One day to go and McCain (R-AZ) is re-branding himself the "coal booster" in a last ditch effort to pick up some support in coal States like Pennsylvania.
In a speech yesterday at the University of Scranton, PA, McCain stated that:
My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.Unfortunately for McCain, his last minute job promises for the coal sector would probably sell better in a land of fairy dust and unicorns because in the real world his numbers just don't add up.
While the mining of more and more coal has continued to skyrocket, jobs in the US coal industry have continued to dramatically decline. Like many industries, the coal sector is using bigger and bigger machines that demand less and less people to do the job. And not surprisingly, nonunion coal jobs outnumber union jobs 3 to 1 (PDF).
Nationwide, according to the US Energy Information Administration's latest numbers, the US coal industry shed another 1,681 jobs between 2006 and 2007, while actual coal production (pdf) has maintained the highest levels in history. If you're still skeptical, here's a handy chart (pdf) showing how many tons of coal a miner can produce per hour - in 1949 a miner could produce about 1.92 tons per hour and that number has steadily increased to 10.23 tons currently today. In other words, the coal companies are making more and more money with less and less jobs.
Companies now use explosives and massive machines to blow the tops off mountains to extract coal instead of traditional mining. So while coal production has increased, mining jobs continue to plummet and here's a chart of what that looks like in West Virginia:
Sorry folks, but hundreds of thousands of jobs are just not in the works for the US coal industry and McCain's coal booster-ism is nothing more than a last ditch attempt by a presidential candidate that is about the get trounced at the polls.
In what proved to be a doozy of a debate – not so much for its substance as for its theatrics and sound bites (who will ever forget “Joe the Plumber”?) – the topic of climate change was again sadly, though not surprisingly, missing in action. With the discussion once again focused mostly on domestic issues – the economy and healthcare looming large – the candidates spent most of the time pummeling each other on taxes, trade policies and education.
Mercifully, moderator Bob Schieffer, a CBS News anchor, mostly managed to avoid inserting himself into the debate, save for occasionally pressing a candidate on a particular question (though I noticeably winced when he said the words “climate control”).
When the time finally came to discuss everybody’s favorite climate change stand-in – energy policy – the candidates had already had several heated exchanges about ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the voting rights group McCain (ludicrously) deemed guilty of perpetrating “one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country,” Joe the Plumber’s tax woes and William Ayres, Obama’s terrorist BFF (if you believe McCain) and the founder of the radical 1960s organization, the Weather Underground.
Predictably, McCain rattled off his usual set of bromides – nuclear power, clean coal technology and offshore drilling – before launching into a full-throated embrace of free trade (don’t ask why). Building 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 would help eliminate U.S. dependence on foreign oil and create “millions” of new jobs, he said, as would investing in renewable technologies – all part of his “all of the above” approach to energy. (As I’ve written before, this type of rhetoric doesn’t exactly match his past record.) He called Obama’s more cautious endorsement of “safe” nuclear power naïve, linking the Democratic candidate’s position to that taken by “extreme environmentalists.”
Obama, for his part, called energy independence one of his “top priorities” before plunging into his own set of talking points, once again touting the merits of his 10-year $150 billion clean energy investment plan as an engine for growth and innovation – with the potential to create five million new green-collar jobs – while acknowledging the need for more domestic offshore drilling. However, he was quick to stress that the United States would not be able to drill its way out of the problem. He also reiterated his support for clean coal, using it as evidence that he did not hew to knee-jerk environmental views. Like McCain, Obama did not specify a target for foreign oil import reduction during his first term, though he did say he thought the United States could become energy independent within 10 years.
As in previous debates, both candidates were frustratingly nonspecific in describing how they would tackle climate change, allowing the topic of energy independence to dominate the conversation. No doubt the dismal economic picture contributed to this vagueness, with neither candidate especially eager to discuss the specifics of his cap-and-trade program. Instead, both have sought to frame the climate debate in terms of green jobs and energy independence – measures intended to improve energy-efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions – as sops to voters more interested in their pocketbooks than in global warming or ocean acidification. Eric Pooley, a Shorenstein fellow at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, has cleverly called Obama’s approach a “Trojan horse” policy: a climate policy “hidden inside an energy-and-economic policy.”
