Wednesday Morning Links

Miscellaneous material for your mid-week reading.

- Louis-Philippe Rochon writes that while American voters had to know what they'd get in casting their most recent ballots, far too many Canadians may have believed the Libs' promises of something else:

On this side of the 49th parallel, however, when Canadians elected Trudeau a little over 15 months ago, on Oct. 19, 2015, we were led to believe he was some sort of a progressive politician with respect to social and economic issues, which essentially is what got him elected.

What a difference a year makes.

In recent months Trudeau has behaved very little like a progressive economist and has instead embraced with great fanfare some oddly conservative policies. In doing so, has Trudeau revealed himself to be a conservative wolf in liberal clothing? If so, it would appear the fix is in: Canadians voted for one guy but got another.  It was the classic political bait and switch: the great Canadian hoodwink.
...
[Under a privatized structure,] any infrastructure project will easily cost twice as much over a 30-year period. In other words, for any project, Canadian taxpayers will end up holding the fiscal bag through higher fees and taxes, whereas the government could finance the project at much cheaper rates. This makes no economic sense, which raises the question, is the government doing this simply as a way of thanking their financial supporters?

There is a more sinister argument looming under all this, and it regards the role of public spending and the privatization of the state. Indeed, with all these musings about privatizing airports, ports and public spending, Trudeau is in fact championing the privatization of the state itself, robbing it further of its powers to create jobs and regulate unstable markets. This is clearly not what Canadians were expecting when they elected him last year.

- Christopher Majka highlights how Justin Trudeau's choice to break a core promise on electoral reform can only be explained by his taking Canadian voters for fools, while Scott Baker and Mark Dance write that it's bound to fuel voter cynicism. Tom Parkin discusses Trudeau's dishonesty on the issue, while Lawrence Martin emphasizes the damage the decision will do to Trudeau's core brand. And Karl Nerenberg points out how the retention of first-past-the-post is a gift to the right wing.

- Meanwhile, Michael Taube rightly observes that the Liberals' choice to nix electoral reform doesn't mean the issue will disappear. And Michael Morden and Michael Crawford Urban comment on the need for improved voter turnout as a means of ensuring better governance.

- Jugal Patel reports on a giant crack in Antarctica's ice shelf as yet another vivid reminder of the drastic effects of climate change.

- Finally, Andre Picard rightly questions why the Quebec City mosque massacre hasn't led to a discussion of gun control.

On common interests

Shorter Chrysotile Institute:

It's not as if we necessarily agree with the climate change denialists we're promoting with federal money; it's just that their beliefs are similar enough to our own that we're perfectly comfortable throwing in our lot with them.

Coincidental

A new State of the Future report with backing from a remarkable range of different groups is calling for an "effort on the scale of the Apollo mission" which landed man on the moon to combat global warming. (And it would seem reasonable to figure that saving our current planet is worth at least as much of a concentrated effort as exploring its satellite.)

But just in time, hoax theories about the moon landing are also getting new attention in the press. Which raises the question: if the next argument in favour of strong action against climate change is based on an analogy to, say, the industrial revolution, will we be treated to a corresponding argument that that too was a hoax?

A cool reception

Shorter Terence Corcoran (2 for 1 special edition!):
I simply can't conceive of a value system which would prioritize the survival of half the species on Earth, along with a substantial proportion of humanity, over a cheaper supply of consumer goods.

-and-

Having successfully lobbied the Con government to thumb its nose at Canada's Kyoto obligations, allow me to lecture you on the sacrosanct inviolability of international trade agreements.

Kicking and screaming

One of the less-reported stories surrounding this year's federal budget was the lack of meaningful investment in environmental programs: most media reports seemed to pick up on the one project funded by the Cons (being a small contribution to a clean coal plant in Estevan) and assume that this would somehow make up for nationwide neglect. But now, Deceivin' Stephen is complaining about doing even that much:

Cutting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions will mean cost increases in the short term for consumers and businesses alike but such costs are manageable, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday.

But Harper also said he would not commit the federal government to covering potential cost overruns beyond its $240-million share of the recently announced $1.4-billion clean coal project at nearby Boundary Dam.

"All the cost pressures on energy, including admittedly cost pressures of environmental regulation, are likely to lead to upward pressure on power prices across this country in years to come," Harper said when asked about what impact the clean coal project might have on consumers.

The Conservative prime minister said the federal government is trying to help spur on the development of new technology from which energy-producing provinces such as Saskatchewan can benefit over time.

"But there would be no kidding you ... that in the short term enhancing environmental protection, reducing greenhouse gases will cost consumers money, will cost business money. That's just the reality," he said...

