From The Manning Conference

Kady O'Malley posted this shot from the Manning confab yesterday.  I'm not sure if its supposed to be from a poll of all Canadians of self-declared conservatives.  Either way it shows the Federal and Alberta government's have been doing a terrible job pitching their various pipe-line projects.  No wonder Preston Manning himself is trying to pitch a Green Conservatism.

Canadians Want Green Budget

I have never heard of the company (Multi Réso), and the timing is suspect, but the message seems consistent with earlier surveys:

The findings also suggest that Canadians do not want their governments to ignore health and the environment in efforts to jump start the economy. Health is one of the top two priorities for 42% of Canadians, followed closely by the environment, with 38%.

The most interesting material lies in the regional breakdowns:

The findings suggest that a good part of the population is not feeling the impact of the economic crisis or is not worried about the impacts at this time. About a third of Canadians (31%) and half of Quebecers (47%) do not rank the economy and jobs as either their first or second concern.

Of course that doesn't apply to Ontario, where 70% say the latter two are the most important concerns.

Dion Strikes Back!

Too many people have been telling The Libs to bail on the environment as an issue: the Tories have "neutralized" it, and so forth. So I am glad to see that Stephane Dion has chosen to ignore this advice, and has chosen today to release a portion of his environmental strategy. I am also glad to see that he is going the Tories one step further and demanding hard emissions caps from Canada's top 700 polluters:

If the Liberals were in power, they would introduce absolute caps on emissions, not intensity-based targets as the Conservatives propose, Dion said.

“An absolute emissions cap or ‘carbon budget’ of our 1990 emissions level minus six per cent -- our Kyoto target -- will come into effect on January 1, 2008 for the three largest industrial emitting sectors --electricity generation, upstream oil and gas and energy intensive industries,” the policy paper reads.

The sector-based caps will be used to allocate an annual carbon budget to each big industrial emitter in those three sectors and they will have to live within that budget. If they don’t, they will have to pay to pollute, says the Liberal plan.

The companies that exceed their carbon budget would be forced to pay $20 (increasing to $30 by 2011) for every extra tonne of carbon dioxide they emit. The money would go into a fund called a Green Investment Account that will be created for each company and the cash would be held in trust.

You don't "lay claim" to an issue by abandoning it the first time someone raises their voice against you, TDH, and it isn't how you shake the label of "flip-flopper" either, if that's the label they're trying to stick on you. Rather, you do what Mr. Dion has been doing the last several weeks, which is to lay out his priorities in other areas to show that he is not the "one trick pony" that some have claimed, and then WHAMMO! return to the issue he has made central to his leadership. To employ a boxing metaphor, you use your jab to set up your knock-out punch.

What I think people like TDH haven't figured out yet is that this issue will not go away. He seems to feel, like blogging Tory Stephen Taylor (in a post I am unable to locate), that pretty soon we will get back to the "normal" plate of political issues that the major parties have been humping to death for so many years. But that ain't gonna happen. There's a new player at the table. The environment as a global issue has only increased in prominence over the past couple of months, and with bold and (relatively) concrete actions happening on both the provincial and international stage, this is a perfect time to take a stand that will reveal Harper's mealy mouthed proposals in the Clean Air Act to be the sham that they are.

Libs Snatch A Green

West Coast activist Briony Penn, who will run as a Liberal in the riding of Saanich Gulf-Islands. She gives probably the best explanation for such a move I've heard:

"It nearly broke my heart" to leave the Greens, Ms. Penn said. "But we can't wait around for proportional representation and a national leader capable of being in government."

...although I think E. May is plenty capable as a leader. Whether the Greens can take seats under the current system is the question.

Briony's pretty hot too. Finally, someone who can give Belinda some competition.

Environmental Policy We Can All Agree On

From Today's Globe:

OTTAWA — The Conservative government should scrap the generous tax breaks for the oil sands that some say are worth hundreds of millions annually, recommends a draft report by the Commons natural resources committee.

The accelerated capital-cost allowance program was brought in by the Liberals in the 1990s to encourage development in the oil sands, then considered a risky proposition. With oil at about $60 per barrel, however, it has turned into a $1.4 billion corporate welfare scheme.

