Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

Stelmach: The fact that Albertan soliders have died in Afghanistan should absolve us from our Kyoto commitments

Daveberta has a great post today describing how Ed Stelmach - responding to questions raised about the UN's investigation into Canada's unwillingness to comply with its Kyoto obligations - argued that Alberta should be absolved from its responsibility to help Canada meet its climate targets under the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol because Albertan soldiers are dying in Afghanistan. Seriously.

From the Canadian Press article,

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is bristling over the United Nations threat of sanctions against Canada for failing to meet a Kyoto Protocol deadline on greenhouse-gas reporting.

Stelmach says Canada is doing its part for United Nations-backed military efforts in Afghanistan and the timing of these threatened sanctions appears to be insensitive.

"Does it bother me a bit? Yes it does," Stelmach said Thursday. "We´re in Afghanistan and just lost another soldier."

Wow. Between this and the "wind turbines kill 30 000 ducks a year" bit, it seems like the main focus of Stelmach's mandate is to embarrass Albertans on an international scale. He appears to be unaware that the mission in Afghanistan is actually a NATO-led and Canada -- not Alberta -- signed on to it, and even if that were the case his logic would still make little sense. If anyone ever thought that the Alberta government's arguments around climate change were based on sound scientific policies or rational thought, this and the Mark Jaccard report the Alberta government finally released today should have completely dispelled that notion.

I think this raises another interesting point, too: if Alberta wants to have its own embarrassingly ineffective climate change plan, it should have to go and defend it on the international stage like every other jurisdiction. At this point, Canadian provinces operate more like independent nations than European countries in this respect anyway. Could you image Canadian provinces getting along enough to burden share like the EU did?

So why don't we send Stelmach and his compelling arguments to Poland in Decemeber for the next meeting of the signatories to Kyoto? Hell, he can even take along Knuckles to back him up.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Is Ottawa hogging our national treasures?

An article in today's Edmonton Journal details development firm Qualico's bid for Edmonton to become the home of Canada's new National Portrait Gallery. This is not really news as speculation about an Edmonton bid has been swirling since the collapse of a proposal to build the gallery in Calgary's new Encana tower. However, given Qualico's  growing determination to see its bid to fruition, perhaps it is time to debate the merits of their proposal. I for one, am torn on this issue.

The former Liberal government had originally planned to build the National Portrait Gallery in Ottawa, which is, after all, the nation's capital. Commentators like Edmonton's own Todd Babiak have pointed out that most self-respecting countries like France or the US tend to build their national galleries, museums, and monuments in their capital cities and that this is where these sorts of national treasures belong.

But I kind of like the idea of having a national gallery in Edmonton. Admittedly, my bias is probably related to my somewhat selfish interest in seeing Edmonton blossom into Canada's new metropolitan city. Nonetheless, I think there is merit to Qualico's proposal.

First, Canada is not like other countries (especially European ones) in that we have a huge and sparsely populated land mass. Canadians are divided by vast swaths of countryside interrupted only briefly by larger urban centers. Thus, it is likely that many people living in Western Canada may never venture out to central Canada to visit our national treasures (especially if our more popular modes of travel--driving and flying--become more prohibitive with climate change). Despite this, we continue to concentrate a vast majority of important Canadian institutions (public and private) in central Canada (namely Ottawa, but to a lesser extent Toronto as well). Perhaps we should spread the love more evenly across the rest of the country?

Second, after having made two recent and short trips to Ottawa I can say that I hardly had time to thoroughly check out the National Art Gallery of Canada, let alone the Museum of Civilization, the War Museum and of course, Parliament Hill.* Perhaps if more of these types of attractions (with the obvious exception of Parliament) were scattered across the country's other urban centres, more Canadians would have a chance to see them and we wouldn't need to spend 2 weeks in Ottawa to enjoy them (not to mention several return trips a year to see temporary exhibits, like the Joe Fafard exhibit currently running at the NAC, which is excellent by the way). In addition, this might be a good way to encourage tourism to other parts of Canada and culturally enrich other cities. Might I dare suggest that it may also help combat regional antagonism and *gasp* promote a stronger sense of Canadian identity in areas outside of central Canada?

Anyways, I haven't made up my mind on this issue and I  am quite curious to know what other people think about the placement of national archives, monuments and museums outside of Ottawa. The National Portrait Gallery in Edmonton, yea or nea?

*if you are one of our 6 regular readers, I'll point out that my trips are extraneous to jk's recent sojourn.

