Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Hundreds of dead and dying ducks trapped in Syncrude tailings pond

In the midst of our indignant fury, the AGDRT team got our proverbial wires a bit crossed. What does this mean for you? Not one but two posts about this debacle. And make sure to read both of them because they're different.

If you ever needed something to reify the real and devastating impacts of Alberta's development of the oilsands on the natural habitat of Alberta's wildlife, this is it.  A flock of approximately 500 migrating ducks has landed and is trapped on a Syncrude tailings pond outside Fort McMurray. According to Alberta Environment, most will die.

While this is truly a tragedy, I reject the argument that we should view this occurrence as some sort of freak accident. While oilsands companies may have come up with strategies to deter ducks from landing on the toxic chemical laden sludge pools, the fact is that this massive industrial project has irreparably inserted itself into the middle of the habitat of a diverse population of flora and fauna. If anything, the ducks just provide a dramatic example of the accumulating damage done by the oilsands on an continual basis to the species whose existence relies on Alberta's Boreal forest. While a entire herd of caribou may not die in such a collective dramatic way, the yearly and seemingly irreversible dwindling of woodland caribou and forest songbird populations as a result of this substantial loss of their habitat is no less tragic.

This event also provides a clear illustration of the failure of both the Albertan and Canadian governments to enforce their own environmental regulations. People like (most recently) David Boyd have detailed Canada's notoriously lack environmental enforcement record, and Alberta's is no less shameful (how many projects has the EUB turned down?) We might not even know about this catastrophe if it weren't for "an anonymous tipster;" Syncrude certainly didn't report it. This calls into question a long list of statistics we rely on the oil industry to provide to us each year: the cost of producing a barrel of oil, how much bitumen is produced each year, how much water the industry uses, how many threatened waterfowl die in tailings pond each year.

Unfortunately, the only recourse Albertans can hope for at this point, is the faint chance that Syncrude will be held accountable for its complete abdication of the limited responsibility it is charged.  Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner has suggested that Syncrude could face a $1 million fine in response to this catastrophe. To put this perspective, this represents 0.3% of Canadian Oil Sands Trust's first quarter earnings -- and they hold a 36.7% interest in Syncrude*. That's a real deterrent.

*The only business of Canadian Oil Sands Trust is their stake in Syncrude.

Tipster alerts AB government to 500 tar-covered birds on Syncrude site

On Monday, approximately 500 migratory ducks landed in a toxic tailings pond on Syncrude's Aurora North site in Alberta's tar sands region. An anonymous tipster alerted the provincial government to the situation and Alberta Environment moved in to coordinate 'rescue and salvage' attempts. The current status of these birds is unkown, except that they are 'clearly heavily-oiled' and unable to fly (if not dead, by this point). Two questions:

1. Why the f*ck didn't Syncrude report this as soon as it happened?
2. What the f*ck are migratory birds doing on a Syncrude tailings pond?

Hundreds of thousands of migratory birds fly over the Ft. McMurray region each year. As such,  tar sands projects operators  are required to take spring-fall measures that prevent them from landing on tailings ponds, which are filled with residual oily substances and toxic waste. These 'measures' basically involve firing cannons (yes, cannons) at high enough intervals to scare birds from landing on these vast expanses of carcinogenic sludge.  Unfortunately, Syncrude did not have the measures in place (even though it is almost May), citing last week's unseasonable weather. This is not an acceptable excuse. Both the provincial and federal governments are investigating. Apparently, the most Syncrude can be fined is $1 000 000. I say that this is not enough.

Update: Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner, was quoted saying that, while this is a tragedy, oil company self-reporting  usually works well and "there are simply not enough wildlife officers, environment officers to be monitoring every operation throughout the entire province 365 days a year." Perhaps, some of the $25 million from Alberta's newly-minted greenwashing campaign should be redirected towards this shortage? We could try actually enforcing our environmental standards, and cleaning up, investigating and ultimately preventing these types of ecological disasters in the first place. That, and not flashy PR campaigns will win Alberta respect on the international stage. This is a travesty and it is unacceptable, and as an Albertan I am  livid and sick to my stomach that this could happen in my province.

