rabble.ca Canadian federal election blog

NDP and Greens agree to “Turn on the Tap”

by rabble staff

The Polaris Institute has thrown down a challenge to all the major political parties, and only the NDP and Greens have signed on:

During the 2008 Federal Election all major political parties were issued a challenge, by the Polaris Institute in collaboration with David Suzuki, to “Turn on the Tap” and make their campaigns bottled water free.

In the past year universities, faith-based organizations, restaurants and municipalities across the country committed to public water systems by restricting bottled water use. In the 2008 election the New Democrats and Green Party joined a growing movement of Canadians taking a stand in support of public water.

The New Democratic Party committed to:

. “No bottled water at our central campaign office”

. “No bottled water supplied at Leader’s Tour events”

. “Significant efforts on the Leader’s Tour Bus to limit the use of bottled water”

The Green Party committed to:

. “A non-reusable bottled-free campaign”

Unfortunately the Liberal Party refused to commit to the challenge on the basis that they do not sign pledges during elections, though they did issue a statement outlining their party platform on water resources.

The Conservative Party and Bloc Quebecois did not return repeated requests for confirmation of their position.

“In Canada, municipal water systems are among the safest and strongest in the world. Meanwhile bottled water costs more, is less regulated, consumes more energy and releases more harmful toxics into the environment than tap water. On this issue, the New Democrats and Greens showed real leadership by committing to ditch the bottle and turn on the tap,” says Tony Clarke, Director of the Polaris Institute.

http://www.insidethebottle.org/

We must elect leaders who care about the planet

By David Suzuki with Faisal Moola.

Leaders of nations worldwide know we are near more than one environmental tipping point. So they’ve met to hammer out agreements in crucial areas such as biodiversity loss and global warming. Canada itself has acknowledged, through national planning and legislation, the importance of issues such as species conservation and sustainable development. Many of these agreements and strategies must be addressed during the mandate of the government we elect on October 14.

In December 2009, Canada will meet with other nations in Copenhagen to adopt an international treaty to succeed the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. In 2010, the country will also have to report on the progress it has made regarding the UN Convention on Biological Diversity’s targets for reducing biodiversity loss. Over the next few years, Canada’s government must also formally review its Species at Risk Act, implement a Sustainable Development Act, and tackle a number of other crucial environmental issues.

We need a government that will lead when it comes to caring for the finite world that gives us life and sustains us. We’ve already squandered 20 years since global warming was first recognized as an issue requiring immediate attention. We signed the Kyoto Protocol 10 years ago, in 1998, and ratified it in 2002, but have done little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since then. On top of that, our oceans have more plastics and pollution but fewer fish, plant and animal species are disappearing at an accelerating rate, and we have failed to take advantage of the many opportunities sustainable development offers.

Even though the environment has at least been on the agenda during this election, pollsters tell us Canadians see the economy and health care as more important. But it’s not a matter of one or the other. The health of Canadians depends on a healthy environment, as does a healthy economy. Everything is connected!

The economy is a huge issue, as we can see from the current meltdown in the U.S., which will surely have an enormous impact on our economy. But some politicians are exploiting our fears to imply that environmental protection and action on global warming are not compatible with a strong economy. What planet are these people living on?

That way of thinking is wrong on so many levels it’s hard to know where to begin. A strong, sustainable economy is not possible without a healthy environment. Global warming, pollution, diminishing resources, and loss of species and habitat will cost us increasingly more as our already burdened health-care systems are stretched to the limit, as we run short of fossil fuels and land to grow food, and as ecosystems collapse, threatening the availability of clean water, air, and soil.

Those who argue that protecting the environment will hurt the economy may want to take note that none of the current economic problems in the U.S., here, or around the world has been caused by environmental-protection measures! On the contrary, countries such as Germany and Denmark that took measures early on to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and switch to more renewable energy sources have seen substantial economic benefits and have been less vulnerable to the impacts of volatile fossil-fuel markets. We don’t decry $90 a tonne tipping fees for landfills but we scream bloody murder at a suggested $10 a tonne to pollute the atmosphere with carbon. Sweden has a flourishing economy with a carbon tax at $150 a tonne!

We’re a bit behind, but we can start to catch up by recognizing that environmental initiatives can give the economy a huge boost. We can keep sucking every last bit of coal and oil out of the ground until it’s all gone, until it’s all been burned and its carbon released into the air, or we can create jobs and economic opportunities by developing renewable sources of energy.

Yes, we can all make a difference through our own individual actions, by changing some of our habits, but we also have an opportunity to elect a government that will contribute to the kinds of large-scale changes needed for a sustainable world. As Canadians, we must hold the politicians to account and ensure that, no matter which party wins the election, we will have a government that shows foresight and leadership at home and abroad. That way we’ll have a country that is thriving on opportunity rather than drowning in crisis. If we keep stalling, we won’t have to worry about the economy, or health care, or anything else.

Am I going nuts or what?

By David Suzuki

I haven’t heard any serious discussion or debate about important issues.

Stephane Dion has introduced the idea of taxing pollution, following the lead of B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell’s carbon tax. I would have thought if there is disagreement between candidates that they would have talked about the challenge of climate change and what the various mechanisms might be to reduce our carbon footprint. But no, we hear it’s a crazy idea, economic suicide, blah, blah, blah.

Meanwhile the tar sands are going full blast, Canada’s emissions continue to climb and we leave to our children and grandchildren a monumental problem.

Even when they get in, politicians try their best to avoid making hard decisions unless the public keeps the pressure on. Remember that in 1988, George H.W. Bush promised, if elected, to be an “environmental president” because of public concern. The minute he got in, he became the worst environmental president the U.S. ever had until his son was elected and pushed him to the second worst.

Let’s make these folks address important issues in a serious way and keep their feet to the fire after they’re elected.