Environment as an Issue - Is it over-hyped?

For me, how a politician understands the dependence of human health and the economy on a healthy environment indicates how aware they are of issues in general. Any politician that would claim that we can't "afford" to protect the environment, putting things in terms of economy-vs-environment, indicate to me that they don't understand either subject.

I don't know if it will alone be an "ballot issue", but I believe that it is part of every other ballot issue.

As to the Green Party, I hope they gain seats. They are a party that, at least internationally, understand that we need to find post-industrial solutions to our post-industrial economic, social and environmental problems. While the NDP and Liberals talk about dumping money to solve environmental problems, they don't talk about green tax shifts. Many in the Progressive Conservative party seemed to understand the issues, and were better on reasonable solutions, but the Reform/Alliance/etc party seems to have swallowed and rendered these forward-thinking (ie: progressive) conservatives invisible.

Except maybe the former federal PC supporters who have moved to the Green Party...

The policy ideas that made Brian Mulroney to be declared the most green prime minister so far do not seem to be present in the Harper Conservatives.

http://flora.ca/russell/

[updated Mon Jan 08 14:51:31 EST 2007]

Well…………. In this neck of the woods (Maritimes) it was +13 the other day – almost second week of January and no snow. What I keep hearing “this is very strange, something is going down, this isn’t normal………………….” People are talking; it is definitely on their minds.

The environmental issue is over-hyped, I doubt it will be an election issue. In the early 1970's global cooling was the concern that pressured auto makers into installing pollution control devices in cars.

[updated Mon Jan 08 15:34:24 EST 2007]

Nik, I'd have to agree with most of your post. The environment has grown in importance but I don't think it is, at this point anyway, going to be the ballot question.

First, all four opposition parties (including the Greens) have basically the same policy on the issue: Canada must meet its Kyoto targets. As such, the Conservatives are the only party on the opposite side. When you only need 40% to win a majority government, this is a good position to be - particularly when the four "Green" parties will be fighting for the same vote. In this case, vote splitting on the issue may help the Conservatives. It is only when one party can consolidate the environmental vote can the environment be an important election issue.

Second, I think for the NDP to become relevant again they will have to find another issue. Most voters probably know the NDP is a "green" party - they need to find another wedge issue to use - I think Afghanistan is probably their best bet.

Dion can use the environment effectively only as issue within a series of issues that can be used to contrast the Liberal vs. Conservative governing priorities. Very similar to what Dryden did during his leadership bid he focused on the three K's that the Conservatives took very different stances towards: Kyoto, Kelowna and Kids. Such a strategy is focused more on the general rhetoric and less on specific policies. The ballot question for the Libs should be: it's either Harper's way (small, uncaring government) or the Liberal way (balance between economy and environment, and a caring society)

The wildcard in all this is Elizabeth May. I think she is very effective and could become the spoiler for any of the parties (even the Bloc) in the next election.

This should all definitely make for interesting television.

It will be a major election issue and much debate will ensue whether climate change is a natural phenomenon, whether it is man made, or whether we are simply speeding up an inevitable natural process. In any event, all political parties must appear to be engaged and ready to save the planet.

"Many in the Progressive Conservative party seemed to understand the issues, and were better on reasonable solutions, but the Reform/Alliance/etc party seems to have swallowed and rendered these forward-thinking (ie: progressive) conservatives invisible"...You really hit the nail on the head, and not just with environmental issues. Stephen Harper was, is and always will be a die-hard Reformer, and though he is clever enough to hide behind a Tory Blue smokescreen, he will never really be a Tory. Therefore, if Canadians want to have an understanding of his party's views and future actions, they need to look at it from that perspective. The PC's are gone. The Tories are gone. This is a brand new, untested party, and we need to tread carefully. That being said, the environment could be a ballot issue, once we accept how the Reform Party and Stephen Harper feel about Global Warming (that it doesn't exist) and Kyoto (that it shouldn't exist).

