Category Archives: green party

New Year’s Resolutions For Canada

green party

Last year I wrote a list of ten things you can do as an individual to reduce the negative impact you have on the Earth (focusing on some less well-known or obvious ideas, instead of the usual “drive less, replace your light bulbs” kind of stuff that I assume most people already know).

There is, however, an ongoing debate about individual versus collective action. In other words, how much of a difference can we as individuals really make, and how much change must come from government and business.

Obviously action at all levels is critical, and the individual changes we make to our lives do make a difference. That being said, I believe there is an increasing need for strong leadership at the government level. During the last campaign I was asked by a young boy why we need “politics.” I answered that government, at its best, allows us to do things together that we would otherwise be unable to do. Big things. Things that are larger than you or me, but not larger than the two or more of us combined. The challenges we face are large, and require this level of cooperation.

This year, since we’re in a by-election campaign, I suggest you use your vote on March 17th to help achieve your grander New Year’s resolutions. Here are some ideas for resolutions for Canada:

  1. Exercise more of a positive influence on the international stage. Rebuild our reputation as a global leader, instead of a global saboteur.
  2. Enjoy life more by making sure we measure genuine progress.
  3. Quit drinking 4 barrels of water for ever 1 barrel of oil extracted from the tar sands.
  4. Quit smoking whatever it is the Conservatives are smoking that makes them believe the obviously false idea that action on the environment can’t also be positive for the economy.
  5. Lose weight at the federal level, and transfer more resources and authority to cities and communities.

Any other good ones I missed?

Early Momentum

green party, polls, toronto, ,

Sorry for my lack of frequent posting over the past week. With a by-election call due by the end of the year (apparently Stephen Harper is the type to leave things to the last minute), my volunteers and I have been busy distributing a letter, from myself to citizens, door-to-door here in Toronto Centre. It’s been a very rewarding experience in a number of ways, not the least of which is the positive response we’ve been getting so far. For example, Kenn Chaplin, a former member of the local NDP executive, has publicly endorsed my campaign:

Whether or not hardcore partisans of the elected parties can imagine it – and I’ve been with the New Democrats most of my thirty years of voting – I like the Greens’ self-styling as “fiscally responsible, socially progressive”. That’s not inconsistent with the evolution of the federal New Democrats and yet I’m feeling like I want to be part of something new.

I’ll be voting Green in Toronto Centre, for Chris Tindal, the party’s Democratic Reform Advocate…My decision to align myself with The Green Party of Canada is one which has grown on me and I have gone from being a card-carrying New Democrat of those thirty-odd years to an electronic card-carrying member of the Greens. (With most Canadians not bothering to even join a party, I admit to being an all-or-nothing sort of guy.)

Kenn joins a growing number of endorsers from across the old political spectrum, including a former Tory (meaning Progressive Conservative) provincial cabinet minister and a former director of communications for Pierre Trudeau. Plus, according to a poll done this week the Green Party is at 14% in Toronto, just one point behind the NDP. Given what’s been going on with the Conservatives in this riding, I wouldn’t be shocked if we’re actually ahead of them here, which would put us one point behind second place. And hey, we’re just getting started. It’s going to be an exciting campaign.

Video: Bali Ballyhoo

climate crisis, conservative party, green party, , ,

Here’s the video of my appearance on CH News last Tuesday evening with Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun, debating the role Canada is playing in Bali. (As in, we don’t even seem to agree on the reality of what Canada is doing and saying, let alone if their actions are positive or not.)

You’ll note that Lorrie repeatedly claims that “no one” is saying that all countries should reduce their emissions by the same percentage on the same timeline. I guess he hadn’t seen this news story before we went to air (which is convenient, since otherwise he would have had to admit he disagrees with the government):

A Canadian environmental group says leaked federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.

Climate Action Network Canada, an alliance of environmental groups, says the move is guaranteed to derail momentum as the Bali negotiations enter their critical final week.

“The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations,” the alliance said in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.

You’ll also note that Lorrie agrees with me at the end of the video when I say that the test of success in Bali will be whether or not countries agree to the level of reductions that the science tells us is necessary. Again, it turns out that Lorrie disagrees with the Conservative government on this point. Yesterday, John Baird reiterated that his government will not support a reduction in emissions greater than 20% from today, which doesn’t even come close to our modest Kyoto commitment, let alone the levels the IPCC and others say are necessary to avert massive climate destabilization.

Of course I agree that “every country must be part of the solution.” No one’s arguing against that. But soundbites notwithstanding, that’s very different from the strategy being pursued by the Conservatives. I remain convinced that the prime minister and the minister of the environment have no understanding of the science of climate change or its grave implications (and, conversely, its opportunities). If they did, their actions would be monstrous. And I’d much rather think of my prime minister as an ignoramus than a monster.