Kyoto withdrawal: There must be a political price to be paid
I am just back from Durban and COP17. So is Peter Kent. Only he came back and announced that Canada will strike a blow at the fragile agreement that was just produced. As I am sure you have heard, Canada has filed the legal paperwork to withdraw from Kyoto.
Never before in Canadian history has this country withdrawn from a treaty we have ratified - not on any issue. Ever.
I don’t see how other delegations that dealt with Canada’s obstructionist position in Durban, in which we negotiated as a Kyoto party, will possibly regard this as anything but negotiating in bad faith.
Ever since CTV broke the story that the Harper Cabinet had decided to legally withdraw from Kyoto – with no debate and no vote in the House – I have been, at one and the same time, certain the leak was correct while hoping they would not go through with it.
And now they have. It is devastating. It is even worse than all the other regressive steps of the Harper government in blocking climate action.
Kent announced legal withdrawal with a flurry of bizarre and untrue scare tactics. As if the Kyoto Protocol had effective sanctions for law breakers like Canada. As if Kyoto had the kind of draconian mandatory minimums of the Omnibus Crime Bill. Kyoto has no effective enforcement mechanisms. The only penalty would be for a country that decided to enter into second commitment period negotiations (NOT Canada). And even then it would only mean that the target Canada would negotiate (if we were negotiating) would have a top up of .3 of a tonne for every tonne we agreed to. So in negotiations we could take into account the amount of the penalty and set out target low enough to absorb the penalty. Each country negotiates what it will accept. That’s why in 1997, Australia’s Kyoto target was 8% above 1990 levels, when all other industrialized countries were to go below 1990 levels. (Canada by 6%, US by 7%, and the EU by 8 %.) True most European nations did not hit 8%. They cut 20% and more. Europe as a block has more than met its Kyoto targets.
Kent claimed staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion. Rubbish.
What are they spinning? The cost of trying with no plan and a year from the target to reduce our emissions enough to meet the 6% target -- and then deciding to buy enough credits to meet the target -- could be $14 billion. I haven’t checked their math because the whole idea is screamingly bogus. Nothing in Kyoto obliges us to spend one dime. Nothing in Kyoto could induce or require a country to buy credits.
And now, despite Harper’s death wish for Kyoto and Kent’s “Kyoto is in the past,” look what was approved in Durban: a second commitment period under Kyoto. Not enough countries have signed up to accept targets, but the intention is to do so. Hardly “in the past.”
What’s in the past? Canada’s reputation as a country with any integrity. Canada’s reputation as a country showing environmental leadership.
What must not be “in the past” is our chance to avoid cataclysmic climate change.
We are running out of time (see latest International Energy Agency report). Durban’s agreements are weak and Canada just gave them a swift kick in a place that hurts.
So although, like me, you may feel like throwing yourself down and weeping for the betrayal of our future, for the loss of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto, do not waste the energy. Get back up. And fight.
Get back up and resolve: Stephen Harper must not be allowed to get away with this. There must be a political cost.
Write letters to every newspaper denouncing the will of the majority of Canadians who support Kyoto was ignored. Spend some time on media websites. Write comments. Vote thumbs up and down. If you have a Conservative MP, leave them messages on the constituency phone lines. Demand an appointment. Organize protests. Go on line to petitions. Send a donation to the Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, or WWF and ask them to mount campaigns to demand we stay in Kyoto. Our legal withdrawal does not take effect until next year, so we have time to push back.
Ask why Parliament was allowed to vote on Kyoto ratification (December 17, 2002) but given no chance to debate or vote on withdrawal in 2011. Ask why they are lying to Canadians and claiming staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion.
I know it is almost Christmas, but how can we rejoice with our children and grandchildren when a lifeline to their future was just sawed off by a reckless government?
This is not a partisan issue. Mulroney showed global leadership on climate. Chretien ratified, but never gave us a plan. Paul Martin (with Dion as Environment minister) produced a decent plan. Stephen Harper killed the plan within weeks of becoming Prime Minister. It is clear that the Prime Minister does not have one single solitary clue of why reducing GHG matters. But he does understand political cost. This betrayal must cost.