Were you here for the provincial election?

I was poking around Daveberta's list of federal election candidates in Alberta, and I immediately scrolled down to Edmonton-Strathcona. I was eager to see who, this time around, I should think of when praying for the defeat of  Rahim Jaffer, a man who's managed to build a political career almost entirely on vote-splitting and getting his assistants to impersonate him.

Whilst perusing the list of candidates, I clicked to the website of Liberal candidate Claudette Roy and found this:

Get a load of that slogan! I seem to recall a similar party using a similar slogan in an election recently... and getting absolutely steamrolled. One would almost think that one of Jaffer's assistants was using his well-honed impersonation skills to pose as Claudette Roy and make this website...

What Capitol Hill Senators and Congresspeople woke up to yesterday morning

Read about it here and here.

The Conservative 'Anti-drug Strategy': More harm than good

It's that time of year again. Time for the Conservative government to mull over whether or not to extend the exemption of Vancouver's supervised injection facility (SIF), Insite, under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. While they sit in caucus and ponder whether to finally show their true ideological colors and let narrow-minded social conservativism trump sound public policy, hundreds of people's lives hang in the balance.

Here's a little background. In September 2003 InSite opened its doors to injection drug users for the first time. It was the first SIF in North America and was modeled after several successful counterparts in Europe. As one of Canada's harm reduction initiatives, supported by the Portland Hotel Society, the Province of BC, and Health Canada, it targeted marginalized drug addicts on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, who were going to inject drugs regardless. Instead of publicly injecting on the street, Insite allowed these people to use under healthcare workers’ supervision, making sure that they did not share needles, and attending to overdose events with immediate medical intervention.

InSite received an initial federal exemption for its first three years of operation, allowing users to bring their drugs to the SIF without fear of legal reprisal. In addition, the federal government granted 1.5 million dollars to an independent team of scientists tasked with evaluating the initiative. In that time, this preeminent group of addiction researchers produced approximately 30 peer-reviewed articles, documenting no increase in crime or drug use, a decrease in public injection and disorder, fewer publicly discarded syringes, a reduction in users' risk of contracting communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and an increased rate of treatment-seeking amongst addicts.  These articles have been published in such influential scientific journals as the Lancet and the International Journal of Drug Policy. Currently, Insite has approximately 600 visits from people living with serious, life-threatening addictions each day.

In September 2006, the newly minted Harper government refused to renew InSite’s license for an additional three years beyond its pilot phase despite documented evidence of positive health outcomes and its contribution to restoring public order. Citing a report criticizing InSite (written by a known anti-harm-reduction activist), Canada’s Health Minister Tony Clement suggested it would be irresponsible to renew InSite’s exemption for a further three years. Interestingly, the report in question was funded by Canada’s federal police force, the RCMP, and was published by an anti-harm reduction lobby group (globaldrugpolicy.org). Clement’s comments indicate the willingness of the Canadian government to ignore dozens of peer-reviewed studies that have shown a range of benefits of the programme and an absence of any negative effects in favour of a single non-peer-reviewed prohibitionist publication. In addition, the government has placed a moratorium on any new supervised injection facilities and the Insite research programme has been halted. InSite has received only temporary exemptions since, and its latest is set to expire at the end of June 2008.

Currently, Clement and Harper are refusing to disclose whether Insite will receive another exemption. Out of frustration, the Portland Hotel Society and a group of drug users from Vancouver have taken the federal government to court. They are in BC Supreme Court, arguing that Insite should fall under provincial jurisdiction because it provides medical services. The government's lawyers are arguing that:

“The harm-reduction philosophy is not universally endorsed by experts on addiction. It may well have harms ..."

