Greens Decry Harper Government Moving to Even Weaker GHG

 - Green Party of Canada - Parti vert du Canada

Harper has done it again. Hiding behind the US weak greenhouse gas targets, Canada has now watered down our commitment again, setting a new base year of 2005 for greenhouse gas reductions. "After sabotaging progress in Copenhagen, the Harper government has now moved to an even weaker target," said Green Leader Elizabeth May.

In 2006, when the Harper Conservatives were elected, Canada was legally bound to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. Under the Conservatives and the Liberals, our emissions have been rising. The Harper government has repudiated our legally binding commitments and cancelled all climate programmes. Now they have set a target which would leave Canada above 1990 levels by 2020.

"The Conservatives are playing with numbers and we still have no concrete plan on how to begin reducing emissions and how to shift us toward the new green economy of Canada's future. The North calls on our government to act," said John Streicker, Green Party Critic for Arctic and Northern Affairs.

“Our long-awaited 'Made in Canada' plan is once again 'Made in Houston'. Canada has no plan to reduce greenhouse gases, while Harper focuses on media spin to avoid bad press,’” said Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, Green Climate Critic. “I would have thought a solution truly made in Canada would reflect the spirit of international cooperation and leadership Canadians want their country to show.”

The Copenhagen Accord requires Annex I Parties to enhance the emissions reductions beyond Kyoto, a requirement which will not be met by the current Conservative plan.

“It is unacceptable to continually lower our commitment to deal with the climate crisis and then hide behind the US target. The difference is the US has put $112 billion into Green energy choices and has a real plan, while Canada has killed green energy funding and has no plan," noted May.

Canada lowers targets they have no plans to meet

It is all too apparent that Harper and his oil-loving backers are looking for any excuse to lower, eliminate or just ignore any substantial committment to preventing climate change disaster. We need to continue to build a coalition that will bring down Harper and replace him with representatives with a commitment to the common good and our common survival.

Also, there is this new facebook group:
Canadians Against Canada's Climate Plan

The below is exerpted from the Globe and Mail (emphasis added)

The federal government formally notified the United Nations that Canada will cut its carbon emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels over the next 10 years as part of the Copenhagen accord on climate change, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Saturday.

But a spokesman for Greenpeace says these targets will actually increase emissions, not lower them.

 The Canadian targets are similar to those of the United States, something the federal government planned all along, Mr. Prentice said.

“Throughout the Copenhagen negotiations we maintained that our clear policy was to support the outcome of Copenhagen and also to align our clean-energy and climate-change policies with those of the Obama administration,” he said.

Although reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 per cent will be challenging, Mr. Prentice said he believes it is attainable. He didn't offer any specifics about which actions would be taken to achieve those cuts.

“We'll deal specifically with the oil sands, we'll deal specifically with all sources of emissions, but today the objective of this announcement is to fulfill our obligations under the accord,” he said. “We know we can achieve that target, we're prepared to stand behind it and other countries will now have to do the same.”

While the government's previous emission targets, announced in 2006, would have resulted in a 3-per-cent reduction in emissions over 1990 levels, these latest targets will actually increase emissions by 2.5 per cent, said Dave Martin, a climate and energy co-ordinator with Greenpeace.

“We're heading in exactly the opposite direction that we need to head,” Mr. Martin said. “Not only have they reneged on the target that they adopted a couple of years ago, they have also failed to put in place the regulations that they promised last year.”

 He said the lack of details on how to achieve those emission cuts is indicative of the real problem the Conservative government has with the climate change issue.

 “I think they're really beholden to the oil and gas industry in Alberta and they don't want to address how to make serious reductions to protect the planet and the environment,” Mr. Martin said.

See commentary on this issue at Canadians for Climate Change Action.

COP15 video

Climate Action Network undermines strong resolve of developing states

Below are two critiques of the "People's Submission" posted earlier reposted from Peace, Earth and Justice News. Comments are encouraged.

In January 29 CLimate Action Network sent the following to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “A People’s Submission on Canada, Climate Change and the Copenhagen Accord”

Enclosed two responses submitted to the Climate Action Network website.

