JRBSpot

Stay On Point When Discussing Ban on the Non-Essential Use of Pesticides

2012-02-18T04:18:00.000-08:00

GOOD NEWS! The Manitoba Government is finally going to follow the lead of the other 6 provinces in Canada which have put in place bans on the aesthetic or non-essential use of pesticides. This is a first step that Greens have been calling for years.

I will admit that I would like to see a phasing out of pesticide use for agricultural practices. The organics industry is the fastest growing segment of the food industry, and I would like to see support for Manitoba farmers to go after this burgeoning consumer demand.

But I think it will be important to stay on point. The issue at hand is a ban not on the agricultural use of pesticides, but on the aesthetic use of pesticides for non-essential purposes.

Robert Arnason's February 16, 2012 article “Pesticide ban position questioned ” in the Western Producer provides an example of the misdirected, misleading and misguided arguments that are going to be put forward by industry hacks – veiled or otherwise.

Below is a much a lengthened version of a 400 word letter I sent to the Arnason and the Western Producer news room, and copied to the Minister of Conservation and Canadian Cancer Society.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Robert Arnason and Editorial Staff at the Western Producer:

It is the Manitoba Government, not the Canadian Cancer Society, which has chosen to move forward with a ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides. Your February 16, 2011 article would have been much more informative had it not misdirected its focus.

Yes, people should investigate the expenditures, activities, and registration status of any charity before giving; this applies as much to the Canadian Cancer Society as it does to Charity Intelligence, itself is a registered charity. The misdirected and veiled attack on the Canadian Cancer Society was disgusting and defamatory (although yes the defamatory statement is likely shield by a legal defense – that doesn't make it any less despicable).

Yes, civil society organizations (charities, trade associations, non-governmental organizations, lobby groups, etc.) play an important role is pushing for new policies, and it is fair to consider these influences. The focus, however was entirely one-sided.

Crop-Life Canada – a non-profit agro-industry trade association funded and directed by large agricultural corporations like Dow AgroScience, Syngenta, Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Du Pont and others – has for years vociferously lobbied against a ban on the aesthetic use of pesticides.

If the Canadian Cancer Society is lobbying for a ban on the aesthetic use pesticides to raise revenues, then is it not equally obvious that Crop-Life Canada is lobbying against such a ban to protect the profits of the industry it represents?

It is also misleading to focus on: is there “a conclusive link between pesticides and human cancer?” Without also posing the reverse: “is it conclusive that there is absolutely no link between pesticides and human cancer?” Neither question can be answered with scientific certainty, but there is a growing body of epidemiological evidence finding an association between pesticide use and certain diseases, including cancer.

To provide a snippet from an excellent Paths Less Travelled (February 12, 2012) blog post:

“..."GM Soy. Sustainable? Responsible?" ... documented the findings of a commission conducted by the central Argentinian State of Chaco in 2010. ... childhood cancer rates tripled in the town of La Leonesa and birth defects increased almost fourfold over the entire state. Those results corresponded with greatly increased spraying of glyphosate and other agrochemicals in the region during that period.

Scientific studies referred to in the paper, cite an association between glyphosate and at least two kinds of cancer, multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, (NHL), a cancer of the blood. An increased rate of NHL had been repeatedly observed among farmers for years, suggesting an association between use of pesticides, including glyphosate and the risk of the disease.

...a graduate student at the University of Manitoba, Jennifer Magoon, found statistically significant links between the use of crop sprays and serious health problems with infants born in farming areas of the province where such sprays were commonly used.

Those problems included low birth weights, spina biffida, respiratory distress, jaundice, Down syndrome, cleft palate, retinal degeneration and cataracts. Her findings do not mention Roundup. But she singled out herbicides as the class of crop chemical she was most concerned with.”

This epidemiological evidence does not conclusively prove pesticides cause cancer, other factors could be at play, but it does raise enough alarm, as the end note in the article acknowledges, for the Canadian Medical Association to suggest “pesticide use be minimized.”

It was misguided to confound the issue by suggesting that a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides was intended to apply to the agricultural use pesticides. The issue at hand is a ban not on the agricultural use of pesticides, but on the aesthetic use of pesticides.

Eliminating the non-essential use of pesticides would seem to be a logical starting point to minimize the use of pesticides.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Once again I want to reiterate, I envision a world where organic, better yet bio-dynamic agriculture, once again replaces agriculture dependent on synthetic chemical inputs. An agricultural system that respects the people and the planet, while still being profitable for farmers.

For those that read this blog regularly you will know I am as critical of this NDP Government, as any. I want more than just a limited ban on pesticide use, but sometimes it is important to support the Government on a good initiative. This allows the best leverage to push for the strongest provisions possible. We cannot allow this to be the weakest legislation of its kind in the country – we should strive for the most stringent pesticides regulations among our provincial counterparts. To achieve this it is best if we are unified in our call.

We have seen that opponents are going to try to confuse the issue. This is why I think we must stay focused on the specific proposal at hand: a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides (i.e. Non-agricultural use). We must remain unified and avoid sidetracking ourselves - our opposition is only to happy to do it for us.

Oh for Peat's Sake? -Horrors in Hecla Demonstrate Need for Provincial Strategy-

2012-01-10T09:21:00.000-08:00

I teamed up at the Legislature today with Gaile Whelan Enns (Manitoba Wildlands), Eric Reder (Wilderness Committee), and Jon Gerard (Manitoba Liberal Party) to stand up for peat's sake.

The recent proposal to develop a new peat mine inside Hecla / Grindstone provincial park had underscored the long-standing desperate need for a peat lands protection strategy in Manitoba.[1]

Provincial Parks are intended to be protected areas. Places to preserve natural landscapes. A place where natural ecosystems can thrive and wildlife can be safe. Manitobans want their parks free of industrial developments like mines. The idea of a peat mine inside a provincial park is contradictory to the entire concept of a protected area.

To provide an analogy: think of a school as a “bully free protected zone,” yet which also has zones in the playground where bullying is knowingly allowed. The “bully-free” label, then contradicts actual practice!

A peat mine in a provincial park, is no less absurd – This would not be allowed in a National Park!

Adding insult to injury: the Manitoba Government enacted the Save Lake Winnipeg Act[2] in June 2011, claiming it would protect Manitoba's wetlands by, inter alia, “banning the rapid expansion of peat extraction from wetlands.”[3]

I was concerned about the potential of peat mines being developed despite the moratorium. When I presented in response to Bill 46: The Save Lake Winnipeg Act to the Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development June 13, 2011, I asked:

“...several peat mines ... are [already]... in the licensing process. ... I'd like ... a clear indication of whether those ones that are partway through the licensing process will be allowed to finish, or whether they will not?”[4]

Unfortunately at the time I did not realize the true magnitude of the situation. I thought perhaps a few peat mines with pending applications might be licensed. The magnitude of the situation, however, is much worse.

The Government of Manitoba has granted peat quarry leases on more than 30,000 hectares (~75,000 acres) of Manitoba peat land. Holders of existing peat quarry leases in Manitoba can still develop new peat mines despite the provincial moratorium.

To put this into perspective, “[a]round 17,000 ha [~42,000 acres] of peatland are used for peat moss extraction in Canada, and an additional 5,000 ha [~12,500 acres] will be harvested within the next 10 years.”[5]

This means the total area of land in Manitoba with registered peat quarry leases, is nearly twice as large as the total area used for harvesting peat across Canada.

If the plan was to “ban the rapid expansion of the peat extraction from wetlands?” vis-a-vis the Save Lake Winnipeg Act, then I am afraid the barn door was shut long after all of the horses ran out.

Peat lands are important because they: 1) filter water - reduce the harmful nutrients entering waterways; 2) serve as carbon sinks - mining peat lands releases carbon and methane into the atmosphere; and 3) are habitat for species - including rare orchids, whooping cranes, and piping plover.

Of course many people use peat moss in their gardens, but perhaps less of us think about where this substance comes from, and the impacts that extracting it might have. However with a little bit of research many backyard gardeners might realize that alternatives to peat exist.

Chipped bark, shredded tree prunings, or straw are great mulch alternatives to peat, and peat has little or no nutrient value, so compost often works better than peat as a soil enricher.

Using compost and other alternatives, rather than peat whenever possible, reduces greenhouse gas emissions on both fronts: methane emissions from landfills are reduced, and emissions associated with peat mining are also reduced.

A provincial strategy to compost organic matter could, therefore work in tandem with a peat protection strategy. Yes this idea does require some further study, but these are the type of innovative ideas that hold the potential to create jobs, protect Manitoba's ecosystems, and reduce Manitoba's greenhouse gas emissions at the same time.

Now there is only so much we can do in our own Manitoba back yard - 90% of Canadian peat production is exported. “The United States is the main market, however peat products are also exported to many Asian, European and the Middle Eastern countries.[6]

Although Canada has an abundance of peat land, not all of it is suitable for peat mining. A true assessment of the long-term impacts of peat mining need to be considered. The industry in Canada has made great advances in partial reclamation of bogs, but even still, placing a mined peat bog back to its original ecological integrity is impossible – the biodiversity of a reclaimed pond is never as rich.

With so many questions, it is perhaps smart to step back and re-think. Perhaps the moratorium on peat mining should be extended to the issuance of Environment Act licenses as well?

Protecting peat is a wise investment. Peat is a precious planetary resource, which takes centuries to develop, and is a vital tool to preserve the health of our waterways, and the temperature of our planet.

We need to let the Manitoba Government know that it is time to get on with long overdue promises. We need more than some report that will sit on a shelf; more than an ambitiously named statute that makes miniscule amendments, which only amount to smoke and mirrors.

There just has to be a better way than mining peat from our public parks. Make sure that your voice and ideas are heard!

Comments and further enquiries regarding the “Hay Point Peat Mine Development (Public Registry file #5548.00)” can be forwarded to Darell Ouimet (darrell.ouimet[at]gov.mb.ca) 945-7067. Comments must be submitted before February 3, 2012 and must include the “Public Registry file #5548.00” in the subject line or title. The Wilderness Committee has some helpful advice on their “Letter Writing Tool Page.”[7]

1 Larry Kusch: Winnipeg Free Press (January 6, 2011), “Peat Mine Proposed for Manitoba Park.” Online: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/peat-mine-proposed-for-manitoba-park-136796553.html
2 Manitoba Wildlands (June 25, 2011), “Save Lake Winnipeg Act Receives Royal Assent.” Online: http://www.manitobawildlands.org/water_lakewpg.htm#savelakewpg
3 Government of Manitoba News Release (June 2, 2011), “Premier Unveils Plan to Save Lake Winnipeg.” Online: http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2011-6-01&item=11639
4 Manitoba Hansard - Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development (June 13, 2011). Online: http://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/hansard/5th-39th/sed_06/sed_06.html
5 Université of Laval: Peatland Ecology Research Group (April 28, 2009), “Peat Industry.” Online: http://www.gret-perg.ulaval.ca/industrie-gret.html
6 Prepared by SNC Lavalin for Jiffy Canada (April 2010), “Environment Act Proposal for Development of Poplar Creek Bog, Haute Bog, and Boggy River Bog” (p. 4). Available through Manitoba Department of Conservation Environmental Assessment and Licensing Branch public registry locations.
7 Wilderness Committee – Manitoba Chapter, “Write Wild - Provincial Park Threatened by Peat Mining Operation.” Online: http://wildernesscommittee.org/manitoba/write_wild_provincial_park_threatened_peat_mining_operation

Where is Manitoba's Commitment to Kyoto?

