We're all very excited here in Halton that two of our Young Liberals have been selected as youth delegates to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
Ashley Bigda and Matt Juniper were recently featured in the local papers, and now they have their very own blog to share their adventures with us:
Drop in and say hi! Or better yet, come on down to their "Clean, Green, & Prosperous" event on Wednesday night here in Milton, where you can talk to them about what you would like to see accomplished at the conference.
I finally got around to leaving that phone message for Stephen Harper today about the importance of taking serious action on climate change.
Unfortunately, I'm having some trouble uploading it to David Suzuki's website. I tried several times to register, but for some reason their email verification isn't getting through to me. I even tried a different email address - no luck. So if anyone has an account over at the David Suzuki Foundation, please upload my video for me. Thanks!
There's article today in the New Brunswick Times & Transcript talking about a Green Shift Road Show meeting between Liberal MPs and representatives of New Brunswick's agricultural community.
Yesterday's discussion was certainly lively, as the Liberals' plan was met with its share of criticism by the gathered agricultural community.
"What farmers are facing as a result of the Green Shift is a considerable increase in input costs, whether it's a result of fuel that farmers use or even as a result of how much their input costs may go up as a result of this carbon tax," says Bob Friesen, CFA president. "What we're basically saying is look, agriculture already provides a lot of carbon sequestration, farmers have done all kinds of things to create more carbon sinks... We're saying, look, there's got to be some calculations here that agriculture provides this -- they're the solution providers, so why tax them?"
Easter says a carbon tax exemption isn't likely to happen.
"I was on a series of meetings in the farm community last week and had farmers say to me if there's an exemption made for us we would be looked down on by the rest of society," Easter says. "Let's find the way of recognizing the cost impact on the farm community of this program and ensure that on the benefit impact at the end of the day there's economic opportunities for farmers and they receive their just due."
Easter says the platform will include other incentives for alternatives such as carbon sinks, biofuels, anaerobic digesters and wind power.
Despite his concerns, Friesen says he was still pleased the Liberal MPs came to speak with the industry.
"I think it was a positive thing that they came here and are prepared to listen to the farm leaders across Canada and they are prepared to go back and to analyze where they could improve (the plan) for agriculture," he says.
And here's the headline:
Agriculture industry opposes Green Shift
Groan. Honestly, did anyone even read the article before coming up with that one? Or maybe someone was just trying to put their own spin on things.
The effect of a carbon tax on farmers concerns me as well, but the fact is, modern agriculture just isn't as 'green' as people like to think. Large industrial farms go through a huge amount of oil and gas for both equipment and fertilizer, not to mention the negative environmental effects of excessive irrigation and pesticide use, soil depletion, etc., etc. Smaller farms are better, but are still frequently at the mercy of hybrid seed suppliers pushing sterile seeds that require massive amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides just to survive.
(Yes, I confess - I'm in the middle of reading "The End of Food". Shut up.)
But really, the industry needs to find a better way. It needs to go smaller, with more diversification. It needs to get off this obsession with "yield" and recognize the true costs of the Monsanto school of farming. The cost of carbon, the cost of fertilizer and pesticide, the cost to the land, and the cost to the actual nutritional value of these so-called "high yield" crops, which is making them bigger but almost completely devoid of nutrients.
Putting a price on carbon is a start, but there needs to be a far more comprehensive plan to transform agriculture in this country and wean it away from the current unsustainable system. Not necessarily promoting full-on "organic" farming per se, but certainly a program of incentives towards the more traditional family farm would be in order, and would ultimately be financially beneficial to the farmers themselves.
You may recall this incident back in January down at the U.S. Senate Environment Committee. At the time, Senator Barbara Boxer took EPA head Stephen Johnson to task for his decision to deny the State of California a waiver allowing them to independently impose stricter GHG emission standards under the Clean Air Act. This, despite the unanimous recommendation by his own staff that the waiver be granted.
At the time, Johnson was taking some pretty extraordinary obstructionist measures to cover his own ass and the asses of his bosses in the Whitehouse - including covering relevant documents with reams of white tape.
"Mr. Johnson has consistently chosen special interests over the American people's interests in protecting health and safety. He has become a secretive and dangerous ally of polluters, and we cannot stand by and allow more damage to be done. We have lost all confidence in Stephen Johnson's ability to carry out EPA's mission in accordance with the law. I call on Administrator Johnson to immediately resign his position."
On top of all that, they are also calling upon the Attorney General to investigate "inconsistencies" in Johnson's testimony that could potentially lead to charges of perjury.
In sworn testimony before the Committee, Administrator Johnson stated that he based his decision on California's failure to meet criteria required under the Clean Air Act, and said that the decision was "mine and mine alone."
