Although I am sure some people do take issue with the idea of being surveilled, I personally do not oppose the installation of cameras on buses (they began installing cameras on buses years ago). I do, however, take real issue with the governments' claim that this will somehow improve transit service within Winnipeg.
Transit has been my primary means of transportation for the seven and a half years that I have lived in Winnipeg, and I have travelled the city extensively on various different routes. I have seen unruly and rambunctious people creating problems while riding on the bus. In these situations, it was not the presence of a camera, but the actions of a fellow bus-rider or bus-driver that resolved the issue. Therefore, I question Vic Toews' assumption that the presence of cameras will “deter potential criminal activity.”, although that footage may be a useful source of evidence for the criminal justice system after the fact. They began adding cameras on buses years ago and for the average bus rider the installation of cameras has had little effect on their transit riding experience; I doubt that adding a few more cameras will make much of a difference.
Yet according to the politicians the installation of the cameras will incite the public to clamber onto the Transit buses, possibly exclaiming: "I'm on T.V.!"
Steve Ashton boasted this was part of "...the province’s vision for a clean and green economy by providing Manitobans with alternative transportation choices." Likewise Gord Steeves proclaimed: "With increased ridership, we must continue to improve our existing transit system to capture that increase and provide positive transportation alternatives to our citizens."
Wait a minute guys...I'm a little confused? How does placing cameras on the transit buses already in operation 'provide Manitobans with alternative transportation choices'? If our ridership is increasing, (or if you would like it to increase as part of the plan for a greener Manitoba), would it not be more logical to improve our transit system by running more buses, more frequently, rather than installing more cameras on the buses already in operation?
The key to getting more people to ride the bus is to provide good service at a fair cost. If the buses in Winnipeg had attractive fares and the bus came every five minutes, ridership rates would skyrocket. But all too often bus-riders are stuck waiting in the blistering cold 10-40 minutes for the next ride. I wonder how often Ashton, Steeves, or Toews have faced the daily challenge of waiting for their bus in the deep chill of Winnipeg winter?
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Opposition Parties, Pierce the Blue Cashmere Vest!
The bully has now become the bullied. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty's unprovoked and cynical attempt to use the economic situation as an excuse to beat up on labour rights, democracy and the other political parties, has created the wherewithal for the opposition parties to work together. The three elected opposition parties know that they need not worry about causing another unwanted election -- the Governor General has the option of handing the reigns of Government over to a coalition of the opposition parties, as Lord Byng did in 1926. Given that Canadians are in no mood for yet another election, and that we went to the polls less than two months ago, it is difficult to see how Michaelle Jean could not give the opposition the chance to govern. Harper's arrogance has become the curiosity that hangs the cat (cue to a sigh of relief among the 60 plus percent of voters that cast their ballot for somebody other than the Conservatives).
Public election financing is literally peanuts in comparison to the entirety of the federal budget. It also helps to foster a thriving democracy, because it ensures that political parties are more than lobbyist groups for Canada's wealthiest. Meanwhile here in Manitoba, Premier Gary Doer has finally revealed that he is a Conservative wolf in Orange Wool, when he let it slip that he seems to be following the Conservatives lead in scrapping the public election financing that his government recently introduced. The NDP have always fancied themselves as 'the defenders of the little guy'. But the little guy votes with a ballot rather than a chequebook. Perhaps Gary Doer and the NDP should consider all Manitobans before they bow into Conservative pressure, lest they follow the path of the faltering Harper Government.
Public election financing is literally peanuts in comparison to the entirety of the federal budget. It also helps to foster a thriving democracy, because it ensures that political parties are more than lobbyist groups for Canada's wealthiest. Meanwhile here in Manitoba, Premier Gary Doer has finally revealed that he is a Conservative wolf in Orange Wool, when he let it slip that he seems to be following the Conservatives lead in scrapping the public election financing that his government recently introduced. The NDP have always fancied themselves as 'the defenders of the little guy'. But the little guy votes with a ballot rather than a chequebook. Perhaps Gary Doer and the NDP should consider all Manitobans before they bow into Conservative pressure, lest they follow the path of the faltering Harper Government.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Little Changes with the Do-little Government
The government surprised none with its throne speech. It was the same old series of small incremental changes that we have come to expect from the Manitoba government. There was certainly some movements in the right direction, but at such a slow place, that it is completely indiscernible to figure out which direction we are actually headed. The $100 increase in the personal tax exemption that was announced today is just one example of the underwhelming nature of the Do-little government.
Firstly, the government deserves some credit- it has finally committed itself to ending the practice of logging in the provincial parks. For years the Green Party of Manitoba along with various other advocacy organizations in Manitoba have been calling for this much needed change. It will be interesting to watch and see exactly when the licenses of Timbec, Louisiana-Pacific, and the other logging companies will be phased out, and if the Manitoba government will be subject to any legal actions from any of these logging companies.
Secondly, the governments ambiguous decision to ban plastic bags unless they can be re-cycled is a good first step, but it is also quite timid. Why doesn't this government follow the route of Ireland who achieved a 90% reduction in the use of plastic bags while raising nearly 10 million dollars through the implementation of a PlasTax? Furthermore while plastic bags are a sincere environmental concern, if this government thinks that banning plastic bags will solve the world's ecological ills they are sorely mistaken.
The 52 kilometres of bike path along the Red River Floodway sounds picturesque, but isn't there a greater need for 52 kilometres of bike path within Manitoba's Urban Centers where those paths will be used a means of transport rather than a means of recreation?
It's clear that the Manitoba government's strategy is to splatter everything with a little bit of green paint. But when the foundation is cracking a paint job will not be an adequate fix. “Steady as she goes...” is a sure strategy for a collapse. This is particularly unfortunate because, if Manitobans were led by a party with vision and the will to make real political change, we could get the foundation in order—for future generations and beyond.
James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Firstly, the government deserves some credit- it has finally committed itself to ending the practice of logging in the provincial parks. For years the Green Party of Manitoba along with various other advocacy organizations in Manitoba have been calling for this much needed change. It will be interesting to watch and see exactly when the licenses of Timbec, Louisiana-Pacific, and the other logging companies will be phased out, and if the Manitoba government will be subject to any legal actions from any of these logging companies.
Secondly, the governments ambiguous decision to ban plastic bags unless they can be re-cycled is a good first step, but it is also quite timid. Why doesn't this government follow the route of Ireland who achieved a 90% reduction in the use of plastic bags while raising nearly 10 million dollars through the implementation of a PlasTax? Furthermore while plastic bags are a sincere environmental concern, if this government thinks that banning plastic bags will solve the world's ecological ills they are sorely mistaken.
The 52 kilometres of bike path along the Red River Floodway sounds picturesque, but isn't there a greater need for 52 kilometres of bike path within Manitoba's Urban Centers where those paths will be used a means of transport rather than a means of recreation?
