Showing posts with label canada. Show all posts

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Canada PM Stephen Harper's head-in-the-tar-sands hypocrisy called "breathtaking": kills Canada's only federal Climate Change Bill, even though two-thirds of the HC voted to pass it twice

Harper's Hypocrisy: Conservatives Ambush Canadian Climate Change Bill


by Michael Berkowitz, Huffington Post, November 19, 2010

Canada's only federal Climate Change Bill was killed on Tuesday, leaving the country without a single climate change law, and no plan at all.

The Climate Change and Accountability Act (C-311) was voted down in the Canadian Senate in a surprise maneuver by the conservative Harper government. No debate was held. In fact there was no consideration of the bill at all despite the bill sitting in the Senate for 193 days before Harper's unelected Senate quashed the action. The House of Commons had already passed the bill twice.

But according to the bill's sponsor, MP Bruce Hyer (New Democratic Deputy Environment Critic and Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay -- Superior North), "Conservative Senators had been ordered not to debate the bill since the time it arrived in the Senate, May 6, 2010. Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's hypocrisy was breathtaking."

New Democratic Leader Jack Layton was just as emphatic. "What we have witnessed here is unprecedented. The Prime Minister has lost his moral center! This vital legislation was passed by the majority of democratically elected MPs in the House, representing two-thirds of Canadians. What Harper has done tonight is not only an assault on Canadian democracy, but the worst type of head in the tar-sands negligence toward our future health and prosperity as a nation."

PM Harper defended himself, calling the bill irresponsible in fearing that it would hurt Canada's economy and possibly throw "millions" out of work. Still Harper clearly had instructed his deputies not to even debate on the bill in the Senate.

According to its sponsor, MP Hyer, the bill was ground breaking, though hardly controversial. It would ensure that Canada meet its global climate change obligations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Science based, it would require the Canadian government to bring greenhouse gas emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020. The bill would establish a long term target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2025. To meet these goals and beyond, it establishes interim targets between 2015 and 2045, setting periodic review, measurements and reporting.

These emission targets, based on the minimum recommendations of the IPCC (United Nations International Panel on Climate Change) are the same as those adopted by the European Union. They are also the announced objectives set forth in President Obama's "New Energy for America" strategy.

C-311 would have provided the Post-Kyoto Protocol world's first mandated hard emission reductions to be passed by a democratically elected parliament. Unfortunately, the conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Harper sabotaged these efforts. Undaunted, progressive MPs Hyer and Layton and Canadian Sierra Club Executive Director John Bennet pledged to continue until Canada passed landmark climate change legislation.

Link:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-berkowitz/harpers-hypocrisy-conserv_b_785752.html

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Low Cost Healthcare





Here we have a third party attempt to inject a simple program on health insurance into the debate.  It seems to be largely modeled after the Canadian experience which has worked well enough for forty years.

Critically, they have understood it is necessary to pass administration downstream to the states.  This is totally necessary.  At the end of the day you have a single payer system however long it takes.  You have lost competition in one sense that must be found in another sense.  This way the fifty plus states and territories are competing with each other to optimize the system.  The first constraint comes from the least prosperous who must pay attention to costs and management.  That disciplines less troubled states to keep the pressure on.

Even more important is that this removes political responsibility from the federal level down to the State level.  I suspect that the actors in Washington have no appreciation for the grief they are opening the door to if they set up a government monopoly out of Washington.  This way the problem completely leaves their world.

The present regime has handed pricing control to an insurance monopoly who continues to drive pricing and costs all of which must accrue to their advantage.  That is why we are subjected to their bleating whenever it looks like we are close to having a working system.

I think that no one fully understands this.  The present regime has abandoned pricing to the insurance companies who are only competing for market share of the consumer’s wallets. They have only used whatever pricing power that they have to optimize their profits.  Their share of the pie is effectively fixed as a percentage so in their world they must expand the pie.  A thousand dollar charge out for a procedure is better for them than one hundred dollars for that reason.

Obviously they do best if they service a third of the population who can pay any price structure they can get away with.  Service costs avoided from the other two thirds passes instead on to the bottom line.  The Government gets the bill for the third of the population who cannot afford any level of insurance at the inflated pricing structure.  The other third simply are not covered.  This system has produced the highest per capita cost for health care in the developed world.

