Orr, perhaps not.

Posted 1 June 2017 by isjustian
Categories: Uncategorized

Former Liberal MLA Sheila Orr penned “Comment: Green-Liberal alliance would have served B.C. better”

My response, “Orr, perhaps not” in … let’s see now … how about green! 🙂

As a partisan B.C. Liberal, I obviously find the agreement made between the Greens and the New Democrats hard to swallow. No doubt.

Let me explain why. I do not think that Green Leader Andrew Weaver or his two rookie colleagues have really thought out or understand the urban-rural split. Weaver and his “rookies” didn’t think or understand? This is off to a good start.

This issue is about the future of the province, and this is why a Liberal-Green agreement would have made common sense. It would have been better for the province. It’s fair and balanced. Apparently Weaver and his rookies are not smart enough to know this is about the future of the province, nor are they sensible, fair or balanced.

An NDP-Green alliance concentrates the decision-making power in the hands of the urban centres. Lots of lattes will be consumed whilst sitting around fancy, warm boardrooms making decisions, while the Tim Hortons crowd lining up in their trucks at 6 a.m., going to work, will be left out in the freezing cold. Because no one in the Lower Mainland or on the Island gets up and goes to work in the morning. And the world is a freezing cold, dreary place if you’re a Liberal.

If you live beyond Hope, your closest cabinet minister will be hundreds of kilometres away. Contrarily, a Liberal-Green agreement would have seen a balance between those in the North, the Interior and urban areas. A Liberal-Green alliance would have made for good public policy, and represent almost 60 per cent of the vote. Orr forgets Liberal MLAs in Parksville-Qualicum, Richmond North Centre, Delta South, West Vancouver Sea to Sky, Vancouver Capilano, North Vancouver Seymour, Coquitlam Burke-Mountain, Surrey-White Rock, Surrey South, Surrey Cloverdale, Langley, Langley East, Abbotsford West, Abbotsford South, Abbotsford Mission, Chilliwack, and Chilliwack-Kent who are at least geographically not beyond Hope.

Orr also seems to overlook North Island, North Coast, Stikine, Kootenay West and Nelson-Creston that went NDP and where I would image a great many residents would not take kindly to being referred to as over-comfortable latte sippers. Also that the GreenDP represents almost 60% of the vote.

I agree with the Greens: It is time for democratic reform. However if proportional representation is to be considered, then it can only be decided by referendum. So at what time while Liberals had a majority was there any effort to get this done?

In 2009, 60 per cent of the public rejected the idea. If the Green members really want this to happen, how do they think they can sell it to the province when they have no connection to the up-country parts? Interestingly, surveys by the Centre for the Study of Democratic Institutions at the University of B.C. indicate that it was Liberal voters who rejected the STV in 2009. In 2017 60 per cent of the public voted against the BC Liberals and for parties that did promise electoral reform. Guess we’ll see.

It’s that huge area that favours resource development, which creates the wealth that we spend here on the coast. This is where B.C.’s wealth comes from. I don’t see huge industrial trucks pulling out from the mines and going through Kerrisdale or Oak Bay on their way to market. I’ll just leave this here…

Main sources of GDP in British Columbia

Main sources of GDP in British Columbia
http://credbc.ca/role-energy-sector-bcs-economy/

Equally important is to have a democratic-reform agenda to reform the legislature.

For example, if free votes were allowed in the legislature as part of a working agreement, then the Greens and Liberals could have voted for or against each other’s legislation and policy, other than on the few confidence motions required to provide government stability.

As an MLA, I disliked the pressure to go along with the party discipline that forces votes on every issue, even when the issue was at odds with constituents’ interests, or personal beliefs. That’s how it works today, and has for a long time in B.C.

Here was a good opportunity to change the practice, and to stop the accepted practice of every vote being along party lines. If most votes were votes of conscience or supportive of constituents’ needs, the atmosphere of the legislature would become more collaborative, and that would work better for all of us. This is the perfect time to start this change.

This reform would have differentiated parties on key issues and let the voters see clearly where they stand with each party, and yet still supply stability and allow parties to present an alternative to the public in the next election; the Greens just blew that opportunity. They blew that opportunity? Why can’t that practice change now? And what did Orr do to change that? When did the Liberals bring it up while in majority? Looking forward to Orr’s support for the GreenDP to achieve it.

The Liberals and Greens could have worked together on other areas, indeed, they did in the last parliament. But a healthy disagreement from time to time presents choice, and that spawns good public policy.

Yes, some cynics and New Democrats will say I am just rationalizing so the Liberals can stay in power after 16 years. But even if I weren’t connected politically, why would I want say goodbye to a government that has offered myself and my family a good economy and jobs? Perhaps because extractive industry isn’t all BC has to offer. Perhaps because there are other values as well that enter into the equation for most people. Perhaps because most British Columbians can see that the path we’ve been on is not working for most British Columbians, and was not sustainable in any sense of the word.