Even though it is almost Christmas, almost Hanukkah and holidays, skip some last minute shopping. Whatever you were going to buy, your children need a liveable world much much more.
- Elizabeth May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Can't Win
I'm sure the handful of people reading your post share your outrage (myself included). But if politics remains the reality-TV or sports competition it is today, we've lost, permanently. Not for any idealistic holier-than-thou reasons, but because the other side is way better at that game. Having a few "socialist environuts" defending an "expensive scam" on a few message boards pales in comparison to the blog dog hordes that have been mobilized everywhere you turn.
Blame the media, blame money, blame influence, blame each other. I don't know what the answer is, but unless the "game" changes in a big way we're all screwed.
Don't change the game, knock over the table.
Mark:
Harper et al. are just puppets for multinational corporations, and global corporatism in general. We are on the side of the environment, the planet, the future, and sanity in general. There will be temporary setbacks, given that the politics of greed are so entrenched. And it's understandably easy to lose sight of the goals and instead dwell on the insanity in front of us. But history shows us that Mother Nature has a habit of overruling human conceit, and, if this is a game, She sets the rules and, in the long run, enforces them.
And Elizabeth, thanks for everything you have done in Durban. Yes, we have work to do, as always.
Politics R us. The game is ours to win.
Dispairing and remaining silent is like a vote for Harper's Conservatives and their fiscally, environmentally, and socially imprudent policies. The style of politics in any country is defined by those who practice it. The "game" is shaped, and can only be won, by those who play it. No one has shown this more vividly that Elizabeth May, whose win and accomplishments as a Green MP have been exemplary, including this call to action.
If we abandon the political field in dispair, others will pave it. Only if we occupy it can we win.
To silently dispair the destructive policies and the shallow, misleading politics that currently run roughshod over our country is to offer them tacit approval. We may not, in the end, be able to reverse human-caused climate change or completely solve other major problems, but through continued political engagement we can and do chip away at them.
In the process, we make the political game in Canada a little more democratic, a little more of a community, and a little more in touch with the real problems and opportunities facing us. Simply by not giving up, we win all this. That, for me, is reason for encouragement and optimism.
E. May, orator extraordinaire
I watch the press conference on the CBC web site and Elizabeth was brilliant: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2176276538
I could see that she was moved by her own words and the listener, unless they had the sensibilities of a salamander, would have been moved also. She was speaking for so many people not only Canadians.
The press asked all the usual banal questions based on the concept of self interest above all else that the neo-conservative mind set has inculcated in us all. Elizabeth defly batted them into left field where they should stay.
The cutting off of noses to spite faces that Harper promulgates is the sure fire route to global meltdown. I refuse to do something in my own best interest unless everyone does the same. Surely this type of thinking should have passed when we were all kindergarden kids?
Sadly all the fear mongering about "hidden agendas" is proving to be all too true - Kyoto, Crime Bill, Wheat Board, Muzzled scientists. Can Canada survive this and be recognizable to us after another 4 years?
Incrementalism.
I'm not suggesting getting out of the game, but I am suggesting current tactics aren't sufficient to get anywhere, despite us getting a bit better as time goes on (but everyone else gets better faster), and despite being on the side of Mother Nature (who doesn't exactly operate on political-scale timeframes).
We talk a good game to the converted but we're not good at getting anyone else to listen. I think the Greens have a very good message, but if its not really getting out how useful is that? If we're playing the game and losing (very badly), shouldn't we change how we're playing, rather than just trying a bit harder?
My personal opinion is that we do too much talking, which is easily ignored because (a) it gets soundbited, if covered at all (b) people have been trained to just accept simple messages but not try to think through things, (c) by virtue of today's media formats and way too much public lying, people talking is viewed to be strictly opinion and not factual, and (d) its way too easy to discount the message by ad hominem attacks on the messenger (see: socialist enviro fruitcake hippie chipmunks).
