Liberals help Harper ditch NDP environment bill on eve of Copenhagen

No one shows us how to fail on the environment better than the Liberal Party of Canada.

If there is any good news to be had out their latest support of the Harper agenda it is this: formerly Liberal friendly Enviros are abandoning ship.

Exhibit A: http://tinyurl.com/yjvtudt

Exhibit B: http://tinyurl.com/yg8lslp

Guess they can't use the "vote for the environment" strategic voting ploy this time, eh?

Obviously, the New Democrats in parliament aren't trying hard enough, or they would have pushed it through, against all odds.   :)

Actually-- I have to ask-- since everyone, myself included was wondering how Layton felt about Doer's tar sands comments-- what do you suppose May is thinking of this vote by Dion?

Seems an equally fair question -- no?

Elizabeth May loves to bash Layton and undermine him.  Thats the only thing that is consistent about this person.

Ladies and Gentemen,

I would like to address myself to babblers who are incensed by this not because it was the Liberals who did it, but because it was the wrong thing to do. And of those babblers, I would narrow myself further to those who would still agree it was wrong if the NDP did it.

You know I am not a partisan NDPer, or for that matter, even an NDPer, but I am also a pragmatist. At this moment in time, the NDP is the only party in parliament that is interested in taking meaningful action to address the climate and larger environmental issues. The Greens aren't in parliament and it will be a long time before they are. I'm not going to debate why that is, it is just a reality.  As well, the NDP is the only party to put before parliament a meaningful piece of legislation to address climate change.

So what I would propose, is that the  federal NDP is the only party of choice for environmentalists and those who recognize that climate is the greatest threat facing all of us on a collective, and global level.

The question then becomes, how do we move the larger green, environmental movement behind the NDP (and don't tell me to stop being critical of them. I can be critical and supportive at the same time)? What would be the key messages? What would be the narrative? What is the approach? Who do we approach? What objections should be expected? How are they answered?

I am being sincere, here. I have always argued that issues should determine voter preference and there is no issue of greater importance than this one.

I don't know how many of you have very young children, but, in reality there are few things we can do to ensure our children have happy lives. They are individuals and as they grow they make their own choices. Those choices will determine what sort of people they become and what sort of lives they will lead. Flash cards and college funds might help, but they won't assure your child reaches university. But I do know this, not acting on our climate is our choice and it is a choice that will rob your young child of happiness regardless of the choices they themselves make because their inheritance, from us, will be a planet much different from the one we know.

It may be hard to imagine, but at my age, the world I inhabit is far different from my father's and my mother's. They could drink from streams, eat fish without care of contamination levels, and explore lush green valleys and forests. The soils they planted in were alive and healthy and air they breathed didn't give asthma nor allergies.

The world my young relatives are being raised in is one of scarce energy, smog alerts, environmental disease, dead soils, poisoned waters, toxic fish, acidic oceans, deforestation, collapsing fisheries, rising extinctions, and desertification. That is one generation. What about the next?

If babble is more than a place where arm chair politicians come to spit at each other, why don't we strategize and develop for ourselves, our friends, and anyone who will listen, a strategy to unite the green vote behind the NDP?

It really does matter that much.

Aha! So now we know all about the NDP's efforts to protect the environment, and which two old line parties are working in tandem against everything that is good and green. Now we know.

FM:

"The question then becomes, how do we move the larger green, environmental movement behind the NDP (and don't tell me to stop being critical of them. I can be critical and supportive at the same time)? What would be the key messages? What would be the narrative? What is the approach? Who do we approach? What objections should be expected? How are they answered?"

I am overawed, FM. Yes, let's strategize.

First, we know that, aside from Liz, the Greens are led by libertarians - out for themselves and perhaps believing that selfishness if best.  But not all Greens know that, or have even a foggy idea what libertarian means. And you only have to reach back a year or so so see that not all babblers are sure.  

Green membership may not even realize that  the Greens' dependence on "market solutions" for our dilemma, are a sign of libertarian roots.  Now this is going to raise some hackles hereabouts, but I fully believe that you will seperate the good guys from the bad, over in Greensville, by informing them of the idiocy of market solutions for our environmental dead end.  I expect problems in doing this, because some are not sure just how deadly "the market" is - that it demands growth, and it is growth that threatens us first.