... However, former Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett testified last week that Mr. Johnson had in fact determined that California had met Clean Air Act criteria necessary for approval of the waiver, and had communicated to the Administration that he intended to grant the waiver in part. Mr. Burnett further testified that Administrator Johnson only reversed course and denied the waiver after White House officials informed him of President Bush's "policy preference" for a single regulatory system - even though the Clean Air Act clearly contemplates a dual system in cases where the statutory criteria for the waiver are met.
Wow. It's all starting to come apart, isn't it? Makes you wonder how many other Bush loyalists who were 'just following orders' might find themselves facing charges in the months and years to come.
I've never been a big fan of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, but you've got to admit - if they that something is good for business, chances are it's good for business.
So when CCCE head Thomas d'Aquino suggests that Canada needs to get its act together and decide on a single, national plan to deal with carbon emissions, one would hope that politicians and captains of industry alike would sit up and take notice. Especially when he is making these statements in front of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.
In the absence of an integrated national plan, d'Aquino said different levels of government need to do a better job of integrating and coordinating their approaches.
In the regard, d'Aquino said Canada needs to pursue what he called environmental federalism. "Priority No. 1 is to come up with some sort of cohesion in our national plan," d'Aquino said.
Even more remarkably, he goes on to say,
"The climate change change debate should not been seen as a threat, but as a huge opportunity for all of us."
Given that the CCCE represents, by definition, the interests of corporations rather than people, it's hardly surprising that d'Aquino is expressing confidence that Canada can reach a technological solution "rather than curtailing growth". And he sees pros and cons in both the Liberal and Conservative plans to limit carbon emissions.
Still, it was interesting seeing his concerns about Canada being hurt economically by this lack of consensus echoed only a week later by the CEO of Norway's StatoilHydro:
Speaking to the World Petroleum Congress, Helge Lund said the lack of a clear carbon reduction strategy has prompted the company to put off the upgrading portion of its integrated oilsands project until 2016, two years later than planned.
"Making an upgrader investment decision is a huge undertaking and the fact that there is uncertainty related to the future regulatory regime, including the cost of CO2, we need more clarity on that before we can make a final decision," he said.
Norway, of course, has a $60/tonne carbon tax, and Statoil has done very well there by becoming a world leader in carbon capture and sequestration technology.
The message from both men is clear. Business and industry, particularly the energy industry, fully expect to pay a price for carbon, one way or another. They just want to be told how much.
With so many people, bloggers and otherwise, either defending the Liberals' 'Green Shift' plan uncritically or dismissing it out of hand - with their positions almost always based on party affiliation - I cannot tell you how refreshing it was to read the following from Devin Johnston:
Stéphane Dion has asked Canadians to engage in an honest discussion of his "Green Shift" carbon tax proposal. I thank the Liberal leader for his maturity in engaging in an open policy discussion of a matter of critical importance to the country, unlike the Conservative government which has adopted the strategy of inaction and denial on the climate change issue, while using immature and dishonest rhetoric rather than substantive policy analysis in opposing Dion's proposal. While I ultimately conclude for reasons to follow that the proposal as it currently stands is bad policy, the potential exists for the Liberals and NDP to come together to create broader-ranging, multifaceted plan that makes better policy sense. I encourage both parties to seriously examine this "third option" instead of allowing their differences to prevent substantial action from being taken (as was the case on the Afghanistan file.)
He goes on to provide some of the most intelligent and thoughtful analysis I've read so far on this issue, discussing the pros and cons of not only the Liberal plan but the NDP plan as well, and making some concrete suggestions as to how the best elements of both might be combined.
Before proceeding to some of the pros and cons in general terms, though, it should be pointed out that there is nothing incompatible about these policy options. A hybrid system in which there is a hard cap and emissions under that cap are taxed is possible. Moreover, neither one of these options is viable in and of itself. Any basis policy framework aimed at reducing carbon emissions must also be supplemented by additional measures such as investments in green technology and low-interest loans for home retrofitting (just to give two examples.) Moreover, both increase the cost of goods and thereby distribute the burdens addressing climate change on to individuals, leaving lower income persons particularly at risk. Therefore, climate change policies must include provisions that soften the blow to the working poor, who are often not in a position to adapt to a less carbon-intensive lifestyle.
It goes on, with even most of the commenters making rational, productive contributions to the discussion. Read and learn.
I've been cruising around the blogosphere trying to find legitimate arguments against the Liberal 'Green Shift' plan. It hasn't been easy, let me tell you. Even my buddy Raph has been reduced to comments like this:
Laugh. Out. Freaking. Loud.
$60 in inflation? That's it? Come on Jennifer, you know you are too intelligent to buy that. Can you see a massive carbon tax contributing a mere $5 extra per month to your spending? $5 a day more like.
I may have been a little... short with him in response. But at least he has an excuse - he doesn't actually believe in all this global warming crap anyway.