1. Comment and proposal Joan Russow, Global Compliance Research Project

While the criticism of Harper and his Conservative government, and of the Copenhagen Accord are important, the measures proposed in the above submission, are way below what is being advocated by progressive states such as Bolivia.

Implementation of UNFCCC; TIME TO BE BOLD

At COP 15, on December 17 and 18, presentations were made, by the head of states, to the Assembly. The majority of heads of states were calling for the global community to maintain the rise in temperature to well below 1.5 degrees. Sadly, it was clear at COP 15 that the demands of the majority of states were disregarded. On December 7, Papua New Guinea had proposed that, rather than descend to the lowest common denominator, the Parties should strive for Consensus with a fall back of 75%. Unfortunately, this proposal was summarily dismissed by the Chair.

If one counts the G77 representing 130 developing states along with some low lying states or small island states which were not members of the G77 along with some of the member states of the European union, then possibly over 75% of the signatories of the UNFCCC would have been prepared to sign and ratify a strong, legally binding agreement. While it could be argued, on the one hand, that this agreement would be irrelevant because the major greenhouse gas producers would have not signed on, but on the other hand, citizens in the major greenhouse gas producing states could use the agreement to pressure their governments to make commitments to stronger emissions reductions. Hopefully that in COP 16 in Mexico, the demands of the majority will be respected.

Signing of the Copenahagen accord currently in front of heads of states would undermine the actions necessary to make the drastic cuts necessary to fulfill the legal obligations under article 2 of the UNFCCC to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.“

Would your state, sign this document, if at least 75% of the states agreed to sign and ratifiy a strong statement.

We affirm that

The UNFCCC is ratified by 194 countries – representing near universal membership – it commands near universal support and its legitimacy is unquestioned. The UNFCCC stated: “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere must be at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. This level equates to a target of below 1°C, which is the point at which global systems on land, water and air will be so affected as to create vicious feedback cycles and destabilize many ecosystems and human societies.

and That

Because of the global urgency, there must be the political will to strive to contain the rise in temperature to less than 1°C above pre-industrial levels, and the parts per million to 300 ppm. Strict time frames must be imposed, so that overall global emissions will begin to be reversed as of 2010. There must be a global target of 30% below 1990 levels by 2015, 50% below by 2020, 75% by 2030, 85% by 2040 and 100% below by 2050, while adhering to the precautionary principle, and differentiated responsibility principle [the emission debt owed by Developed countries to developing countries has to be seriously addressed].and developed country parties agree to acknowledge their emissions debt to developing countries, to cancel their existing debt of developing countries, to implement the long-standing obligation of .7% of GDP for overseas development, to ensure new funding for climate change reparation. In addition, developed country parties will renounce war and reallocate military expenses.

http://www.climatechangecopenhagen.org/

2. Comment and analysis of the Climate Action Network Cory Moringstar

CAN states: Canada should commit to a science-based emissions reduction target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2020 – “further strengthening” the government’s current target of 3 per cent below 1990 by 2020, as required by the Copenhagen Accord.

And this;

Over 150,000 Canadians have signed the KYOTOplus petition which calls for emission cuts of 25 per cent below 1990 by 2020; an effective national plan to reach this target; help for developing countries to reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change; and a fair, ambitious and legally-binding second phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

These targets are not fair and ambitious. They are incredibly outdated and they are now nothing more than a slap in the face to those most vulnerable. They fly in the face of true climate justice. This target is from an outdated campaign and should be abandoned immediately. This target itself is an embarrassment to Canadians. The targets CAN supports are not at all based on the current science. What a crime that such a weak, passive statement is being sent representative of so many NGOs.