We have great data, great info, great arguments, and all from a wide variety of sources, but that should back up the message, it shouldn't be the message.
Where are the high impact visual messages showing what life is going to be like for today's little toddler so loved by their parent/grandparent when they're 20, or 40? What will their health be like if we keep going the way we're going? Their job? Their taxes? How much they pay on foreign aid (unless we turn from being the generous nation we tend to be now in the face of disasters)? How would it be different if we changed our ways?
What would a green budget really look like, not just a table of numbers, but a real picture? Dont' tell me, but show me how a tax shift really impacts individuals. Ditto for social justice policy changes. We've got the data, but we aren't communicating it in a way that makes it easy for people to hear or listen (our fault or not, its our problem).
Where is the clip depicting a room full of climate scientists, showing how many are on side with climate change, and how many of the rest of them work for fossil fuel companies or political thinktanks? How many are complete whack jobs? (I'm thinking of the 'health effects of tobacco' mad scientist from the movie 'Thank you for Smoking...')
High impact imagery (backed by real data) is easy to share, get picked up, absorb, resists soundbiting, and isn't as easy to discount by typecasting the messenger.
I'm optimistic the public might even be receptive to strong messages that have real data and not lies or pablum behind them (vs. "soldiers... in our streets... in Canada" or "Canada must reflect the true character of the Canadian people, honorable in our dealings, faithful to our commitments...").
And btw, show me what parents think of the lessons their children are learning from today's politicians' behaviors.
I'll end this rather lengthy, all-talk, text-only message here. :-)
Green donations needed for a by-election win
We have a great opportunity of no incumbant in Toronto-Danforth, and all the party effort should be focused on that riding. Please donate as much money to their EDA as you can for 2011 and then in early 2012.
The Green Party should already be running ads in Toronto denouncing Chretien for bringing this Kyoto scam that was too easy for the Europeans to meet. The Europeans had all these dirty coal plants that they had inherited from the communist block and were planning to shut down anyways. The Europeans knew that they could meet the 1990 emmission levels by doing nothing extra that they weren't already going to do by phasing out the outdated uneconomic coal generating plants. That is why they could reach their targets. The game was fixed against the USA and Canada, and though individuals and companies did adopt more energy efficient ways over the years, it was never possible to get back to 1990's targets because of our 1970's programs to reduce energy consumption had done a great deal of lifting before 1990, compared to the stagnant communist economies of the 1980's that did little to improve energy efficiencies.
Greens should be running educational ads in the local Toronto market , blaming Chretien and the Liberals for being naive, the NDP as being complicit and the Conservatives as let's throw up our hands and do nothing.
Harper's favourite boogey-man of China, has been gaining on environmental issues every year. They are now the leader in wind turbine installations, the biggest producer of photovoltaic panels and they are no longer looking at massive hydro electric dams. Their auto emmissions standards are better than California, they are leaving the west behind. Yet the Conservatives still throw the old China the biggest polluter story but not part of the Kyoto treaty, to defend the scrapping of a flawed but better than nothing in the mean time agreement.
The Green Party should be putting the message out to target Toronto with ads showing electing a Green is the viable way to send a message to Parliament that more must be done here at home with made in Canada solutions for our own economic advantage, using less energy is just better business and will reduce CO2.
The CO2 reduction should not be the message. Our candidate must be coached and prepared with how to deliver the message. She is very well informed of climate change, but "Jobs and Efficient Energy Use" should be the main message, because we are going to be doing battle with Ezra Levent and SUN media and not the Conservative party for this seat. It is just a fact that SUN will battle the Liberal and NDP for us, if we don't keep defending Kyoto, and we must come out as the sane solution in the voter's mind. Beware of SUN Media they will try to place us as socialist and the ads must stress we have more conservative economic plans than the Conservatives. We must stress early that we have job creating free market economic plans to reduce energy consumption in Canada.