The LOL thing seems to be a common theme, BTW. Even the Conservative radio ads (which, of course, were written before any of them actually read the plan) are just two people laughing at Dion and his crazy 'Tax On Everything'. As my husband put it so well, their entire argument amounts to nothing more than, "Yeah? Well, you smell!"
There have been a couple of exceptions, mostly from the Progressive end of the pool. JimBobby will be happy to tell you exactly why the Liberal plan is ok but the Green plan is WAY better. And John Murney is very concerned about how this will affect Saskatchewan - it's people, its energy industry, and its hopes of ever electing another Liberal. Ever.
Even in that case, there are assumptions being made that are either a) patently incorrect, or b) unclear from the text posted on the website. Most of the obvious fallacies have to do with the notion that gasoline will be taxed under this scheme, so I'll say it slowly for the hard of hearing: NO. NEW. TAXES. ON. GASOLINE.
As for the rest, yes, there are questions. Questions I'd like the answer to. Here are a few:
1) At what point in the chain will the carbon tax be charged? It sounds like it is going to be charged to the end user of the oil, gas, coal, etc., but it isn't entirely clear. Murney quotes an editorial that claims the refineries are going to have to pay for the gasoline they produce, but I don't believe that's true. Is it?
2) There is a mention of a Carbon Tariff on imports in the plan, but it's all a little vague. One would think that adding a carbon tax to domestic products would only make cheap imports shipped from thousands of miles away that much more attractive - unless the carbon emitted through their shipping and manufacture was also taxed or tariffed. Will this be done, or is it just a suggestion?
3) What about Dion's 'Carbon Budget', unveiled over a year ago in this very town? Does the Green Shift replace that plan or complement it? If the latter, would the $20-$30 levy on the excess CO2 from large emitters be instead of, or in addition to, the carbon tax?
4) How exactly did they arrive at the estimate of $60 - $240 per year per household in increased consumer costs? (excluding home heating, propane and other direct fossil fuel purchases) In my brief debate/cat fight with Raph, I made some attempt to figure out exactly what those added costs might be based on the fact that the average Canadian has a carbon footprint of about 20 tonnes/person/year and stripping out gasoline and home heating. Even for me with my tiny impoverished footprint it still worked out to more, although still much less than the tax savings. What formula are they using?
Happily, I ran into Garth Turner at the Milton Strawberry Festival yesterday and managed to get a couple of answers before we were so rudely interrupted by the bagpipes. I should have the video up sometime Monday.
I'm not going to get into a point by point analysis of the Liberals' new 'Green Shift' plan that was unveiled today to much fanfare. From what I saw today and have read in the extended lead-up, it looks like a smart approach and hopefully bold enough to make a real difference. But I'm sure there will be plenty of people chewing it up and spitting it out over the next few days, so I'll leave them to it.
What I did want to mention was the video now posted at thegreenshift.ca. It's very slick - downright inspiring, in fact. Nice job. I'm guessing this is going to form the basis for an upcoming advertising campaign. No wonder the Conservatives are scared. I thought it was an especially nice touch including the shot of the Last Spike, given Ignatieff's recent reference to our national railway when talking about an east-west oil and electrical corridor.
Another shot that I found interesting was this one:
I'm pretty sure that's the ZENN Motor Company plant. Nice.
I know you're probably sick of me going on about this car, but I was listening to an interview with company president Ian Clifford talking about the company's plans for the future and their alliance with EEstor, a Houston-based company that is in the final stages of developing a truly revolutionary solid-state energy storage system (not a battery; it's sort of a ceramic super-capacitor). The combination will result in an electric car capable of above highway speeds and a 250-500 mile range on a five minute charge - at a reasonable cost, light weight, and no nasty chemicals in the battery.
Wow.
It got me thinking about that CBC mini-series about the Avro Arrow. Yes, yes, I know, it was all rosy and filled with inaccuracies. It's TV - whatever. But one scene always stuck with me, even though it was obviously created by the writers. The boss has just found out that the Arrow is doomed, and one of his engineers (who doesn't know yet) comes in to talk to him about all these cool ideas he's had based on the technology and design innovations they've developed with the Arrow.
He talks about how, with a little tinkering, the Arrow could be modified for use as a low-orbit space platform. He even pulls out a very space shuttle-like model of a beefed-up Arrow to show how it could roll over with its belly to space to deploy satellites and even, someday, a craft to take us to the moon.
He's obviously excited at the prospect of Canada taking the lead in aerospace technology, and all the while his boss is sitting there with a tragic look on his face, knowing it will never come to pass.
Fiction or not, that scene keeps coming back to me as I read about the incredible potential of this company and companies like it. Imagine if the ZENN was actually supported by this province and this country. What if it really took off? What if EEstor decided to move its operations to Ontario? What if other electric car companies started popping up and moving here, even developing other technologies and products based on EEstor electric storage? What if all those empty truck and SUV plants started producing electric vehicles - 100% Canadian vehicles? What if Ontario became the new Detroit of the electric transportation industry?
