Canada is in bed with this guy, and the money hungry corporates behind him; need I say anything more?
Come to Summer of Change 2009, June 21-22 2009, and let's get some REAL people to lead our country, enough of the puppets!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
ENOUGH OF THE PUPPETS!
Canada is in bed with this guy, and the money hungry corporates behind him; need I say anything more?
Come to Summer of Change 2009, June 21-22 2009, and let's get some REAL people to lead our country, enough of the puppets!
BIG BROTHER HARPER ONCE AGAIN YIELDS HIS UGLY EYE!
OTTAWA – The Green Party has criticized the Harper government's reinstatement of two anti-terrorism provisions from the Anti-Terrorism Act and warned that these measures may threaten fundamental Canadian values.
The investigative hearing provision allows a police officer to arrest someone and bring him or her before a judge to answer questions if the officer suspects that the person has knowledge of someone who is suspected of being involved in a terrorist activity. In addition, the preventive arrest provision allows a police officer to arrest someone without warrant if the officer suspects that the person is about to commit a terrorist attack.
These two measures were subject to a sunset clause which ensured that they would cease to apply unless they were extended by a resolution passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate.
"The government's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of our communities," said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. "It is of great importance, however, that measures taken to protect the Canadian public from the threat of terrorism do not in turn threaten our fundamental rights as Canadians."
The Green Party is opposed to the investigative hearing and preventive arrest provisions for a number of reasons:
The provisions represent a substantial departure from Canadian legal traditions and their use may, over time, extend beyond terrorism offences to other offences within the Criminal Code;
No only does the obligation to give testimony seem to violate the right to remain silent, but the preventive arrest power is too broad because it can be based upon mere suspicion;
Because the provisions allow for arrests based upon suspected knowledge of others who are suspected of planning to commit offences, such provisions mean that those who volunteer information to the authorities could in turn find themselves subject to a preventive arrest or investigative hearing.
"We are wholly committed to ensuring the security of all Canadians and we will remain vigilant in our opposition to those who would threaten the safety of our communities," said Justice Critic Jared Giesbrecht. "However, we also believe what Canadians believe—true security will be gained from good governance and fair procedures that are administered according to the rule of law."
The safety of Canadians depends upon the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism and security laws. The Green Party views terrorism as an especially dangerous criminal offence. They are committed to ensuring our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have adequate resources and the political leadership to deal effectively with these criminals.
"A responsible government will not sacrifice civil rights in the name of security. Doing so will actually open the door for greater injustice and insecurity," said Mr. Giesbrecht. "If our security policies are not consistent with the values of our society, they will serve to undermine the foundations of our society."
thanks to greenparty.ca for the update!
The investigative hearing provision allows a police officer to arrest someone and bring him or her before a judge to answer questions if the officer suspects that the person has knowledge of someone who is suspected of being involved in a terrorist activity. In addition, the preventive arrest provision allows a police officer to arrest someone without warrant if the officer suspects that the person is about to commit a terrorist attack.
These two measures were subject to a sunset clause which ensured that they would cease to apply unless they were extended by a resolution passed by both the House of Commons and the Senate.
"The government's primary responsibility is to ensure the safety and security of our communities," said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. "It is of great importance, however, that measures taken to protect the Canadian public from the threat of terrorism do not in turn threaten our fundamental rights as Canadians."
The Green Party is opposed to the investigative hearing and preventive arrest provisions for a number of reasons:
The provisions represent a substantial departure from Canadian legal traditions and their use may, over time, extend beyond terrorism offences to other offences within the Criminal Code;
No only does the obligation to give testimony seem to violate the right to remain silent, but the preventive arrest power is too broad because it can be based upon mere suspicion;
Because the provisions allow for arrests based upon suspected knowledge of others who are suspected of planning to commit offences, such provisions mean that those who volunteer information to the authorities could in turn find themselves subject to a preventive arrest or investigative hearing.
"We are wholly committed to ensuring the security of all Canadians and we will remain vigilant in our opposition to those who would threaten the safety of our communities," said Justice Critic Jared Giesbrecht. "However, we also believe what Canadians believe—true security will be gained from good governance and fair procedures that are administered according to the rule of law."
The safety of Canadians depends upon the effectiveness of our counter-terrorism and security laws. The Green Party views terrorism as an especially dangerous criminal offence. They are committed to ensuring our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies have adequate resources and the political leadership to deal effectively with these criminals.
"A responsible government will not sacrifice civil rights in the name of security. Doing so will actually open the door for greater injustice and insecurity," said Mr. Giesbrecht. "If our security policies are not consistent with the values of our society, they will serve to undermine the foundations of our society."
thanks to greenparty.ca for the update!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Goal: Overload Stephane Dion's Email Inbox and Help End the War!
Easy, copy the letter below, paste it in your email, sign it with your name, and send it to Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
I am sick of the blind leading the blind, which seems to be our new foreign affairs mandate. The letter says it all...
Dear Stephane Dion,
I write at this time to encourage you to vote against the continuation of Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan past 2009. The near genocide that is taking place in Afghanistan is unconscionable. The war is being sold to Canadians as a humanitarian war. Our instincts are to help the Afghan people who have known little but war for 25 years. However, more war is not the answer. This war goes back to 2001 when the Bush Government decided to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/ll even though no Afghanis were among the perpetrators. The Americans already had plans for the war in order to have access to oil from the Caspian Sea and other South Asian areas. We have lost sight of the origin of this war and try to convince ourselves we are doing it for the sake of the Afghan people. I believe we do it mainly to placate the Bush administration.
The Manley panel is composed of people very committed to good relations with the US, mainly for economic and trade reasons. Mr. Harper was very clever in selecting a Liberal, but a known pro-US and pro-Afghanistan War Liberal, to head the panel.
We must find an alternative way to help Afghanistan, with an emphasis on diplomacy, financial aid, NGO involvement and the United Nations. NATO, a war fighting organization, is not well suited for the required negotiations.
Our very best chance of ending the war in the near future is for you and your Liberal caucus to resolutely vote against extension. The majority of Canadians are against continuation of this war despite the continued propaganda from the government. I believe a well-run campaign by your party based on liberal values will enable you to win the election you may be forced to enter.
Sincerely,
I am sick of the blind leading the blind, which seems to be our new foreign affairs mandate. The letter says it all...
Dear Stephane Dion,
I write at this time to encourage you to vote against the continuation of Canadian participation in the war in Afghanistan past 2009. The near genocide that is taking place in Afghanistan is unconscionable. The war is being sold to Canadians as a humanitarian war. Our instincts are to help the Afghan people who have known little but war for 25 years. However, more war is not the answer. This war goes back to 2001 when the Bush Government decided to bomb Afghanistan in retaliation for 9/ll even though no Afghanis were among the perpetrators. The Americans already had plans for the war in order to have access to oil from the Caspian Sea and other South Asian areas. We have lost sight of the origin of this war and try to convince ourselves we are doing it for the sake of the Afghan people. I believe we do it mainly to placate the Bush administration.
The Manley panel is composed of people very committed to good relations with the US, mainly for economic and trade reasons. Mr. Harper was very clever in selecting a Liberal, but a known pro-US and pro-Afghanistan War Liberal, to head the panel.
We must find an alternative way to help Afghanistan, with an emphasis on diplomacy, financial aid, NGO involvement and the United Nations. NATO, a war fighting organization, is not well suited for the required negotiations.
Our very best chance of ending the war in the near future is for you and your Liberal caucus to resolutely vote against extension. The majority of Canadians are against continuation of this war despite the continued propaganda from the government. I believe a well-run campaign by your party based on liberal values will enable you to win the election you may be forced to enter.
Sincerely,
Monday, February 11, 2008
YES, CANADA IS NOT JUST A TWO PARTY SYSTEM, SURPRISE!
Surprise! Canada has a potentially incredible Leader, we just need to put a scratchy checkmark by her name, and SPREAD THE NEWS (read biography below!)! Now let us start that Green Revolution we have all been waiting for! It has been TOO DAMN LONG! I need the future of our children to be a much more positive one, that does not include war, corporate ass-kissing, environmental warfare, and ego-driven photo-ops (Harper shaking the hands of the Dalai Lama, while holding a gun to the Afghans, and spreading cancerous waste through the tar sands, is too traumatic to go into right now).
Elizabeth May - Biography
Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She has been active in the environmental movement since 1970. She first became known in the Canadian media in the mid-1970s through her leadership as a volunteer in the grassroots movement against aerial insecticide spraying proposed for forests near her home on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. The effort prevented aerial insecticide spraying from ever occurring in Nova Scotia. Years later, she and a local group of residents went to court to prevent herbicide spraying. Winning a temporary injunction in 1982 held off the spray programme, but after two years, the case was eventually lost. In the course of the litigation, her family sacrificed their home and seventy acres of land in an adverse court ruling to Scott Paper. However, by the time the judge ruled the chemicals were safe, 2,4,5-T’s export from the U.S, had been banned. The forests of Nova Scotia were spared being the last areas in Canada to be sprayed with Agent Orange.
Her volunteer work also included successful campaigns to prevent approval of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, and extensive work on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy.
Elizabeth is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work.
In 1986, Elizabeth became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan. She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan as part of a political trade-off, with no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.
Elizabeth is the author of five books, Budworm Battles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998, as well as a major new edition in 2004), co-authored with Maude Barlow, Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000), and most recently, How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter Books, 2006). Frederick Street focused on the Sydney Tar Ponds, and the health threats to children in the community – the issue that led her to protest in front of Parliament Hill over a seventeen-day hunger strike in May 2001.
She has served on numerous boards of environmental groups and advisory bodies to universities and governments in Canada, including the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on Environment and Economy and is currently a member of the Earth Charter International Council, co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elizabeth is the recipient of many awards including the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Sierra Club in 1989, the International Conservation Award from the Friends of Nature, and the United Nations Global 500 Award in 1990. In 1996, she was presented with the award for Outstanding Leadership in Environmental Education by the Ontario Society for Environmental Education. In 1998, the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” was created in her honour at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University, the University of New Brunswick and Mount Allison University. She is also the recipient of the 2002 Harkin Award from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). In 2006, Elizabeth was presented with the prestigious Couchiching award for excellence in public policy. Most importantly, she is the mother of fifteen year-old Victoria Cate.
In March 2006, Elizabeth stepped down as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a post she had held since 1989, to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. She was successful in her bid, was elected the Green Party’s ninth leader at their national convention in August 2006 with a clear majority of the votes.
Elizabeth is an Officer of the Order of Canada since 2005, and is the mother of fifteen year-old Victoria Cate.
Elizabeth May - Biography
Elizabeth May is an environmentalist, writer, activist and lawyer. She has been active in the environmental movement since 1970. She first became known in the Canadian media in the mid-1970s through her leadership as a volunteer in the grassroots movement against aerial insecticide spraying proposed for forests near her home on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. The effort prevented aerial insecticide spraying from ever occurring in Nova Scotia. Years later, she and a local group of residents went to court to prevent herbicide spraying. Winning a temporary injunction in 1982 held off the spray programme, but after two years, the case was eventually lost. In the course of the litigation, her family sacrificed their home and seventy acres of land in an adverse court ruling to Scott Paper. However, by the time the judge ruled the chemicals were safe, 2,4,5-T’s export from the U.S, had been banned. The forests of Nova Scotia were spared being the last areas in Canada to be sprayed with Agent Orange.
Her volunteer work also included successful campaigns to prevent approval of uranium mining in Nova Scotia, and extensive work on energy policy issues, primarily opposing nuclear energy.
Elizabeth is a graduate of Dalhousie Law School and was admitted to the Bar in both Nova Scotia and Ontario. She has held the position of Associate General Counsel for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, representing consumer, poverty and environment groups in her work.
In 1986, Elizabeth became Senior Policy Advisor to then federal Environment Minister, Tom McMillan. She was instrumental in the creation of several national parks, including South Moresby. She was involved in negotiating the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer and new legislation and pollution control measures. In 1988, she resigned on principle when the Minister granted permits for the Rafferty-Alameda Dams in Saskatchewan as part of a political trade-off, with no environmental assessment. The permits were later quashed by a Federal Court decision that the permits were granted illegally.
Elizabeth is the author of five books, Budworm Battles (1982), Paradise Won: The Struggle to Save South Moresby (1990), At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada’s Forests (Key Porter Books, 1998, as well as a major new edition in 2004), co-authored with Maude Barlow, Frederick Street: Life and Death on Canada’s Love Canal (Harper Collins, 2000), and most recently, How to Save the World in Your Spare Time (Key Porter Books, 2006). Frederick Street focused on the Sydney Tar Ponds, and the health threats to children in the community – the issue that led her to protest in front of Parliament Hill over a seventeen-day hunger strike in May 2001.