I think that although we are all concerned about the environment, it alone is not a high priority ballot issue. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that a real program aimed at improving the environment must be comprehensive and must include achievable milestones for every type of major polluter. The most basic criteria of any meaningful plan to improve the world environment must be that the plan and its milestones are supported enthusiastically by the world's worst polluters. The exercise of the Kyoto Accord is a good example. While we and other countries were setting totally unrealistic objectives (with a built-in plan to cheat when we failed) some of the larger polluters, who refused to support Kyoto (like the United States) were making real reductions to their emissions. At the same time, our own emissions increased.

With the significant number of lay-offs in my province in the past few months, I suspect that environmental concerns will not be a primary ballot issue in the provincial election expected in 2007. Its pretty hard to get the population excited about environmental issues when they are much more concerned about finding a job (often at 50) and feeding their family.

Whether its true or not, on an individual level, most of us have rationalized that we're pretty much maxxed out on the things we can do as individuals to reduce pollution. Beyond the often heated discussions of our living rooms and classrooms, the momentum for the type of drastic environmental improvement that is necessary soon slows to a canter and eventually resembles an exercise in herding cats.

Somehow my little blue box seems like a pee in the ocean when we read about the level of pollutants emitted by our companies, our large cities and the largest countries on our planet.

There are only 2 reasons why this is an issue in politics these days.

Ont and Que. are having the warmest winter in ages..and people are fearing global warming. Western Canada is cold as always..

Ont&Que had smog issues last summer...not an issue here in the west.

If East. Canada had normal winters and summers no one would even give a hoot !!...all the power is in the East!!!

Hi Nik,
I certainly hope not...As you say, there are other pressing issues, and if we haven't all yet
realized that global-warming is un fait accompli - we are out of this orbit! S. Dion has been
talking about offering tax credits, at least to all of those consumers, businesses who will buy friendly green
alternatives. As for Brian Mulroney, it was thanks to his perseverence, and energetic efforts when he adressed US pres.
Reagan, (R) who was not too concerned about environmental issues, just as this 'bush'
administration, and was able to achieve a resolution/ agreement re. the reduction of acid rains, and quality of our air. As Environment Minister, Premier Jean Charest wanted to enhance
environmental efforts re. the Green plan (1991) and his budget included scientific research
in the Artic; supposedly the cleanest air on the planet, which has turned-out to be most
polluted. Some time later, another $100million campaign for the Fraser River, in BC was
announced. Shortly after, the G7 Summit meeting in Rio, whereby all Ministers of the
Environment were to meet, with none of the bureaucracy, which enhances the strength of
those meetings, Bush sr. at this time was up for re-election, and against any changes or
signing of Treaties re. climatic changes. It was Mulroney, Desmond, who gave permission
for Canada to sign the two Treaties, and the other five G7 Countries followed suit, despite
US efforts not to do so. In this instance, Mulroney did not want to engage in internal affairs
of the US, however, he upheld Canada's best interests. It's up to the government to take the
lead and regulatory laws that will change our misbehaviour on this planet, and I really like
to site Ford as a non-leader in the car industry. As Min. John Baird said, he has to learn still
about this new portfolio, and not just catch-up; all parties are now going to be acute, and
instrumental in making the real changes necessary, and another issue will be on the plate
in another election, otherwise it will be redundant.
Cheers,
blos

Where the environmental issue has a direct link to one's health, then I believe it may be a valid election plank. Most Canadians live in an urban setting therefore, I see deteriorating air quality as a viable issue in large centres such as Vancouver/Fraser Valley and Greater Toronto/industrial belt. I have deliberately chosen to live where I do so as to be free of industrial pollution (as far as I know !) I am sure there are localized issues over the land such as being down wind of a petroleum refinery, chemical factory, smelter etc which rightly deserve public attention. After the "unusual" storms of the last few years and the Arctic and Antarctic melt, global climate change is a current issue and Al Gore is really pushing this topic in the States.