2011-12-13T11:05:00.000-08:00

SENT ELECTRONICALLY DECEMBER 13, 2011

Dear Acting Conservation Minister Dave Chomiak,

I am absolutely appalled at your recent comments to CBC's Michaylo Prystupa regarding Manitoba's efforts to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[1]

In 2008 your government enshrined into law the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act. This Act enshrined into law a target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. This 2012 target was deliberately set because it mirrored Canada's national Kyoto Protocol GHG reduction target. This government was applauded for enshrining a Kyoto Protocol-compliant target into law in 2008, and while I still have many criticisms in regards to effectiveness of existing policies intended to reduce GHG emissions and the non-existence of other policies needed to reduce GHG emissions, I will acknowledge that at least having a Kyoto-compliant target showed the most minute modicum of leadership

The fact that this Government will fail to meet its target is not surprising, in fact failing to meet GHG reduction targets seems to be a habit of this provincial NDP government. The previous 2002 target stated in Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets was "...reductions of up to 18 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, and reductions of up to 23 per cent by 2012." [2]

But to publicly announce amidst international negotiations in Durban (UNFCC COP17) that your Government was abandoning its Kyoto-compliant target was most irresponsible! Even the climate change denying federal Conservative party had the sense to recognize that it would be foolish to formally announce its withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol during the Durban negotiations. Did you give thought to the impacts that this announcement might have on the ongoing international negotiations?

With a federal Canadian Government that refuses to take sincere action on reducing GHG emissions, it is even more incumbent on provincial governments to show leadership and to forge ahead, with or without the help of their federal counterparts. Given the constant downgrading of Manitoba's emission reduction targets, the ill-timing of this current announcement, and the fact that Gary Doer is now a slick oil-sands salesperson for the Canadian Government,[3][4] it is hard not to think that this current provincial NDP government is purposefully attempting to sabotage any sincere action towards GHG reductions.

I will also point out that the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, which enshrined the 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 target in law, has never been fully enacted. Sections 7, 8, 11, and 12 will only come into force in October 1, 2012, three months before this government will, by your own acknowledgement, fail to reach the 2012 target enshrined by the law. What is most disappointing is that these unproclaimed sections relate to government operations regarding green building standards for buildings owned or funded by the Government of Manitoba, and fuel efficiency standards for Government of Manitoba vehicles. If the Government itself is unwilling to take leadership, then what message does this send to the rest of the Manitoba?

Now I recognize there was also an acknowledgement that a Manitoba energy plan shall be forthcoming in the New Year. Of course, as with anything, the devil is in the details, but I acknowledge that Manitoba is desperately in need of a comprehensive energy plan, so I look forward to seeing what your Government brings forth in the New Year. I would also like to know what opportunities will be given to the public to provide input on the provincial energy plan?

When then Premier Gary Doer first announced the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act, he stated that “...our goal is to reduce emissions here in Manitoba,”[5] so it is somewhat surprising to hear you blame the failure to meet our target on the basis that Manitoba was not able to receive credit for the emissions it reduces abroad through export of hydro-electric energy. I acknowledge that displacing American coal plants has advantages, and helps to reduce global GHG emissions, but presumably this is done because it is profitable to do so; therefore we are not exporting energy as a benevolent act to combat global warming, but because it is in the best interest of our Crown utility, Manitoba Hydro. I, like many Manitobans do not think we should be rewarded for doing something we would have done anyways, rather we should be rewarded for taking concrete actions that reduce emissions here in Manitoba.

Also, I would point that your references to the installation of wind-generated-electricity in Manitoba in regards to actions that reduce Manitoba's emissions seems misleading. The only way that this could be true is if your government was to acknowledge that emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs are higher than you presently acknowledge. Is this the interpretation that I should take? I am a firm believer that we need expanded wind-generating capacity in Manitoba, and I am critical that your government will seemingly also fail to meet the target of 1000 megawatts of installed wind generating capacity by 2015. However installing wind energy will not at present significantly reduce Manitoba's emissions. There are many other good reasons for pursuing alternative renewable energy, such as wind and solar, particularly micro-generation, but in the context of Manitoba these arguments are more about energy autarchy than significant GHG reductions.

Lastly, the fact that Manitoba is a relatively small GHG emitter is also no excuse for failure to reduce our emissions by 6%. While there are some unique challenges in that the bulk of Manitoba's emissions originate from a larger number of small disparate emitters, rather than a smaller number of large emitters, it should also be acknowledged that our relatively low level of emissions in comparison to other provinces means that a 6% decline is that much smaller of a reduction that needs to be achieved.

Answers in Manitoba need to focus on behavioural change and demand management, particularly for our transportation and agricultural sectors. Further, and much more significant investments in public transportation, possibly even making it fare-free may entice urban people to drive less. Following Saskatchewan's lead in implementing a crown-owned inter-city bus carrier may likewise improve access to transport in rural areas. Likewise truly supporting a Manitoba transition towards organic and locally based agricultural market can help to reduce the GHG emissions related to the transport of food. Moving away from the production of and application of synthetic fertilizers, would also help to reduce Manitoba's GHG emissions.

There are many opportunities for Manitobans to both better themselves and the Manitoba economy, while also lessening our impact on the planet. I would be happy to sit down and discuss this further if you wish.

The 6% reduction in GHG emissions below 1990 levels should only be a starting point, followed by further reductions in the future. It is fair enough for this government to acknowledge it's failure, although further consideration to the timing of said announcement should have been given, but the objectives should not be abandoned. Instead, it should be at minimum be reaffirmed that we remain committed to reducing emissions below 6% below 1990 levels, a new target date should be set, and we should look at why we failed to achieve our objective and attempt to learn from this failure. I truly hope that this promised new energy plan will be an attempt at accomplishing this.

In summation, I would like answers to the following questions:

1. When will the new energy plan be announced?
2. How will the public be able to provide input on this new energy plan?
3. Will your government make the basis and underlying assumptions for Manitoba GHG emissions public? If so how?
4. Can you provide a break down of how the $145 million, promised alongside the Climate Change and Emissions Reduction Act was spent, including if any of the promised money was not spent?
5. In your Government's opinion, what are the annual average emissions from hydro-electric reservoirs, if any?
6. Will your government remain committed to reducing Manitoba based emissions significantly below 1990 levels? Is so by what date do you now expect to reduce emissions below 1990 levels and by how much?

I thank you in advance for a timely response to these questions. Should you need further clarification on any of my concerns and/or questions, or should you want to discuss the matter personally, I would be happy to sit down and meet and discuss matters over the phone. My e-mail and cell-phone number can be found below.

Sincerely,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba

References:

1 Mychalo Prystupa “Manitoba Fails Its Own Climate Change Law” CBC (December 6, 2011), online:
2 Government of Manitoba “ Kyoto and Beyond: Meeting and Exceeding Our Kyoto Targets: 2002”, online:
3 Gary Doer's August 14, 2009 speech at the NDP convention in Nova Scotia (see 20:05 to 22:17), online:
4 Konrad Yakabuski “Gary Doer sells oil sands from coast to U.S. coast” Globe and Mail (August 24, 2011), online:
5 Transcript of Bill 15 Press Release (April 11, 2008), Manitoba Legislature, Winnipeg, MB (pp. 12-13), online:

Wolseley Was Rob'd

2011-10-06T09:25:00.000-07:00

I am proud of the Green Party of Manitoba effort in the 2011 election campaign. With a very limited buget we fielded a record number of candidates, finished with a record number of third place finishes, gained the credibility of being included in the televised debate for the first time ever, and garnered more than 10,000 votes. But unfortunately we were not able to win a seat.

Not being able to represent the people of Wolseley stings! If I may jest for a moment, Wolseley got Rob'd.

Jesting aside, I called Rob on election night and congratulated him and we agreed to sit down and see how we can work together.

Issues that I can see myself working with Rob on include:

-Keeping new genetically engineered crops out of Manitoba, as I have had some previous e-mail correspondence with Rob in regards to that mater.

-Working to change animal husbandry practices, particularly the practices of confined animal feeding operations.

-Working to amend the Highway Traffic Act to clarify how practicable, is as “right as practicable.” Working to create clear legislated standards would work to the benefit of cyclists and motorists alike.

-Working to demonstrate that free-fare transit is a sensible idea that will save money over the long-term – particularly after the savings from to MPI, hospital, and emotional trauma costs from reduced traffic congestion and collisions are taken into account.

-For years Greens have been lobbying to eliminate, or at least significantly decrease the use of pesticides, and a logical place to start is a ban on the cosmetic use of pesticides as is done in or in the works in the majority of Canadian provinces. In the dying days of the last Government, which was of course re-elected they promised to enact legislation preventing the cosmetic use of pesticides in consultation with industry stakeholders. This later qualification is worrisome, and I hope to work with Rob to ensure that Manitoba brings in the strongest and most comprehensive legislation possible in regards to prohibiting the use of pesticides in particular circumstances.

There of course are many additional issues that need addressed - too many to address in a single blog entry - I encourage all readers to share additional suggestions with me.

The point beng is that I am not going anywhere. I live in West Broadway, I will continue to serve as Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba and work with Mantobans to create a better future.

Thanks to the many people who supported the Green Party of Manitoba campaign with their money and time. Thank you to the 10,000+ Manitobans who voted Green. Together we are slowly but surely making progress.

Vote Your Conscience. Vote on Issues.

2011-03-31T07:32:00.000-07:00

In this upcoming federal election, I wish I could convince Canadians to Vote their conscience and to vote on issues. As most of you know I am the current Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba, but what I am talking about goes beyond this. Certainly I want you to vote Green, but more than that I actually want you to vote in who you truly believe. I want you to research issues and vote your conscience on those basis alone.

It was quite comical the other day, when sitting in a restaurant having a bite, I ran into a local politician with known ties to the NDP. The politician jested at me have you heard about this biased CBC questionnaire – apparently most of the NDP affiliated politicians were being told to vote Green by the CBC's Vote Compass. I had to swallow first, I had taken the Vote Compass and the damn thing told me to vote NDP (I am obviously voting Green BTW)! We had jovial laugh though, with the politician asking with a smirk why is it that the poll is telling so many people to vote Green, and me replying because of course we have the best policies (see: Vision Green is available on GreenParty.ca). As the Councillor left I thought to myself how engaging and enjoyable that exchange was – That's how cross-partisan politics should be I thought.

So what should we take from the fact that a CBC poll is telling voters to look at parties outside of their traditional comfort zone. In short, not much. But, I think it means that perhaps voters should take a closer look at what the respective parties have to offer, and should really think about what their conscience is telling them and vote for who they truly want.

Chris Rock's blunt words express it best:

"I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay? I've got some shit I'm conservative about, I've got some shit I'm liberal about.”

Do we really think that a web quiz should be determinative?

Now I am not trying to knock the vote compass. Unlike Stephen Harper and the C.R.A.P, or Layton and the N.D.P. I am not going to argue that the survey is biased (see Winnipeg Sun, March 30, 2011 “CBC defends voting tool that appears to lean Liberal”). Rather I would argue that it is limited, and people need to understand it for what it is: a heuristic device (an entity that exists to enable understanding of, or knowledge concerning, some other entity). The political realm is simply too vast, too complex, to be pigeon holed into a circle which denotes degree of left and right economic and social policy.

Nor am I saying that people should quit taking the quiz on the CBC website. Au contraire, the quiz is a great for people to begin to engage themselves, but they need to go further - they should look into their results on a question by question basis, and they choose some of the questions which interest them and research these issues even further. People need to engage in politics more: they can organize debates in their community; or they can get involved with a political campaign; and they should put more effort into the latter activities rather than the first activity of completing a 10 minute online survey.

We elect people to manage our tax dollars, our ecological resources, and to a certain extent our cultural direction as well. Perhaps placating your desire to know “who you should really vote for” is better served by: reading up on issues on your own, or calling or visiting each and every individual candidate (if possible) and determining for yourself who you want to vote for, rather than relying on an entertaining web device to make the decision for you.