She has served on numerous boards of environmental groups and advisory bodies to universities and governments in Canada, including the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the National Round Table on Environment and Economy and is currently a member of the Earth Charter International Council, co-chaired by Maurice Strong and Mikhail Gorbachev. Elizabeth is the recipient of many awards including the Outstanding Achievement Award from the Sierra Club in 1989, the International Conservation Award from the Friends of Nature, and the United Nations Global 500 Award in 1990. In 1996, she was presented with the award for Outstanding Leadership in Environmental Education by the Ontario Society for Environmental Education. In 1998, the “Elizabeth May Chair in Women’s Health and Environment” was created in her honour at Dalhousie University. She holds honourary doctorates from Mount Saint Vincent University, the University of New Brunswick and Mount Allison University. She is also the recipient of the 2002 Harkin Award from the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS). In 2006, Elizabeth was presented with the prestigious Couchiching award for excellence in public policy. Most importantly, she is the mother of fifteen year-old Victoria Cate.
In March 2006, Elizabeth stepped down as Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada, a post she had held since 1989, to run for the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. She was successful in her bid, was elected the Green Party’s ninth leader at their national convention in August 2006 with a clear majority of the votes.
Elizabeth is an Officer of the Order of Canada since 2005, and is the mother of fifteen year-old Victoria Cate.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A MUST READ FOR ALL CANADIANS, THIS IS SERIOUS!
I found this article on Aljazeera.net; basically, the International Community sees Canada as a PRO-WAR country because of what the decisions our government is making, WITHOUT OUR VOICE! Harper is putting us through a war, which Russian's President Putin, is calling America's Cold War if they continue; this is SERIOUS! We are in a war we do not want to be part of; neither does anyone else, except America and its puppets, this is Bush's greed and desire for revenge that we are serving, NOT Afghanistan. GET OUR TROOPS OUT NOW, before it gets worse, we must do everything possible to make this clear, in whatever way you can!
One ways is to send a simple email to our party leaders, to say BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, we have had enough; what we are doing there is NOT WORKING! There is a reason why other countries will not set foot in Afghanistan, because they believe in peaceful measures, not war measures (remember? war=more war), LET US LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES (Vietnam anyone?)...We must pull out now!
Here are the emails of our party leaders, please just send a quick anti-war message to all of them, trust me, WE NEED TO BE HEARD!
Mr. Harper: pm@pm.gc.ca
Mr. Dion: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Ms. May: leader@greenparty.ca
Mr. Duceppe: Duceppe.G@parl.gc.ca
Mr. Layton: Layton.J@parl.gc.ca
THANK YOU, now let's start spreading some PEACE!
Saturday, February 9, 2008
WE WANT SOMEONE TO LEAD NOT POSSESSED BY GREED!
Keep your eyes and ears open for perhaps an earlier federal election than we thought; April 7 and May 12 are possible federal election dates. However, whatever happens, SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009, is a go! Whoever is in power, needs to HEAR WHAT WE CANADIANS THINK AND VALUE; ENVIRONMENTAL AND POLITICAL PEACE RIGHT NOW! We are sick and tired of having our government do everything behind closed doors, these are our soldiers going to war; these are our tax dollars being spent on military engagements in the Middle East; these are our waters that are being exploited and poisoned; these are our landscapes being destroyed for oil going to the United States; these are our wild animals being suffocated into smaller and smaller habitats so corporates can suck our minerals and trees dry...THIS HAS GOT TO STOP! Summer of Change 2009; you can't afford to miss it!
Report from the Council of Canadians on the ELECTION:
There is increasing speculation about a spring federal election. While there are a variety of possible scenarios, the following report sets out two specific 'routes to an election'.
As reported in today's Globe and Mail, "The first vote on a February 26 budget would likely be February 28...If the government is defeated, there will be an election. The earliest it could be held would be April 7."
Or, "Since the Prime Minister's Office has said the vote on whether to extend Canada's mission would be held in 'late March', (it would be held in the House on March 31). If the government makes this a confidence motion and is defeated, the earliest an election could be held would be May 12."
Additionally, "The Tories also rattled the election sabre at a Senate committee. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he will ask the Prime Minister to 'go to the people' if the omnibus Bill C-2 on violent crime doesn't pass by the end of the month. Mr. Nicholson suggested the Governor-General could be asked to dissolve Parliament if the legislation doesn't move through quickly enough."
While it does appear that the Liberals are seeking a compromise with the Conservatives on Afghanistan (in other words waffling on the end to the combat mission there), all of this merits watching.
And while the security certificate legislation Bill C-3 passed in the House of Commons last night in a 191 to 76 vote, there is some speculation that it might still die in the Senate depending on the timing of the election.
We will keep watch on this and we'll be prepared for a Council of Canadians intervention in an election when the time comes.
-Thanks to Brent Patterson, The Council of Canadians
Report from the Council of Canadians on the ELECTION:
There is increasing speculation about a spring federal election. While there are a variety of possible scenarios, the following report sets out two specific 'routes to an election'.
As reported in today's Globe and Mail, "The first vote on a February 26 budget would likely be February 28...If the government is defeated, there will be an election. The earliest it could be held would be April 7."
Or, "Since the Prime Minister's Office has said the vote on whether to extend Canada's mission would be held in 'late March', (it would be held in the House on March 31). If the government makes this a confidence motion and is defeated, the earliest an election could be held would be May 12."
Additionally, "The Tories also rattled the election sabre at a Senate committee. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said he will ask the Prime Minister to 'go to the people' if the omnibus Bill C-2 on violent crime doesn't pass by the end of the month. Mr. Nicholson suggested the Governor-General could be asked to dissolve Parliament if the legislation doesn't move through quickly enough."
While it does appear that the Liberals are seeking a compromise with the Conservatives on Afghanistan (in other words waffling on the end to the combat mission there), all of this merits watching.
And while the security certificate legislation Bill C-3 passed in the House of Commons last night in a 191 to 76 vote, there is some speculation that it might still die in the Senate depending on the timing of the election.
We will keep watch on this and we'll be prepared for a Council of Canadians intervention in an election when the time comes.
-Thanks to Brent Patterson, The Council of Canadians
Friday, February 8, 2008
What is REALLY going on behind closed doors?
I wanted a concise, easy-to-understand explanation about Canada's role in Afghanistan; it is really hard to find, but I found this on the NDP website (i am not an NDP person, but, i do love good information) , and it really helped. Now when we chant for PEACE and BRING OUR TROOPS HOME, we can back up our statements with truth. It is time to spread the news to Canadians and our government officials that we want to be PEACEKEEPERS! Mr. Harper is not speaking for Canadians, he is speaking for his corporate and american cronies, THIS MUST STOP! We cannot let our government continue spending our tax dollars for war, he has already spent $7 BILLION on the WAR, yes, to kill people, it is time to RISE UP!
Settle down on your cushion, and read this...
Afghanistan is important to us as a people, because the manner in which we help the people of Afghanistan is integral to how we, as Canadians, define who we are and the role we aspire to for Canada to play on the world stage.
And in the coming weeks, Parliament will once again be called upon to make decisions that will draft the definition of who we are as a country for an entire generation.
I believe there are two very different visions emerging about what Canada’s role in Afghanistan should be and ultimately, how we wish to define ourselves as Canadians.
One vision suggests that Canada should continue to participate in a counter-insurgency war with increased soldiers, helicopters and unmanned drones until quote “the job is done.”
This vision has its roots planted in the Liberal government’s executive decision to send Canadian troops into Afghanistan six years ago without a deadline, an exit strategy or any definition or measurement for success.
This vision is premised on the notion that through a counter-insurgency combat mission, NATO forces will create the conditions that bring about security and stability and improve the lives of the Afghan people.
To date, not only has this approach failed to achieve these goals, it has had the opposite effect.
At the same time, there is a second vision for Canada’s role in Afghanistan – one that focuses on bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace.
This is the approach that I believe Canada must follow.
It’s also the approach that millions of average Canadians believe should be followed and I’m proud to lead the Party that gives voice to that shared vision.
It’s also an approach that we are encouraging other Parliamentarians to embrace.
I can share with you tonight that earlier today I spoke with Mr. Dion, leader of the Liberal Party and appealed to him not to follow Mr. Harper in extending the combat role for Canada in Afghanistan, but to join with us charting a new direction to truly help the people of Afghanistan.
Just as Mr. Harper has extended a hand to Mr. Dion for his approach, so too am I extending a hand to Mr. Dion to embrace our approach.
Mr. Dion has some decisions to make. And I look forward to a continued dialogue over the coming days and weeks.
And tonight, I want to talk about our approach. I want to lay out our vision for the role that Canada should play in Afghanistan.
But first, it is important to understand the current situation and why the approach being taken by NATO, the previous Liberal and the current Conservative government is not working.
Review of the Current Situation in Afghanistan
According to Canadian government officials, one of the main reasons for participation in the counter-insurgency combat mission is to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.
But the situation is not getting better - it’s getting worse.
In September 2006, Malalai Joya, the courageous Afghan MP who has dared to take on corrupt and violent officials in her own Parliament, told 2,000 people at the NDP’s convention that there has been “no fundamental change in the plight of the Afghan people” since this recent war began.
She told us that “then entire country is living under the shadow of guns and warlordism.”
In the year and a half since she stunned me and the 2,000 others in that room, the situation has not improved.
Over the last few months, food prices, particularly for wheat and wheat flour, have increased by 60 to 80 per cent.
Because of these price increases, 3 million Afghans cannot afford to eat.
In addition to rising food costs, the number of areas that are too dangerous for aid workers to access is growing – once concentrated in the south they have now spread to pockets all over the country.
Aid groups have long warned of the dangers of blurring the divide between military and humanitarian efforts.
According to Gerry Barr, who speaks on behalf of Canada’s development groups:
“There needs to be some space between them. They need to be independent. If not, we can end up with civilians being targeted.”
Yet the bulk of Canadian spending continues to be funnelled to the combat mission – at the expense of development.
In fact, this morning we learned that total spending on the military mission in Afghanistan has reached a total of $7 billion – more than half of that spent since Canadian troops joined the combat mission in Kandahar.
Over the same period, only $670 million was spent on development aid.
Sadly, we have seen the results of a blurring of the divide between military and humanitarian operations in the pattern of attacks on schools.
Oxfam has found that schools built by international military forces are twice as likely to be targeted by militants as those built by civilian agencies.
Nonetheless, more and more development dollars are going through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, so that, in fact, military interests are driving increasingly who gets aid, and what kind of aid they get.
The deteriorating humanitarian situation was also highlighted extensively in the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.
In addition to the deteriorating humanitarian aid situation:
Opium production, which finances the insurgency, is up;
Crime is up;
Corruption is up;
Rates of insurgent and terrorist violence are up; – 20 per cent since 2006.
The number of Afghan civilians killed is up; – doubling since 2005.
The counter-insurgency combat mission has failed to build;
security for the Afghan people;
a robust economy;
a vibrant democracy;
gender equality; or
a stable and lasting peace.
The evidence suggests that the current approach – after being given seven years to prove itself effective – is not working.
NATO’s Role: The Wrong Approach
And one reason that it’s not working is because NATO is the wrong organization to be in charge.
NATO is a regional defence organization that has been searching for a purpose since the end of the Cold War.
It is a military organization that does not possess the experience, expertise or inclination to deal with the diplomatic and humanitarian needs in Afghanistan.
In short, NATO’s military focus makes it a questionable fit for the task of nation-building.
And aside from it being a bad match in Afghanistan – it has executed its activities poorly.
Coordination efforts in Afghanistan have been hampered by internal divisions.
The US, Canada and Britain have taken on the bulk of the counter-insurgency, while the other European countries have placed considerable caveats on their involvement.
Those caveats are not the result of cowardice.
Rather, they indicate certain scepticism about the prospects for military victory.
Even the Manley Report noted the “harmful shortcomings” in NATO’s counterinsurgency campaign.
I’m quoting here:
“A top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul;
An absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in collaboration with the Afghan government;
Inadequate coordination between military and civilian programs for security, stabilization, reconstruction and development.”
The Wrong Mission for Canada
But the blame cannot be laid on NATO exclusively; the Canadian government must also take responsibility.
Just look at the detainee transfer issue that once again emerged as a top issue this week – and with good reason.
While other NATO members are forthcoming with information, Canada is keeping its citizens in the dark.
And the response of the Prime Minister reminds me of the guy who being in the driver’s seat, never admits to being lost and is too stubborn to ask for directions.
And sometimes, our prime minister doesn’t want to be in that driver’s seat, like yesterday when I asked him why the British, Dutch, and Americans release their detainee information to their publics without compromising their national security. He said if our military wanted to give out such information, it would be up them!
Many who have read the Manley report have observed that its recommendations do not logically flow from the body of the report.
The report devotes page after page to describing the short-comings of the NATO mission as well the worsening conditions for the Afghan people, yet its key recommendation calls for a continued combat role for Canada if increased soldiers and equipment can be secured.
Despite the fact that things are getting worse, the Manley report says that Canada should do more of the same.
I think that’s wrong.
When we know that a particular approach is failing, we have a choice.
We can pick another approach.
Today, there are two choices in front of us – the approach that successive Canadian governments have set or we can embark on a new approach.
The current approach intensifies the war.
It is an approach that many others have taken before in Afghanistan …
From Alexander the Great, to the British in 19th century, to the Russians in the last century.
The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years.
At one point they made decision to switch from a ground effort to using helicopters because they thought that it would mean fewer casualties for soldiers.
This is what Manley is proposing Canadian troops do.