It's clear that the Manitoba government's strategy is to splatter everything with a little bit of green paint. But when the foundation is cracking a paint job will not be an adequate fix. “Steady as she goes...” is a sure strategy for a collapse. This is particularly unfortunate because, if Manitobans were led by a party with vision and the will to make real political change, we could get the foundation in order—for future generations and beyond.
James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Northern Food Initiative Needs to be Expanded
It was encouraging to see the Manitoba Government's press release "Northern Communities Improving Self-Sufficiency with Healthy Food Projects,", but I could not help asking myself why not pursue Healthy Food Projects throughout Manitoba including Winnipeg?
The Government boasts about how its contribution of "$600,000, ... has leveraged support from a number of other sources" helping to ensure that "more than 400 vegetable gardens have been planted in communities all over the North."
In Winnipeg, however, the Province failed to keep the plants blooming at 198 Sherbrook this past spring. Originally a vacant lot that was repurposed into a garden by local residents in 1991, it was purchased for $30.500 by the West Broadway Development Corporation in 2001 with the help of a provincial grant. This past spring the WBCD decided that the $2000 in annual taxes was "...a cost that is not sustainable"; opting instead to build housing. Where was the province on this one? Does a community garden not warrant a measley $2000 per annum in government funding?
We need a Winnipeg Healthy Foods Initiative. Fresh produce may not be as cripplingly expensive here in Winnipeg as it is in the North, but we still need to deal with critical challenge of ensuring food security. All Manitobans need to create a local self-sufficient food supply. Such a supply would reduce imported low-nutrition foods and feature healthy locally grown foods. Manitobans would reacquainte themselves with their daily bread, by learning about traditional harvesting and food preservation techniques. In short, Winnepeggers and Northerners alike can all reduce the ecological impact of the food we eat.
The Government boasts about how its contribution of "$600,000, ... has leveraged support from a number of other sources" helping to ensure that "more than 400 vegetable gardens have been planted in communities all over the North."
In Winnipeg, however, the Province failed to keep the plants blooming at 198 Sherbrook this past spring. Originally a vacant lot that was repurposed into a garden by local residents in 1991, it was purchased for $30.500 by the West Broadway Development Corporation in 2001 with the help of a provincial grant. This past spring the WBCD decided that the $2000 in annual taxes was "...a cost that is not sustainable"; opting instead to build housing. Where was the province on this one? Does a community garden not warrant a measley $2000 per annum in government funding?
We need a Winnipeg Healthy Foods Initiative. Fresh produce may not be as cripplingly expensive here in Winnipeg as it is in the North, but we still need to deal with critical challenge of ensuring food security. All Manitobans need to create a local self-sufficient food supply. Such a supply would reduce imported low-nutrition foods and feature healthy locally grown foods. Manitobans would reacquainte themselves with their daily bread, by learning about traditional harvesting and food preservation techniques. In short, Winnepeggers and Northerners alike can all reduce the ecological impact of the food we eat.
It's actually quite simple: remove the nitrogen at source
The Manitoba government has decided to rethink nitrogen removal, but perhaps they should be rethinking water-based sanitation?
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nitrogen and ammonia found in sewage water originates from human urine. Instead of diluting our urine with water and then attempting to remove the urine at the treatment plant, perhaps we should be looking at the examples from Finland, Sweden, Germany, China, among others, where urine is being used as a fertilizer.
Human excreta is packed of full nutrients, most notably phosphorous and nitrogen, by adopting a policy of waterless sanitation (i.e. dry composting toilets) we can ensure that these nutrients are returned to the soil from where they originated, rather than ending up in our waterways where they do not belong.
The truth of the matter is that the vast majority of nitrogen and ammonia found in sewage water originates from human urine. Instead of diluting our urine with water and then attempting to remove the urine at the treatment plant, perhaps we should be looking at the examples from Finland, Sweden, Germany, China, among others, where urine is being used as a fertilizer.
Human excreta is packed of full nutrients, most notably phosphorous and nitrogen, by adopting a policy of waterless sanitation (i.e. dry composting toilets) we can ensure that these nutrients are returned to the soil from where they originated, rather than ending up in our waterways where they do not belong.
ORGANIC WINDOW DRESSING
There are signs that the Manitoba Government is beginning to see the light cast off by the need for a more sustainable food supply; but, as always, the Manitoba Government continues to stare at the ground two inches ahead rather than looking off into the distance whence the light is coming.
The government's announcements to help fund organic certification, and research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as movements in the right direction, but they need to be understood in context.
Both of these announcements (released on October 1, 2008 and September 23, 2008 respectively) were rather paltry, when compared to other releases seen this year. Consider that the cumulative projected costs of these two
announcements amounts to $1,338,000 million. In contrast, a single hog factory can receive up to $5 million in loan support under the $60 million Manitoba Hog Assistance Loan Program announced on June 5, 2008.
Or, how about the fact that the Government committed $19.6 million ($13.7 million directly) in funding to Neepawa and Brandon to clean up the mess created by the hog-processing plants (Springhill Farms and Maple Leaf).
If half of the money spent on propping up the hog industry had been used to support farmers for maintaining unadulterated wilderness, for switching to organic methods or for developing small-scale localized food production systems, we would already have a sustainable agriculture in place.
The government's announcements to help fund organic certification, and research into reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as movements in the right direction, but they need to be understood in context.
Both of these announcements (released on October 1, 2008 and September 23, 2008 respectively) were rather paltry, when compared to other releases seen this year. Consider that the cumulative projected costs of these two
announcements amounts to $1,338,000 million. In contrast, a single hog factory can receive up to $5 million in loan support under the $60 million Manitoba Hog Assistance Loan Program announced on June 5, 2008.
Or, how about the fact that the Government committed $19.6 million ($13.7 million directly) in funding to Neepawa and Brandon to clean up the mess created by the hog-processing plants (Springhill Farms and Maple Leaf).
If half of the money spent on propping up the hog industry had been used to support farmers for maintaining unadulterated wilderness, for switching to organic methods or for developing small-scale localized food production systems, we would already have a sustainable agriculture in place.
Open the Farmers' Market 365
Kudos to Keystone Agricultural Producers for their August 26th, 2008 article Press Release “The Farmers` Share” in recognizing that farmers receive a tiny portion of the average consumer's grocery bill. One remedy for this problem is to encourage consumers to purchase directly from agricultural producers (or at minimal to purchase products that originate from local agricultural producers), as this helps to minimize transportation and intermediary costs, thereby allowing farmers to capture a greater share of consumer's grocery bill.
In Manitoba, however, a series of archaic legislative regulations make it difficult for small agricultural producers to market their products directly to consumers. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “Food and Food Handling Establishments Regulations” under the Public Health Act which limit Farmers Markets to being open a mere 14 days per annum.
Most of the food handling regulations are sensible, but how does limiting the operating days of temporary food markets protect public health?