And I suppose one would have to convince members hereabouts on the importance of divorce, complete divorce, from the market if there is to be a future. And of course, that would mean getting social democrats off their "market follower" dependency as well.  So, we're talking real socialism.  Are we together so far?

I haven't, Unionist. I think the Bloc and the NDP need to develop an answer to the label of seaparatists and socialists. But the Bloc and the NDP would have to cooperate.

I'm really not interested in demonizing or attacking the Greens, George. I'm far more interested in building around an idea and a goal. The idea being that only the NDP has the party machinery  and commitment to bring about meaningful climate legislation and the goal is to convince everyone else of that.

Not hope. Act. The ammunition is available to convince green minded Canadians the NDP is their vehicle. It won't happen on its own,

Perhaps, but I am speaking of organizing a specific group of people. I am speaking of moving green Canadians, active environmentalists and concerned Canadians behind the NDP on the basis of its record in the house and in contrast to the two main parties. This means that we focus our efforts on those who recognize the threat of climate change.

Thank you remind. And, of course.

I am still interested in an approach to the broader green movement. In what format can that be accomplished?

FM what a wonderful post, at # 11, I am all on board for that.

Ditto to what remind said here - working across differences on a common goal and objective.

Broadened to include what? Can the movement be broadened instead? For example, if we can reach key environmentalists, who will agree to drop the farce and defeating role of non-partisanship, can we then broaden by going out to different people and groups in an effort to move the environmental movement from nice white people who drive sensible cars to a more diverse segment with a common interest not just in survival, as important as that is, but in a prosperity as well - a prosperity not so much defined as things, but as good health, leisure, and a relationship with the natural world beyond occassional drifts through tourism magazines or the Discovery Channel. Do you know there are people alive today who have never seen stars from beneath the canopy of street lights? Is it not disturbing that we imprint machines onto our children at an early age but where their food comes from is foreign to them? Isn't it ironic that we'll inflct war over oil to keep the lights burning brightly and the fleets rolling at all costs, but we can barely shrug over keeping our planet in a stable state? And we're the smart ones? Who decided that? Oh, yeah ... we did! DOH! Sorry I'm drifting ...

To get back to the point, can a movement be broadened through the course of progress and discovery as opposed to definition? That's not so much rhetorical as philosophical. I suppose I prefer a narrow agenda to start and broadening through course as a necessity of the dynamics of cooperation.

To put it another way, you may be planning a party with games, a catered meal, entertainment, and your walls will be adorned with the art of a friend who needs a break and who will also be there.You can tell me all of that, or you could just aske me to come to a party.

What I mean is, there are people who have never seen a starry sky not by choice. They never get out of cities.

I have met people who have never been out of their star soaked small town, even though the closest city is only a couple of hours away.

Again my point being there is diversity of thought and deed, especially in environmentalist issues.

That is whyI said narrow yet broad.

WRT posts 29 and 31, not many street lights here, and I have a great view of the dark sky from my LR window. Occasionally I can see what must be a falling comet or star. And aircraft - flying pretty high. The moon, when it's full, gives us enough reflected light that we can see through the darkness. And it's super quiet here from early evening to the next morning. Almost like being in the northern wilderness, which is only a hop, skip, and a jump away. Environmental concerns hee are getting rid of our septic tanks and putting in sewers leading to a cesspool; and cleaning up thrash littering our very few roadways. I think all of us are concerned about the environmental impact a new connecting road to the outside will have on us.

Until the balloon goes up perhaps, Ken. I still think we have to treat our economy and social organizations as though we were at war, as old Jimmy Carter saw in his election-losing speech in 79 (or thereabouts).

Since climate change dictates all others, it's not a bad place to start. It's a nest of thorns, really, a thorny question.

GV, it's those kind of comments that drive me away. 

which is just as well,

motivates me to get out, regardless of the weather

Don't know what to say, thanks.  Got that same reaction from youth back in '83 when trying to enlist for the Green Party of Ontario on campus at U of W.  Felt like a louse then - and now.  I feed birds, drive away hawks and bluejays, assert authority when the fat, bushy-tailed squirrels (six so far) are not satisfied to feed on the ground and begin climbing to the feeders, plant things and lower the old footprint each year. Now it's a storm of leaves to rake together, some for the garden, some for pickup. Things you do after a lifetime of trying to bring forward the reality of the human situation on Earth - with no apparent effect. But boy my potatoes bake up great, and the onions, though small, are great keepers, and the blight came late enough to leave me with lots of frozen tomatoes for sauce. Have to change the areas for planting all three next summer, on a postage-stamp lot. But it's the greenest in the subdivision, shadiest in summer, produces more vegetables, etc. Going to try again for carrots, next spring. But I've given up on herbs. 

