harper's argument is a false one.
All this comes on the heels of a new poll showing four out of five Canadians are embarassed by Canada's lousy climate record.
Harper's government looks increasingly isolated on this issue, ignoring the plight of Canada's kids as the inheritors of a deteriorating atmosphere, and also ignoring that the next indusrial revolution - decarbonizing the economy - is already underway, with Canada bringing up the rear.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Yesterday, the Government of Quebec just slammed Ottawa for not doing enough as it laid out its own 2020 targets that go well beyond those of Harper.
Today, the Government of Ontario is telling Ottawa that the progress it is making shutting coal plants cannot be squandered by increases in tar sands pollution.
And, since Harper's favourite line these days is that he simply can't stop tar sands polluters until he knows what the Americans are doing, word comes that the U.S. is ready to show up in Copenhagen with a target to table - not a great target, but an indicator that they are moving, and so Harper's argument is a false one.
All this comes on the heels of a new poll showing four out of five Canadians are embarassed by Canada's lousy climate record.
Harper's government looks increasingly isolated on this issue, ignoring the plight of Canada's kids as the inheritors of a deteriorating atmosphere, and also ignoring that the next indusrial revolution - decarbonizing the economy - is already underway, with Canada bringing up the rear.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
They Care About Kids, They Really Do
A bit of irony - or is that tragedy?
Apparently the federal government really cares about the future of our kids on a warming planet. That's the message from the action centre they've set up here.
Imitation being the best form of flattery, maybe they are noticing the kids related campaigns we're running here and here.
Of course, if the federal government actually did anything to reduce emissions, rather than pressing its foot ever harder on epanding the pollution spewing tar sands, it may actually be believable.
So, as others have pointed out, the best use of the government's action centre is to send Mr. Harper himself an e-postcard, calling the government out on its hypocrisy.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Envrionmental Defence
Apparently the federal government really cares about the future of our kids on a warming planet. That's the message from the action centre they've set up here.
Imitation being the best form of flattery, maybe they are noticing the kids related campaigns we're running here and here.
Of course, if the federal government actually did anything to reduce emissions, rather than pressing its foot ever harder on epanding the pollution spewing tar sands, it may actually be believable.
So, as others have pointed out, the best use of the government's action centre is to send Mr. Harper himself an e-postcard, calling the government out on its hypocrisy.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Envrionmental Defence
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Yesterday's Men (and Margaret Wente)
There is perhaps some hope that both Rex Murphy and Margaret Wente are publishing book versions of their columns. Hope, that is, that this is the kind of thing you do near the end of your career.
For what unites these two columnists, beyond their being printed in the Globe and Mail, is their use of being contrarian in order to stay relevant - which is so much easier than working hard at research, truly independent opinions ("y" as opposed to "not x"), or asking the right questions.
Both columnists continue to repeatedly beat up on those who would try to do anything about global warming, with Murphy still loudly denying the global scientific consensus on global warming and refusing to apologize when proven wrong.
This intentional ignorance on both of their parts in fact tells you what you need to know about all of their writing, not just on global warming. That you, a non scientist, would dispute millions of hours of scientific research pointing in the same direction, just to be a contrarian that people take notice of, colours everything you say. Why should anyone go along with you on any other issue if you propose to be so willfully wrong on this one? The truth, in this equation, doesn't matter as much as being noticed.
If there is a silver lining here, it's that Murphy and Wente are symbolic of a generation now passing by its prime. You rarely come across climate deniers under 50 years old, partly due to education, and partly due to the social stigma in younger circles associated with selling such egregious untruths to the public.
Climate deniers are yesterday's men - and they are mostly men, other than Ms. Wente. Unfortunately, they still have some years left of providing cover to the do-nothings now holding sway in Ottawa. Let's just hope that the newer generation of columnists will work harder at uncovering the truth, before it's too late.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
For what unites these two columnists, beyond their being printed in the Globe and Mail, is their use of being contrarian in order to stay relevant - which is so much easier than working hard at research, truly independent opinions ("y" as opposed to "not x"), or asking the right questions.
