Leap Manifesto: 'A Call For A Canada Based on Caring For the Earth and One Another'

490 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rev Pesky

voice of the damned wrote:

So, the Americans are thwarting Somalia's ability to get wind-farms...why?

If wind-farms are such a surefire catapult into the economic stratosphere, why isn't the US itself undertaking a mass conversion to wind-farms? That's really the only way that a policy of blocking foreign wind-farms would make sense. The US would get exclusive access to the Goose That Lays The Golden Eggs, and everyone else would have to bow down at their feet.

That is the point, of course. If wind-farming is so easy, and economically sound, why isn't everyone doing it? According to the document cited by LEAP, all we need is around 4,000,000 5MW wind turbines, reinforced with a whole lot of solar, and throw in a hydro project or two for good measure. As a person who lives in BC, I can tell you that hydro power is not uncontroversial. We are on the point of beginning to build the Site C dam, but that battle has been going on for years. Solar power, like wind power is too variable to be a main source. Steady back-up is needed. Nowadays that most likely means natural gas.

It's too bad there weren't a few more physicists in the lineup of LEAP scientists. They may have been able to help sorting out the green from the brown.

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...And yes, I know the argument about wind power. You aren't the first person to have made it...

It wasn't an 'argument' about wind power, it was a fact about the reliability of wind power. When the wind doesn't blow, the output of wind turbines is zero. That is a plain and simple fact. If you want, or need, a minimum level of electricity, you have to back up your wind power with fixed, easily turned on and off, generators. Most often this would be natural gas fired generators. 

I sometimes wonder how many people who post here have actually seen a real live wind farm. I have, and I can tell you it isn't a pretty sight. Take a drive through the wind farn just east of Palm Springs. All those lovely picture you see of a half-dozen nice clean wind turbines up on grass covered rolling hills. That's only for entertainment puposes. A real wind farm is a huge industrial site, where much of the time the wind turbines sit doing absolutely nothing.

Something else people might want to think about. Wind is not only variable by day and by season, but is variable over longer cycles as well. In other words, where you put that wind farm may be the best spot today, but ten years down the road may not be. Moving wind turbines is not real easy, so you may just have to leave those in place, and build another wind farm elsewhere.

 

6079_Smith_W

*can't believe I am following down this tangent, but...*

Right next door to Somalia, Kenya has just launched a project to run one fifth of their grid on wind.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/06/3677104/kenya-builds-africas...

And if you look at a wind map, Somalia and Morocco have the highest wind potential in Africa.

http://afkinsider.com/88417/wind-farm-developers-loving-africa/

USAID is funding a wind project in Somaliland:

http://dai.com/news-publications/news/usaid-project-supports-constructio...

What do you think, Rev? Is this the hippie fascists' doing, or is if the military industrial complex trying to keep control of everything.

And when you let us know, do you mind if we get back to talking about this manifesto and its importance for Canada?

(cross posted with you)

Yes Rev, I have seen wind farms. Helped someone put up a meteorological tower on a test site, as a matter of fact. They do that to find out how much the wind is going to blow before they put up the towers. And I have friends back in Manitoba who were on occasion getting cheques from the power their mill put into the grid - 20 years ago.

Are you talking Cowley Ridge or back yard specials? And "how pretty?" Do you mean west coast trail pretty, of east end of Edmonton oil refinery pretty? No one seems to mind those things which cover half the landscape and stink up the town.

What's next, are you going to start telling us about clean coal?

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W

Here's a local power project: Meadow Lake Tribal Council using wood waste from the mill (which burns or offgasses anyway) instead of the propane that they have been using:

http://www.mbcradio.com/index.php/mbc-news/13504-mltc-looks-ahead-to-con...

And the biogas project here in Saskatoon I mentioned. Doesn't say so in the article, but they believe there is enough potential there to run it for 70 years:

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/10456/saskatoon-landfill-gas-facilit...

Or maybe it is too unsightly, because it is a dump.