This election we need to make it about something more than election web surveys, and viewer response polls to the latest attack campaigns! We must engage people in the issues, and the political process itself, we must get people to think about ideas that go beyond their pre-conceived notions. I think we can, and the Green Party and Elizabeth May are truly working to make this a reality! This is why we need Elizabeth May in the Parliament, and we need her in the debates!

Secondly people need to vote their conscience this upcoming election. Strategic voting is ironically a bad long-term strategy as it actually creates less option over the long term.

Let us use the sale of beverages in a chain of convenience stores across the country as an analogical heuristic device to explore the issue further. Right now said store has four beverage choices which are offered consistently: coke, diet coke, orange crush, or cold water from a fountain; in Quebec bottled water is very popular but it is not available elsewhere in Canada; and up to fifteen other varieties are offered sporadically across the country.

However people are being told that they need to drink coke or diet coke. Coke because: “It is that good old-fashioned coke!” Diet Coke because: “It is so-o-o much healthier than regular coke!” If in response people decide not drink water from the fountain, not to drink orange crush or the numerous other small brands, then eventually these options may disappear.

This is the folly in strategic voting and our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system.

The following snippet from the comments of the CBC website is particularly telling about the malaise in our democracy:

“I want to vote Green, but the Green candidate here won't win, so my vote would be lost. Even if I vote for my second preference, the piddly petty candidate in my riding won't win, so again: my vote would be lost. I don't want to vote for the candidate whose win is a foregone conclusion. So what do I do, not vote at all?”

We need proportional representation, but at the same time Canadians need to recognize that every vote says something. Voting is about democracy, and to be deceived away from voting your true conscience undermines democracy – over time deteriorating the political choices offered.

Greens offer a different approach to democracy! We believe in proportional representation, we believe in meaningful grassroots citizen engagement, and Elizabeth May is trying to promote a democracy of respect – where politicians don't score points for acting like buffoons.

Firstly even if the candidate of your choice is not elected, the vote is certainly not wasted. Voting for a candidate provides moral support, even if the ballot is not cast for a winning candidate behind that vote is a democratic individual expression of choice, adding credence to the ideas that candidate espoused.

Secondly political parties receive subsidies. Your vote delivers a few dollars a year to the party of your choice provided that they received more than 2% of the vote across the country. From this subsidy the Conservatives received $10.4-million; the Liberals received $7.3-million; the NDP received $5.0-million; the Bloc Québécois received $2.8-million; and the Green Party received $1.9-million.

Now Stephen Harper wants to cut the per vote for “budgetary reasons”, which is kinda funny when the man was voted out of office because his Government was found in contempt of Parliament for not disclosing the financial costs of fighter jets and prisons, and for guarding his minister who inappropriately and without authorization rejected funding to respected Canadian not-for-profit organizations doing overseas aid work.

But even if we want to talk about the budgetary impact of subsidization of political parties why is Mr. Harper only talking about the $27.4 million per-vote-subsidy which provides parties with stable funding proportional to their proportion of the vote garnered? Why is he not talk about the other subsidies to political parties? Election expense rebates the Parties worth $29.2-million combined, and Candidate rebates worth $28.7 million. The two combined more than double the size of the per vote subsidy. I think that most Canadians feel their vote is worth even more than a few dollars, and they would rather see political parties rewarded for earning votes rather than spending money during an election.

The dilemma facing the Canadian electorate is to elect who they truly want, rather than who they are told to vote for. Hopefully Canadians have the wisdom to vote with their conscience and to vote on the issues, and capabilities of candidates, rather than focusing on polls and political shenanigans.

CBC Vote Compass “Canada Votes 2011”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/votecompass/

The Hill Times, Jan 20, 2011: “Comparing the per-vote subsidies to all federal political subsidies”
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/dailyupdate/printpage/63

Winnipeg Sun, March 30, 2011 “CBC defends voting tool that appears to lean Liberal”:
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/decision2011/2011/03/30/17814986.html

Chris Rock (HBO 2004) “Never Scared”, on Wikiquotes
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock

Elizabeth May Should be in the Debates!

2011-03-29T23:47:00.001-07:00

So once again the television consortium has decided not to allow Elizabeth May in the debates. Even though the Green Party could theoretically form government, while the BQ could not! This is not say Duceppe should be excluded from the debates, quite the opposite. I am saying Canada needs to hear more political voices – particularly a few more feminine voices!

The Debates are fundamental in helping people to discover more about their democratic options as citizens. It is in the best interests of Canadians if all parties are involved in the debates.

Greens received nearly a million votes in the 2008 general election. The Greens have a definite perspective, and is the only party prepared to offer a detailed 131 page plan for voters to read years before the election. (Vision Green: http://greenparty.ca/issues/vision-green)

By excluding Greens (along with the other smaller parties) the democratic debate suffers. So what can you do if you want Elizabeth May in the deabtes?

Sign the petition: http://www.demanddemocraticdebates.ca/petition.php

Send a text message to the Chair of the Media Consortium, Mr. Troy Reeb of Global TV on his cell phone at 647-261-3752

Email the news directors of consortium members CBC, CTV, Global, TVA

Email party leaders Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, Michael Ignatieff and Gilles Duceppe

Forward this infomation to your friends and family

BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY VOTE GREEN!

Tax Credits Are No Way to Fund Post-Secondary Education

2011-03-09T11:10:00.000-08:00

I attended a debate On March 2, 2011 hosted by the University of Winnipeg Politics Society, as the Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba. Representatives from all four other political parties were present. The possibility of a University of Winnipeg faculty strike was raised several times and was clearly on the minds of students and faculty. Other concerns raised included: student debt, rising tuition fees, predictability of funding and corporate involvement in universities.

At the debate I tried to point out that while it would take time to move towards a system of universal access to education it clearly could be done.

Education is after all one of the classic examples of a public good. Education is a huge economic driver! And this warrants subsidization because of the overall positive benefits. An educated population drives innovation and facilitates the creation of new ideas leading to better ways of doing things. A vibrant economy is created when individuals, businesses, and organizations have access to educated population. Society needs people of all gambits: tradespeople, businesspeople, medical professions, teaching professionals, agriculturalists, and these skill sets and so many more must be learned somewhere.

College or University education is increasingly required in today's job market. European countries, particularly Scandinavian nations, manage to deliver extremely low-cost or even free education. Quebec delivers education to its residents at a substantially subsidized rate. So what is stopping us from taking similar action in Manitoba?

Now the common response to this is that we cannot afford to lower tuition fees, but is this actually true?

Using 2009 Statistics Canada data, we can see that Revenues of Universities and Colleges in Manitoba is ~$1.116 billion:

-The Manitoba government contributions ~$559 million, or around half of the revenue;

-The Canadian government provides ~$93 million, which adds up to less than 10% of revenue;

-Students pay ~$214 million in tuition fees, contributing to around 20% of revenue;
Local governments in Manitoba contribute ~$12 million;

-And the remainder is generated by Universities and Colleges themselves.

Looking at these numbers, clearly the federal government has not pulled its fair share since cutbacks in the mid-nineties.

That said education is a provincial responsibility, so the province needs to be willing to go it alone if the Federal Government fails to cooperate. Now to be fair the NDP have increase funding for post-secondary education, but these increases have quickly been eaten up.

A 'Dipper' Post-Secondary Education pamphlet handed out at the debate claimed an “80% increase in annual provincial funding for Manitoba's colleges and universities since 1999 – while the consumer price index rose only 22%.”

What the pamphlet neglected to address is that according to Council on Post-Secondary Education 2010 data between 1999 and 2009 university and college enrolment increased by around 35% depending on whether it is calculated on the basis of absolute number of students, or number of full-time equivalent students.
This adds up to a roughly 65% increase in costs, once the 22% CPI inflation and 35% increase in enrolment are factored together.

The same 'Dipper' pamphlet also bragged that the “Manitoba tuition fee rebate” and “Federal tax credits” equated to “An excellent deal for Manitoba students and Manitoba's economy.”

With respect, I could not disagree more!

Federally post-secondary education tax credits are worth $1.8 billion across Canada. Re-directing this money away from tax credits and funnelling it directly towards post-secondary institutions, and student loan, grants and bursary programs could unleash desperately needed funding for Universities across Canada.

In Manitoba the situation is much the same provincial tax credits for post-secondary education cost Manitoba about $25 million per year, and the new tuition fee rebate is estimated to cost up to $90 million per year.

The NDP Government commissioned report on post-secondary education, written by Dr. Ben Levin, explains the problem with tax credits quite well:

“...evidence suggests that the tax credits are not effective in encouraging enrolment in higher education ... Students from higher income families are the main beneficiaries of tax credits... for students of modest means the credits are not helpful because the money does not arrive when it is needed. Cash at the start of the year is much more important than the promise of a refund or credit in the future... about two-thirds of the value of the credits claimed in Canada each year is not used by students in the year earned. Instead, these amounts are transferred to a parent or carried forward to a future year. This means that most of the benefit, already indirect, is not available even within a year of the expense being incurred. ... Accordingly, accessibility would be improved if funds were used for direct assistance to students rather than for tax credits .” (p. 32-33)

I love Manitoba! As a student presently studying law in Manitoba, with the intention of establishing a Manitoba practice I will likely qualify for the 60% tuition fee rebate. So I personally stand to benefit, but from a public policy perspective I have to wonder: is a $90 million dollar tax cut - worth more than 40% of the value of annual tuition paid by Manitoba students - the best use of government revenue?

As a student I will receive up to an additional $250 tax credit in 2010, that will increase to a maximum of $500 in subsequent years. But why not just reduce tuition by an equivalent amount? I need the cash in fall when I am starting school, not in spring after I file my taxes.

Once I graduate and begin working in Manitoba I will be eligible for a 60% rebate of my tuition fees over as little as six years or as long as twenty years. But few graduates think about tax liability when selecting a new job; they are much more concerned with opportunities for advancement and the terms of compensation. Is this tax credit really going to attract the best and the brightest, or is it just going to give up to a $25,000 tax cut to people like myself who are likely to stay regardless of the tax fee rebate?

Even if retention is the aim of this tuition fee rebate it would seem to be more logical to target rebates for needed professionals, such as doctors and nurses in Northern and rural Manitoba. The rebate could be tied to a contractual agreements that would require the individual benefited from the the rebate to service needed areas. Such a targeted approach would seem to be more effective and economical.

For me the money spent on post-secondary tax credits could be spent more wisely. Tuition fees could be lowered, universities and colleges could be given more funding to retain and reward great staff and ensure that best technology is available thereby improving the quality of my education, funding to student aid could be increased so that more students qualify, and there is so much more that could be done if we moved away from the idea of using tax credits to fund post-secondary education.

OPEN LETTER & PETITION TO SELINGER & STRUTHERS - Possible Introduction of Genetically Engineered Alfalfa into Manitoba

2011-02-09T00:41:00.000-08:00

Please sign my petition at: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
Full text of petition copied following sources.

Dear Premier Selinger and Agriculture Minister Struthers,

I am writing this letter in the wake of United States Department of Agriculture`s (USDA) approval of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, in hopes that the Manitoba Government will take action to prevent the introduction of GE alfalfa in Manitoba.

Ensuring that alfalfa in Manitoba remains GE free is vital to the growing organic food industry in Manitoba. Alfalfa serves as both a nitrogen fixing cover crop, and an important source of feed for livestock. If GE alfalfa enters Manitoba it will contaminate non-GE alfalfa and this will mean a loss of certification and income for Manitoba's burgeoning organic food sector. It is also noteworthy that 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign. The Manitoba contingent included: Manitoba Forage Council, Organic Producers Association of Manitoba, Robertson - Stow Farms Ltd., JUST Community Market Co-operative Ltd., and Keystone Grain Ltd. - in additon to numerous national organizations that represent Manitoba farmers.