As evidenced by the recent cases of pork tainted with Lysteria and Salmonella-laden tomatoes, there is always the potential for our food to be contaminated. This is true of virtually everything we eat, regardless of whether it has been purchased from a farmers market or a Superstore.
When food contamination originates from large centralized production facilities (as was the case in the two previous examples) the contamination has the potential to be more widespread; whereas when food is sold directly from a local producer to a consumer, the shorter supply chain makes it easier to track any contamination that may occur, and the risk of the contamination spreading is mitigated.
If the provincial and federal governments were committed to truly helping our agricultural producers market directly to consumers, farmers would not be buffeted as they are now with tired, arbitrary, and inconsistently enforced legislation. Granting farmers unfettered access to market themselves via farmers markets, is only one small legislative change that needs to be made, but it is a start! And if we begin to create the legislative structure that promotes small-scale agricultural producers, might we not discover that our small-scale local producers are more trustworthy than their multi-national counterparts at delivering quality food?
In Manitoba, however, a series of archaic legislative regulations make it difficult for small agricultural producers to market their products directly to consumers. One of the most glaring examples of this is the “Food and Food Handling Establishments Regulations” under the Public Health Act which limit Farmers Markets to being open a mere 14 days per annum.
Most of the food handling regulations are sensible, but how does limiting the operating days of temporary food markets protect public health?
As evidenced by the recent cases of pork tainted with Lysteria and Salmonella-laden tomatoes, there is always the potential for our food to be contaminated. This is true of virtually everything we eat, regardless of whether it has been purchased from a farmers market or a Superstore.
When food contamination originates from large centralized production facilities (as was the case in the two previous examples) the contamination has the potential to be more widespread; whereas when food is sold directly from a local producer to a consumer, the shorter supply chain makes it easier to track any contamination that may occur, and the risk of the contamination spreading is mitigated.
If the provincial and federal governments were committed to truly helping our agricultural producers market directly to consumers, farmers would not be buffeted as they are now with tired, arbitrary, and inconsistently enforced legislation. Granting farmers unfettered access to market themselves via farmers markets, is only one small legislative change that needs to be made, but it is a start! And if we begin to create the legislative structure that promotes small-scale agricultural producers, might we not discover that our small-scale local producers are more trustworthy than their multi-national counterparts at delivering quality food?
Saddling Farmers With Debt
Minister Wowchuk's recent press announcement that the province will increase the agricultural Operating Credit Guarantee from $15 million to $25 million is a tacit recognition of the Government's current agricultural strategy to propagate the current process of farm amalgamation by enabling agricultural producers to string an even heavier yoke of debt around their necks.
[http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=3819]
The Manitoba Government boasts that it has increased the the Operating Credit Guarantee administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation [MASC] by 10 million dollars to a total maximum of 25 million. MASC's own website states that the purpose of this program is to “...provide a 25 per cent guarantee on operating lines of credit with participating private lending institutions.” Essentially this funding increase allows “participating private lending institutions” to annually saddle an additional 40 million dollars in debt on the backs of Manitoba's agricultural producers. However will an increase in debt-load really benefit agricultural producers? Or will it be more beneficial to the institutions that earn interest on the money loaned? In the past twenty years the total debt outstanding by Manitoba farms has more than tripled from $1.85 billion in 1988 to $6.07 billion in 2007. Yet over the same period the realized net farm incomes of Canadian farmers have declined from $3.9 billion in 1988 to $1.5 billion in 2007.
[http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-014-XIE/21-014-XIE2008001.pdf]
[http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf]
In theory this increase in funding guarantees should allow Manitoba's agricultural producer to access $5,248.24 (up from $3148.94) in operating loans on an annual basis, but these loans will not be allocated equally among all producers. The vast majority of Canadian agricultural producers, 65.6%, to be exact, earn gross annual receipts of less than $100,000; however these farms are the least likely to be profitable. As a case in point farms earning annual gross receipts of less than $25,000 turn a profit 29% of the time; whereas 86% of farms with annual gross receipts over $1 million earn a profit. [http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/articles/finpic.htm]
Lending institutions are in the business of risk management, and the statistical reality is that the vast majority of Canadian farms, the small family-run operations, are less likely to be profitable than their multimillion dollar counterparts. Lending institutions therefore are more likely to loan money to the more profitable larger farms.
At the end of the day it seems likely that the increase in the Operating Credit Guarantee will aid in: helping to prop up large-scale hog/poultry operations, and helping large and medium sized farmers to buy-out their smaller neighbors.
[http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=3819]
The Manitoba Government boasts that it has increased the the Operating Credit Guarantee administered by the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation [MASC] by 10 million dollars to a total maximum of 25 million. MASC's own website states that the purpose of this program is to “...provide a 25 per cent guarantee on operating lines of credit with participating private lending institutions.” Essentially this funding increase allows “participating private lending institutions” to annually saddle an additional 40 million dollars in debt on the backs of Manitoba's agricultural producers. However will an increase in debt-load really benefit agricultural producers? Or will it be more beneficial to the institutions that earn interest on the money loaned? In the past twenty years the total debt outstanding by Manitoba farms has more than tripled from $1.85 billion in 1988 to $6.07 billion in 2007. Yet over the same period the realized net farm incomes of Canadian farmers have declined from $3.9 billion in 1988 to $1.5 billion in 2007.
[http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/21-014-XIE/21-014-XIE2008001.pdf]
[http://www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/1988%20vs%202007%20FINAL%20bri.pdf]
In theory this increase in funding guarantees should allow Manitoba's agricultural producer to access $5,248.24 (up from $3148.94) in operating loans on an annual basis, but these loans will not be allocated equally among all producers. The vast majority of Canadian agricultural producers, 65.6%, to be exact, earn gross annual receipts of less than $100,000; however these farms are the least likely to be profitable. As a case in point farms earning annual gross receipts of less than $25,000 turn a profit 29% of the time; whereas 86% of farms with annual gross receipts over $1 million earn a profit. [http://www.statcan.ca/english/agcensus2006/articles/finpic.htm]
Lending institutions are in the business of risk management, and the statistical reality is that the vast majority of Canadian farms, the small family-run operations, are less likely to be profitable than their multimillion dollar counterparts. Lending institutions therefore are more likely to loan money to the more profitable larger farms.
At the end of the day it seems likely that the increase in the Operating Credit Guarantee will aid in: helping to prop up large-scale hog/poultry operations, and helping large and medium sized farmers to buy-out their smaller neighbors.
Remove the nutrients at source
The Green Party of Manitoba [GPM] has been watching with great interest the debate occurring on editorial pages of the Winnipeg Free Press, regarding nitrogen removal at Winnipeg's waste water treatment plants. The findings and comments of Dr. Schindler are interesting, but it is disheartening that most of the debate has centered on the best way to treat our sewage, when we ought to be discussing how to stop creating sewage in the first place.