And in case anyone wants to know how many of these useless ugly things that don't work because the wind never blows there are:

http://canwea.ca/wind-energy/installed-capacity/

It is interesting that the manifesto talks both about sovereignty and community control, because these renewable projects - wind, solar and biomass especially - have for the most part been small-scale, and often home units. As I said, Manitoba Hydro has had a policy to that effect for decades. And it is already happening in other provinces

https://www.hydro.mb.ca/environment/customer_owned_generation/index.shtml

So while the wind might not be blowing in one place all the time, it is usually always blowing somewhere, and having a diverse grid - and better still, improved storage capacity - is an important way forward.

And these small scale projects are most relevant to remote communities because they are the ones which are often most costly to service by the grid (unless they are near a hydro station) and many, especially those in the north, use fuel oil for power.

https://www.ntpc.com/smart-energy/how-we-supply-power

 

voice of the damned

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Do you mean west coast trail pretty, of east end of Edmonton oil refinery pretty? No one seems to mind those things which cover half the landscape and stink up the town.

 

I grew up about a forty minute walk from Refinery Row, and in my(mostly) non-ironic aesthetic judgement, they are among the most beautiful man-made sights I have ever seen. I actually have a photo(night-time) of them on the wall of my classroom.

And, actually, the smell generally wasn't that bad. An odd thing was that, with the exception of some low-rent townhouses immediately adjacent, the surrounding neighbourhoods tended to be middle to upper-middle class. So the blight evidently wasn't having too bad an impact on property rates.

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, I was kind of being facetious. As a kid I was always fascinated by the one in Winnipeg (no longer there). And the smell is definitely better than pig farms and the stock yards, though I don't think we are in any danger of a moratorium on bacon.

But I find these complaints about wind farm esthetics to be completely ridiculous. As ridiculous as the notion that the wind doesn't blow in Alberta. Was there wailing and hand-wringing about power poles ruining the view before the advent of wind farms? Or wrecking yards? I don't think so.

 

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...And when you let us know, do you mind if we get back to talking about this manifesto and its importance for Canada?

From the LEAP Manifesto:

Quote:
We could live in a country powered entirely by truly just renewable energy

So we are talking about renewable energy. Did you not read the Manifesto?

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:
..What's next, are you going to start telling us about clean coal?

This is what I like about you, you always try to dodge the issue. Why is it that a reality based look at so-called green energy is interpreted as necessarily an endorsement of fossil fuels? I think it's simply because endorsers of 'green' would rather talk about how bad fossil fuels are than address the shortcomings of 'green' energy. Maybe you could enlighten me on that.

In the meantime, just to clarify, I do not endorse the use of coal, diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, or biomass as generators of electricity. But let's be clear about this. The problem isn't fossil fuel, the problem is CO2. The solution to the problem of CO2 is to decrease the amount of CO2  being pumped into the atmosphere. Decreasing the amount of fossil fuel burned is the easiest way to accomplish that. So why can't we just burn less fossil fuel?

My opinion is that we can't just burn less fossil fuel because nobody wants that. What they want is their current lifestyle, achieved by magical means, and politicians and manufacturers are more than ready to accomodate them. The politicians because no politician ever got elected by telling the people they needed to cut back their consumption, and manufacturers because there's no profit in in just reducing consumption.

Just to provide a little context, electricity consumption in Canada in 1960 was about 100 billion kWh. By 2011, consumption was 565 billion kWh. Yes, there have been population increases over those years, but I know for certain the population isn't five-and-a-half times what it was in 1960.

Given what we already know about the reliability factor of wind power (less than 1% of capacity), there is no chance that the power demands of the population of Canada can, or will, be met by any combination of wind, solar, biomass, tidal, or any other 'green' source, unless one includes nuclear as being green.

Given that Canadians are among the highest consumers of electricity in the world (per capita) the authors of LEAP should have stressed the importance of reducing consumption in order to lessen CO2 emissions. But no, I guess they, like everyone else, would rather live in fantasyland.

