With the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez worth of oil spilling into the U.S. Gulf every four days, you can't help but wonder about the timing of the Western Premiers in lobbying to reduce regulatory oversight in Canada - in large part for oil and gas projects.
A key part of President Obama's Oval Office address two days ago came when he said the U.S. needs an offshore regulator that "that acts as the oil industry's watchdog not its partner."
Here in Canada we have similar issues of coziness between our regulators and the oil and gas industry. This is evidenced in the fact that they barely ever say "no" to proposals. Another example is from a Canadian landowners group that recently attended a conference where they were surprised at the chummy relationship between regulators and the industry.
Will it take a similar BP-like disaster in Canada before we too get serious about regulatory independence? Meanwhile, will the gung-ho tar sands government in Ottawa go along with Stelmach et al at this time of heightened public anxiety over how industry is run? Let's see.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Showing posts with label Stephen Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Harper. Show all posts
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Eagle vs. Beaver pollution
If you ever needed evidence that our government in Ottawa is simply stalling on climate change when it says "we will wait and copy the U.S.," just watch the release of the U.S. Senate draft energy and climate legislation tomorrow.
The painfulness of the U.S. legislative process is notorious, and full credit should be given to the Canadian government for finding a climate dodge that the Canadian media has largely bought by saying it must do nothing on climate since we'll have to harmonize with the U.S. later.
The spill in the Gulf will play short term havoc with the draft Senate Bill, since it had been written with a mind to get moderate Republicans (if that isn't an oxymoron) onside by also promoting offshore drilling. Now, Democrats whose constituents are horrified by the BP spill are likely to harden their stance against offshore drilling, thereby taking away votes that the Bill cannot afford to lose.
This chaos in the Senate is exactly the kind of thing the Canadian government has been counting on - and in addition it can't seem to help itself by taking advantage of the spill to talk up the tar sands.
Yet, while the offshore provisions may change, the draft Senate Bill may still set the tone for other aspects of climate and energy policy in the U.S., aspects that our federal government keeps pledging to copy.
One aspect in particular bears some exploration, since it gets at a big difference between how the U.S. and Canada pollute differently with regards to global warming, and means that if we simply copy U.S. efforts, there's no way we will even meet the weak national emissions reduction target that Ottawa is now promoting.
The draft Senate Bill takes the approach of clamping down on the U.S. electricity sector sooner and harder than on other U.S. industry. Without commenting on the merit of this approach, if Canada were to follow this lead, we'd be doing less than the U.S. since our electricity sector accounts for less than half of what the U.S. electricity sector does on a proportional basis.
See the following pie charts for the difference between the countries (all numbers sourced from EPA and Environment Canada):
Also, consider these trends:
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 30% of US emissions and by 2008 it had grown to 35% of US emissions.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 25% of US emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 19% of US emissions.
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 16% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 15%.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 26% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had grown to 28%. The mining, oil and gas industries in particular grew from 17% of total emissions in 1990 to 21% by 2008.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. simply doesn't have a sector like the tar sands that is poised for explosive pollution growth over the coming years. This alone warrants an approach tailored to the Canadian context if we are to have any chance of meeting emissions reductions targets.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
The painfulness of the U.S. legislative process is notorious, and full credit should be given to the Canadian government for finding a climate dodge that the Canadian media has largely bought by saying it must do nothing on climate since we'll have to harmonize with the U.S. later.
The spill in the Gulf will play short term havoc with the draft Senate Bill, since it had been written with a mind to get moderate Republicans (if that isn't an oxymoron) onside by also promoting offshore drilling. Now, Democrats whose constituents are horrified by the BP spill are likely to harden their stance against offshore drilling, thereby taking away votes that the Bill cannot afford to lose.
This chaos in the Senate is exactly the kind of thing the Canadian government has been counting on - and in addition it can't seem to help itself by taking advantage of the spill to talk up the tar sands.
Yet, while the offshore provisions may change, the draft Senate Bill may still set the tone for other aspects of climate and energy policy in the U.S., aspects that our federal government keeps pledging to copy.
One aspect in particular bears some exploration, since it gets at a big difference between how the U.S. and Canada pollute differently with regards to global warming, and means that if we simply copy U.S. efforts, there's no way we will even meet the weak national emissions reduction target that Ottawa is now promoting.