They are right. As someone very familiar with this field, I can honestly say that harm reduction is not universally endorsed. Indeed, a meagre 97% of addictions experts will testify to its benefits. Moreover, the government suggests:

"... the experts' report found no direct evidence Insite reduced drug overdose fatalities, curbed HIV infection or reduced public disorder... "

As someone who has read several of these peer-reviewed studies, I can tell you that either the federal interpretation of the word 'direct' is wrong or this is a bold-faced lie on behalf of the Harper government.

In summary, Insite saves lives. It reduces the risk of contracting hepatitis, HIV/AIDs, or dieing from drug overdoses.  It lets people's sons and daughters, brothers, sisters, parents, and friends live longer. Perhaps even long enough for  some of them to seek treatment and maybe even become reunited with family or friends. So why does a medical establishment have to take the federal government to court to continue its work? It's time for the federal government to stop toying with people lives, and give Insite a permanent exemption.

Photo post: Greenpeace rains on Stelmach's parade

Read about it here and here. The best part: Stelmach was in the middle of an anti-Greenpeace speech. Even if you don't agree with non-violent direct action, you have to admit that this is a pretty impressive feat. Kudos.

Photo via Facebook

Update: In case you didn't have a $450 ticket to the show. Greenpeace has uploaded some video on Youtube for your viewing pleasure.

E-town to say 'peace out' to plastic?

Edmonton city councilor, Linda Sloan has asked city staffers to look at the feasibility of banning plastic shopping bags in Edmonton retail outlets. This would make the City of Champions the first major metropolis in Canada to ban the non-biodegradable landfill-chokers. (As some of you may recall, Leaf Rapids, Manitoba (pop. 500) was the first Canadian district to do so, last year.)

As someone who already uses cloth bags when shopping at the grocery store or the mall (*pats back*), I think this is a great idea. But, I'm sure there will be plenty of naysayers who argue that we shouldn't sacrifice convenience, or that the bags get reused (which may be true), or that it is their right to use plastic bags, or whatever. To them I say: take a look at your current consumption of plastic bags. Do you really need a bag for every little purchase you make?

As a point of illustration, consider the case of Ikea.  For the last 6 months, Ikea Canada has been charging 5 cents for those big  blue and yellow bags that have come to symbolize moving out of your parent's house and/or student living.  As a result, Ikea's plastic bag demand has dropped 90 percent.

This tells us three things about what might happen if Edmonton bans plastic shopping bags: 1) the world will not implode, 2) people will realize they really don't need a plastic bag for every single purchase, and 3) Edmontonians are likely to smoothly adapt to the lessened availability of plastic shopping bags.

Thus, I say bring on the ban and let Edmonton score some environmental glory for a change (damn Calgary and their 'wind-powered C-train').

Suncor 1st quarter profit rises from a gazillion dollars to several gazillion dollars

Read all about it here.

Good thing we didn't implement the Oil Sands Severance Tax recommended by the Royalty Review Panel. And good thing we haven't imposed any socialist, draconian carbon-reduction regulations on them. Suncor, in this environment of spiraling costs and labour shortages, is clearly walking the razor's edge between profitability and loss.

Thank goodness we have Alberta PCs to shepherd them through this difficult time.

In Memoriam: Martha Kostuch

Today is a very sad day for Alberta. Martha Kostuch, a prominent member of Alberta's environmental community and a person who worked tirelessly to preserve our ecosystems from  the impacts of industrial development has passed away at the age of 58. If you were fortunate enough to have met her, you know what a kind, smart, dedicated and inspirational woman she was. This is a tremendous loss for our province.

(Photo: Edmonton Journal)

Budget 2008: Albertans apparently fans of talking the talk

Today, as millions of Albertans went about their daily lives not caring, Finance Minister Iris Evans delivered the new government's first budget. The big story (quite literally if you read the Globe) is that Alberta's spending spree continues.

I, for one, can't say that I'm very surprised. The two main drivers of this increase, (according to Bloomberg, the government backgrounder, and a little Excel magic from yours truly) were Health and Wellness, which accounted for about 35% of the increase, and spending on new infrastructure, which accounted for about 50% of the increase (this includes spending for health-related infrastructure; I couldn't find infrastructure breakdowns by ministry).   