In Copenhagen, the G77 & Bolivia called for targets of 1C, 52% by 2017, 65% by 2020, 80% by 2030 & well above 100 by 2050 (by developed countries). There can be no denying of what targets those most vulnerable have asked us to support. During COP15 CAN was in the room when Lumumba Di-Aping asked all NGOs, including CAN to support these targets. So why is CAN not supporting the targets needed for those most at risk to simply live.
http://canadianclimateaction.wordpress.com/eyes-wide-shut-tcktcktck-expose-from-activist-insider/

We reviewed the recent CAN International Copenhagen policy paper. This is not a policy paper designed to prevent global climate catastrophe. It is in fact a global suicide pact.
CAN states (international policy paper):

1. It is a non global emergency policy (even though the paper says the survival of humanity and ecology is at stake)
2. States that 2C is the danger level. At 1.5 we lose small island states.
3. There is no mention of gov’t imposing a price on carbon and no carbon pricing is given to achieve goals.
4. The failed Kyoto process is the only assumed process.
5. No mention of carbon taxing – without which nothing can work.
6. No clear submission that we are beyond dangerous climate interference now, though it is inferred.
7. The introductory paragraph (and the paper) does not document the dangers; No mention runaway or Arctic methane feedbacks – the greatest danger to the survival of life on Earth. No mention of Arctic at all. There is no mention of the catastrophic dangers to agriculture – the greatest danger to survival of huge populations and humanity (excludingArctic).
8. Delaying global peaking up to 2017 has no rationale and is a crime.
9. Delaying something approaching virtual zero emissions till 2050 is insane certain catastrophe. CO2 emissions are cumulative so to stop further increase in atmospheric CO2 zero must be targeted and fast.
10. Delaying reaching atmospheric 350C02 eq to 100 years from now is insane. So long as CO2 is above 350ppm global warming and ocean acidification will continue.
11. No clear submission of a zero carbon emissions policy target – this receives one mention .
12. No mention of non CO2 GHGs
13. No mention of black carbon soot.

'People's submission' hits Canada on climate change

A network of leading non-governmental organizations has made a People’s Submission to the United Nations (UN) on behalf of over 150,000 Canadians who have signed the KyotoPlus petition against Canada’s poor record on climate change.

The submission was made this week with the approach of the Jan. 31 deadline for countries to indicate what actions they are committed to taking under the Copenhagen Accord.

The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) is a member of the Climate Action Network of Canada (CANC).

“The Canadian government has been consistently out of step with the majority in parliament, the Canadian public and provincial governments when it comes to climate change,” says Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation.

“For this reason we feel that it is important to make a submission to the UN on what Canada really wants to do, which is contribute to a fair, ambitious and binding deal.”

The CANC believes that the accord is nowhere near the international deal that will be needed to prevent dangerous climate change. It says world leaders must use 2010 to negotiate a legally-binding agreement under a transparent UN framework that includes a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol.

In the meantime the submission by the groups is intended to be a symbolic gesture of where Canadians want their government to be on the issue.

"Canadians want the world to know our government does not represent our views on climate action,” says John Bennett, executive director of Sierra Club Canada. “Only through this People's Submission to the United Nations will we be heard."

Graham Saul of CANC says it is important to send a message the Harper government a message. "Do Nothing is not an acceptable position in the face of this global challenge,” he says .

The People’s Submission was submitted this week for consideration by the UN along with other submissions by individual countries. It proposes commitments to reach far more ambitious targets than now exist to reduce greenhouse gas pollution within Canada. It also says Canada should commit to taking responsibility for a fair share of the financing required to help poor countries adapt to climate change and to adopt clean energy technologies.

- People's Submission pdf

- NUPGE's Environmental Page

Revolting History: an ode for Howard Zinn

by Mark Prime
Confession Zero

Howard Zinn dies of a heart attack at age 87

The wish for a coming revolt of the guards

Did not emerge with any expectant breath

Or a momentous rebellion of thunder.

Instead…

It passed between the dreaming walls of our hope,

Silent and mortified.

It wove its way near the heart and fell away

Breathless.

We hungered for its branding mark to walk upon

Our shields. We’re ready for the next great one,

The next sun to etch its words on our caution.

We see ourselves as we imagine; a rescuer,

A warrior of unending good, a rebel without history

looking for a voice to call his own.

We’ve tossed our coins into the breathing fountain

And hidden our shame in the thankless gutter,

We’ve carried our bodies across our days

Like hand grenades;

Immigrants in a strange land of heavy skies.

© 2010 by mark prime

A People's History

Howard Zinn...

rest in peace.