SaskPower is putting an additional $758 million into the project, in which industry will also participate. The carbon dioxide stored underground will be used in enhanced oil recovery.

When fully up and running, the project is expected to produce 100 megawatts of power with near-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It would reduce SaskPower's emissions by one megatonne a year.

Mind you, it's not as if the Cons didn't have other choices as to what to fund. The article itself notes a valid critique of the Cons' choice to put their money toward a project which is primarily aimed at continuing the use of fossil fuels. And of course it would be been equally possible to encourage not only cleaner forms of energy, but also conservation measures which would reduce consumer costs.

But rather than taking more positive steps, Harper seems determined to do as little as possible, while grumbling about being forced to do anything at all. And Harper's choice to push the downside of his own government's environmental plan offers yet another indication of the Cons' insincerity in tackling environmental issues.

On missed opportunities

If there was ever any doubt that the Libs took the wrong side in choosing not to vote non-confidence over the Cons' environmental mismanagement, a new survey reported by CanWest should put that to rest:

Four of five Canadians disagree with the Harper government's approach to protect economic growth in Alberta's oilsands sector while allowing its annual global warming-causing emissions to triple over the next decade, a new survey has revealed...

Overall, 79% of Canadians and 81% of Albertans said that greenhouse gas emissions from the sector should be "capped at current levels and then reduced" because of the impact on global warming, according to the McAllister Opinion Research poll. Only 12% of respondents, both in the province and in the country as a whole, said that emissions from the oilsands sector should be "allowed to exceed current levels" so as to encourage economic growth...

(W)hen asked about new projects, 52% of Canadians said they should not be approved until "environmental management issues are resolved," versus 32% who said they should be "permitted so as not to curb economic growth." In Quebec, 59% wanted to suspend new projects to resolve environmental issues versus 24% who said they should be allowed to continue to protect economic growth.

The numbers were closer in Alberta where 48% supported a suspension of new projects versus 40% who did not...

Meanwhile, Canadians are not worried about increasing tensions between the federal government and Alberta because of new regulations, according to the poll. Seventy-two% of respondents said that they supported a "more active role" in managing the environmental impacts of the Alberta oilsands versus 17% who did not.

Based on the survey's results, it seems clear that the Cons have failed miserably in their effort to defuse the environment as an issue. Not only did the survey's respondents disagree with the Cons' choice of targets by an overwhelming majority, but even faced with a tradeoff between environmental protection and oilsands growth the Cons are plainly on the wrong side of public opinion.

Unfortunately, though, the Libs still appear determined to prevent the Cons from answering for their unpopular choices. Which is why on the environment - as well as far too many other issues - the Cons don't apparently see any danger in pushing forward with plans disapproved of by most Canadians.

On long-range plans

The Globe and Mail reports that corporate Canada is rightly recognizing the need to do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now that the Cons have been shamed into signing onto the Bali agreement:

Canadian corporations can expect growing pressure in the coming years to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond what the federal government has already pledged after Ottawa reluctantly accepted new targets at an international climate change conference in Bali...

"Business can expect new demands to reduce greenhouse gas emissions ... There are still a lot of people who thought they could negotiate their way out of the impending regime, but that is clearly not on" (said Christine Schuh, director of sustainable business practices for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP).

Recent surveys of Canadian companies indicate relatively few have allocated budgets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, or had senior management focus on how the climate change issue will affect their business.

Companies say they are waiting for clarity from the federal government in terms of the new climate change regulations.

However, Julia Langer, of World Wildlife Federation, said it is unlikely the current government plan will be the last word...

Ms. Langer said the Conservative policy is unlikely to achieve the government's own targets of reducing emissions by 20 per cent from current levels by 2020.

But the pressure to cut deeper will only grow, she said, particularly if the United States embraces climate change action under a new administration after the 2008 elections.

"Bali is meant to get us to the next round, but we haven't even caught up to the first round" under Kyoto, she said.

Jayson Myers, president of the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association, agreed the government's current proposals are unlikely to achieve its target for reductions in 2020.

Now, it's certainly good news if Canadian industry is indeed becoming aware of the need for actual emission reductions - and not counting on negotiating its way out of having to do anything at all. But the gap between signing on initially and actually working to meet the Bali target looms large.

After all, we've been down this road before, as investment in greenhouse gas emissions declined when it became clear that the Libs weren't going to make a serious attempt to meet Canada's Kyoto targets. And with the Cons doing everything in their power to claim that their non-targets are more important than the global agreement, it looks far too likely that industry will once again conclude that Canada's follow-up won't match its initial commitment.

