All posts by Chris Tindal

Public Safety

climate crisis, conservative party, ecology, economy, foreign affairs, green party

The headline on my free Metro newspaper this morning was dramatic and to the point: “Terrorists threaten Canada.” The story stems from an internet post made by an al Qaeda group that said “cutting oil supplies to the United States, or at least curtailing it, would contribute to the ending of the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan,” and called for attacks on Canadian petroleum facilities as one way of accomplishing that.

Of course, this isn’t really new news. Canada’s been a target of al Qaeda and similar groups since before 9/11. All the same, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day reacted by saying, “we’ve always said that Canada is not immune to threats. We take this threat seriously.” (Between the lines, it sounds like he’s almost excited to get his first real threat as Public Safety Minister, but hopefully that’s just my over-active cynicism.)

Day also added that it’s possible to protect “all of our assets, both human and structural.” (Nice to know that the protection of human life and the protection of oil drilling operations are of equal priority.)

One of the more interesting quotes, however, came from Stephen Harper, who told MPs that “the most important responsibility of government is the preservation of order and the protection of its citizens.” (And its structures. Don’t forget its structures.)

I’m not the first to point this out, but we’re currently facing an even greater threat to order and our protection. We now know that even if Harper and Bush see the light (or, say, a bunch of Green MPs get elected) and start enacting plans to actually reduce our greenhouse gas emissions dramatically, the planet will continue to get hotter for centuries. It’s past time to start thinking not just about preventing further climate change, but about how we’ll manage with the changes we’ve already set in motion.

For example, where, and how, will we grow our food? Where will our water come from? How will we deal with increased pressure from the United States and China for the freshwater in our boarders? How will we prepare against new diseases? What plan do we have for replacing all of the infrastructure we’ve built on the now-melting permafrost? How might rising ocean levels affect our coastal provinces? How can we build secure, local economies as international ones become less stable and viable? How will we keep our national economy strong as more jurisdictions like California refuse to buy our tar-sands oil because it’s too dirty?

There are answers, but there’s also much work to be done. Terrorism is a real threat that needs to be guarded against, but if our government really cares about public safety, order, and the protection of its citizens, there are other threats that deserve more of their attention.

Running Out Of Time, But Not Hope

climate crisis, ecology, economy, toronto

The atmosphere outside of the (Elgin and) Winter Garden Theatre last night was similar — not quite the same, but similar — to that of a rock concert. Various people stood in the cold, holding signs that said “Need One Ticket, PLEASE,” while the large crowd jostled around three or four groups handing out flyers and pimping petitions. “Mary,” yelled one woman, excitedly. “There’s a petition to ban Styrofoam!”

Inside, there was a much calmer atmosphere, inspired by a mix of anticipation and the soothing influence of the Winter Garden’s decor, which includes fake tress and a mural of mountains and the sky. (It also didn’t hurt that the new Raffi song “Cool It” was playing on a continuous loop. Nothing controls a crowd like Raffi.) It was an appropriate atmosphere to hear from two of Canada’s most respected voices on the environment and social justice. (The decoration also allowed for an amusing moment in the question and answer period, when the moderator called upon “the woman standing in the back beside the tree.”)

The guests of honour were, of course, David Suzuki and Stephen Lewis, in conversation facilitated by the CBC’s Eleanor Wachtel. They should need no introduction (though they were each given lengthy ones). In brief, Dr. David Suzuki is a geneticist, educator, and broadcaster, who has written approximately forty books, received nineteen honorary doctorate degrees, and is a Companion to the Order of Canada. Stephen Lewis, a former leader of the Ontario NDP, was Canada’s ambassador to the United Nations from 1984-1988, Deputy Director of UNICEF from 1995-1999, and the UN’s Special Envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa until last December.

Together, they can leap over tall buildings, walk on water, and deactivate an explosive device using only a paper clip and their combined sense of moral outrage.

Getting To Crisis

A crisis is a problem that’s been ignored for too long. Therefore, it was particularly painful to listen to a detailed account of how long we’ve been ignoring the environmental crisis that’s now gotten so bad it may be threatening our survival. It must be even more painful for Suzuki and Lewis, who lived it.

Suzuki remembers hearing about global warming in the 80’s, but admits that at the time, they (the scientific and environmental communities) thought of it as a “slow motion catastrophe” that would have effects in 100 years, but not sooner. Instead, Suzuki focused on other issues, such as deforestation. He was never so pessimistic or alarmist to believe things would get so bad so soon. (The Globe and Mail now reports that 4 out of 5 Canadians report personally witnessing the effects of climate change.)