Remember then if you are paying health insurance your dollar represents the $0.75 needed to provide every American as good if not better health care.  Not only are you out of pocket the $0.25, but that one other citizen has not been served and your taxes are paying for yet another citizen.  You likely earned $1.50 in order to pay that $1.00.  Your $0.50 went to pay for someone else’s health care.

That this is wrong should be obvious.  That the business itself is operating with no risk whatsoever should also be obvious.  That this is possible only in a monopoly situation is a reasonable deduction.  It is bankrupting governments by bankrupting the taxpayer. It presently is the only financial system that seems to go on untouched by a severe recession.  Simply put, financial engineers have utterly gamed the medical payments system until it is staggering under its own weight.  As the decline continues, way more people will lose coverage than are acquiring coverage.  I do not know were this disaster will end up, but state level single pay systems are likely to start popping up.

Remember one thing.  The same product suppliers who sell you drugs and other medical supplies are selling exactly the same products in Canada, Mexico and throughout Europe at sharply lower prices and much, much cheaper in China and India.  I also see no creditable evidence that an average doctor is doing better financially in the USA than his counterparts elsewhere.  We are not talking about the stars here. We are talking about that chap in a small town somewhere who has trouble collecting his billings. The single payer system eliminates the cost of collection and unpaid billings for these folks.

When I was growing up, an old country doctor with an excellent reputation passed on.  He lived modestly and the bulk of his estate was in the form of uncollected bills. The single payer system that was then put in place ended that level of financial abuse. These chaps did their work as before, except that they then got paid.

The Low Cost Solution to Providing Healthcare

by  The Association of Mature American  Published on January 25th, 2010

http://www.amac.us/

Now that the “People’s Revolt” has reached Massachusetts with the election of Scott Brown as Senator, a sensible Health Care alternative plan must be found. Please take a look at how AMAC’s plan compares to the other proposals.

The AMAC solution provides changes in our Health Care System that will result in all citizens being covered.  It lowers the cost of medical care and does so within the free enterprise system.  It will cost approximately one-fifth (1/5th) of the cost of the plans presently being proposed in Congress.

There are five points to the plan.

First, the plan is administered by the states using their already existing Departments of Insurance.  No need to create eighty plus new government bureaucracies, as proposed in House and Senate bills.  The already existing National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) will create uniform regulations to govern health insurance programs. Exceptions would be allowed in certain states.

Second, coverage will be required for all, phased in over a four year period.  Individuals would receive tax incentives to help pay the cost.  Those eligible for group insurance would be required to join the plan and employers would pay a portion of the premium.  Tax credits would be given to employers according to a schedule.  A “basic” low cost plan would be available for low income households.
Third, pre-existing medical conditions would be covered.  Insurance plans could not stop payments because of use of the plans.

Fourth, costs would be reduced by:  Reforming medical malpractice lawsuits, establishing peer approved practice protocols to reduce unnecessary tests, allowing incentives to be paid to those who uncover Medicare and Medicaid fraud, encouraging hospitals to review management of their operations and finances (share cost saving ideas) and encouraging competition between providers of medical devices.  Further cost reductions can be achieved by providing incentives for the free market to expand its role.  For example, open low cost medical clinics (for minor illnesses) in stores like Wal-Mart, Sears, and drug stores.  This has already been started by some stores that offer very low prices for generic drugs.

Fifth, achieve massive savings from the Federal government by reducing its size.  As a start, six to eight of the Departments of the U.S. Government will be eliminated and merged into existing Departments.  The funds saved would be put into a separate account to be used to help defray the costs of health care. 

Likewise all government programs would be reviewed with an eye to eliminate or greatly reduce costs during this time of economic crisis.  If we are to provide quality health care for all our citizens, we have got to start making serious decisions.

http://www.amac.us/pdf/health_grid.pdf

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


USA Less Free






An interesting shift however it is calculated.  That Canada is ranked sixth is no recommendation either.  We should all be tied at number one.  It is noteworthy that Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore carry the top spots and Ireland and Switzerland fill out the list.

 

It is worth it to peruse the list.  Obviously economic success is liberating and I am surprised to see India as low as it is.  That may be changing because they have the rules and a system for enforcement that is not run by a communist party.

 

The US has supported a range of naïve solutions to perceived threats at the expense of personal freedoms.  It is wrong and worse, it does not work.  I expect that a general assertion by the electorate for leaders who can show more sense has begun with Brown’s success.