Apocalypse

John Baird's latest excuse excuse for deferring to Bushco's refusal to accept any emission reduction targets is that an "environmental Armageddon" could result if a deal doesn't rein in emissions for the U.S.

The statement will be worth tucking away for the next time the Cons try to pretend that global warming isn't really a problem worth dealing with at all. But if taken at face value, it only highlights the dishonesty of the Cons' bargaining position.

After all, how could Baird's own dire prediction possibly be averted by Canada's refusal to allow a deal to happen at all? And if global emission reductions are indeed needed to avoid "Armageddon", why would Canada have any hesitation in agreeing to reductions of its own?

Update: More from Steve V on the incoherence of Baird's position.

Unsupported

The CP's report from today's Environment Committee meeting offers yet another example of the Cons' complete lack of credibility and honesty when it comes to the environment:

NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen pressed Baird to name a single group that has supported the plan, or a single regulation that he has placed on industry.

"I'm confused as to why this government is trying to seek credibility on the world stage...yet has not one validator that we're aware of that has taken a look at your plan and said it will actually meet your targets," said Cullen. "It does not pass test – why would you think the international community would think any different?"

Baird said it is too early to properly assess the government's regulatory framework, since it is still in the process of consulting with industry on what limits the various sectors will be handed.

Baird's response is significant for a couple of reasons. First, it highlights just how far the Cons are from having any support at all when it comes to their environmental non-strategy: given the proliferation of astroturf groups on virtually all major public issues (including the environment), it's downright stunning that the Cons can't even find one of those to provide some semblance of cover for their neglect.

But more important is the gap between the Cons' assessment of themselves, and their attitude toward anybody else trying to assess their efforts. Take a look through any recent Hansard, or indeed the Cons' own website, and you'll find a steady stream of claims that the Cons have already taken definitive action to regulate industry and otherwise deal with climate change.

Yet suddenly when the question is asked whether anybody else agrees, the Cons can only whine that it's too early to draw any conclusions at all. Which, if accepted as true, would make their own self-promotion equally premature.

Of course, the reality is that it's far from too early to evaluate the Cons' record. And the fact that the Cons can't name a single outside source of support for their continued excuses not to act on climate change should help to emphasize just how far out of touch the Harper regime is with the public desire for action to fight global warming.

Reductions for thee...

Shorter Con position at the G8 climate change summit:
It's pointless to put together any emission reduction agreement which doesn't include every country who could possibly contribute to the problem. That is, except those of us who are special.

On starting points

The Pembina Institute has crunched the numbers underlying last week's news that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were effectively stable from 2003 to 2005. And while the analysis suggests that emission increases aren't necessarily a thing of the past, it still seems that immediate reductions are well within reach:

Canada still hasn't turned the corner on cutting its greenhouse gas emissions -- even though recent figures suggest the country stabilized the pollution levels linked to global warming in recent years, according to an environmental think-tank's new analysis.

The latest numbers from Environment Canada revealed that overall greenhouse gas emissions remained at 747 megatonnes in 2004 and 2005, up from 745 megatonnes in 2003.

Matthew Bramley, director of climate change policy at the Pembina Institute, said a range of random factors temporarily put a stop to the rise in Canadian emissions from 2003 to 2005. But he expects a steady rise of about 12 megatonnes per year if there are no new federal policies to achieve the country's Kyoto target of lowering emissions to 563 megatonnes.

"It's important not to give the impression that the stabilization in emissions is anything more than a temporary blip, because the underlying trend is (a continued and rapid increase)," said Bramley in an interview. "We very much need to keep the emphasis on the need for much stronger greenhouse gas reduction policies from the federal government than we've seen to date, otherwise we're not going to stop that increase in emissions."

Bramley is right to point out the need for continued and stronger action. But the Pembina Institute's data only reinforces the fact that action toward short-term reductions shouldn't be particularly difficult given that the anticipated rise represents a mere 1.6% of current emissions. Indeed, the impending ban on incandescent lightbulbs alone figures to take care of half of that amount.

Of course, there's still a long way to go to work toward the larger emission cuts required under Kyoto. But Bramley's analysis confirms that there's no need to waste any time griping about "slowing down emissions growth" rather than working toward real reductions. And while the Libs bear full responsibility for letting emissions get to their current levels, the blame for any present and future emissions growth figures to lie with the Cons as long as they're the only party trying to mislead Canadians about where we stand now.

Let's avoid a deal

The governments of Canada and the U.S. seem to be in a battle as to who can take the most asinine position in order to prevent any agreement at the G8 summit on climate change. And despite yesterday's strong effort from Bush in that department, Canada seems to have retaken the lead today by demanding that Canada be considered a "special" country so as to avoid the effects of any deal:

Stephen Harper will have a climate-change message for his fellow leaders at next week's G8 summit: Canada is special when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases.