But when the Russians made the switch, insurgents secured ground to air missiles and shot down helicopters.
Is that where we are headed?
Towards an increasingly intense and armed combat approach?
There is no evidence that that approach will work. In fact the evidence illustrates that it won’t.
It doesn’t make sense to think that adding 1,000 soldiers to 36,000 that are already there is somehow going to tip the balance.
It’s time for Canada to make a break with the past.
The Liberals and Conservatives have taken us down an all too familiar path.
But the signposts are clear: they say “Cul de Sac”.
Why do we have to go all the way to the end to see for ourselves?
Imagine ourselves 10 years from now.
We could be having a debate about whether to add yet more troops so as to finally secure victory in Afghanistan.
This is where I predict we will be if the government’s proposals are adopted.
A wearied Canadian public will be grappling with the same questions and many more families will be mourning the loss of their loved ones.
Now, imagine that we pick the other approach.
In ten years the history writers will be recording that there was a turning point in history when the clarion call of Canada was heard.
They will be teaching that Canada’s decision provoked a reconsideration of the impasse into which the Afghan conundrum was finding itself increasingly locked.
The first step along this path is the clear indication that we are withdrawing our troops now through an operational plan for a safe and secure withdrawal.
Some ask: Why start there?
Quite simply because, being combatants, chasers of insurgents, and escalators of war – will deny us any credibility to serve as leaders for peace.
Some say that by pulling out Canada would be harming NATO.
Yesterday, NATO spokesperson James Appathurai, flatly denied that speculation.
As reported in the Ottawa Citizen this morning he said and I’m quoting “I think that making links between this (Canada’s possible withdrawal) and NATO’s credibility are quite frankly unnecessary”
In the debate over the future of Afghanistan ours is not the only voice calling for a new approach. President Karzai, Afghan Parliamentarians and aid groups have all spoken of the need to kick-start the dialogue that will bring about a lasting peace.
Even former deputy minister of foreign affairs, Gordon Smith, has recently said that: “What is needed is a process of substantial conversation or reorientation of anti-state elements into an open and non-violent political dynamic”
I believe that Canada should be working to ensure that exactly this type of ‘conversation’ take place in Afghanistan.
We should be using the considerable skills and expertise of Canadians to bring the various actors in Afghanistan to the table.
We should be working to put in place an effective disarmament programme.
65% of Afghans say that disarmament is the most important step toward improving security in Afghanistan.
But the current effort has not gone far enough to make a significant impact.
Taking the path to peace through diplomacy also means involving regional actors in discussions. Pakistan in particular.
Regional cooperation is vital to any successful strategy for regional security and peace.
The path to peace requires a political, not a military, approach.
To carry out this vision, the key international body involved in Afghanistan must be the UN, not NATO.
Unlike NATO, the UN’s explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.
The UN agencies tasked with carrying out this mandate have a vital role to play in meeting the challenges of Afghanistan:
UNICEF
The United Nations Development fund for Women
The World Health Organization
The United Nations Development Programme
The United Nations Disarmament Commission
And of course, the United Nations Peacebuildng Commission headed up by Canadian Carolyn McAskie
All too often, we focus on the UN-led peace-keeping missions that did not succeed. Missions in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia.
But there are many other examples of successes – like East Timor, Cambodia or Mozambique.
Consider for a moment the enormous impact that the UN peacekeeping mission had in East Timor.
UN efforts there helped to protect a nascent and fragile independent state.
With the help of the UN, the Timorese were able to surmount incredible odds – years of violence and repression – and create a largely stable and successful state.
There are lessons to be learned from the UN’s failures – but also from its successes.
It’s time to apply these lessons to Afghanistan.
To do this, one of the UN’s member states must boldly suggest this approach.
I believe that Canada should be that state, and make this our calling in the months to come. This role resonates with our values and our hopes here in Canada.
Conclusion
I believe that Canada can and should be a voice of moderation, realism and peace on the world stage.
And to become that voice, we must embrace a new approach for Canada as well as for the international community.
One of the tenets of just-war theory is that a country must have a reasonable chance of success in order for that war to be legitimate. But under the NATO approach, there is no evidence of such a success in Afghanistan.
The experience of the last seven years of NATO engagement has shown that a military approach is not working.
It’s time for Canada to change its approach, withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for peace and stability.
Michael Byers, one of Canada’s leading experts in Global Politics and International Law, has warned that:
“Our involvement in the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, has challenged our commitment to international humanitarian law and precluded our involvement in important UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere.”
Canadians have prided themselves on their principled, strategic and compassionate stand on foreign affairs.
They are proud of the accomplishments of Canadians on the world stage:
Of John Humphrey who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Of Stephen Lewis who has tireless fought for AIDS sufferers in Africa;
And many more like them.
We could add that list; Afghanistan – but we must be willing to lead the way on the path to peace.
As Lester B. Pearson said: “Of all our dreams today there is none more important - or so hard to realise - than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.”
It will take courage and leadership, as it always has.
But in the end, I believe that is the approach Canadians will want to take because that is how Canadians wish to define themselves and the role they aspire Canada to play on the world stage.
Settle down on your cushion, and read this...
Afghanistan is important to us as a people, because the manner in which we help the people of Afghanistan is integral to how we, as Canadians, define who we are and the role we aspire to for Canada to play on the world stage.
And in the coming weeks, Parliament will once again be called upon to make decisions that will draft the definition of who we are as a country for an entire generation.
I believe there are two very different visions emerging about what Canada’s role in Afghanistan should be and ultimately, how we wish to define ourselves as Canadians.
One vision suggests that Canada should continue to participate in a counter-insurgency war with increased soldiers, helicopters and unmanned drones until quote “the job is done.”
This vision has its roots planted in the Liberal government’s executive decision to send Canadian troops into Afghanistan six years ago without a deadline, an exit strategy or any definition or measurement for success.
This vision is premised on the notion that through a counter-insurgency combat mission, NATO forces will create the conditions that bring about security and stability and improve the lives of the Afghan people.
To date, not only has this approach failed to achieve these goals, it has had the opposite effect.
At the same time, there is a second vision for Canada’s role in Afghanistan – one that focuses on bringing about security, stability and improving the lives of the Afghan people by building a path toward peace.
This is the approach that I believe Canada must follow.
It’s also the approach that millions of average Canadians believe should be followed and I’m proud to lead the Party that gives voice to that shared vision.
It’s also an approach that we are encouraging other Parliamentarians to embrace.
I can share with you tonight that earlier today I spoke with Mr. Dion, leader of the Liberal Party and appealed to him not to follow Mr. Harper in extending the combat role for Canada in Afghanistan, but to join with us charting a new direction to truly help the people of Afghanistan.
Just as Mr. Harper has extended a hand to Mr. Dion for his approach, so too am I extending a hand to Mr. Dion to embrace our approach.
Mr. Dion has some decisions to make. And I look forward to a continued dialogue over the coming days and weeks.
And tonight, I want to talk about our approach. I want to lay out our vision for the role that Canada should play in Afghanistan.
But first, it is important to understand the current situation and why the approach being taken by NATO, the previous Liberal and the current Conservative government is not working.
Review of the Current Situation in Afghanistan
According to Canadian government officials, one of the main reasons for participation in the counter-insurgency combat mission is to ensure the delivery of humanitarian aid.
But the situation is not getting better - it’s getting worse.
In September 2006, Malalai Joya, the courageous Afghan MP who has dared to take on corrupt and violent officials in her own Parliament, told 2,000 people at the NDP’s convention that there has been “no fundamental change in the plight of the Afghan people” since this recent war began.
She told us that “then entire country is living under the shadow of guns and warlordism.”
In the year and a half since she stunned me and the 2,000 others in that room, the situation has not improved.
Over the last few months, food prices, particularly for wheat and wheat flour, have increased by 60 to 80 per cent.
Because of these price increases, 3 million Afghans cannot afford to eat.
In addition to rising food costs, the number of areas that are too dangerous for aid workers to access is growing – once concentrated in the south they have now spread to pockets all over the country.
Aid groups have long warned of the dangers of blurring the divide between military and humanitarian efforts.
According to Gerry Barr, who speaks on behalf of Canada’s development groups:
“There needs to be some space between them. They need to be independent. If not, we can end up with civilians being targeted.”
Yet the bulk of Canadian spending continues to be funnelled to the combat mission – at the expense of development.
In fact, this morning we learned that total spending on the military mission in Afghanistan has reached a total of $7 billion – more than half of that spent since Canadian troops joined the combat mission in Kandahar.
Over the same period, only $670 million was spent on development aid.
Sadly, we have seen the results of a blurring of the divide between military and humanitarian operations in the pattern of attacks on schools.
Oxfam has found that schools built by international military forces are twice as likely to be targeted by militants as those built by civilian agencies.
Nonetheless, more and more development dollars are going through the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, so that, in fact, military interests are driving increasingly who gets aid, and what kind of aid they get.
The deteriorating humanitarian situation was also highlighted extensively in the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan.
In addition to the deteriorating humanitarian aid situation:
Opium production, which finances the insurgency, is up;
Crime is up;
Corruption is up;
Rates of insurgent and terrorist violence are up; – 20 per cent since 2006.
The number of Afghan civilians killed is up; – doubling since 2005.
The counter-insurgency combat mission has failed to build;
security for the Afghan people;
a robust economy;
a vibrant democracy;
gender equality; or
a stable and lasting peace.
The evidence suggests that the current approach – after being given seven years to prove itself effective – is not working.
NATO’s Role: The Wrong Approach
And one reason that it’s not working is because NATO is the wrong organization to be in charge.
NATO is a regional defence organization that has been searching for a purpose since the end of the Cold War.
It is a military organization that does not possess the experience, expertise or inclination to deal with the diplomatic and humanitarian needs in Afghanistan.
In short, NATO’s military focus makes it a questionable fit for the task of nation-building.
And aside from it being a bad match in Afghanistan – it has executed its activities poorly.
Coordination efforts in Afghanistan have been hampered by internal divisions.
The US, Canada and Britain have taken on the bulk of the counter-insurgency, while the other European countries have placed considerable caveats on their involvement.
Those caveats are not the result of cowardice.
Rather, they indicate certain scepticism about the prospects for military victory.
Even the Manley Report noted the “harmful shortcomings” in NATO’s counterinsurgency campaign.
I’m quoting here:
“A top-heavy command structure at ISAF headquarters in Kabul;
An absence of a comprehensive strategy directing all ISAF forces in collaboration with the Afghan government;
Inadequate coordination between military and civilian programs for security, stabilization, reconstruction and development.”
The Wrong Mission for Canada
But the blame cannot be laid on NATO exclusively; the Canadian government must also take responsibility.
Just look at the detainee transfer issue that once again emerged as a top issue this week – and with good reason.
While other NATO members are forthcoming with information, Canada is keeping its citizens in the dark.
And the response of the Prime Minister reminds me of the guy who being in the driver’s seat, never admits to being lost and is too stubborn to ask for directions.
And sometimes, our prime minister doesn’t want to be in that driver’s seat, like yesterday when I asked him why the British, Dutch, and Americans release their detainee information to their publics without compromising their national security. He said if our military wanted to give out such information, it would be up them!
Many who have read the Manley report have observed that its recommendations do not logically flow from the body of the report.
The report devotes page after page to describing the short-comings of the NATO mission as well the worsening conditions for the Afghan people, yet its key recommendation calls for a continued combat role for Canada if increased soldiers and equipment can be secured.
Despite the fact that things are getting worse, the Manley report says that Canada should do more of the same.
I think that’s wrong.
When we know that a particular approach is failing, we have a choice.
We can pick another approach.
Today, there are two choices in front of us – the approach that successive Canadian governments have set or we can embark on a new approach.
The current approach intensifies the war.
It is an approach that many others have taken before in Afghanistan …
From Alexander the Great, to the British in 19th century, to the Russians in the last century.
The Russians were in Afghanistan for 10 years.
At one point they made decision to switch from a ground effort to using helicopters because they thought that it would mean fewer casualties for soldiers.
This is what Manley is proposing Canadian troops do.
But when the Russians made the switch, insurgents secured ground to air missiles and shot down helicopters.
Is that where we are headed?
Towards an increasingly intense and armed combat approach?
There is no evidence that that approach will work. In fact the evidence illustrates that it won’t.
It doesn’t make sense to think that adding 1,000 soldiers to 36,000 that are already there is somehow going to tip the balance.
It’s time for Canada to make a break with the past.
The Liberals and Conservatives have taken us down an all too familiar path.
But the signposts are clear: they say “Cul de Sac”.
Why do we have to go all the way to the end to see for ourselves?
Imagine ourselves 10 years from now.
We could be having a debate about whether to add yet more troops so as to finally secure victory in Afghanistan.
This is where I predict we will be if the government’s proposals are adopted.
A wearied Canadian public will be grappling with the same questions and many more families will be mourning the loss of their loved ones.
Now, imagine that we pick the other approach.
In ten years the history writers will be recording that there was a turning point in history when the clarion call of Canada was heard.
They will be teaching that Canada’s decision provoked a reconsideration of the impasse into which the Afghan conundrum was finding itself increasingly locked.
The first step along this path is the clear indication that we are withdrawing our troops now through an operational plan for a safe and secure withdrawal.
