All posts by Chris Tindal

Bring Gramma Home

energy

From Mike Nickerson…

“You may have heard that my wife, Donna Dillman, started a hunger strike outside the gate of the uranium mine proposed for up river from Ottawa. Donna stopped eating Thanksgiving morning, October 8, and aims to continue until there is a moratorium placed on uranium exploration and mining, at least for Eastern Ontario.

“Needless to say I am concerned about the woman I love shrinking away in a camp on highway 509 without running water or electricity. This story, however, has much more to do with the grandchildren. Donna & I have four, two of which live 30 km. down wind from the proposed site. If drilling and mining were to go ahead, these young people would be subjected to the various radioactive dusts and gasses that inevitable drift up when steel and dynamite, crushers and sorters break up uranium bearing rock.

Bring Gramma Home!

“Aged between one and a half and eight years, the grandchildren are oblivious of the problem their grandmother is boldly calling public attention to. They only want her to come home.

“You can help. Make a sign that says “Bring Gramma Home” and put it in your window, on your lawn, or wear it on your lapel. When anyone asks what’s up. The conversation is started & you can tell them.

More Than a Family Concern

“While the personal story of grandchildren asking for their grandmother has popular appeal, the stakes of this issue are far more profound.

“The danger of radioactive contamination and other environmental degradation is shared by more than a million people who live downwind and downstream from the site (Sharbot Lake to Ottawa). Hundreds of millions more face similar dangers from other such sites around the world.

“Sooner or later we are going to have to pay respect to what the Earth and Sun offer on an ongoing basis. Nuclear energy is only tempting us to think that we can ignore this responsibility. Were we to shift our electricity demand to nuclear power, uranium reserves would be depleted in 30 to 40 years. Then, the grandchildren would find themselves saddled with the same problems we are trying to avoid today, except that the problems would be far worse. The resources available for working on solutions would be diminished and there would be quantities of radioactive waste, here, there and about, to haunt them for tens of thousands of years to come.

“Both the Earth and the Sun are hugely abundant. Together they have enabled life to thrive for thousands of millions of years. Humans are fully capable of being successful here. By saying yes to living within the natural process of life on Earth, we can avoid freeing the genie of uranium from the rock in which it is trapped. Civilization is now at the height of its possibilities, if this generation cannot meet the challenge of sustainability, how do we expect the grandchildren to do so when it comes to be their turn?

“As countless generations have cared to deliver a better world for those who followed, we are responsible to the grandchildren of today.

Help bring Gramma home.

Thank you.

Yours,

Mike N.”

Other ways you might help

Contact your local media and tell them to
cover this courageous stand to protect the entire
next generations of grandchildren.

Forward this email [blog post] to your associates and
ask them to help bring Gramma home.

To stay informed about Donna’s hunger strike, she posts a regular blog at www.ccamu.ca, the web site of the Community Coalition Against Mining Uranium CCAMU. For regular updates subscribe to “The Uranium News.” by writing to: uraniumnews@yahoo.ca of by joining on line.

See “Ongoing Projects” at http://www.ccamu.ca for other possibilities.

Death Of A One-Issue Party

green party

For at least one or two elections, it hasn’t really been fair or accurate to call the Greens a “one-issue party,” since our platforms have been much broader than that. It’s also been a frustrating claim for candidates to have to defend against, since in our assessment our platforms have done a much better job of offering integrated, holistic solutions to economic, social, and environmental problems than those of any other party. Regardless, we remained susceptible to the criticism, some would argue, because of a lack of detail (perceived or real) regarding what policies we would implement in areas other than the environment. As of 11:30 this morning, however, with the release of Vision Green, no one will ever be able to credibly make that accusation again.

Vision Green is a hefty 160-page document that outlines our vision for the kind of Canada we want in 2020 and how we can get there. It contains hundreds of specific policy innovations relating to all spheres of federal governance, divided into six parts: The Green Economy, Averting Climate Catastrophe, Preserving and Restoring the Environment, People, The Planet Needs Canada (And Vice Versa), and Good Government (which I was most directly involved with).

Elizabeth May articulated quite well what we’re trying to accomplish today:

“It’s time for visionary leadership and for policies that focus on our future, not more of the same tired old ideas designed to achieve some fleeting political advantage. I respectfully urge the Prime Minister to study what the Green Party is proposing because I believe that it will give him new insight into what real solutions look like… The truth is that the days of politics dominated by short-term band-aid fixes are over, that the old battles between left and right are irrelevant, that what we need is a fundamental shift of direction towards a stable, fair and sustainable future. Vision Green is the detailed, practical expression of that change of direction.”