On July 24th, Councillor Steeves expressed his concern that the roughly $2 billion being spent on upgrading our sewage system "...is not at all a prudent use of taxpayers' money." To this end the GPM would also like to point out that it is also an imprudent use of our precious water resources.
The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of pathogens and nutrients coming from household sewage originate from human feces and urine. According to a German study, urine accounts for 87% of the total nitrogen content and 50% of the phosphorous content in household sewage water; furthermore feces accounts for 10% of the total nitrogen and 40% of the total phosphorous content. However rather than dealing with this problem at its point of origin, we dilute it with water: firstly when we flush our toilet, and increasingly so as we mix our toilet water, with our wash and drainage water; at which point we then attempt to remove the diluted nutrients and pathogens from the so called "waste-water" or "sewage" that is created.
In essence every year we take several thousand litres of litres of clean fresh water, mix it with a couple hundred litres of our bodily excrements, and then we try to remove the bodily excrements from the water. A rather pointless and inefficient process, when we consider that the technology exists- dry composting toilets (which are already in place in some Winnipeg homes and businesses, mind you)- with which we could treat our bodily excrements without the use of water, and rather than creating algae blooms in lakes, we could produce a useful agricultural product--a nutrient rich soil conditioner.
In her July 28th letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister Melnick asserts that "...the cost for cleaning up Lake Winnipeg is a responsibility of all Manitobans." Undoubtedly, the cost of increasingly eutrophicating and contaminated waterways is borne by all living species in Manitoba. Why then, do both the civic and provincial governments cling to upholding an unsustainable sewage infrastructure?
On July 24th, Councillor Steeves expressed his concern that the roughly $2 billion being spent on upgrading our sewage system "...is not at all a prudent use of taxpayers' money." To this end the GPM would also like to point out that it is also an imprudent use of our precious water resources.
The fact of the matter is, that the vast majority of pathogens and nutrients coming from household sewage originate from human feces and urine. According to a German study, urine accounts for 87% of the total nitrogen content and 50% of the phosphorous content in household sewage water; furthermore feces accounts for 10% of the total nitrogen and 40% of the total phosphorous content. However rather than dealing with this problem at its point of origin, we dilute it with water: firstly when we flush our toilet, and increasingly so as we mix our toilet water, with our wash and drainage water; at which point we then attempt to remove the diluted nutrients and pathogens from the so called "waste-water" or "sewage" that is created.
In essence every year we take several thousand litres of litres of clean fresh water, mix it with a couple hundred litres of our bodily excrements, and then we try to remove the bodily excrements from the water. A rather pointless and inefficient process, when we consider that the technology exists- dry composting toilets (which are already in place in some Winnipeg homes and businesses, mind you)- with which we could treat our bodily excrements without the use of water, and rather than creating algae blooms in lakes, we could produce a useful agricultural product--a nutrient rich soil conditioner.
In her July 28th letter to the Winnipeg Free Press, Minister Melnick asserts that "...the cost for cleaning up Lake Winnipeg is a responsibility of all Manitobans." Undoubtedly, the cost of increasingly eutrophicating and contaminated waterways is borne by all living species in Manitoba. Why then, do both the civic and provincial governments cling to upholding an unsustainable sewage infrastructure?
The Constituency boundaries may change, but the agrarian roots to my hometown do not.
As the former Green Party candidate in the soon to be defunct Minnedosa Constituency, I largely concur with Dan Lett's conclusions: that the recent Tory complaints about electoral gerrymandering are unfounded, and that this is a tacit recognition by the Tories that they can't seem to win seats in Winnipeg.
I do admit to being a little sentimental—us political candidates get attached to the areas where we campaign—; but underneath the new electoral redistribution and the political muckraking lies the structural cause of the shift of political power from the rural areas to our major urban center: the problem of rural decline.
There are few that would doubt the legitimacy of the Census data that is used to determine redistributions, and the by and large the Census data shows that many of Manitoba's rural areas are hollowing out as many young people forgo taking over the family farm in favour of working in the city. The question these rural PC MLA's should be asking is: “Why are these trends occurring?”; and “What can be done to reverse these trends?”
In an attempt to get the political discourse going I though that I might offer a few suggestions courtesy of the Green Party of Manitoba.
The underlying value of a Green approach to agriculture is move away from export oriented agriculture, towards localized food production. All to often foods travel thousands of kilometres before consumption. This not only causes needless emissions, but when food is sold locally directly from the agricultural producer to the consumer the absence of middle-men often allows farmers to garner a larger portion of the profits.
Let me elaborate with three specific examples:
1. With the summer heat comes the time-honoured tradition of farmers' markets, but how many Manitobans are aware that farmers markets are legally restricted to being open for a mere 14 days per annum. A very simple legislative change could rectify this inequality, creating the the opportunity for more Manitoban agricultural producers to diversify their income by selling local food to local consumers.
2. Another example would be Saskatchewan's decision to pay farmers up to $700 per year to help pay for the costs of organic certification. According to the 2006 Census data there were 19.054 enumerated farms in Manitoba, if every farmer in Manitoba converted to Organic Agriculture a similar program in Manitoba would cost less than 14 million.
3. Where is the equality in providing 37.5 times more funding in loan support to the hog industry than to young farmers? In a press release last week Minister Wowchuk bragged , that the “Young Farmer Rebate Program Provides $1.6 Million to Producers”; yet this year 60 million was doled out to the hog producers—they even upped the ante from 2.5 million to 5 million in support because they couldn't get rid of the money fast enough. With the age of agricultural producers constantly increasing wouldn't it seem logical to invest in young farmers?
Of course my analysis like, much Mr. Schweitzer's, is partisan. The difference is that I am trying to look for solutions to ameliorate the problem of rural depopulation, rather than squabbling over election boundaries in 2011. If it is “a good political fight” that Dan Lett wants he should start looking at the Manitoba Greens.
James Beddome is the former 2007 GPM Candidate for Minnedosa and the current GPM President
I do admit to being a little sentimental—us political candidates get attached to the areas where we campaign—; but underneath the new electoral redistribution and the political muckraking lies the structural cause of the shift of political power from the rural areas to our major urban center: the problem of rural decline.
There are few that would doubt the legitimacy of the Census data that is used to determine redistributions, and the by and large the Census data shows that many of Manitoba's rural areas are hollowing out as many young people forgo taking over the family farm in favour of working in the city. The question these rural PC MLA's should be asking is: “Why are these trends occurring?”; and “What can be done to reverse these trends?”
In an attempt to get the political discourse going I though that I might offer a few suggestions courtesy of the Green Party of Manitoba.
The underlying value of a Green approach to agriculture is move away from export oriented agriculture, towards localized food production. All to often foods travel thousands of kilometres before consumption. This not only causes needless emissions, but when food is sold locally directly from the agricultural producer to the consumer the absence of middle-men often allows farmers to garner a larger portion of the profits.