Alongside Van Jones of Green For All, a grassroots-based organization that aims to make the “green collar economy” part of the national debate, and other like-minded policy wonks, Pooley argues that Obama needs to propel the climate change issue forward with a positive message about the economic benefits of his climate policy. While some of the estimates of jobs created, which range from less than 2 million to 5 million, may be overly optimistic, wrapping this green economy talk around a broader dissection of the risks of climate change is the most effective strategy for Obama to reach otherwise environmentally apathetic voters. Because McCain has dropped the ball on this issue, it gives Obama yet another tool in his arsenal of economic relief measures with which to stress both his environmentally friendly and middle-class friendly bona fides, Pooley says.
In the end, of course, this is an imperfect solution. To really effect change – to get Americans to understand and appreciate the risks posed by climate change – the next president, be it McCain or Obama, will need to do much more to impress upon the public the need to conserve resources and reduce emissions to forestall a looming climate crisis. It remains to be seen how the rolling credit crunch will affect the candidates’ priorities; the fear held by many environmentalists and green-minded thinkers is that a severe, protracted recession will put a serious damper on existing emission-reduction initiatives, delaying crucial action on climate change.
The candidates would do well to heed the call to action made by Britain’s new Climate Change and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, who recently upped the government’s emission-cutting target from an already ambitious 60 percent to 80 percent by mid-century (incidentally, the same target that Obama has called for) – arguing that the current economic crisis was no excuse to “row back” on the country’s green initiatives. Refreshingly, Britain’s other two major parties, the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives, were quick to endorse Miliband’s proposal. (Can you imagine the Republicans embracing a similar Democratic proposal?) A Lib Dem official even criticized the plan for not going far enough because the 80 percent target does not include aviation or shipping. Lord Adair Turner, chairman of the Financial Services Authority, believes the new target could be met at a cost of roughly 1 – 2 percent of GDP in 2050, a “feasible” objective.
Now that’s change we can believe in.
Congratulations today to Stephen Harper, who has convinced a critical plurality of Canadians that he is more capable of leading the country through difficult economic times than Liberal leader Stephane Dion would have been.
Returning to belligerent reality, however, it's clear that Canadians who care about climate change have their work cut out for them. In his excellent new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says:
"It is much more important to change your leaders than your lightbulbs."
Having passed up this opportunity to change our leaders, the only option now is for Canadians to get those leaders to change.
If Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper is re-elected next week as Canadian prime minister, he will owe the biggest vote of gratitude to the New Democratic Party and its leader Jack Layton.
There has been comment enough about the lack-luster performance of Harper's most dangerous opponent, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, but the Liberals aren't losing this election because Dion lacks charisma. The Liberals are losing because the NDP has pushed tax-averse voters into Stephen Harper's lap.
The proof of this clumsy and wrong-headed maneuver can be gleaned from the rolling public opinion polls that Simon Fraser University collects and makes available here. You will see that, as of today (Thursday, October 9, 2008), Tory popularity is down slightly from where it was when the party won a minority in 2006, but that Liberal support is down even farther.
In most places in the country, you could imagine that the reason was - again - Stephane Dion's failure to use the English language in a way that voters find appealing. But if you look at the polling results in British Columbia, you'll notice how effective the New Democrats have been with their attack on the federal Liberal carbon tax.
In a cynical effort that values political opportunism over sensible policy, the NDP has been attacking a provincial "Liberal" carbon tax since early this year. (For people who are not from these parts, BC Liberals are NOT the same as federal Liberals. The BC brand is a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives, who stand together to keep the NDP from power on the Left Coast.)
When Stephane Dion's federal Liberals found the courage to propose a carbon tax this summer, the federal NDP (which IS connected to the provincial NDP) extended the craven anti-tax attack, critically undermining support for what is - according to 230 top economists - the most promising piece of climate change policy that has ever been made available to Canadian voters.