Some ask: Why start there?
Quite simply because, being combatants, chasers of insurgents, and escalators of war – will deny us any credibility to serve as leaders for peace.
Some say that by pulling out Canada would be harming NATO.
Yesterday, NATO spokesperson James Appathurai, flatly denied that speculation.
As reported in the Ottawa Citizen this morning he said and I’m quoting “I think that making links between this (Canada’s possible withdrawal) and NATO’s credibility are quite frankly unnecessary”
In the debate over the future of Afghanistan ours is not the only voice calling for a new approach. President Karzai, Afghan Parliamentarians and aid groups have all spoken of the need to kick-start the dialogue that will bring about a lasting peace.
Even former deputy minister of foreign affairs, Gordon Smith, has recently said that: “What is needed is a process of substantial conversation or reorientation of anti-state elements into an open and non-violent political dynamic”
I believe that Canada should be working to ensure that exactly this type of ‘conversation’ take place in Afghanistan.
We should be using the considerable skills and expertise of Canadians to bring the various actors in Afghanistan to the table.
We should be working to put in place an effective disarmament programme.
65% of Afghans say that disarmament is the most important step toward improving security in Afghanistan.
But the current effort has not gone far enough to make a significant impact.
Taking the path to peace through diplomacy also means involving regional actors in discussions. Pakistan in particular.
Regional cooperation is vital to any successful strategy for regional security and peace.
The path to peace requires a political, not a military, approach.
To carry out this vision, the key international body involved in Afghanistan must be the UN, not NATO.
Unlike NATO, the UN’s explicit mandate is to preserve and promote international peace and security.
The UN agencies tasked with carrying out this mandate have a vital role to play in meeting the challenges of Afghanistan:
UNICEF
The United Nations Development fund for Women
The World Health Organization
The United Nations Development Programme
The United Nations Disarmament Commission
And of course, the United Nations Peacebuildng Commission headed up by Canadian Carolyn McAskie
All too often, we focus on the UN-led peace-keeping missions that did not succeed. Missions in Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia.
But there are many other examples of successes – like East Timor, Cambodia or Mozambique.
Consider for a moment the enormous impact that the UN peacekeeping mission had in East Timor.
UN efforts there helped to protect a nascent and fragile independent state.
With the help of the UN, the Timorese were able to surmount incredible odds – years of violence and repression – and create a largely stable and successful state.
There are lessons to be learned from the UN’s failures – but also from its successes.
It’s time to apply these lessons to Afghanistan.
To do this, one of the UN’s member states must boldly suggest this approach.
I believe that Canada should be that state, and make this our calling in the months to come. This role resonates with our values and our hopes here in Canada.
Conclusion
I believe that Canada can and should be a voice of moderation, realism and peace on the world stage.
And to become that voice, we must embrace a new approach for Canada as well as for the international community.
One of the tenets of just-war theory is that a country must have a reasonable chance of success in order for that war to be legitimate. But under the NATO approach, there is no evidence of such a success in Afghanistan.
The experience of the last seven years of NATO engagement has shown that a military approach is not working.
It’s time for Canada to change its approach, withdraw from the combat mission and lead a process for peace and stability.
Michael Byers, one of Canada’s leading experts in Global Politics and International Law, has warned that:
“Our involvement in the counter-insurgency mission in southern Afghanistan, has challenged our commitment to international humanitarian law and precluded our involvement in important UN peacekeeping missions elsewhere.”
Canadians have prided themselves on their principled, strategic and compassionate stand on foreign affairs.
They are proud of the accomplishments of Canadians on the world stage:
Of John Humphrey who drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
Of Stephen Lewis who has tireless fought for AIDS sufferers in Africa;
And many more like them.
We could add that list; Afghanistan – but we must be willing to lead the way on the path to peace.
As Lester B. Pearson said: “Of all our dreams today there is none more important - or so hard to realise - than that of peace in the world. May we never lose our faith in it or our resolve to do everything that can be done to convert it one day into reality.”
It will take courage and leadership, as it always has.
But in the end, I believe that is the approach Canadians will want to take because that is how Canadians wish to define themselves and the role they aspire Canada to play on the world stage.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Harper Choosing War Over Peace
Yes, it seems that our Prime Minister shares the same "I-Love-War complex" with George W. Bush, no wonder they get along so well; however, even if parliament is dissolved, and Dion perhaps takes the reigns, he needs to take more of an activist role. Of course, it is up to US canadians, to voice our choice of PEACE NOT WAR in order to get any of these "leaders" to take their damn blinders off, their corporate chains off, and their thirst for foreign blood and money! It has been a long winter, time to get marching and exercise all that extra winter weight off, even if it is just the weight of the world that is slowing you down.
Here are the "goods" so far:
CANADA'S CONSERVATIVES READY TO RISK ELECTION OVER AFGHANISTAN
by Michel Comte
Wed Feb 6, 2:17 PM ET
OTTAWA (AFP) - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to head to the polls if Canada's cleaved Parliament votes next month against prolonging its Afghanistan combat mission, officials said Wednesday.
"The government will introduce a motion in the House based on the Manley Report later this week," said Sandra Buckler, spokeswoman for the prime minister, citing a report on Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
"We expect debate to begin next week," she said.
Local media said the Conservative government is prepared to give notice Thursday of the motion to extend the troop deployment.
If the government were to lose, it would plunge the country into an election, Liberal leader Stephane Dion told reporters. Harper "made that very clear," he said.
The actual vote in Parliament would precede a ballot on the next federal budget, also expected in March, said Dion.
Tuesday evening, the prime minister met with Dion to try to hammer out a common front. Dion has said he would keep troops in Afghanistan, but not in a combat role.
"I suggested to him (Harper) if he was ready to contemplate a non-combat role for Canada, (I would support him). He was not ready for that. On that, we have a big difference," Dion said.
"So under the circumstances, I clearly explained to the prime minister that this mission would require Liberals to make a compromise with respect to our principles -- something that we cannot do."
The New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois have said they want Canada's soldiers returned home at the end of their current mandate in February 2009.
Last month, a report by a committee led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley urged Canada to keep its 2,500 troops in Afghanistan only if its NATO allies send at least 1,000 additional troops and equipment, including helicopters and drones, to bolster the Canadian force.
Heeding its findings, Harper has said he will bring Canada's troops home in February 2009 unless NATO allies step up their support for the mission.
He has informed US President George W. Bush, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO's secretary general of Canada's position.
Dion said he would like Canada to play a larger development role in Afghanistan, such as helping to rebuild the war-torn nation's infrastructure, training its military and police, and offering pointers on good government.
As well, he said Afghanistan still needs help to stem corruption, its illegal poppy trade and the alleged torture of detainees.
The Liberals will present amendments to the Conservatives' motion in these areas for the minority Parliament to consider, Dion said. "We'll do our best to convince other colleagues in the House to come to our position.
"You need to be prepared to fight, but a combat role is when you are proactively seeking engagement with the enemy," he commented.
According to the latest polls, the Conservatives and Liberals are tied in public opinion.
Canada has deployed 2,500 troops in Afghanistan's volatile southern Kandahar province as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) battling Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.
Since 2002, 78 Canadian soldiers and a senior diplomat have died in roadside bombings and in melees with the insurgents.
Here are the "goods" so far:
CANADA'S CONSERVATIVES READY TO RISK ELECTION OVER AFGHANISTAN
by Michel Comte
Wed Feb 6, 2:17 PM ET
OTTAWA (AFP) - Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to head to the polls if Canada's cleaved Parliament votes next month against prolonging its Afghanistan combat mission, officials said Wednesday.
"The government will introduce a motion in the House based on the Manley Report later this week," said Sandra Buckler, spokeswoman for the prime minister, citing a report on Canada's future role in Afghanistan.
"We expect debate to begin next week," she said.
Local media said the Conservative government is prepared to give notice Thursday of the motion to extend the troop deployment.
If the government were to lose, it would plunge the country into an election, Liberal leader Stephane Dion told reporters. Harper "made that very clear," he said.
The actual vote in Parliament would precede a ballot on the next federal budget, also expected in March, said Dion.
Tuesday evening, the prime minister met with Dion to try to hammer out a common front. Dion has said he would keep troops in Afghanistan, but not in a combat role.
"I suggested to him (Harper) if he was ready to contemplate a non-combat role for Canada, (I would support him). He was not ready for that. On that, we have a big difference," Dion said.
"So under the circumstances, I clearly explained to the prime minister that this mission would require Liberals to make a compromise with respect to our principles -- something that we cannot do."
The New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois have said they want Canada's soldiers returned home at the end of their current mandate in February 2009.
Last month, a report by a committee led by former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley urged Canada to keep its 2,500 troops in Afghanistan only if its NATO allies send at least 1,000 additional troops and equipment, including helicopters and drones, to bolster the Canadian force.
Heeding its findings, Harper has said he will bring Canada's troops home in February 2009 unless NATO allies step up their support for the mission.
He has informed US President George W. Bush, Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, France's President Nicolas Sarkozy and NATO's secretary general of Canada's position.
Dion said he would like Canada to play a larger development role in Afghanistan, such as helping to rebuild the war-torn nation's infrastructure, training its military and police, and offering pointers on good government.
As well, he said Afghanistan still needs help to stem corruption, its illegal poppy trade and the alleged torture of detainees.
The Liberals will present amendments to the Conservatives' motion in these areas for the minority Parliament to consider, Dion said. "We'll do our best to convince other colleagues in the House to come to our position.
"You need to be prepared to fight, but a combat role is when you are proactively seeking engagement with the enemy," he commented.
According to the latest polls, the Conservatives and Liberals are tied in public opinion.
Canada has deployed 2,500 troops in Afghanistan's volatile southern Kandahar province as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) battling Taliban and Al-Qaeda fighters.
Since 2002, 78 Canadian soldiers and a senior diplomat have died in roadside bombings and in melees with the insurgents.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
NAFTA + CORPORATES= CANADIAN DISASTER, AGAIN
Bilcon appealing quarry decision under NAFTA
The American company that was refused permission to develop a quarry near Digby is looking for $188 million in compensation.
Bilcon of Delaware, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based Clayton Concrete, Block and Sand, has filed a complaint under NAFTA rules that allow companies to go after foreign governments if they can prove they have been unfairly treated.
Bilcon claims a joint federal-provincial environmental review panel was both unfair and discriminatory when it rejected its plan to set up a quarry at Whites Point in Digby County.
"This is not about sour grapes. It's about having a fair process," said Barry Appleton, lawyer for Bilcon.
Appleton said "community values" were at the core of the review, which he said was a change from the original criteria on which the company based its environmental assessment.
"They had the Bilcon people filing all kinds of environmental reports. They filed the reports, then [the panel] changed the criteria. It's like changing the goal posts for the Super Bowl. You're not allowed to do that," he said.
Bilcon had proposed to develop a basalt rock quarry on approximately 120 hectares of a 150-hectare site. The company had planned to employ 34 people to help ship two million tonnes of rock a year for the next 50 years to the United States.
In October, the review panel rejected the proposal, stating the project would undermine and jeopardize the community's vision and expectations and lead to undesired changes in the quality of life.
Gil Winham, an international trade expert at Dalhousie Law School, said the terms of the environmental assessment included socio-economic impacts.
He said the company's strongest argument may be one of discrimination and why the quarry's review process took much longer than one to open a mine owned by an Australian company at Moose River.
"Mr. Appleton referred to a new gold mine that was assessed in 11 months, whereas the procedure for Whites Point quarry took five and a half years. I would say that is something you would look at," Winham said.
Winham said there have been 15 cases in which foreign companies have sued NAFTA countries for unfair treatment, 10 of which have been ruled in favour of government while five were in favour of the companies.
"And I must say, in five cases that were won by the companies, I thought they had reasons to win," Winham said.
Nova Scotia's minister of environment is declining to comment until the complaint has been heard, a process that could take up to two years.
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 5, 2008 | 5:14 PM AT CBC News
For more information on why the Digby Quarry is so important to the environment, visit the Save Digby Neck website
The American company that was refused permission to develop a quarry near Digby is looking for $188 million in compensation.
Bilcon of Delaware, a subsidiary of New Jersey-based Clayton Concrete, Block and Sand, has filed a complaint under NAFTA rules that allow companies to go after foreign governments if they can prove they have been unfairly treated.
Bilcon claims a joint federal-provincial environmental review panel was both unfair and discriminatory when it rejected its plan to set up a quarry at Whites Point in Digby County.
"This is not about sour grapes. It's about having a fair process," said Barry Appleton, lawyer for Bilcon.
Appleton said "community values" were at the core of the review, which he said was a change from the original criteria on which the company based its environmental assessment.
"They had the Bilcon people filing all kinds of environmental reports. They filed the reports, then [the panel] changed the criteria. It's like changing the goal posts for the Super Bowl. You're not allowed to do that," he said.
Bilcon had proposed to develop a basalt rock quarry on approximately 120 hectares of a 150-hectare site. The company had planned to employ 34 people to help ship two million tonnes of rock a year for the next 50 years to the United States.
In October, the review panel rejected the proposal, stating the project would undermine and jeopardize the community's vision and expectations and lead to undesired changes in the quality of life.
