Following up on a rapidly organized and successful town hall (literally) meeting last weekend in Kingston, Ontario, members of the Kingston and the Islands Liberal Party, New Democratic Party and Green Party met again tonight to discuss how to work together over the next seven weeks (and beyond) to promote the proposed coalition government.
What is most amazing is how well we get along and how smoothly we have worked together (I'll admit I was ready to throttle the NDP over a couple of issues during the recent federal election campaign). Hats off to Mr. Harper and the Conservatives.
Stay tuned for more developments...
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Green Party. Show all posts
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Progressive Coalition Event at City Hall, Kingston, Ontario
Progressive Coalition to Host Meet and Greet in Kingston
This Sunday, December 7 at 2:00PM, Kingston's Memorial Hall will play host to a 'Meet and Greet' in support of the proposed Progressive Coalition Government.
The event has been coordinated by representatives from Kingston's Liberals, Greens and New Democrats, and is supported by the Kingston District Labour Council. It is aimed at helping concerned Kingston and area residents to better understand what is behind the current political crisis and how we can best work together to resolve it. Speakers will include prominent local political figures and an expert on Canadian constitutional practice.
According to Kim McFarlane, President of the local federal Liberal Association, “Only a week ago, all parties signalled their willingness to work with the current Government by accepting its Speech from the Throne. Rather than building on that, Mr. Harper responded with destructive partisanship that irretrievably cost him the confidence of the House. Under our parliamentary system, that requires his resignation. The Coalition Accord represents a sincere effort on the part of the majority of the members of the House of Commons to make this Parliament work for Canadians to deal with the real problem, which is the state of the economy. We fail to understand how Mr. Harper’s move to shut down Parliament for almost two months will help those Canadians facing job losses.”
Eric Walton, the Green candidate in the last election added that “by proroguing Parliament primarily for reasons of self-preservation, Stephen Harper has deeply damaged Canada's democratic system and for that reason alone should be voted out at the first opportunity.”
The local gathering has been designed with a focus on socialization, education, and community spirit. The event is open to the public and refreshments will be provided.
“We all agreed that rather than holding another rally, the wide-range of political support in Kingston might be best-served by a more social event where we can get to know one another and commit to working together on a local level.“ said Daniel Beals, President of the local New Democrats.
It should be noted that Kingston has a history as a site of unification and cooperation, having hosted the first meeting of the Parliament of the united Upper and Lower Canadas on June 13, 1841.
"Now is not the time for political posturing. In the face of an economic crisis it is crucial that we work together for the good of all Canadians. Nobody can question the sincerity that underlines the Coalition Accord." said Debi Wells, President of the Kingston District Labour Council.
- 30 -
Inquiries: Ron Hartling
Policy Director - Kingston & the Islands Federal Liberal Association
613-384-5710
Daniel Beals
President - Kingston & the Islands New Democrats
613-549-8399 (h)
Eric Walton
International Affairs Critic - Green Party Shadow Cabinet
613-542-9365
Debi Wells
President - Kingston District Labour Council
613-548-4952
This Sunday, December 7 at 2:00PM, Kingston's Memorial Hall will play host to a 'Meet and Greet' in support of the proposed Progressive Coalition Government.
The event has been coordinated by representatives from Kingston's Liberals, Greens and New Democrats, and is supported by the Kingston District Labour Council. It is aimed at helping concerned Kingston and area residents to better understand what is behind the current political crisis and how we can best work together to resolve it. Speakers will include prominent local political figures and an expert on Canadian constitutional practice.
According to Kim McFarlane, President of the local federal Liberal Association, “Only a week ago, all parties signalled their willingness to work with the current Government by accepting its Speech from the Throne. Rather than building on that, Mr. Harper responded with destructive partisanship that irretrievably cost him the confidence of the House. Under our parliamentary system, that requires his resignation. The Coalition Accord represents a sincere effort on the part of the majority of the members of the House of Commons to make this Parliament work for Canadians to deal with the real problem, which is the state of the economy. We fail to understand how Mr. Harper’s move to shut down Parliament for almost two months will help those Canadians facing job losses.”
Eric Walton, the Green candidate in the last election added that “by proroguing Parliament primarily for reasons of self-preservation, Stephen Harper has deeply damaged Canada's democratic system and for that reason alone should be voted out at the first opportunity.”
The local gathering has been designed with a focus on socialization, education, and community spirit. The event is open to the public and refreshments will be provided.
“We all agreed that rather than holding another rally, the wide-range of political support in Kingston might be best-served by a more social event where we can get to know one another and commit to working together on a local level.“ said Daniel Beals, President of the local New Democrats.
It should be noted that Kingston has a history as a site of unification and cooperation, having hosted the first meeting of the Parliament of the united Upper and Lower Canadas on June 13, 1841.
"Now is not the time for political posturing. In the face of an economic crisis it is crucial that we work together for the good of all Canadians. Nobody can question the sincerity that underlines the Coalition Accord." said Debi Wells, President of the Kingston District Labour Council.