Healthcare spending is projected to rise by 9.1%. Last year, the combination of inflation and population growth totaled 8%. Although that likely won't be as high this year, when you factor in the demographic shifts that Alberta and much of the western world are seeing (aging and fattening population), 9.1% isn't entirely out of line (although it will no doubt be bandied about for yet another year by private healthcare advocates as evidence that healthcare costs are "spiraling out of control"). So, like I said, no surprises here.

The other big driver, infrastructure, isn't a real shock either when one considers the myopic and single-minded debt reduction of the Klein years. According to this article in the Herald, Calgary Economic Development chief economist Adam Legge agrees with me. Although we differ greatly in our degree of sanguinity, appreciation of the wisdom of the "paying off the mortgage," and general contempt for the government, we share more-or-less the same view:

"I don't really get too concerned about spending growth, because we took so long paying off the mortgage we weren't worried enough about the roof and the foundation," said Legge. "I'm of the opinion that we have a lot of catch-up to do."

Some may recall some jerks spoiling the debt-free party a few years ago by pointing out that despite being technically debt free, Alberta still had a massive infrastructure debt to contend with. If I recall correctly, this was dismissed as whiny communist nonsense by Klein and his always-open-to-suggestion Alberta PC party, but it seems their chickens have come home to roost. Unfortunately the rest of us have to actually pay for this, but I digress.

So, when you think about it, about 80% of the increases were pretty predictable. To me, the truly interesting thing about this budget is that it serves as further proof that Albertans seem to like the idea of being conservative more than they actually like being conservative. Firmly ensconced in the ivory tower located on the left side of the political spectrum, even I'm getting worried about these year-over-year spending increases -- but the supposedly government-hating people of Alberta just elected the living shit out of the government pumping them out.

It's also interesting to see things like the ministry of the environment getting 120% increase to its budget, and people like this guy getting excited about publicly-subsidized culture. Lloyd Snelgrove has a good quote in this CBC story that further adds to this sentiment:

... Treasury Board President Lloyd Snelgrove questioned whether Albertans are ready to accept a cut in government spending.

"None of the universities, none of the hospitals, none of the school boards, none of the towns and counties and cities have said to us: Take some money back from us and put in the bank — we have no more need for it."

Don't get me wrong -- it makes me happy to think that Albertan's might not be as conservative as they like to talk about being. It makes me sad, though, to think that we have a positively meagre Heritage Savings Trust Fund and face the possibility of deficits in the near-to-medium term. Come on, Alberta conservatives: where are the calls for penny pinching? Have you wasted all your energy denying climate change or what?

Bruce Power hires PC campaign manager to lobby AB government on nuclear power

If I were a large, wealthy corporation that wanted to push a hazardous and unnecessary environmental disaster onto an unsuspecting population for the sole purpose of expanding my bottom line, what would I do?

I would hire the man responsible for recently handing their government a massive landslide victory to be my lobbyist. That's what I would do.

We aren't the biggest savages in Canada!

At least if you measure savageness by the reaction people have to the success of their hockey team. The Globe reports that Canadiens fans celebrated their team's 7th-game victory over the Bruins in the first round of the playoffs by rioting and torching a few police cars.

Jesus! It took us until the third round to start with the public burnings.

Update: This CBC article includes a picture of a torched cruiser.

Photo post: Springtime in Edmonton redux

  

As everyone here in Alberta is aware, we've seen a little bit of a shift in the weather in the last couple of days.  After but a fleeting taste of shirtless-lawnmowing weather last weekend, the denim cutoffs and Banana Boat have been put back into the closet and it pretty much sucks.

The one bright side: this has given me an opportunity to document the final pillar of an Edmonton springtime. This is, of course, the walk down the razor's edge between weather that most of North America would tolerate and weather that we tolerate. There's only a few of 'em; click here to see.

PS Does anyone else find it weird when they look outside at 8:30 pm to see the combination of daylight and blizzard?

Nuclear power: The answer to climate change?