And that's how the Tories can justify killing the program to their own base: corporate welfare bums are the worst kind of welfare bum, and its time to apply some tough love.

Once the program has been killed, the freed up cash can be redirected toward production of cleaner energy sources, which makes the whole process a piece of environmental policy.

Frankly, I don't even care if the same companies that lose their breaks can reapply for them once they've cleaned up their act. I am just against giving them free candy.

Oil Company Chief: Kyoto Won't Hurt Us

From The Vancouver Sun:

OTTAWA --Kyoto protocol targets won't cause economic turmoil in the Alberta oilsands, a senior Canadian petroleum executive said Monday as he urged the minority Conservative government not to punish his industry with excessive regulations to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

Will the fear mongering stop? Or will Gordon Lambert, vice-president for sustainable development at Suncor, be accused of having supped with Suzuki?

h/t to Desmogblog.

$1 A Barrel To Green The Tar Sands

Matthew Bramley, climate change director at the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank, claims that the oil industry could meet Kyoto targets in Alberta's oil sands at a cost of about $1 a barrel.

Furthermore:

A spokesperson for Suncor Energy, a major oil sands producer, did not contradict the $1-a-barrel estimate, but said he would need more time to study the Pembina figures.

"The devil is in the details," said Gord Lambert, Suncor's vice-president of sustainable development.

Probably won't be writing much else today. Too much running around to do. Have a good one.

Sheila Copps On Kyoto Implementation

Her opinion echoes my own:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's vaunted political antennae must have been turned off last week when his party got trapped in the Liberal private member's bill on Kyoto.

[...]

What we witnessed last week was a government that's given up trying. Instead of embracing the Kyoto timelines and focusing on achieving them, the government seems committed to fight Kyoto tooth and nail.

As I've repeated on several occasions, C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act) is all about making a good faith effort.

And it fails as a handy early election trigger for the Tories because 1) its path through the Senate can be as long and winding, or as swift, as the Lib majority deigns appropriate, and 2) it gives the government 60 days to produce a plan: it would look awful were they to throw up their hands, planless, before the 60 days is up. So if the idea (as rumor has it) is to drop the writ within the next couple of weeks this cannot be justified with reference to C-288.

Hence those immortal words of abject surrender from Stephen Harper: "I will obey this law."

Nevertheless, the bill is not entirely toothless, because it is or shall become the law of the land. The Libs (and, more generally, all three opposition parties) can hold it over the head of Harper et al in order to put some teeth into the Clean Air Act, or cudgel him with it if the Clean Air Act turns out to be nothing but piffle.

C-288, A Triumph For The Opposition

I never thought that bill C-288 (The Kyoto Implementation Act) would turn out as badly as some progressives thought, and many Tories hoped. So when Harper caved last night and said he would "obey" the new measure, I felt quite vindicated.

Why did he do it? Well, it was clear from the Libs Senate Leader, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette, that C-288 would not necessarily be fast-tracked through the upper-house, which meant that the timing of its passage would remain in Liberal hands. This would make it impossible for Harper to use the bill as a trigger for a March election call. And any other response (for example, doing nothing and waiting for lawsuits) would have looked like more Tory stalling.

So what is our situation now? As Antonio over at Fuddle Duddle notes, the opposition has just written the environmental law of the land:

Yesterday was already a non-confidence motion. The Liberals, BQ, and NDP already agree on enough things like Child Care, Kelowna, Status of Women Canada, etc., that they can pass legislating mandating the government to do something about it.

Technically, they cant spend any money, but they can get all kinds of bills through parliament and make the Conservative budget contradict parliament’s will.

I think this is hilarious and John McCallum should begin drafting a budget which should also be another Private Members’ Bill. I think we still have the old platform somewhere. The NDP and the Bloc have seen the poll numbers, neither wants an election. After seeing our numbers I wouldn’t want one either. Who needs an election anyway?

Well, exactly. I don't know why the three opposition parties don't just seize control of the Clean Air Act, for example, rewrite it with teeth, pass it over Conservative opposition and tell Stephen Harper to go squeal like a pig. Certainly, they can pass new regulations.