That takes money for advertising even before the writ, staying on message, and bodies out knocking on doors, plain and simple, like the Sannich Gulf Islands campaign was run.
Please donate to the Danforth Greens or we will miss our potential.
Not sure that Toronto-Danforth is the right riding to spend in
Theodore, I'm not yet convinced that the Party spending its scarce resources in the Toronto-Danforth by-election (which is expected to happen next year) would be a good use of those scarce resources.
While the Greens had an exceptional candidate in that riding during the last election, in the person of Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu (who is an individual that we should all watch over the years, as I have no doubt that she will continue to emerge as a leader within our Party), the fact of the matter is that Toronto-Danforth wavers back and forth between the Liberals and New Democrats. Greens are not likely to split the vote there and come up the middle.
Although it's doubtful that the NDP will recapture the success of former MP Jack Layton in that riding, I'm very skeptical that, even with spending to the limit in Toronto-Danforth, Greens would have much of an impact. Residual feelings left over in the riding for Layton alone are likely enough to carry the NDP.
Here in Sudbury, we face a similar circumstance to yours: our riding is an NDP/Liberal toss up, and the NDP has only been getting stronger here over the past decade. There does tend to be a correlation between the relative strengths of the NDP and the Green Party in each riding. Where we are strong, they tend not to be strong. And where the NDP is strong, Greens tend to be marginalized. Throw a strong Liberal Party into the mix along with a strong NDP, and it's just not likely going to happen.
By all means, everyone should donate to the Party like there's no tomorrow, but even with a Green star candidate (if Mugnatto-Hamu can be persuaded to run again), I remain unconvinced that the Party should be spending to the limit in a by-election in Toronto-Danforth.
"Sudbury" Steve May
Your logic rules out all ridings
Steve, your logic against spending in Toronto-Danforth would rule out putting special effort into ANY riding, besides (now) SGI. Every riding in Canada has gone back and forth between non-Green party A and non-Green party B, or else has been a long-time lock for non-Green party C.
Quebec may be fertile ground, but we've felt that before and never managed to turn it into a powerful success, even when we had a media-savvy TV personality as Deputy Leader there. Plus, I don't see a need to put all our eggs into that uncertain basket and ignore other opportunities that by-elections put up.
We are going to have to put our efforts into by-elections, wherever they are. We can't choose which MPs will resign or die. And even if we could, which ridings would we target? There are no ridings with a history of electing Greens. I'm glad that T-D has such a strong, dedicated and respected candidate, and I'm sure it's worth making an effort there. Even if we don't win, a strong showing will help us regain credibility with the media and public.
One advantage to this riding is that it can draw on a much larger pool of volunteers for support - the whole GTA and even central Ontario. This can help us match the strength the other parties can already bring to bear.
One thing that's special about a by-election is that people know they won't be changing the goverment, or the opposition, by whom they elect. One more NDP (or Lib) MP won't change the House much. But a Green MP would double the GPC caucus, adding another province represented. That's something voters might value. And I'd not be so sure that NDP candidate X can automatically bank on Layton's legacy. Canadian voters generally don't vote for ghosts.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Greens don't perform well in strong NDP ridings
Erich, I think that you have misunderstood my point. I wasn't writing about ridings which have shifted between "Party A" and "Party B"...I was writing about the NDP and the Liberals, which are two actual parties.
Check the data for yourself. Where the NDP offers strong contenders, Greens do less well. Where ridings tend to be contested between the NDP and the Liberals, Greens do less well. The data shows that voters tend to bounce between the NDP and Greens. Therefore, strong NDP ridings are the least likely ridings where we should be targetting our limited resources.
I completely agree with the idea of targetting ridings with resources, especially during by-elections. But we can't just simply throw away close to a hundred thousand dollars when there is little or no prospect of success. And sorry...but former NDP Leader Jack Layton's Toronto-Danforth riding has to be the least likely riding for Greens in pretty much all of Canada (at least as far as the upcoming by-election goes, when sympathy for the NDP and Layton alone are likely to carry the vote).