- 30 -
Inquiries: Ron Hartling
Policy Director - Kingston & the Islands Federal Liberal Association
613-384-5710
Daniel Beals
President - Kingston & the Islands New Democrats
613-549-8399 (h)
Eric Walton
International Affairs Critic - Green Party Shadow Cabinet
613-542-9365
Debi Wells
President - Kingston District Labour Council
613-548-4952
Saturday, September 13, 2008
MKJA report also shows GHG reductions
The MKJA report quoted in the Green Party press release yesterday also answers the question (in a political sort of way because the Conservative government was in possession of this 'secret' report) that many critics have posed about how much and when greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced under a Green Shift or Green Tax Shift.
Check out Table 3 of the report, entitled "Emissions Reductions Under GHG charges". The authors of a report have a model with which they can give a rough idea of when and how much emissions will be reduced under a certain level of carbon tax.
Of course all of this is less important than the fact that this report shows that the economic impact of the proposed carbon tax, either by the Liberals or the Greens, would be to reduce GDP by only about one-tenth of one percent in the first five years or so, but then actually increase the GDP 15 years down the road. The Conservatives knew that this information was in the report by MKJA that they did not make public, and yet they persisted in claiming in the first week of the election campaign that the Green Shift would "plunge Canada into a recession" and threaten national unity. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be trusted to run somebody else's (the country's) affairs?
Check out Table 3 of the report, entitled "Emissions Reductions Under GHG charges". The authors of a report have a model with which they can give a rough idea of when and how much emissions will be reduced under a certain level of carbon tax.
Of course all of this is less important than the fact that this report shows that the economic impact of the proposed carbon tax, either by the Liberals or the Greens, would be to reduce GDP by only about one-tenth of one percent in the first five years or so, but then actually increase the GDP 15 years down the road. The Conservatives knew that this information was in the report by MKJA that they did not make public, and yet they persisted in claiming in the first week of the election campaign that the Green Shift would "plunge Canada into a recession" and threaten national unity. If you can't be honest with yourself, how can you be trusted to run somebody else's (the country's) affairs?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Picking a fight between cap and trade and carbon taxes is not going to help Canada move forward
Here is my letter to the editor that was published in the Kingston Whig-Standard on June 12, 2008. It is in response to a letter that can be found here
Reponse to Letter to the Editor of the Whig-Standard, "NDP has best policy to cut greenhouse gases", June 7, 2008.
In criticizing the Liberal or Green Party's green/carbon tax shifts, Jamie Masse and the NDP are picking a fight that is not going to help move Canada and the Canadian economy forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A carbon tax shift (rebates and lower income taxes financed by increased taxes on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) can co-exist with a cap and trade system (which is used for managing greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters). For example, British Columbia has a carbon tax that starts on July 1, and has also joined the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a group that aims to establish an international carbon trading mechanism. Quebec, which just announced its intention to work with Ontario to set up a
cap-and-trade market, brought in a carbon tax on motor fuel.
Mr. Masse and the NDP seem to imply that businesses that pay a carbon tax could pass on the cost to the consumer, whereas that could not happen if they had pay for the credits that are auctioned off in a cap and trade scheme. That's clearly false. Either way a business will have a cost and some of that cost may be passed on to their customers. The "shift" part of
the green tax shift recognizes this and cuts or rebates income tax for both businesses and individuals, particularly low income individuals.
Vilifying "big, corporate polluters" and trying to put the cost of cutting greenhouse gases entirely on them, does not help to support a culture of energy conservation and efficiency. Any solution to the problem of our dependence on fossil fuels must involve efforts by every business and every individual to use energy in a sustainable manner. The participants in cap and trade schemes are so-called "Large Final Emitters" that account for only 50% of Canada's emissions. What about the other 50% of emissions that come from small emitters? As for making the 'big bad corporate polluters' pay, I would simply note that the biggest single greenhouse gas emitter in Canada
is the Nanticoke generating station, owned by us, the good people of Ontario.
Why should a carbon tax shift be considered in addition to a cap and trade scheme, or before a cap and trade scheme? One reason is that cap and trade schemes take time to set up. The 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act authorized emissions trading to control sulphur dioxide, but trading did not commence until five years later, in 1995. In 2002 the European parliament voted to endorse a cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gases but not until 2005 was the E.U. carbon market launched. A carbon tax shift, on the other hand, can be implemented much more quickly using the existing revenue infrastructure. The clock is ticking on climate change and that is why we should start moving now, beginning with a carbon tax shift. We can also start the preparatory work needed for a cap and trade scheme that would begin operating some time in the future.