 

Of course we have now pursued legal prohibition of recreational drugs for a full fifty years.  This has financed bloated police departments and a bloated criminal underworld and an optimized black market in the drugs.  We import the drugs form Mexico, Columbia and Afghanistan thus financing their underworld and more critically financing the Afghan insurgency as well as low level insurgency else where.

 

It should be obvious to the blind, dumb and stupid that regulating the industry and its production would slice the legs of all these threats.  We would in fact bring it totally onshore.

 

That several states have cracked the ice by legalizing marijuana is a start at least.

 

Personally, I am death on the abuse of drugs in almost any form, but only a fool today would think prohibition can ever work after fifty years of counter proof.  Even Islam seems unable to stop it and they do execute over it.

 

Perhaps the electorate is not yet feeling the pain yet, but the trend is down and it is the electorate who must correct this drift.

 

The U.S. Isn't as Free as It Used to Be

Canada now boasts North America's freest economy.

 

By TERRY MILLER

The United States is losing ground to its major competitors in the global marketplace, according to the 2010 Index of Economic Freedom released today by the Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal. This year, of the world's 20 largest economies, the U.S. suffered the largest drop in overall economic freedom. Its score declined to 78 from 80.7 on the 0 to 100 Index scale.

The U.S. lost ground on many fronts. Scores declined in seven of the 10 categories of economic freedom. Losses were particularly significant in the areas of financial and monetary freedom and property rights. Driving it all were the federal government's interventionist responses to the financial and economic crises of the last two years, which have included politically influenced regulatory changes, protectionist trade restrictions, massive stimulus spending and bailouts of financial and automotive firms deemed "too big to fail." These policies have resulted in job losses, discouraged entrepreneurship, and saddled America with unprecedented government deficits.
In the world-wide rankings of economic freedom, the U.S. fell to eighth from sixth place. Canada now ranks higher and boasts North America's freest economy. More worrisome, for the first time in the Index's 16-year history, the U.S. has fallen out of the elite group of countries identified as "economically free" by the objective measures of the Index. Four Asia-Pacific economies now sit atop the global rankings. Hong Kong stands in first place for the 16th consecutive year, followed by Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Every region of the world maintains at least one country among those deemed "free" or "mostly free" by the Index.
Columnist Mary O'Grady discusses the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom for 2010.
Some countries, notably Britain and China, have followed America's poor example and curtailed economic freedom. But many others—such as Poland, South Korea, Mexico, Japan, Germany and even France—have maintained or expanded economic freedom despite the global crisis. Ignoring the pressures of recession, these enlightened nations have continued to liberalize their economies, granting their entrepreneurs and consumers greater freedom. As a result, the average Index score dropped only 0.1 point in 2010. Eighty-one countries out of the 179 ranked recorded higher scores than in 2009.
These trends are important because study after study shows a strong correlation between economic freedom and prosperity. Citizens of economically freer countries enjoy much higher per-capita incomes on average than those who live in less free economies. Economic freedom also has positive impacts on overall quality of life, political and social conditions, and even on protection of the environment. Perhaps of most significance in these hard times, Index data indicate that freer economies do a much better job of reducing poverty than more highly regulated economies.
The public sector can't match the vitality of the private sector in promoting growth. Governments, even those that promise change, are primarily agents of the status quo. They tend to reflect the views and needs of those already holding political or economic power. Even democratic nations have their vested interests. Real change, however, can happen when those outside the mainstream have the freedom to try new things: new production processes, new technologies and new methods of organizing workers and capital.
It is common these days to dismiss as simpletons or ideologues those who speak in favor of the free market or capitalism. An honest assessment shows otherwise. Economic freedom, as represented in the Index of Economic Freedom, is a philosophy that rejects economic dogma, championing instead the diversity that follows when entrepreneurs are free to choose their own paths to prosperity.
The abiding lesson of the last few years is that the battle for liberty requires perpetual vigilance. President Obama professes desire to foster prosperity, environmental protection, poverty reduction and better health care. How ironic, then, that his economic proposals so consistently ignore or even undermine the one system—free enterprise capitalism—that has proven best able to achieve those goals.
Now America's once high-flying economy is barely crawling forward. Americans deserve better, and they can do better—as soon as they reverse course and start regaining the economic freedom that made America the most prosperous country in the world.
Mr. Miller is director of the Center for International Trade and Economics at the Heritage Foundation. He is co-editor, with Kim R. Holmes, of the "2010 Index of Economic Freedom" (471 pages, $24.95), available at heritage.org/index.