And so it goes.

FM, I do get it, and do not think you are getting mine.

Anyhow, those young people today, "dying for the environment" on the steps in Ottawa, was wonderful to see, as simple, yet public action.

They are not worried about the small  stuff, nor the big stuff, in the messaging, they were just refocusing attention where it needs to be.

FM, I would not say "your party sucks", I would begin with reasoning as to why the New Democrats are the only party in town that can bring it off - "It" being gaining a position of power in which to empower all green people (although those green people would have to clearly know which "issue" we're pursuing).  But the major problem will be one of communicating both the sense of urgency and the reasoning for the choice, since it will fly in the face of the need for immediate economic growth along traditional lines. New Democrats are open to criticism on several fronts now - as you know very well. The contrarians and deniers have gone to cover behind a plethora of catch phrases and comforting untruths to avoid inconvenient truths.

The  difference  between the climate of receptivity for such messages today and 1983, when I last gave it an all-out go, is encouraging. It has taken the melting of Arctic ice and glaciers around the world to help bring it about, but the antennae are up now. Although it seems that, so far, the Cons can practise their usual avoidance tactics with impunity.

But how do we proceed (and I'm not into IT enough to suggest anything, but it seems to me that would be central).

Madmax, Canada's manufacturing centres are deep into de-industrialization. I never said that was true for the world. I would agree major parts of the world ate industrializing. But I think you're lettimng your cultural bias get ahead of you. First, indigenous people in the global south are well aware of environmental issues. They live and die with them. We in the West are not so saintly. We have exported our waste and large parts of our production including toxic processes. Why the piracy problem around Somalia? Because the originally armed themselves to protect against illegal dumping of toxic wasteby Europeans. Canada now allows pristine lakes to be used from mining waste and we know how well we've managed fisheries. The WWF, I think, just released a study that indcates almost all of our major rivers under stress from various sources and our Arctic is melting and our corporate and political elites are salivating with greed. I don't agree with your position for the most part.

Further, I haven't said anything negative about unions. I was responding to another poster who suggested union would not be on board with climate mitiation. I think you want to scroll up, find out who that was, and argue with them instead.

The fact Kirsty Duncan votes against the Act is futher proof the Liberals will not do the right thing.

CanadainAlien, with all due respect, I'm just not interested in defining the issue to death.

George, that is my question. That is why I am trying to have this discussion. How do we start it? I'm not sure.

They have put forward legislation and fought for it. That is action. The reason we go to Copenhagen empty handed is because the Liberals betrayed us.

You fail to understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the NDP is the ONLY party in parliament with credibility on the issue. Now it is up to us to convince everyone else of that.

Look, there is no time between elections. There is no time  Read the science. Read the reports. We act right or accept that we're fucked. That really is the only option on the table.

I'm still mulling over what to propose for an NDP breakthrough to the Great Unr..(er) Misled. Would it not have to be IT-based?

This is alll really moot, anyway, now unless some activities are stopped, and others started.

Sleep has been hard to come by these last few nights, examining the implications of events leading up to the conference, and what impact they are going to have on both the conference and Canada, in an immediate way, and then the earth beyond that.

Understanding how serious the implications are, has been steadily growing, as I examine all of this in a deeper manner,  rather than leaving it with surface irritation, and looking away, feeling satisfied my irritation was enough action.

It is not.....not even close.

Reality check time:

Elizabeth May and George Monbiot, have decided it is they who represent the global environmental movement.     As that is what their agreeing to debate Lomgorg and Lawson means.

Why?

Because Lomborg and Lawson have been on one long publicity tour, world wide, trying to debunk climate change in the lead up to Copenhagen.

Thus, they became, or were designated as,  the global face of the "there is no man made climate change occuring" demographic.

When Ms May and Monbiot, agreed to debate them, they set themselves up as the global face of those who know climate change is man made,  afterall equals debate equals, right?