Gil Winham, an international trade expert at Dalhousie Law School, said the terms of the environmental assessment included socio-economic impacts.
He said the company's strongest argument may be one of discrimination and why the quarry's review process took much longer than one to open a mine owned by an Australian company at Moose River.
"Mr. Appleton referred to a new gold mine that was assessed in 11 months, whereas the procedure for Whites Point quarry took five and a half years. I would say that is something you would look at," Winham said.
Winham said there have been 15 cases in which foreign companies have sued NAFTA countries for unfair treatment, 10 of which have been ruled in favour of government while five were in favour of the companies.
"And I must say, in five cases that were won by the companies, I thought they had reasons to win," Winham said.
Nova Scotia's minister of environment is declining to comment until the complaint has been heard, a process that could take up to two years.
Last Updated: Tuesday, February 5, 2008 | 5:14 PM AT CBC News
For more information on why the Digby Quarry is so important to the environment, visit the Save Digby Neck website
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Poster Art Contest Entry
We are very excited to have our first poster art contest entry...If you would like to enter, rules and regulations are found in this blog under the January 14 blog entry...Summer of Change may seem far away, but we need to start advertising now so no one will miss out on the fun....
Saturday, February 2, 2008
LOOK OUT FOR FLYERS!
Yes, we at Vegan Mountain have begun to advertise for the event that is going to rock this nation, THE SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009, again, if you would like to help with flyers and stuff, we will send it out to you, or if you want to speak, or be a vendor, or just stand on a milk crate and talk about the goodness of buying local, just drop us an email at veganmountain@gmail.com....We are super excited to be doing this, and in the grassroots tradition, we want to get all like-minded individuals involved. We know that a lot of people in Canada are awakening to the fact that we are at a very sensitive moment in human history, and that we must now change the soul-sucking, material, capitalistic, money-mongering and corporate system, which has taken over Canada. We now are realizing that there is a better, more holistic way of living, for ourselves, for our children and for further generations. A future that lives on knowledge, such as, how to grow our own food; how to care for our health in natural ways; how to live in natural sustainable housing; how to use our natural environment without raping it for Big Business; how to identify a tree, a bird or a wild plant; how to live with less chemicals; how to support local and organic practices; how to live simply; that is, a future of leaving the lightest, yet happiest footprint on Mother Earth. It is a time to fight the corporates and the government that supports them, not with our fists, but with our knowledge of our landscape, our willingness to help local efforts, the power of spending that Canadian loonie on local, organic and sustainable practices. This is our soul we are talking about, and the little souls yet too be in this nation. Let's celebrate this happy, healthy, and sustainable future, let's talk about it, let's share ideas, let's sing and dance and stretch, let's start leaving lighter footprints in our paths. Summer of Change 2009, the West Kootenays is where it's at!
Sunday, January 27, 2008
PETITION TO STOP THE TAR SANDS!
YUP, the story continues, it isn't easy fighting the money hungry corporations, but it is up to us to do it, so let's unite our signatures in our continuing battle to save Mother Earth and STOP the Tar Sands development. Have you read the stuff on The Dominion yet? If you have, you are probably also having the desire to march up to Fort "McMoney" and strapping yourselves to the oil rigs, so that SOMEONE will listen to the cries of the people who are getting cancer from the oil development; the earth, which is being torn apart into irreparable damage; the animals, whose habitat is once again being suffocated, causing death and driving populations to extinction; the rivers, which have become cancer pools, and the trees, who once again, are facing clearcutting beyond repair....It is up to US, you and I, to change the system we are living in, we must GET OFF THE GRID, stop this cycle, which is caused by our dependence on oil, gas, and other carbon emitting processes, which only help to further the environmental catastrophe we are heading towards, and already are in. By being dependent on Corporate Industry, we are aiding the destruction of our earth, which, if we haven't forgotten, we can't live without. Do you want to continue living in a world where our lives are being led by Corporate endeavours? where we face a future of wearing oxygen masks? where we face a future of having a cancerous, garbage-filled ocean, with no clean water to drink? where we are stuck in a SYSTEM of working for the interests of money driven people, rather than LIVING for our own health and welfare? IT IS NOT TOO LATE, this is the tipping point, decisions have to be made by us CANADIANS....Let's start now, and let's UNITE for a natural, wholesome future....SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009....see you there (and in the meantime, let's clean up our act!)
TAR SANDS PETITION
TAR SANDS PETITION
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
More Smoke and Mirrors from our Prime Minister!
Where do I begin? Listening to the CBC this morning made me lose any appetite for the food that I was cooking, as once again our government gives us more and more misinformation. The funny thing is, is that everyone knows that our government is lying to us, and is keeping very important details from us, such as our role in Afghanistan, and what is truly behind the Manley report. There are too many lies to get into right now, but first, there is the fact that Stephen Harper gave the panel certain guidelines, which they were not allowed to break, therefore, narrowing their ideas on how our troops should operate in Afghanistan. The panel was also made up of mostly old-Mulroney cronies, which says a lot, especially since this a war issue! As well, Harper's "good intentions" on training Afghans to defend themselves, is also questionable, as the Canadian forces are not highly looked upon, and are distrusted by the Afghan military, making this happy picture not a reality at this moment.
So, I must say, that the only people making sense on this issue, is everyone BUT the Conservative party and Stephen Harper, which brings me to my lack of appetite, and my passion to get Canadians to RISE UP, and gain the knowledge we must in order to put Canada together again...without a Harper government...just look at their website, and you will get the idea!
Here is an excerpt from the CBC (today's date). I added the Green Party website, because they have very knowledgeable information.
The panel received more than 200 submissions from interested people and organizations, including from the Liberal party and the Green party, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, which have been critical of the panel, didn't submit suggestions, she said.
The Liberals have indicated they would like to see Canada's combat role in the south wind down by the 2009 deadline, with more emphasis placed on the development element of the mission.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said he had not yet read the report and declined to offer detailed comment.
However, he repeated the party's long-held position that Canada's combat mission must end as scheduled in February 2009, although Canada could continue to play a role in construction, training and humanitarian aid.
"Our current position, as you know, is that the combat mission end in February 2009," he said at a Liberal caucus meeting in Kitchener, Ont.
"We have strong reasons for that. We think it's by far the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan. We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan."
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a complete and immediate Canadian withdrawal, reacted negatively to the recommendations.
"This report is clearly out of touch with the feelings of a great many Canadians and a careful reading of the report shows that this mission is failing on many, many fronts," Layton told reporters following a meeting with caucus members in Montebello, Que.
"The NDP continues to believe that a complete change of direction is essential in Afghanistan."
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.
"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.
Seventy-seven Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the beginning of Canada's mission in Afghanistan in 2002.
GREEN PARTY WEBSITE
So, I must say, that the only people making sense on this issue, is everyone BUT the Conservative party and Stephen Harper, which brings me to my lack of appetite, and my passion to get Canadians to RISE UP, and gain the knowledge we must in order to put Canada together again...without a Harper government...just look at their website, and you will get the idea!
Here is an excerpt from the CBC (today's date). I added the Green Party website, because they have very knowledgeable information.
The panel received more than 200 submissions from interested people and organizations, including from the Liberal party and the Green party, the CBC's Rosemary Barton reported. The NDP and the Bloc Québécois, which have been critical of the panel, didn't submit suggestions, she said.
The Liberals have indicated they would like to see Canada's combat role in the south wind down by the 2009 deadline, with more emphasis placed on the development element of the mission.
Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said he had not yet read the report and declined to offer detailed comment.
However, he repeated the party's long-held position that Canada's combat mission must end as scheduled in February 2009, although Canada could continue to play a role in construction, training and humanitarian aid.
"Our current position, as you know, is that the combat mission end in February 2009," he said at a Liberal caucus meeting in Kitchener, Ont.
"We have strong reasons for that. We think it's by far the most dangerous mission in Afghanistan. We have carried this mission during three years and it's time for Canada to do something else in Afghanistan."
NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for a complete and immediate Canadian withdrawal, reacted negatively to the recommendations.
"This report is clearly out of touch with the feelings of a great many Canadians and a careful reading of the report shows that this mission is failing on many, many fronts," Layton told reporters following a meeting with caucus members in Montebello, Que.
"The NDP continues to believe that a complete change of direction is essential in Afghanistan."
Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe also disagreed with extending the mission.
"Canadian and Quebec military have done more than their share. Other countries now must step in and take up the challenge," Duceppe said.
Seventy-seven Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the beginning of Canada's mission in Afghanistan in 2002.
GREEN PARTY WEBSITE
Monday, January 21, 2008
RISE UP AND ACT!
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
-Martin Luther King Jr.
How you can help the Summer of Change Festival...
•Tell nature-loving people about it and come to the festival with environmental fervor
•Become a vendor if you are ecologically friendly
•Run an eco-friendly information booth to spread your knowledge to fellow Canadians
•Be a speaker
•Volunteer to advertise by putting up posters and handing out flyers
•Enter the Poster Art Contest
If you would like to help, please email us at veganmountain@gmail.com
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Keeping up with the Tar Sands
The ULTIMATE up to date source, check out Tar Sands Watch.
Let's show our support for our fellow Canadians who are suffering right now due to the environmental effects of the Alberta Tar Sands, and to the environment itself, which is under an incredible amount of distress. Canada is committing a huge crime right under our apathetic noses...
Check out Money Week, to answer the question, is it worth it?
Visit a Macleans magazine story on the Tar Sands, to get some more objective reporting, and see for yourself if Canada is heading towards its own Doomsday.
Let's show our support for our fellow Canadians who are suffering right now due to the environmental effects of the Alberta Tar Sands, and to the environment itself, which is under an incredible amount of distress. Canada is committing a huge crime right under our apathetic noses...
Check out Money Week, to answer the question, is it worth it?
Visit a Macleans magazine story on the Tar Sands, to get some more objective reporting, and see for yourself if Canada is heading towards its own Doomsday.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Stephen Harper Rapes Mother Earth!
We Canadians are letting this happen, we need to FIGHT this total devastation that is happening in Northern Alberta, called the TAR SANDS! I felt like strapping myself to the pipelines when i read about the atrocities happening in our own country...please read this carefully, you might need to take breaks, since it is pretty scary stuff. I will be starting a petition soon to demand that Canadians have a voice when it comes to such huge issues as this one. I think democracy is starting to really wane here in Canada, and I don't want just another Harper to come along every four years to make it even worse (think of the States!)...so please open this link and read The 48th issue of The Dominion, to get some knowledge on the what is happening in Fort McMurray, or as some are calling it, Fort McMoney...
Write a letter to the Federal Environment Minister John Baird right now, it is all set up for you HERE! Thank you!
Write a letter to the Federal Environment Minister John Baird right now, it is all set up for you HERE! Thank you!
Monday, January 14, 2008
POSTER CONTEST FOR SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009
The guidelines for the poster competition is as follows:
1. Read the ENTIRE blog to get an idea on what the Summer of Change Festival is all about.
2. Have the words: Summer of Change 2009 somewhere in the poster.
3. Take a look at the poster displayed on the right; drawn by vegan mountain to get an idea.
4. The poster must be in black and white.
5. Have the blog contact: www.summerofchange2009.blogspot.com somewhere visible in the poster, and the date of the festival June 21-22, 2009
6. Poster size: 8 1/2 x 11 (letter size paper)
7. Have your name on your poster for credit.
8. Get creative, get grassroots and have fun!
9. Send your entry to: veganmountain@gmail.com...i just scanned mine and sent it as a jpg file, which worked out fine, just make sure it is clear!
GRAND PRIZE WINNER GET $150.00, and the 4 runner up winners will also get his/her poster printed up and put up all over Canada with credit to his/her name!
Entries must be in by May 1st 2009.
GOOD LUCK!
Sunday, January 13, 2008
IT IS TIME TO ACT
article from O2q paper Nov 2007, with help from The Nation magazine...
CAN we buy our way out of our growing climate crisis? Sure we can. Just ask the corporations and the politicians they own. All we have to do is buy into, or buy up, all the wonderful technological quick fixes they promise to provide and all our climate crisis problems will be solved. Well, not quite.
Quick fixes such as "clean coal," and biofuels are not so quick and just as likely to land us in a whole new set of fixes.
"Clean coal" depends on technologies that optimists say are two decades away, if ever. In the meantime, coal mining ravages the earth. In Appalachia, more than 500 mountaintops have been blown off to uncover the coal inside, with the toxic waste dumped into local rivers.
Proposed government subsidies to support biofuel production in the USA are nearly equal to those funding the Iraq war. Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill and other mega agri-corporations are converting US farms to corn for ethanol, not food. Their new agrofuel plantations in poor and indigenous areas of South America, Asia and Africa are displacing thousands of farmers.
It takes 450 pounds of corn to make enough ethanol to fill one SUV tank with gas. To try to use corn ethanol to replace even 10 percent of the fossil fuels used globally would require finding new or converting agricultural lands equal to about half the area of the United States.
Feed cars, not people-is destined to be the first rallying cries of the corporate solution to our climate crisis.