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Copenhagen: Canadian youth outraged at Canadian government lying about their future

Canadian Youth Outraged at Canadian Government Lying About Their Future


ClimateInsider Copenhagen, For Immediate Release – December 15, 2009

Leaked documents by the CBC late last night have slashed hopes that the Canadian government would take leadership on climate change in the second week of the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen. The documents revealed a proposed secret framework that would weaken sectoral commitments laid out in the 2007 Turning the Corner plan, exposing the Canadian government's lack of intention to meet its national reduction target of 3% below 1990 levels by 2020, and to truly act on the climate problem.

Canadian youth are outraged at this lowering of ambition at such an urgent time; this is compromising their future. "Climate impacts are already being felt - in the North, on our coasts, in our forests. Climate change is the greatest risk posed to the security and prosperity of present and future generations. By their conscious failure to act on the climate crisis, the Canadian government is knowingly committing us to climate chaos," said Megan McKeen.

Young people are further disappointed in the lack of transparency, and genuine participation of the  conservative government in Copenhagen, who have been negotiating at a level above what the domestic plan would accomplish: "these leaked documents show that the Canadian government is lying to Canadians about our climate targets, and lying to the international community about our willingness to negotiate," said Devon
Willis, a young Canadian from Quebec. "It is abundantly clear that the Government has been keeping secrets from Canadians and lying to the international community."

"Despite the increased awareness, clarified science, and immense global action on the climate problem that the past three years have seen, the Canadian government is moving backwards, and completely free of accountability," summarized Rhiya Trivedi, a member of the Canadian Youth Delegation. "By lying about something of such grave importance, the Canadian Government is breaking the fundamental agreement that
exists between a government and its people."

In response, Canadian youth in Copenhagen organized a "lie for a lie"; a silent lie-in of international youth  inside the Bella Center where negotiations in Copenhagen are taking place. Through silence and physical presence, participants from hundreds of countries were able to communicate their true frustration with the Canadian government; as a member of the ten emitters of greenhouse gases (both net and per capita), continued emissions growth from Canada will seriously damage prospects of limiting global climate change to 2 °C.

For More Information: Devon Willis, +45 50 11 56 97; Matthew Carroll, External Communications Coordinator, mobile Denmark: +45 5010 3621 (COP 15 only), mobile Canada: +1 289 244 9930,  email: matthew@youthclimate.org ,  skype: matthew.f.carroll, online: http://carroll.org.uk/contact

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Secret Cap-and-Trade proposal: Canada has no intention of meeting 2020 emissions target; Leaked cabinet documents show government plan for massive increase in oil and gas emissions by 2020

Secret Cap-and-Trade proposal confirms that Canada has no intention of meeting its 2020 greenhouse gas target

Leaked cabinet documents show government plan for massive increase in oil and gas emissions by 2020

12.15.2009 – Climate Action Network Canada, Press Release, For Immediate Release

December 15, 2009 (Copenhagen, Denmark) – Cabinet documents unveiled last night show that Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s planned cap-and-trade system is so weak that the federal government clearly has no intention of meeting its 2020 emissions target, according to Climate Action Network–Réseau action climat Canada. The documents were described in a CBC news story and have been analyzed by members of the Climate Action Network.

The documents reveal that the Government of Canada is contemplating an approach to regulating emissions from the oil and gas, manufacturing and mining sectors that is more than three times weaker than their 2008 “Turning the Corner” plan.

“The government is lying to Canadians, Parliament and the world,” said Steven Guilbeault of Équiterre.

“These leaked documents show that Canada’s government has chosen expanding the tar sands over protecting our climate. Canada is negotiating in bad faith in Copenhagen by calling on poor countries to do more while it is secretly planning to do less.”

Under “Turning the Corner,” oil and gas producers would have been required to reduce their annual emissions by 48 million tonnes (Mt) in 2020, relative to business as usual; the new approach requires just 15 Mt of reductions below business-as-usual in 2020.

This would leave the oil and gas sector’s emissions 37% above the 2006 level in 2020.

“This secret plan is a scandal. These documents reveal that the emissions target that Canada is presenting in Copenhagen — weak as it is — is a sham,” said Graham Saul, Climate Action Network–Réseau action climat Canada. “Minister Prentice needs to stop lying to negotiators from other countries and admit that he has no intention of fulfilling his commitment.”