Lewis was even more involved with climate change in the 80’s, charing the previously mentioned 1988 Toronto Conference, which was quoted last night as concluding that, “humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment, whose ultimate consequence could be second only to a global nuclear war.”

That year, says Suzuki, was the last peak of environmental awareness before our current one. It was in 1988 that George Bush Sr. campaigned on a promise to be “an environmental president.” Public demand for action led to the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, but by then the pressure was off, and Bush was able to “blackmail the summit into watering down the agreement.” Lewis adds that the activists who were in Rio never understood the degree to which back-room pressure by politicians and corporate (so-called) leaders co-opted the whole event.

The result of the Rio conference was Agenda 21, where the poor nations of the developing world agreed to pay more than the rich nations, only to have those rich nations (in a move that’s simultaneously tragic and offensive) turn around and say “we can’t afford to do this.”

That takes us to the 1997 negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, Canada’s ratification in 2002, and the protocol’s coming into force as international law in 2005.

So, Here We Are Then

“Do we think of ourselves as international outlaws? Or are we proud of our role in the world?” – David Suzuki
 
“There was a time when we counted for something internationally. Nothing would resuscitate Canada’s relevance more quickly than decisive leadership on climate change.” – Stephen Lewis
 
After decades of inaction, it’s hard for Lewis to contain his concern and impatience. “What is the matter with governments,” he asks. “They go from inertia to paralysis!” Pointing to a story in the Globe And Mail last weekend that exposed a new deadly, airborne fungus that’s appeared on the west coast, Lewis emphasized how “unsettling” and “unpredictable” the future is.During the Q&A time, someone asked Suzuki why he doesn’t run for federal office. (Actually, what they said was, “why don’t you run for president?” But let’s overlook that.) He dismissed the question, saying “well, there are lots of reasons,” then became drowned out by thunderous applause and Lewis’ observation that “I think it’s a great idea!” He did, however, say what his three priorities would be if he were made prime minister through some magical act against his will:

  1. End subsidies to the auto and fossil fuel sectors. These are often called “perverse subsidies,” because they represent public money going towards public harm. Also, ExxonMobil’s recent $40 billion-with-a-B first quarter profit announcement makes the subsidies insane, and, according to Lewis, “gives new definition to obscenity,” especially when one considers the fact that ExxonMobil is still using some of that money to pay the same people who used to tell us that smoking doesn’t cause cancer to deny climate change is happening.
  2. Create a carbon tax. Speak the language business will understand by sending the right price signals to the market. Suzuki also shared that in a recent conversation with him, Preston Manning (former leader of the REFOOOOOOORRRM party) essentially endorsed a carbon tax by saying that currently externalized costs in the tar sands (water, pollution) need to be internalized.
  3. Set targets and timelines for greenhouse gas reduction. Enshrine them in legislation so that the next government is forced to meet them too.

Refuting the Opponents

Even though most of the public “gets it,” there are still a few individuals (mostly in government or business) who continue to make the same, tired arguments against action. Various devil’s advocates set these arguments up throughout the night, only to have them soundly knocked down.

The most common of these frames the environment against the economy, and comes in various forms (it costs too much, the economy will crash, the economy’s more important, etc). For this, Suzuki went to etymology, pointing out that the “eco” in both economy and ecology comes from a Greek word meaning house, or home. Ecology is the study of home, while economy is the management of home. And since you can’t manage something you don’t understand, it doesn’t make any sense to put economy before ecology, as our current minister of the environment still does. “Let’s put the eco back in economics,” proclaimed Suzuki, to more applause.

They also pointed out that the Stern Report pegged the cost of not fighting climate change at greater than both World Wars combined, and would result in the collapse of 20% of the economy.

Evoking some more war imagery, Suzuki drew another analogy. “After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, can you imagine if the US government had said, ‘oh well, it’s too expensive to go after them so I guess we’ve got to let them take Asia?'” If a foreign country were polluting our air, water, and food, killing thousands and threatening even greater destruction, would we say, “oh well, it costs too much to defend ourselves?”

In the end, the message was that all of us need to put pressure on politicians to make the change, because, according to Suzuki and Lewis, they’re not going to change on their own. Suzuki pointed out that Al Gore, despite being the politician who understands both the treat and the solutions more than any other, still campaigned for president without making environmental concerns an issue. The reason he didn’t (and the reason George Bush Sr. did) is because of the degree to which the public spoke up and said, “this matters to us.”

Lewis is very excited about the next election, because it will give us all another chance to go to all candidates meetings and use our votes to get action. Suzuki’s excited and hopeful too, because many of the solutions are already there, just waiting to be implemented.

“And what happens,” asked one audience member, “when we elect a government that says they’re going to take action but then doesn’t?”