Both columnists continue to repeatedly beat up on those who would try to do anything about global warming, with Murphy still loudly denying the global scientific consensus on global warming and refusing to apologize when proven wrong.
This intentional ignorance on both of their parts in fact tells you what you need to know about all of their writing, not just on global warming. That you, a non scientist, would dispute millions of hours of scientific research pointing in the same direction, just to be a contrarian that people take notice of, colours everything you say. Why should anyone go along with you on any other issue if you propose to be so willfully wrong on this one? The truth, in this equation, doesn't matter as much as being noticed.
If there is a silver lining here, it's that Murphy and Wente are symbolic of a generation now passing by its prime. You rarely come across climate deniers under 50 years old, partly due to education, and partly due to the social stigma in younger circles associated with selling such egregious untruths to the public.
Climate deniers are yesterday's men - and they are mostly men, other than Ms. Wente. Unfortunately, they still have some years left of providing cover to the do-nothings now holding sway in Ottawa. Let's just hope that the newer generation of columnists will work harder at uncovering the truth, before it's too late.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Who are we getting tough on again?
As the party of law and order, the Conservatives need always to be getting tough on somebody.
Remember when it was all about getting tough on polluters? First it was Rona Ambrose getting tough on polluters, and then it was John Baird.
Of course, neither actually did anything of the sort.
Now enter Jim Prentice. He's no longer threatening to get tough on polluters, but in fact threatening to get tough on other countries who say we should get tough on polluters.
Take that, sinking Maldives! Or, about time somebody put all those African countries in their place when they are complaining about crop failures caused by global warming.
Getting tough on the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet so that the tar sands can expand? Is that the new Canadian way?
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Remember when it was all about getting tough on polluters? First it was Rona Ambrose getting tough on polluters, and then it was John Baird.
Of course, neither actually did anything of the sort.
Now enter Jim Prentice. He's no longer threatening to get tough on polluters, but in fact threatening to get tough on other countries who say we should get tough on polluters.
Take that, sinking Maldives! Or, about time somebody put all those African countries in their place when they are complaining about crop failures caused by global warming.
Getting tough on the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet so that the tar sands can expand? Is that the new Canadian way?
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Monday, November 2, 2009
An antidote to the surreal?
The Tyee has published today's post here:
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/11/02/GlobalWarmingAd/
http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2009/11/02/GlobalWarmingAd/
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Globe vs. our globe
The Globe and Mail gets it badly wrong today.
In its masthead editorial about a report showing how Canada can meet emissions reduction targets that scientists tell us we must make to stop our atmosphere from deteriorating, it tries to equate protecting polluters with national unity, and also gives politicians a blank cheque to simply give up on science itself.
Luckily, Globe columnists were more balanced. John Ibbitson summarized "Better a decade of discomfort, perhaps, than a century of misery." And Jeffrey Simpson thought of the modelling:
"Scaremongers would have to eat their words if they gave this study a fair-minded report, but so, too, would those who paint cost-free scenarios of reducing emissions."
In its masthead editorial about a report showing how Canada can meet emissions reduction targets that scientists tell us we must make to stop our atmosphere from deteriorating, it tries to equate protecting polluters with national unity, and also gives politicians a blank cheque to simply give up on science itself.
Luckily, Globe columnists were more balanced. John Ibbitson summarized "Better a decade of discomfort, perhaps, than a century of misery." And Jeffrey Simpson thought of the modelling:
"Scaremongers would have to eat their words if they gave this study a fair-minded report, but so, too, would those who paint cost-free scenarios of reducing emissions."
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tar Sands Investor Alert
We were pleased to host an event last night on the litigation brought by the Beaver Lake Cree. Their traditional territory overlaps with tar sands operations.
They are suing since tar sands and other industrial activity are rendering their treaty rights to hunt and fish meaningless when there soon will be nothing to hunt or fish.
We also did some interesting outreach to investors who face growing legal risks in tar sands country because of First Nations litigation. Basically, the entire Alberta resource permitting regime is more than a decade behind court precedents, rendering individual permits - including tar sands permits - suspect.