The Greens could have embraced how well the province is doing and worked to implement their policies in an already thriving economy. They chose another path. Like forward instead of backward looking.

Everyone hates it when we harp on about the awful NDP 1990s (maybe because a lot of it’s bullshit), and I don’t think Weaver and his team really remember or understood those days. They are about to find out how quickly things, especially spending, can get out of control — and they have agreed to support it. Again with the dismissive and demeaning. Weaver and his team, silly young pups that they are, just don’t understand. And I’ll just leave this here…

With the NDP-Green alliance, the views of Vancouver and other urban areas will dominate. The rest of the province will be alienated. See forgotten Liberal and NDP ridings above.

Politics is about making choices. An agreement between the Liberals and the Greens would not have been such a hard pill to swallow. It was the right medicine. It might have been laced with fentanyl.

 

Advertisements

COP 21: Setting The Stage for What’s Next

Posted 14 December 2015 by isjustian
Categories: Environment, Politics

Tags: ,

Impressions from a quick look at COP 21’s Paris Agreement.

love2012

Ok. So I’ve begun to dig into this Paris deal finally. Yes, it is historic and to be cheered given the level where it plays. Just as the Alberta Climate Plan was historic and to be applauded, given its context.

It is notable, given concerns around these subjects late in the negotiations, that the text contains;

“Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind, Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity”

Thank you Canada for standing for the right side of that piece.

However, for you and I who live on the ground in the real world and who have infants who look at us with trust; there can be no pause.

– Intended nationally determined contributions do not fall within 2C scenarios, despite all the talk of a 1.5C target, which btw is not a target but a commitment to ‘pursue efforts’. Nearer to actual target is “well below 2C”, which is nice but not quite the same as memes you may have seen singing about a 1.5C commitment.

– Actual national targets are not legally binding so provide all the room necessary for political expediency to take the place of necessary responsible action.

– Carbon neutrality is left to the second half of the century, kicking the can down the road again.

– Longer term goals require carbon extraction from the atmosphere, which means we’re not going to reduce emissions enough, but are going to count on our children to invent something.

– “In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”

“as soon as possible” Define “possible”. Possible as in ‘nothing else we can do’, or possible as in ‘best that can be done while keeping party donors happy’?

“best available science” in a context of funding and supporting science to come up with solutions as though this were a war-time effort? Or science like under a Harper or US Republican government?

Lots more to read, and lots good in this agreement, but so far imo it looks like aspirational text that can be easily ignored.

Much of the big money is going to go where it thinks it can make more money. It still falls to the grassroots to ensure that the necessary “reputational reasons” are in place for political players (note the deliberate choice not to use the word “leaders”. Those are too rare) and financial bigshots to do what is needed to at least not make a sham of this deal.

In summary, imho, this is huge, historic, stupendous, earthshattering! And on the ground, for you and I, makes not a damn bit of difference. We on the ground still have to stop the pipelines, stop the coal, stop the fracking, stop Site C, stop deforestation, unbridled industrialization, and all the abuses of global capitalism, and as it stands here in Canada do it in a context that still includes C-51.

To borrow a line from the 4th Healing Walk, we still have to Stop the Destruction, Start the Healing.

So, tomorrow is another day, just like the other one.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some thoughts from others;

The Paris Agreement: Paper Heroes Widen the Climate Justice Gap – John Foran

COP21 Final Blog – Day 13 – Elizabeth May and NZ Green MP Kennedy Graham

Raise your Mac from the Dead!

Posted 9 May 2015 by isjustian
Categories: Hardware

Mac folks need to know!
etsy image
If your Mac is completely dead; no response at all to anything, no lights, not a flicker when the power button is pressed, absolutely dead; it may just be playing possum. An SMC bypass may boot it.

As it was described where I found it;
– unplug the power cord;
– press and hold the power button;
– while holding the power button, plug in the power cord;
– continue to hold the power button for 10 seconds;
– release the power button for 2 seconds;
– press and release the power button.

Worked for our mid-2010 Macbook Pro that we thought was truly dead after spilling tea in it. The procedure doesn’t fix anything but it did boot the machine. It boots into a state where a lot of low level functions aren’t working so the fan runs full speed constantly, but at least it’s running and we’re able to copy all the files to an external drive.

Climate Change: Not just a Lefty/Greeny Crisis

Posted 4 March 2014 by isjustian
Categories: Environment, Politics

earth_from_spaceAnyone can find content from environmental organizations about climate change. Somehow, crazy as it seems, it can sometimes get framed as a “Lefty” issue too. Like Conservative voters don’t need things like food or water so climate change impacts won’t touch them.

So I’ve had a bit of a list of sources of information that don’t fall into categories of the ‘usual suspects’. And too many times I’ve found myself searching all over the place for that list.