The Canadian government and CFIA have already approved Monsanto’s GM alfalfa, but Monsanto has not yet applied for “variety registration” -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada. Passing the buck along to the Federal Government or the Canadian Food and Inspection Agency (CFIA) is simply unacceptable! The province of Manitoba should be lobbying the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa because GE contamination does not respect political borders - bees can carry pollen several miles, and the cross-border sale of hay and livestock could also cause contamination.

The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) implores the Manitoba government to pass legislation which makes Manitoba a GE free zone – at least for those crops which have not yet been contaminated. As indicated in our 2007 platform if elected the GPM would: “Ban agricultural biotechnology in Manitoba and require labelling of all products sold in Manitoba containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs).”

The GPM is furthermore initiating an ongoing educational campaign regarding the pracautionary principle as a reasoned approach to public health and safety policy, especially in relation to our food systems. Under the precautionary principle, the onus to prove food safety or the safety of other new products being introduced into the marketplace. Unfortunately, the increasing privatization of research has called into question the impartiality of corporate-driven research, as the case of Health Canada whistleblower Shiv Chopra and countless others have shown. The long-term safety of genetically-modified organisms on human and ecosystem health have simply not been proven according to verifiable scientific principles.

As the Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiaves (MAFRI) website page Alfalfa Hay5 acknowledges, in addition to the United States presently alfalfa from Manitoba is exported to: Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and Taiwan. If Manitoba alfalfa is contaminated with GE alfalfa then these export markets may be closed to Manitoba producers.
Manitoba agricultural producers, particularly organic producers, have lost the opportunity to sell their produce and save their seed through the introduction of GM canola. Most canola grown on the Canadian prarires is gentically modified (GM), and even those who do not plant GM canola likely have GM canola in their crops due to cross-breeding and volunteer canola plants. This has largely denied organic certification for Manitoban canola growers and caused restrictions on the exports of Canadian canola.

In contrast, agricultural producers in Prince Edward Island, where GM canola is not grown, fulfill a demand for oilseed that is not contaminated with genetically modified crops and have seen an influx in orders from Japan as of late – they are even marketing the oil in Japan with a picture of P.E.I. on the bottle, thereby promoting the province of P.E.I. as well.

Consumers do not want GE foods, and at minimal they want the right to know if they are eating GE food or not. As reported by CBC's Marketplace “...numerous surveys... [indicate] up to 90 per cent of Canadians want mandatory labelling of GM [Genetically Modified or Engineered] food.”

It also seems worth noting that your federal NDP counterparts have introduced Bill C-474, An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (analysis of potential harm)8, is scheduled for third reading today, February 9th, 2011. The bill would support Canadian farmers by requiring that an analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted.

So, will you now do the right thing and stand with your federal counterparts along with small, family organic producers? Or will you side with the Conservative Party of Canada, Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry on this critical issue?

I look forward to a prompt response regarding what the Manitoba Government intends to do regarding the threats posed by new GE crops, including but not limited to alfalfa.

Respectfully,

James R. Beddome
Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca

-Sent Electronically (why waste paper?) to Selinger and Struthers on February 9th-

SOURCES:

Unites States Department of Agriculture press release (January 27, 2011). USDA Announces Decision to Fully Deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa, availabel online at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2011%2F01%2F0035.xml retrieved February 2, 2011.

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (March 23, 2006). Position Paper on the Introduction of Genetically Modified Alfalfa, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/About/Priorities/GE-Alfalfa/Position-Paper-on-the-Introduction-of-Genetically-Modified-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

National Organic Coalition (March 3, 2010). No to GE Alfalfa Campaign, available online at: http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Alfalfa/National-Organic-Coalition-Submission-on-Alfalfa retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

Green Party of Manitoba 2007 Platform (pg. 12), available online at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/GPM/pdf/GPM-Platform-2007.pdf retrieved February 2, 2011.

Government of Manitoba website: Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Alfalfa Hay, available online at: http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/forages/bjd29s01.html retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC News (December 8, 2010). Japan eager for P.E.I.'s non-GMO canola, available online at: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2010/11/08/pei-japan-gmo-canola-584.html#ixzz1629nYbeCwhere retrieved February 2nd, 2011.

CBC (March 6, 2002) Marketplace, available online at: http://archives.cbc.ca/lifestyle/food/topics/1597-10956/ retrieved Fenruary 2nd, 2011.

House of Commons of Canada, Bill C-474: An Act respecting the Seeds Regulations (1st Reading November 2, 2009). Availalbe online at: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4330153&file=4 retireved Februrary 2, 2011.

PETITION
TO THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA:
The background to this petition is as follows:
1. January 27, 2011 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved genetically engineered (GE) pesticide resistant alfalfa for commercial use.
2. The Canadian government has already approved GE pesticide resistant alfalfa, but variety registration -- -- the next step before the crop can be commercially grown in Canada -- has not yet been applied for.
3. 107 national and local farmer and consumer organizations accross Canada, including Manitoba Forage Council and Organic Producers Association of Manitoba were signatories to the No GE Alfalfa Campaign sent to the USDA March 2010.
4. Experience with othe GE crops such as Canola and Flax has shown that GE crops contaminate non-GE crops, and this contamination closes off important export markets for producers – parttcularly organic producers who also lose their certification from GE contamination.
5. GE crop contamination does not respect political boundaries.
6. The use of pesticide resistant crops has led to the development of pesticide resistant weeds thereby leading to the use of more not less pesticides.
7. Producers right to save seed is jeopardized by GE crop contamination and proprietary restirictions against saving seeds following GE contamination.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
1. To pass legislation which prevents new GE crops from being grown in Manitoba.
2. To require the labelling of all products composed of GE substances and sold in Manitoba.
3. Lobby the Canadian, American, Ontarian, Saskatchewan, North Dakotan, and Minnesotan governments to avoid growing GE alfalfa, or at least create border buffer zones, to prevent cross-border contamination.

SIGN ONLINE AT: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gpm_gmo/
BUT I will aslo need your ink signatures - sorry petition guidelines of the Manitoba Legislature.

Manitoba Consumers Pay More Than American Utilities

2011-01-28T01:03:00.000-08:00

- A Closer Look At Manitoban Electrical Exports & Future Hydro Development

The construction of Bipole III is very much tied to the idea of building new dams in Manitoba's North. If the $5.5 billion 695 MW Keeyask dam and $7.7 billion 1485 MW Conawapa dam are built a Bipole IV and V will likely also be needed. So we as Manitobans need to ask ourselves do we need all this power? And do we need all this debt?

Most Manitobans seem to be under the false impression that Manitoba Hydro charges more per kilowatt hour (Kwh) for power exported to the U.S. than charged to local consumers.

Basic charges and rates vary among customer types in Manitoba: residential rates start at 6.38 cents per Kwh and ratchet up as demand increases, small and medium size general service customer rates start at 6.84 cents per Kwh and ratchet down as demand increases, large size general use customers pay less than 3 cents per Kwh but face additional demand charges.

In contrast Manitoba Hydro receives from 5.4 to 6 cents per Kwh for long-term fixed price contracts, and 2.4 to 4.5 cents per Kwh for power sold on the short-term spot markets. Manitoba Hydro's 59th Annual Report (pp. 100-101) shows: roughly 13.6 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban general service customers grossed Hydro $669 million; nearly 7 billion Kwh in annual sales to Manitoban residential customers grossed Hydro $477 million; and of the nearly 10 billion Kwh in net exported electrcity Hydro grossed 427 million.

Now exports are bulk sales and the price to individual residents and businesses in Manitoba reflect the added costs of distribution lines, converter stations, maintenance costs, etc. Higher costs to Manitoban customers is therefore justified to a certain extent. Additionally revenue from export sales is used to subsidize domestic rates (not to mention helping spendtrhift governments balance the books from time to time).

But what about the risk of building these new dams in Manitoba's North?

There is obvious financial risk. The billions of dollars of debt being accrued to construct dams largely for export outside of Manitoba creates the risk that adverse fluctuations in currency and/or energy prices could threaten Hydro's profitability. Likewise, with a warming planet the threat of drought increases and lower water levels also threaten Hydro's profitability. Additionally if water levels or delays in dam construction result in Manitoba being unable to meet contractual power sale obligations, this could also harm Hydro financially. Since we the taxpayers underwrite Hydro's debt, we will be on the hook if Hydro defaults.

There is also the ecological and social costs of futher dam construction. Flooding, mercury poisoning, shoreline and river embankment destabilization, habitat disruption, introduction of new species in foreign water systems, and greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs are some of the ecological costs of large-scale hydro-developments.

Socially, Manitoba Hydro certainly has a checkered past in regards to its relations with First Nations peoples. Construction of Dams in the 1960s and 1970 resulted in flooding, mercury poisoning, and the relocation of entire First Nation communities. The new model, set by the Wuskatim dam presently under construction, appears to be one of “engaging” First Nation communities in so-called “joint partnerships”. However observers, such as Peter Kulchyski of the University of Manitoba's Native Studies Department describe the Wuskatim agreements as “deeply flawed” and note how Nelson House band council came to power in a “deeply divided election.” Blocakdes of the Wuskatim Dam construction site in the summer of 2009 is further evidence of the continuing divisiveness of Hydro development in Manitoba's North.

These risks and external costs should be enough to give us pause, or atleast to argue for greater scrutiny of Hydro's risk management. Fortunately the Manitoba Public Utilities Board is presently undergoing a review of this very same issue. Manitobans would be wise to pay close attention to the hearings as they develop.

Getting serious about energy conservation in Manitoba, rather than patting ourselves on the back for a baseless A+ is a good place to start. Over the past ten years per customer electrcity demand in Manitoba has been relatively stable. Manitobans remain among the most wasteful users of electricity in the world. Hydro has some incentive to reduce energy use to free up additional electrical capacity which could then be exported. But it is the Government of Manitoba rather than Hydro which needs to take the lead on this. Helping consumeres to reduce electrical consumption is good government policy. It will help residents and businesses to save money, and it can avoid the financial, social and ecological costs of additional Hydro development.

Editors Note: I will return this issue again, but in the meantime I encourage your feedback on this issue. (jbeddome at yahoo.com)

Quick Update: Energy in Manitoba

2011-01-20T08:49:00.001-08:00

Further to my last post "East, West, or Windtower", a couple of notworthy updates.

1. TRANSMISSION LOSS FROM NORTHERN DAMS -

“More than 10 per cent of the power generated by the next generation of mega-dams will vanish when it's shipped south down the three Bipole transmission lines, including the contentious west-side line.
... Once Keeyask and Conawapa are up and running in 2023, total line losses will grow by 254 megawatts to 479 megawatts,” according to Winnipeg Free Press (Jan. 18, '11) freedom of information requests.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/premium/mega-dams-to-lose-megawatts-line-loss-increases-with-distance-travelled-114079764.html (subcription required).

2. IS CHEAP ENERGY A GOOD THING? OR WOULD A LOW INCOME PROGRAM BE MORE EFFICIENT?

A November 2010 report submitted to the Public Utilities Board (PUB) by Green Action Centre and TREE (Time to Respect Earth’s Ecosystems) argues for:
-A maximum affordability level for energy bills set at six percent of income.
-Subsidies to low-income households to offset energy bills above this amount, based the customer’s previous average energy bills
-Low income households would have the incentive and opportunity to increase conservation as the benefit is fixed for a period of time based on previous usage rates.
-Manitoba Hydro and all its customers would benefit as the subsidy could be reduced over time, taking into account reduced consumption as a result of conservation measures already taken.