Field Trip: Federal Parliament Question Period

photo credit: jk

I'm currently on the midst of a sojourn to Ottawa, and while here I decided to take in a little bit of question-dodging and childish heckling in the form of question period (QP, as the locals call it) at the federal parliament. Since I won't be seeing the big blue sky of Alberta until Wednesday evening, my thought was that I could stave off the craving by looking at the big blue ties of my former and current MPs, and the man himself, Stephen "Takin' Care of Business" Harper.

Unfortunately, Harper wasn't there, former MP Ken Epp is buried so far into the backbenches that I couldn't see him from my perch on the west gallery (which probably isn't an entirely bad thing as the last time I attended QP it looked like he was either sleeping, in a coma, or dead), and I care so little about current MP Laurie Hawn that I didn't know what he looked like until I googled his name to try and find an unflattering picture for this post. So, although inspiration was not to be had today, plenty of laughs were.

On the walk up to parliament, we were greeted by two protesters; one of which was your fairly standard abortion nutcase, complete with a placard-sized image of an aborted fetus and another poster that said "contraception is killing society." The other was a man who, unlike the abortion guy, clearly came from the less-is-more school of protest: he simply wore two Newfoundland flags stitched together lengthwise with arm and head holes and silently paced up and down the walk leading to parliament. The friend who works at parliament and was escorting me for the day told me that the abortion guy had been there every day for quite a long time, but the Newfoundland guy is a fairly new addition.

After going through several security clearances and checking out the Library of Parliament, we decided to loiter in the second floor space that is located across an atrium from the offices of several cabinet officers. From this vantage, we could see numerous cabinet ministers and their young, clean-cut staffers (who seemed to function primarily as binder carriers) make their way towards the house for QP. Most notable was Peter Mackay, who's tie was seriously 4-5 inches too short. If only he was as good at dressing himself as he was at juvenile macho posturing.

We got into the chamber at about 1:45, and QP doesn't start until 2:15. For the first twenty minutes or so a Bloc Québécois member droned on in French in an amazingly monotonous voice about something that I'm not sure of as I don't speak French. I amused myself by watching Bob Rae use body language to speak very loudly that he's the one who's in charge. He draped over his seat like a wet towel, slouching, legs sprawled out, shoulders back -- he looked like Allen Iverson only completely the opposite colour.

QP finally began after 15 minutes of member statement which most of the members used to talk about bake sales or hockey tournaments in their ridings and most Conservatives used to enforce, with their characteristic subtlety, their Orwellian mantras of their party "Gettin' Stuff Done" and the Liberals being corrupt do-nothing homo whiners.* During this time, I was proud to look right beneath me to see Edmonton MP Rona Ambrose reviewing pictures of a recent weekend with her "girlfriend" (yes, I was eavesdropping on her conversation) on her digital camera, which, upon the Honorable Minister's review of said pictures, was inserted into a giant Louis Vuitton bag.

As question period progressed I found it quite hard to focus on what any of the members were actually saying because the heckling was so amazingly relentless. This puts a lot of people off and I can definitely understand why, as parliament has essentially been reduced to 45 minutes of partisan bickering. That being said, I like partisan bickering, so I found much of QP highly entertaining despite recognizing that it was largely a waste of time and tax dollars. For instance, the complete lack of any effort on the part of Ralph Goodale to make his heckles in any way creative or witty or hilarious. A sample (this isn't verbatim, just a typical example):

Conservative Member: "Mr Speaker, the Conservative government plans to --"
Goodale: "No they don't"
Conservative Member:  "--increase the amount of spending--"
Goodale: "Waste of money"
Conservative Member:  "--to ultimately accomplish the goal of--"
Goodale: "Won't work"

And on and on. As you can see: ultimately pointless, but pretty hilarious.

My day concluded by attempting to watch the press scrums from the second floor balcony outside the gallery in which we watched QP but being shuffled away from a paranoid security guard who apparently deemed me to be a security risk. He was probably right, all I really wanted to do is try and spit on John Baird's head.

*Alright, I made up the homo part. Tom Lukiwski wasn't in the house today -- ZING!

Good news and bad news on the pine beetle front

The CBC and the Globe are reporting some good news regarding BC's battle to stop the spread of pine beetle. Apparently, the rice grain-sized terrors have ran out of trees to eat. Thus, the hemorrhaging of BC's forestry industry is expected to slow. So what's the bad news? Scientists suspect that the lack of feed for pine beetles in BC will likely fuel their continued spread into Alberta. Perhaps BC will lend Alberta part of the $1 billion the federal government has agreed to grant the province over the next ten years? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the funding Alberta has received to fight pine beetle is basically non-existent, despite the fact that our Western border is under severe threat. Perhaps, the federal Conservatives think  pine beetle  money sent to the Conservative heartland of Canada is less politically expedient?