This post was borne out of a debate in the comments section of my last post. You can find that exchange here.

Using nuclear to fight climate change is replacing one environmental problem (fossil fuel electricity generation) with another. In 2006 the Pembina Institute (arguably Canada's most respected environmental think tank) released a comprehensive, 130 page analysis of the environmental impacts of nuclear power generation in Canada. It's team of engineers, eco-efficiency analysts and policy analysts found that nuclear energy should not be considered a solution (or even part of the solution) to climate change.

Here is an excerpt that sums up their arguments well:

while the GHG emissions associated with nuclear power are less than those that would be associated with conventional fossil fuel energy use, no other energy source combines the generation of conventional pollutants and waste streams (including heavy metals, smog, and acid rain precursors, and water contaminants) with the generation of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes that will require care and management over hundreds of thousands of years. The combination of these environmental challenges, along with security, accident and weapons proliferation risks that are simply not shared by any other energy source, place nuclear in a unique category relative to all other energy supply options. In essence, reliance on nuclear power as a response to climate change would involve trading one problem-greenhouse gas emissions-for which a wide range of other solutions exist, for a series of other complex and difficult problems for which solutions are generally more costly and difficult and for which the outcomes are much less certain.

If nuclear is our answer to climate change, why is every major Canadian environmental organization against it? It's not a sustainable long-term solution and it's not emissions free. In fact the amount of GHG emissions generated by nuclear power-related activity has been  estimated to be just under 600 000 tons a year in Canada. That's about the equivalent of putting 170 000 new cars on the road for a year. Nuclear power is dirty and its proliferation only takes interest and resources away from the development of renewable energy and the promotion of energy conservation.  It puts money in the pockets of a few (in the short term) and it does nothing to foster a sustainable energy future for our province or country.

Good news, for a change.

The Alberta Electric System Operator currently has applications from several companies to generate a total 10,500 megawatts of wind power. Given that the AESO is forecasting the need for an additional 5,000 megawatts of power over the next 10 years, this is excellent news! Kudos to the Stelmach government for finally lifting Alberta's asinine wind power cap last year.

This begs the question, why do we need nuclear in Alberta? Especially given the latest news from Bruce Power.

Photo post: Springtime in Edmonton

Let's face it: spring is not when our province -- and particularly Edmonton -- are at their aesthetic peak. The snow, when it melts, reveals an entire season's collection of litter, road sand, and general filth, and the resulting runoff fuses with these things to create a disgusting detritus cocktail that coats the city in brown until about June. It can be a tough couple of months for the peepers, but there are, amongst the filth, the occasional moments of aesthetic respite.

Last week I took a trip around parts of the city and did my best to capture a few of these things for AGRDT's first photo post -- we're officially multimedia.

The above picture is just a hint of mediocrity to come! To see the rest of the pictures, click here.

Tim Robbins takes American broadcasters to task

I'm sorry this post is a bit outside of the Albertan-political realm, but I couldn't resist. You see this story is exactly the type of story that blogs are designed for: something the mainstream media refuses to report on. On Monday night, Tim Robbins gave the keynote address to the annual meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters in Las Vegas. His speech, entitled "The Power and Responsibility of our Nation's Broadcasters," provides a scathing critique of the current state of television broadcasting in the US. Some highlights include,

"...Let's face it, we are at an abyss, as an industry and as a country."

"I'm here to tell you that we don't need to look at the car crash. We don't need to live off the pain and humiliation of the unfortunate. We don't need to celebrate our pornographic obsession with celebrity culture. We are better than that."

"Now is time to leave behind from our lesser selves, now is the time to stop making money on the misfortunes of other, and the prurient and salacious desires of the public..."

The speech did not go off without any controversy, and in fact Robbins had been asked by organizers not to give it (for a full rundown of the speech and audience reaction, check out NPR TV Critic David Bianculli's blog post on the subject). Below, I'm providing you with what some random person (and Advertising Age) has labeled the best six minutes of Robbin's speech (not because I agree, but rather because it is the only YouTube clip I could find). However, if you're a fan of biting sarcasm delivered at  Fox-news types (he is seriously no-holds-barred), I highly recommend you read or listen to the entire speech, too.