 

6079_Smith_W

Dodging the issue?

Rev, as I see it the most basic issue here is that sooner or later we won't be using non-renewables, because there won't be any more, if we survive that long. 

That people won't change because they "don't want that" as you say might just be dodging the issue a little more than you accuse me of doing.

...and living in a bit more of a fantasyland than those who see where this is heading, and want to do something about it.

And I'd suggest the assumption that we can just use less non-renewable energy without replacing it with anything shows a similar lack of foresight.

Now you just posted a quote from the LEAP Manifesto saying the goal is to power this country with renewables. I assume you are aware this means not burning fossil fuels, and reducing CO2 pollution accordingly. So I am curious why you seem to think that is not one of their primary goals, and something they are avoiding.

The best way to plan for something like that is to plan how to do without it. If you can think of something better than hydro, biomass, geothermal, wind and solar, I'd love to hear your plan for keeping the lights and furnace on when we turn the oil taps off - hopefully before they run dry.

Now do you have any more reasons why none of this is possible, or can we get on with some of the reasons why we think it is something worth working toward?

iyraste1313

"Given that Canadians are among the highest consumers of electricity in the world (per capita) the authors of LEAP should have stressed the importance of reducing consumption in order to lessen CO2 emissions"

Thanks for this! But it begs the question...how to reduce?

This is the crucial debate...which must focus on our overdependancy on centralized development and reliance on shipping and transportation...

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I am at 3 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year now. I'm also working in the renewables and energy-efficiency business, but not in a corporate format. We are a network of workers. There are some suppliers. We have a group goal of reducing world consumption by a gW. Wish us luck!

6079_Smith_W

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/technology/leap+manifesto+line+with+mainst...

Quote:

Calling it "crackpot", "stupid", "childishly naive", "wacky", "madness", "way out" and way too "far from the mainstream," mainstream media leaped all over the Leap Manifesto, a document designed to inject discussion of the most pressing issues of the age into an election that largely ignores them.

Actually, the document is mainstream, if by mainstream you mean in line with contemporary science, technology and enlightened public policy.

In fact, most of the ideas in the manifesto are endorsed by at least one of the three mainstream political parties. These include: increased investments in public infrastructure; a national childcare program; equal pay for equal work; respecting immigrants' rights; taxing the rich and large corporations more; and some form of carbon change.

Rev Pesky

iyraste1313 wrote:

"Given that Canadians are among the highest consumers of electricity in the world (per capita) the authors of LEAP should have stressed the importance of reducing consumption in order to lessen CO2 emissions"

Thanks for this! But it begs the question...how to reduce?

This is the crucial debate...which must focus on our overdependancy on centralized development and reliance on shipping and transportation...

 

Well, it's true. Everyone wants 'green' power. No one wants to reduce their consumption. That's why they keep inventing magical means of creating electricity. That's why I suggest starting off with a graph showing power consumption per capita in Canada versus the same in other parts of the world. Couple that with the question of how we can lecture others about CO2 emissions when our own are so much higher.

I understand that is not a popular argument. Politiciians don't get elected by telling people to consume less. Businesses don't make more profit when people buy less. No individual person thinks they are the problem. So, magic it is, I guess...

6079_Smith_W

The Manifesto is about Canada's response. No one is lecturing anyone else.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Back when I was in school I had an instructor, who was the first person I ever knew to have a 1Gb hard drive.  It was a "double form factor" drive (i.e. it was the size of two regular hard drives stuck together) and it cost him a little over $1000.

Now I can buy an 8Gb USB key for less than $10, and it's the size of my pinky.  Now THAT is magic.  Who would have thought that was possible? 

FWIW, you can also get a 1Tb USB key for about the same price as my instructor paid for his hard drive.  Same "pinky" size, but the storage space of a thousand of his hard drives.

I doubt if solar power is going to drop to 0.1% of its current price, but if it even drops to 10% of its current price then I think we'll start to see a lot of dark purple roofs and such.