So, the NDP has successfully undermined the federal Liberals. Bravo to bare-knuckle politicking!
But did the disaffected voters switch to the NDP? No chance. People who are blindly anti-tax are not ever going to join Jack Layton's lefty army. They drifted instead to the Tories, who have enjoyed a bigger increase in support in British Columbia than in any other part of Canada.
Looking at national results, it seems likely that the New Democrats have done enough damage to provide the increasingly unpopular Tories with a free pass back to the halls of national power. The only hope is that environmentally conscious voters will act strategically in tight ridings and gang their votes for the candidate most likely to defeat the Conservative.
Perversely, in my own riding, that will leave me voting NDP, an act that I am inclined to avenge by campaigning hard against the party when it comes time for the provincial election next May. Given the alternative of a party that is determined to take NO ACTION on climate change, however, I see no alternative but to suck it up in the meantime.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 I /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
After years in which North America was the leading international holdout against action on climate change, the continental tide appears to have turned -- mostly. Only one leader still stands against the international consensus, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
The coincidence of national election campaigns running in Canada and the U.S. has given us an unusual opportunity to actually compare our leaders. Beginning with U.S. presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain and following with the five major Canadian political leaders, everyone has presented a platform and four of the five include credible action on global warming.
Comparisons are, of course, subjective. Politicians have little to gain by presenting policies that are easy to measure or promises that are easy to test. What can we really conclude when Obama says he will cut U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050? Even if he wins and serves two terms, he’ll be long gone before anyone can confirm that pledge.
But Obama’s plan still shows that he takes climate change seriously. John McCain seems to, as well. He, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a leader in declaring that global warming is not a Republican or Democratic issue, but a critical issue for the planet.
In Canada, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe and Green Party leader Elizabeth May all agree. All have reasonable plans. All promise to reduce CO2 emissions by between 20 and 30 per cent by 2020 – from 1990 levels.
It’s annoying to have to add that qualifier: “from 1990 levels.” But it’s important. Because when Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper promises to cut CO2 emissions 20 per cent, he dodges the internationally accepted start date of 1990, using 2006 instead. But Canada’s emissions rose nearly one-third between 1990 and 2006, which means that Harper is really proposing to reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990 – and he has no reasonable plan to reach that inadequate target
Harper is out of touch with Canadians on this issue, and he is mistaken if he thinks – as he said recently – that voters have become more “conservative” during his tenure. As the economy has slowed, they may well have become more concerned. They’re certainly worried about the economy. But that doesn’t mean they no longer care about the environment. In pitting environment and economy against one another, Harper is resorting to old-style Conservative thinking. Research clearly shows that Canadians don’t buy it.
In fact, Canadians believe there’s economic opportunity in going green.
European countries are showing the way. Many are reducing CO2 and, at the same time, kick-starting the technological innovations that will lead them to greater prosperity. For example, Danish energy policy made possible the success of windmill maker Vestas, which enjoyed revenues of $8 billion in 2007, equal to the sales of all forest products from all companies in British Columbia. And major businesses like Wal-Mart, General Electric – even Toyota – are also increasing their profits by pursuing green strategies.
Canadians care about the environment, and they care about our international reputation. If, despite these concerns, many appear to be supporting the Harper Conservatives, it should not be mistaken as approval for his environmental disregard.
Leading climate scientists agree that climate change is the biggest environmental issue in human history. It’s not going away. Canadians will call on any government they send to Ottawa to provide strong leadership on this issue, and if it’s Harper, he’ll need to start following the lead of his current competitors.
James Hoggan is co-founder of Canada’s most popular climate change website, DeSmogBlog.com, and president of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates.
Although the Conservative government has argued that a critical Health Canada report on climate change impacts is “too large” to be made available online, the DeSmogBlog has sourced a copy that you can now access through these links.
The synopsis is available for download here - or you can opt for a copy of the entire report here.