Alberta MPs courting voters in the 905

In case anyone in Alberta is wondering what their Conservative MP is spending their constituency budget on.... I'll give you a hint: it sure isn't on working hard to serve you or earn your vote!

Nuclear in Alberta: Our very own monorail

According to Shawn McCarthy at the Globe and Mail, as far as nuclear power in Alberta is concerned:

1. We don't need it
2. It's cost prohibitive
3. To sell it, the Bruce Power needs to  "create a buzz" around the concept of a nuclear renaissance

I have been against nuclear energy in Alberta since Energy Alberta Corp was poking around Whitecourt and Peace River last summer. I'm even more against it now that Bruce Power (which bought out EAC) wants to build four nuclear reactors rather than two. Even if the generation of tons of toxic waste doesn't bother you, the economic arguments against  nuclear in this province (and elsewhere) should be enough to convince anyone that Alberta doesn't need nuclear energy.  I hope the provincial government will not subsidize the development of this industry and Albertans will avoid being duped into building something we don't need.

Grit Dream Team, or Dion's Nightmare?

I'm not going to lie: I blatantly stole this blog post title from Maisonneuve's MediaScout. However, I think I can more than repay the favor by shamelessly plugging The Scout in this post. A few of you may remember, that a while back the AGRDT team promised  that wherever possible we would highlight good examples of alternative media methods and innovative vehicles.  MediaScout is an excellent example of this. Each day, the team at Maisonneuve Magazine goes through seven of Canada's major dailies and compiles a digest consisting of their front page items and leads. This format allows one to quickly determine what's making news in Canada, and alternately which stories are falling by the wayside. Each digest also includes commentary on the mainstream media's strategies and angles in relation to their coverage of each story and links to the various stories it summarizes. What a handy way to read the morning news, hey?

Anyhow, today's lead story, Grit Dream Team, or Dion's Nightmare?, basically sums up my take on the implications of yesterday's by-election drama (i.e. no one really knows what this means, but it will be nice to have a few more articulate and intellegent MPs in Rae and Hall Finlay kicking around), so I've posted it below.

The only thing I would add is this: here's hoping that we don't see a rash of Liberal in-fighting as a result. As well, way to go, Green Party for their second place finish in Willowdale and their virtual ties with the NDP in the other ridings.

If someone had claimed in 1995, as then-Ontario Premier Bob Rae prepared to leave office, that the New Democrat would re-emerge thirteen years later as a possible future Liberal prime minister, MediaScout would have laughed the notion straight out of town. After all, besides the unlikely political apostasy, Rae’s premiership, widely regarded as a disaster, left the province in financial ruin and his political stock in the basement. It’s a good thing for MediaScout’s reputation, then, that no one had the gall or the foresight to make such a prediction. Rae, who narrowly lost the Liberal leadership race to Stéphane Dion in 2006, easily won a by-election yesterday in the riding of Toronto Centre, which will allow him to join his new party as an MP in Ottawa. Rae’s win and his imminent arrival in the Liberal shadow cabinet—probably in a continuation of his role as foreign affairs critic—are interpreted in two, possibly contradictory, ways in today’s sources: As a boon for the party or as the next step in the man’s ongoing hunt for the keys to 24 Sussex Drive.

Meanwhile, in three other by-elections held yesterday, the Liberals retained two seats (Willowdale in Toronto and Vancouver Quadra) and lost one (Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan). Despite the best efforts of Robert Fife on CTV News to interpret each riding’s results as a bellwether of the Liberal party’s vitality, the significance of the victories in the three Grit stronghold ridings and the narrow defeat in the swing Saskatchewan seat remains murky. What is clear is that with the addition to the House of Rae and former rival leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay, who handily won in Willowdale, the already star-studded Liberal benches will now boast an even more formidable line-up of political powerhouses. This is in contrast to the Conservative government, described by Don Martin in the Post as a one-man show and “a wasteland of rival ambition.” According to the Globe, Dion plans to use the strength of his team as a selling point, declaring, “I am a team player and a team builder and tonight it’s clearer than ever that I have a much better team than Stephen Harper.” However, Dion likely sees that the perceived competence of his right-hand men and women is as much a curse as it is a blessing; the embattled leader’s failure to convert the government’s political mistakes into gains in the polls only reinforces the impression of Rae and his former roommate, deputy Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, as “leaders-in-waiting,” as Don Martin describes them. Though Dion’s team may be better than Harper’s, the Liberal leader might find that they’re a bit too good for his own good.