I commend this report for challenging the conventional wisdom that cheap energy is always a good thing, while at the same time being mindful of the tenets of social justice.

“Revenue from these exports is currently used to keep rates as low as possible for all Manitoba consumers, including residential, commercial, and industrial power users. Our cheap energy undermines our province’s commitments to conservation, while doing a poor job at meeting equity goals. In fact, to the extent that higher energy bills often correlate to larger home sizes and higher incomes, these subsidies are regressive and benefit wealthier Manitoba families. (Emphasis added.)

Green Action Centre argues instead that at least some of the proceeds from our exports could be used to support a low-income energy affordability program that would give all Manitoba families, regardless of income, the opportunity to keep their energy bills affordable.”

http://greenactioncentre.ca/content/electricity-how-affordable-is-cheap/

http://greenactioncentre.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Home-Energy-Affordability-in-Manitoba-A-Low-Income-Affordability-Program-for-Manitoba-Hydro.pdf (Full Report)

East, West, or Wind Tower? -Green Leader Exposes Manitoba Energy Myths-

2011-01-14T08:29:00.000-08:00

Manitoba Hydro (Hydro), and more specifically the issue of where to route Bipole III, is likely to be one of the major issues in the upcoming 2011 Manitoba General Election. It is unfortunate this binary “east side” vs. “west side” has dominated the public discourse, because the larger questions about how we use, produce, distribute, and sell energy within and beyond Manitoba remain largely unasked.

Hydro's $8.5 billion debt is the single largest debt obligation of Manitoba – accounting for just under 37% of provincial debt obligations. To be fair Hydro is at present successfully managing its debt, but the taxpayers of Manitoba will be on the hook if Hydro failed to meet debt obligations. Over the next decade this debt could easily soar above $20 billion as Hydro anticipates spending an additional $18 billion, largely on the construction of new dams in Manitoba's North.

Hydro already produces enough electricity for Manitoba's needs – although we do at times import fossil fuel based energy. This means that new energy sources are largely being developed in Manitoba for the purpose of increasing electrical exports. Now this is not necessarily a bad thing, but this does mean that we as Manitoba taxpayers bear the risk if these export markets become unprofitable for whatever reason.

By far the cheapest way to free up more energy for export – or to prevent the need to import dirty energy – is to use energy more efficiently. Manitoba's per capita consumption of electricity is among the highest in the World! For all the NDP and Hydro rhetoric about getting an A+ in energy efficiency, if you look at Hydro's financial returns you can see that for the most part energy demand per customer (for both elecctricity and natural gas) has remained more or less stable in Manitoba over the past ten years. So what exactly did we get the A+ for?

On January 10, 2010 the Manitoba Government announced that the St. Joseph Wind Farm (St. Joseph) was operational. The 138 megawatt (MW) wind farm was built in ten months at a cost of of $345 million ($260 million in financing was provided by Hydro which will be repaid in energy).

A comparison of St. Joseph with the $1.6 billion 200MW Wuskwatim dam reveals that that wind-generation is cheaper than hydro-electric energy. Yes it is true that Hydro operates at an average efficiency of 65-75%, while wind operates at an average efficiency of 40%. But even after this is taken into account St. Joseph cost $6.25 million per megawatt (MW) of average deliverable capacity – only costing to Hydro $4.7 million per MW – whereas in contrast Wuskwatim cost $10.666 million per MW of average deliverable capacity.

Now granted there is also a need to create the infrastructure to connect the wind energy to the grid, and wind energy has intermittency issues. There is however also lower transmission losses when the energy is produced in Southern Manitoba, which is both closer to export markets and where most energy is consumed in Manitoba, rather than hydro dams located in Manitoba's North.

Manitobans are smart innovative people! We are constrined not by the technological capacity of better energy efficiency, or the feasibility of non-fossil fuel based alternative energy such as wind and solar, but by the limits of our own creativity. It starts with having an open, honest, and frank public discourse about energy. The point here isn't to provide all the answers, but to point out that a more thorough debate on energy use, production, and distribution is drastically needed in Manitoba.

Unfortunately this debate is impeded by the political rhetoric, and energy myths propagated by Manitoba's three other political parties.

James Beddome, Leader
Green Party of Manitoba

Calculations:
Wuskwatim - $1,600 million/(200MW *75%) = $10.666 million/MW
St. Joseph - $345 million/(138MW * 40%)= $6.25 million/MW
(When the $95 million Pattern Energy contribution is added into the equation the cost to Hydro for St. Joseph reduces to $4.7 million per MW)

Looking for the real bottom line in the 2010 budget

2010-03-27T14:03:00.000-07:00

The most recent budget clearly demonstrates that the current government of Manitoba refuses to accept that economic health and social well being require more than Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The Selinger Government is trying to convince Manitobans that a $555 million budgetary shortfall is not so bad since our debt to GDP ratio is only 24.4%.
It is not unreasonable to run a deficit during tough times, but the flip side is that you pay down your debts when times are good. Budgets are about planning. This implies reasonably attempting to foresee the future. In this regard, successive decades of NDP and Conservative governments have failed us.

When Greens talk about budgeting, we speak not only about the public coffers, but also about the public goods, natural resources and ecological habitats in this province. A sustainable society is based on understanding our natural capital, and planning appropriately is at the core of the responsible Green approach. Nowhere within the budget documents can you find an impugned value for vital ecological services, such as fresh air, clean water, and fertile soils -- nor for other important indicators of economic health, including healthy families and communities, active citizen involvement, and volunteer contributions.

These non-monetary costs are not captured in the budget, nor are they captured by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) statistics, which measure the value of all monetarily exchanged goods and services in an economy. GDP sums all goods and services within an economy without regard for the attributes of the service in question. This leads to some strange results. For instance, the costs associated with a stolen car: filing an insurance claim, paying the deductible, the police hours spent on apprehending or attempting to apprehend the thief, justice related costs (including the cost of the court and any costs of incarceration), plus the costs to repair the vehicle, are all added into GDP. Likewise, costs associated with toxic spills and the resultant clean-up are also positively added into GDP. Obviously we do not want more car thefts and toxic spills, yet these add to the GDP number, and we're told this is a good thing?

There is inherent value in sustaining our planet -- our survival depends on it! Forests ecosystems, for instance, have considerable value. A provincially supported study conducted by the International Institute for Sustainable Development [IISD] valued the ecological services of a section of boreal forest East of Lake Winnipeg at $121.35 to $130.30 million annually (That’s for fresh air, fresh water, carbon sequestering, and various other valuable activities like eco-tourism, hunting, and fishing). If we extrapolate the IISD's valuation, Manitoba's forests yield $854.75 million dollars in ecological services to Manitobans every year.

Though numbers on a spreadsheet cannot adequately capture the tranquil beauty of our irreplaceable and wondrous ecosystems, we need to recognize that these ecosystems have value. They provide clean air, clean water, and habitat for wildlife. Perhaps if economic value was placed on these ecosystems, and these numbers were transparently included in the budget documents, and new well-being indicators such as the Genuine Progress Indicator were also incorporated, Manitobans would have a clearer picture of where we stand. Perhaps this could help facilitate a long-term plan to ensure that Manitobans leave their children and their children’s children a better planet than the one they have inherited.

------------------------------------------------
The IISD study valued 40,000 km² of forested land at 130 million per year (http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2008/ecosystem_valuation.pdf). According to Conservation Manitoba there are 263 000 km² of forested land in Manitoba (http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/forestry/forest-education/general.html). Assuming that 130 million per year for 40,000 hectares is a fair valuation, then the entire forested area in the province yields $854.75 million in ecological services.

Planet is the source of all prosperity

2010-02-03T13:07:00.000-08:00

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?

Re: Tories Do Bluegrass, Greens Twist and Shout

2010-02-03T12:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Chief Electroral Officer Controversy: Time for some Greens!!!

2010-01-22T09:34:00.000-08:00

Well in today's Free Press and in the Winnipeg Sun there is a story about the Opposition Boycott of the process to appoint a new Chief Electoral Officer (CEO)--links below.
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/2010/01/21/12565621.html
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/search-for-new-chief-electoral-officer-opposition-storms-out-of-meeting-82349692.html

I was also in attendance, and the Committee even appended my written submission to the official records--I have copied it below for your reference.

It is shameful that our politicians are not seizing this valuable opportunity. Do we need a public inquiry regarding the 1999 election fiasco? ABSOLUTELY! Let's get to the bottom of this, and clear the air one way or another.

However should we be obstructing the process, or should we get on with appointing a new CEO, now that the present CEO has given his notice of resignation. I would argue the latter. Further to this, I think we have the perfect opportunity to make some Legislative changes to the Elections Act which would make the process more impartial, and multi-partisan.

Please enjoy my submission below.

Dear Members of the Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs,
Re: Order of the Day - “To consider the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer”
Date, Time, & Location: January 21st, 2010 at 6pm in Room 255 of the Legislative Building

I. INTRODUCTION: Providing some context.
This committee, The Legislative Committee on Standing Affairs (herein referred to as “Standing Committee”), is meeting to begin the process for hiring a new Chief Electoral Officer (herein referred to as “CEO”). As the Standing Committee is likely aware the previous CEO Richard Balasko had a thirty year career with Elections Manitoba, and held the position of CEO for twenty years. Balasko is leaving amidst cries from opposition party leaders for him to resign or elaborate further on the decision not to proceed with prosecutions against any NDP party member regarding the improper recording of union workers as expenses rather than donations-in-kind during the 1999 election. Balasko for his part has claimed that the law keeps him from speaking openly about the investigation.
This controversy hurts all Manitobans! It is neither good for our democracy, nor is it fortunate, that a long-standing CEO's integrity is in question. There are serious allegations that need to be addressed. The NDP party, and those individuals involved could voluntarily waive their rights to privacy and allow Elections Manitoba the right to release the information regarding the investigation. Or a public inquiry could be called. Either way it is vital to a vibrant democracy to clear the air, one way or another. That said, nothing is conclusive at this moment, and it is more productive to look at the selection of a new CEO as an opportunity to review what other jurisdictions have done in order to determine how we can avoid these types of problems from occurring in the future.

II. LEVEL OF CONSENSUS: Making the appointment process multi-partisan!
Under The Elections Act (C.C.S.M. c. E30, s. 22,23) if the CEO position is vacant, or will be vacated within a year, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs is to consider candidates and make recommendations to the President of the Executive Council (also known as the Premier), and the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint the CEO. Thus in Manitoba in effect it is the Premier who tells the Lieutenant Governor who to appoint, based upon the the recommendations made by the Standing Committee. In this way we can see that under a majority government the Premier has a considerable amount of sway in the appointment process, and this thereby needlessly politicizes the appointment process.
Under British Columbia's, Election Act (R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106, s. 4.1) the Lieutenant Governor is to appoint, on recommendation of the Assembly, a CEO who has been unanimously recommended by a Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly. When the Special Committee of the B.C. Legislative Assembly last met in 2002, the Special Committee of the Legislature was largely composed of Liberals but importantly it included Joy McPhail, a B.C. MLA and Provincial Leader of the opposition NDP, thus the perspectives of at least two parties were considered during the selection process. It should be noted that although dominated by Liberals the Special Committee was reflective of the composition of the Assembly at the time which was overwhelmingly Liberal.
Appointment of a CEO in Prince Edward Island, according to the Election Act (R.S.P.E.I.
1988, E-1.1, s. 2), requires a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Legislative Management, and a resolution by the Assembly with more than a 2/3rds approval from the P.E.I Assembly. —thus under this system, with the present NDP majority in Manitoba, some opposition support would still be required to appoint a CEO.
Most provinces do require some form of legislative oversight in the selection process, but the two statues above, stand out as exemplary because they require a high degree of consensus in the appointment process. Therefore in most ordinary circumstances, appointment of a CEO would require approval from multiple political parties. If multiple political parties perspectives are taken into account during the selection process then there will be less of a basis to question the CEOs integrity.
II. LIMITING TERMS: Providing an opportunity for periodic review.
Many provinces also limit the term of a CEO. In most cases CEOs can be be reappointed, but particularly, if as discussed above, a bi-partisan process in used, this can provide a very valuable opportunity to hold the CEOs accountable.
British Columbia (Election Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 106 s. 6), and Saskatchewan (Election Act, R.S.S. 1996, E-6.01, s. 4.4) limit the term of a CEO from the date of appointment until 12 months after the completion of two general elections, and in Alberta (Election Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-1 s. 3.3) the appointment is limited to a 12 months period after a single general election, before re-appointment or retirement is required. New Brunswick (Election Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. E-3, s. 5.1.1, 5.1.2) in contrast limits the term of a CEO to a fifteen year maximum; CEOs are appointed to term ranging from eight years to ten years, and this can be extended for an additional five years before the CEO must retire.

