The letter below was in response to this article which was itself a response to an earlier argument.
PLANET IS THE SOURCE OF ALL PROSPERITY
Spencer Fernando’s recent article, “A Conservative’s View on Climate Change” (Jan. 13, 2010) requires a serious response from a green perspective. First, it must be said that not everyone who showed up at Rod Bruinooge’s office to rally for a strong Canadian stance on climate change was in fact a Green Party member or supporter. Greens support vigorous debate, and within the party itself there is a wide range of perspectives on how best to create a sustainable planet.
Fernando mischaracterizes the green position on the carbon economy by implying that greens are so naive as to seek to stop the carbon economy overnight. Rather, greens wish to introduce a pragmatic strategy towards greatly reducing Canada’s carbon emissions. This program would include a revenue-neutral carbon tax at extractive sources, to be offset by reductions in income tax, primarily in the lower taxable brackets. Greens advocate an orderly transition to a green economy by granting incentives to industries willing to invest in producing economically — and environmentally — sound energy and technologies. Retooling infrastructure and retraining workers will be necessary in this transition, but will require strong leadership from the federal government — leadership not being shown by Stephen Harper.
Greens are not opposed to technological advancement; in fact, we embrace it. The appropriate technology and transition movements sweeping across Great Britain and Europe shows locally-coordinated, cooperative solutions in action, and effectively undermines the conservative fear-mongering that jobs must be lost in the transition to a post-carbon economy.
Fernando claims the conservative government's position is "clear," yet there are few concrete ideas that he puts forward. The only idea is the notion of carbon capture and storage. Yet in the same paragraph Fernando declares, "Now is not the time for extreme and unproven experiments." Perhaps Mr. Fernando is unaware that carbon capture is really little more than an unproven experiment still being conducted. Even if this technology proves itself useful in the long term, it will still be a very expensive “band-aid” approach that fails to deal with the problem at its source. In essence, government support for carbon capture is a subsidy to the oil industry. How does this create a “fair market” with a level playing field? Instead, this creates an uneven playing field that unduly benefits carbon-intensive, multinational fossil-fuel companies to the detriment of our planet.
The Alberta model calls into question the notion that the tar sands benefit all Canadians. A recent report illustrates how the gains from the tar sands are private while the costs associated with social, health and ecological problems stemming from the industry are paid for by the public. The Norway model, meanwhile, illustrates how high state royalties on oil and gas development allow for industry profitability, while Norwegians are justly compensated and the funds are prudently managed: Norway invests over 95 per cent of its royalties from the industry in long-term, secure funds. A strong federal government would mitigate the oil patch profit-at-all-costs mentality by recognizing that Canadians will need a steady economy and social standards well after the boom ends. The UK-issued Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change showed the costs associated with not taking strong action on climate change are greater than those associated with regulating and moving away from fossil fuel use.
Mr. Fernando claims that the trend of human progress has been unmistakably positive. If we want to ignore the disappearance of species at a hugely inflated rate, the rapid melting of ice caps, the eutrophication of our oceans, the pollution of our air, water and soil, the rise of cancer and heart disease in OECD developed nations — then yes, we’re progressing. The rest of us working to create sustainable and just societies beyond the boom and bust cycle of linear resource extractive industries are a little more realistic. The planet is finite. Greens understand that our delicate planet sustains a complex web of living systems, which we are both part of and dependent upon. There are limits not only to the total biomass of the planet itself, but also on our planet and our own capacities to absorb pollutants and remain healthy. A wise government would understand the real source of prosperity is the planet itself.
Fernando claims that Conservatives support vigorous debate. With many Canadians disgusted by conservative obstruction of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, and with Parliament shut down, the Campus Greens will happily debate Canada’s climate policy with the Campus Conservatives, publicly. Will Conservatives rise to this challenge?
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Re: Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout
In the Feb. 3rd article, "Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout”, printed in The Manitoban, Blaike Hamm makes the absurd argument that having seen no Campus Greens in attendance when James Bezan, Conservative Member of Parliment (MP), spoke at the University of Manitoba on January 18th, that this was evidence of "...indifference to environmental issues at its finest." This is absolutely ridiculous! There is any one of a numerous reasons why the Campus Greens may or may not have been in attendance, such as conflicting academic or work schedules. I can only speak for myself, but I had a group project due and was working on the project with my project partner accordingly.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Hamm should check his information when he criticizes the Campus Greens for submitting three letters. I was absolutely delighted to read Ms. Beaudette's letter, but I do not know her personally, and thus I had no idea that she submitted a letter with similar argumentation. I do know Alon Weinberg, and he was instrumental in the writing and editing of the commentary piece published in my name in the January 27 edition. Afterwards, Alon decided that he wanted to pen a few more of his thoughts and they were subsequently published online.
To state that the issue of prorogation "...does not directly affect the Green Party at all...", is offensive and undemocratic. The operation of Parliament concerns more than simply the 308 MPs. Inside or outside of Parliament all Canadians have an interest in the activities of our government. MPs have a duty to represent all of their constituents, not just those that voted for them. By extension, this means that the present Conservative government needs to govern in the interest of all Canadians, not simply in the interests of the roughly five million Conservative voters. I will accept that this minority government was duly elected in our present first-past-the-post system, but these five million voters only accounted for twenty-two percent of the registered voters who cast their ballot. This government then needs to be mindful of the concerns of the forty per cent of people who did not vote, and those that voted for another party; including, of course, the one million, and growing, Green Voters. To quote Hamm: "I will let the reader come to a conclusion, based on the facts and numbers...", to determine if the Conservatives had adequate support to unilaterally shut-down Parliament at tax-payers expense?
Perhaps more Campus Greens should have been in attendance when Bezan spoke, but what exactly does Mr. Hamm want? Perhaps he wanted Campus Greens to show up and pound a drum whenever someone was trying to speak? That is what the Campus Conservatives did during the December 16th, 2009 Copenhagen rally in front of Winnipeg South MP Rod Bruinooge’s Office.
The sarcastic tone of Mr. Hamm's letter is distasteful. Had Parliament not been shut-down, or if it had been simply adjourned, Mr. Bezan could be continuing with his work as Chair of the Environment Committee, but as with all other Committees it is now shut down post-prorogation. Perhaps Mr. Bezan made some good points regarding what the Conservative Government is doing? Unfortunately, and by Hamm's own admission, "no specifics on environmental policy" were discussed in his letter. The Campus Greens have no problem debating ideas, but if the Campus Conservatives really want to have a "respectful exchange of ideas" then perhaps they should stick to the issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)