Bernier tip of the iceberg?

Now, Maxime Bernier isn't exactly known as one of the more disciplined members of the Harper caucus, so one wonders whether his climate denial letter to la Presse was sanctioned by the PMO.

The Harper Conservatives have done a relatively good job pivoting from their denialist tendencies in opposition - with Harper himself questioning the science - to adopting different do-nothing arguments in government while staying away from denialism.

But, cracks have started to appear of late (here and here) that go beyond Bernier. The danger to Harper is that his troops believe the hype surrounding the leaked email incident and use this as an excuse to break their message discipline.

If they do, there will be many more slap-downs from scientists, such as the one in la Presse on the Bernier letter who said of him:

"When you're claiming to be talking science, you have to do it using existing scientific standards. These comments show this MP hasn't done his homework. Based on his ill-informed comments, he fails this test."

And, as our recent poll in Quebec showed, that can't be good when you are trying to recruit those voters standing in between you and a majority government - or possibly the opposition bench.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Quebecers see through oily smokescreen

Recently, Quebecers have been told to suck up rising global warming pollution from the oil sands because of the money oil companies contribute to equalization. But new polling released today by Environmental Defence and Equiterre show Quebec residents aren’t buying that line.

56% of people surveyed disagreed that they should accept increased global warming pollution due to money received from the oil sands in Alberta. The appointment of Christian Paradis, a Quebec M.P., to oversee the tar sands file hasn’t helped to win over public opinion either, the poll showed. And 52% of people said they are LESS likely to vote for Prime Minister Harper’s government because of his climate change policies.

The poll comes on the heels of the firestorm kicked off when Environment Minister Jim Prentice chided Quebec for being too ambitious with its new vehicle efficiency regulations.

Time to wake up Ottawa – Quebecers are seeing through all this spin and want action on global warming, not just threats and rhetoric.

Gillian McEachern
Program Manager, Climate and Energy

Will Bill Gates save us?

So Windows may still have some glitches, but he can save the planet, right?

Bill Gates is doing amazing work on developing vaccines, and now it appears he may also turn his attention - and possibly some of his fortune - to developing energy solutions.

He raised eyebrows last year with his visit to the tar sands, one of the very worst energy sources if we are at all serious about stopping our atmosphere from deteriorating (and turning Northern Alberta into a toxic theme park).

So, it would be very helpful is someone as iconic as Bill Gates joined the fight against global warming in earnest.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Don't SLAPP me

Today over 60 groups in Ontario released a letter calling on the McGuinty government to follow Quebec and dozens of U.S. states in banning so-called SLAPPs - strategic lawsuits against public participation.

Some citizens who speak out in the democratic process find themselves at risk of losing everything when big money interests take them to court. Even if those lawsuits end up being thrown out, it has a chilling affect, since many can't afford the legal fees to fight in court.

So, if we want a well functioning democracy, citizens should not be afraid to speak out. The McGuinty government should pass legislation prohibiting SLAPPs.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Use the Force, Gary!

I'm not sure if the situation is redeemable, or whether Gary Doer has been lost to the dark side forever. See here for a piece today in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Get well, Jack

Regardless of political stripe, elected officials deserve our support when cancer strikes. So, today we'd like to send our very best wishes to Jack Layton as he battles prostate cancer. We know he's the kind of person who can beat it.

Cancer will hit one in three of us, and has already hit staff at Environmental Defence, including myself. This is one of the reasons we work so hard to address the environmental causes of cancer, including toxic contamination.

Jack as well as elected officials in other parties have been supportive of this work in the past, having their blood tested for contaminants, and we look forward to working with him and others further when he makes a full and healthy recovery.

Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence

Talk Tough, But Bluff

Yesterday federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice told a Calgary audience that "we need to up our game, in terms of both environmental vigilance and in terms of our communication efforts" on the tar sands. Well, those communications efforts are clearly underway, but how about that environmental vigilance?

Not only is the federal government failing to enforce existing federal laws (like the Fisheries Act) to reduce the environmental impacts of the tar sands, but is relying on other provinces to make deeper cuts in global warming pollution to allow tar sands to grow. The government recently weakened its national target for reducing emissions. Yesterday’s official submission to the UN as follow up to the Copenhagen climate summit announced our new target as "17% (below 2005), to be aligned with the final economy-wide emissions target of the United States in enacted legislation." In other words, that may be our target, but we won't really decide or start to act until the US has passed climate legislation.

The new weak federal target, when combined with stronger provincial targets, means that leading provinces like Quebec, Ontario and BC will be cutting emissions by 20% more than the rest of the country. They're taking the burden while tar sands emissions grow.

This new target also makes Canada unique among developed countries: we are the only one to date that has signed up with the UN for an increase over 1990 levels by 2020, putting us out of step with the U.S., Japan, Australia and the European Union.

Gillian Mceachern
Program Manager
Environmental Defence

Wall St. Journal Takes On The Duck

The Wall St. Journal attacked parents' concerns over toxic chemicals in consumer products in a Saturday, January 30, lead editorial. Dismissing studies about the dangers of the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) in products such as baby bottles, the Journal editors said "In their book ‘Slow Death by Rubber Duck,’ Canadian activists Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie chronicle how they used the media to terrify soccer moms who then petitioned the government to ban BPA."

Bruce and I issued the following response late yesterday:

"The Wall St. Journal insults the intelligence of concerned parents and scientists who know it is dangerous for children's health to use products such as baby bottles and sippy cups made from plastic containing BPA. Hundreds of recent studies have linked BPA to human ailments as varied as prostate and breast cancer and heart disease. In our tests, documented in the book, our BPA levels rose 7.5 times over 48 hours after eating and drinking from microwaveable BPA plastic containers. The chemical reached levels in our urine that many recent studies have found to have a biological effect. And infants, who are often exposed to BPA leaching from both the plastic in their baby bottles and the lining of infant formula cans, have far greater exposure to chemicals relative to their body weight and nutritional intake.

The Wall St. Journal is putting powerful vested interests above children's safety on toxic chemical issues. Its editorial rejects the basic purpose of scientific research saying 'Environmentalists hope that if researchers run more tests, they'll come up with more links...Thus, they ask for tests unto eternity.' In fact, it was the lack of studies that prompted us to use ourselves as lab rats. Our families would have certainly preferred it if studies had been conducted in modern laboratories, instead of us pioneering them in our homes.

We welcome the opportunity for dialogue and invite the Wall St. Journal editors and any of their friends in the chemical industry to have an honest on-air discussion about the safety of these chemicals for our children. We will even offer them a chair on stage throughout our book tour.

We agree, however, with the Wall St. Journal's comment that 'BPA is everywhere in our lives'. It was this frightening fact which inspired us to write the book."