If the Liberals can manage to hold things together, it looks like we'll be heading into an election sooner than we thought. If on the other hand, if Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff can't learn to get along (both are strongly divided over the question of Liberal election readiness, with Rae on the cautious side and Ignatieff on the full-speed-ahead end of things), we will likely see the maintenance of the current government, a another Stephen Harper minority win, or, even worse -- and I can barely write the words -- a Harper majority. I kind of like being the most progressive country in North America, I've got my fingers crossed for the Dream Team alternative. The Liberals are a long ways from perfect, but they're equally far from my worst nightmare. 

Environment Canada re-commissions Banff and Jasper airstrips

On Friday, Parks Canada issued two press releases announcing that the airstrips in Banff and Jasper would be re-commissioned.  The airstrips were closed in 1997 after the Banff Bow Valley Study highlighted the intense threats posed by commercial development and infrastructure, including the airstrips, to the ecological health of the mountain parks. Environment Canada argues that the re-opening of these airstrips will improve pilot safety in Rocky Mountains air space.  I don't disagree with the move to allow commercial aircraft diversions and emergency landings in Banff and Jasper.

What I do find problematic is the opening of the Jasper airstrip for recreational aircraft use. CPAWS sums up the Jasper situation well: "this is about enabling a privileged few to recreate in their personal aircraft in protected areas." Moreover, CPAWS suggests that any emergency landings or diversions would be for personal aircrafts only:

“The ecology and visitor experiences of two of the world’s greatest national parks which are dedicated to the Canadian public are being compromised for the narrow interests of some private pilots. We will make every effort to have this decision reversed and look to all legal means to achieve it."

If this is the case, I'd be interested to know whether commercial jets could or would land at these airstrips in an emergency. If not, should they be re-commissioned to the large detriment of the wildlife in these protected areas? I guess those are questions the forthcoming environmental assessment will have to answer. On a side note: I wonder if Air Tory will have direct flights to Jasper...

Welcome back to the twilight zone

This has so far been a very eventful week for those interested in climate policy and Alberta politics/sabre-rattling. First, on Monday, we heard from Environment Minister John Baird that Ottawa will be putting in place new regulations that as of 2012 will require oilsands operators and coal-fired electricity generators to use new technology to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. And now today, I read a read a headline in the Journal that made me think I was in Bizarro World:  oilsands operators have announced their support for the implementation of a nation-wide carbon tax. Wow.

In a nutshell, Monday's new regulations break down as follows:

• Starting in 2012, new oilsands extraction operations will be required to install carbon capture and storage systems to capture "the bulk" of their carbon emission. "The bulk" has yet to be specifically defined.
  
• Also starting in 2012, new coal-fired electricity generation plants will be required to reduce their carbon emissions (again no solid number) through the implementation of a combination of new technologies, which I'm assuming mainly means carbon capture and storage and coal-gasification processes (i.e. the infamous and so-called "clean coal" mentioned by Klein in his last state-of-the-province-type address to Alberta)
• Existing facilities and those oilsands operations that will be coming online before 2012 will be required to "reduce emissions using cleaner fuels," according to yet to be determined rules that will be finalized at some point next year.
• The government reaffirmed it's decision to create a carbon offset/cap and trade system at some point in the future.

Some initial impressions: first of all, it's important to remember that despite all the fancy talk and government programs with "eco" prefixes, Canada still has no intention of setting a hard cap on emissions any time soon, which means absolute GHG emissions will likely continue to rise. Additionally (and ironically), the news release accompanying Monday's announcement, Government Delivers Details of Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Framework, uses language like "effectively bans" and "will effectively require" but doesn't effectively contain many firm details. Looking at some of the attached policy documents gives one the impression that there's a lot that's still TBA.

Second, although some environmentalists have raised legitimate criticisms around the 2012 start date (as by this time most planned new oilsands operations will already be online), one benefit is that it provides an early signal to oilsands and electricity generators to start getting their act together -- early plans can do a lot to minimize the economic costs of environmental actions.

Third, it seems the federal government is putting a tonne of stock into new and unproven technologies. To use an variation of an oft-repeated phrase from fellow Alberta blogger Ken Chapman, this is good politics but bad policy. Carbon capture and storage is the mother of all end-of-pipe solutions -- it does nothing to address the root of the problem, i.e. insatiable consumer demand for energy.