However, they could not have spoken to other environmentalists about this, in Canada,  nor across the globe, or the debate would not be taking place, let alone having 2 relatively unknown people globally, designated to represent the entire global environmental community. Because their actions are going to impact the entire global environmental community.

And one could say it has already started even, given this thread topic.

Their hubris and lack of reasoned thought is glaring, especially given that they have already lost the debate, by agreeing to have it.

They ceded the territory of the globally agreed fact, that climate is occuring and that it is man made, by saying; " there is now room to debate it and we are willing to do so."

Once you say there is room for debate, there are no longer any known facts, there are just theories up for "peer" review, and public discussion. They also just gave Lawson and Lomborg tacit environmental creds, that can be cited now as weighted evidence against other environmental scientists statements.

Public discussion was over long ago, and there was united awareness, across the world, that it was action that was needed,  yesterday, but given we cannot go back, it is needed NOW.

May and Moniot have, or are going to,  reverse decades of effort to have climate change be regarded as fact, as they have put it back into the  realm of "needing to be discussed".

Thus they enter into said debate from a lost position, not even a defensive position. Location of debate says it all.

So now, what we will be facing, because of  May and Monboit's actions, is the reality that the  whole global environmentalist movement  will be going to Copenhagen, in a weakened position, because of the hedonistic, self promoting actions, of 2 people.

And that is not even taking into consideration how weak it  will be,  if the hubraic duo, fail miserabley to get the optics correct and the truth out, as it will be a double knock out against the environmental movement

Governments around the world will be watching this debate, as will the earth destroying polluters, who manufactured the notion of the debate.

Though probably nobody else too much.

The governments complicit with the polluters, will be able to cite the fact that  things are still up for debate, when they say they will do nothing further at Copenhagen.

Other governments, who are not complicit,  and are on board with environmental justice, will be severely restricted in their ability to force  policies that ensure global  pullution standards be met.

There is still room for debate afterall, and thus their voices  too have been marginalized.

Enviromentalists around the world, will be scratching their heads wondering what has happened, why are their voices now silenced, and how did the bottom fall out of actually gaining ground on environmental destruction.

Copenhagen will be the formal notice to the peoples of the world, that; "we do not know that climate change is occuring, the science is still out".

Why else would the LIberals back away from supporting this Bill, having done so each and every occcasion before, and say we will wait until more facts are known?

What facts are known?

Seriously think about it, what facts?

If something is not done, December 1, will set the environmental cause back at least a decade, before the word climate change will even be seriously considered up for debate again.

And we will have passed the point of, no return, if we have not already.

These climate criminals should be charged, convicted and put an iceberg somewhere. 

To be fair? ....giggling,

I have no issue with science doing that at all, it has to, and in fact it has, but where is the scientist in this equation? A jounalist and a politician have just legitmized the deniers arguments, not an environmental scientist of any sort. Slight of hand at its finest.

It is well beyond stupid, it is catastrophic.

I am bookmarking my words right now, that  day 2 of Copenhagan will show what a disaster it was. And things will proceed as I stated above.

As such, I believe it is currently the biggest problem we are facing, contrary to what you say here:

There will now be no common/mutual acknowlegement by political circles on any basic facts. As there are now NO facts that are known for sure, as the deniers testimony has now been legitimized. as "possible"

There is wriggle room now, when there wasn't and it was created.

The Liberals pulling back from this Bill is no accident, they can see quite clearly to what the rammifications of this are going to be.

Protesters disrupt question period

hey i just saw this on the news, got good coverage,

so hey you poeple out there who did this, that was  fantastic spontaneous activism,

Thanks jan, maybe tonight I will not awake in a cold sweat about  decades of work  on the enviroment awareness and responsability by millions of people all wasted?

Like it says below, I was skeptical about FM's suggestion- still am really. But mulling it over, I think its at worth a stab at doing more tan 'talking this up with people you know.'

So this is me floating on a committee discusion list [on energy use and climate change] in the fair sized environmental organisation I am a member of. I really have no idea what will become of my tossing this out. Even if its nothing, thats fodder for discussion here. A few of us are active in the NDP. I haven't talked to any of them, but I'm guessing they are as reserved as me about wearing our NDP hats here.