Let me elaborate with three specific examples:
1. With the summer heat comes the time-honoured tradition of farmers' markets, but how many Manitobans are aware that farmers markets are legally restricted to being open for a mere 14 days per annum. A very simple legislative change could rectify this inequality, creating the the opportunity for more Manitoban agricultural producers to diversify their income by selling local food to local consumers.
2. Another example would be Saskatchewan's decision to pay farmers up to $700 per year to help pay for the costs of organic certification. According to the 2006 Census data there were 19.054 enumerated farms in Manitoba, if every farmer in Manitoba converted to Organic Agriculture a similar program in Manitoba would cost less than 14 million.
3. Where is the equality in providing 37.5 times more funding in loan support to the hog industry than to young farmers? In a press release last week Minister Wowchuk bragged , that the “Young Farmer Rebate Program Provides $1.6 Million to Producers”; yet this year 60 million was doled out to the hog producers—they even upped the ante from 2.5 million to 5 million in support because they couldn't get rid of the money fast enough. With the age of agricultural producers constantly increasing wouldn't it seem logical to invest in young farmers?
Of course my analysis like, much Mr. Schweitzer's, is partisan. The difference is that I am trying to look for solutions to ameliorate the problem of rural depopulation, rather than squabbling over election boundaries in 2011. If it is “a good political fight” that Dan Lett wants he should start looking at the Manitoba Greens.
James Beddome is the former 2007 GPM Candidate for Minnedosa and the current GPM President
Sunday, June 29, 2008
When will we stop playing God?
Ironically I was reading the Free Press's June the 26th article that Mosquito Fogging would begin this Friday while literally being swarmed by a herd of mosquitoes.
I was in Lockport waiting on the side of Highway 9 waiting for the Beaver Bus (Let me assure the readership that it is a well known fact among Lockportians that mosquito counts are always higher in Lockport).
At this point a man in a truck drove by, briefly stopping to shout: "Don't the mosquitoes bother you?" I quickly retorted: "No, they can be annoying, but I just deal with them.”
As reported in the article the level of West Nile carrying mosquitoes is low, so we are basically spraying for so called "nuisance mosquitoes". I pondered to myself: "Does any other species on the planet think as we do? “
As outlandish as it sounds, what if the trees were to uproot themselves and to systematically start attacking humanity. They could make a pretty good argument that humanities tendency to cut down trees is quite a nuisance to the both their deciduous and non-deciduous brethren alike.
Is humanity a cut above? Or are we just too ignorant and egotistical to see beyond ourselves?
I was in Lockport waiting on the side of Highway 9 waiting for the Beaver Bus (Let me assure the readership that it is a well known fact among Lockportians that mosquito counts are always higher in Lockport).
At this point a man in a truck drove by, briefly stopping to shout: "Don't the mosquitoes bother you?" I quickly retorted: "No, they can be annoying, but I just deal with them.”
As reported in the article the level of West Nile carrying mosquitoes is low, so we are basically spraying for so called "nuisance mosquitoes". I pondered to myself: "Does any other species on the planet think as we do? “
As outlandish as it sounds, what if the trees were to uproot themselves and to systematically start attacking humanity. They could make a pretty good argument that humanities tendency to cut down trees is quite a nuisance to the both their deciduous and non-deciduous brethren alike.
Is humanity a cut above? Or are we just too ignorant and egotistical to see beyond ourselves?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Thoughts on the St. Patricks Day Canadian Election
Last nights by-election was overall relatively uneventful. As expected the Liberals won three of the four seats that were up for grabs.
The Greens continued to surge up in the polls finishing neck and neck with the NDP in most ridings (see my blog below that was originally published in the Brandon Sun, on October 13th, 2007).
However what stands out the most from last night by-election, is not what these results mean for any pending election, rather it is apathetic nature of the electorate.
By-elections typically have low-voter turn-outs, but last nights overall turn-out rate was 27.7% of registered voters. This does not bode well for our democratic system. At the end of the day it was the ballots of 14.1% of the registered voters that elected the four new MPs. Including the Greens, there are four parties accross Canada (and five in Quebec) that have a chance elect Members to Parliament. Clearly an electoral system that is designed for a two-party sytem is out of touch with the current political realities. Perhaps if we instituted some form of Proportional Representation we could finally convince people that it was worthwhile to go out an vote.
JRB
The Greens continued to surge up in the polls finishing neck and neck with the NDP in most ridings (see my blog below that was originally published in the Brandon Sun, on October 13th, 2007).
However what stands out the most from last night by-election, is not what these results mean for any pending election, rather it is apathetic nature of the electorate.
By-elections typically have low-voter turn-outs, but last nights overall turn-out rate was 27.7% of registered voters. This does not bode well for our democratic system. At the end of the day it was the ballots of 14.1% of the registered voters that elected the four new MPs. Including the Greens, there are four parties accross Canada (and five in Quebec) that have a chance elect Members to Parliament. Clearly an electoral system that is designed for a two-party sytem is out of touch with the current political realities. Perhaps if we instituted some form of Proportional Representation we could finally convince people that it was worthwhile to go out an vote.
JRB
Ontario is going Green, Canada may follow
As published in the Brandon Sun, October 13, 2007
The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) may not have won a seat in the 2007 Ontario provincial election, but after their impressive showing it would be difficult to deny that they are indeed becoming a political threat within Ontario and quite possibly across the entire country.
The Green Party's best showing was in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where candidate Shane Jolley gave the incumbent Progressive Conservative candidate, Bill Murdoch, a run for his money. Shane finished second with 33.1 percent of the vote, garnering more than twice as many votes as the third-place Liberal candidate, Selwyn Hicks.
The Greens also made a strong showing in the riding of Guelph where candidate Ben Polley polled third with 19.5 percent of the vote, just behind second-place PC candidate Bob Senechal with 24.7 percent of the vote and ahead of NDP candidate Karan Mann-Bowers with 13.9 percent.
The GPO ran candidates in all 107 ridings and overall they garnered eight percent of the total popular vote. In 18 different ridings, the Greens finished in third place, placing ahead of both NDP and PC candidates. In an additional 10 ridings, the GPO was within two percent of finishing third.
Most political analysts argued that the Ontario election would offer few insights into the possible outcome of the looming federal election. The strong showing of the GPO, however, should be enough to make analysts pause and consider how the Green Party of Canada will fare when Canadians go back to the polls.
Perhaps they may even win a seat!
JRB
The Green Party of Ontario (GPO) may not have won a seat in the 2007 Ontario provincial election, but after their impressive showing it would be difficult to deny that they are indeed becoming a political threat within Ontario and quite possibly across the entire country.