Now, what if the Ontario government continues to drag its heels until ZENN just gets fed up and moves to the U.S.?
First BC, and now Quebec has approved the use of low-speed electric ZENN cars (as well as Quebec-made Nemo trucks) on public streets with speed limits of 50km/h and under. They still need those orange 'horse-cart' triangles on the back and they're required to stick to the right lane unless turning, but in general they're good to go.
And still, we in Ontario must wait. Wait for Transport Minister Jim Bradley to follow through on his promise last fall to expedite our own pilot program and allow this much needed, environmentally sound, Ontario made vehicle on the streets of our own towns and cities. Wait for a province in the midst of a manufacturing jobs crisis to get off its collective ass and throw its support behind what could become the seed of a whole new, environmentally friendly, advanced green technology-based industry, entirely independent of the dinosaurs of Detroit.
Now. Right now. Before ZENN finally gives up and moves to the U.S. Where people can actually drive their cars.
Let me start by saying that despite living in the Sprawl Capital of Canada, my family and I really do have a reasonably small ecological footprint - mostly due to our living within spitting distance of the poverty line most of the year.
We live in a very small house with lots of big trees around it. We do not have central air - only a single window unit. We are self-employed and therefore do not commute. Our son has always walked to school. Only one of us has been on an airplane in the past eight years. We don't own a dishwasher. We do own a washer and dryer, but they haven't worked in years so we do our laundry at the laundromat. And our laundromat uses SOLAR HEATED WATER! Pretty cool, huh?
You might recall my mentioning that our one vehicle is one of these...
... which we really do need for transporting crap to and from shows and film sets for our respective businesses. Yeah, it sucks gas like nobody's business and it really would be nice to have a second, much smaller car for daily use, but like I said - we're broke.
Last week my dad gave us an incredibly generous gift. He was getting a new car and offered to give us his old one. We could hardly turn him down, and it really is nice to have a second vehicle even though we can't afford to keep both indefinitely.
It gets better gas mileage than the Safari, although only slightly - about 15% better. It's still big enough for most business-related purposes, plus it's got all sorts of cool features like heated seats, a sunroof, driver's side air bag, computerized everything, and it even remembers who I am when I get in and adjusts the seat and mirrors accordingly.
There's only one problem. It's one of these:
I can't even bring myself to say the 'S'-word, so I've decided to refer to it as the VLC. Short for Very Large Car.
I feel so... dirty. I think I'll go ride my bike some more.
I've been following the saga of the ZENN car fairly closely, but I hadn't seen or heard anything since December when Transport Canada lumped the ZENN in the same category as a golf cart. I wasn't able to find anything more recent online, so I decided to try something radical and ask my MPP Ted Chudleigh to check into it for me.
I'll admit, I've been a little spoiled living in Halton, where we happen to have an unusually responsive federal Member of Parliament. I had no idea what to expect from his Provincial counterpart, but I was pleasantly surprised when Mr. Chudleigh got back to me within a week. Almost makes me wish I'd voted for the guy (almost).
Ted ('can I call you Ted?') said that he would forward my inquiry to the Ministry of Transportation, and so he did. I got their response in the mail today, via Susan Lo of the Safety Policy and Education Branch. Sadly, her response left a little to be desired, as it was largely a rehashing of information from their website and a reiteration of Transport Canada's feeble arguments about 'safety concerns'.
I have written the following response, and have forwarded a copy to Ted. I'll let you know if anything comes of it.
Dear Ms. Lo,
Thank you for responding to my query. Unfortunately, the information you provided is several months old and doesn’t address my question of what is happening right now regarding the ZENN car in Ontario.
Back in November, the Minister of Transportation was quoted as follows:
"Our government is certainly excited about the possibility of using low-speed cars with low emissions and a smaller environmental footprint," Bradley said in an interview.
"We certainly would like to see that happen as soon as possible, and I've asked MTO to work with ZENN and similar manufacturers to work through the safety issues. I'm optimistic we can work through them."
In that same article, he was also quoted as saying that Ontario would not be waiting for the pilot project in provincial parks to finish in 2011 before taking action on the ZENN. Is this still the case? If it is, what steps is he taking to facilitate the process?
As for safety standards, I find it bizarre that a fully enclosed, aluminum chassis vehicle that meets or exceeds FMVSS500 standards in the U.S. would be considered unsafe on 50 km/hr streets, while motorcycles are allowed on 400-series highways alongside transport trucks.
I am aware of Transport Canada's stated reasons for giving the ZENN the same safety approval rating as a golf cart. I can only assume that they are having trouble classifying it, since there has probably never been anything like it presented to them before. I don’t know if the solution is to change the rules for passenger vehicles to account for where and how fast they would be driven, or if it would be necessary to create a whole new class of low-speed vehicle, but they obviously need to start being a little more flexible in the face of new technology.