“These documents reveal a detailed plan to allow massive emissions growth from Canada’s oil producers,” said Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute. “Because of their high emissions and rapid growth, the litmus test of any Canadian cap-and-trade proposal is the way it treats the oil sands. The plan outlined in these documents fails that test spectacularly.”

The leaked documents reveal plans for a number of measures that further undermine Canada’s cap-and-trade proposal. For example, firms would be allowed to meet their targets by making payments into a technology fund instead of actually reducing emissions. The government also plans to give emission allowances to firms free of charge instead of selling them in an auction.

Measures like these mean that the Canadian proposal is far weaker than the U.S. approach passed by the House of Representatives in June — in contrast to Minister Prentice’s claims of “harmonizing” Canada’s
policies with the U.S.
 
For more information, contact:  Steven Guilbeault, +45-416-325-44; Matthew Bramley, +45-269-809-68; Graham Saul, +45-255-360-63

Link:  http://www.pitchengine.com/climatevoicecop-15/secret-capandtrade-proposal-confirms-that-canada-has-no-intention-of-meeting-its-2020-greenhouse-gas-target/38072/

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Canada: Tories pondering much weaker emission targets for oil and gas

Tories pondered weaker emission targets for oil and gas

CBC News, Last Updated: Monday, December 14, 2009 | 5:35 PM ET
The Conservative government has considered abandoning some of the greenhouse gas reduction goals set out in its 2007 green plan and allowing weaker targets for the oil and gas sector, documents obtained by CBC News suggest.

The proposal raises questions about how the Tories could cut overall greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 — a target they insist they can reach — while weakening the targets in the oil and gas sector.

CBC News has obtained draft documents that were prepared for presentation to Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet in the weeks leading up to the United Nations climate change summit in Copenhagen. The documents outline a working draft position of Canada's stance on emissions targets.

The draft proposal talks about harmonizing its approach to cutting greenhouse gases with the United States.
It compares the Conservatives' 2007 green plan, called Turning the Corner, with U.S. legislation (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) passed by the House of Representatives and suggests the targets of Canada's plan are more stringent.

It says that Canada, when setting targets, must take into account that its oil and gas sector will show greater growth than the U.S, in part because of the oilsands.

The draft proposal suggests Canada should set new targets that would be lower than what was originally proposed by the Conservatives.

For example, the proposal suggests that the oil and gas industry would have to cut 15 megatonnes of emissions, rather than 48 megatonnes under its Turning the Corner plan.

It also says projected growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands in northern Alberta will be 165% by 2020 and proposes to cut that growth — not emissions — by 10%.

The government draft documents make the argument that the U.S. bill gives smaller targets to trade-sensitive sectors, such as manufacturing. It suggests the Canadian oil and gas sector, including the oilsands, deserves the same treatment.
 
That last proposal will not go over well in the U.S., said John Coequyt of the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C.
"Importing oilsands has been a big concern among many legislators, and it has certainly been a major concern among the environmental community, and we would definitely not want to agree to a climate bill that gives preferential treatment to that practice," he told CBC News.

Coequyt said the measures proposed in the draft documents to harmonize Canada's emissions-cutting with the U.S. make no sense.

"Almost all of those things were not done in the U.S., and the Senate is not talking about doing them, so I have to say I found it almost comical," he said.

Link:  http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/14/greenhouse-gas-emissions.html

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


YouTube video of the unbelievable environmental devastation in Canada, an area the size of the Great Britain, caused by tar sands surface mining

The Tar Sands Blow (PG)

From agitpopcorn: "The Canadian Tar Sands is the world's largest, and dirtiest, energy project. Dirty oil sands crude generates as much as five times greenhouse gas as conventional oil. Yet, unless steps are taken by the U.S. and Canada, both countries will become irrevocably addicted to the dirtiest oil on earth. Totally lame"


Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMHsFursULs

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


Canada vilified in Copenhagen

Canada vilified in Copenhagen

by Colleen Kimmett, The Tyee, The Hook, environmental blogs, December 9, 2009

It should come as little shock that the Canadian delegation ended its first day in Copenhagen with the dishonour of a fossil of the day award, bestowed on countries with the worst performance at international climate negotiations.

In his first public address at the conference, Canada's chief negotiator, Michael Martin, reaffirmed this country's position on greenhouse gas emissions -- which work out to a reduction of three per cent below 1990 levels. That's far below the 20% reduction that the European Union has settled on and distant from the 20-40% reduction that climate scientists tell us we have to make in order to avoid a catastrophic rise in global temperatures.