III. CONCLUSION: Looking Forward
Nothing in life is perfect, and it seems fair to mention the above-mentioned provinces have also had their share of controversy. The political controversy in Alberta, surrounding the removal of Lorne Gibson instantly comes to mind. I do not pretend that these other provinces statutes are perfect, rather I think given that we in Manitoba are now beginning the process of selecting a new CEO, that we should look at the strong points of other provinces legislation to craft our own unique “made-in-Manitoba” process. I have highlighted how other provinces have term limits, and a higher degree of consensus in the appointment process. Being in transition from one CEO to another, presents the perfect opportunity to amend the Elections Act accordingly.
I would note that today I received an e-mail from Mr. Blaikie, in which he indicated that he “...would be happy to arrange to meet ... to hear the input that the Green Party of Manitoba has to offer regarding the hiring process of the Chief Electoral Officer.” I thank the Minister for this invite, and will follow up accordingly, but I do believe that the input of political parties needs to be formalized into the process. One idea, similiar to the BC model, might be that CEO candidates would need to receive unanimous approval from a committee composed of a designate from each registered political party in the province.
In any event, what we need to do is to try to de-politicize the process by which the appointment of a CEO is done. Sitting before us we have the perfect opportunity to do so. I hope that you will take these ideas into consideration. I would also be more than happy to speak to the Standing Committee and answer any questions that they might have. I will be in attendance this evening and I can also be reached via e-mail, but post, or phone (with e-mail typically providing the fastest response).

Respectfully Submitted on January 21, 2010,
James R. Beddome, Leader, Green Party of Manitoba
leader@greenparty.mb.ca
1-877-742-4292 (leave message); or direct by cell: 204-990-5195
Box 26023, RPO Maryland, Winnipeg, MB, R3G 3R3

Manitoba Needs More Wind Energy

2009-11-19T22:41:00.000-08:00

[Editor's note. Please enjoy this piece courtesy of Scott Harrison]

Manitoba Hydro claims the St. Joseph’s wind farm will be smaller than the original proposal at 300 megawatts to 138 megawatts. With Manitoba being one of the windiest places in the country (especially southwestern Manitoba), Hydro should allow for faster tendering of wind projects to be built by private corporations, the public or RM’s. These organizations will provide the finance backing to build the wind farms, rather than having the government finance the upfront costs as they are presently doing with the hydro dams in Northern Manitoba. All Manitoba Hydro has to do is follow Ontario’s lead and buy the power back from the companies at an increased rate above the six or seven cents a kilowatt-hour hydro is currently offering. If in fact Manitoba is to reach its target of 1,000 Megawatts by 2015 they better buy power at a higher price or companies will build their wind farms elsewhere (Ontario is presently offering 13.5 cents per kilowatt-hour to wind energy developers). The Manitoba government should invest in wind, solar, and geothermal energy rather than hydro because it helps to offset our dependence on one type of “clean energy”. What happens if we have a drought as was suggest by some Whistleblower’s? Other clean power sources could make up for the difference. Additionally the power lost to transmission is likely to be lower for wind farms because the power is more likely to be produced in the more densely populated southern Manitoba which consumes the bulk of the provinces electricity. Germany has an integrated system of wind, solar, biogas and hydro all throughout the country. The German and Ontarian example provides a model that we could follow here in Manitoba. If only this government was really committed to the idea of a diversified clean energy portfolio.

The logger and the caribou are both becoming endangered species in Manitoba!

2009-08-20T03:24:00.000-07:00

No one can deny that the forestry industry in Manitoba has fallen on hard times, but for Gary Doer to suggest that the approval of the Dickstone Road through Grass River Provincial Park will somehow stabilize jobs in the forestry industry is disingenuous.

In the background information attached to the Provincial Government's November 21, 2008 News Release "Province Proposes Historic Changes To Preserve Provincial Parks For Future Generations" the government noted that the forestry industry employed approximately 2,500 people, down from the 9,000 employed in 1997.

Since then the lay-offs have intensified with Tolko's announcement of: "...an indefinite curtailment at its [lumber] plant in The Pas, Manitoba..." on January 19, 2009, resulting in an additional 107 forestry workers, through no fault of their own, being laid off.

Despite of the mill workers agreeing to wage roll-backs in January of 2006 when Tolko threatened to close the mill down., Tolko's revenues have fallen by 17.4% in 2006, and 21% in 2007. According to their 2007/2008 Business Update this was "...due mainly to a stronger Canadian dollar, reduced market demands, and export taxes."

Building a 17 km road through the middle of Grass River Provincial Park is not going to change the global market conditions the forestry industry is presently facing. It will not change the value of the Canadian Dollar, it is not going to convince Americans to buy more houses, and it is not going to convince our neighbors to the South to change their foreign trade policy.

The road development will however have a drastic effect on the local ecosystems. Of particular note are the endangered Woodland Caribou who calve in Grass River Provincial Park , and the bridge construction will have an impact on the fish and other wildlife in the park as well.

Tolko is heavily dependent on export trade with roughly three-quarters of its sales from outside Canada. This dependence on foreign trade is a double-edged sword that often cuts back during times of economic uncertainty. Unfortunately the laid-off Tolko workers know this all too well.

If the Premier really wanted to stabilize jobs in the forestry industry, perhaps rather than bicker about buy-American provisions he should consider implementing similar Buy-Manitoba clauses. If Manitobans were purchasing their wood products from locally derived sources the demand would be less dependent on external factors and therefore more stable. In this way Manitoba's forestry workers, and their loved ones, would be less likely to deal with the financial and emotional hardships created by price-shocks in a boom and bust industry.

Perhaps if we did this we could sustain our boreal ecosystem, protect our Provincial Parks and the woodland Caribou, and secure long-term jobs for our forestry workers at the same time.

SUBURBAN SPRAWL AT HEART OF WATER DEBATE

2009-07-22T19:43:00.000-07:00

Winnipeg, and the surrounding communities, are presently beholden to the same old game of staged ideological political chicken between the city and the province, and unfortunately our water supply (imagine a barrel of water) is set to collide in between. Thus far most of the spectators have gathered just in front of the barrel of water in protest, and they nervously hold their ground as Sam Katz floors his Nissan Quest towards the barrel while screaming at the top of his lungs: “This is not the privatization of our water system, we are searching for strategic partners!” Gary appears less threatening trying to look “green” while idling his Ford Escape Hybrid on the other side of the barrel, but rest assured he is ready to slam on the gas and roar towards the barrel. In fact he is the one who dared Sammy and the city into this game of political chicken in the first place.

Water, literally the lifeblood that sustains virtually all species on the planet, is an emotional subject. It is even more distressing when we consider the fact that, although water is the most abundant substance on the planet, we are using our precious water resources faster that it can replenish itself.

We all know that a man dying of thirst would undoubtedly give his life savings for a cup of fresh water, but would it be morally just to profiteer in such an occasion? None of us want to end up in the predicament of the dehydrated man, which is why the water we drink, like the air that we breathe, is a public good that should remain common to us all. It is not something that should be commodified for the benefit of a few.

Given the stakes then, it is not surprising that citizens are understandably alarmed about the City's proposed replacement of the Waste & Water Department (W & WD) with a Municipal Corporate Utility (MCU) and what that would mean to them and their water bill. Certainly a debate about our water usage and the impacts of our current capital and water intensive sewage system is well over-due, but the current debate is being framed around ideological hyperbole rather than objective analysis on the facts.

The proponents of the MCU need to provide us with more detail, we need more than naked assumptions. They claim that synergies will result in a 1.0%, and 1.5% reduction in costs in the first and second years respectively through purchasing synergies, but they do not specifically outline what these purchasing synergies are. We need details! Provide us with a list what the W & WD presently buys, from whom and for what price, then provide us with some details on how the MCU intends to lower these costs. The MCU model is supposed to be more responsive and thereby more likely to attract private investment. Corporate model, or not, with sewage contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars I do not suspect that it is that difficult to entice private firms to bid on them, and it is not entirely clear why a corporate model is automatically more responsive (other than the right-wing ideological assumption that business can always do everything better).

Entering into a 30 year contract is tantamount to entering into a marriage, it is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Yet in less than a year the City wants to move from the courting process to the altar. Is it wise to marry someone known for less than a year? Could we find a great partner? The “conservative estimates” of 10-15% reduction in costs might be attainable if this is the case. On the other hand, the partnership could be a disaster, as was the case for Hamilton and Atlanta, and we may be left with a hefty divorce tab. Perhaps prudence would dictate that we go back to the drawing board and sketch out a few more details before this motion is rushed through City Council?

Those who oppose the MCU have similarly distorted the facts with an ideological lens. They have incorrectly labelled the debate as the “complete privatization of or water” a “monumental robbery” and a sure fire way to “hike water rates”. To be fair, this is not an accurate reflection of the present MCU proposal, and water rates are already slated to continue to increase regardless. Threats toward privatization of our water supply exist, and it is good that we have an active vanguard of citizens who serve as watchdogs to prevent this from ever occurring; however their ideological viewpoints, and perhaps their party loyalties, have kept them from focusing on the true marionette master who is pulling most of the strings.

As reported by Bartley Kives of the Winnipeg Free Press (WFP) in his article “Debate about water utility not deep enough” notes:

The province... is in love with the utility. Six years after forcing Winnipeg to engage in a $1.8-billion upgrade to waste-water treatment that the city can barely afford, the Doer government will soon be forced to order bedroom communities such as Stonewall and East and West St. Paul to make sewage upgrades of their own.

The Doer government was correct in mandating that municipalities remove Nitrogen and Phosphorous, but this means very little when they provide neither the correct direction nor the adequate funding for municipalities to achieve this objective.

Given the City's present cash-strapped financial situation, and the Mayor's ideological pro-business predilections, should we be surprised the City is presently entertaining the idea of private funders?

The province's “plan” as indicated in their draft Public Land Use Polices (PLUPs) released this past March is to have Winnipeg contract sewage services to neighboring municipalities. Should we be surprised to see the City of Winnipeg follow the direction as recently outlined by the province?
Isn't the city ultimately still dependant on the province to pass a regulation under s. 212 of The Winnipeg Charter to establish the corporation?

Regardless of whether it is performed by the present city-owned Waste & Water Department or a future Corporate Municipal Utility extending sewer services out into Winnipeg's commuter-shed, this is a poorly thought out idea as it will clearly lead to more urban sprawl!