The draft Senate Bill takes the approach of clamping down on the U.S. electricity sector sooner and harder than on other U.S. industry. Without commenting on the merit of this approach, if Canada were to follow this lead, we'd be doing less than the U.S. since our electricity sector accounts for less than half of what the U.S. electricity sector does on a proportional basis.
See the following pie charts for the difference between the countries (all numbers sourced from EPA and Environment Canada):
Also, consider these trends:
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 30% of US emissions and by 2008 it had grown to 35% of US emissions.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 25% of US emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 19% of US emissions.
· In 1990, the electricity sector accounted for 16% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had shrunk to 15%.
· In 1990, industry accounted for 26% of Canadian emissions, and by 2008 it had grown to 28%. The mining, oil and gas industries in particular grew from 17% of total emissions in 1990 to 21% by 2008.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. simply doesn't have a sector like the tar sands that is poised for explosive pollution growth over the coming years. This alone warrants an approach tailored to the Canadian context if we are to have any chance of meeting emissions reductions targets.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Love the Piano Scene
Just as James Cameron, director of Avatar, says that the tar sands are giving Canada a "black eye," comes a mock 'Avatarsands' video.
I love the piano scene:
I love the piano scene:
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Throne Speech - Canada Falling Behind
It's pretty amazing in this day and age that you can have a section of a speech titled "Building the Jobs and Industries of the Future" and then in that section fail to recognize that the world's next industrial revolution will centre on getting carbon out of our economy.
Yet, this is exactly what today's Throne Speech by the Harper government does. Worse, in service of becoming a "clean energy superpower" the government promises to soften rules on energy exploitation. Many would say that the tar sands industry, for example, is already out of control, in part due to the failure of the federal government to enforce laws now on the books.
The speech does promise to invest in clean energy technologies, but fails to say whether this involves recapitalizing the successful ecoEnergy program that has now run out of money, or whether this will instead be more money for unproven carbon capture and storage programs.
The Speech closes by lauding the incredibly weak Copenhagen accord, and consistent with that, fails to articulate how - or even whether - it will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in Canada.
In all, a disappointing but not surprising speech by a government that seems frozen in the past while our competitors jump ahead in creating the new energy economy of tomorrow.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Yet, this is exactly what today's Throne Speech by the Harper government does. Worse, in service of becoming a "clean energy superpower" the government promises to soften rules on energy exploitation. Many would say that the tar sands industry, for example, is already out of control, in part due to the failure of the federal government to enforce laws now on the books.
The speech does promise to invest in clean energy technologies, but fails to say whether this involves recapitalizing the successful ecoEnergy program that has now run out of money, or whether this will instead be more money for unproven carbon capture and storage programs.
The Speech closes by lauding the incredibly weak Copenhagen accord, and consistent with that, fails to articulate how - or even whether - it will reduce greenhouse gas pollution in Canada.
In all, a disappointing but not surprising speech by a government that seems frozen in the past while our competitors jump ahead in creating the new energy economy of tomorrow.
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence Canada
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
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
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
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Harper Prorogues the Planet
Fearing embarrassing questions about why there's no winter at the winter Olympics, Stephen Harper prorogued the planet today. The Canadian public reacted with predictable outrage, with several thousand people unfriending the Prime Minister on Facebook, wiping out all the gains he made by singing the Beatles.
"We needed the time to recalibrate," said the Prime Minister, "And by that I mean approving a bunch more tar sands projects while I distract everyone by saying our emissions targets are just like the Americans."
The opposition parties reacted by promising to show up on the planet anyway so that they could keep fighting with each other about the best way to save it. "We refuse to accept that Harper can unilaterally suspend his divide and conquer campaign against us," said an opposition spokesperson, "So we'll show up at work as usual, at each other's throats until the planet is cooked permanently."
As imagined by:
Matt Price
Policy Director
Environmental Defence
"We needed the time to recalibrate," said the Prime Minister, "And by that I mean approving a bunch more tar sands projects while I distract everyone by saying our emissions targets are just like the Americans."
The opposition parties reacted by promising to show up on the planet anyway so that they could keep fighting with each other about the best way to save it. "We refuse to accept that Harper can unilaterally suspend his divide and conquer campaign against us," said an opposition spokesperson, "So we'll show up at work as usual, at each other's throats until the planet is cooked permanently."
As imagined by:
Matt Price
Policy Director
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
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 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
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
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
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