The Green Party's best showing was in the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, where candidate Shane Jolley gave the incumbent Progressive Conservative candidate, Bill Murdoch, a run for his money. Shane finished second with 33.1 percent of the vote, garnering more than twice as many votes as the third-place Liberal candidate, Selwyn Hicks.
The Greens also made a strong showing in the riding of Guelph where candidate Ben Polley polled third with 19.5 percent of the vote, just behind second-place PC candidate Bob Senechal with 24.7 percent of the vote and ahead of NDP candidate Karan Mann-Bowers with 13.9 percent.
The GPO ran candidates in all 107 ridings and overall they garnered eight percent of the total popular vote. In 18 different ridings, the Greens finished in third place, placing ahead of both NDP and PC candidates. In an additional 10 ridings, the GPO was within two percent of finishing third.
Most political analysts argued that the Ontario election would offer few insights into the possible outcome of the looming federal election. The strong showing of the GPO, however, should be enough to make analysts pause and consider how the Green Party of Canada will fare when Canadians go back to the polls.
Perhaps they may even win a seat!
JRB
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Your own backyard anaerobic digester!!!
Ever wanted to create your own composting toilet, backyard anaerobic digester or small scale organic waste water treatment system?
Biorealis Systems Inc., ("...an Alaskan professional corporation providing R&D, ecological engineering, and energy management consulting services, with particular emphasis on the practical application of small scale appropriate technologies and designs which emulate natural biological systems."), has designs on its webpage outlining how to create your own composting toilet, anaerobic digester, or waste water treatment facility?
This site is an invaluable resource for the do-it yourself guru, interested in designing a small-scale home-based system for dealing with their own excrement and organic waste. Founded in 1984 by Robert L. Crosby Jr., Biorealis Systems Inc. aims to freely distribute information on how to build small-scale, low-cost and reliable ecological products in the hopes that large numbers of people will purchase (or build) and these ecological products in their own economic self-interest. I would highly recommend that all treehuggers go and take a look
Shown here is a design for a backyard anaerobic digester. The site also provides a design calculator that enables users to approximate methane production so that they can determine the appropriate sized system for their locality.
JRB
Monday, March 10, 2008
Carbon Sequestration a Quick-fix
Environment Minister John Baird's announcement that carbon sequestration will be mandatory, while applauded, requires further examination.
Carbon sequestration does provide a short-term solution to reduce carbon emissions, however it does not provide a long-term solution because ultimately we will run out of petroleum, fossil fuel derived methane, and coal (at least if we continue consume these resources as we presently do).
A long-term solution recognizes these limits; a truly long term solution would be to create a world free from fossil fuel dependence.
Now, I certainly understand how unlikely it is that humanity will quit using fossil-fuels tomorrow. Nonetheless, this is the aim that we MUST keep in sight!
The sequestration of carbon, is a relatively new and untested technology that literally entails pumping vast amounts of liquified C0² underground in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas fields, underground saline aquifers (salty water/rock layers), or abandoned coal mines. It remains unclear however if the stored C0² will leak back into the atmosphere, or acidify aquifers. Storing vast quantities of C0² underground literally creates a ticking time bomb.
In 1986 volcanic activity caused approximately 1 km³of naturally-trapped carbon dioxide to bubble up from under Lake Nyos, Cameroon, causing the suffocation of 1700 people and 3500 livestock in the surrounding areas. Even proponents of carbon capture recognize that, “[a] similar event from a breached C0² storage is the worst-case scenario for CCS-technology.” (Höök, 10). Does it not seem conceivable that an earthquake near a C0² storage site could cause a similar disaster?
C0² leakage from storage sites would of course also further contribute to climate change. According to Peter Montague, Executive Director of the Environmental Research Foundation, 'if 25% of the worlds remaining carbon (petroleum, natural gas, coal, and peat) was sequestered, any leakage above 0.16% could eventually result in runaway global warming; and if 75% of carbon was sequestered this percentage drops to 0.05%.' As Mr. Montague questions “Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year? ...the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat.”
Following the announcement, most oil and coal industry experts in the media were surprisingly accepting of the new regulation. (Perhaps $108 per barrel oil has spurred the optimistic mood.) The lurking question seemed to be: “Who would pay for the increased costs of production?...Oil producers? Consumers? Government?” My intuition tells me that the government will end up paying, at least a portion of the cost. Will a further subsidization of the oil industry helps us to create a fossil fuel independence?
At the end of the day, carbon sequestration is quite literally an attempt to sweep everything under the rug. It is an attempt to bury our C0² emissions under the ground, rather than reducing them. The Conservatives likewise are sweeping the politically hostile question of gthe tar sands developmenth under the rug. Mandatory carbon sequestration legitimizes the tar sands and coal-burning because it provides a neat and tidy solution to the emissions created by the activities (at least so long as nothing goes wrong).
The tar sands however come with their own set of risks. Firstly the “development of the tar sands” is resulting in the clearing of vast tracks of forest. Trees provide an efficient and natural means of carbon sequestration, by clearing vast tracks of forest we are essentially reducing the carbon sequestering capacity of the planet. Furthermore as noted in a recent report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resoures (chaired by Conservative MP Lee Richardson, 42), “...two to four and a half barrels of water are nevertheless required, even with water recycling, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.” The claims of the oil industry that this land and water can be “reclaimed” is dubious. I ask of the readership: What is more important to sustaining life on the planet: oil or fresh water?
Now to reiterate, I recognize that the sequestration of carbon does provide some potential to reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future; however I hope that this does not distract society from the longer term goal of weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuels.
Solar, wind, bio-gas generation, wave power generation, small-scale hydro: there are numerous ways of generating energy. I suppose a good analogy would be alcoholics who convince themselves that they need just one more drink, when ultimately they need to quit drinking, period! I can only hope that we have the wisdom to check into a good program to free ourselves from fossil fuels.
Sources:
1. Mikael Höök (2007). "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" UHDSG
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
2. Peter Montague (2007). “Carbon Sequestration and the precautionary principle”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65
3. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources (2007). “The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development” Government of Canada.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/rnnr04-e.pdf
JRB
Carbon sequestration does provide a short-term solution to reduce carbon emissions, however it does not provide a long-term solution because ultimately we will run out of petroleum, fossil fuel derived methane, and coal (at least if we continue consume these resources as we presently do).
A long-term solution recognizes these limits; a truly long term solution would be to create a world free from fossil fuel dependence.
Now, I certainly understand how unlikely it is that humanity will quit using fossil-fuels tomorrow. Nonetheless, this is the aim that we MUST keep in sight!
The sequestration of carbon, is a relatively new and untested technology that literally entails pumping vast amounts of liquified C0² underground in depleted or near-depleted oil and gas fields, underground saline aquifers (salty water/rock layers), or abandoned coal mines. It remains unclear however if the stored C0² will leak back into the atmosphere, or acidify aquifers. Storing vast quantities of C0² underground literally creates a ticking time bomb.