Other First Nations in the tar sands area are already in court, with more to follow soon. Overall, this is one more way in which sanity is intruding on the out-of-control dirty oil machine in Alberta.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Friday, October 23, 2009
Prentice flip flops
Until today, Environment Minister Jim Prentice had said repeatedly that he would let us average people in on his climate change plan before the Copenhagen talks begin in December - meaning of course that he'd have some kind of plan to show.
Now though he's hiding behind the Americans, saying that we can't have a plan before they do. This is patently absurd given that most of the American plan is already in plain view in Bills in the U.S. House and Senate. Both the general level of ambition and the architecture of a U.S. cap and trade system have been revealed, so there's nothing stopping Prentice from designing a Canadian system to intergrate with a U.S. system, if that indeed is the over-riding goal.
The real reason he's hiding is that he now admits he wants to give special treatment to the tar sands to be able to grow emissions, even as everyone else must dramatically reduce theirs to stem our deteriorating atmosphere. He can only do this by either building loopholes into his plan, which the Americans would call us on due to competitiveness issues, or by requiring that the rest of Canada do even more to cut emissions in order to make room for more tar sands pollution. Just imagine what that would do to his government's political fortunes in Ontario and Quebec.
We can only hope that Minister Prentice will flip flop again: both by letting a light shine into his secret plan before Copenhagen, and by agreeing that any system cannot let tar sands emissions grow, thereby burdening other economic sectors.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Now though he's hiding behind the Americans, saying that we can't have a plan before they do. This is patently absurd given that most of the American plan is already in plain view in Bills in the U.S. House and Senate. Both the general level of ambition and the architecture of a U.S. cap and trade system have been revealed, so there's nothing stopping Prentice from designing a Canadian system to intergrate with a U.S. system, if that indeed is the over-riding goal.
The real reason he's hiding is that he now admits he wants to give special treatment to the tar sands to be able to grow emissions, even as everyone else must dramatically reduce theirs to stem our deteriorating atmosphere. He can only do this by either building loopholes into his plan, which the Americans would call us on due to competitiveness issues, or by requiring that the rest of Canada do even more to cut emissions in order to make room for more tar sands pollution. Just imagine what that would do to his government's political fortunes in Ontario and Quebec.
We can only hope that Minister Prentice will flip flop again: both by letting a light shine into his secret plan before Copenhagen, and by agreeing that any system cannot let tar sands emissions grow, thereby burdening other economic sectors.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Harper's New Speech Writer a Climate Denier
Nigel Hannaford was in charge of my Rotary exchange to Finland in the late 80's. I owe the man a debt of thanks for opening my eyes to the world.
Word now, though, that he's just left the Calgary Herald to become Stephen Harper's speech writer.
The significance, just a month and a bit prior to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, is that Nigel Hannaford is a vocal denier that humans are causing the dangerous deterioration of the world's climate.
This will therefore only serve to reinforce the perception out there that Stephen Harper never gave up on his own climate change denial, documented in our report here.
It could be comedy that the leader of one of the world's largest industrial economies is surrounding himself with those who so clearly favour ideology over reality, but I've got a three year old boy now who will inherit the results - and that's a tragedy.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Word now, though, that he's just left the Calgary Herald to become Stephen Harper's speech writer.
The significance, just a month and a bit prior to the UN climate summit in Copenhagen, is that Nigel Hannaford is a vocal denier that humans are causing the dangerous deterioration of the world's climate.
This will therefore only serve to reinforce the perception out there that Stephen Harper never gave up on his own climate change denial, documented in our report here.