Other corporations are getting on the consumerism bandwagon. The idea is, you buy jeans or dozens of other things, and some of your money goes to Environmental Defense and other do-gooders, who plant enough trees to offset the greenhouse gases created in making the products. It's carbon trading through shopping.
Eco-conscious families are turning up with two, three, many Priuses, so every member of the family can help save the planet.
Sorry, but shopping even "smart" shopping, is not our way out of the crisis. Al that stuff is made of something scarce that came from the Earth, and it took scarce energy to put it together.
Overconsumption, corporatism, advertising, the drive for growth and profit-those are the roots of this crisis. Real solutions begin with the recognition that the Earth has limits that are now in plain sight. Ultimately all solutions will involve "powering down," using less energy, fewer materials-less consumerism.
"Less and local" should be the standard, as well as deeply rethinking whether we can afford a system based on growth and wealth accumulation rather than sustainability, sufficiency and equity.
CAN we buy our way out of our growing climate crisis? Sure we can. Just ask the corporations and the politicians they own. All we have to do is buy into, or buy up, all the wonderful technological quick fixes they promise to provide and all our climate crisis problems will be solved. Well, not quite.
Quick fixes such as "clean coal," and biofuels are not so quick and just as likely to land us in a whole new set of fixes.
"Clean coal" depends on technologies that optimists say are two decades away, if ever. In the meantime, coal mining ravages the earth. In Appalachia, more than 500 mountaintops have been blown off to uncover the coal inside, with the toxic waste dumped into local rivers.
Proposed government subsidies to support biofuel production in the USA are nearly equal to those funding the Iraq war. Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, Cargill and other mega agri-corporations are converting US farms to corn for ethanol, not food. Their new agrofuel plantations in poor and indigenous areas of South America, Asia and Africa are displacing thousands of farmers.
It takes 450 pounds of corn to make enough ethanol to fill one SUV tank with gas. To try to use corn ethanol to replace even 10 percent of the fossil fuels used globally would require finding new or converting agricultural lands equal to about half the area of the United States.
Feed cars, not people-is destined to be the first rallying cries of the corporate solution to our climate crisis.
Other corporations are getting on the consumerism bandwagon. The idea is, you buy jeans or dozens of other things, and some of your money goes to Environmental Defense and other do-gooders, who plant enough trees to offset the greenhouse gases created in making the products. It's carbon trading through shopping.
Eco-conscious families are turning up with two, three, many Priuses, so every member of the family can help save the planet.
Sorry, but shopping even "smart" shopping, is not our way out of the crisis. Al that stuff is made of something scarce that came from the Earth, and it took scarce energy to put it together.
Overconsumption, corporatism, advertising, the drive for growth and profit-those are the roots of this crisis. Real solutions begin with the recognition that the Earth has limits that are now in plain sight. Ultimately all solutions will involve "powering down," using less energy, fewer materials-less consumerism.
"Less and local" should be the standard, as well as deeply rethinking whether we can afford a system based on growth and wealth accumulation rather than sustainability, sufficiency and equity.
Monday, January 7, 2008
STOP THE TAR SANDS!
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms Naomi Klein Canada (Update 06-11-07)
Lookout by Naomi Klein
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms
[from the June 18, 2007 issue]
The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.
This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law--that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta. For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.
Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen--black, tarlike goo that is mixed with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.
It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes. Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.
Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in. Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands"). That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta--previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil--was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.
All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary. The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs.
Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket." There is a certain irony there: The United States invaded Iraq at least in part to secure access to its oil. Now, thanks partly to economic blowback from that disastrous decision, it has found the "security" it was looking for right next door.
It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R&D extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta.
Developing the sands is devouring trees and wildlife--the Pembina Institute, the leading authority on the tar sands' environmental impact, warns that boreal forests covering "an area as large as the State of Florida" risk being leveled. Now it turns out that the main river feeding the industry the massive quantities of water it needs is in jeopardy. Climate scientists say that dropping water levels are the result--fittingly enough--of climate warming.
Contemplating the collective madness in Alberta--a scene even the Financial Times has labeled "some dystopian fantasy"--it strikes me that Canada has ended up with more than Iraq's displaced oil boom. We have its elusive weapons of mass destruction too. They are out near Fort McMurray, in the jet-black goo beneath the earth's crust. And with the help of trucks, pipes, steam and gas, these weapons are being detonated.
Lookout by Naomi Klein
Baghdad Burns, Calgary Booms
[from the June 18, 2007 issue]
The invasion of Iraq has set off what could be the largest oil boom in history. All the signs are there: multinationals free to gobble up national firms at will, ship unlimited profits home, enjoy leisurely "tax holidays" and pay a laughable 1 percent in royalties to the government.
This isn't the boom in Iraq sparked by the proposed new oil law--that will come later. This boom is already in full swing, and it is happening about as far away from the carnage in Baghdad as you can get, in the wilds of northern Alberta. For four years now, Alberta and Iraq have been connected to each other through a kind of invisible seesaw: As Baghdad burns, destabilizing the entire region and sending oil prices soaring, Calgary booms.
Here is how chaos in Iraq unleashed what the Financial Times recently called "north America's biggest resources boom since the Klondike gold rush." Albertans have always known that in the northern part of their province, there are vast deposits of bitumen--black, tarlike goo that is mixed with sand, clay, water and oil. There are approximately 2.5 trillion barrels of the stuff, the largest hydrocarbon deposits in the world.
It is possible to turn Alberta's crud into crude, but it's awfully hard. One method is to mine it in vast open pits: First forests are clear-cut, then topsoil scraped away. Next, huge machines dig out the black goop and load it into the largest dump trucks in the world (two stories high, a single wheel costs $100,000). The tar is diluted with water and solvents in giant vats, which spin it around until the oil rises to the top, while the massive tailings are dumped in ponds larger than the region's natural lakes. Another method is to separate the oil where it is: Large drill-pipes push steam deep underground, which melts the tar, while another pipe sucks it out and transports it through several more stages of refining, much of it powered by natural gas.
Both techniques are costly: between $18 and $23 per barrel, just in expenses. Until quite recently, that made no economic sense. In the mid-1980s, oil sold for $20 a barrel; in 1998-99, it was down to $12 a barrel. The major international players had no intention of paying more to get the oil than they could sell it for, which is why, when global oil reserves were calculated, the tar sands weren't even factored in. Everyone but a few heavily subsidized Canadian companies knew that the tar was staying put.
Then came the US invasion of Iraq. In March 2003, the price of oil reached $35 a barrel, raising the prospect of making a profit from the tar sands (the industry calls them "oil sands"). That year, the United States Energy Information Administration "discovered" oil in the tar sands. It announced that Alberta--previously thought to have only 5 billion barrels of oil--was actually sitting on at least 174 billion "economically recoverable" barrels. The next year, Canada overtook Saudi Arabia as the leading provider of foreign oil to the United States.
All this has meant that Iraq's oil boom has not been delayed; it has been relocated. All the majors, save BP, have rushed to northern Alberta: ExxonMobil, Chevron and Total, which alone plans to spend $9-$14 billion. In April, Shell paid $8 billion to take full control of its Canadian subsidiary. The town of Fort McMurray, ground zero of the boom, has nowhere to house the tens of thousands of new workers, and one company has built its own airstrip so it can fly in the people it needs.
Seventy-five percent of the oil from the tar sands flows directly to the United States, prompting Brian Hall, an energy consultant with Colorado-based IHS, to call the tar sands "America's energy security blanket." There is a certain irony there: The United States invaded Iraq at least in part to secure access to its oil. Now, thanks partly to economic blowback from that disastrous decision, it has found the "security" it was looking for right next door.
It has become fashionable to predict that high oil prices will spark a free-market response to climate change, setting off an "explosion of innovation in alternatives," as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote recently. Alberta puts the lie to that claim. High prices have indeed led to an R&D extravaganza, but it is squarely focused on figuring out how to get the dirtiest possible oil out of the hardest-to-reach places. Shell, for instance, is working on a "novel thermal recovery process"--embedding large electric heaters in the deposits and literally cooking the earth.
And that's the Alberta tar sands for you: The industry already contributing to climate change more than any other is frantically turning up the heat. The process of refining bitumen emits three to four times the greenhouse gases produced by extracting oil from traditional wells, making the tar sands the largest single contributor to Canada's growth in greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the industry plans to more than triple production by 2020, with no end in sight. If prices stay high, it will soon become profitable to extract an additional 141 billion barrels from the tar sand, which would place the largest oil reserves in the world in Alberta.
Developing the sands is devouring trees and wildlife--the Pembina Institute, the leading authority on the tar sands' environmental impact, warns that boreal forests covering "an area as large as the State of Florida" risk being leveled. Now it turns out that the main river feeding the industry the massive quantities of water it needs is in jeopardy. Climate scientists say that dropping water levels are the result--fittingly enough--of climate warming.
Contemplating the collective madness in Alberta--a scene even the Financial Times has labeled "some dystopian fantasy"--it strikes me that Canada has ended up with more than Iraq's displaced oil boom. We have its elusive weapons of mass destruction too. They are out near Fort McMurray, in the jet-black goo beneath the earth's crust. And with the help of trucks, pipes, steam and gas, these weapons are being detonated.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
HOLLER! with northern sun...
"I wept, not for the loneliness which would now be my lot amongst a people I had grown to love, but for the inexpressibly greater loneliness which modern man, having committed himself to becoming the ultimate stranger to his own planet, shall be doomed to carry into the silence of his final hour." -Farley Mowat
"We who are alive today can claim no such exculpation for our biocidal actions and their dire consequences. Modern man now has every opportunity to be aware of the complexity and inter-relationships of the living world. If ignorance is to serve as an excuse, then it can only be wilful, murderous ignorance." -Farley Mowat
"For the issue is greater than our freedom. The issue is our survival. We will, literally, not survive as a species is we do not take control of the reins of power and direct our government to a new path - a path which leads to sane appropriate technologies, to more creative and rewarding forms of employment, to non-polluting systems, to international nuclear disarmament, to the feeding of the world's hungry through the equitable sharing of resources - a path which leads us home." -Elizabeth May, 1982
"We are imprisoned by rational arguments. This is the part that hurts. You hear the most impassioned, eloquent arguments of all reduced down to nature's utility to man. Even the esthetic is a utility, Even the appeal to preserve nature for future generations is a utility. Leave it for future generations to utilize - that's what it boils down to. Somebody has to have the guts to fight for nature simply because we love it and can't live without it!" -John Livingston
The Conservatives Write Back
On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to
acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding Canada's commitment to
Afghanistan. Please be assured that your comments have been carefully
reviewed.
Canada's Government strongly supports the United Nations-sanctioned mission
in Afghanistan. We are committed to this multilateral effort to root out the
Taliban, stabilize the country and prevent the spread of terrorism. This is
a mission that the international community must not allow to fail or
Afghanistan may relapse into anarchy and again become a haven for extremists
and terrorists. Canada's efforts in Afghanistan can make our world safer and
uplift the Afghan people as they rebuild their shattered country.
The brave men and women of the Canadian Forces have risen to the many
challenges presented by this dangerous assignment. They have made tremendous
sacrifices in the service of securing a more peaceful world. Our government
believes that we must provide them with the resources necessary to fulfil
their mission. Anything less would dishonour the bravery and determination
that they display on the ground every day in Afghanistan.
Fulfilling our military objectives in Afghanistan is an essential
precondition for reconstruction and development. The tremendous work done by
the Canadian Forces allows us to proceed with this critical humanitarian
work, which is our number one priority. By improving security and providing
military and police training, our soldiers are making a real difference.
As the Taliban are driven out, we are able to make much needed investments
in Afghanistan's future that improve the daily lives of the Afghan people.
Afghanistan receives more Canadian foreign aid than any other country. In
fact, recently we announced a new investment of up to $200 million in
reconstruction, development, good governance and law and order funding. The
continued success of NATO forces and Afghan troops is essential to
successfully implementing these reconstruction and development initiatives.
These efforts have improved the lives of the Afghan people and earned Canada
considerable praise from the government of Afghanistan and our international
partners. As you may know, last fall the President of Afghanistan Hamid
Karzai visited Canada to express his appreciation personally. The vital work
being performed by the Canadian Forces is in the best tradition of Canadian
international leadership. We are restoring our country's reputation as a
responsible leader on the international stage.
Canada does not stand alone in Afghanistan. Throughout this multilateral
mission we have fought side by side with our NATO allies. Unfortunately,
some NATO partners have been reluctant to assume a combat role. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Bernier, and the Minister of National Defence,
Peter MacKay, continue to press for enhanced NATO support for the
Afghanistan mission. We have been very encouraged by new troop deployments
on the part of the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Romania. Our government will continue to work with our
international partners to enhance support for this critical mission.
There are significant challenges in Afghanistan, but the skill and
determination of Canada's diplomats, development experts, and military
personnel is resulting in hard-earned meaningful progress. Global security
and the future of the Afghan people hinge on our success. Canada's
Government will continue to support the reconstruction mission in
Afghanistan - a mission that serves Canada's national interests and fulfils
our international obligations.
You can learn more about Canada's important diplomatic, defence and
development contributions to the stabilization and reconstruction of
Afghanistan by visiting http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca.
Thank you for your writing to the Prime Minister.