The only mechanism contained in the new regulations for addressing consumer demand comes in the form of a cap and trade system, which again is still without elaboration.  Cap and trade systems, however, are generally regarded by economists and climate policy experts as being less efficient than the primary alternate option: a carbon tax. For these reasons, I'm shockingly inclined to agree in principle with today's call from the oilsands companies; hence, the title of this post.

Although it appears that Alberta's status as the twilight zone has now been officially affirmed, it's important to acknowledge the obvious self-interest embedded into today's announcement. Firstly, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producer's Pierre Alvarez has mused about about the need for a carbon tax in the past as an attempt to scare-monger. Moreover, while I agree that the costs of emissions reductions should indeed be shared across society, I subscribe to the "polluter pays" principle so I don't think that the proceeds from a carbon tax should be used to fund carbon capture and storage for oilsands and electricity operators. I prefer the revenue-neutral concept advocated by the BC Liberals and the Green Party: net proceeds from the tax should be used to apply an across the board corporate and/or income tax cut. If there is one things corporations (and some people) hate more than anything it's taxes, so creating a policy that would give these entities the opportunity to reduce their tax load in way that would benefit society at large just makes sense to me.

I would hope this would make sense to our Premier as well, but I'm not optimistic. Instead, I'm looking forward to more of the international oil industry taking the lead on our province's environmental file.

This week in environment

There are a number of stories in the Canadian news media that warrant some attention this week. Here are but a few:

1. In response to the lack of political leadership on climate change and the environment in Canada, 11 of Canada's major ENGOs have released a plan for action. The report, entitled Tomorrow, Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference, covers seven key areas such as energy, food and agriculture, oceans, etc. It recommends ways for the government to get the ball rolling on sustainability and conservation. This kind of cooperation between ENGOs is rare, as there is often a lot of politicking between groups. Thus, this collaborative effort is worth checking out. Maybe send John Baird a copy too.

2. The Vatican decrees: Thou Shall Not Pollute in its new list of sins in a globalized world. In addition, thou shall not widen the gap between the rich and the poor, collect excessive wealth, nor create poverty. The condemnation of these globalization sins would probably be more meaningful if birth control and drug abuse weren't also included on the list.

3. Earth Hour is Saturday March 29th 2008. It is a worldwide movement of dozens of cities that asks people and businesses to turn off their lights for one hour in an effort to inspire other to take action on climate change. It began in Sydney, Australia, on 31 March 2007, when 2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney businesses turned off their lights for one hour - Earth Hour. This massive collective effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% for one hour, which is the equivalent effect of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year. So far,  Jasper and Edmonton are the only two Albertan cities to officially sign on. But dozens of non-Albertan Canadian cities have joined as well. For more information about the event and how to get your city involved, click here.

Oh, and here is a somewhat cheesy video (complete with Australian Aborigine music) to inspire you to have dinner by candlelight that night:

4. The federal government will soon require carbon capture and sequestration technologies on all new tar sands projects and all new coal-fired electricity plants. Existing operations will be held to a modest 18% intensity target.  I have a few questions. Who is going to pay for the CCS technology? I have a feeling the energy companies won't be footing the bill on their own. Although I wish the government would adhere to the polluter pays principle, I wouldn't be surprised if subsidies and or generous tax breaks were involved. How is the Alberta government going to respond? My guess is poorly.

5. The 'Wikipedia for Biodiversity' goes online. Encyclopedia of Life is a wiki-style website that aims to establish a complete record of all known species on Earth. This is an astronomical task because no one even knows how many are out there (some people guesstimate around 1.8 million though).

UPDATE: I probably should have mentioned the release of a report by NRCan last week that suggests Canada is going to hell in a handbasket. I may or may not have worked for the aforementioned agency at some point in the past, and I would say that (unfortunately for us) this modeling and the people doing it  are both credible.

This Just In: Feds DO care about women

...as long as they know how to wield a hammer. Or something like that.  On behalf of the federal government, Rona Ambrose announced friday that $1.39 million will be invested into Women Building Futures.  WBF is a not-for-profit training program that trains women in trade work.  Here is the mandate of this organization:

• Attract more women into the construction trades;
• Provide trades training that meets the needs of women and the industry;
• Provide mentorship and long-term support for women entering and in the trades;
• Examine and address systemic barriers to the recruitment, training and retention of women entering and in trades;
• Increase the number of tradeswomen instructors and mentors.