Part of the "environmental issue" resides/is buried in government departments such as Health Canada, Fisheries/Oceans Canada, Agriculture Canada etc. These usually involve the food we eat which is of great concern to our household but most folk seem to shop by price. Our household avoids like the plague, foods with pesticide residues, growth or ripening hormones, anti-biotics and genetically modified foods. I would support full disclosure in the foregoing areas but healthcare is still the number one issue----related to the enviornment isn't it ?

Another area of this environmental issue is the chemical industry and what we are not told in relation to our homes. For example, particle board sheating, used in home construction, is loaded with glues, usually a formaldehyde base, that takes up to eight years to exude unhealthy "fumes". This "loaded with glue" is true of press-board kitchen cabinets and varying less expensive furniture items. This is also true of too many synthetic carpets and underlays. Fire retardants sprayed on all sorts of fabrics from mattress covers to chesterfield covers have been shown to be bad for the one and only body we are issued in this life. All of these are environmental issues and I support a strong regulatory intervention with DISCLOSURE with a strong dose of common sense----a rare commodity today. I do not trust corporate anybody as their bottom line is profit no matter what----my money is what they want and not my health.

I believe all political parties have to be sensitive to environmental issues and indifference would be a major error. The environmental issue will continue to be a political issue but, in the upcoming election, I doubt it will be the number one issue but it will be there.

Given the one trick pony, Mr. Dion, I am sure the environment will be raised by Mr. Dion and he will try to make it a ballot question. However, Canadians are smarter than this and they will vote according to their perceptions of quality government, honesty, lower taxes and the economy. Of course the Liberal record on the environment is terrible and Mr. Dion did nothing but talk as Environment Minister. If Harper and his government make progress and we are talking only about starting to make progress Canadians will be satisfied. The talk about a sustainable economy etc. is silly unless Mr. Dion is prepared to tell Canadians who is going to pay for it, what it is going to cost, the impact on industry as their costs skyrocket to invest in new technology, the jobs that will be lost and the overall impact on the Canadian economy. While we need to help the environment it is only one of many areas that need to be tackled. It is all about balance. There is no balance today. The media need to put the politicians' feet to the fire and ensure the hard questions are asked when any environmental plan is introduced. For someone like Elizabeth May to say we need to take a pause in the oilsands and stop production for awhile is pure nonsense. Companies cannot simply shut down. What about the job losses, impact on tax revenue. The woman is simplistic in her approach as are most environmentalists. We need to let cooler heads prevail on this subject.

I agree this Environment issue has been over blown by Stephen Dion because no one likes or understands,Why waste money on Credits. What is the real motivation Stephen Dion, it is not for the concern of Canadians that is for sure, it is more about filling his pockets and that of the Liberals.

the enviornment is a real important issue that effect us all as seen by the weird weather this winter maybe it should be a ballot issue then maybe we would get something done aboutb it

[updated Tue Jan 09 15:59:37 EST 2007]

I agree with Nik this Enviroment issue was over blown for the sole purpose of Stephen Dion something to talk in his fist trip to Parliament, like other have stated he is a one issue pony, one track mind, and does not recoqnized there are other issues, like the prerformance of the Public Service on a day to day bases, there is no Customer Service so to speak, How can you be a Prime Minister if you do not understand what Canadians want on a day to day bases. They want Service in a fast and effective manner which is not happening a any Department of Government. The Enviroment has raised by Liberals that have nothing better to do with their lives and expecting a cash pay out for doing nothingl. A government must be balanced, not focusing one issue!

I believe the environmental scientists have made discovery of the facts about air polution and green gasses and proven it is affecting the weather world wide. Thus the high interest and conferences held around the world on this subject and attended by many officials from many developed countries. Thus, whether or not, most Canadians understand and accept there is need for business and consumers to address the environment, it is nevertheless extremely important to government to ensure steps are taken to make a concentrated effort is made to reduce and stop major contributors so our children will have a better place is live and grow in our country.

Anyone who travels in Toronto and Montreal in the summer time, knows all to well the smog one breaths when driving or walking the streets there. It is definately not natural.

