The Orange and the Green

When provincial NDP leader Andrea Horwath announced this summer that her party wanted to reduce the HST on gasoline, I must say I raised an eyebrow. After all, the NDP is supposed to be (among many other things) an environmentally friendly party, and conventional environmental wisdom states that high gas taxes are an effective way to reduce consumption.

Now, it's one thing to argue against that premise, and certainly many have done just that. But to completely ignore the environmental implications of cutting an energy consumption tax and just drop it straight into the 'saving taxpayers money' file seems a little... well, un-NDPlike.

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so. 

Harper, Energy and the Environment: It's the Politics, Stupid!

This is getting embarrassing.

Up until recently, the best the Harper government could say about our dismal record on climate change, energy and the environment was that we were doing better than the Americans. But now that even the beleaguered Obama administration is making progress on this front, Canada's intransigence is starting to make us look like we're actually moving backwards.

U.S. to impose new emission rules on power plants, refineries

The Obama administration has announced plans to impose new greenhouse-gas emission rules on power plants and refineries, a move that will increase pressure on the Harper government to introduce its own national emissions regulations in 2011.

The U.S. Environment Protection Agency said over the holidays that it will propose emission performance standards for new and existing fossil-fuel facilities this year, despite opposition from Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

The sad thing is, the Harper government's blinkered approach to the environment has translated into a bizarre, visceral aversion to anything remotely resembling a national energy policy. Which, for a party that continues to insist they are the best bet for the Canadian economy, may be their most insanely retrograde policy position yet.

Seriously - when even the oil companies are figuring out that renewables are the way of the future, you'd think their buddies in government would be willing to help them out with some sort of coherent policy that would bring us in line with their international competitors and customers.

Of course, now we have a brand new Environment Minister who might finally... oh, never mind.

With serious action ruled out in advance, the Harper government’s environment minister must be a smooth talker. He must be prepared to repeat things that are demonstrably false – as in Canada will reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 per cent by 2020 from 2005 levels – with a straight face while all those around you are cracking up in derision. When necessary, the minister must bluster.

Peter Kent, a former television presenter, should therefore fit the definition splendidly of what is required of a Harper government environment minister. Since all important decisions are taken by the Prime Minister anyway, it shouldn’t matter that Mr. Kent has no background in the file nor has ever shown any interest in the issues. He is there to rag the puck, so to speak.

To understand the reasoning behind this economically unreasonable position, one need look no further than the poll numbers for Ontario's Liberal government.

Dalton McGuinty has implemented one of the most ambitious and progressive energy policies in North America, and although it's not without its flaws (cough... nuclear... cough), lo and behold it seems that it's actually working. He's implemented a feed-in tariff, similar to systems in Europe, that has resulted in a boom in renewable energy projects and the creation of thousands of much needed manufacturing jobs in the green energy sector. He's well on his way (better late than never) to fulfilling a promise to shut down every coal-fired power plant in the province. He's investing millions in upgrading our energy grid to make it more efficient and less vulnerable to surges and blackouts, and allow for decentralized, greener power generation.

These are exactly the sorts of large scale, long-term projects that save economies but kill governments. Why? Because they cost money and/or raise prices in the short term, and that's all people see. Who cares if we're going to be world leaders in energy and green technology ten years from now when gas is $5.00 a litre and we're all charging our electric cars for pennies a ride? Dammit, my Hydro bill went up two and a half bucks!

Which is why the Ontario Liberals may well find themselves out of power come the next election, and by the time we start reaping the real rewards of their policies, the PCs will be there to gleefully take the credit.

(Of course the converse works as well: the inevitable results of the Harris/Eaves government's popular but short-sighted tax and program cuts have also taken years to take their full effect - just in time for the Liberals to wear that, too.)

These are the political equations which guide Stephen Harper's every move - not economics, and certainly not public benefit. Which is why he will continue to do absolutely nothing on the environment or energy files that won't immediately benefit him politically. In other words, nothing.

Short-term gain, long-term pain. That's how you stay in power.

Lisa Raitt Consults Her Public

Yesterday, Lisa Raitt carried out a blitz of Milton, Oakville and Burlington in the form of three rather hastily organized 'public consultation' meetings. She booked the small meeting room at the Milton Sports Centre for ours, which was announced less than a week in advance. All of which told me that she really didn't want or expect much of a turnout.

That, and the panicked looks on the faces of those running the registration desk.

The room is supposed to have a capacity of 35, but there had to be 50 or 60 jammed in, with at least a dozen standing in the back. Apparently it was the same at the other two meetings. And from the comments I heard and the questions that were asked, hardly any of them qualified as Conservative supporters. Not any more.