In 1986 volcanic activity caused approximately 1 km³of naturally-trapped carbon dioxide to bubble up from under Lake Nyos, Cameroon, causing the suffocation of 1700 people and 3500 livestock in the surrounding areas. Even proponents of carbon capture recognize that, “[a] similar event from a breached C0² storage is the worst-case scenario for CCS-technology.” (Höök, 10). Does it not seem conceivable that an earthquake near a C0² storage site could cause a similar disaster?
C0² leakage from storage sites would of course also further contribute to climate change. According to Peter Montague, Executive Director of the Environmental Research Foundation, 'if 25% of the worlds remaining carbon (petroleum, natural gas, coal, and peat) was sequestered, any leakage above 0.16% could eventually result in runaway global warming; and if 75% of carbon was sequestered this percentage drops to 0.05%.' As Mr. Montague questions “Can humans bury several trillion tons of carbon dioxide in the ground with complete confidence that 0.05% of it will not leak out each year? ...the danger would lie buried forever, waiting to escape, a perpetual threat.”
Following the announcement, most oil and coal industry experts in the media were surprisingly accepting of the new regulation. (Perhaps $108 per barrel oil has spurred the optimistic mood.) The lurking question seemed to be: “Who would pay for the increased costs of production?...Oil producers? Consumers? Government?” My intuition tells me that the government will end up paying, at least a portion of the cost. Will a further subsidization of the oil industry helps us to create a fossil fuel independence?
At the end of the day, carbon sequestration is quite literally an attempt to sweep everything under the rug. It is an attempt to bury our C0² emissions under the ground, rather than reducing them. The Conservatives likewise are sweeping the politically hostile question of gthe tar sands developmenth under the rug. Mandatory carbon sequestration legitimizes the tar sands and coal-burning because it provides a neat and tidy solution to the emissions created by the activities (at least so long as nothing goes wrong).
The tar sands however come with their own set of risks. Firstly the “development of the tar sands” is resulting in the clearing of vast tracks of forest. Trees provide an efficient and natural means of carbon sequestration, by clearing vast tracks of forest we are essentially reducing the carbon sequestering capacity of the planet. Furthermore as noted in a recent report by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resoures (chaired by Conservative MP Lee Richardson, 42), “...two to four and a half barrels of water are nevertheless required, even with water recycling, to produce one barrel of synthetic crude.” The claims of the oil industry that this land and water can be “reclaimed” is dubious. I ask of the readership: What is more important to sustaining life on the planet: oil or fresh water?
Now to reiterate, I recognize that the sequestration of carbon does provide some potential to reduce carbon emissions in the immediate future; however I hope that this does not distract society from the longer term goal of weaning ourselves off of fossil-fuels.
Solar, wind, bio-gas generation, wave power generation, small-scale hydro: there are numerous ways of generating energy. I suppose a good analogy would be alcoholics who convince themselves that they need just one more drink, when ultimately they need to quit drinking, period! I can only hope that we have the wisdom to check into a good program to free ourselves from fossil fuels.
Sources:
1. Mikael Höök (2007). "Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)" UHDSG
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Popular/CCS.pdf
2. Peter Montague (2007). “Carbon Sequestration and the precautionary principle”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/10/151448/65
3. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources (2007). “The Oil Sands: Towards Sustainable Development” Government of Canada.
http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/rnnr/reports/rp2614277/rnnrrp04/rnnr04-e.pdf
JRB
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
B.C.'s Carbon Tax
Pending legislative approval and commencing on July 1st, 2008, British Columbia will become the first North American district to impose a carbon tax. Of course there are critics of this tax, but the imposition of this tax is monumental in that it sets an important precedent that will hopefully be copied by the other Provincial, Territorial, and State Governments.
Initially the Carbon Tax will be charged at a rate of $10 per tonne, but it is slated to rise $5 per annum until the tax reached $30 per tonne in 2012. The tax will also be tax neutral, meaning that the $1.849 billion of estimated revenue generated, will not be spent on new government expenditures, but will instead be to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes elsewhere. British Columbians will pay 2% less in income tax in 2008 and 5% less in 2009 on the first $70,000 of earnings, with further tax reductions anticipated in 2010. British Columbian businesses will also see the tax reductions: with corporate income tax being reduced from 12% to 10% by 2011, and the small business tax rate being reduced from 4.5% to 2.5% by 2011. To help offset the regressive tendencies of a Carbon Tax the B.C. Government will also pay a Climate Action Credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child to low income households.
[Click for budget overview: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224.htm, Click for carbon tax: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment4.htm]
Of course trial and error is somewhat natural whenever trying something new; and the new carbon tax has some pitfalls.
For instance, in addition to the aforementioned tax adjustments, every British Columbian resident will also receive a one-time Climate Action Dividend of a $100. The Governments claims that they “...hope that British Columbians will apply the funds toward purchases that can help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, by doing so, also reduce the amount of carbon tax they would otherwise pay.” It seems more likely, however, that the $100 dollars in cold cash is more about making a new tax more palatable to the public.
The NDP have questioned this new tax arguing that it unfairly penalizes individuals while leaving the large greenhouse emitters unregulated. To its defence Cambell's Liberals have indicated that they intend to deal with large emitters through a cap and trade system, but the this cap and trade system will not be implemented immediately. “You believe it when you see it!” in politics.
Others question how effective the carbon tax will be in changing behaviours. Is 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline enough of a financial burden to induce people to walk, cycle or take the bus to work? Gasoline prices have risen considerably more over the past three years, and yet there does not seem to be a drastic reduction in the number of vehicles on the road.
In a 1996 article in the Energy Journal, Molly Espey surveys numerous studies between 1936 and 1986 on the price elasticity of gasoline, finding “price elasticity estimates for the demand for gasoline of the United States range from -0.02 to -1.59, averaging -0.53...”. Assuming this average is reasonably accurate , with gas costing roughly a dollar a 2. 4% (or 2.4 cent per litre) increase in the price of gas would translate into a 1.272 %be decrease in the demand for gasoline, eventually rising to a 3.816% reduction in the more recent study gasoline demand as the tax per tonne is increased.
In a more recent study researchers compare U.S. gasoline price elasticities from 1975 to 1980, with price elasticities from 2001-2006 and find that the demand for gasoline has became more inelastic; indicating that American consumers have become less responsive to changes in gasoline prices. Whether this is a result of changes in land use patterns, a greater reliance on the personal automobile, or higher discretionary incomes is matter of some debate. [http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucei/csem/CSEMWP-159/]
The inelastic nature of gasoline demand means that it is unlikely that this carbon tax, on its own, will inspire the carbon reductions necessary to seriously combat climate change. However it is a step in the right direction.
