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.
Showing posts with label James Beddome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label James Beddome. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Manitoba Consumers Pay More Than American Utilities
- 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)
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)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Quick Update: Energy in Manitoba
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)
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)
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The NDP may try to appear to be green, but we can all smell the VOC's blowing out the back-door!
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)