It could be comedy that the leader of one of the world's largest industrial economies is surrounding himself with those who so clearly favour ideology over reality, but I've got a three year old boy now who will inherit the results - and that's a tragedy.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Ottawa is cutting off public input into climate-change policy
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Ottawa+cutting+public+input+into+climate+change+policy/2126254/story.html
Ottawa is cutting off public input into climate-change policy
All Canadians and their offspring have a massive stake in this debate
By MATT PRICE, Freelance October 21, 2009
Montreal Gazette
Environment Minister Jim Prentice recently appeared in these pages arguing
that Canada is fully engaged in addressing climate change ("Canada is
doing its part to fight climate change," Opinion, Oct. 19). If that's
true, it's too bad he hasn't let the Canadian people in on it.
We commissioned a poll last summer asking Canadians several questions
about global warming and Canada's response to it. The biggest consensus we
found was on the question of whether Canada's system of carbon cuts should
be worked out in the open or behind closed doors. Not surprisingly, more
than 70 per cent favoured working it out in the open.
But, transparency is the opposite of what we are now getting. Instead,
Prentice has been meeting behind closed doors with industry to consult
about the shape of a cap and trade plan for Canada. He has also met behind
closed doors with the premiers. Nothing gets written down. Nothing gets
disclosed.
Prentice is saying he will release his plan before going to the UN climate
summit in Copenhagen in December where he will share it with other
countries. Presumably, then, the Canadian public gets no input. We are
just told the way things are going to be.
The tragedy here is that this will be perhaps the most significant piece
of economic and environmental policy in the history of the country. It
will either chart the course for Canada to be a leader in the next
industrial revolution as the world economy decarbonizes, or it will fall
short and leave Canada in its current last-place position in this regard
behind our competitors. All Canadians alive today and their offspring have
a massive stake in this initiative, and they are being shut out.
Rather than present a proposed plan for Canadians to comment on, Prentice
seems content to dribble out little bits of it to friendly audiences who
won't ask the tough questions. In this vein, he just revealed to the
editorial board of the Calgary Herald that he will ask each of the
provinces to take on the 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 target for
emissions cuts.
Set aside for now that these cuts are much less than is needed to stop our
climate from deteriorating, the significance is that it could be seen as
an answer to the key issue of whether the system will be equitable across
Canada. This is critical to the Quebec and Ontario economies in
particular, since exploding tar sands pollution in Alberta is currently on
track to take up all the room under future national cap on emissions,
thereby forcing other industries out. Just a few days ago a tar-sands CEO
said that other industries should do more so that tar sands pollution can
continue to grow.
So, is Prentice standing up to the tar-sands industry? We don't know,
since the problem with not putting something out for proper scrutiny is
that the probing questions don't get asked. Or maybe that's the point.
We must ask, for example, whether the loopholes built into past proposals
by the Harper government will still exist in the new system, loopholes
that would enable tar-sands companies to dodge actual pollution cuts by
paying into a fund or even by simply planning to invest in pollution
control sometime in the future. Such loopholes could not only undermine
the equity issue across Canada, but also put us offside with the Americans
who will be watching that we don't give breaks to polluters that they
don't give, at the risk of trade sanctions.
Overall, cap-and-trade design is a complicated task with huge
implications. Debate about Canada's design belongs in the light of day
where the motives of the government can be examined properly. We've got
about 50 days left until the UN climate negotiations open in Copenhagen.
Let's use that time to get Canada's position right, with the benefit of
public debate.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Tar Sands CEO: Make Ontario Pay
A tar sands CEO - Marcel Coutu of Oil Sands Trust (Syncrude) - finally had the audacity to say out load what we have known for months his industry is thinking: make the rest of Canada pay for the massive increases in pollution the industry wants to inflict upon our deteriorating atmosphere.
We've documented this very issue in the Report "Divided We Fall" that shows the tar sands industry quickly taking up all the space underneath a hard cap on emissions should the federal government give it special treatment under a coming national cap and trade system. Who pays for this special treatment? Mainly the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec.
We also polled on this very issue in August and found coast-to-coast opposition to giving the tar sands industry weaker pollution controls than the rest of the country in order to let it expand.
Even though we knew it to be true, it's still shocking, though, to have someone say out load that somehow his pollution is more special than the next person's, that his industry should be allowed to inflict even greater damage on our kids so that it can be allowed to expand.
