Thundertype

Thundertype 11

Canada Ignored & Ridiculed at Durban

Well, no wonder: “While other countries have set up pavilions and exhibitions in Durban to promote their climate policies, Canada is missing in action. Other countries, even heavy polluters such as China and the United States, are organizing panels and speaking daily to the world’s media at the conference. Canada is nearly invisible, except for a tightly restricted briefing to a handful of Canadian media in a small hotel room, more than a kilometre from the conference site, where Environment Minister Peter Kent issues his daily statements.

Members of Parliament at the Durban summit, including Green Party Leader Elizabeth May and deputy NDP environment critic Laurin Liu, have been barred from Mr. Kent’s daily briefings. They were also refused accreditation in Canada’s delegation at Durban, forcing them to seek accreditation from other countries, such as Papua New Guinea.”

Read the full article on The Globe & Mail.

7 December 2011

Thundertype 8

Greenpeace spells out Climatefail at Parliament Hill, in protest of the government’s retrograde stance on climate change and emissions mitigation at Durban. Elizabeth May goes as far to say that Canada will play the role of saboteur. Although I’d call it “obstructivist,” I basically agree.

Check out the full-res shots here.

30 November 2011

Thundertype

Copenhagen to Cancun: What Happened?

I’ve been sitting on this post for awhile because I wanted to take a close read of Elizabeth May’s summary on the COP16 climate change talks in Cancun. If you want to understand how different the proceedings were compared to COP15 in Copenhagen, this is worth a serious look. Note Elizabeth’s responses in the Comments section.

5 January 2011

Oilsands Pipeline Battle Heating Up Already?

In Environmental Flashpoint: The Great Bear Forest, I talked about how “the Harper government will not enforce an expired moratorium on offshore drilling and oil tanker shipping off the BC coast — a moratorium introduced in 1972, maintained by every previous federal government, and confirmed to continue by the Chretien government in 2004.”

I concluded by saying this battle will heat up between the Tories, Albertan energy interests, First Nations, and community and environmental stakeholders (ie: a Flashpoint). Well, I was bang-on (*toot toot*) but I could not have predicted the next group to draw a line in the sand: The Ignatieff Liberals!?

It appears that, in this case, Iggy has decided, out of the blue(?), that he will maintain previous Liberal policies vis-à-vis tanker moratorium. This seems rather inconsistent with the party’s oilsands approach; Ignatieff himself has a much-publicized stance of unbridled support for the Alberta oilsands. Coming out against oil tanker traffic — tankers fed by the cross-BC pipeline and ultimately the oilsands?

This at first looks like a risky gamble for the LPC. But it could work. After all, he said it; the Liberal leader declared: “The disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a grim reminder that we must always be vigilant.” The Liberals are taking a gamble that this policy will be a hit with British Columbians currently horrified by images of glorious birds tarred in BP’s mistake. The Globe & Mail article points out that “a poll conducted in May found that 80% of 500 people surveyed supported a ban on tanker traffic on the B.C. coast”.

Essentially, with this announcement, I think the Liberals are conceding they don’t have a hope in hell of winning Albertan hearts, oilsands support or not. This makes their oilsands commitment malleable at best.

But, the LPC is gambling that spill-fearing, coast-loving swing voters in BC will like this specific vein of wildly variable Ignatieff environmentalism. They might be right, especially if they succeed in painting Tories as coast-hating oil curmudgeons.

Well, I’m happy that the gang grew a pair on this one (unless they waffle, which wouldn’t be much of a surprise).

(Perhaps they can take a few other stances soon, too?)

22 June 2010