The Impossible Hamster

impossiblehamster.org

Raising the bar after Copenhagen

By Tom B.K. Goldtooth
Indian Country Today

The Indigenous Environmental Network took a delegation of 12 Native people from the United States and Canada to the 15th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change held in Copenhagen, Denmark the first two weeks in December. One message our delegation took to the international climate meeting called for stringent and binding emission reduction targets.

In accordance with the prescriptions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it requires all developed countries to take on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 in the range of 25 to 40 percent based on 1990 levels. The U.S., one of the developed countries is by per capita a leading contributor to the greenhouse gases. Currently, U.S. climate legislation in both the House and Senate fail to meet these demands with reduction levels of only 3-4 percent by 2020 based on 1990 levels. At COP 15 another goal of IEN was to campaign for the world leaders to agree on a post-Kyoto Protocol binding emissions reduction target agreement.

There was no international legally binding agreement. There were no agreements by the U.S. or other developed countries on targets for reducing carbon emissions. Climate negotiations in Copenhagen resulted in a no agreement called the Copenhagen Accord. This accord has no real requirements for any countries to have reduction targets. The failure to achieve a real deal lies on the shoulders of rich countries whose pollution has caused the climate crisis – especially the U.S., European Union, Denmark and other industrialized countries. Rich countries refused to budge from the grossly inadequate emissions reduction proposals they brought to Copenhagen.

One message our delegation took to the international climate meeting called for stringent and binding emission reduction targets.

Let me put some things in focus with a brief background of why there is a need for stringent emission reduction targets and binding agreements of developed countries to make commitments to take action.

A growing body of western scientific evidence suggests what Indigenous Peoples have expressed for a long time: Life, as we know it, is in danger. Western scientists tell us that climate change is accelerating, that changes are happening faster than expected. Western science tells us that global emissions need to peak within the next 10 years.

Parts per million is a way of measuring the concentration of different gases, and means the ratio of the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million other molecules in the atmosphere. For all of human history until about 200 years ago, our atmosphere contained 275 ppm of carbon dioxide. The modern world is taking millions of year’s worth of carbon, stored beneath Mother Earth as fossil fuels, and releasing it into the atmosphere. This has been mainly through the mining and combustion of oil, coal, tar sands crude oil and natural gas. The planet now has 387 ppm CO2 – and this number is rising by about two ppm every year. Scientists are now saying that’s too much – that number is higher than any time seen in the recorded history of our planet – and we’re already beginning to see disastrous impacts on people and places all over the world. These impacts are combining to exacerbate conflicts and security issues in already resource-strapped regions.

The Arctic is sending us perhaps the clearest message that climate change is occurring much more rapidly than scientists previously thought. In the summer of 2007, sea ice was roughly 39 percent below the summer average for 1979-2000, a loss of area nearly equal to the size of five United Kingdoms. Scientists now believe the Arctic will be completely ice free in the summertime between 2011 and 2015, some 80 years ahead of what scientists had predicted just a few years ago. Propelled by the news of these accelerating impacts, including changes in ocean acidification, some of the world’s leading climate scientists have now revised the highest safe level of CO2 to 350 ppm. Objectives must be made to reach stabilization of GHG concentrations at well below 350 ppm and to limit temperature rise to below 1.5 degrees centigrade, based on pre-industrial levels, noting that emissions must peak in 2015.

A growing body of western scientific evidence suggests what Indigenous Peoples have expressed for a long time: Life, as we know it, is in danger.

The view from the ground in Copenhagen

Canada’s Long Road to Mining Reform

Written by Cyril Mychalejko
Toward Freedom

Rape. Murder. Corruption. Environmental contamination. Impunity. These are just some of the charges and incidents that have plagued Canadian mining operations abroad for years. Now one Canadian lawmaker has taken on the Herculean challenge of legislating mining reform in a country that has traditionally acted like a parent in denial.

"The mining industry in Canada is too powerful a lobby," said Liberal Member of Parliament (MP) John McKay.

Sixty percent of the world’s mining corporations come from Canada. According to a report by InfoMine, Canadian mining corporations listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange had 1,010 projects in South America, 578 in Mexico, 703 in Africa, 376 in Asia and 345 in Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in 2009. Canada also accounts for 19 percent of global mining exploration spending, which totaled at $13.2 billion. Gold, silver, copper and nickel are among the minerals the industry scours the globe for. In Canada the industry employs 193 registered lobbyists.