Her staff was there, of course. Former local Conservative Riding President Pat White was in the crowd, as well as a younger guy who seemed pretty partisan, but it was generally the same as what I've heard reported from the other two meetings: mostly critical, several neutral, and only a very few supportive.

Some got downright angry.

The event certainly drew the finest people. Some of the local personages who showed up were Donna Danielli, Colin Best, Mike Cluett, Mike Grimwood from the Rural Residents' Association, Joan from MiltonGreen, local reporters, and probably more I didn't recognize.

There were a few people who wanted to talk about energy and the environment, including one denier who droned on and on (they cut him off when he started quoting Lord Monkton). Other than him, the consensus was that that the Conservatives haven't done enough. Lisa took the opportunity to launch into a defence of the tar sands and 'clean coal', citing her Cape Breton roots as the reason for her affection.

We had one representative of an engineers group who spoke rather eloquently about AECL and the need to retain Canadian intellectual property. Apparently the AECL people completely swamped the other two meetings.

There were several very critical comments and questions on the HST - even Pat White said the timing was bad, and nobody was buying the line that the Federal government hadn't applied pressure to the provinces to harmonize. And then there were the usual random issues: income splitting, investment rules for horse farms, cheap imports, regional transit, Glenorchy Conservation Area, gun registry, family farms, pension reform and Nortel.

I asked the first question about prorogation. Lisa and her staff all know who I am, so I don't generally want to pound her too hard at these things and get dismissed as a Liberal partisan. Besides, I don't hold grudges, and she's always very friendly with me. So I just thanked her for holding these meetings today, and then I asked her how she was going to be filling the rest of her time over the next two months. She said that she'd be spending a lot of time in her constituency office and some in Ottawa - and then she said that she gets invited to a lot of local events like ribbon cuttings and Rotary functions, and this will give her a change to attend a lot more of those.

Seriously. Rotary lunches. Your MPs at work.

That seemed to break the ice on the issue because after that there were a number of critical comments about prorogation. The most intense came from Mike Grimwood, who really laced into her about it and wouldn't let it go. His best quote: "Why even bother with public meetings when the PMO makes all the decisions anyway?"

She didn't really address any of these concerns directly, even at later meetings where she just said that she would take our concerns back to Ottawa. But really - what is there to say?

Couple of funny moments: she still can't pronounce Nassagaweya and tried to laugh it off (note to all Halton candidates: if you can't pronounce Nassagaweya, you're as good as dead in the rural wards). She knew I was running for Council and congratulated me before the meeting, saying how much fun it was campaigning, and engaging in a little girl talk about all weight I would lose door-knocking.

Afterwards, she offered me this final piece of advice: "Don't read anybody's blogs but your own".

Thanks, but I'll not only read others' blogs - I'll even keep taking comments on my own.

(for a review of the Oakville meeting, check out Matt and Ashley's blog)

UPDATE: The Champion has a brief article about the event. I didn't count, but there's no way they fit 100 people in that room. I know - I rented the same room for a Liberal meeting tonight. Like I said, the room has a capacity of 35 and is only about 750 sq.ft. That would be like fitting 100 people into the main floor of my house. No way.

ForestEthics Pays a Visit to Lisa Raitt

As a follow-up to their recent full page ad:

Hundreds of postcards sent to Raitt

Hundreds of Halton residents are calling on Halton MP Lisa Raitt to take a leadership role at the upcoming UN Climate Change Summit.

On Friday a dozen local citizens hand-delivered more than 830 postcards to Raitt’s constituency office in Milton urging her to take a stand on global warming and ensure clean energy for future generations.

The postcards were collected as part of ForestEthics’ ‘Your Vote, Their Future’ initiative, which encourages voters to push the federal government to tackle global warming.

“At doorsteps across Milton I’ve been hearing that people, in particular parents, are worried about what global warming could mean for them,” said Ian Carey, ForestEthics’ Halton outreach co-ordinator. “I have not heard a single person say they want more tar sands extracted and less action to tackle global warming, which is the current approach of the federal government.”

The UN Climate Change Summit will start this coming Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark.

Schwarzenegger Draws His Line in the Tar Sands; Raitt Steps Over It*

*(yeah, it's a groaner - it was 1:00 a.m.)

California's Air Resources Board is poised to enact California's low-carbon fuel standards this week. These new regulations, expected to set a trend for more states and the U.S. as a whole, would require a wells-to-wheels accounting of the carbon output of all fuels and require producers who exceed standards to purchase carbon credits.

All of this is bad news for Alberta's tar sands companies, who see California as an incredibly lucrative potential market. Happily for them, our Natural Resources Minister is on the case:

In a letter to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that was filed with the board, federal Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt complained that the proposed rules appear to single out oil sands producers for punitive treatment.