Canada has been called such harsh names as "thuggish, petro-state", "climate crook", and the world's "dirty old man".

Harper himself has been framed as the "bad guy of global warming", and an image of his face (digitally aged to look like an, ahmen, old man) even greeted delegates at the airport in Copenhagen, on a poster that read: "I'm sorry. We could have stopped catastrophic climate change. . . we didn't."

Officials are well aware of the big black oily target on Canada's back. The response? Send Rob Renner, the environment minister of Alberta.

Renner told the Calgary Herald that he was convinced a breakthrough agreement was likely and wanted to make Alberta's position known -- that position being to support Stephen Harper's.

You can say one thing about this government when it comes to climate -- it's consistent. Last week Prentice assured a meeting of Montreal business leaders that Canada would maintain its tough stance in Copenhagen (you can almost see it sitting there at the table, arms stiffly crossed, chin jutting out defensively) and certainly wasn't going to buy into all of the hype.

"But then what are the negotiations all about? Sometimes we need a little build-up! Confronting a global dilemma is a complex game of chess, nobody will move if the others balk," commented Rosa Kouri, who is following the Canadian delegation in Copenhagen.

It seems a logical political move to make, given the level of public support for stronger emissions targets. In a poll released yesterday, 64% of respondents said industrialized nations ought to commit to higher and harder targets than developing ones, and 81% wanted Canada to act independently of the U.S.

There have been arrests on Parliament Hill, occupations of MPs' offices and protests around the country.

People who have never waved a banner in their lives are joining in the protest of how Canada is behaving in Copenhagen, including a minister in Toronto who has sworn to fast for seven days and stake out at the constituency offices of Harper and Prentice. Indeed, churches are just one of many special interest groups joining the call for strong climate leadership.

And, it's the alliances forming in this protest movement that give Naomi Klein hope, she explains -- but not the possibility that anything significant will be accomplished in Copenhagen over the next two weeks.

Colleen Kimmett reports for The Tyee.

Link:  http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Environment/2009/12/09/Canadavilified/

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


George Monbiot: Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling

Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling

The tar barons have held the nation to ransom. This thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen
Blog Carbon emissions: Tar sands mining, Syncrude Oil Sands Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada
Syncrude Oil Sands, Mine and Refinery, the world's largest oil sand operation producing crude oil at Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, October 20, 2001. Photograph: Greg Smith/Corbis

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party. So amazingly destructive has Canada become, and so insistent have my Canadian friends been that I weigh into this fight, that I've broken my self-imposed ban on flying and come to Toronto.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.

It is now clear that Canada will refuse to be sanctioned for abandoning its legal obligations. The Kyoto protocol can be enforced only through goodwill: countries must agree to accept punitive future obligations if they miss their current targets. But the future cut Canada has volunteered is smaller than that of any other rich nation. Never mind special measures; it won't accept even an equal share. The Canadian government is testing the international process to destruction and finding that it breaks all too easily. By demonstrating that climate sanctions aren't worth the paper they're written on, it threatens to render any treaty struck at Copenhagen void.

After giving the finger to Kyoto, Canada then set out to prevent the other nations striking a successor agreement. At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations. After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks. The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying. Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

In Copenhagen next week, this country will do everything in its power to wreck the talks. The rest of the world must do everything in its power to stop it. But such is the fragile nature of climate agreements that one rich nation – especially a member of the G8, the Commonwealth and the Kyoto group of industrialised countries – could scupper the treaty. Canada now threatens the wellbeing of the world.

Why? There's a simple answer: Canada is developing the world's second largest reserve of oil. Did I say oil? It's actually a filthy mixture of bitumen, sand, heavy metals and toxic organic chemicals. The tar sands, most of which occur in Alberta, are being extracted by the biggest opencast mining operation on earth. An area the size of England, comprising pristine forests and marshes, will be be dug up – unless the Canadians can stop this madness. Already it looks like a scene from the end of the world: the strip-miners are creating a churned black hell on an unimaginable scale.

To extract oil from this mess, it needs to be heated and washed. Three barrels of water are used to process one barrel of oil. The contaminated water is held in vast tailings ponds, some so toxic that the tar companies employ people to scoop dead birds off the surface. Most are unlined. They leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases.