The ball is very clearly in the court of federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice on this issue. He's denied that his behind-closed-doors design of a national cap and trade system is going to give special treatment to the tar sands, but has refused to provide any specifics in this regard beyond vague platitudes.
We've got about 40 days until UN climate negotiations open in Copenhagen and Canada is absolutely nowhere in terms of being able to show up with any kind of national consensus on how we should be cutting carbon and transitioning to the clean energy economy. The fact that Mr. Coutu can still stand up with a straight face and say "make others pay" is a tesitment to the lack of leadership on this file from the Harper government.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Climate and Energy
We've documented this very issue in the Report "Divided We Fall" that shows the tar sands industry quickly taking up all the space underneath a hard cap on emissions should the federal government give it special treatment under a coming national cap and trade system. Who pays for this special treatment? Mainly the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec.
We also polled on this very issue in August and found coast-to-coast opposition to giving the tar sands industry weaker pollution controls than the rest of the country in order to let it expand.
Even though we knew it to be true, it's still shocking, though, to have someone say out load that somehow his pollution is more special than the next person's, that his industry should be allowed to inflict even greater damage on our kids so that it can be allowed to expand.
The ball is very clearly in the court of federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice on this issue. He's denied that his behind-closed-doors design of a national cap and trade system is going to give special treatment to the tar sands, but has refused to provide any specifics in this regard beyond vague platitudes.
We've got about 40 days until UN climate negotiations open in Copenhagen and Canada is absolutely nowhere in terms of being able to show up with any kind of national consensus on how we should be cutting carbon and transitioning to the clean energy economy. The fact that Mr. Coutu can still stand up with a straight face and say "make others pay" is a tesitment to the lack of leadership on this file from the Harper government.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Climate and Energy
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Iggy Comes Clean
While Environment Minister Jim Prentice clings to the tired old "either-or" framing of environment vs. economy, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff just jumped ahead to "both-and."
In a speech yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff pledged to campaign on "the most significant national investment in clean energy jobs this country has ever seen."
This is a recognition that the next industrial revolution and next significant wave of job creation will centre on decarbonizing our economy. Like all industrial revolutions, there will be winners and losers - and Canada is currently on track to fall into the loser category, left behind by other countries making large clean energy investments today.
Some of our provinces are stepping up, such as Ontario with its Green Energy Act. Right after the Act's renewable pricing regulations were announced, two large wind power projects began to move ahead, with more in the works.
But, instead of a coherent Canadian push towards a clean energy economy we have a patchwork of local initiatives, and a federal government more interested in coddling tar sands polluters than becoming a winner in the next industrial revolution.
Mr. Ignatieff's speech could begin to change that, should he flesh out his ideas into more concrete terms so that voters can get excited by them. We need to hear more about specific policy proposals that will drive change, and more about how carbon cuts are the other side of the clean energy coin.
But, the speech was a step forwards to that place, and for that we are thankful.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
In a speech yesterday, Mr. Ignatieff pledged to campaign on "the most significant national investment in clean energy jobs this country has ever seen."
This is a recognition that the next industrial revolution and next significant wave of job creation will centre on decarbonizing our economy. Like all industrial revolutions, there will be winners and losers - and Canada is currently on track to fall into the loser category, left behind by other countries making large clean energy investments today.
Some of our provinces are stepping up, such as Ontario with its Green Energy Act. Right after the Act's renewable pricing regulations were announced, two large wind power projects began to move ahead, with more in the works.
But, instead of a coherent Canadian push towards a clean energy economy we have a patchwork of local initiatives, and a federal government more interested in coddling tar sands polluters than becoming a winner in the next industrial revolution.
Mr. Ignatieff's speech could begin to change that, should he flesh out his ideas into more concrete terms so that voters can get excited by them. We need to hear more about specific policy proposals that will drive change, and more about how carbon cuts are the other side of the clean energy coin.
But, the speech was a step forwards to that place, and for that we are thankful.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Friday, October 9, 2009
Hitting the target
For those of you on Facebook, here's an apropo metaphor for the state of the international climate negotiations - seemingly unlikely to hit the mark (and save the world), but you never know...