NDPP

Barrick: Canadian Company's Toxic Mine Spill of Million Litres of Cyanide Could Cause Death in 8 Minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Sa4aXVo2u4

"Barrick has confirmed that over a million litres of cyanide solution were spilled at one of its mines in Argentina. Initially, the Canada-based firm's estimates of the spill were only a fifth of what were declared.

A dose of several hundred grams results in respiratory failure and cardiac arrest - and causes death in 8 minutes."

Thanks Barrick - thanks Canada!

 

Tom Mulcair's NDP Will Strengthen the Mining Industry

http://www.ndp.ca/news/tom-mulcairs-ndp-will-strengthen-mining-industry

"Unlike the Conservatives who have put mining on the back burner, the NDP understands that this industry drives prosperity in Canada,' said Mr Mulcair."

iyraste1313

Tom Mulcair's NDP Will Strengthen the Mining Industry...

Thanks for this! Mulcair winning the election is indeed a scary prospect...given his grass roots contacts with info on the activist movements and no doubt extensive use of some pitiful reform of C-51 or replacement with something equally as bad?

swallow swallow's picture

Well, the NDP and some Liberals supported a bill that would have curbed Canadian mining companies slightly. Munk and co crushed it. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Well, the NDP and some Liberals supported a bill that would have curbed Canadian mining companies slightly. Munk and co crushed it.

Do you mean that the Conservatives crushed it? 

Rev Pesky

From the NDP website:

Quote:
An Innovation Tax Credit, reducing the small business tax rate and extending the accelerated capital cost allowance for machinery are all part of the NDP plan. These measures will support the small businesses and contractors that are the backbones of mining communities and help mining companies hurt by the Conservatives’ cuts to support for capital intensive R&D.

Thereby positioning themselves to the right of the Conservatives...

6079_Smith_W

How so?

Harper has dropped the corporate tax rate from 21 to 15 percent during his time in office.

Mulcair proposes to raise the corporate rate to 17 percent, and drop the small business rate from 11 to 9.

Changing the rate of capital cost allowance doesn't give companies anything other than freedom to decide when they want to deduct the cost of equipment. It is a good proposal.

The proposal is not specific to the mining sector, but even if it was it has no relation to environmental requirements those companies would have to meet.

 

 

Rev Pesky

The point the NDP were making is that they were going to be more friendly to business than the Conservatives. That is certanly positioning themselves to the right of...

Accelerating the capital cost allowance allows companies to amortize the cost of machinery over a shorter time. If a company has a piece of machinery that cost $100, and the capital cost allowance rules they can't amortize it over less than 5 years, they get a $20 tax deduction each year. If the amortization period is changed to two years, that means they get a deduction of $50 per year. That lowers their immediate tax bill. It may not change the amount of tax paid over a number of years, but I can guarantee that companies always take present real benefit over future possible benefit.

Of course nowadays the plan is to lease equipment. 100% of lease payments are deductible, and there's a whole cottage industry out there setting up leasing for companies.

6079_Smith_W

Hey Rev, I deal with capital costs and deductions as part of my work. You don't need to explain it to me. My point, which you seem to have confirmed by repeating what I said, is that no one is getting an unfair financial advantage because of this change.

Do you have a problem with this?

... and more friendly to business than Harper? When it comes to big business, evidently not, if they plan to reverse his tax cuts. As for small business, why should he not be helping them have an even playing field?

 

6079_Smith_W

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/tom-mulcair-in-iqaluit-ndp-promises-...

Quote:

"We're going to work with the communities to come up with solutions like small hydro, wind, other green energy alternatives to start replacing the diesel," Mulcair added. "Diesel, it can always be there as a backup, but I want most of that electricity to come from clean, renewable sources." 

Mulcair said the $100-million investment over four years will not only create local jobs for Inuit but also help improve the health and safety of northern communities.

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Hey Rev, I deal with capital costs and deductions as part of my work. You don't need to explain it to me. My point, which you seem to have confirmed by repeating what I said, is that no one is getting an unfair financial advantage because of this change.