I realize referring to FM as a "habitual Green party supporter" isn't entirely accurate. Poetic license to keep the piece short. It's longish for the venue.

Thank you, Ken, for trying. My own letter is in the works.

Yes, to be fair. Why is that funny?

What are the "both" arguments being referenced, remind? I am so interested.

I also applaud the protestors. But the young will inherit what's left of the Earth.

Here is the Liberal excuse for not supporting the bill:

Despite some of the above comments, the Green Party and Elizabeth May has been very supportive of Bill C-311, and have recognized the NDP's role in putting it forward and publicly issued strong statements aimed at the Liberal Party.  

Elizabeth May's issues with Layton stem from engineering the 2006 election in the middle of the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal. However, with the Liberals now blocking further commitments, I don't see Ignatieff ever getting the same kind words (or any) that Dion received.  

The Greens will recognize positive action when it occurs and condemn inaction as well.  

RevolutionPlease wrote:

"Government House Leader Jay Hill is calling for NDP Leader Jack Layton to be charged with contempt of Parliament, saying he helped protesters who disrupted Question Period Monday."

ohhhh.....I can't breath I am laughing so hard, on sooooo, many levels

and I just read it again and it was good for another episode of not breathing, it is going to be the gift that keeps on giving, laughter wise for me.

meanwhile, the Cons have been floating very large government cheques out there with Conservative party logos, and  MP's personal signatures, in other words, buying votes  with our money.

And who'da thunk just last week Jack would be being talked about this week for supposedly being in contempt of Parliament, for allegedly helping over 100  young environmentalists have an out burst in the HoC.

By Jay Hill of all people.

Oh it was so hard to write that between gales of laughter.

Let's put this liberal/Green myth to bed - again. Trotting out this bull and thinking that if it is repeated often enough most people will believe the lie.

Layton did not engineer the 2006 election in the middle of nothing. The combined votes of both the Conservatives, Bloc and independents was more than the combined votes of the liberals and NDP. Harper had a opposition day and thus used it accordingly. Considering that Canadians were pissed at the libs for stealing taxpayers money for their party (sounds familiar with the cons up to similar tricks now) - adscam - and Layton knew that this govt was going down so better to be on the winning side than the losing side.

And Martin well he could have signed the Aboriginal accord, for instance, but decided not to - why - to campaign on because he thought the libs would win for sure - arrogant to the very end. The liberals have only themselves to blame for the state of our environmental policy, inaction on the environment.

but gee that didn't stop EMay from teaming up with the loser party - the libs - who talk progressive but when it's time to do something - well they don't - why - because it's bogus bullshit.

So now there big environmental initiative which they are going to roll out is cap & trade with hard caps. Gee that's the NDP position, in the last election and still now. But remember, Jack took lots of heat for that - whether MSM or even Alice Klein from NOW. Will be interesting in seeing her turn herself and her bully pulpit into a preztel in trying to come out in support of the libs when she repeated bashed Layton on her editorial page.

Anyway, one can tell that I'm am pissed. Rightly, I'm sick of Layton and the NDP being blamed for bringing down that sorry wreck of a liberal party who their biggest environmental achievement was signing the Kyoto accord - and let green house gases grow, and grow.

May can piss off.

Good analysis of our discussion.  I have a rowboat and 4 oars.  I will leave it to you to figure out how us 3 and you row together.

Right now we all have boats and no paddles .

Interesting developments occuring, for several reasons, in this respect.

A PR guy, named James Hoggan, has come out with a book called "Climate Coverup" I believe, and not going to google it right now, others can if they want.

Now contrary to what you might be thinking, it is a book exposing, the lack of truth in the deniers claims. And who they are in realtion to funding from those who want it denied.

More importantly, Global,  just noted media culpability in fostering  the false image, that indeed there was  room for denial in  the science results under discussion, when there isn't. :bigeyes:

whoo... interesting days ahead

As long as the CONS are in power and Harper is PM, Canada will not be a leader in this area. In fact Harper will be leading the charge against any meaningful steps.

Hopefully the opposition parties , NGO's, the media, and Canadians in general can pressure the Cons during the summit in Copenhagen.

But I wouldn't be suprised if Harper can somehow turn Copenhagen in his favour. Maybe he'll make some bold declarations on behalf of Cnada that are to take place in 2085?