Facebookers check out the video here
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Facebookers check out the video here
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Monday, October 5, 2009
Harper Flunks Security
Stephen Harper likes riding on top of submarines to show he's down with the military, but does he really get where security issues are heading over the coming decades?
Word out of military leader the U.S. - the CIA just opened a 'Center on Climate Change and National Security.'
In fact, the U.S. military establishment has been waking up to climate change as a major security driver for some time, as recognized here by U.S. Senator John Kerry.
Not so with our Prime Minister, though. As summarized nicely by Margaret Purdy and Leanne Smythe at UBC, Harper is a laggard at making the connection between climate change and security issues, which speaks to his utter disregard for climate issues in general - reflected in Canada's last place performance on reducing emissions.
Who do you trust to guarantee your security? Some guy who has his head stuck stubbornly in the (tar) sand, or someone who is looking at the future clearly and preparing Canada for it?
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Word out of military leader the U.S. - the CIA just opened a 'Center on Climate Change and National Security.'
In fact, the U.S. military establishment has been waking up to climate change as a major security driver for some time, as recognized here by U.S. Senator John Kerry.
Not so with our Prime Minister, though. As summarized nicely by Margaret Purdy and Leanne Smythe at UBC, Harper is a laggard at making the connection between climate change and security issues, which speaks to his utter disregard for climate issues in general - reflected in Canada's last place performance on reducing emissions.
Who do you trust to guarantee your security? Some guy who has his head stuck stubbornly in the (tar) sand, or someone who is looking at the future clearly and preparing Canada for it?
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Friday, October 2, 2009
Melting hardened reporters
Story of the day that stuck with me is this one about the Dalai Lama melting hardened reporters in Calgary.
This even after he'd taken an indirect swipe at the tar sands.
Nice antidote to the story out of Tokyo that the 2016 Olympics may be the last one in history given global warming. Seems like a bit of an overstatement since they pulled them off in ancient greece, although it could be true that the corporate jet set version of today may struggle in years to come.
It does remind us though that we are still sleepwalking into a situation that's untenable for our kids, even as we rush them to school each day to prepare them for the future.
This is why we launced our swing ridings work, centred on the parent-kid bond. We all collectively need to amp it up though, and continue to melt the hearts of hardened reporters who don't seem to think this global-warming-threatening-our-kids-future thing is really news...
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
This even after he'd taken an indirect swipe at the tar sands.
Nice antidote to the story out of Tokyo that the 2016 Olympics may be the last one in history given global warming. Seems like a bit of an overstatement since they pulled them off in ancient greece, although it could be true that the corporate jet set version of today may struggle in years to come.
It does remind us though that we are still sleepwalking into a situation that's untenable for our kids, even as we rush them to school each day to prepare them for the future.
This is why we launced our swing ridings work, centred on the parent-kid bond. We all collectively need to amp it up though, and continue to melt the hearts of hardened reporters who don't seem to think this global-warming-threatening-our-kids-future thing is really news...
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
U.S. Senate to Harper: Your Turn!
The U.S. Senate is finally releasing its version of a climate and energy Bill today, a major step towards getting a law done (since the U.S. House already passed its version).
So, for the Harper team now hiding squarely behind U.S. activity on this file, the message is: get moving!
We know Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice has been consulting behind closed doors with industry and with provincial premiers (despite our poll showing overwhelming public desire to have this out in the open).
But, you can guess at the content secretly on offer by the enthusiasm Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has shown for the federal efforts.
So, Team Harper - time to put your cards on the table so we can see whether you've given special treatment to the tar sands industry to keep growing its pollution.
Matt Price
Program Manager
So, for the Harper team now hiding squarely behind U.S. activity on this file, the message is: get moving!
We know Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice has been consulting behind closed doors with industry and with provincial premiers (despite our poll showing overwhelming public desire to have this out in the open).
But, you can guess at the content secretly on offer by the enthusiasm Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has shown for the federal efforts.