Do you have a problem with this?

... and more friendly to business than Harper? When it comes to big business, evidently not, if they plan to reverse his tax cuts. As for small business, why should he not be helping them have an even playing field?

Who said anything about 'unfair advantage'? It's wasn't about unfair advantage, it was about the NDP positioning themselves to the rigtht of the Conservatives.

As far as the capital cost allowance, why would some company use the proposed capital cost change if it didn't lower their tax bill? That was the point of the NDP program, that what Harper had taken away, the NDP would re-instate to the advantage of the company.

Even playing field? I though Mulcair was to raise corporate taxes, while dropping 'small business' taxes. There was nothing in their program about making an 'even playing field'.

6079_Smith_W

Rev, now you are just being silly.

My point about the capital deductions is that there is no unfair advantage. The tax gets paid. On the other hand, there can be an unfair hit, if one has to absorb a capital cost that is a large percentage of overall revenue.

And by "even playing field" I mean a situation where those who earn more pay higher tax. That is how one evens a playing field with unfair advantages. You don't mean a flat tax, do you?

Still haven't answered my question about how raising corporate taxes, while dropping them for small businesses, is positioning themselves to the right of Harper.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

*ha ha*

okay Rev. So you did read the numbers  (some of them, anyway). That's good.

I think this is about as far as I am interested in going down this rabbit hole.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..from the leap facebook page

Albertans support strong action on climate change, including carbon tax: poll

The NDP government’s push to phase-out coal-fired electricity has strong support among Albertans, who also want to see more renewable power, says a new poll commissioned by the Pembina Institute, an environmental think-tank.

Premier Rachel Notley, in New York this week promising stronger action on climate change than previous Conservative governments, appears to be in tune with the majority of Albertans, the EKOS poll shows.

More than 70 per cent of Albertans surveyed said they support investment in renewable energy to reduce reliance on coal, with only 19 per cent opposed, according to the survey of 1,855  Albertans conducted Aug. 28 to Sept. 10....

...

Sweden is shifting to a 6-hour work day

Despite research telling us it’s a really bad idea, many of us end up working 50-hour weeks or more because we think we’ll get more done and reap the benefits later. And according to a study published last month involving 600,000 people, those of us who clock up a 55-hour week will have a 33 percent greater risk of having a stroke than those who maintain a 35- to 40-hour week.

With this in mind, Sweden is moving towards a standard 6-hour work day, with businesses across the country having already implemented the change, and a retirement home embarking on a year-long experiment to compare the costs and benefits of a shorter working day....

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture
epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..more from the leap facebook page.

Canada's native chiefs reviewing treaty to block oil industry expansion

Native chiefs in the Western Canadian province of British Columbia voted on Wednesday to join some of their eastern counterparts opposed to a major pipeline project, in a move some leaders described as a step toward a national alliance aimed at blocking expansion of Alberta's oil sands industry.

The chiefs from British Columbia agreed to join opposition to the Energy East project - proposed by TransCanada Corp at the meeting, also attended by chiefs from the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec. If approved, the Energy East pipeline would carry up to 1.1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta's oil sands to the Atlantic coast, along a 4,200 km (2,850-mile) route....

Rev Pesky

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Rev, now you are just being silly.

My point about the capital deductions is that there is no unfair advantage. The tax gets paid. On the other hand, there can be an unfair hit, if one has to absorb a capital cost that is a large percentage of overall revenue.

At no point did I state that I felt the capital cost allowance was unfair. That was something you inserted when it became obvious your ammunition was running out. My point was that the NDP presented the capital cost allowance change as being better than that offered by the Conservatives.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...And by "even playing field" I mean a situation where those who earn more pay higher tax. That is how one evens a playing field with unfair advantages. You don't mean a flat tax, do you?