What I do not understand is why Ontario isn’t following British Columbia’s lead by creating its own legislation to allow ZENN cars on low speed-limit, neighbourhood roads - as they were intended.
If the Government of Ontario really is serious about addressing climate change, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, improving public health, and supporting what could become a major all-Canadian manufacturing presence in this province, then please let me know exactly what steps are being taken to follow through on the Minister’s assurances about "working through the safety issues" and bring the ZENN to Ontario’s streets.
I don't know how the rest of Milton fared in observing Earth Hour last night, but we of the Milton Choristers did our bit despite the rather awkward timing of the event in the middle of our concert. We turned out all the lights at 8:00, processed back into the church by candlelight, and sang a lovely arrangement of 'What a Wonderful World / This Is My Father's World' along with our angelic-voiced child soloist.
Unfortunately this didn't take up the entire hour, and since we didn't have the Schubert memorized we had to put the lights back on a little early. Still, it was more than Stephen Harper could be bothered to do.
_________________________
JOHN MCCAIN: CONSERVATIVE MEAT PUPPET
Just when you thought no U.S. politician could possibly be any stupider than George W. Bush, the Republicans manage to find themselves another one.
The Dr. Coburn he refers to would be Senator Tom Coburn, head of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS, whose knowledge of science and medicine is only exceeded by his overwhelming ideological fervour in promoting abstinence-only programs, dismissing the effectiveness of condoms in the prevention of STDs, advocating the death penalty for abortionists, and warning us all about the icky icky gay agenda.
I can't wait to find out who's been advising McCain on foreign policy.
__________________________
BETTER LATE THAN NEVER: THE TEXAS CAUCUS RESULTS
The media seems to have forgotten all about Texas after Clinton took the primaries and was declared the winner. However, Texas has both primaries and caucuses, the latter of which have taken a ridiculously long time to calculate given the vagaries of the 'Texas Two-Step' system.
Although preliminary results were released soon after the caucuses were held on March 4th, it was only yesterday that Texas started their caucus conventions to officially sort out their delegate counts. And guess what? It looks like Hillary didn't take Texas after all.
Numbers are still coming in and it is still uncertain how this will all wash out in terms of total Texas delegates. However, most projections are putting Obama 1-3 delegates ahead by the end. Not a big margin to be sure, but then again it's Clinton who has been making such hay out of her "winning all the big states".
After putting his state way out front in the battle against global warming by legislating strict GHG emission standards on cars in California (and fighting the EPA and the federal government tooth and nail to do it), Arnie is taking the same approach with another environmental issue:
Once again, the California state government of Arnold Schwarzenegger has stuck its neck out for the environment. Amidst federal movement toward a continental approach to toxics regulation -- the so-called "Montebello Agreement" -- California is exploring "a wholesale shift" in the way industry manufactures everything from prescription drugs to plastics, pesticides and household cleaners.
"In an effort to reduce industry's reliance on toxic compounds, state environmental officials today will lay out a framework for transforming California into a leader in the development and use of 'green' chemicals," wrote the Los Angeles Times last week.
"The goal is to blast California way ahead of the world," Maureen Gorsen, director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, told the paper. "We're trying to develop an entirely new state policy framework to move California to a... sustainable society. No government's ever done that."
You know, if he keeps this up they're going to take away his key to the Republican bathroom.
The article is well worth reading in its entirety because it outlines the fundamental difference between the U.S. 'risk management' approach to regulation, which puts the onus on the EPA to prove a chemical is dangerous, and the European 'precautionary' model, which puts the onus on the chemical company to prove that it isn't.
You can guess which model the Bush and Harper governments prefer.
From the sounds of it, Arnie is going to have a fight on his hands over this one as well. The chemical industry is lobbying hard against European-style regulations and encouraging the U.S. government to "preempt state laws on chemicals" - just like the auto industry lobbied against a "patchwork" of state laws on GHG emissions. And even assuming a regime change on both sides of the border within the next year, I'm not naive enough to think that these corporate interests are going to lose their political influence any time soon.
The irony is, the chemical industry is already adapting itself to a greener way - partly because of stricter European regulations and partly because of the soaring costs of petrochemicals. But with the American economy tanking and many Canadian businesses looking to Europe to help soften the blow, our government's regressive attitude towards regulatory policy might just shut us out of the European market altogether. At which point the Americans may just go from being our largest trading partner to being our only trading partner.
I'm not sure why, but I seem to have developed a reputation as some sort of environmentalist in this town. People invite me to join eco-friendly Facebook groups and hand me business cards for naturopaths and organic food distributors all the time. It might have been this letter I wrote to the Champion a while back, or my attendance at Turner's little 'EcoSummit' last year. Or maybe it's just my general leftist tendencies in this largely centre-right rural town.
I assure you, this green reputation is entirely unwarranted.