With the leaders attempting to reach a deal on climate change, the prime minister will seek recognition of the unique challenges Canada faces in tackling the problem.

Senior Canadian officials told journalists at a pre-summit briefing that any acceptable deal would need to recognize this country's growing economy, growing population, and booming oil industry.

Those factors make Canada - in the words of one official - special and unique in the G8.

It shouldn't come as much surprise that the excuses put forward by the Cons are nothing more than hollow attempts to shirk any responsibility for reducing emissions in the future.

While Canada is technically above the other G8 countries in the first two areas cited, the level of difference is relatively small (indeed negligible as compared to the U.S.). And more importantly, there's little reason to think that the current trends will be constant over the 40+ year time span that the talks are meant to cover.

As for Canada's oil production, it's entirely possible that future technological development will reduce the emission impact of the industry long before the included targets take effect. And surely a main goal of any agreement has to be to set up conditions will encourage the development of such technology, rather than giving extra credit based on its absence.

It thus seems all too clear that the Con position is based purely on a search for excuses to secure a lower reduction requirement than other G8 countries will face. And that can only encourage other countries to seek to do the same, rather than focusing on how to agree on a reasonable level of reductions all around.

Of course, the likelihood of any deal was already slim to none due to the U.S.' desire to kick any agreement down the road by over a year. But with Deceivin' Stephen playing the role of dishonest broker in an effort to further sandbag the proceedings, both Canada's reputation and global environmental goals figure to suffer.

We're also considering the feasibility of slicing bread

Shorter Bushco about-face on global warming:
We've suddenly had the brilliant idea of bringing countries to a negotiating table to try to agree on emission reduction targets. We just can't believe nobody thought of such a concept sooner!

Science and politics

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which brings into even sharper focus the potential effects of climate change, has been approved - but only after some of most significant dangers were cut out or minimized as politics were put ahead of science:

An international global warming conference approved a report on climate change Friday, chairman Rajendra Pachauri said, after a contentious marathon session that saw angry exchanges between diplomats and scientists who drafted the report...

“The authors lost,” said one participant. “A lot of authors are not going to engage in the IPCC process any more. I have had it with them,” he said on condition of anonymity because the proceedings were supposed to remain confidential. An Associated Press reporter, however, witnessed part of the final meeting.

The climax of five days of negotiations was reached when the delegates removed parts of a key chart highlighting devastating effects of climate change that kick in with every rise of 1 degree Celsius, and in a tussle over the level of confidence attached to key statements.

The United States, China and Saudi Arabia raised the most objections to the phrasing, most often seeking to tone the certainty of some of the more dire projections.

The final report is the clearest and most comprehensive scientific statement to date on the impact of global warming mainly caused by man-induced carbon dioxide pollution.

It predicts that up to 30 per cent of species face an increase (sic) risk of extinction if global temperatures rise 2 degrees Celsius above the average in the 1980s and 90s.

In other words, never mind privatizing the "highway to extinction"; instead, the U.S. and others apparently managed to have that route removed from the map entirely. Which only means that there'll be less way to determine where'll we end up if the anti-environment faction manages to keep us on that road.

In the longer term, we'll have to hope that the scientists who are now rightfully frustrated with having their work rewritten by political hacks will decide not to abandon the IPCC as a result - lest the same type of anti-science hack write the next set of reports from the beginning.

For now, though, the report should show that even the most irresponsible countries are no longer willing to pretend that climate change is anything but a serious problem which demands immediate action. And if the report helps to spur that kind of action forward, then its specific wording may be secondary to the good it can do to shape the political scene.

A heavy toll

The AP discusses a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report mapping the "highway to extinction" as temperatures increase. No word yet as to the federal Cons' response to the draft report, but the smart money is on a plan to privatize the highway.

Grudging progress

For those wondering what it would take for the Cons to at least pretend to listen to anybody who doesn't share their ideology, we now have an answer. After a year in power, an utter flop of a Clean Air Act which was itself delayed for supposed consultations, two leadership races and a byelection which made clear that the environment isn't going to be easily dismissed, and public prodding from the Cons' own party godfather, the PMO is finally willing to meet with environmental groups to discuss greenhouse gas emissions.

But in case there was any doubt whose interests the Cons have in mind, the explicit purpose of the meetings is to "beef up the government's record heading in to a key winter session". Which makes it all too likely that even these meetings will lead to more hot air from the Cons rather than any action which isn't forced on them by the opposition parties.