All posts by Chris Tindal

Save Your Money

economy, energy

Here’s a funny headline. I mean, not Jay Leno funny, but funny. “Energy-saving programs lose funding.” The irony being that an equally accurate headline could have been “Energy-saving programs save money (and the planet).” At least, that’s what I would have written. But maybe that’s why I still haven’t heard back from any of those headline-writing jobs I applied for.

Remember, this is a simple physics problem (if there is such a thing). Even if we forget how much money can be saved by using less energy and being more efficient (read, competitive), this world still only has one energy input. In other words, we get a finite amount of energy to use each day. And currently, we’re burning (literally) through 10,000 days worth of energy every 24 hours (by using up non-renewable, stored energy from the past).

Look at it this way. Imagine you had a large bank balance (fossil fuels), an income of only $40,000 a year (the sun), and annual expenses of $400,000,000 (cars, food from around the world, over-air-conditioned offices, etc). A friend might worry about you and speak up. “Hey,” they’d say. “Looks like you might be spending beyond your means there buddy. Think maybe you should cut back?”

“No way,” you’d have to reply, “that’s not realistic. I mean, I’d have to change my lifestyle! Don’t be crazy. And shave your sideburns, hippy.”

Or something like that. The point is, at the end of the day, conservation has to be the cornerstone of any responsible energy policy. And yes, that does mean we might have to turn off some lights. Sorry. On the other hand, we get to keep breathing. So, you know, there’s that.

The Status Quo Budget

conservative party, economy, liberal party, ndp

You may have heard Greens refer to the other three national parties as the “old-line” parties. I’ve never been a big fan of this term since I consider it to be a little negative and mean-spirited (though I almost changed my mind when Peter Kent casually used it to refer to his own party in a conversation with me). Instead, I call them the status quo parties. The Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP represent business as usual, with their only differences being largely aesthetic. In the words of Christopher Waddell, they all “seem struck by a collective crisis of imagination.”

That’s why it wasn’t surprising to here Michael Hlinka (Metro Morning’s business commentator, and my neighbor) this morning (on the radio, not at my door) saying that this Conservative budget is almost identical to what we would have gotten from the Liberals. It even contains specific Liberal promises, as well as all the stuff the NDP negotiated to prop up the Liberals a year ago. (Makes you question all the time, energy, and money that went into the election, doesn’t it?)

The main difference, according to the Globe and Mail, is that the Conservatives are taking dangerous financial risks, hoping that the global economy will continue to outperform at an extremely unlikely rate. The Globe concludes by saying that the Conservatives have taken Canada “too close to the deficit brink…counting on their commodity chickens to keep producing. It is too easy for the perilous outside world to dash those forecasts, and spoil our collective party. And that is too great a risk to take for votes.”

And they’re only talking about a fiscal deficit, to say nothing of the social and environmental deficits which continue to build up. Either way, this budget takes is further down the same road. And that’s a bad thing, because this road ends at a cliff.

When “Greenest” Isn’t Green

conservative party, economy, trade

Last night, Brian Mulroney was declared Canada’s “greenest” prime minister by a group of environmentalists selected by Corporate Knights magazine. Someone with more restraint than myself would probably just say “way to go” and leave it at that, but, well, here we are.

Let’s give credit where credit is due. Mulroney oversaw the creation of a Canada-US acid-rain treaty, and signed on to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. He spoke frequently and passionately about the need to take action on issues of environmental health. If he’d had five priorities, the environment would have been one of them.

Signing treaties, regulations, and agreements was where Mulroney excelled. Unfortunately, we’re far more threatened by our economic systems and structures than by lack of regulations. And in this area, Mulroney took us backwards, not forwards.

No amount of regulation alone can possibly hope to stand up against an economic machine that is designed to extract virgin resources and turn them into waste more quickly and efficiently than has ever before been possible (what Ray Anderson calls the take-make-waste economy). According to Anderson, “less than 3% of the material processed through the [industrial] system has any value whatsoever six months after its extraction from the earth.” Trying to regulate against a system that is designed to create waste is a bit like dealing with the proverbial bull in the china shop by covering it with foam padding. The point is, the bull shouldn’t be there in the first place.

The greening of Canada will only happen when we create closed-cycle, local economies. Standing directly in the way of this goal is Mulroney’s most well-known legacy, NAFTA. Not only does chapter 11 of NAFTA prohibit the Canadian government (for example) from interfering with an American corporation’s “right” to make money by asking them to, say, please stop putting carcinogens in our water, NAFTA also encourages the development of global economies in opposition to strong, local, green economies and communities. It will need to be significantly re-negotiated or replaced before much progress can be made towards building a green economy.

For me, NAFTA detracts from the other positive contributions Mulroney made to genuine progress. If he truly is our greenest prime minister, we could stand to get a lot greener.

The Other Leadership Race

green party

Last week, Elizabeth May, who is resigning as executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada after 17 years, announced she’s considering running for the Green Party of Canada leadership. Today, she expanded on why.

She joins David Chernushenko, a current deputy leader and former Ottawa Centre candidate, who’s been twice endorsed by the Ottawa Citizen.

This is great news for the party (read: country, planet), because both May and Chernushenko are well qualified for the job — albeit for different reasons. In a perfect world I’d have them as co-leaders, since they have complementary strengths. I remain hopeful that whoever comes second in the leadership race (assuming it’s one of them) may offer to serve as deputy leader, and have that offer accepted.

So keep an eye on this one. The next leader is almost certain to be included in the televised leaders’ debates, which will automatically make the Green Party an even more significant player. And a word to the wise: if you want to vote for the next leader, you need to join the party by June 27th.