Ok, so I bitch a lot about urban sprawl (who doesn't?), I've scolded the produce manager at the Loblaw's for mis-labelling Mexican peppers as 'Product of Canada', and I've taken to riding my bike everywhere I can. But that's mostly for the exercise. And not in the winter. And I'm lazy.
The sad fact is, this is my ride:
(ok, not mine per se - mine isn't that clean)
Now before you start wagging your finger at me, you should know that my husband and I are both self-employed, and my husband's business (and mine up until a year ago) involves transporting large bins of saleable goods, tents, tables and display units to various trade shows, conventions and film locations. We need a van - specifically a van that can take a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood.
Unfortunately we can't afford to buy and maintain a second, smaller vehicle right now, and Milton is currently in the process of moving every grocery store, hardware store and office supply store to the outer reaches of our universe. So it's either drive our gas-guzzling behemoth on short trips around town, or get ourselves a bicycle with a motor, a roof, a heater and a REALLY big basket.
Dear Mr. McGuinty: I really, REALLY want a ZENN. Please approve them immediately. It's electric, it's affordable, and it's Canadian. It's a no-brainer. I don't give a crap if I can't take it on the highway - we have the van for that.
Admittedly, I would be happier if their top speed was 50 kph instead of 40 kph. After all, my street is 50 kph (40 by the school), and already I get assholes honking at me and trying to pass when I insist on adhering to the speed limit. Still, I'd be willing to put up with it if I could just buy my groceries without either getting soaked in the rain on my bike or being overwhelmed with eco-guilt for killing my grandchildren.
So here is my pledge: When the ZENN becomes available in Ontario, and assuming it stays somewhere within the $12,000 price range, I WILL BUY ONE.
I'm getting conflicting reports as to whether the speed limitations of the ZENN are due to the battery technology or a quirk of the licensing regulations in the U.S., but I have the impression that a 10 kph bump is do-able at some point in the future.
In the meantime, I could just get myself a new bumper sticker.
While most of the Big Dogs in the U.S. blogosphere are busy obsessing over polls and primaries, some folks at Talking Points Memo Muckraker are actually following the drama currently being played out in the Senate environmental committee.
This is all over the EPA’s decision to refuse to allow California to impose its own, tougher greenhouse gas emission standards last December. In case you missed it, California had applied for a waiver allowing them to impose stricter GHG emission standards, and by extension fuel efficiency standards, than those which applied to the rest of the country (the ‘waiver’ procedure is part of the fine print in the Clean Air Act). Such EPA waivers have always been granted to California because it is recognized that their unique geography and insane number of cars on the road require extraordinary measures when it comes to reducing air pollution.
EPA staff unanimously agreed that the waiver should be granted in this case, but much to their surprise their boss, Bush appointee Stephen Johnson went against their recommendations and announced that he would be denying California’s request, tying it all neatly into Bush’s new energy bill in a rather self-congratulatory press release:
(Washington, D.C. – December 19, 2007) The Bush Administration is moving forward with a national solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from American vehicles. The new energy legislation passed by Congress and signed by President Bush this week provides a federal fuel economy standard that offers environmental benefits, energy security and economic certainty for the nation.
"The Bush Administration is moving forward with a clear national solution – not a confusing patchwork of state rules – to reduce America’s climate footprint from vehicles," said U.S. EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. "President Bush and Congress have set the bar high, and, when fully implemented, our federal fuel economy standard will achieve significant benefits by applying to all 50 states."
Johnson is being called up on the carpet by the Senate environmental committee, who want him to not only explain how he arrived at this bizarre decision, but to justify his going against the unanimous recommendations of his staff. This of course would require an actual copy of the staff’s recommendations, which the EPA has been loathe to provide. They even came up with a variation of the ‘executive privilege’ excuse after they handed over a stack of papers that were completely blank except for the titles. Everything else, said Johnson, would cause "needless public confusion about the Administrator’s decision that EPA will be denying California’s request"
You’d think this was the Department of Defense and not the EPA.
Johnson finally agreed to let Senate committee members have a peek at the unredacted documents - but only if the documents weren’t photocopied or removed from the EPA offices. So Sen. Boxer and her staff went on a little field trip, only to discover that the documents had been almost completely covered over with white tape.
Boxer is pissed. Today she tore a strip out of Johnson, confronting him with a rather large ball of white tape:
What she and the committee found under all that tape were facts and conclusions that completely contradict the arguments put forward by Johnson, as well as predictions that a denial decision would result in a lawsuit that the EPA would likely lose.
And so it has.
Something to keep in mind if Flaherty and Baird ever try to actively prevent Quebec and other provinces from implementing their own California-type standards.
"Rather than wait for litigation to reach its preordained conclusion, Senate environmental committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has introduced a bill that would overrule EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson and instruct him to grant California's waiver."