McKay’s bill, C-300, would empower the Canadian federal government to investigate complaints of human rights and environmental abuses leveled against mining companies. If the Ministers investigating a company find it guilty of violating social and environmental standards laid out in the bill, the company, if receiving support from the Canada Pension Plan or Export Development Canada could lose funding from the respective organizations.

"It’s limited, but a positive step forward overall," said Sakura Saunders, editor of www.ProtestBarrick.net, a website that provides research and organizing information around mining issues, with a focus on Canadian Mining giant Barrick Gold. "But this bill is simply putting ethical guidelines on the investment and promotion of mining, oil and gas projects in developing countries. It treats the Canadian government as an investor rather than a government."

Dirty Business

Greens would cut taxes and balance the budget

- Green Party of Canada

This week, in a cross-country launch, the Green Party of Canada unveiled a series of key policies that together would work to bring Canada out of the current structural deficit and into a new green economy. “I am here on Parliament Hill, where all MPs should be, to continue the important conversation started by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Our country suffers from a triple deficit –- fiscal, ecological and democratic. It’s no time to shut down discussion,” said Leader Elizabeth May.

A key piece of the Green Party economic recovery plan is a tax cut in the form of lowering EI and CPP contributions and deductions. “In our plan, EI and CPP contributions/deductions will be cut by one third and replaced with revenues from the carbon tax,” said Deputy Leader Jacques Rivard. “This will put taxes on polluters and not on small businesses who want to hire people.”

Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page has released analysis showing that the Harper government has created a structural deficit. The Conservatives have pledged not to raise taxes; however, they do plan to raise payroll taxes. “Increasing the amount of EI deductions and contributions for employers and workers hurts Canada’s economic recovery and depresses new job creation. We need to make it easier to hire people, not harder,” said May. “The Green Party plan would reduce the deficit by $36 billion -- $5.2 billion more by 2012-2013 than the Harper government, without a job-killing increase on EI payments as planned by the Harper government for 2011.”

Harper's plan will leave a huge and structural deficit. “We need new ideas that will benefit all Canadians,” said Deputy Green Leader Adriane Carr. “The Green Party wants to open a national conversation based on the latest Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report. The government needs to hear what direction Canadians want the country to go in—and the Green Party believes that direction should make job creation a top priority.”

Employment for youth is a key policy in the Green vision. Greens would fund local Community and Environment Service Corps Youth Programs that would provide employment nation-wide for 40,000 youth per year, with the additional benefit of a $4,000 tuition credit for those who complete the program. “Young people just starting their careers face special challenges during a recession,” said Carr. “They don’t yet have the work experience to compete strongly for scarce jobs and yet need a job to become experienced. They are in a Catch-22. That is why they deserve special federal programs to ensure a solid start to their working life. This investment will only serve to strengthen our economy in the long run.”

The Greens also propose to cancel planned corporate tax cuts scheduled to come on stream from 2010-2012, thereby reducing current deficit projections by $3.3 million, $2.8 billion and $5.2 billion in successive years. “We are sharing our plan with Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page and welcome his response. We may not yet have all the right answers but we want to advance the collective effort of all Canadians to address the deficits that threaten our children’s future – fiscal, ecological and democratic.”

“We need now to climb out of this recession, but we shouldn’t do it by repeating the mistakes of the past. It is time for new, fresh and green ideas,” concluded May.

Scientists predict climate change will cause earthquakes (2006)

Reposted from Fare-Free Canada

Climate change could cause earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, scientists say.

"What happens is the weight of this thick ice puts a lot of stress on the earth," says Wu. "The weight sort of suppresses the earthquakes but when you melt the ice the earthquakes get triggered."

When a quake happens under water it can cause a tsunami. Wu said melting of the Antarctic ice is already causing earthquakes and underground landslides although they get little attention. He predicted climate warming will bring "lots of earthquakes."  - U.S. Climate Emergency Council

Confronting the Climate Change Crisis

A Climate and Captitalism pamphlet.