Canadians vote for ghosts all of the time. There's really no other way of explaining the success of the Liberal Party, for example. Now there's a Party which has reaped so much by offering so very little. They've run on their legacy alone in the past number of elections (save for Stephane Dion whom I believe actually had some principles and a vision for Canada). The long and short of it is, though, many voters like to vote for what they know, and they become accustomed to supporting incumbents, and incumbent parties. Toronto-Danforth will remain an NDP stronghold for a few more elections yet (and maybe more if they elect a dynamic NDP MP to the House...maybe someone with name recognition...like Mike Layton).
I don't disagree with what you've written about why a Green would be a better, more important choice. In fact, in the case of Toronto-Danforth, residents would be getting a star-quality MP if they elected the Green candidate there. But substance rarely trumps style in an election. Another reason that the NDP will be returned there.
With scarce resources, we need to watch how and where we are spending them.
"Sudbury" Steve May
What would a Green budget produce?
Mark: It would produce Europe!
And it doesn't matter whether or not it's true, because that's what many think. There is nothing you can do to change everyone's mind except incrementalism -- slow steady steps that don't scare anyone and give opportunity for retrospective analysis.
This is the only solution that can produce popular support. We need to drastically centre our policy and instead focus on key areas where we can get some traction.
It also requires some behavioural changes for the GPC as a whole: (a) make sweeping compromises that offend fanatical supporters; (b) stop listening to those fanatics.
We all probably look at the Republicans in the US and think they are insane. But they are simply a product of their own vocal and fanatical wing. It's hard to say that we don't suffer the same. Although, as is the subdued nature of Green politics, it manifests itself in a more fuzzy way. Nonetheless, the extemist views seep through and turn off the voters who can actually get us elected.
Whose definition of extreme do we use?
And yet, Bram, extremist views have often resulted in parties being elected, as with the Bush government(s) in the U.S. It's the popularity or acceptance of those extremist views that is the deciding factor. I believe strongly that one has to be careful in rejecting extremist views, given that virtually every new idea is extreme until it becomes mainstream. And who will decide what is extreme and what is not?
In invoking the thought police, making compromises, and focusing solely on gaining power, wouldn't the Green party risk becoming just like the other parties?
Although I tend to agree with your comments about incrementalism, and at risk of appearing to be extreme, I can think of some cases where the exact opposite of incrementalism caused rapid change. Hiroshima comes to mind as the first example.
The Green Party is a fertile mix of ideas and, provided that there continues to be solid leadership, I see nothing wrong with the interplay of those ideas and in fact welcome it as the sign of a healthy party.
Policy vs. Delivery
I perhaps shouldn't have used the word incrementalism. But let me be clear that I wasn't talking about ideas or policy. I was talking about how what we have now gets delivered to people, and what I was suggesting is that we do a tremendously bad job of it. More wasting scarce resources in endless mucking around with exactly what the policies are isn't going to change that.
Or to put it another way, do you want to have an impact on the 0.1% of policy wonks out there by iterating on exactly what is in Vision Green, or do you want to try to do a better job of getting the 99.9% of people to actually absorb, at a ridiculously general level, what the general approach would really mean to them, and why that would be a good thing.
The people's definition...
Whose definition do we use? The voters, of course. And I don't think Americans knew exactly what they were getting when they voted for Bush the first time around, although, let's not forget that the USSC chose Bush over Gore. And then he quickly ended up in a war (by chance?) so he was highly electable against wishy-washy John Kerry.
If you think voters love extremism, I certainly question it on a historical basis. But no matter, they are certainly ready to reject it as of the present. Even Karl Rove in the US thinks that with modern social media the way it is, the current Republican candidates have too much extremist baggage -- which is why two months ago, he was publicly supported Romney over anyone else. Newt will be unelectable by moderates.