M. Bredeson
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre
UMMM......CAN WE SAY LIES?!....THE WAR TO BE FIGHTING IS RIGHT HERE IN CANADA, NOT IN AFGHANISTAN, WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS AT ALL IN PEACEKEEPING, WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DOING GENERAL FLY BY BOMBINGS IN CIVILIAN AREAS OF UNREST, IF THAT IS CALLED PROGRESS, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO DOWN TO EAST HASTINGS IN VANCOUVER AND BLOW THE PLACE UP MAYBE THAT WILL STOP POVERTY, DRUGS, AND BOOST UP TOURISM....IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE THE SAME CORRESPONDENT AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHERE THEY HAVE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ NUMEROUS TIMES, AND YET ARE STILL THERE KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE, WHEREAS TERRORISM IS ON THE RISE, AND ACTUALLY MORE ORGANIZED THAN BEFORE THE WAR...SO LETS START LOOKING WITHIN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY WHERE MOTHER NATURE IS FIGHTING HER OWN WAR, AND LETS FIGHT FOR HER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...PUTTING OUR TAX MONEY INTO MILITARY OPERATIONS FOR OTHER COUNTRIES IS BECOMING REALLY OLD, AND CLEARLY WE HAVE NOT LEARNT FROM ITS DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES...NOW WE NEED TO FOCUS ON PUTTING MONEY WHERE IT CAN ACTUALLY HELP US CANADIANS, AND THE WORLD IN A MORE REAL WAY; TOWARDS HELPING MOTHER EARTH RECOVER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE WHICH IS PROJECTED TO BE IN 34 YEARS IF WE KEEP IGNORING HER....VOTE WITH YOUR WORDS AND ACTIONS, IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP, AND SEE THAT CANADIAN POLITICS IS DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO AMERICAN TOTALITARIANISM, THE GREEN PARTY IS NO LONGER A JOKE, IT IS OUR WAY OF SAYING NO TO WAR AND YES TO LIFE...AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, LOOK FOR ME IN RUNNING FOR PRIME MINISTER....WELL, I WOULD STILL PREFER ELIZABETH MAY, OR MAYBE A YOUNGER DAVID SUZUKI....
PEACE, SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009
acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding Canada's commitment to
Afghanistan. Please be assured that your comments have been carefully
reviewed.
Canada's Government strongly supports the United Nations-sanctioned mission
in Afghanistan. We are committed to this multilateral effort to root out the
Taliban, stabilize the country and prevent the spread of terrorism. This is
a mission that the international community must not allow to fail or
Afghanistan may relapse into anarchy and again become a haven for extremists
and terrorists. Canada's efforts in Afghanistan can make our world safer and
uplift the Afghan people as they rebuild their shattered country.
The brave men and women of the Canadian Forces have risen to the many
challenges presented by this dangerous assignment. They have made tremendous
sacrifices in the service of securing a more peaceful world. Our government
believes that we must provide them with the resources necessary to fulfil
their mission. Anything less would dishonour the bravery and determination
that they display on the ground every day in Afghanistan.
Fulfilling our military objectives in Afghanistan is an essential
precondition for reconstruction and development. The tremendous work done by
the Canadian Forces allows us to proceed with this critical humanitarian
work, which is our number one priority. By improving security and providing
military and police training, our soldiers are making a real difference.
As the Taliban are driven out, we are able to make much needed investments
in Afghanistan's future that improve the daily lives of the Afghan people.
Afghanistan receives more Canadian foreign aid than any other country. In
fact, recently we announced a new investment of up to $200 million in
reconstruction, development, good governance and law and order funding. The
continued success of NATO forces and Afghan troops is essential to
successfully implementing these reconstruction and development initiatives.
These efforts have improved the lives of the Afghan people and earned Canada
considerable praise from the government of Afghanistan and our international
partners. As you may know, last fall the President of Afghanistan Hamid
Karzai visited Canada to express his appreciation personally. The vital work
being performed by the Canadian Forces is in the best tradition of Canadian
international leadership. We are restoring our country's reputation as a
responsible leader on the international stage.
Canada does not stand alone in Afghanistan. Throughout this multilateral
mission we have fought side by side with our NATO allies. Unfortunately,
some NATO partners have been reluctant to assume a combat role. The Minister
of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Bernier, and the Minister of National Defence,
Peter MacKay, continue to press for enhanced NATO support for the
Afghanistan mission. We have been very encouraged by new troop deployments
on the part of the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Denmark, the
Netherlands, and Romania. Our government will continue to work with our
international partners to enhance support for this critical mission.
There are significant challenges in Afghanistan, but the skill and
determination of Canada's diplomats, development experts, and military
personnel is resulting in hard-earned meaningful progress. Global security
and the future of the Afghan people hinge on our success. Canada's
Government will continue to support the reconstruction mission in
Afghanistan - a mission that serves Canada's national interests and fulfils
our international obligations.
You can learn more about Canada's important diplomatic, defence and
development contributions to the stabilization and reconstruction of
Afghanistan by visiting http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca.
Thank you for your writing to the Prime Minister.
M. Bredeson
Executive Correspondence Officer
for the Prime Minister's Office
Agent de correspondance
de la haute direction pour le Cabinet du Premier ministre
UMMM......CAN WE SAY LIES?!....THE WAR TO BE FIGHTING IS RIGHT HERE IN CANADA, NOT IN AFGHANISTAN, WHERE WE ACTUALLY HAVE MADE NO PROGRESS AT ALL IN PEACEKEEPING, WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN DOING GENERAL FLY BY BOMBINGS IN CIVILIAN AREAS OF UNREST, IF THAT IS CALLED PROGRESS, THEN YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO DOWN TO EAST HASTINGS IN VANCOUVER AND BLOW THE PLACE UP MAYBE THAT WILL STOP POVERTY, DRUGS, AND BOOST UP TOURISM....IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONSERVATIVES HAVE THE SAME CORRESPONDENT AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, WHERE THEY HAVE WON THE WAR IN IRAQ NUMEROUS TIMES, AND YET ARE STILL THERE KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE, WHEREAS TERRORISM IS ON THE RISE, AND ACTUALLY MORE ORGANIZED THAN BEFORE THE WAR...SO LETS START LOOKING WITHIN IN OUR OWN COUNTRY WHERE MOTHER NATURE IS FIGHTING HER OWN WAR, AND LETS FIGHT FOR HER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE...PUTTING OUR TAX MONEY INTO MILITARY OPERATIONS FOR OTHER COUNTRIES IS BECOMING REALLY OLD, AND CLEARLY WE HAVE NOT LEARNT FROM ITS DISASTEROUS CONSEQUENCES...NOW WE NEED TO FOCUS ON PUTTING MONEY WHERE IT CAN ACTUALLY HELP US CANADIANS, AND THE WORLD IN A MORE REAL WAY; TOWARDS HELPING MOTHER EARTH RECOVER BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE WHICH IS PROJECTED TO BE IN 34 YEARS IF WE KEEP IGNORING HER....VOTE WITH YOUR WORDS AND ACTIONS, IT IS TIME TO WAKE UP, AND SEE THAT CANADIAN POLITICS IS DANGEROUSLY CLOSE TO AMERICAN TOTALITARIANISM, THE GREEN PARTY IS NO LONGER A JOKE, IT IS OUR WAY OF SAYING NO TO WAR AND YES TO LIFE...AND IF THEY DON'T DO IT, LOOK FOR ME IN RUNNING FOR PRIME MINISTER....WELL, I WOULD STILL PREFER ELIZABETH MAY, OR MAYBE A YOUNGER DAVID SUZUKI....
PEACE, SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
HOW TO BE AN ACTIVIST by Elizabeth May
This pamphlet was written by Canadian Green Party's leader, Elizabeth May...She also has recently written How to Save the World in Your Spare Time...I think it is time that we have an activist as our new Canadian Leader, let us hug some trees instead of killing innocent people for once!
Check out the pamphlet and let's start hearing some Canadian voices. Don't forget, summer of change 2009, now let's get active...
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/activist-how-to/index.html
Check out the pamphlet and let's start hearing some Canadian voices. Don't forget, summer of change 2009, now let's get active...
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/activist-how-to/index.html
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Liberal Party emails me back...
I emailed the Liberal party with my concerns over Canada's frightful leadership, and its disgusting stand with America to cause an environmental disaster, this is what they replied back with:
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Liberal Party of Canada.
As you know, we face an historic moment in the life of our planet.
Climate change - the biggest ecological threat facing humanity - has
become an issue of health, security, prosperity and survival for our
world.
At this crucial moment in time, Canada can not afford to be a laggard.
The sense of urgency in trying to undo this damage, and the leadership
void created by the Conservative government, is what prompted Mr. Dion
to attend the conference in Bali - despite the Conservative government's
unprecedented decision to exclude representatives from the three
opposition parties from Canada's official delegation.
The Liberal Party of Canada wants to see Canada lead the world toward a
sustainable, low-carbon economy by reaching for the top - not racing to
the bottom.
Come the next election, Canadians will have a clear choice between a
Liberal plan for Canada and a Conservative plan for Canada. We are
confident that our plan for a richer, greener, fairer Canada will be
well received by Canadians.
Thank you for taking the time to write to the Liberal Party of Canada.
As you know, we face an historic moment in the life of our planet.
Climate change - the biggest ecological threat facing humanity - has
become an issue of health, security, prosperity and survival for our
world.
At this crucial moment in time, Canada can not afford to be a laggard.
The sense of urgency in trying to undo this damage, and the leadership
void created by the Conservative government, is what prompted Mr. Dion
to attend the conference in Bali - despite the Conservative government's
unprecedented decision to exclude representatives from the three
opposition parties from Canada's official delegation.
The Liberal Party of Canada wants to see Canada lead the world toward a
sustainable, low-carbon economy by reaching for the top - not racing to
the bottom.
Come the next election, Canadians will have a clear choice between a
Liberal plan for Canada and a Conservative plan for Canada. We are
confident that our plan for a richer, greener, fairer Canada will be
well received by Canadians.
Greenpeace cries out to Canadians to Wake up!
Under the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. However, emissions actually increased 25 per cent by the end of 2005. Canada currently ranks seventh from the bottom amongst 41 industrialized nations in terms of emission changes since 1990.
Rather than take immediate, decisive action to combat global warming, Prime Minister Harper has discouraged support for Kyoto and opposed the extension of binding greenhouse gas emission targets for industrialized nations after the end of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2012.
Harper and Canadian environment minister John Baird have also undermined Kyoto at the G8, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and most recently at the Commonwealth meeting. Harper has tried to supplant Kyoto by joining the United States’ Asia-Pacific Partnership, which promotes the use of coal, and relies only on voluntary measures for control of greenhouse gas emissions.
"Canada is the only Kyoto signatory to openly abandon its commitment to reduce emissions. Contrary to his claim, Stephen Harper is not a leader on global warming. He is a laggard and the last unabashed climate apologist for George Bush among western industrialized nations," said Martin.
Greenpeace is also calling on the Canadian government to take action on the Alberta tar sands, which contain oil reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Because of their dramatic growth, the tar sands are the most serious threat to progress in Canada’s fight against global warming.
Action is also needed to protect the world’s boreal forests, which stores more carbon dioxide than any other land-based ecosystem on Earth. Logging releases greenhouse gases and increases the forest’s vulnerability to fires. If current trends continue, degradation of Canada’s Boreal Forest and rising global temperatures could lead to massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere. Less than 10 per cent of Canada’s Boreal Forest is protected from industrial development.
The United Nations climate conference in Bali is the 13th conference of the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 13), and the third meeting of the 176 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 3), which entered into force in February 2005.
Greenpeace is calling for completion in 2009 of formal negotiations on binding emission reduction targets for a second five-year phase of the Kyoto Protocol 2013-2017. Countries such as the United States, Australia and Saudi Arabia have opposed the extension of binding emission reduction targets and tried to derail progress on negotiations. However, the recent defeat of the Howard government in Australia has deprived Bush of an important ally. The government of Kevin Rudd has already committed to have Australia join the Kyoto Protocol.
Visit: greenpeace.org/canada, this is a great site to see some of the greatest threats to Canada's landcape, and Canadians themselves
Rather than take immediate, decisive action to combat global warming, Prime Minister Harper has discouraged support for Kyoto and opposed the extension of binding greenhouse gas emission targets for industrialized nations after the end of the first Kyoto commitment period in 2012.
Harper and Canadian environment minister John Baird have also undermined Kyoto at the G8, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and most recently at the Commonwealth meeting. Harper has tried to supplant Kyoto by joining the United States’ Asia-Pacific Partnership, which promotes the use of coal, and relies only on voluntary measures for control of greenhouse gas emissions.
"Canada is the only Kyoto signatory to openly abandon its commitment to reduce emissions. Contrary to his claim, Stephen Harper is not a leader on global warming. He is a laggard and the last unabashed climate apologist for George Bush among western industrialized nations," said Martin.
Greenpeace is also calling on the Canadian government to take action on the Alberta tar sands, which contain oil reserves second only to those of Saudi Arabia. Because of their dramatic growth, the tar sands are the most serious threat to progress in Canada’s fight against global warming.