Winnipeg already faces an estimated infrastructure deficit of $7.4 billion and the South End sewage treatment plant is already operating at capacity and due to the population growth (caused by new developments in the South End of Winnipeg like Waverly West), and it will require significant upgrades to accommodate the required volume. Winnipeg already faces the difficult task of managing the competing objectives of rehabilitating the aging infrastructure in the city centre while also incorporating new developments within the perimeter. New developments will undoubtedly bubble up from the sewage infrastructure as it extends out beyond the perimeter, thereby compounding these problems even further.

While both the City and the Province see this as a win-win way for Winnipeg to generate revenue while achieving Nitrogen and Phosphorous removal on schedule, they have clearly not taken the time to look holistically at the larger picture. The corresponding urban sprawl will decrease Winnipeg's population density further and with fewer people to service more infrastructure the obvious result will be a reduction in service, increased taxes, or both. Our city will become even more car dependent resulting in further greenhouse gas emissions, valuable agricultural land will be paved over, and the few remaining wetlands (the kidneys of the planet) which remain on the outskirts of the city will needlessly be drained. In short the revenues do not justify the additional costs.

The framing of the debate as left vs. right, or public control vs. private control misses the deeper issues that lay underneath. As much as this debate is about the public control of our infrastructure, it is perhaps even more about how we intend to design our city in the years to come. At the Mayor`s Environmental Symposium in April of 2009 numerous participants outlined urban sprawl as an issue of concern. We cannot change the sprawl of the past, but we do have the ability to stop the sprawl of the future. The line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere. Speak up Winnipeg! And not just to Katz, Doer needs to hear you as well. We only have one barrel of water and it really doesn't matter if Katz or Doer hit the barrel first. If the barrel spills we are all in trouble!

It is your job to improve bus service!

2009-06-08T21:40:00.000-07:00

In the Winnipeg Free Press' June 8th, 2009 article about the Commuter Challenge Councillor Bill Clement comments that, "Anybody that would be thinking clearly would understand very quickly that nobody representing that ward can travel it by bus and do it justice,”; perhaps then Councillor Clement should be working on doing his ward justice by ensuring that they have bus service that can accommodate the needs of all. If bus service is inadequate in his ward, then it is Councillor Clement`s job to see that is improved. This flippant behaviour is simply unacceptable from a elected official from any level of government.

Political Will a Prerequisite to Sustainable Planning

2009-05-19T09:17:00.000-07:00

The title from a May 14, 2009 press release from the Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba (PCWM) says it all: "Manitoba’s Proposed Land Use Policies Encourage Urban Sprawl".

(I highly recommend that readers check of the PCWM response at: http://www.mts.net/~pcwm/plup_response.pdf)

In the PCWM response to the PLUP consultation, they quip that "...the March 2009 draft should more accurately be entitled, 'Provincial Infrastructure, Servicing and Land Use Policies' as it moves away from the focus of sustainable land use planning and concentrates more on providing infrastructure and services to low density, scattered 'urban centres', rural residential and cottage development. This will promote urban sprawl, particularly in Winnipeg’s commuter-shed. This direction is unsustainable both environmentally and economically."

Having attended the Provincial Land Use Policies (PLUP) consultation process, held at the Norwood Hotel in Winnipeg, MB on April 27th, my observations were concurrent with those of the PCWM.

In short, these regulations are pure "greenwash". Many green buzz-words are incorporated throughout the 63 page draft, but words do not give this document the strength to promote sustainable land use. It is disingenuous for the NDP to cast about carelessly these buzz-terms, while at the same time promoting the continuation of our car-dependent, water- and energy-intensive infrastructure systems.

First off, the draft regulations are nearly toothless. They are not binding laws but are merely advisory in nature. According to the section entitled "Scope and Application": "The Policies are to be read as a whole and ...are to be applied to the circumstance or consideration." (pg 8).

The only problem is PLUP are so contradictory, however, that they cannot be read as a whole.

Too elaborate I provide two examples: Infrastructure Development and The Mid-Continent Trade Corridor Concept.

INFRASTRUCTURE

The PLUP on "Infrastructure" delineates that "alternative solutions" rather than extending or expanding existing infrastructure should be considered and in particular "demand side management techniques and low impact development" should be utilized (pg 48; PA:6.6 b.).

These policies are then utterly undermined by the mandate to connect both new developments and existing self-sufficient developments to centralized pipe-based wastewater facilities (pg 49; PA6:8).

On one page the PLUP outline that we should not extend or expand our current infrastructure, and on then on the next page they instruct the extension of the same old piped wastewater infrastructure -- which is dependent on continuous quantities of water to maintain the flow and therefore wholly incompatible with demand management techniques.

How are these policy interests to be reconciled with each other?

"The pressure to extend water, sewer, roads, transit and other services and infrastructure will tax these services to an unsustainable degree. It could lead to the demand for major infrastructure expansion such as twinning the aqueduct from Shoal Lake that has a finite water supply. Winnipeg currently has a massive infrastructure deficit. To ask the city to spread its services and infrastructure throughout the region is simply not sustainable nor is it fair to the citizens..." elaborates the PCWM.

MID-CONTINENT TRADE CORRIDOR

The Development Plan By-Laws require various appropriate studies be undertaken and made public before the approval of any new development, including among them studies on "greenhouse gas emissions inventories and forecasts" as well as "climate change vulnerability/risk assessments" (pg. 20; BL: 3. f, g).

Yet the Capital Region is ensured of the 'protection to capitalize upon any identified economic development advantages' including an expanded 24-hour airport and the concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. (pg 62; PA 9: 2).

Yet going back to the By-Laws where are the public studies for the greenhouse gas/climate change impacts of the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor? Clearly the construction alone, let alone the increased air, freight, and rail traffic will caused an increase in emissions.

In the PLUP section on "Agriculture" the preamble states:
"It is expected that rising fuel costs and climate change may place an increased demand on the production and protection of local food sources. Producing food for local consumption reduces food miles traveled and consequently greenhouse gases;" (pg. 31; PA 3).

Given that nearly all goods are transported by our fossil-fuel based transportation system it generally holds true that reducing the miles traveled of all goods in general will consequently reduce greenhouse gases, dependent of course on the method of transportation used.

The concept of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor however is entirely dependent on the notion of transporting goods across the globe. It is also heavily dependent on air travel, which has the heaviest footprint of any form of fossil-fuel based transportation.

So which policy directive is to prevail? The one that calls for planning to reduce greenhouse gases, or the plan to build a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor which is wholly dependent on unsustainable greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuel based transportation infrastructure?

Further to this, Downtown Winnipeg stands to lose the Greyhound Bus Depot and the Post Office Headquarters to the proposed Mid-Continent Trade Corridor. How does this fit in line the PLUP "Settlement Areas" which make a commitment to maximize investment in the downtown (PA 2: 8., 9.)

This is just two examples of how the PLUP often contradict themselves, but how can conflicting policy directives constitute a land use plan. Ultimately political considerations will prevail in the planning process. What is needed, perhaps even more than better planning policies themselves, is the political will from our politicians to commit themselves to a sincere rather than a face-value commitment to sustainable land use planning.

[Note: Draft PLUP can be read at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/draft.html or in pdf form at http://www.gov.mb.ca/ia/plups/pdf/draft.pdf. Referenced by page number and policy. -- Eg. (pg 42; PA5: 3.a.) refers to page 42 pdf version; Policy Area 5: directive 3.a.]

Sugar-Coated Tokenism

2009-05-06T00:07:00.000-07:00

It is galling how the "Do-little" NDP government pats itself on the back for small feel-good initiatives. When these initiatives are analyzed in context of the entirety of the government's activities it is clear that the Government is committed to nothing more than tokenism.

Today was the perfect example of this tendency. Conservation Minister Stan Struthers announced, that in collaboration with the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA), the province will be introducing a cell-phone recycling program.

I have no issues with this program on its own accord. It is promising to see the industry taking initiative. When cell phones end up in the land-fill they often leach toxins, and the mining of these metals have considerable environmental impacts.

It should, however, be recognized that cell phones are only one contributor to the province's growing e-waste problem. Nowadays it seems like everybody owns at least one, if not multiple computers, lapbtops, Ipods, television sets, DVD players, Blu Ray players, gaming consoles, and other consumer electronics. Consumer electronics date themselves quickly and within a couple of years they either end up in the landfill, or perhaps stowed away in someone`s closet/garage. Furthermore e-waste is but one part of a larger problem that revolves around our society's flagrantly frivolous production of so-called "waste".

Looking at today's press release on cell-phone recycling in isolation it becomes easy to believe that this government is at the vanguard of the environmental movement, but governments cannot be judged on the basis of a single press release alone. They need to be judged on the sum of their actions.

On Earth Day the government's press releases promised "...to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by up to 20 per cent over the next three years," and Doer pledged $7 million to the Nature Conservancy of Canada to enhance Natural Areas.

$7 million sounds like a substantial investment in our ecosystems, until you consider the fact that the week before the government announced an infrastructure investment in Winnipeg's Inland port of $111 million- that's nearly 16 times the value of the investment in the Nature Conservancy of Canada! Furthermore both the construction and operation of the proposed CentrePort port are likely to cause an increase in GHG emissions.

The Province has been bolstering the CentrePort Canada Corporation as a way to "develop Manitoba's economy". The idea is to turn Winnipeg into a so-called "inland port" whereby Winnipeg will be a worldwide centre of distribution. Such a plan is heavily reliant on the idea of increased international trade, and in particular a continuation and expansion of our current practices of needlessly shipping products around the world by plane and truck.

Apparently the government never read the memo that our current methods of transporting freight with fossil-fuels is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Transportation is Manitoba's largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), creating 37% of the roughly 20 megatonnes of GHGs that Manitoba produces each year. It logically follows that promoting more international freight transport will further increase our GHG emissions.

The inland port concept is heavily dependent on the construction of a new airport and new roads. Has the government even considered the effects of such a massive construction project on the province's GHG emissions?

According to a 2001 study in The Annual Review of Energy and the Environment every tonne of concrete produced in North America creates 242 kg of Carbon emissions, and this does not include "...the CO2 emissions attributable to mobile equipment used for mining of raw material, used for transport of raw material and cement, and used on the plant site." In his recent book Heat, George Monbiot argues, "It is probably fair to say that a tonne of cement produces about a tonne of carbon dioxide.”

Clearly just the construction alone will be very taxing on Manitoba's atmosphere.

Air travel is also one of the fastest growing areas of greenhouse gas emissions. According to the David Suzuki Foundation "...since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%." Yet, in their most recent budget the government reduced the aviation fuel tax for domestic cargo flights and expanded their aviation fuel tax exemption for international cargo flights.

We are already proposing to spend billions of dollars on CentrePort. Why do we feel that it is prudent to deny Manitobans the tax revenue generated from international cargo flights to encourage aviation freight in spite of the clearly apparent ecological costs?

This government is baking a toxic cake, but because they have put some green icing on the outside, they want Manitoban's to believe that they can have their cake and eat it too. Hopefully we are smart enough to quit swallowing the Province's sugar-coated nonsense, because the more we eat, the worse it is for Manitoba in the long run.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303 (subscription required)
http://www.gov.mb.ca/stem/climate/mb_doing.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=&item=5777
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5703
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5699
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2009-4-01&item=5665

Celebrating St. Patrick's Day with the Cyclists!

2009-03-19T10:08:00.000-07:00

I attended the Bike To The Future's (BTTF) open-house on the Disraeli cycling/pedestrian crossing on St. Patricks's day. I was surprised that none of the other Elmwood candidates attended, since the Disraeli Bridge Rehabilitation has been such a hot topic of the campaign. I suppose that active transportation is really not on their radar. It seems that most of the talk on the Disraeli bridge has centered around personal vehicular traffic. I am merely speculating here, but my understanding is that the other three candidates typically commute by car, which explains why they might be less empathetic to cyclists, pedestrians, or bus riders (read my previous post below "Politicians: Priorities Please!" or "Time for Politicians to take the bus?" for further opinion) .