When you read it (or, more likely, skim through the sections that are of interest to you), I think you’ll be pleasantly surprised to find that we offer a unique set of ideas whose time has come. We have incorporated established best practices from around the world and customized them for the Canadian context. Instead of asking “is this a left-wing idea,” “is this a right-wing idea,” or even “is this an idea that will get us votes,” we simply, repeatedly asked, “is this a good idea? Is it consistent with our values? Will it accomplish what we’re trying to accomplish?” The result is unlike anything else on tap from any other political party (which was, like, kinda the point).

As one of the 31 Shadow Cabinet members who worked on this document, I’m very proud to be associated with it. I believe it is exactly the kind of vision and leadership that Canadians are thirsting for. I also honestly believe it is the best set of solutions to deal with the crises before us, realign our public policy with what Canadians most value, and make us proud of our country’s place in the world once more. Vision Green offers hope, achieved through pragmatism and realism. (And not a moment too soon.)

ps. It’s also a nice touch that we’ve released Vision Green on blog action day, when over 15,000 bloggers around the world are talking about environmental issues. It’s past time the debate turned to focusing on specific solutions.

TVO Battle Blog: Losing Faith

democracy and good government

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “How would you interpret John Tory’s announcement of a free vote on the religious schools question?” (400 word limit)

I’ll need a few days to know for sure, but at the moment I can’t help but feel it represents the death of my hope that this campaign would rise above the useless partisan wedge-issue fear-fest it’s been.

Is John Tory’s position on religious school funding divisive? Yes. Should he have raised it in the first place? I don’t know. I disagree with almost every position the man’s taken over the last few months, but at least he’s not so politically cynical as the Liberals and NDP that he would spend a whole campaign pretending to “oppose the funding of religious schools” when really what they mean is “unless they’re Catholic schools, because they’re not as scary as those Muslims over there.” Or, at least, that’s what I keep hearing whenever they talk about it. (The Green position, that we should merge the Catholic board into the public board and create one publicly funded school system, is explained here.)

Regardless, the reality is that the Liberals have kept this issue on the agenda to the exclusion of all others because that’s what’s best for their party–what’s best for the province be damned. Didn’t someone say something about spending $40,000,000,000 on nuclear power? Should we maybe talk about that before we create deadly radioactive waste that will be around for a million years? Should we maybe talk about the tritium that will seep into our children’s drinking water?

Didn’t someone say something about a climate crisis? Should we maybe talk about what we’ll do when the farms that produce our food can no longer grow as much (or anything) due to shifting weather patterns?

Didn’t someone say something about a referendum? Should we maybe talk about this once-in-a-lifetime chance to make democracy better? Should we maybe talk about how MMP tends to create more positive, issues-based election campaigns?

Now that Tory’s made this announcement, I fear that instead of allowing us to move on he’s simply thrown more wood on the fire, ensuring that we’ll never get around to the list of issues that matter more. For example, today’s blog question was going to be about the doctor shortage. Sorry folks, we’re not going to deal with that problem in this election. Please take a magazine and wait. The doctor will see you in four more years. Maybe.

TVO Battle Blog: Manufacturing Jobs

economy, green party

Crossposted to tvo.org. Today’s question: “Ontario’s manufacturing sector has lost thousands of jobs over the past few years. How much can the provincial government really do to stop the exodus of manufacturing jobs?” (400 word limit.)

I like the wording of this question, since I do believe it’s a bit disingenuous for political parties to say “we created X number of jobs,” or, “they lost Y number of jobs” over a short timeline. That being said, in the long run, there is much that government can do to create the right conditions for a healthy, thriving economy, including manufacturing and related industries.

I think, on a macro level, that the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario is a symptom of a shifting global economy. These industries are being squeezed by higher operating costs and increased international competition on the one hand, and the fact that value-added jobs are too often the exclusive domain of other jurisdictions on the other.

The Ontario government does not have the power to single-handedly reverse these global economic realities. Therefore, fighting against them (trying to artificially maintain the status quo at all costs) is a failing proposition. We do, however, have the ability to create new opportunities in the manufacturing sector and in the North, and to smartly adapt to global change, both economic and climate (which will disproportionately affect the North).

The Green party’s election platform explains that, realistically, “the North must diversify its economy to retain its workforce and standard of living. It could do so through an aggressive pursuit of secondary and tertiary manufacturing opportunities to create ‘value added’ products, and by capitalizing on the tourism opportunities that lie in its inherent natural beauty.”

Specifically, the Green Party of Ontario would:

  • Establish a sustainable business development program for northern and rural communities by investing $1 billion over four years to encourage green business investment and job creation
  • Invest $11.5 million over four years to alleviate labour shortages, especially in the skilled trades
  • Inject $180 million into economic development initiatives [for the North]

There are, of course, more details and specifics in the platform [pdf], specifically pages 6-9 (according to the printed numbering, not the PDF’s numbering).