Do you mean 'higher tax', or pay a higher tax rate? It is unclear whether you're speaking of tax rates, or actual tax payments. In any case, there are only two rates that need concern us. The federal tax rate is 15%, unless you qualify for the small business deduction, in which case the rate is 11%. That small business rate is scheduled to go down over the next four years, from 11% to 9%. The NDP apparently will drop it even further.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
...Still haven't answered my question about how raising corporate taxes, while dropping them for small businesses, is positioning themselves to the right of Harper.

What does it mean when the NDP says it will be kinder to business than the Conservatives?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Pushing climate change policy from the outside

Documentary This Changes Everything by activists Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis calls for drastic action to fight climate change

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Canada’s party leaders neglecting renewable energy in election talks

Where is the love for renewable energy in this election campaign? While the rest of the world is engaged in the greatest energy revolution since humans began burning coal, Canada’s would-be prime ministers have been stuck in the past, debating pipelines, oil tankers and the oil sands. The economic opportunities offered by this transformation are almost unfathomably immense, measured in the tens of trillions of dollars.

quote:

The extensive benefits of shifting toward renewables were reinforced by a major research project that studied delays and cost overruns for hundreds of major electricity projects in 57 countries from 1936 to 2014. The study found that nuclear, fossil fuel and large hydro projects routinely faced major delays and went way over budget.

The International Energy Agency recently estimated that it would cost $44-trillion (U.S.) to switch the global energy system to 100-per-cent renewables by 2050, but that it would save $115-trillion in fuel costs – for a net savings of $71-trillion. This shift would also prevent millions of premature deaths and tens of millions of illnesses caused by air pollution, and diminish conflicts over increasingly scarce fossil fuel resources. When the health and environmental externalities of fossil fuels are taken into consideration, the economic rationale for rapidly switching to a renewable energy system is irrefutable. As Adnan Amin, head of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said earlier this year, “it has never been cheaper to avoid dangerous climate change, create jobs, reduce fuel import bills and future-proof our energy system with renewables.”

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Sweden Plans To Become World's First Fossil Fuel-Free Nation

quote:

Earlier this year, Costa Rica met the entirety of its national power demand using renewable energy for 75 days straight. Shortly afterwards, the U.S. state of Hawaii passed legislature decreeing that, by 2045, the entire island will be powered by renewable, sustainable energy sources. Denmark, one spectacularly windy day in July, generated 140% of the nation’s electricity demand through wind power alone, as reported by the Guardian. Remarkably, much of the excess was given to Germany, Norway and Sweden.

Sweden may have taken this to heart, because just last month they announced that they will be spending an extra $546 million (£360 million) on renewable energy and climate change action, beginning with their budget for 2016. The ultimate aim is as ambitious as it is honorable: They hope to become one of the world’s first nations to end its dependence on fossil fuels. Solar energy, in particular, has seen its budget increase by 800%.

Although this nationwide goal has not got its own timetable yet, the Swedish government has announced that its capital of Stockholm aims to be powered only by sustainable energy sources by 2050.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Although this nationwide goal has not got its own timetable yet

Not to be a naysayer, but if they have no timetable, why do they expect to be first?

Rev Pesky

Perhaps the Swedes haven't noticed, but the bulk of the country is pretty far north. Stockholm is roughly as far north as Watson Lake, Yukon, so solar power seems a bit of a stretch. Unless you had huge batteries.

swallow swallow's picture

And yet they still want to try to be sustainable. The nerve! 

jjuares

I went to see the movie based Kleins book. Both Klein and Lewis were there also. It was the Edmonton debut. Good movie and makes you hopeful.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Leap Manifesto to anchor major November 5 climate rally in Vancouver

quote:

Despite those attacks, the document hasn’t gone away and many people are taking it seriously. On November 5, the Leap Manifesto will be at the centre of an outdoor rally taking place in downtown Vancouver at Jack Poole Plaza beginning at 12 p.m.

“The first responses were very dismissive,” Lewis said. “But we have a policy agenda now, which has survived that initial onslaught and is gathering momentum in this post­election moment.”

Lewis will be there alongside the event’s main speaker, Naomi Klein, plus a number of other notable attendees and musical guests.