In addition to implementing a carbon-tax the government has also committed itself to spending more than $1 billion dollars on capital and operating costs to help fight climate change. These include: $370 million for public transportation; $98 million to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy-efficient choices for their homes, businesses and vehicles; 130 million to make the British Columbian public sector carbon-neutral; 98 million for climate change research; $111 million to develop additional climate action solutions-stakeholder consultations, establish and fund the Citizens’ Conservation Council, assist the Climate Action Team, and support public outreach to promote greener choices; and the government is also providing Provincial Sales Tax exemptions for a variety of products like Energy-Star a ppliances, biodiesel, aerodynamic devices for commercial tractor-trailers, electric-assisted two and three wheel cycles, and non-motorized adult tricycles. [http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment3.htm]
There is always room for improvement in life, and the carbon tax concept will undoubtedly be refined over time and across varying situations. British Columbians, however, should be proud that there government has taken a bold step, that may very well make taxation more fair, and spur innovation in the burgeoning green economy. Now if only we could see the same sort of political guff from the other governments in North America, most especially from Mr. Flaherty when he introduces the Canadian Federal budget today.
JRB
Print Sources:
1. Espey, Molly. "Explaining The Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-Analysis" Energy Journal; 1996, Vol. 17 Issue 3
2. Oates, Wallace E. "Green Tax1es: Can We Protect the Envir1onment and Improve the Tax System at the Same Time?" Southern Economic Journal; 1995, Vol. 61, No. 4
Initially the Carbon Tax will be charged at a rate of $10 per tonne, but it is slated to rise $5 per annum until the tax reached $30 per tonne in 2012. The tax will also be tax neutral, meaning that the $1.849 billion of estimated revenue generated, will not be spent on new government expenditures, but will instead be to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes elsewhere. British Columbians will pay 2% less in income tax in 2008 and 5% less in 2009 on the first $70,000 of earnings, with further tax reductions anticipated in 2010. British Columbian businesses will also see the tax reductions: with corporate income tax being reduced from 12% to 10% by 2011, and the small business tax rate being reduced from 4.5% to 2.5% by 2011. To help offset the regressive tendencies of a Carbon Tax the B.C. Government will also pay a Climate Action Credit of $100 per adult and $30 per child to low income households.
[Click for budget overview: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224.htm, Click for carbon tax: http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment4.htm]
Of course trial and error is somewhat natural whenever trying something new; and the new carbon tax has some pitfalls.
For instance, in addition to the aforementioned tax adjustments, every British Columbian resident will also receive a one-time Climate Action Dividend of a $100. The Governments claims that they “...hope that British Columbians will apply the funds toward purchases that can help reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and, by doing so, also reduce the amount of carbon tax they would otherwise pay.” It seems more likely, however, that the $100 dollars in cold cash is more about making a new tax more palatable to the public.
The NDP have questioned this new tax arguing that it unfairly penalizes individuals while leaving the large greenhouse emitters unregulated. To its defence Cambell's Liberals have indicated that they intend to deal with large emitters through a cap and trade system, but the this cap and trade system will not be implemented immediately. “You believe it when you see it!” in politics.
Some academics have questioned the efficacy of taxing fossil fuels directly. Dr. Wallace E. Oates of the University of Maryland argues:
...whenever possible we should design the tax to address directly the polluting act. This may in some instances require some ingenuity. To take one example, automobile emissions are a primary source of urban air pollution in many countries. It is tempting to regard such emissions from a particular vehicle as beyond our monitoring capacities and settle for a tax on gasoline. But such a tax, while perhaps discouraging driving to some extent, fails to provide needed incentives to purchase automobiles with desirable emission characteristics and, equally important, to maintain them in ways to keep pollutant emissions at low levels. But there are taking place important advances in monitoring technology. It may soon be possible through periodic inspections (or perhaps even remote detection devices) to measure the levels of emissions from individual vehicles and then, with some measure of the miles driven, to fashion tax bills that reflect reasonable accurately actual emissions.
Others question how effective the carbon tax will be in changing behaviours. Is 2.4 cents per litre of gasoline enough of a financial burden to induce people to walk, cycle or take the bus to work? Gasoline prices have risen considerably more over the past three years, and yet there does not seem to be a drastic reduction in the number of vehicles on the road.
In a 1996 article in the Energy Journal, Molly Espey surveys numerous studies between 1936 and 1986 on the price elasticity of gasoline, finding “price elasticity estimates for the demand for gasoline of the United States range from -0.02 to -1.59, averaging -0.53...”. Assuming this average is reasonably accurate , with gas costing roughly a dollar a 2. 4% (or 2.4 cent per litre) increase in the price of gas would translate into a 1.272 %be decrease in the demand for gasoline, eventually rising to a 3.816% reduction in the more recent study gasoline demand as the tax per tonne is increased.
In a more recent study researchers compare U.S. gasoline price elasticities from 1975 to 1980, with price elasticities from 2001-2006 and find that the demand for gasoline has became more inelastic; indicating that American consumers have become less responsive to changes in gasoline prices. Whether this is a result of changes in land use patterns, a greater reliance on the personal automobile, or higher discretionary incomes is matter of some debate. [http://repositories.cdlib.org/ucei/csem/CSEMWP-159/]
The inelastic nature of gasoline demand means that it is unlikely that this carbon tax, on its own, will inspire the carbon reductions necessary to seriously combat climate change. However it is a step in the right direction.
In addition to implementing a carbon-tax the government has also committed itself to spending more than $1 billion dollars on capital and operating costs to help fight climate change. These include: $370 million for public transportation; $98 million to encourage individuals and communities to make more energy-efficient choices for their homes, businesses and vehicles; 130 million to make the British Columbian public sector carbon-neutral; 98 million for climate change research; $111 million to develop additional climate action solutions-stakeholder consultations, establish and fund the Citizens’ Conservation Council, assist the Climate Action Team, and support public outreach to promote greener choices; and the government is also providing Provincial Sales Tax exemptions for a variety of products like Energy-Star a ppliances, biodiesel, aerodynamic devices for commercial tractor-trailers, electric-assisted two and three wheel cycles, and non-motorized adult tricycles. [http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-2009/2008FIN0005-000224-Attachment3.htm]
There is always room for improvement in life, and the carbon tax concept will undoubtedly be refined over time and across varying situations. British Columbians, however, should be proud that there government has taken a bold step, that may very well make taxation more fair, and spur innovation in the burgeoning green economy. Now if only we could see the same sort of political guff from the other governments in North America, most especially from Mr. Flaherty when he introduces the Canadian Federal budget today.
JRB
Print Sources:
1. Espey, Molly. "Explaining The Variation in Elasticity Estimates of Gasoline Demand in the United States: A Meta-Analysis" Energy Journal; 1996, Vol. 17 Issue 3
2. Oates, Wallace E. "Green Tax1es: Can We Protect the Envir1onment and Improve the Tax System at the Same Time?" Southern Economic Journal; 1995, Vol. 61, No. 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)