I forget who, but someone released a book maybe a month ago that highlighted that fanatics tend to wrest control of parties from moderates and offer minimal compromises necessary to be palatable enough to get votes. It is counter-intuitive that political parties would end up running this way, since obviously a party that actually offered a popular view would most likely be electable. The Liberals highlight this effect. Despite their claim of being a centrist party, they ended up being either right or left on all any given issue (mostly left, but they did lean right on taxation policy and free trade agreements.) By the last election they pleased very few, and in fact continue to do so -- IMHO in a very arrogant way. Notice, however that instead of actually shifting policy, they are shifting hierarchy -- I guess in the expectation that the NDP will implode leaving a big hole to fill.
*** REGARDLESS *** You misunderstand the point. If an extremist position has popular support, like 1/3rd, then it's viable. But an extremist position that has 1/20th support? That's just fanatical, and it will go nowhere.
No misunderstanding at all.
So, Bram, given that the mainstream policies of the Green Party were at one time "extremist positions with 1/20th support" you are saying that they were just fanatical and should have gone nowhere? History is not kind to your thesis.
I suppose what bothers me the most, Bram, is that your proposal seems to be quite undemocratic and intolerant. Trying to preempt discussion of issues important to at least some, or even a few, of the members is reminiscent of certain other parties in Canada. Is it not up to the majority of the party members to determine policy?
And, as with other parties, it is not the opinions of individual members but rather the collective and democratic opinions expressed by the members in general that really matters in terms of the public image of the party.
But hey. At least you're getting the opportunity to express your opinion, aren't you?
Misunderstandings continue.
Rick: I am not telling you what you can say. I am asking you to consider what GPC policy should look like on the basis that (a) 5% support is insufficient to maintain the party apparatus; and (b) we have not exceeded 5% in the past decade even though everyone said that we were going to "break out." If that policy doesn't include all of your positions, then maybe some introspection would be helpful. Such introspection, however, is not required, in much the same way that the electorate is not required to vote for us.
What bothers me most is that any attempt at pragmatism within the party always leads to the same defensive stance that you take above. I'm sorry that we have elected only a single MP ever, and the next election may not see a repeat. But that is not my fault. I am asking you to consider what is wrong with compromise. Short of compromise, explain to me how we are going to increase voter support. Please.
Nothing wrong with introspection...
...especially when it is inclusive.
How to increase voter support? In my opinion, you are not asking the right question, but one answer is democracy in action with regard to policy, ongoing strong leadership, and most of all patience.
And, regarding compromise, isn't the current party policy replete with compromise? It already happens, and I see no reason why that can't continue, even though individual members can have widely differing opinions.
Quebec should be the next front
With the bloom off of the rose with the NDP in Quebec, it's time for Greens to get serious about la belle province. We need to persuade Deputy Leader Georges Laraque to run in the next Quebec by-election, which means that he will likely have to go up against Daniel Paille, the new Leader of the Bloc. So be it. Even if Georges doesn't get elected, he will draw new (and frankly much-needed) attention to Parti-Vert in Quebec. The experience he and his team can take away from a by-election will do him well in the next General Election.
Greens must be careful about where we expend our resources, and what our messaging is going to be. I'm not certain that I agree with Bram that we need to shift more to the centre, but I agree that we can no longer be the voice of extreme environmentalists. I think Elizabeth May, with but one mis-step, has been doing a fantastic job this past year, and her message is right on target.
I do agree that we are likely going to have to go up against Sun Media at some point, because we should be targetting ridings held by Conservatives. And that means taking on Sun Media.
Simply getting our message out is going to be a challenge. Therefore, it makes sense to consider where we are spending our scarce resources. We, as a Party, may wish to consider strategic alliances with the NDP and the Liberals at some point, after they've selected their respective leaders (and we have a better idea of what their environmental policies are going to be). We may wish to think about opening a dialogue with these other parties at some point about how best to bring down the Harper regime.
For now, though, it's time to get Laraque front and centre in Quebec!
"Sudbury" Steve May
Peter Kent on the news
Peter Kent on the news confirming man made global warming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBjcykr8YTE&feature=share
Constantine Kritsonis