The report warns of forest fires, drought, and increased deaths from smog, heat and disease - a grim scenario against which the Conservative government is taking virtually no action. In fact, the Harper government's principal reaction was to try to supress the report, now available only by snail mail, with delivery in “two to four weeks.”
The 500 page “Human Health in a Changing Climate study” was supposed to be released early in 2008, with a coast-to-coast public engagement exercise. Instead the Harper government quietly revealed the document’s existence this summer, cancelled the publicity exercise and provided no on-line downloads.
The findings of this blue ribbon panel on the health impacts of climate change are grim to say the least. "Heat waves are very likely to increase in frequency and severity, which could lead to hundreds more heat-related deaths in Quebec and greater air pollution in cities such as Edmonton.”
The report also forecasts that more frequent heat waves will increase the number of heat-related illnesses and deaths and lead to more respiratory and cardiovascular disorders.
Frequent bouts of extreme weather - such as droughts, violent storms, heat waves and cold snaps - are expected to carry a higher risk of injuries, illnesses and stress-related disorders.
Air pollution, including higher levels of ground-level ozone and increased production of pollens and spores, will exacerbate asthma symptoms and allergies. Poor air quality will lead to more heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular diseases.
Outbreaks of E. coli, typhoid and other water-borne pathogens are also expected as drinking and recreational water is contaminated by run-off from heavy rainfall. And the report predicts new infectious diseases - and a comeback of others previously eradicated in Canada - will crop up across the country.
The authors call on the government to act quickly to prepare for these sweeping threats. "The findings of this Assessment suggest the need for immediate action to buttress efforts to protect health from current climate hazards."
But Health Minister Tony Clement's response was that Canadians will "have to get used to" the gloomy scenario laid out in the report, adding, "This report makes it clear that if you have bad health outcomes now, you're likely to be more impacted by extreme weather events than if you're at the top of the health ladder."
Go to Elections.Desmogblog.com for News and Analysis
Election fever has captured the U.S. and Canada simultaneously and the outcome of these two contests may affect the future of humankind more critically than any previous elections in this history of either country.
Given the recent (i.e. George Bush-induced) climate policy in the United States, U.S. voters are choosing between one candidate (John McCain) who is better than the last guy and one who may actually show leadership on this, the most important environmental issue in human history.
The situation is more clear cut - if more dire - in Canada. Four of the five credible party leaders have climate change platforms that would take Canada off the list of greedy nations that put their own short-term profits ahead of global environmental safety. But one leader, current Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has made it clear that his most important constituents are the people who want unfettered rights to develop the tar sands - environmental consequences be damned.
Elections.DesmogBlog.com will help you analyse the position of all the leading candidates. It sorts through policies, checks candidates' rhetoric against past action and grades the leaders. Check out the site. Share it with your friends.
After years of international embarrassment - during which our two countries have done everything in their powers to block international action against global warming, we have a chance to vote for change. Make sure, before you choose, that you have cleared away the PR pollution and weighed the implication of your vote.
And then VoteForEnvironment.ca, wherever you are.
Canada's Green Party is backing away from strategic voting after party leader Elizabeth May was quoted last week endorsing the concept:
For more on this issue, and for strategic advice on how to concentrate the climate change vote in a way that will block the recalcitrant Canadian Conservatives from forming a majority government, go to VoteForEnvironment.ca .
"For Canadians, this is the best single book on our climate crisis and what we should do about it."
Thomas Homer-Dixon on Andrew Weaver's Keeping Our Cool
University of Victoria climatologist Dr. Andrew Weaver, Canada's answer to James Hansen, continues to win rave reviews and political attention for his new book, Keeping Our Cool.
Weaver has been outspoken about the sorry record of Canada's current Conservative government (“They were making policy without even consulting their environmental scientists.”) and highly critical of the government's efforts to muzzle those in the scientific community (“It’s absolutely Orwellian what’s going on here in science in Canada.”)
He is also one of the clearest speakers on the actual risk of climate change ("People have simply no idea how serious this issue is.")