Two days earlier, on November 3, Lewis and Klein’s latest documentary, This Changes Everything, is scheduled to be released on iTunes. And all week, some 3,000 members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) will be in Vancouver for the group’s annual convention. That gathering has allowed Leap rally organizers to predict that hundreds or even thousands of people will gather for Klein’s speech in Coal Harbour.

Lewis acknowledged that an important question is how Canada can pay for the renewable-energy infrastructure and public-transit projects for which the manifesto calls.

“We anticipated that question, took it very seriously, and gave it a serious, deep policy response,” he said.

That came in the form of a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) paper titled “We can afford the leap”. In a telephone interview, one of the document’s coauthors, CCPA senior economist Marc Lee, said the money is available and can be accessed with progressive government policies.

Pondering

It's a real shame the Leap manifesto isn't presented in a manner that would appeal to the 99%.

Opening with a focus on indigenous people immediately sets it up as something that is for them, less than 5% of the population, rather than for all Canadians. 

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has acknowledged shocking details about the violence of Canada’s near past. Deepening poverty and inequality are a scar on the country’s present. And Canada’s record on climate change is a crime against humanity’s future.

These facts are all the more jarring because they depart so dramatically from our stated values: respect for Indigenous rights, internationalism, human rights, diversity, and environmental stewardship.

We could live in a country powered entirely by renewable energy, woven together by accessible public transit, in which the jobs and opportunities of this transition are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality. Caring for one another and caring for the planet could be the economy’s fastest growing sectors. Many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours, leaving us ample time to enjoy our loved ones and flourish in our communities.

We know that the time for this great transition is short. Climate scientists have told us that this is the decade to take decisive action to prevent catastrophic global warming. That means small steps will no longer get us where we need to go.This leap must begin by respecting the inherent rights and title of the original caretakers of this land. Indigenouscommunities have been at the forefront of protecting rivers, coasts, forests and lands from out-of-control industrial activity. We can bolster this role, and reset our relationship, by fully implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

All true, but the second paragraph seems intended to convince us that if only were fair to indigenous peoples all would be right with the world.

The Leap manifesto isn't wrong, it's just designed to fail. It is evangelical and comes across as promoting some sort of future utopia.

It loses the majority long before getting here: How we can pay for all of this? Read “We Can Afford The Leap” by Bruce Campbell, Seth Klein, and Marc Lee

The first question should always be who are you trying to convince and what are their primary interests or strongest motivation factors?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

pondering

..i'm thinking it's way to early to be passing those judgments. 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture


Nov 5th-8th
Climate change demands urgent, decisive action.

That’s why we’re planning a series of serious, but gentle, civil disobedience actions starting November 5th to welcome Justin Trudeau to office and call on him to get to work on real climate action.

We know that we, the people, will need to push for an urgent and drastic shift in Canada’s climate policies ahead of the Paris climate talks. We also know that this starts with a Prime Minister that understands that climate action and tar sands expansion don’t mix.

We need a calm, deliberate, and steady plan to wean Canada off volatile boom-and-bust oil revenues, and reorient our economy towards 21st—not 19th—century technology.

When you find yourself in a hole like this, the first rule is simple: stop digging. This is literally what we need Prime Minister Trudeau to commit to. Freeze the expansion of the tar sands and commit to a justice-based transition to a clean energy economy. No huge new mines on top of the ones that already scar the landscape, poison the environment and violate Indigenous and treaty rights – it’s already big enough. Instead, build a just, clean energy economy that works for people and the planet.

Let’s give Prime Minister Trudeau a proper climate welcome.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

moved to 1 page over

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

Leap for Canada by Canadian Union of Public Employees

“I’ll sign the Leap Manifesto for a Canada that cares for each other and the planet #cdnpoli #cupe2015 #climatechange http://thndr.me/pScA56

Support Canadian Union of Public Employees in sharing this message.

Pondering

epaulo13 wrote:

pondering

..i'm thinking it's way to early to be passing those judgments. 

