Phendrana Drifts

I'm oddly drawn to the Liberal Green Shift policy. I blogged about it previously and on the eve of a possible federal election Stéphane Dion has announced some additional ~~vote-buying strategies~~ policy changes to the policy.

The Liberals have announced $900 million in funds to help and re-announcing $1.7 billion (over four years, $600 million annually by year four) for a capital cost allowance for green investment. Curiously of the $900 million in new funds is stated to be a part of the original plan. "As part of the Liberal green shift plan, $400 million over four years will be allocated for Emissions Reduction Credits. The credits will be delivered as refundable tax credits, meaning that farmers and forestry companies will get credits for emissions reduction regardless of income." I'm worried I missing something as in the original plan the words "Emissions Reduction Credits" don't appear together once. The closest thing I can find is the Green Rural Credit, but that is a substantially larger planned program than $400 million ($749 in year four alone).

Just as interesting is the $500 million in additional spending. It ends the claim that the Green Shift is neutral, as it will now at least cost $500 million in the bottom line and the last I looked $500 million is not just a lot of money, but is also coming from a decreasing surplus (even deficit, depending on how the government finances go).

Still, I'm happy the Liberals are releasing policy. And I'm looking forward to seeing other parties' platforms and policy as the campaign rolls out. Read the Green Shift here, and look at yesterday's news release here.

Labels: climate change, environment, federal politics

I just got back from breakfast with Premier Ed Stelmach, and boy am I pumped. Premier Stelmach spoke about many things, including dealing with growth, innovation and making all-party and public legislative committees, but he also spent a good deal of time talking about a subject that is increasingly meaning a lot to me, the environment.

And he hit upon something that leads me to the conclusion that Alberta and Canada's right-of-centre parties are the ones for the task of improving our environment. Taking action on climate change and other core environmental issues is going to take two things, individual choice and personal responsibility. Making a real difference is going to take more than the state shutting down the economy and using the heavy hand of legislation to force behaviour change. Why? Because it is not industry alone, or even industry principally who is wreaking havoc, it is you and me. And what is needed to make us change our behaviour is leadership rather the application of brute power.

Embracing the conservation and proper stewardship of our environment is a natural fit for any small-c conservative party. When I think of environmental leaders I think of Brian Mulroney here in Canada or Theodore Roosevelt and (*gasp*) Richard Nixon in the United States. Getting there for them did not require any drastic departure from their conservative roots, but embracing the values that led them to office that were at their core conservative values - protecting the environment as a place where families shared their experiences and where children could be children and where food could be grown and cultivated.

Back to my breakfast with Premier Stelmach, who expressed similar notions of the importance of the environment, but emphasized there would be no easy solution.

The reality is that the government will not do this for us. They can't. Look at the Government of Alberta - who uses green power where ever possible and have made their operations as environmentally-friendly as possible. And while industry and the energy sector will certainly have an important role to play, I know the heaviest lifting will be done by individuals. Some of us will stop driving to work everyday (or never start, like me). Some of us will supplement our power usage with solar power. Some of us will become vegetarian because it is has such a lower impact on the land (but not me, as I really love meat - but I'm far more vegetarian now than ever before). Pitching former-Vice President Al Gore's site, climatecrisis.org, you can find dozens of ideas on just reducing your carbon emissions.

The point is not everyone is going to be forced to do all of those things, because that isn't going to work - but we all have to do something. We will all have to change how we live in some way. And we are going to need leadership from our leaders, not heavy handed legislation for just one industry (or all industry, exempting individuals). Who best to do this? Well, obviously I think Ed Stelmach is the choice, and I hope Stephen Harper does the same with his plan on climate change to the House of Commons.

Labels: alberta politics, environment, federal politics

This story is frightening. Orange snow that smells bad - "Residents are advised not to use snow for their household or technical needs and to limit walking, either by people or their pets, in this area," - yeah, no shit.

Labels: environment

I have never called myself an environmentalist, but I also think I thought green before some (all Liberal and Conservative politicians) but long after some (Al Gore - given that he started before I was born). Still, I'm not perfect. We recycle, we don't own a car (although we keep thinking that will change soon), we use the awesome lightbulbs that use only a little energy, etc. I also double-side print at work, recycle and try and be green in the office as well as home.

I also believe that global warming represents a threat to our planet. But I was not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol and still am not. But for much different reasons than most.

Kyoto was designed with the United States as a signatory in mind, and without them on board, Kyoto is at risk of not actually doing what it was meant to do. Without the United States obligated to cut greenhouse emissions, and with nations like China and India left to do virtually what ever they want with their emissions, Kyoto is unlikely to stop, or even substantially curtail the greenhouse effect.

As the debate in Canada restarts on greenhouse gases I hope the conversation to some degree goes towards using diplomacy to convince the United States to sign on and convince heavily polluting developing nations to cut their emissions as well. Certainly we should set ambitious goals for ourselves, and the Kyoto ones can certainly be admirable ones, but Canada is only a part of the problem. In fact, we are only 2% of the problem, meaning that cutting our emissions by say, 20%, will only solve 0.1% of the problem globally. Convincing the United States to cut emissions by 20% however will reduce global emissions by about 6%.

Regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister's chair, I was always convinced that Canada's real commitment to Kyoto died when President Bush decided to thumb his nose at the protocol. Let's go change his mind, or at least encourage the United States to take action on greenhouse gases. Then again, if I had the opportunity to influence American policy, greenhouse gas emissions would only be one of many, many topics I'd want to discuss.

Labels: environment

Twitter Updates