We can't recommend the book, or Weaver himself, too highly. And we will be bringing more - about him and directly from him in the future.
Prying answers out of the candidates about science-related issues this electoral season has proven almost as challenging as prying interviews out of Sarah Palin, McCain's elusive running mate. Aside from an early focus on the candidates' respective energy policies (see: their positions on offshore drilling), the press has shown relatively little interest in scrutinizing Obama's and McCain's views on matters of science.
Even the once controversial issue of stem cell biology, which, alongside gay marriage, helped mobilize the conservative base for George W. Bush during the 2004 election, has received little shrift this time around.
Fortunately, a small team of motivated individuals, led by Shawn Lawrence Otto, Matthew Chapman and DeSmogBlog contributor Chris Mooney, took it upon themselves to coax science back into the political debate by founding Science Debate 2008. Their mission: to foster a debate between the presidential candidates about the most important science issues of the day. It has been almost a year since the group's inception, but its hard work has finally paid off, with both campaigns agreeing to answer 14 questions about a variety of topics, including climate change, education and genetics.
So how did the candidates fare side by side? In general, both expressed interest in boosting funding for basic and applied research (though a recent Science article seemed to suggest a McCain administration would do otherwise, instituting what would amount to a one-year freeze in research funding), making the case that a robust science and technology infrastructure is essential to stimulate innovation and economic growth. Not surprisingly, Obama is much more willing to give the government a greater role in taking on these issues whereas McCain prefers to let the free market dictate the outcomes.
While both made similar noises about tackling the growing water crisis, improving ocean health and prioritizing scientific integrity, they differed on most other issues -- particularly health, stem cell research and, you guessed it, energy and climate policy.
On paper, their plans share a few key similarities: Both want to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions by mid-century -- Obama by 80 percent and McCain by 60 percent below 1990 levels -- by instituting a market-based cap-and-trade system, and both want to boost investment in renewable energy technologies. Once you get past the generalities and into the nitty-gritty, however, it's clear that a McCain presidency would offer a starkly different agenda than an Obama one.
Take their cap-and-trade proposals, for instance: While Obama would require all carbon permits to be allocated through an auction system, McCain would give the lion's share away and let the market price them. The benefits of Obama's approach are two-fold: Not only would it ensure that companies pay the full price for the right to pollute, it would also help raise a significant amount of funds that could be plowed into renewable energy projects or returned to taxpayers as regular dividend payments.
Giving away too many credits at once could cause the price of carbon to plummet, as it did in the European Union during the first phase of its emissions trading scheme, resulting in little, if any, emission reductions.
On other policies, McCain's proposals seem more like gimmicks than anything else. Whereas Obama would invest $150 billion in clean energy research and development over the next decade, McCain would award a $300 million "prize" to whoever develops a battery package that "leapfrogs" existing plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles technologies. Though there's nothing wrong with rewarding ingenuity, it says something about McCain that he's willing to make this a central plank of his energy agenda -- never mind the sheer difference in dollar amount.
And while McCain likes to talk a good game about funding renewable energy technologies, his Senate record says otherwise. As Joe Romm noted in a recent piece for Salon, McCain's (abysmal) voting record on supporting clean energy matches that of Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe -- hardly the type of politician you'd associate with having a progressive stance on wind, solar or other renewable technologies (or climate change, for that matter).
The single "alternative" energy that McCain has championed throughout his Senate career is none other than nuclear power -- a, shall we say, risky technology that doesn't exactly scream environmental "maverick." It's bad enough that McCain's plan calls for the construction of 45 new reactors at a (whopping) cost of $315 billion; taxpayers would be responsible for shouldering much of the burden -- and risk. It's true that Obama also supports some investment in nuclear power. However, unlike McCain, Obama is hardly a one-trick pony: His plan would invest in a number of renewable energies, advanced vehicle technologies and energy efficiency projects, to name a few.
Oh, and did I mention McCain also really, really likes offshore drilling?