Maybe so but I have yet to see this sort of approach ever work and it's frustrating. The anti-pipeline movement didn't start with we should respect indigenous rights and they don't want pipelines because they are bad for the enviroment so we should help them because they are right or because we owe them. The reason to stop pipelines is two-fold, climate change and spills, but it's the spills that were the key to building the local movements that have actually stopped the pipelines.

The powerful have used marketing techniques and their knowledge of human motivation to manipulate and confuse, to mold human behavior, to sell harmfall products, solely for their own benefit, while doing untold damage to the planet.

I think that progressives have to use those same tools but for good and to educate not confuse.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think that progressives have to use those same tools but for good and to educate not confuse.

Have "marketing techniques" ever been used to educate, not confuse?

What about using plain information to educate?  Not exciting enough to work?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

pondering

..i clearly remember you poo pooing the march in toronto. also claiming that they would do nothing and change nothing. yet from that march the leap has emerged which is now a much broader and pan canadian movement that encompasses many many other movements.

..where's your data, where your evidence to the claims you are making? you need to produce that data if you are making an argument. at the best you're stating an opinion based on something that you don't include in you post.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think that progressives have to use those same tools but for good and to educate not confuse.

Have "marketing techniques" ever been used to educate, not confuse?

What about using plain information to educate?  Not exciting enough to work?

I'm a big fan of communicating plain information and allowing people to come to their own conclusions, for one thing coming to your own conclusion leads to a stronger opinion.

That is not what the Leap manifesto is trying to do, at least I don't think so. I think they want to sway opinion, to convince people that a better future is possible and it doesn't entail denying ourselves the comforts of life like a well-heated home and freedom to travel or even paying significantly higher taxes.

You are absolutely right that the first step is plain information, but the order in which information is provided, or questions are asked, sway the outcome. Surely we know that through polling.

The Leap manifesto asks us to sign an internet petition as though that level of commitment to the cause is going to make some sort of difference.

The Leap Manifesto looks inward, preaches to the converted, it's for activists and progressives and academics to try to get a bunch of people to sign it who will be no more committed than people signing a petition for anything else. People will remember it being about indigenous people, the environment and taxes and a bunch of green projects and stuff if they remember that much.

“We call on all those seeking political office to seize this opportunity and embrace the urgent need for transformation”

They couldn't even persuade the NDP with it.  It will win some new starry-eyed fans but as the Manifesto itself says we need radical change as fast as possible and we are no where near convincing the public that it's time to panic even though there are great solutions available right now that are clearly more attractive even if we weren't destroying the climate and polluting our environment to our own detriment.

 

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
It's a real shame the Leap manifesto isn't presented in a manner that would appeal to the 99%.

Opening with a focus on indigenous people immediately sets it up as something that is for them, less than 5% of the population, rather than for all Canadians.

uh the less than 5% of Canadian population you refer to so distainfully actually owns this country. all of it.

this i your absolute worst post ever. it's racist classist and condescending. i have some choice names for you. but i'll refrain and just call you  a piece of work.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
It's a real shame the Leap manifesto isn't presented in a manner that would appeal to the 99%.

Opening with a focus on indigenous people immediately sets it up as something that is for them, less than 5% of the population, rather than for all Canadians.

uh the less than 5% of Canadian population you refer to so distainfully actually owns this country. all of it.

this i your absolute worst post ever. it's racist classist and condescending. i have some choice names for you. but i'll refrain and just call you  a piece of work.

Do you want to win or just be right? I think winning is better.

iyraste1313

"The Leap manifesto isn't wrong, it's just designed to fail."

While I agree with the demands, the document is totally inadequate as to its fundamental demand...that Society take responsible for its direction. not to rely on the wisdom of our economic and financial elites!

That not just indigenous, but all local communities have responsibility to protect its lands and forests and watersheds, that an Earth Charter be included in the constitution and a Court be established to protect that constitution.....

Yes the document lacks perspective!

Pages

Topic locked