“We are concerned that crude oil derived from Canada's oil sands may be discriminated against as a high [carbon-intensity] crude oil, while other crude oils with similar upstream emissions are not singled out,” Ms. Raitt wrote in a letter sent Tuesday.

“This could be perceived as creating an unfair trade barrier between our two countries.”

Ouch! That almost sounds like... a Chapter 11 NAFTA challenge! Ooh yeah, bring it on! Because that's what we really need during a global recession while global warming is rapidly approaching a tipping point: a U.S.-Canada trade war over groundbreaking environmental regulations.

Lisa Raitt: Defending Canada's oil industry from crazed left-wing Republican environmentalists since 2009!

You Have a Choice: The Video

From AnyoneButHarper and Avaaz.

Worst. Headline. Ever.

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.

Here's how it went:

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.

That would be a real "Green Shift".

Talking With Libertarians

For some reason I've been trying to correct some misconceptions about the Liberals' "Green Shift" over at Saskatchewan Liberty Train. I've tried to remain calm and rational and use facts and logic to make my case, but at this point I'm about ready to claw my own eyes out and run screaming from the room.

For example, one person was claiming that $6 billion of the $15 billion was going to fund "Liberal social programs" - including some mythical "child care initiative". To which I responded,

"I'm looking at page 41 right now, and what I see is $2.9 million [should be 'billion'] for the Universal Child Tax Benefit. Is that what you're referring to? Because that has nothing to do with child care. That's a refundable tax credit for ALL families with children that is in addition to (and almost identical to) the one brought in by the Conservatives. Similarly, the refundable Employment Tax Credit would replace the smaller, non-refundable credit introduced by... the Conservatives."

To which I received this response:

Oh goody - more social engineering - more wasteful social programs...this is EXACTLY the type of thing we don't need.

Blink.

AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!

The Green Shift: Questions and Comments

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.

Lorne Gunter should read his own paper

Notorious climate-change curmudgeon Lorne Gunter produced another brown op-ed today for the pages of the National Post:

In lean times, green fervour fades

If truth is the first casualty of war, then environmental concern is the first casualty of economic recession.

Surveys of Canadian voters showed the environment to be their first or second concern in 1989-90. At that time, though, the economy was booming, pumping out tens of thousands of new jobs a month.

A year-and-a-half later, with the economy locked in the worst recession in 60 years, government finances were imploding, jobs disappearing and foreclosure wolves circling, the environment vanished from the top 10.

He goes on to claim that governments in Europe who had gone with “fashionable left-wing political ideas” like carbon taxes are finding their pro-active stance to be far less politically expedient than it once was as economic hard times take hold.

In other words, the environment isn't politically sexy any more, so Canada shouldn't bother.

As usual, Gunter is ignoring one overwhelming reality: the age of cheap oil is over. Not because of European carbon taxes, not because of government policies regulating emissions, but because oil production has peaked and the price of oil and gas are about to go from expensive to unaffordable.

If Gunter won't take the word of a bunch of carrot-munching eco-nuts, he might want to take a look through the business pages of his own paper:

Market best way to fight greenhouse gases

Turbine makers generate profits

GM closures were inevitable; High gas prices causing truck demand to drop

Continental cuts 3,000 jobs; says airline industry is in crisis

I would suggest to Lorne Gunter that there are two courses that Canada can choose to take in the face of the dual realities of climate change and peak oil. We can continue to stick our heads in the oil sands and cling desperately to the status quo until the oil runs out or the planet becomes unlivable (or both). Or we can do what major manufacturers are already starting to do: re-tool our industries and put Canada at the forefront of the post-petroleum economy.

That's not some "fashionable left-wing idea". That's just good business.

Welome to Sprawlville!

I am happy to announce the debut of my brand new blog...



Taking the concept of local blogging to an extreme, I'll be walking and biking all over my adopted home town of Milton with my video camera trying to discover if the Sprawl Capital of Canada can continue to be (or become again) a livable, sustainable, resilient community.

Using the town as a case study, I'll be looking at everything from transit to food access, community integration, local businesses, greenspace and commons, and even how local geography impacts the town's design and development - all to see what works, what doesn't work, how it used to work, how it could work, and what we can do to make it better. Then we can see about applying those lessons elsewhere.

If you're interested in sustainable living, urban and suburban planning, local everything, or are just curious to see what life is like in a not-so-small southern Ontario town, come check it out.

I don't know how it's all going to turn out, but it's going to be a lot of fun.

My Environmentalist Street Cred Just Took a Big Hit

So. Yeah. The new vehicle.

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.