While it's always risky to take candidates fully at their word -- seeing as their future policies would inevitably be constrained by the prevailing political climate -- one can't help but feel especially dubious about McCain's claims. He has so far displayed a remarkable knack for flip-flopping (or outright lying) about almost every one of his core beliefs -- whether it be offshore drilling, the influence of religion in politics or the sanity of Bush's tax cuts.
Who's to say he'll keep his word on aggressively tackling climate change? His pick of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin, an avowed skeptic of man-made climate change, as his running mate and his decision to back offshore drilling to the hilt have completely undermined his already vacillating environmental bona fides. There's even some evidence to suggest he's no longer fully onboard with the concept of a "mandatory" cap-and-trade system .
So, yes, let me be honest and say that I wouldn't be too surprised if Obama eventually reneged on a few aspects of his ambitious energy and climate package. (Luckily, there's already a lot to like about it.) When it comes to McCain, though, I'm afraid I can't even say with complete confidence that he'll stick to even the basics of his agenda.
Conservative policy "highly likely" to fail
Three top economists, led by Dr. Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, have released an analysis (attached) of the Conservative government's climate policy, saying that, as designed, the might make no headway whatever in reducing Canadian CO2 emissions.
Jaccard and fellow economists Nic Rivers and Jotham Peters, say the Stephen Harper plan is particularly faulty on two counts: it sets "intensity targets" that allow allow absolute emissions to continue going up, and it allows companies to purchase "offset" that completely absolve the firm of making any CO2 reductions itself. Both of these policies are proven failures in actually limiting or reducing the total emission of CO2.
The report, entitled "Assessing Canada’s 2008 Climate Policy," also calls into question the value of "emission targets" that are not linked to firm caps.
"Emission targets are meaningless by themselves and often a red herring. Some
environmentalists have applauded politicians for setting aggressive targets for GHG
reduction (called “stretch targets” or “aspirational targets”) and the media tends to focus
on these. As a consequence, many politicians select ambitious targets even while their
actual policies have negligible likelihood of achieving them."
In the current circumstances, all five Canadian political leaders have set emission targets for 2020 - calling for reduction of CO2 emissions of between 20 and 30 per cent.
But while the Liberals, the NDP, the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party have all accepted the international benchmark date of 1990, the Conservatives have chosen a baseline of 2006. Because Canadian emissions rose between 1990 and 2006 by nearly one-third, that means that - even if successful - the Harper Conservatives would reduce emissions by only three per cent from 1990 levels.
Even that, however, is too optimistic, according to the Jaccard report's conclusioin:
"... it is highly unlikely that the policies of the government of Canada will achieve the target of reducing national emissions 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The lack of an economy-wide emissions price and the allowance for 100% offsets for industrial emitters make it highly likely that emissions will be significantly higher than target levels in 2020 and indeed might even be close to today’s levels. Since the government claims that it is intent on achieving its 2020 emissions reduction target, it is difficult to understand why it does not immediately convert the intensity cap to an absolute cap and eliminate or severely reduce the offset provision. It also needs to extend its cap to cover all emissions in the economy."
Canada's New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton continues to opt for cheap partisan opportunism over sound environmental policy - most recently decrying the British Columbia carbon tax as "unfair for ordinary working families" and tying it to Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper.
There was a time when the NDP had real credibility as Canada's most environmentally conscious party - a position that they have given over, apparently in equal parts, to the Green party and to Stephane Dion's Liberals.
Now, instead of standing up for a good policy , Layton and the New Democrats provincially and federally are trying to score cheap points against their perceived rivals, in the process, chipping away at public support for any substantive action on climate change.
The only success he is likely to have with this line of attack is to strengthen the position of the Conservatives - a party that at least admits that it cares more about power than about the environment.
People hoping to defeat Stephen Harper - the only political leader in North America with NO plan to address climate change - might start thinking of the NDP as a questionable alternative. Or maybe not, depending on your riding. Go to VoteForEnvironment.ca and find out who is the candidate with the best chance of unseating the Harper Conservatives.
| Approved by the financial agent of the DeSmogBlog Society of BC |  |