Those pesky Conservatives have sure been busy busy busy over the past couple of days. Where to begin...
CANADA: LEADING THE WAY IN FOLLOWING GEORGE BUSH
Here we go. Remember a couple of days ago when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty inexplicably took it upon himself to criticize Quebec for trying to bring in tough new California-style greenhouse gas emission standards?
OTTAWA — Canada's auto makers as well as consumers are keen to see new fuel economy standards applied on a national basis, says federal Transport Minister Lawrence Cannon.
"Industry and the average Canadian, they all want to have a national standard," Mr. Cannon said this morning at the unveiling of a 60-day consultation process aimed at developing a fuel-economy target by 2020.
The goal is a target that "achieves at a minimum" recently enacted legislation in the U.S. Congress calling for auto makers' fleets to average 35 miles per gallon, or 6.7 litres per 100 kilometres, by the year 2020.
Mr. Cannon conceded that some provinces have struck out with their own fuel-economy programs but said he believes a common standard can be worked out in the talks.
Quebec, for example, has said it wants to move to more stringent standards such as those being proposed in California
But Mr. Cannon pointed out that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has launched a court challenge against the California measures and that it makes more sense to use the U.S. Congress legislation as the benchmark. The new U.S. standard falls well short of the regulations proposed by California.
One would hope that Harper wouldn't take it any further than simply suggesting that provinces stick with the federal standards, but given his recent fondness for draconian, bully-boy measures whenever his will is defied, I wouldn't put it past him to try to force the issue.
In which case Quebec can do what Arnie and the State of California are doing: sue the bastards.
MORE CNSC FALLOUT
The National Post (The National Post?!?) has published an op-ed piece that soundly criticizes Harper and Lunn and suggests what we bloggers have been saying all along - that this has nothing to do with the 'health and safety of Canadians' and everything to do with getting Keen out of the way of the government's plans to privatize AECL.
We also have op-eds in the Star and the Globe and Mail saying essentially the same thing. But of course most people don't read newspapers or blogs and there's nothing about the privatization scheme or a profit motive in any of the 30 second news 'stories' on the TV, so chances are nobody will notice.
BTW, correct me if I'm wrong, but it occurs to me that 11:00 p.m. is the optimal time to put out a press release if one wants to ensure that it does NOT make it onto the front page of the paper the next morning. Funny, that.
NEW WRINKLE IN CANADARM SALE
Last week's story about MacDonald, Dettwiler's sale of its satellite and space technology division to U.S. firm Alliant Techsystems (ATK) managed to leave out this little nugget:
The company they sold this stuff to makes, among other things, LANDMINES.
Aside from the obvious ethical problems with having technology funded by Canadian tax dollars being sold to a major arms manufacturer, there's the little matter of that anti-land mine treaty Canada signed on to that might just make the whole deal illegal.
Apparently it isn't just all other countries that need to be on board before the Conservatives will do anything about global warming. The same theory now applies to provinces as well:
Apparently the Bush-appointed head of the EPA reached his decision, which went against the wishes and advise of his staff, soon after Dick Cheney met with auto industry executives who presented him with a letter explaining why it would be wrong to allow individual states to set greenhouse gas emission standards on their cars.
I'm guessing all it took for Flaherty to reach the same conclusion was a quick peek across the border to see what the Americans were doing. And then copy down that whole 'patchwork' thing. 'Cause that sounded pretty good.
And by the way, isn't Jim Flaherty the Finance Minister?!? Shouldn't the Minister of the Environment be dealing with this? Or Industry? Or Intergovernmental Affairs? Or... well, anybody else?
I have an open file on my computer called 'blogpost.doc'. It's like a notebook into which I paste links to articles and posts that catch my eye, sometimes adding a title or a few of my own thoughts as a preliminary step towards writing a blog post. Some of these evolve into actual posts, but sometimes they simply languish as the news marches on and other bloggers say whatever it was I wanted to say first, and better.
Or I just get lazy and forget about them.
I thought it might be interesting to browse through these abandoned links and share some of them with y'all. Sort of a combination year-end retrospective and writer's housecleaning. Enjoy!
Latest US solution to Iraq's civil war: a three-mile wall
The US military is building a three-mile concrete wall in the centre of Baghdad along the most murderous faultline between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
The wall, which recognizes the reality of the hardening sectarian divide in Baghdad, is a central part of George Bush's final push to pacify the capital. Work began on April 10 under cover of darkness and is due for completion by the end of the month.
The highly symbolic wall has evoked comparisons to the barriers dividing Protestants and Catholics in Belfast and Israelis and Palestinians along the length of the West Bank.