In the news

Lots of interesting stuff going on today. Here is a roundup of links:

Photo: Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail has a good article detailing the 'in and out' scheme the Conservative Party of Canada allegedly used during the last election to finance national campaign advertising and exceed their allowable spending under the Elections Act by over $1 million dollars (and has resulted in yesterday's RCMP and EC raid of their headquarters). According to the Ottawa Citizen, this is the first time in Canadian history that a political party headquarters has been searched by the RCMP. I always new PM Harper would be a path breaker.

UPDATE: CBC's Politics with Don Newman is reporting that the RCMP are executing a criminal search warrant, granted by a Toronto criminal court at the request of Elections Canada. In fact, the ongoing search may have nothing to do with the 'in and out' scheme investigation and this may just be an attempt on the CPC to mask the real reason the cops are there.

Alberta Health and Wellness minister, Ron Liepert, has laid out his plan for the next year. The press release is seemingly benign. Some highlights include expansion of addiction and mental health services and a renewed strategy for regional health planning by June 15th. As they say though, the devil is in the details (and also the forthcoming provincial budget). I'd expect some healthcare-related controversy when Alberta Health's 'long term sustainability' plan is released in 9 months, if not sooner. Especially given Liepert's stated support for the Manzankowski and the 2006 Health Policy Framework reports and his general lust for 1990s-style, slash and burn budget cuts.

The Edmonton Journal's Todd Babiak has changed his tune (somewhat) on Edmonton's bid for the National Portrait Gallery. His column yesterday paints quite the rosy picture of a revitalized downtown arts and culture district. I like to think his newfound optimism is the direct result of  reading this blog...

Maude Barlow and the Council of Canadians warns that if Canada doesn't revist NAFTA, Canadian governments can expect litigation by foreign oil companies if ever a water shortage were to halt oil and gas production.

Health Canada looks ready to ban bisphenol A. This endocrine disruptor mimics the effect of estrogen and has been linked to breast and prostate cancer. The bad news is that bisphenol A is in many clear plastic bottles (water bottles, water cooler jugs, clear/tinted nalgene bottles) and it is also used to line tin cans. The good news is that it can be avoided somewhat. See Green Edmonton for advice on that.

Finally, this gem. Apparently Vancouver transit cops have been tasering fare-cheaters. Even the non-violent ones. SHADY.

Am I the only one not looking forward to this?

This afternoon marked the beginning of the first legislative session in our new, largely opposition-free government, and I for one am not too excited. Many of the bills on tap (see this pre-session preview in the Herald) are relatively benign, and some I would even support in principle; a ban on talking on a hand-held cellphone while driving, a crack down on street racing (I'm neither 2 fast nor 2 furious), and an increase in penalties for animal cruelty aren't things I can't agree with*.

The thing that has me shaking in my boots, though, is all of the tough talk that's been coming from the direction of Ron Liepert. Since about 15 minutes after being named minister of health, Liepert has making sure everyone in the province knows that he's a man who prefers action to talk by a very large margin. He's also been intimating that he's not going to be afraid to ruffle a few feathers (read: completely ignore the opinions of broad swaths of stakeholders) to quench this thirst for action, which is likely true if his performance as education minister can be used as any guide.

Action in itself is fine enough. But when someone is chomping at the bit to implement reforms inspired by the amazingly poorly-executed and devastating Klein cuts of the early 1990s, and has shown himself to be a steadfast ideologue by ignoring a torrent of evidence to the contrary and choosing the P3 model for the construction of new schools in the province apparently on the basis of one of the 3 "P"s standing for  "private," I'm somewhat worried about what he'll cook up.

