Conservatives Create Corrupt Petro State
The Conservative Party of Canada has succeeded in turning Canada into an international pariah. At least on the environmental front. It’s not just our own press but news organizations around the world that are reporting again on the Conservatives’ continued disrespect for our Kyoto agreement and environmental policy in general.
The Guardian UK1 (30 November 2009) said
“The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen” and “…Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.
Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.”
While, in the past, Canada garnered goodwill from other countries, Harper and his Conservative party have soiled our reputation through a continued lack of leadership and near total absence of action on environmental issues, particularly Canada’s commitment to Kyoto.
The Montreal Gazette2 (6 December 2009) states “There has been a push back against Canada’s lack of action on 12-year-old Kyoto pledges.” While The New Republic‘s3 Jesse Zwick (2 December 2009) notes “…the normally good-natured country now has the dubious distinction of being the only country to ratify Kyoto and then formally renege on its commitments.”
The New York Times4 (6 December 2009) says
“The present Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and in power since 2006, has, however, disowned that policy, substituting instead a commitment to reduce emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 — a modest target that has been widely panned by Canadian environmentalists.”
The CBC reports5 from a few days ago (27 November 2009) about how UN secretary general, Ban Ki-Moon attending a Commonwealth summit, pushed on Harper to get Canada’s act together. Several lobby groups reportedly called for Canada’s suspension from the Commonwealth
“‘If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada’s membership immediately,’ said Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
It also says that Ban Ki-Moon
“…said an agreement is achievable at next month’s meeting in Copenhagen to try to forge a deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol when that accord expires in 2012. By contrast, Harper and his ministers insist an agreement is not likely.”
That outlook suggests see that Harper’s Conservatives continue to hope they can stall action. Going back to the abovementioned NY Times article, there is a quote from the most recent (in a string of many) Conservative Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, pushing back against any real action with his continued misrepresentation of the situation
“The impact on the overall economy would be dire. Instead, our government, and the United States government, will be aiming… to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as fast as possible and as far as possible, without killing the economy and making the cure worse than the disease.”
He seems oblivious to several issues. One is that the oil production especially for fuel, is a limited project without a future (dwindling supply and a shift away from petroleum based fuels in terms of social demand). Isn’t it short-sighted to be reorienting our economy be based on production of something with a terminal future?
Second, there is great opportunity in newer sustainable industries, which actually lend a hand toward improving our environment.
Third, even if our economy was likely to be destroyed by sustainable, long-term approaches, there can be no trade-off between the environmental catastrophe ahead and the economy. The economy is only relevant if we have a future. So Prentice’s doublespeak on reducing emissions fast and far serves nobody any good (the Conservatives have consistently proven–evidenced by our own and the world’s press–they have no intention of reducing emissions). But then again, Steven Harper’s perspective on this appears to be the reverse. Bloomberg News7 published (7 December 2009) Harper’s commentary during his visit to South Korea. Harper spoke on Toronto hosting the next G20 and how he’d like to see its direction put the economy before the environment:
“Without the wealth that comes from growth, the environmental threats, the developmental challenges and the peace and security issues facing the world will be exponentially more difficult to deal with…”
Finally, there’s this, which bolsters what I’ve just mentioned above. The Toronto Star reports6 (4 December 2009) that Jim Prentice is keeping Canada on a “wait-and-see” approach in favour of waiting to see what the US would do. At least Prentice comes out and admits the Conservative government is unwilling to lead or take action. However, what makes this galling is that it comes inline with his announcement that while the Conservatives would scrap their completely irresponsible “plan” for intensity targets, they could revert to it if the US stalls with its program (in other words slowing the Conservatives down further in their efforts to mimic harmonize with the US).
The Globe and Mail has other excerpts from the world press.