May 3rd: It’s not easy being green
John Baird seems to be having a tough time finding anyone to support his new, ‘aggressive’ environmental plan. David Suzuki hates it, and finally caught up with Baird to tell him so in person, despite concerted efforts by the PMO to avoid that particular confrontation. Al Gore, obviously wary of having his words misconstrued again, called the plan "a complete and total fraud". Even economists who had once supported the Tories are now backing away from Baird’s plan, saying it’s too full of loopholes to actually have much of an effect and that his claim that Kyoto will cost billions and spark a recession is "an extremely simplistic calculation".
...Bill C-288 could force the federal government to take action to meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
The bill has had little media attention, but legal experts say it actually has the power to force the Conservative government to meet Kyoto targets, something the Harper government has repeatedly said it cannot and will not do.
"This is the one thing that the Conservatives can't circumvent," said Lalonde, a translator from Notre Dame de Grace who launched the petition campaign last week on his EcoContribution website. "Once it's law, it's law."
Bill C-288 would do two important things if it became law: It would force the government to publish a plan to meet its Kyoto targets within 60 days of its enactment, and to enact legislation within six months that would enable Canada to meet those targets.
(It passed, of course, and the Conservatives did... nothing. Let's see if it actually ends up in the courts this year.)
May 19th: Tony Rosato
As a long time SCTV fan, this story made me very, very sad:
KINGSTON–Former television star Tony Rosato moved a step closer yesterday to getting out of the jail cell where he has been held without trial for the last two years.
Rosato, a one-time star of SCTV and Saturday Night Live, appeared in Superior Court – less than a week after his plight was reported in the Sunday Star – to make a bid for a bail review. His trial on charges of criminal harassment is set for November.
News of the comedian's plight shocked civil libertarians and his show business friends who say he should be held in a hospital until his trial.
The federal government plans to give an unspecified number of American police agents carte blanche to carry guns in Canada. It insists that in the post-9/11 world it is just being sensible. It is not.
Few things are more crucial to a nation's sovereignty than its control over legalized violence. It is quite often lawful for the police to shoot you. It is almost never lawful for you to shoot the police. We accept that arrangement only because those who have been given this remarkable life and death authority are in some sense "ours" – they are responsible to governments that we elect.
Ottawa's plan would dramatically change this relationship. It would introduce a whole new array of armed peace officers into this country that are answerable to a foreign power.
Stephen Harper's government, which quietly published these proposed regulatory changes in its Canada Gazette last weekend, suggests the move is designed primarily to accommodate armed air marshals who routinely fly back and forth across the border. But it also says the arrangement would apply to other situations, including "various cross-border enforcement initiatives between Canada and the United States."
Ah, yes. More of those unimportant "regulatory changes" meant to harmonize our security with that of the U.S. Nothing to see here.
China executed the former head of its food and drug watchdog on Tuesday for approving untested medicine in exchange for cash, the strongest signal yet from Beijing that it is serious about tackling its product safety crisis.
Ahh... I got nuthin.
August 11th: What's a 'Blue Dog', Anyway?
An interesting analysis of the two wings of the Democratic Party, why some Democrats are trying to win by becoming more like Republicans, and why that is a monumentally BAD IDEA. Courtesy of the Daily Kos.
August 11th: Support Our Troops. Unless They're Gay.
ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.
Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off.
Charming.
August 31st: About Those SPP Petitions...
It seems the raison d'être for the big March on Montebello wasn't quite as important to some of the organizers as one might have thought:
Letter to Council of Canadians [Andrea from People's Global Action picked up the CoC's petitions at the anti-SPP demonstration and decided to make a few points while offering to deliver them.]
Dear Maude and Staff at the Council of Canadians,
I just wanted to write to let you know that the 10,000 petitions you delivered with great fanfare to the gates of the Chateau Montebello last week are safe. You know, the ones in the three clear plastic bins with the blue lids. The ones featured in that photo on your website (www.canadians.org).
You are probably frantic right now. You've likely been searching for them since you put them down in front of the line of riot police and retreated back to the family friendly zone when you finished your media scrum and speeches...
Canada's premiers failed to reach agreement on major initiatives to control greenhouse gas emissions, but will move forward on less controversial steps to slow climate change.
The annual premiers' conference ended in Moncton on Friday with the provincial and territorial leaders announcing progress on biofuel development, more study on carbon sinks through tree planting and agriculture, and participation in a climate registry to reliably measure emissions.
They were not able to agree on a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases, which could significantly reduce industrial emissions across the country.
As well, there was no agreement on implementing California-style tailpipe emission standards, which Ontario says can only be done as part of a continental initiative and with financial support from the federal government.
I see. So, instead of actually reducing greenhouse gases, they’ve all agreed to
a) read up on how photosynthesis works, b) accurately measure how much CO2 we’re actually spewing, and c) go right ahead with one of the few alternative energy sources that is as bad or worse than fossil fuels for emitting greenhouse gases, and worse still when the crops are grown in a temperate / northern climate like, say, CANADA.
We're all very excited here in Halton that two of our Young Liberals have been selected as youth delegates to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.
