Paul S. Graham

According to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, high flying economies such as Canada’s should be permitted more latitude in their obligations to reduce greenhouse emissions than more depressed areas of the globe. It’s not our fault that we didn’t meet our Kyoto targets – our superior economic performance made us act like the energy swilling fools we’ve become. If one accepts Frontier’s logic, we should be proud!

Writing in yesterday’s Winnipeg Free Press, Frontier’s Ben Eisen argues

Canada’s inability to meet its Kyoto commitment is not a source of national shame — it is the inevitable result of a flawed treaty which failed to recognize the relationship between population growth, economic growth and greenhouse-gas emissions.

As the Copenhagen conference approaches, Canada should learn from the failure of Kyoto, and participate in a new climate-change agreement only if the new pact does not punish growth. Predetermined emission caps make little sense in a dynamic country like Canada in which the rate of economic and population growth are unpredictable.

The new climate-change treaty should only be signed if emission targets are flexible and responsive to changing demographic and economic conditions.

Eisen is quite correct in stating that GDP, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and population have all increased while energy use per unit of GDP (“emission intensity”) has decreased.

According to Natural Resources Canada, energy use grew less rapidly than the economy, but more rapidly than the population. An NRC report states: “Between 1990 and 2005, energy use in Canada increased by 22 percent . . . [while] the Canadian population grew 17 percent . . . and GDP increased 51 percent . . . More generally, energy use per unit of GDP declined, while energy use on a per capita basis increased.”

If citing GDP growth is intended to help us feel good about destroying the planet, note that most of this growth went to the richest 20 per cent of Canadians. They saw their after tax incomes increase from $96,200 in 1990 to 116,500 in 2005, a 21% increase. This compares with 10% for the middle 60% and 2.3% for the bottom 20% of the population.

Canada’s “emission intensity” has decreased, somewhat like a heavy drinker switching from whiskey to beer, all the while drinking more beer to get high. Like this delusional drunkard, we will pay a heavy price for unsustainable energy consumption.

Alberta Tar Sands. Photo: Greenpeace / Eamon Mac Mahon

One reason for Canada’s growth in GDP is the Alberta tar sands development, the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, projected to account for 3% of Canadian GDP by 2020, and to devastate a boreal forest the size of New Brunswick. Producing a barrel of oil from the oil sands produces three times more greenhouse gas emissions than a barrel of conventional oil. By 2015, the tar sands are expected to emit more greenhouse gases than the nation of Denmark (pop. 5.4 million). (Another reason for GDP growth is increased military spending and our criminal war in Afghanistan – but I digress).

The mission of the Frontier Centre, it would seem, is to shill for the growth-at-any-cost crowd. As one of the highest per capita users of energy on earth, Canada must reject its flawed logic. The plain fact is the world cannot sustain uncontrolled growth any longer.

Every August 6, citizens in thousands of communities around the world commemorate the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and rededicate themselves to the cause of peace and disarmament. In Winnipeg, a Lanterns for Peace Ceremony is conducted annually by Peace Alliance Winnipeg, Project Peacemakers and the Manitoba Japanese Canadians Association. Here’s my video of this year’s ceremony.

Alanna Makinson is VP External, University of Manitoba Students Union. Following the June 13, 2009 Winnipeg Walk for Peace, she spoke on the negative impact of the war in Afghanistan and increased military spending on post-secondary education in Canada.

Makinson says that Canada is the fifth most expensive country in which to obtain a post secondary education. Inadequate public funding, rising tuition and increasing living costs are deterring working class, poor and aboriginal people from pursuing post-secondary education.

The cumulative education debt currently born by students and graduates is a staggering $13 billion. At the same time, governments are saying there is no money to relieve this burden.

“How,” asks Makinson, “does Canada justify spending $18.9 billion on the military last year alone?” She says that the federal government’s plan to increase military spending by $12 billion over the next five years is evidence of a misplaced priority. “One year of military spending,” says Makinson,” could eliminate all student debt in Canada.”

Makinson condemned increases in military research at the expense of funding for science and humanities research and term this trend a threat to human rights and academic freedom.

Yves Engler is the author of The Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy. He spoke in Winnipeg, June 13, 2009, at the conclusion of the 28th annual Walk for Peace, on the need to reorient Canadian foreign policy. Engler’s proposals include:

• Abolition of Canada’s secretive Joint Task Force 2 commando unit
• Pulling out of NATO
• Reducing Canada’s burgeoning military expenditures by 10 per cent annually for up to 10 years
• Pulling out of Afghanistan immediately
• Reorienting Canadian foreign policy to serve the needs of the majority of Canadians rather than the interests of Canada’s business and military elites

Good stuff!

The spam that usually greets me with my morning coffee was enriched by a message from folks calling themselves Republicans for Ignatieff. The National Enquirer style, screaming ALL CAPS subject line REPUBLICANS FOR IGNATIEFF PRAISES MICHAEL IGNATIEFF FOR DEFENDING GEORGE W. BUSH IN RECENTLY-DISCOVERED AUDIO CLIP had me chuckling even before I opened the email.

The site creators deserve top marks for zeroing in on issues that would make a lot of Canadians nervous about supporting the Liberals in the next federal election, specifically Iggy’s (unconvincingly recanted) support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, acceptance of targeted assassinations, pre-emptive wars and torture, his (Iggy-as- outsider-meme) admiration of things American and his enthusiasm for Alberta oil sands development.

Breathlessly, the site proclaims:

Now more than ever America needs a Canadian Prime Minister we can count on. A Canadian Prime Minister who knows us. A Canadian Prime Minister who loves us. Michael Ignatieff is the best choice for Canadian Prime Minister.

The site creator’s attempt to contrast Ignatieff’s unabashedly pro-American posture with Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s flimsy record of independence from U.S. foreign policy is unconvincing:

Although the current Canadian Prime Minister is a conservative, he has challenged the United States on the Arctic, he is charting Canada’s own course in the Americas, and he has failed to demonstrate a deep emotional connection to America like Michael Ignatieff.

But, the satire is quite rich.

My questions are:

1. Who is behind this site?

2. Who are they targetting?

A “whois” search gives the anonymous site creators a post box in Cocoa, Florida. Therefore, it could be anybody. I doubt the Republicans have anything to do with it, simply because I doubt they care whether we elect a Tory hawk or a Liberal hawk.

Are the New Dems behind it? It is in their interests to remind soft social democrats of what they would be getting if they permitted their disgust with Harper to drive them into the Liberal tent. Still, I doubt the New Dem spinsters are behind this: it’s too funny.

What about the Tories? Could this be their attempt to shore up the NDP vote and thereby weaken the Liberals at the polls?

Or is it just the work of goofy guys and gals with too much time on their hands?

I dunno. But I thank whoever is behind this for raising the spam bar.