So, Team Harper - time to put your cards on the table so we can see whether you've given special treatment to the tar sands industry to keep growing its pollution.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chemical in Cosmetics Causes Concern
Right now, the federal government is reviewing the safety of a chemical found in many personal care products, including those used by children.
The chemical is called 1,4-dioxane. In the draft review of the chemical, released in early September, the government said it doesn't plan to list 1,4-dioxane as 'toxic' - meaning the government plans to do nothing to protect Canadians' health from this cancer-causing chemical. Exposures to 1,4-dioxane have been linked to tumors of the liver, gallbladder, nasal cavity, lung, skin, and breast.
1,4-dioxane isn't even an ingredient in personal care products. It's a byproduct of manufacturing, and can be removed before products go on store shelves. But that's the problem. Companies aren't removing 1,4-dioxane before they sell their shampoo, shaving cream, baby wash, lipstick, aftershave and all the other products.
The U.S.-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested children's bath products for 1,4-dioxane, and found it in 32 of 48 products, including brand name baby shampoo. A quick search of Environmental Working Group's
Cosmetics Databaseshows 1,4-dioxane in 22% or more of the 25,000 products listed. In other words, it's virtually impossible for Canadians to avoid this chemical.
The federal government needs to hear from Canadians that we expect our leaders to protect our health from harmful chemicals, particularly when they're found in products that we use on our bodies every day.
There's no need for 1,4-dioxane to be polluting us and our children.
Jennifer Foulds
Interim Policy Director
The chemical is called 1,4-dioxane. In the draft review of the chemical, released in early September, the government said it doesn't plan to list 1,4-dioxane as 'toxic' - meaning the government plans to do nothing to protect Canadians' health from this cancer-causing chemical. Exposures to 1,4-dioxane have been linked to tumors of the liver, gallbladder, nasal cavity, lung, skin, and breast.
1,4-dioxane isn't even an ingredient in personal care products. It's a byproduct of manufacturing, and can be removed before products go on store shelves. But that's the problem. Companies aren't removing 1,4-dioxane before they sell their shampoo, shaving cream, baby wash, lipstick, aftershave and all the other products.
The U.S.-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested children's bath products for 1,4-dioxane, and found it in 32 of 48 products, including brand name baby shampoo. A quick search of Environmental Working Group's
Cosmetics Databaseshows 1,4-dioxane in 22% or more of the 25,000 products listed. In other words, it's virtually impossible for Canadians to avoid this chemical.
The federal government needs to hear from Canadians that we expect our leaders to protect our health from harmful chemicals, particularly when they're found in products that we use on our bodies every day.
There's no need for 1,4-dioxane to be polluting us and our children.
Jennifer Foulds
Interim Policy Director
Charest Steps Up
Nice to see Quebec Premier Jean Charest taking on Harper over Ottawa's dismal climate change performance. We just put out a small report summarizing Harper's positioning, coupled with a new take on their "just visiting" attack ads.
But, it would be nice to see Charest more explicitly drawing the connection between proposed pollution growth in the tar sands and what this means for Quebec (and Ontario) manufacturers under a nation-wide absolute cap on emisisons that we know we must adopt.
In short, if one sector is growing emissions under a hard cap, others are getting squeezed out. So, if reports about Harper giving special treatment to the tar sands are true - and nothing he or his Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said has given actual proof it's not - then Premier Charest should be even more agressive in protecting his province's interests. Indeed, though, that goes for all the other premiers too.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
But, it would be nice to see Charest more explicitly drawing the connection between proposed pollution growth in the tar sands and what this means for Quebec (and Ontario) manufacturers under a nation-wide absolute cap on emisisons that we know we must adopt.
In short, if one sector is growing emissions under a hard cap, others are getting squeezed out. So, if reports about Harper giving special treatment to the tar sands are true - and nothing he or his Environment Minister Jim Prentice has said has given actual proof it's not - then Premier Charest should be even more agressive in protecting his province's interests. Indeed, though, that goes for all the other premiers too.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