It is unfortunate that the candidates missed this meeting because the one presenter hit the exact problem underlying the Disraeli Bridge closure right on the head, stating: "There is no coherent plan to decrease the amount of traffic going over the Disraeli Bridge."

It is not that I do not sympathize with the inconvenience that any bridge closure will cause (regardless of whether that is a full or a partial closure). Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic, whether you are in a car, on a bus, or on your bike. As a business owner myself I can sympathize with the business owners in the area who will more than see a decline in there profits. I know how hard fluctuations in income can be for entrepreneurs and business people.

Having knocked on the doors of many residents of Elmwood I am keenly aware how upset and divided the residents of Elmwood are about this issue! It is clear that the less time the bridge is ultimately closed the better it will be. Right now the City of Winnipeg is in the process of receiving proposals for the project, which will include details such as whether an attached or separate pedestrian bridge will be built, how long the bridge will be closed and whether this will be a full or partial closure. One of the interesting things that came from the meeting is how fast the entire process is moving and therefore how little time is allowed for public discussion from the residents of Elmwood, other surrounding communities and concerned groups. While this is ultimately a civic issue, it seems to me that the decision-making process should be opened up to the public, especially the people of Elmwood so that the community can choose the repair tender that best meets their needs.

Unlike the other candidates I do not think that adding more lanes for automobile traffic is the cure This is nothing more than a temporary treatment that will alleviate the pain. Fellow blogger David Watson has a great quote on his blog Waverly West and beyond:

"Adding lanes to solve traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity." - Glen Hemistra

The answer is to slim down!

According to Winnipeg Transit, 20% of Winnipeggers travel by bus and 2 buses can replace as many as a hundred cars, thereby reducing traffic congestion by 90%. Therefore if we improved bus frequency and service the transit ridership rate would increase and this would decrease traffic congestion not only during the Disraeli Closure (whether that be a partial or full closure), but beyond as well.

Promoting cycling is another way to slim down traffic congestion. For cyclists and pedestrians the Disraeli Rehabilitation process cannot be completed fast enough as many are looking forward to the new segregated bike lane across the Disraeli. The high pitch of the Disraeli Bridge and the high speed of traffic on Henderson Highway make the Disraeli Bridge in its present form one of the least bike friendly locations in the city.

It is key to recognize that Winnipeg's active transportation network do not connect to each other, and this historic lack of investment in active transportation is one of the reasons that inhibit people from riding their bikes. Can you imagine if our paved roads suddenly ended and motor vehicles were forced to cross mud paths to get to the next paved road? That is the situation that cyclists currently face.

Cycling and transit need to be our priorities. They should not be merely afterthoughts, to be incorporated if it is convenient to do so. This is exactly why we presently have an incoherent bike infrastructure system across the city. At the BTTF meeting numerous residents from Elmwood and Point Douglas indicated that they would like active transportation crossings at both the Disraeli and Louise bridges. They worry the construction of a Disraeli active transportation corridor will inhibit the conversion of the Louise into an active transportation corridor as well. It is too bad that none of the other candidates were present to hear this concern.

Sources:
http://waverleywest.blogspot.com/
http://myride.winnipegtransit.com/en/inside-transit/interestingtransitfacts/

Authorized by the Official Agent for James Beddome

The NDP may try to appear to be green, but we can all smell the VOC's blowing out the back-door!

2009-03-18T23:48:00.000-07:00

The Green Party of Manitoba (GPM)--and in fact all Manitobans--scored a partial victory with the provinces March 16th decision to have the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) review Louisiana Pacific's (LP) license change request. Now I am not saying that the GPM letter which you can read at: http://greenparty.mb.ca/pdf/pr/20090302.pdf, was the the sole reason for this application being reviewed. There were many individuals and many organizations which sent in letters in opposition to this request, but it does go to show the NDP Government's supposed concern for the environment is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Fifteen years ago, then Leader of the Opposition Gary Doer was instrumental in having the RTO installed, flash forward fifteen years and this government was trying to slip an application to shut-down the RTO through the back-door when nobody was looking because the global economic recession was hurting the lumber industry. Apparently the NDP has forgotten where they came from. Apparently this government has still not grasped the concept that the environment and the economy are inextricably linked. A few dollars of economic activity is not worth the cost of comprising our clean water and fresh air.

This is only a partial victory. It should be a no-brainer but the CEC will want substantive proof as to why the RTO should not be shut-down. While LP has the money to pay for experts to argue their case for them, the ecosystems that sustain us have no legal standing and no bank account, this means that the public must speak up on behalf of these ecosystems. I would encourage all citizens to present on this issue to the CEC, or lend your expertise to the GPM we will certainly be presenting to the CEC!

You can contact me directly at: leader@greenparty.mb.ca

For more information:
http://earthkeeperfarm.blogspot.com/2009/03/louisiana-pacific-takes-pollution.html
http://thegreenpages.ca/portal/mb/2009/03/louisiana_pacific_seeks_to_dec.html
http://www.gov.mb.ca/chc/press/top/2009/03/2009-03-16-110400-5435.html
Authorized by the official agent for James Beddome

Politicians: Priorities Please!

2009-03-14T10:13:00.001-07:00

So much of the Elmwood by-election campaign has focused on the Disraeli Bridge. One candidate campaigns on plans to spend an untenable amount of money to keep the bridge open, and the next one foolishly follows his lead--even making it his campaign slogan. The tired old politician finally wakes up midway through the campaign and issues a statement that mimics all candidates position without really saying anything at all. Why has this been the centrepoint of the debate?

The bridge is but a symptom of the real problem: poor city planning and traffic congestion.

No matter how we deal with this situation, traffic interruption will be the result. If the bridge is partially closed down, traffic will actually be congested for a longer period of time. If we twin the Louise bridge, congestion will undoutedly ensue during that construction. In the meantime we risk a catastrophe like the one witnessed in Minneapolis! Perhaps we should step back and start to examine the root causes.

This is where the Green Party of Manitoba (GPM) comes in! If the bus came by your front door step every two minutes would you consider leaving the car at home? What if you had ample room to read or relax? What if the bus had wireless internet connection? These are not impossible aims, all that is required is the political will.

The province presently gives Winnipeg Transit a mere $24 million per year under its 50/50 cost sharing operating grant. WE CAN DO BETTER! The province is spending $13 million on the Kenaston underpass and $8 building roads to a new IKEA store---meanwhile in Elmwood the streets are riddled with potholes and there is atleast one bridge that is falling down, my fair lady-- perhaps we should quit building new neighborhoods and focus investment on older neighborhoods like Elmwood.

The people of Elmwood know this better than most. They have seen the small independent corner store displaced by the new suburban box stores--all too often with the help of public money. They have seen the increased traffic run through their neighbhorhood as the suburban development has expanded in North Winnipeg.

A politician's job is to provide direction and set priorities. We are quite literally expected to anticipate the future. The other candidates were nearly condoning speeding earlier in the campaign, one even admitted to getting a speeding ticket, and the other thought that speeding tickets were about raising revenue rather than protecting public safety. Shortly, thereafter a car ran into a house just off of Henderson Highway. Are these the people that you want to leave in charge of protecting you? Your children and loved ones?

This campaign is about the political will to move us in the right direction. Is the Disraeli Bridge really our top priority? What about the children in Elmwood who go to bed hungry every night? What about the Elmwood residents who do not feel safe in their own neighborhoods? What about residents that lack adequate health care service? What about the parents that can't find suitable daycare arrangements? What about the state of our lakes and waterways? What about the perilous future of our planet?

James Beddome
Elmwood Candidate &
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba
Authorized by the official agent

Where is Manitoba on Wind Energy?

2009-01-09T04:16:00.000-08:00

Why does this province promote hydro-electric energy at the expense of wind energy?

We wait on the sidelines to see if Australian mega-firm Babcock and Brown can pony up the $800 million to make the long awaited 300 megawatt (MW) wind farm in St. Joseph a reality, but we have no problem with our Crown Corporation taking on $18 billion dollars in debt on our behalf in addition to its nearly $7 billion of the province's $18 billion debt.

Yet, wind is cheaper than hydro! Wuskatim (generating capacity 200MW) is estimated to cost the government $1.6 billion. At $800 million for 300 MW, the St. Joseph wind farm will have more generating capacity for less capital investment.

Though hydro typically operates closer to peak generating capacity, it is not without its own costs. For instance, there are the costs of transporting the electricity to market. But more importantly, there are the ecological costs: undrinkable water, shoreline erosion, rapidly fluctuating water levels and habitat disruption. A full ecological cumulative-impact assessment of the hydroelectric dams built has never been conducted.

If hydro is so "green", why did Minnesota make its power purchase agreement conditional on Manitoba Hydro reporting how it conducts itself regarding its treatment of indigenous people and the ecological impacts of the dams? Worse yet, why did Doer and his team lobby to have the bill removed after Manitoba Hydro failed to comply with the reporting requirements?

Hydro has shown a distaste for transparency when it comes to releasing the report on the Forks Wind Power study. It seems clear that its strategy seems to be full steam ahead with hydro at any cost, while wind farm developers are needlessly buffeted by an arduous application process. Manitoba Hydro received more than 84 wind farm proposals, but only one was selected.

Why doesn't Manitoba institute a net-metering program like the one already in place in Ontario? Customers generating their own renewable electricity receive credit for any electricity that they put back into the grid. In this way the citizens of Manitoba can decide for themselves if the installation of a solar panel on their roof, or a wind turbine in their field is worthwhile.

The RM of Elton (North of Brandon), for example, has already formed the Elton Energy Co-op with the hope of producing truly clean power for the local people. This municipality, like the rest of Manitoba, are still waiting for the Manitoba Government to make wind power a reality in this province.

James Beddome
Leader of the Green Party of Manitoba

Sources:
http://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/budget08/index.html
http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=renewable.netmetering
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/03/26/minnesota-hydro.html?ref=rss
http://jimmycotton.blogspot.com/2008/12/government-of-manitoba-says-forks-wind.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2008-11-01&item=4795
http://www.gov.mb.ca/conservation/wind-farms/index.html
http://news.gov.mb.ca/news/index.html?archive=2007-2-01&item=1103

Time for Politicians to take the bus?

2008-12-20T21:06:00.000-08:00

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?

Opposition Parties, Pierce the Blue Cashmere Vest!

2008-11-27T14:16:00.001-08:00

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.

Little Changes with the Do-little Government

2008-11-21T10:32:00.002-08:00

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

Northern Food Initiative Needs to be Expanded

2008-10-16T20:55:00.000-07:00

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.

It's actually quite simple: remove the nitrogen at source

2008-10-16T19:22:00.000-07:00

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.

ORGANIC WINDOW DRESSING

2008-10-16T19:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Open the Farmers' Market 365

2008-10-16T19:17:00.000-07:00

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?

Saddling Farmers With Debt

2008-10-16T19:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Remove the nutrients at source

2008-10-16T19:12:00.000-07:00

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?

The Constituency boundaries may change, but the agrarian roots to my hometown do not.

2008-10-16T19:11:00.000-07:00

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

When will we stop playing God?

2008-06-29T04:09:00.000-07:00

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?

Thoughts on the St. Patricks Day Canadian Election

2008-03-18T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

Ontario is going Green, Canada may follow

2008-03-18T10:14:00.000-07:00

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

Your own backyard anaerobic digester!!!

2008-03-16T05:35:00.000-07:00

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

Carbon Sequestration a Quick-fix

2008-03-10T23:20:00.000-07:00

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

B.C.'s Carbon Tax

2008-02-26T01:14:00.000-08:00

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.

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