Health care is definitely going to be the big issue this session, but as Dave Hancock said in one of the stories linked to above, "to a certain extent, legislatures take on their own life." It will be interesting see what the Tories get up to this time around, but I have a feeling I'm going to enjoy it a lot less than the last session. As is pointed out in this story, it's likely that Stelmach (and, by extension, his government), in light of his crushing mandate, will be a lot less worried about pissing people off, which will mean less hilarious blunders and more aggressive moves on issues that us at AGRDT have a tendency to write angry polemical rants about.

I guess we'll see. Here's hoping that Liepert hasn't delisted childbirth by the end of this session.

*I mean, I'd rather they spend their time on things a little more pressing than street racing as the global economic situation grows ever more dire and the northern half of our province is stripmined, but I learned long ago that looking towards the future isn't really a forte of the Alberta PC

 

Carbon taxes: really not a liberal idea

This post is born not necessarily out of the currency or even newsworthiness of the topic at hand, but rather because it provides a perfect opportunity to highlight just how ridiculous the rhetoric used by John Baird actually is. If you'll recall, in response to a report released in January by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (itself an advisory body to the federal government) calling for a nation-wide carbon tax, federal Environment Minister John Baird flat out rejected the report's recommendations with the statement: "a new tax sounds like a Liberal idea to me."

While John Baird isn't exactly known for his thoughtful deliberations or quiet reflection, this outright dismissal of an important policy option for mitigating climate change is pretty low. I mean at least the Liberals pretended to agree with similar reports, even if they didn't actually act on them.  I guess under Stephen Harper's Conservative government, even the environment minister isn't expected to pretend to listen to the advisers he's paying to make ecologically and financially sound decisions. Anyhow, a new report  released last week may (well, one would hope it would) give Baird pause next time he decides to knee-jerk react to the suggestion of a carbon tax with a partisan quip.

This week, prominent Canadian economist Jack Mintz  echoed the growing chorus of Canadians calling for a nation-wide carbon tax to fight climate change. In the report, Mintz surmises that the current $0.10/litre excise tax charged by the federal government on gasoline works out (in effect) to a carbon tax of about $42/tonne. The report says if this taxation scheme where applied to all carbon emitting fuels in Canada (i.e. natural gas, coal used in electricity generation), the Canadian government would be able to collect an additional $12 to $15 billion dollars a year. In addition this revenue could then be used to decrease personal and corporate income taxes, thereby making Canada's economy more competitive and Canada's worldwide environmental reputation slightly less humiliating.

The fact that Jack Mintz of all people is endorsing a nation-wide carbon tax, should demonstrate to the few people that take Baird seriously that this is so not a "Liberal idea" (I'm assuming that when Baird derisively sneers the term 'Liberal', he's referring to it in the big "L", socialist wealth transfer scheme sense of the word, rather than the small 'l' sense as taxes aren't usually associated with liberalism). For those of you not familiar with Mr. Mintz, here's a few interesting tidbits that establish his non-Liberal mettle: he sits on the board of Imperial Oil, he thinks Alberta's low taxes and privatization rates make it perfect, he has a long, illustrious publication record with the tax competitiveness section of the C.D. Howe Institute (not to mention a 7-year tenure as its president and CEO), the Alberta government hired him to do their financial planning last year, and finally pretty much every time he is asked to comment on a government's budget, he laments the insufficiency of the broad-based 'tax-relief' provided.

The fact that someone like Jack Mintz recommends the adoption of a national carbon tax demonstrates that he is a fiscal conservative who uses his head when assessing policy options; John Baird's idiotic partisan reaction demonstrates that he is not.

The biggest irony in all of this is of course, that the use of market mechanisms like carbon taxes is an inherently neo-conservative idea. Many environmentalists and progressives would much prefer to see Canada deal with climate change through regulation and forced compliance to those regulations. For them and other more traditionally social-democratic countries, regulation is the only way to ensure that pollution never enters the environment (rather than it simply costing some companies more to pollute).  The fact that many (ideologically left-leaning) environmentalists in Canada have come to largely adopt the position that a carbon tax is a necessary solution to climate change for Canada shows that they are able to consider their options, context, and restraints thoughtfully and determine the best compromise for fast action. You would think we could expect the same from our political leaders.