I might even suggest writing legislation proclaiming Same Sex Marriage compulsory in Alberta. Make the Tories beg for an election.

Also, I would just second Antonio's words to the effect that Pablo Rodriguez, the Liberal MP behind C-288, is an extraordinarily sexxxy guy.



In fact, Antonio himself is pretty damn sexxxy. Between these two fellas and Mitsou, is it any wonder that federal governments of all political stripes feel the need to give Quebec money whenever it pouts?

Still Waiting, Tom

Dear Tom Harris,

I see you have had time to fire off a letter asking that the Senate block Bill C-288 (the Kyoto Implementation Act), but you still haven't answered my challenge.

Specifically, you claimed that:

The vast majority of the [600 scientists involved in the IPCC report]...would not have...endorsed, the executive summary.

And I have asked you to produce at least names, or even better, statements from this "vast majority" of doubters. You have not thus far replied.

Now, some of the folks at FreeDominion.ca have suggested Chris Landsea and Roger Pielke on your behalf, and it is true these two men have in the past had difficulties with the process of writing the IPCC report. However, neither questions the IPCC consensus and, more importantly, neither has been involved with the organization for over a year.

So they don't count and we are still stuck at zero.

I truly hope that you are using all this time to marshal your evidence, for it seems to me that neither the Canadian Senate nor the 1,300 media figures you claim to have sent your release to will be impressed if all your doubting scientists turn out to be invisible scientists who will speak only with you.

So come on, Tom, present your case or retract your statement! Are you a Man of Science, or a Girly-Man of Science?

Tom Harris Questions The Concensus

The NRSP is an Alberta-based anti-global warming astroturf group. Their leader, Tom Harris, hangs out occasionally at Free Dominion, where he fundraises and throws raw meat to the Trogs. Yesterday, he wrote:

Only 600 scientists (of the tens of thousands of climate and climate related scientists who COULD have been involved) were involved in writing parts of the technical report (namely the 1500 page main science document), a document we will not see until May. Among those 600, only 30 were involved in writing the draft of the executive summary, the final version of which (i.e. the SPM released on Feb 2) being assembled by government bureaucrats and representatives of industry and environmental organizations. The vast majority of those 600, many of whom disagree with each other on various significant science elements of the issue (as we will see for sure in May but as we have seen in all past technical reports), would not have seen, let alone endorsed, the executive summary. Among the thousands of scientists who reviewed the IPCC documents, many disagree with them entirely (let alone the summary which would be even more flawed in their opinion, I am sure).

From all I can tell, there is no consensus about the causes of the past century’s modest warming or future climate change, cooling and warming, either within the small fraction of world climate-related scientists who actually take part in the IPCC’s work, or in the general body of scientists who work in the field. The IPCC is an exclusive club that pre-selects its participants and then screens the input these participants give. The notion of consensus in this field is a myth.

So lets end the speculation, shall we Tom? I challenge you to produce names and/or, even better, statements by any among the group of 600 scientists involved in writing the technical report, or the 30 involved in writing its executive summary, who would be willing to challenge the overall conclusions in either.

Yours (anxiously waiting),

BigCityLib

GM To Build Hybrids In Canada

GM, reeling from losses in market share, will begin building hybrid versions of its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra pickup trucks at its Oshawa plant as early as next year. By 2010 they will start building hybrid SUVs at the same facility.

About time. Its much harder to make people (especially the people who buy trucks and SUVs) switch to smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles than it is to make the vehicles they prefer more fuel efficient.

And Hybrids are the most likely route to environmental salvation, as far as I'm concerned. The new Chevy Volt gets, potentially, hundreds of MPG. If you don't ever need to drive more than 40 miles at a time you could conceivably never buy gasoline again (it plugs into a wall socket). They're even starting to build some pretty sweet looking hybrid sports cars.


Better than driving one of these sawed-off bugs around and looking hopelessly nerdy.






Smart But Nerdy

More Evidence That Tory Attack Ads Have Failed

The Latest Angus-Reid Poll shows that Dion still has a significant advantage over Harper when it comes to environmental issues:

In the survey, 31 per cent of respondents believe Liberal leader Stéphane Dion cares the most about the issue, while 13 per cent select Conservative leader and prime minister Stephen Harper. However, 28 per cent of respondents pick neither politician, and 27 per cent are not sure.