So here, now, is that list on this blog. Hopefully I’ll be able to find it quicker next time.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
http://www.pwc.co.uk/sustainability-climate-change/publications/low-carbon-economy-index.jhtml

Exxonmobil
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/energy/energy-outlook

Shell
http://www.shell.com/global/future-energy/scenarios.html

Munich Re
http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx

Society of Actuaries
http://www.soa.org/Research/Research-Projects/Risk-Management/research-2012-climate-change-reports.aspx#sthash.Y3Z3ULSY.dpuf

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society a good 20 question primer.
http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

National Research Council
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=14682

World Bank
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2012/11/18/Climate-change-report-warns-dramatically-warmer-world-this-century

Climate Change FAQ

Posted 28 February 2014 by isjustian
Categories: Environment

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society (the national scientific academy of the United Kingdom) have released a plain language report on climate change that addressed 20 issues in a question-and-answer format.

Check it out.

http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/

climate_change_faq

Oil sands emissions must be tamed

Posted 22 January 2014 by isjustian
Categories: Environment, Politics

So, a young person by the name of Salina Mathur wrote to the Sudbury Star about Neil Young’s tour and oil sands emissions. Naturally the climate change deniers came out in droves.

http://www.thesudburystar.com/2014/01/22/oil-sands-emissions-must-be-tamed

I got one post on there, but subsequent replies to people have disappeared so I can only assume they’re not getting past the moderator for whatever reason.

I’m trying to respond to a question from there, here.

“craig” asked “How are we not honouring treaties? And be specific”

Well, Craig…

Your question is almost overwhelming. The problems in Canada are systemic and have been since Canada became a country.

One example is the Manitoba Act, negotiated between the Red River Metis and the government of Canada to bring Manitoba (such as it was at the time) into Canada. Canada failed quite intentionally to fulfil its side of the bargain, the facts of which came out in the Supreme Court case won by the Manitoba Metis Federation earlier this year.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/manitoba-metis-win-historic-ruling/5326532

There are many other examples if you care to look. I can’t possibly detail them all for you here.

From CBC news;

“Since 1974, the federal government has paid compensation totalling over $2.6 billion to settle 343 specific claims. Hundreds of other claims are still outstanding.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/when-the-government-fails-to-honour-its-commitments-1.1018271

343 cases where people had the wherewithal to sue Canada to make it live up to its agreements.  $2.6-billion in settlements.  Aside from the settlements, what are the costs to engage in those cases and the hundreds of cases still outstanding?  And aside from the costs, is this how we want the government that represents us as Canadians to deal with people?  It certainly isn’t how I deal with people, either personally or professionally.

I am from BC, mostly not treaty territory. But to choose just one shameful example from here as a demonstration of the sort of thing that goes on, consider the Cheslatta Carrier Nation.  They were given 2 weeks notice (some sources say 10 days) before their homes were bulldozed and burned to make way for construction of the Murray Dam in 1952.  You can read about it here. (PDF) http://caid.ca/RRCAP1.11.pdf

So that was from the 1950s.  How about now?  Again I’ll use local examples because it’s easy for me, I’m familiar with them so don’t have to look up stuff.

BC just went through a public engagement process for new water laws.  The First Nations submissions to that process unanimously decried the process as failing to meet the standard of consultation.  Clearly something is broken.

My home town, Chilliwack BC, recently approved rezoning of a piece of land for construction of a hazardous waste facility on flood-plain next to the Fraser River.  Having just found out about the proposal on the day of the rezoning decision, a Sto:lo fisheries advisor and Band Councillor asked the city to delay the decision to allow First Nations time to look at it.  The City refused saying that the Municipalities Act does not require them to consult First Nations on rezoning, only on OCP changes.  A few days later an OCP change was before the City and the City decided it did not need to consult First Nations because in the City’s opinion the proposed change would not impact them.  Now, I don’t know about you, but I think that if I step on someone’s toe I do not tell them “That didn’t hurt.”  They will tell me whether or not it hurt.  A slightly silly analogy, but I’m sure you get my point.

If you really want specific examples of failures to live up to treaties there are plenty (at least 343 based on that CBC article).  You may find the situation, if you dig into it, distressing.

Emission Reductions; if not now, when?

Posted 19 January 2014 by isjustian
Categories: Uncategorized

From a draft report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body that summarizes current science and is often criticized for being too conservative:

“Nations have so dragged their feet in battling climate change that the situation has grown critical and the risk of severe economic disruption is rising, according to a draft United Nations report. Another 15 years of failure to limit carbon emissions could make the problem virtually impossible to solve with current technologies, experts found.”

So they’re telling us that before today’s babies graduate from high school the problem of climate change may be unsolvable.

Know any babies? Doing something about it today?

#nopipelines #notankers no #fracking

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/17/science/earth/un-says-lag-in-confronting-climate-woes-will-be-costly.html?ref=science&_r=1