“Just keep fighting,” replied Lewis. “The pendulum always swings, you can’t give up. Keep at it, endlessly, tenaciously, and people start to move. Hammer them into submission. There’s no time to equivocate anymore.”

This post also appears on Torontoist.

Searching for Honourable Governance

conservative party, democracy and good government, green party, toronto

Yes, I know dear reader, I’ve been neglecting you. My apologies. Many thoughts running around in my head; very little time to convert them into words. You’ll be glad to know, however, that I’ve had a busy and productive week. We had our first Toronto Centre campaign team meeting, and we’ve got a great group of people who are excited and ready to go, whenever the election comes. I’ve also been active at the national level as our shadow cabinet continues to gear up for a solid national campaign.

Internationally, this week a bunch of Toronto Greens met with Roberta Moreno, who works for one of thirteen elected Green Party of Brazil representatives (Partido Verde). We had several great conversations over two days, and discussed ways in which we can work together on global issues.

That being said, I still believe you deserve something of substance for waiting so patiently for a new post. For that, I leave you in the capable hands of Lawrence Martin, who will walk you through an efficient summary of this government’s hypocrisies and negativity (taken from yesterday’s globe column), and conclude with what I think is good advice. Enjoy!

The environment? [Stephen Harper] was a right-wing agnostic. Now, presto! He’s a leaf-licking true believer. Health care? He was once in with the privatization crowd. Now he is statist Stephen.

Gay rights? He used to hang out in social conservative precincts. Now, so long dinosaurs; he’s the moderate man. Quebec? He believed in no special status for the province. Presto, its people are suddenly a nation.

Iraq? He supported President George W. Bush’s war. Now, he wouldn’t touch it with a barge poll…

…The Liberals lost the last election because of regime fatigue and ugly ethics. Although winning fans with his clarity and resolve, Mr. Harper has lowered himself in the eyes of many by running a one-man uptight government steeped in the politics of negativity.

It was Margot Asquith who said of Lloyd George, “He could not see a belt without hitting below it.”

Mr. Harper and his ministers are incapable of answering a question in the House without resorting to the intellectually vacuous tactic of referencing the previous government’s record and claiming it was worse. Every government does this to a certain extent. None as much as this one…

…Canadians, having seen so much of the Grits, are pretty well fed up with the old-style political skulduggery and lack of civility. They’re looking for more honourable governance, and if the Conservatives want to get out of the big stall, they would be wise to demonstrate they are capable of it.

Open Up

democracy and good government, green party, social justice, the internets

When Microsoft released Vista (the latest version of Windows) this week, the general reaction from a usability standpoint was underwhelming. It’s been five years since Windows XP, so computer users were expecting a lot. Instead, most of the new features seem to focus on ensuring that it’s a little bit harder to steal Hollywood movies or Vista itself, causing thieves and non-thieves to respond with “damnit!” and “who cares?,” respectively.

Then, the more substantive criticisms emerged. First, from Canadian internet law expert Michael Geist, who points out that Vista’s fine print gives it the right to delete certain programs without the user’s knowledge, and provides that “this agreement only gives you some rights to use the software. Microsoft reserves all other rights.”

Also, Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD discs when played on most computer monitors. In other words, you’ll pay more for less. And don’t bother trying to fix that, because the terms and conditions state that “you may not work around any technical limitations in the software.”

Then, the UK Green Party pointed out that Vista is also bad for the environment because, even though it doesn’t have many new features, it “requires more expensive and energy-hungry hardware, passing the cost on to consumers and the environment…Future archaeologists will be able to identify a ‘Vista Upgrade Layer’ when they go through our landfill sites.”

I didn’t think that was worth mentioning until I saw Microsoft’s ultra-lame response, which basically just said, “environmental issues are important to us.” Um, good to hear. What are you doing about it?

Taken together with Geist’s concerns about user rights, and the fact that Vista isn’t that great of an upgrade anyway, the case against using Microsoft’s new OS is strong. In addition, the critical importance that computers have to our lives and economy makes this a political issue.

Fortunately, there’s a ready alternative. Open source software is the democratic way of designing computer programs. This website, for example, runs on a free, open source programming language called PHP, instead of Microsoft’s almost identical (and much more expensive than free) ASP. There are also open source alternatives to Windows, Microsoft Office, and almost any other application you’d use on a day-to-day basis.

The Green Party of Canada has called for “federal departments and agencies to transition to open source or free software for general applications and provide free technical support to Canadian companies who use this software.” It’s one of our wackier ideas, but I like it. And, the more bloated and intrusive closed source products like Microsoft’s get, the less wacky it will seem.