Proud to be Canadian? Not During Durban Climate Change Conference

When you are Canadian, everyone in this country expects you to be proud to be Canadian - talking about how great Canada is is a national pastime. However, as the Durban Climate Change Conference begins today, I must declare that I am, in no way, proud to be Canadian. The Canadian Government… sorry, the Harper Government will begin its attempt to sabotage any good faith negotiation going on at the conference over the next two weeks.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. Just imagine a world where Canada was a leader on environmental issues. Just imagine if believed in fulfilling its international obligations. Just imagine replacing the blinding anti-Kyoto rhetoric that we constantly get, with comments from the government like:

“Kyoto is the past… We need to find a way to continue its good work into the future.”

“We've already declared that however acute the international pressure, we will insist on a second commitment period target under the Kyoto Protocol."


Imagine if articles in the newspapers read like:

“There is a recognition that Kyoto isn’t fair. But there is also a recognition that something has to be done, and working under Kyoto without major emitters like the US is better than working under a strictly voluntary system or no system  at all” Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent told The Canadian Press before leaving for Durban. “And it's certainly not as effective as we’d like, but there has to be an understanding that we cannot criticize others for not being a part of the Treaty if we aren’t a part of it ourselves, and doing nothing is not an option.”


Imagine if, instead of criticism, environmental groups and other political parties could praise the government:

“It Kyoto succeeds these next two weeks in Durban,” says Garry Neil, the executive director of the Council of Canadians “Canada will have played a leading role, to our collective pride.”

“It’s very promising from an environmental perspective,” said Matt Horne, Climate Change Director at the Pembina Institute. “It sends a pretty strong signal that Canada is serious about the international process being successful. It certainly is going to be a big positive checkmark on our international reputation.”

"It will reverberate around the world," Elizabeth May told CTV about Canada’s efforts to strengthen the Kyoto Accord. "Canada will be a hero globally if it goes through with this."

Imagine if Harper himself actually believed in making a positive change for climate change:

Stephan Harper once wrote a letter to all members of the Reform Party, shortly after being elected leader, in which he extoled the virtues of the Kyoto Protocol and urged Reform Party supporters to put pressure on the Liberal government to ratify the treaty. Among his points was:

 “Kyoto is essentially a progressive project to suck carbon emissions out of the economies of wealth-producing nations.”

If that were what I was reading in the paper, hearing on the news, then I would scream at the top of my lungs, “I am proud to be Canadian! I am proud that we make a difference! I am proud that we stand up for what is right!” Instead, I sit in front of my computer and type; I am ashamed to be Canadian. I am ashamed that we out our needs in front of the needs of the world. I am ashamed that we stand in the way of what is right.

Exporting Poison for Profits

Imagine that you read this article in the paper one day:

Iran Selling Poison for Profits

It has been revealed that Iran is selling the dangerous chemical Marelconzen to African countries desperate for cheap water purification. As you may know, Marelconzen is chemical that purifies water that was widely used from the mid-1920s, until the early 80’s, when evidence starting pouring in about its detrimental effects to human health.

Marelconzen was considered a lifesaver, at one time. Its ability to instantly remove parasites and diseases from water was miraculous. However, it came at a cost. Marelconzen is harmless, if mixed with water in an exact way - one gram of Marelconzen per litre of water. However, if you use too much Marelconzen, it can be lead to a host of health problems, including heart failure and cancer. The World Health Organization estimates that 100,000 people a year die from Marelconzen exposure.

Evidence of Marelconzen’s dangerous properties started to appear in the 50’s and by the mid 80’s, these problems were too great to ignore; in the 90’s and early 2000’s many countries starting banning Marelconzen. In the industrialized world, it has been replaced by safer methods of water purification. However, in developing countries, it is still being used, and still causing health problems.


Iran is the world’s leading producer of Marelconzen and continues to export it to developing countries, despite having an effect ban on domestic use. Iran claims that since Marelconzen can be used safely, if mixed in exact proportions, it is up to importing countries to use the chemical safely.


However, if it can be used safely, why is it banned in Iran? Why is it banned in 60 countries worldwide, including the European Union and Australia? Last summer the Iranian government blocked an attempt to have Marelconzen listed as a hazardous chemical in a United Nations treaty. This listing had the potential to save tens of thousands of lives, but Iran chose to oppose it, for the simple goal of profiting from selling poison to those who are desperate.


Clearly, Marelconzen is too dangerous to be used. Governments across the world have realized this and switch their water purification systems to other, safer methods. Iran needs to be held to account for its criminal disregard for the health and safety of those who are buying its poisonous Marelconzen.

               

How do you feel about reading that a country like Iran is export a dangerous, unnecessary chemical to other countries, when it has banned the chemical for being too dangerous? Now, reread the article, and replace ‘Iran’ with ‘Canada’ and ‘Marelconzen’ with ‘Asbestos’. How do you feel about it now?

The Canadian government is at a crossroads on the issue of exporting Asbestos, and many members of Parliament (even members of the governing Conservative Party) support a ban on exporting Asbestos. Add your voice – sign this petition   and help end this national embarrassment.

What if car safety was regulated like oil and gas exploration and finance?

It is time to cut the red tape on the overregulated automotive industry. The standards for testing a new automobile before it can go to market are destroying this iconic North American industry. Other sectors, such as oil and gas exploration and finance, are showing us that amazing things can happen when the industry is allowed to do as it wants, and regulation only comes into play when there is a problem, not beforehand. I propose that the automotive industry get the same treatment - allow it to make the products that the market demands, without the rigorous safety testing that is currently required. Clearly industry self-regulation works - just look at the finance industry - and it needs to be applied to safety standards in the car manufacturing industry.