One major contributor is the coal power generating stations in the Martimes and Ontario. It makes me wonder if the Labrador water generating power facility that provdes power to Quebec under a 100 year contract price agreement and sold to our neighbours to the south by the povince of Quebec should be redirected to the Maritimes and Ontario with any remaining surplus (unlikely any) then sold to the USA. Surely Canada's environment needs to take presidence over our neighbouring country.

Thanks Nik for your comments and your website. Good to read your comments and those of other Canadians to gain better understanding of the issues.

D Soulis, Nova Scotia

No, it is not over-hyped. All other issues are predicated on it.

I think the environment will be an election issue and it will be the number one issue with the electorates. Stephen Harper wants to be prime minister of a an “Energy super power” he cannot bring in legislation that will satisfy the need for stronger environment reform and dramatically increase oil production in the patch to satisfy the American desire to reduce their dependency on mid-east oil. So he will do what he is doing now, re-introduce programs that he cancelled when he first came to power and hope this will fool the public into thinking he has suddenly become greener than “Elizabeth May” The conservatives will continue to hammer away at the previous governments record, to divert public attention away from his own. The environment will be a ballot box issue and the conservatives are on the wrong side of it.

I think the debate about which political parties are willing to move forward with doing out part on the climate change crisis, and who will not, is now over. While I was tired of all the finger pointing to what the parties said in the past, what we have as of last evening is an update of their current thinking.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3683

On February 1, 2007, Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.) tabled and started debate on a motion that reads as follows:

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House:

(a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world's climate is changing as a result of human activity and this poses the most serious ecological threat of our time;

(b) the government must reconfirm Canada's commitment to honour the principles and targets of the Kyoto Protocol in their entirety;

(c) the government must create and publish a credible plan to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments;

(d) the government must establish a 'cap and trade' emission reductions system and regulations for industry; and

(e) the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is available immediately to launch the necessary action.

After considerable debate, with some interesting speeches from various "sides" of the debate, they voted on the motion on the evening of February 5.

Yeas - 161 (Liberals + Bloc + NDP + Turner)
Nays - 115 (Conservatives)

There were some members paired, and a few members such as Mr Harper that wasn't there for the vote, but the idea was clear. This was a highly partisan vote, but one that should end any debate about whether the Conservative party has any interest in helping to solve the climate change crisis.

I'm not a partisan person, but I have to believe that with the changed political will of Canadians to move on this issue that the Conservatives have just announced that they are entirely out of step with most of the country. If we have an election this spring, I worry that the Conservative party may be hammered enough to create a Majority government for the Liberals. I'm not a fan of majority governments as I believe they are less accountable.

Global warming is our punishment for not taking care of the environment. We must protect the wildlife, the land and the waters. West Virginia just lost several hundred jobs May 2005 because a company needed clean water. Pollutants in the water source were not acceptable. And I don t blame them. In fact, I am glad that a food company would want clean water. But the fact remains West Virginia lost more jobs.

The environment is something that every living soul shares and depends upon. If we destroy it, we will pay for it with our very lives. What type of legacy are we leaving for our children? IT'S TIME to clean up the environment.

I believe that sustaining and protecting the environment is a major issue among today's youth and early twenties voters. In Canada these are youth who have grown up with the notion of the inherent goodness of green (the 3 r's, etc.) and have already accepted the idea of the correctness of earth stewardship. They also have a mindset towards green that is fairly tolerant- ie: green is what is desired, and people should be working towards that, to the extent that it is possible for them.
As these people age, they will gain more voting and consumer power than ever before: the two necessary ingredients to change social consciousness and political agendas. I think this generation will have as much influence on the economic and political marketplace as my generation did on targeting the reduction of the build up of nuclear weaponry by the major world powers. I agree that social dialouge on global warming and the environment is sporadic, but see these conversations as increasing, and I also think that pressure will continue to build on governments until they do 'enough' to satisfy this generation that their concerns are being addressed, and that change in the right direction is occurring.

[updated Sun Dec 09 15:22:06 EST 2007]