Finally, the way Mr. Masse and the NDP look at things is that we need an environmental policy that respects "the needs of a fragile economy". The truth is probably closer to our needing to restructure our economy, with the environment foremost in mind, in preparation for the challenges of the 21st century. We must "energy-proof" our economy so that can withstand volatile fossil fuel prices. We must change how we live today, in order to preserve our natural environment and create a sustainable economy for future generations. A good step would be to remove the perverse incentives that we have now (pollution for free), to put a price on pollution, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, to rebate taxes to low income Canadians, and to reduce taxes on income, investment, and innovation. A cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions also has its place, and I'm sure the NDP would be very welcome to work together with the Liberal and Green parties in this endeavour.
Reponse to Letter to the Editor of the Whig-Standard, "NDP has best policy to cut greenhouse gases", June 7, 2008.
In criticizing the Liberal or Green Party's green/carbon tax shifts, Jamie Masse and the NDP are picking a fight that is not going to help move Canada and the Canadian economy forward to meet the challenges of the 21st century. A carbon tax shift (rebates and lower income taxes financed by increased taxes on pollution and greenhouse gas emissions) can co-exist with a cap and trade system (which is used for managing greenhouse gas emissions from large emitters). For example, British Columbia has a carbon tax that starts on July 1, and has also joined the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, a group that aims to establish an international carbon trading mechanism. Quebec, which just announced its intention to work with Ontario to set up a
cap-and-trade market, brought in a carbon tax on motor fuel.
Mr. Masse and the NDP seem to imply that businesses that pay a carbon tax could pass on the cost to the consumer, whereas that could not happen if they had pay for the credits that are auctioned off in a cap and trade scheme. That's clearly false. Either way a business will have a cost and some of that cost may be passed on to their customers. The "shift" part of
the green tax shift recognizes this and cuts or rebates income tax for both businesses and individuals, particularly low income individuals.
Vilifying "big, corporate polluters" and trying to put the cost of cutting greenhouse gases entirely on them, does not help to support a culture of energy conservation and efficiency. Any solution to the problem of our dependence on fossil fuels must involve efforts by every business and every individual to use energy in a sustainable manner. The participants in cap and trade schemes are so-called "Large Final Emitters" that account for only 50% of Canada's emissions. What about the other 50% of emissions that come from small emitters? As for making the 'big bad corporate polluters' pay, I would simply note that the biggest single greenhouse gas emitter in Canada
is the Nanticoke generating station, owned by us, the good people of Ontario.
Why should a carbon tax shift be considered in addition to a cap and trade scheme, or before a cap and trade scheme? One reason is that cap and trade schemes take time to set up. The 1990 U.S. Clean Air Act authorized emissions trading to control sulphur dioxide, but trading did not commence until five years later, in 1995. In 2002 the European parliament voted to endorse a cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gases but not until 2005 was the E.U. carbon market launched. A carbon tax shift, on the other hand, can be implemented much more quickly using the existing revenue infrastructure. The clock is ticking on climate change and that is why we should start moving now, beginning with a carbon tax shift. We can also start the preparatory work needed for a cap and trade scheme that would begin operating some time in the future.
Finally, the way Mr. Masse and the NDP look at things is that we need an environmental policy that respects "the needs of a fragile economy". The truth is probably closer to our needing to restructure our economy, with the environment foremost in mind, in preparation for the challenges of the 21st century. We must "energy-proof" our economy so that can withstand volatile fossil fuel prices. We must change how we live today, in order to preserve our natural environment and create a sustainable economy for future generations. A good step would be to remove the perverse incentives that we have now (pollution for free), to put a price on pollution, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions, to rebate taxes to low income Canadians, and to reduce taxes on income, investment, and innovation. A cap and trade scheme for greenhouse gas emissions also has its place, and I'm sure the NDP would be very welcome to work together with the Liberal and Green parties in this endeavour.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
How not to offset the Green House Gas emissions from your campaign travel
In mid-January of 2006, during the federal election campaign, Canadian Green party leader Jim Harris released the following:
The Green Party will completely offset the greenhouse gas pollution produced by the leader's tour by planting enough trees to absorb all of these emissions, said Green Party of Canada leader Jim Harris today.
Tree Canada Foundation certified the Green Party of Canada's leader's campaign carbon-neutral today in
The Tree Canada Foundation had the following news release:
The Tree Canada Foundation certified the Green Party of Canada's leader's campaign carbon-neutral today in
In addition, Tree
Oops, that 20 years got lost in the Green Party press release. The problem with the Green party's rather sloppy offset is that the offset will only have occured if, after 20 years, the trees survive insects, fire, cutting, and then mature into a permanent forest. Who is there to guarantee that? If the land had been left to itself, would it not have sprouted trees on its own? Does this forestry project satisfy additionality? Unfortunately the Tree Canada website does not answer these questions and does not record any details of the trees it 'planted'. I've sent an email to them (March 21, 2007) asking for information. One clue is that Tree Canada sells offsets through cleanairpass.com. That organization buys credits on the Chicago Climate Change (CCX) I believe and perhaps bought afforestation or reforestation credits on the CCX from some counterparty. I believe it is a fair statement that tree-planting is a controversial Green House Gas offset, and requires at minimum a careful accounting, best made public so that it can be verified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