For too long, government safety regulation has forced manufacturers prove that automobiles are safe, rather than finding proof that the automobiles are unsafe, then acting. The costs of this system are astounding in both government bureaucracy and costs passed on the consumer. Government has no place in car manufacturing (unless it is bailing out the industry for its mistakes) and should let the industry work out safety standards and regulations itself.

Just imagine how much more inexpensive a car could be, if it didn’t have to go through such rigorous government mandated safety testing. The industry should be able to test the cars themselves, and provide consumers with the results, if they so choose. Consumers would be given the ultimate choice on which cars to purchase - the proven safe models, or the cheaper, untested (but still, assumedly, safe) ones. Some would say this will put consumers in danger, but I say it is simply the ultimate case of buyer beware.

The oil and gas industry are at the forefront of innovation and development because they are allowed free hand to make decisions to meet market demands, then adjust them due to potential problems. New resource extraction techniques, such as hydro-fracking and deep water oil drilling are assumed to be safe, until proven otherwise - just imagine if car manufacturing were the same!

Car manufacturing is too important to be subjected to lengthy safety reviews. By removing these pointless safety inspections, we would create jobs for everyone and make sure our own cars were on our roads, rather than foreign imports. Our economy and our automobile security depend on less regulation in car manufacturing.

What Kind of Friends Does Israel Need?

At the Republican candidates’ debate in South Carolina on November 12, Michele Bachmann declared that Israel doesn’t see Barrack Obama as a friend. And isn’t it true that Israel needs friends, right now?

They need friends to prevent Palestine from joining UN agencies, such as UNESCO. They certainly don’t want Palestine to start making friends at the UN - after all, some of Israel’s friends might like Palestine better than Israel themselves, if they got to know them. The US has been a great friend in this matter, having withdrawn funding from UNESCO for making Palestine a member. As an aside, Obama has also promised to veto a Palestinian application to join the UN as a full member.

They need friends to help safeguard their boarders from activists bringing food and medical supplies to Gaza. If they are going to keep boarding ships in international waters, and detaining the passengers, then they will need their friends to continue to look the other way. America and other countries, like Canada, have been great friends by discouraging their citizens from being part of these international activist missions and suggesting Israel has every right to detain those taken in international waters.

They need their friends to support their continued expansion of settlements on Palestinian land. According to the BBC, half a million Israelis live in more than 100 settlements that are considered illegal under international law. Last February, the US vetoed a UN Security Council resolution to condemn Israel for these illegal settlements, even though all 14 other members of the Security Council voted in favour and over 130 counties supported the resolution. America, under Obama, is certainly a friend of Israel when it comes to the illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian land.

I believe that there are two types of friends. There is the type of friend who will stand behind you no matter what, back you up no matter what and fight beside you for anything. The US, and Barack Obama, are friends like this for Israel. However, an even more important friend is the one that stands with you when you are being reasonable, but stands up to you when you aren’t. This is the type of friend that tells you when you are being unreasonable, and makes you face it and change. This is the type of friend that stages an intervention when it is clear that you have a problem. This is the truest friend and this is the kind of friend that Israel needs right now.

Maybe, just maybe, when Michele Bachmann implied that Israel needed a better friend than Barrack Obama, she meant that they needed this second kind of friend. One that will stand with Israel against the very real threats it faces, but at the same time, remind Israel that it has a responsibility to peace. One that will support and uphold Israel’s right to defend itself, but remind Israel that its rights don’t  trump others’ right to freedom. One that will celebrate Israel’s place in the world, while insisting that it recognize Palestine’s place as well. I hope very much that this is the friend that Michele Bachman wants to be for Israel - but I doubt very much that it is true.

Municipal Election Financing Reform in Vancouver

There are those out there who think that election campaign financing in Vancouver needs to be changed.  I am particularly concerned by the suggestion that corporations should not be allowed to make any donations whatsoever. What a sorry state our election campaigns would be in if this were the case. Worse still, it would be eminently unfair (maybe even discriminatory, since corporations are legal entities, just like people) to corporations to not allow them to participate at all in politics.

Corporations already contribute far more to election campaigns than ordinary citizens – and they aren’t even allowed to vote. Millions of dollars were spent in the 2008 election, and the spending is likely to be higher in 2011. The biggest individual donors by far are corporations and owners of major corporations. And don’t suggest that they are trying to buy favours - many donate multiple parties in the same city, so clearly they are just trying to make sure the election runs as smoothly as possible, with no ulterior motives. 

Some people tell me that maybe we don’t need so much money involved in politics. Rubbish. Without political advertising, how will we know who to vote for? For instance, without hearing our Mayor on his radio ads talking about Tony Tang, how would I have known that I should vote for him? How else would I have known that Tony Tang is a businessman, just like Gregor, for whom fiscal responsibility is important? Without donations to pay for all the lawn signs, how would we know who our neighbours are voting for and how photogenic our potential elected representatives are? These are critical issues and the health our democracy depends on them.

How would you feel, if you weren’t allowed to vote? You would probably want to participate in the formation of government in some way, right? Corporations are doing the exact same thing. They just want to be a part of it. Corporate donations to political parties is a critical piece of the election process, and without it, most of us wouldn’t know who to vote for. Join me in opposing campaign financing reform, to make sure corporations have their voices heard.