This sincere and commendable move by the feds come close on the heels of one heinous "we hate women" bill that recently passed second reading in the House.  On Wednesday, the "Unborn Victims of Crime Act" (Bill c-484) passed with flying colours when almost all Conservatives and a strong showing of Liberals stood in favour of it--including above mentioned 'pro-woman' Rona Ambrose.

Bill C-484 was introduced by local fan fave Ken Epp (and by local fan fave, I mean bland Tory backbencher from Edmonton-Sherwood Park), and is designed to double penalize people who assault pregnant women and in doing so, kill the fetus.  Essentially, if a fetus dies during the assault or murder of the pregnant woman, the assaulter is charged with two counts of assault.  Sounds okay, right? So what's the problem?

What pro-choice activists are arguing, is that this bill reintroduces fetal personhood thereby opening up the door for the anti-choicers to mount a legal challenge.  You see, once 'personhood' rights have been established, it becomes the first step in a legal and moral strategy which pits the rights of the 'fetus' against the rights of the 'woman'.  Since the fetus is inherently 'innocent' and the woman 'should have known better' it ultimately ends with the rights of the fetus trumping the rights of the women, thereby forcing her to continue through with her unwanted pregnancy and bear the child.  This is obviously a huge problem for the reproductive rights and bodily integrity of women in the country.  Now, Ken Epp and other defenders of this bill are arguing that it does not infringe on a women's right to access abortion, citing the fact that a person can only be charged for assaulting a fetus when the mother had been assaulted at the same time.  However, they are missing (zealously concealing) the point.  Bringing fetal rights into Canadian jurisprudence and law establishes a legal recognition of the fetus.  This interestingly brings it into conflict with the Criminal Code which expressly states that a person only becomes a person once it has left the birth canal.

Among the many ironies, 2008 is the 20th Anniversary for the Morgentaler Decision in Canada--the watershed court case that de-criminalized abortion, allowing it to become legal.  In another royal kick in the skirt, our fearless opposition leader, Stephane Dion, was missing from the vote that day because he was...wait for it... attending a party for International Women's Day.  The Bloc and the NDP all whipped their parties to vote against it.  And, on a twisted upnote, Josee Verner, the Minister for Women's Affairs, voted against the bill, too. Perhaps a silver lining? Who knows. We will keep you updated for the third and final reading.

Science: A 21st Century Menace

Last Tuesday, Rick Mercer blogged about the Harper government's distrust of science and the Canadian scientific community. These sentiments have been echoed (albeit somewhat less humorously) by a recent editorial in Nature, a highly respected science-based periodical. Specifically, since taking office the Conservative government has:

1. Told the independent, non-partisan National Science Adviser, that his services were no longer needed (and replaced his office with a committee comprising of both scientists and several senior-level bureaucrats). As such, the science advising and progess reports the government receives are expected to be 'markely less independent.'
2. Refused to meet with a group of Canadian scientists who had just won the Nobel Peace Prize, because their work was in the area of climate change (a.k.a. Kyoto socialist scheme).
3. Muzzled Environment Canada's scientists and routed all media inquires through the PMO, to ensure the agency stays 'on message.'
4. Finally, this government has continued the trend of underfunding agencies like that National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Now before I get accused of pining for the lost days of the ivory tower, where academics (a slur to some people) were respected and revered for their infinite knowledge, allow me to lay out some practical repercussions to the Harper war on (independent) science.

First, forward-looking nations that know they cannot compete with the low wages of Asia for manufacturing jobs and are shifting to economies centred on the creation of what is essentially intellectual property. To compete in the global economy, countries increasingly require highly skilled and educated people to innovate and create exportable knowledge and technologies. Support for Canada's scientific community vital if we are to have young Canadians take on these important roles and the continue the development of technologies, commercially applicable and otherwise.

Second, the global imperative of climate change (and probably also the looming fear of peak oil) is creating a burgeoning sustainable energy industry. Scientists and engineers in countries all over the globe (especially those which import oil and gas) are working towards developing cleaner sources of energy and the means to ween ourselves off carbon intensive fuel sources. Relative to most other countries Canada is well positioned to become a leader in the production of exportable clean energy technologies, but at this early stage would be aided greatly by strong leadership from the federal government. Instead, as the Nature article points out, Stephen Harper's government seems content to commit our nation to a fossil-fuel economy (centered on the tar sands). This may create wealth in the short term, but if the Canadian government doesn't encourage the development of other technologies it is all too likely that Canada will be left behind in the transition to the post-carbon economy.