The poll also, I would argue, shows that the Fear-mongering on this issue from the Tories and their media allies has also failed, for two-thirds of Canadians support having the Federal government enact "laws that force individuals and companies in Canada to curb global warming", which, according to Mr. Harper et al, would be "economic suicide".

Full poll results can be found here. H/t to Eugene, whose take on the numbers is somewhat different than mine.

The Tories Are Like A Plate of Fried Veggies: Green On The Outside, Oily On The Inside

The Industrial/Commercial version of the Federal Energuide Program is called the Commercial Building Incentive Program (CBIP). It encourages:

...the design and construction of new, energy-efficient commercial, institutional and multi-unit residential buildings and facilities [...and...] provides design assistance and funding of up to $60,000 for eligible organizations based on building energy savings.

And of course, The Tories are letting the program die:

Last July, the CBIP program received funding for continued activities until March 31, 2007. On its web site, Natural Resources Canada said “a high volume of submissions” were received, resulting in the program being fully subscribed.

“The program is not accepting any new submissions for funding,” it said.

Canadian Architects are pissed:

"A radical statement so early in the year. Even more stunning considering recent announcements," said [Royal Architectural Institute of Canada] President Vivian Manasc. "Canada's architects are disappointed. The built environment accounts for almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions. Considering that architects across Canada have between $40 to $50 billion worth of projects 'on the Boards,' and that buildings last for 50 to 100 years, the government's lack of real commitment is appalling. We think it is time they got serious and raised rather than eliminated incentives to increasing energy efficiency."

And people have the gall to question The Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act (C-288). As long as the Tories are in power, the only route to action will be through bills passed by the three opposition parties acting in concert. This one should be supported.

Thank You Mark Holland

You See, an Eastern Liberal goes West and gives 'em shit, and suddenly the oil path discovers a way to clean up its act:

Major players in the oil sands, under political pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, have quietly formed an industry-wide consortium to explore using heat in the Earth's crust as a clean alternative to natural gas.

This might be it for today. I was out last night with some of TO's finest bloggers (like JimBobby, BCer in Toronto, CC and etc.) and, unfortunately, over-medicated. I remember paying the bill (at The Secret TO Pub, which had fine wings, but rather small), and getting out before the police arrived. Not much afterwards. Had a great time, and hope to do it again soon. At the next event, however, someone should stop me at pint number 8.

A National Carbon Trading Market?

No carbon tax, international carbon trading, Baird says:

But Baird said he is moving toward a carbon trading market in Canada. This would allow a company in one part of the country to invest in green projects somewhere else in Canada and be given credit for reducing its emissions.

Its safe to assume this is just empty gesticulation on Baird's part.

Because if an international carbon trading market proves unacceptable to Canada as a whole, a nation-wide market will almost certainly prove unacceptable to Albertans.

For, as the CIBC's Rick Rubin makes clear, under the initial conditions of any type of carbon regulation scheme, oil sands producers will have to be huge purchasers of emission credits. And these will have to be purchased from companies in other provinces. So there will be a "huge"outflow of money from Alberta to, if this map of Canadian emissions is accurate, places like Quebec and maybe even Ontario.

Sell that to Ed Stelmach.

White House Abolishes Global Warming!

Run "Global Warming" through the White House internal search engine and you link to a single document that questions the existence of the phenomenon. On the other hand, a google search for GW related documents housed at whitehouse.gov brings back over 400 hits. This change seems to have occurred in the last couple of weeks.

Meanwhile, a quick look at Government of Canada Climate Change page provides insight into the thinking of the ruling Tories on this issue. Oh Wait! It's blank, and has been since July 2006! Guess they haven't stolen any ideas from here yet.

h/t to James' Empty Blog.

The Denier Peaks Out?

...during Harper's mini-throne speech? Something that caught my eye in today's Calgary Herald editorial (which is mostly a sigh of relief that Harper has indicated he won't make any real attempts to reign in the Tar Sands out-of-control development):

"Significantly, [Harper] referred to the IPCC's 'projections' rather than its predictions. His choice of wording may well signal an enduring skepticism of the IPCC's gloomy scenario."