Action is also needed to protect the world’s boreal forests, which stores more carbon dioxide than any other land-based ecosystem on Earth. Logging releases greenhouse gases and increases the forest’s vulnerability to fires. If current trends continue, degradation of Canada’s Boreal Forest and rising global temperatures could lead to massive releases of carbon into the atmosphere. Less than 10 per cent of Canada’s Boreal Forest is protected from industrial development.
The United Nations climate conference in Bali is the 13th conference of the 192 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 13), and the third meeting of the 176 countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 3), which entered into force in February 2005.
Greenpeace is calling for completion in 2009 of formal negotiations on binding emission reduction targets for a second five-year phase of the Kyoto Protocol 2013-2017. Countries such as the United States, Australia and Saudi Arabia have opposed the extension of binding emission reduction targets and tried to derail progress on negotiations. However, the recent defeat of the Howard government in Australia has deprived Bush of an important ally. The government of Kevin Rudd has already committed to have Australia join the Kyoto Protocol.
Visit: greenpeace.org/canada, this is a great site to see some of the greatest threats to Canada's landcape, and Canadians themselves
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Canada's potential leaders
I am focussing on Elizabeth May of the Green Party and Stephane Dion of the Liberal Party, tell me what you think of the two, and who seems to be the most legitimate in their concerns for Mother Earth...You can also email them to let them know that Canadians have woken up, and are no longer sheep to the whims of american-corporate-power-loving leaders!
Elizabeth May: leader@greenparty.ca
Stephane Dion: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
Elizabeth May: leader@greenparty.ca
Stephane Dion: Dion.S@parl.gc.ca
SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009
Reading and hearing the events of the Bali Conference on the Kyoto Protocol, has made me more eager than ever, and more passionate than ever, that our Summer of Change Festival 2009 is going to be BIG! It is positioned at a time when we Canadians have to get together, we must unite, and show our government where we want our country to be going, we must "ACT NOW", as al gore said in his nobel peace prize speech.
We must get off our fluffy red couches, and get into ACTION...
We must get off our fluffy red couches, and get into ACTION...
David Suzuki on Kyoto Protocol
Canada bows to pressure at Bali's 11th hour
December 15, 2007 Bali, Indonesia -- Nations agreed today on a "Bali roadmap" to launch negotiations for a post-2012 global climate agreement that will be guided by scientific analysis of the emission cuts needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
Key developing countries signalled a willingness to take on new commitments at the two-week-long UN climate conference. However, Canada worked with the United States for most of the meeting to oppose crucial elements of the Bali roadmap. As a result, parts of the deal are too vague to assure a successful outcome of the next round of UN negotiations, due to be completed in 2009.
"The world moved forward in Bali today, but we had the opportunity to do much more," said Steven Guilbeault, Equiterre. "The good news is that the Bali deal recognizes that rich nations need to cut their greenhouse gas pollution by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and nations will negotiate the next phase of Kyoto on that basis."
Canada initially opposed this emissions reduction range in the final negotiating session, but agreed not to block the consensus position when it found itself virtually isolated.
"Canada worked against the key elements of this deal for most of the two weeks in Bali, and was singled out by other countries and high-ranking UN officials for its obstructive behaviour," said Dale Marshall, David Suzuki Foundation. "In the end, the government responded to public pressure and allowed this deal to go through."
The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, and today's deal launches a two-year negotiation process for the post-2012 "Kyoto phase 2." In addition to setting a range of emission reduction targets for industrialized countries, the Bali roadmap contains commitments to negotiate actions to control emissions in developing countries; financial agreements for adaptation and the transfer of climate-friendly technology; and an agreement to tackle the problem of deforestation in developing countries.
"Now is when the real work begins," said Matthew Bramley, Pembina Institute. "The government’s current targets and policies fall far short of the standard set in Bali. Nothing less than a massive scale-up of federal efforts on climate change is required for Canada to play a responsible part in the next two years of negotiations."
"Canada came to Bali demanding unfair commitments from developing countries, and was roundly criticized for it," said Emilie Moorhouse, Sierra Club of Canada. "In the end, the only bridge that Canada built in Bali was one that led to the U.S."
"The agreement to develop approaches to reduce deforestation and forest degradation is a key outcome of this meeting," said Chris Henschel, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. "Protecting carbon stored in forests and other ecosystems is an important complement to deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions."
December 15, 2007 Bali, Indonesia -- Nations agreed today on a "Bali roadmap" to launch negotiations for a post-2012 global climate agreement that will be guided by scientific analysis of the emission cuts needed to avoid dangerous climate change.
Key developing countries signalled a willingness to take on new commitments at the two-week-long UN climate conference. However, Canada worked with the United States for most of the meeting to oppose crucial elements of the Bali roadmap. As a result, parts of the deal are too vague to assure a successful outcome of the next round of UN negotiations, due to be completed in 2009.
"The world moved forward in Bali today, but we had the opportunity to do much more," said Steven Guilbeault, Equiterre. "The good news is that the Bali deal recognizes that rich nations need to cut their greenhouse gas pollution by 25 to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020, and nations will negotiate the next phase of Kyoto on that basis."
Canada initially opposed this emissions reduction range in the final negotiating session, but agreed not to block the consensus position when it found itself virtually isolated.
"Canada worked against the key elements of this deal for most of the two weeks in Bali, and was singled out by other countries and high-ranking UN officials for its obstructive behaviour," said Dale Marshall, David Suzuki Foundation. "In the end, the government responded to public pressure and allowed this deal to go through."
The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012, and today's deal launches a two-year negotiation process for the post-2012 "Kyoto phase 2." In addition to setting a range of emission reduction targets for industrialized countries, the Bali roadmap contains commitments to negotiate actions to control emissions in developing countries; financial agreements for adaptation and the transfer of climate-friendly technology; and an agreement to tackle the problem of deforestation in developing countries.
"Now is when the real work begins," said Matthew Bramley, Pembina Institute. "The government’s current targets and policies fall far short of the standard set in Bali. Nothing less than a massive scale-up of federal efforts on climate change is required for Canada to play a responsible part in the next two years of negotiations."
"Canada came to Bali demanding unfair commitments from developing countries, and was roundly criticized for it," said Emilie Moorhouse, Sierra Club of Canada. "In the end, the only bridge that Canada built in Bali was one that led to the U.S."
"The agreement to develop approaches to reduce deforestation and forest degradation is a key outcome of this meeting," said Chris Henschel, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society. "Protecting carbon stored in forests and other ecosystems is an important complement to deep cuts in fossil fuel emissions."
Al Gore on Solving the Climate Crisis
Al Gore, in a op-ed in the New York Times, recently wrote about our collective responsibility to solve the climate crisis, a global emergency.
We -- the human species -- have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
Our home -- Earth -- is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don't stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground -- mainly in the form of coal and oil -- and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth's atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 -- having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years -- have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could -- within 10 years -- make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap -- which helps the planet cool itself -- is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.
On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
We -- all of us -- now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground -- having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years -- and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It's the carbon dioxide.
This threat also requires us, in Reagan's phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, "If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?"
Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)
But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon -- all were the result of American leadership.
Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.
To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here -- much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 -- and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product -- countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis -- really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future -- indeed, the future of all human civilization -- is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced -- even as the danger bears down on us.
We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.
But there's something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of "The Assault on Reason."
We -- the human species -- have arrived at a moment of decision. It is unprecedented and even laughable for us to imagine that we could actually make a conscious choice as a species, but that is nevertheless the challenge that is before us.
Our home -- Earth -- is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.
Without realizing the consequences of our actions, we have begun to put so much carbon dioxide into the thin shell of air surrounding our world that we have literally changed the heat balance between Earth and the Sun. If we don't stop doing this pretty quickly, the average temperature will increase to levels humans have never known and put an end to the favorable climate balance on which our civilization depends.
In the last 150 years, in an accelerating frenzy, we have been removing increasing quantities of carbon from the ground -- mainly in the form of coal and oil -- and burning it in ways that dump 70 million tons of CO2 every 24 hours into the Earth's atmosphere.
The concentrations of CO2 -- having never risen above 300 parts per million for at least a million years -- have been driven from 280 parts per million at the beginning of the coal boom to 383 parts per million this year.
As a direct result, many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several "tipping points" that could -- within 10 years -- make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet's habitability for human civilization.
Just in the last few months, new studies have shown that the north polar ice cap -- which helps the planet cool itself -- is melting nearly three times faster than the most pessimistic computer models predicted. Unless we take action, summer ice could be completely gone in as little as 35 years. Similarly, at the other end of the planet, near the South Pole, scientists have found new evidence of snow melting in West Antarctica across an area as large as California.
This is not a political issue. This is a moral issue, one that affects the survival of human civilization. It is not a question of left versus right; it is a question of right versus wrong. Put simply, it is wrong to destroy the habitability of our planet and ruin the prospects of every generation that follows ours.
On Sept. 21, 1987, President Ronald Reagan said, "In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
We -- all of us -- now face a universal threat. Though it is not from outside this world, it is nevertheless cosmic in scale.
Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground -- having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years -- and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.
As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It's the carbon dioxide.
This threat also requires us, in Reagan's phrase, to unite in recognition of our common bond.
Next Saturday, on all seven continents, the Live Earth concert will ask for the attention of humankind to begin a three-year campaign to make everyone on our planet aware of how we can solve the climate crisis in time to avoid catastrophe. Individuals must be a part of the solution. In the words of Buckminster Fuller, "If the success or failure of this planet, and of human beings, depended on how I am and what I do, how would I be? What would I do?"
Live Earth will offer an answer to this question by asking everyone who attends or listens to the concerts to sign a personal pledge to take specific steps to combat climate change. (More details about the pledge are available at algore.com.)
But individual action will also have to shape and drive government action. Here Americans have a special responsibility. Throughout most of our short history, the United States and the American people have provided moral leadership for the world. Establishing the Bill of Rights, framing democracy in the Constitution, defeating fascism in World War II, toppling Communism and landing on the moon -- all were the result of American leadership.
Once again, Americans must come together and direct our government to take on a global challenge. American leadership is a precondition for success.
To this end, we should demand that the United States join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy Earth.
This treaty would mark a new effort. I am proud of my role during the Clinton administration in negotiating the Kyoto protocol. But I believe that the protocol has been so demonized in the United States that it probably cannot be ratified here -- much in the way the Carter administration was prevented from winning ratification of an expanded strategic arms limitation treaty in 1979. Moreover, the negotiations will soon begin on a tougher climate treaty.
Therefore, just as President Reagan renamed and modified the SALT agreement (calling it Start), after belatedly recognizing the need for it, our next president must immediately focus on quickly concluding a new and even tougher climate change pact. We should aim to complete this global treaty by the end of 2009 -- and not wait until 2012 as currently planned.
If by the beginning of 2009, the United States already has in place a domestic regime to reduce global warming pollution, I have no doubt that when we give industry a goal and the tools and flexibility to sharply reduce carbon emissions, we can complete and ratify a new treaty quickly. It is, after all, a planetary emergency.
A new treaty will still have differentiated commitments, of course; countries will be asked to meet different requirements based upon their historical share or contribution to the problem and their relative ability to carry the burden of change. This precedent is well established in international law, and there is no other way to do it.
There are some who will try to pervert this precedent and use xenophobia or nativist arguments to say that every country should be held to the same standard. But should countries with one-fifth our gross domestic product -- countries that contributed almost nothing in the past to the creation of this crisis -- really carry the same load as the United States? Are we so scared of this challenge that we cannot lead?
Our children have a right to hold us to a higher standard when their future -- indeed, the future of all human civilization -- is hanging in the balance. They deserve better than a government that censors the best scientific evidence and harasses honest scientists who try to warn us about looming catastrophe. They deserve better than politicians who sit on their hands and do nothing to confront the greatest challenge that humankind has ever faced -- even as the danger bears down on us.
We should focus instead on the opportunities that are part of this challenge. Certainly, there will be new jobs and new profits as corporations move aggressively to capture the enormous economic opportunities offered by a clean energy future.
But there's something even more precious to be gained if we do the right thing. The climate crisis offers us the chance to experience what few generations in history have had the privilege of experiencing: a generational mission; a compelling moral purpose; a shared cause; and the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict of politics and to embrace a genuine moral and spiritual challenge.
Al Gore, vice president from 1993 to 2001, is the chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection. He is the author, most recently, of "The Assault on Reason."
Monday, December 10, 2007
summer of change 2009
GET READY FOR THE SUMMER OF CHANGE 2009 OUTDOOR FESTIVAL. IT IS CURRENTLY BEING ORGANIZED BY US AT VEGAN MOUNTAIN AND WE ARE HOPING TO SEE A HUGE TURNOUT SO AS TO KICK CANADA INTO GEAR, AND SHOW OUR GOVERNMENT THAT THE ENVIRONMENT IS OUR NUMBER ONE CONCERN, AND WE HAVE TO START WAKING UP AND DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT. STAY TUNE TO THE LOCATION OF THE FESTIVAL, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A LARGE PIECE OF LAND IN B.C., AND FOR THE SPEAKERS, MUSICIANS, VENDORS AND OTHER FUN EVENTS...LET'S GET UNITED ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)