What is the difference between a projection and a prediction? Here's one brief definition from a website on Health System Dynamics:

...prediction states a condition of reality at some future point in time while projection states a possible condition of reality at some future point in time based on a set of assumptions. If the assumptions are correct, then the projection will be accurate, otherwise not.

In other words, calling the IPCC's conclusions "projections" rather than "predictions" leaves open the question as to whether the IPCC's "assumptions" (the reality of the GW? its ill-effects?) are correct.

So: coded messages to the true believers indicating that, deep down, Harper still thinks its all bullshit? Maybe the leopard really can't change its spots.

CIBC: Goverments ARE Acting, And Soon Alberta Will Owe EVERYONE Money

From The Globe:

Crude oil consumption in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries dropped last year for the first time in 20 years as a result of the aggressive actions by many of those nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to CIBC World Markets Inc.

[...]

Rubin anticipates that the provinces and states will put a cap on carbon dioxide emissions while at the same time establishing an emissions trading system that would allow bigger polluters to buy emissions credits from other firms that are emitting less than they are allowed under the cap.

In CIBC's January World Markets Outlook release, Rubin argued that:

"What investors have to be wary of is not the future direction of oil prices, but what the eventual net backs to oil producers will be in a carbon-regulated environment [...] While we know that oil sands producers will have to be huge purchasers of emission credits, we don't know what the market-clearing price for those credits will be.

"The experience of the over decade-long functioning CO(2) and NOx-emission trading systems in the U.S. reveals that over time the market price for emissions credits rises sharply as emission caps are gradually lowered. Depending upon how stringent the cap, the real investment risk is that much of the economic rents from rising oil prices may be diverted from shareholders of oil producers to owners of much-sought-after emissions.

For this reason, Rubin is now suggesting that investors lower their exposure to oil.

Since the Harper government does not seem willing to join an International emissions trading market, let's assume a Canada wide version. This map shows historical and projected Carbon emissions by region. And here's a hint. Get outta Calgary, move to Montreal, and watch the sky for airplanes dropping oil-patch money over the city.

The best part of it is that, since the U.S. is heading in the same direction (perhaps even more swiftly than Canada), Alberta won't be able to evade their responsibilities by separating, unless they have the whole province towed over to China.

Surprisingly Greenish!

Now that we've settled the existential question, the debate over Global Warming turns on what if anything to do about the phenomenon. A common argument from the Political Right is that, when faced with the bill for cleaning up carbon emissions, the Canadian people will choose to party like its 1999 and let the ice-caps bloody well melt. And indeed (perhaps conveniently?) there have been a number of surveys cropping up recently that seem to show, when it comes to practicalities, that Canadians don't appear to be doing much to help save the planet (and therefore, it is implied, can't be expected to actually agree to do much in the future).

Unfortunately, there is more than an element of truth to some of these various studies. However one of them, a recent survey by Maritz Research and reported upon in the G&M, paints a far too gloomy picture of Canadians' car-buying habits:

Buying an environmentally friendly vehicle ranked just 23rd among 26 reasons for purchase, the Maritz New Vehicle Customer Study of 38,500 buyers showed.

Protecting the environment ranked well behind value for money, fuel economy and reliability -- the top three reasons for buying a certain vehicle -- and was also less important to those surveyed than towing capability and interior styling. Even buyers of subcompact cars were more interested in storage and cargo capacity than environmental friendliness.

Shocking, but terribly misleading, I think. After all, the single most important "green" property of any particular automobile type is its fuel efficiency. This is why the main selling point of, for example, the Prius is that it gets a combined city/highway mileage of 55 miles per gallon (according to the website). In fact, I personally find it difficult to put my finger on a vehicular property of "environmental friendliness" that is not intimately interconnected with the property of being fuel efficient.

And "fuel economy" is given as the main reason for purchase by 28.4% of survey participants. Add that to the rather amorphous "environmental friendliness", and almost 31% of Canadians choose their cars for reasons related to the environment.

Which makes it the second most popular reason driving Canadian car purchases. Which puts things in an entirely different perspective.