Refining tar sands requires two to three times as much energy as refining crude oil. The companies exploiting them burn enough natural gas to heat six million homes. Alberta's tar sands operation is the world's biggest single industrial source of carbon emissions. By 2020, if the current growth continues, it will produce more greenhouse gases than Ireland or Denmark. Already, thanks in part to the tar mining, Canadians have almost the highest per capita emissions on earth, and the stripping of Alberta has scarcely begun.

Canada hasn't acted alone. The biggest leaseholder in the tar sands is Shell, a company that has spent millions persuading the public that it respects the environment. The other great greenwasher, BP, initially decided to stay out of tar. Now it has invested in plants built to process it. The British bank RBS, 70% of which belongs to you and me (the government's share will soon rise to 84%), has lent or underwritten £8bn for mining the tar sands.

The purpose of Canada's assault on the international talks is to protect this industry. This is not a poor nation. It does not depend for its economic survival on exploiting this resource. But the tar barons of Alberta have been able to hold the whole country to ransom. They have captured Canada's politics and are turning this lovely country into a cruel and thuggish place.

Canada is a cultured, peaceful nation, which every so often allows a band of Neanderthals to trample over it. Timber firms were licensed to log the old-growth forest in Clayaquot Sound; fishing companies were permitted to destroy the Grand Banks: in both cases these get-rich-quick schemes impoverished Canada and its reputation. But this is much worse, as it affects the whole world. The government's scheming at the climate talks is doing for its national image what whaling has done for Japan.

I will not pretend that this country is the only obstacle to an agreement at Copenhagen. But it is the major one. It feels odd to be writing this. The immediate threat to the global effort to sustain a peaceful and stable world comes not from Saudi Arabia or Iran or China. It comes from Canada. How could that be true?

Link:  http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/30/canada-tar-sands-copenhagen-climate-deal

Written by fatih al-farahat in , , , ,


Andrew Weaver: Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science

Attempted breaches show larger effort to discredit climate science: researcher

by Megan O’Toole, National Post, December 3, 2009
Dr. Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist, says there are those who are out to discredit climate science. Dr. Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria scientist, says there are those who are out to discredit climate science. Ray Smith/Canwest News Service

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Guaranteed Health Care in Iraq?







It is remarkable that just about every country on Earth can figure out that the single payer system of supplying health care actually is the most practical delivery system. It even got written into their bloody constitution in Iraq.
Core service delivery is easy to define and support. And if you need more, you go pay for it. Is that not reasonable?




What gets covered quite naturally is emergency intervention and life saving actions. Less immediate needs tend to go begging a bit. But to be fair the line must be put somewhere and there will always be folks inconvenienced.
As noted in the Huffington Post, a health care system was imposed in Iraq quite along the lines of the Canadian system, aided and abetted by American politicians. At the same time a full one third of Americans simply do without.




This is ultimately the direct result in a profound flaw in the US political system that sets every representative up to be bought and sold by financial self interest. The pressure is unrelenting and compromise on legislation is little more than an orgy of trading.




The insurance industry and finance industry have gamed their industries and want no reform. Thus they spread the loot around to prevent movement.




All that has to happen is a state or two to unilaterally establish a new single user system and the music will stop. Perhaps North Dakota should join Canada’s system!! It was Saskatchewan going alone that brought in the Canadian system. Everyone thought they would go bust.


Guaranteed Health Care In Iraq - But Not For You







Article 31 of the Iraqi Constitution, drafted by your right-wing Bushies in 2005 and ratified by the Iraqi people, includes state-guaranteed (single payer) healthcare for life for every Iraqi citizen.




Article 31 reads:




"First: Every citizen has the right to health care. The State shall maintain public health and provide the means of prevention and treatment by building different types of hospitals and health institutions.




Second: Individuals and entities have the right to build hospitals, clinics,or private health care centers under the supervision of the State, and this shall be regulated by law."




There are other health care guarantees, including special provisions for children, the elderly, and the handicapped elsewhere in the 43-page document.




Under force of arms, President Bush imposed his particular idea of democracy on a people not asking for it - perhaps a noble undertaking in one context and a criminal violation of international law in another.






Bush's followers are proud of the Iraqi Constitution, a model for the world, they told us.




So, according to the American political right-wing, government-guaranteed health care is good for Iraqis, but not good for us. Not good for you. They decry even a limited public option for you, but gleefully imposed upon the Iraqis what they label here as "socialism," with much Democratic Party member support.




Indeed, reading the Iraqi Constitution so near to the 8th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is instructive. It is the very definition of American right-wing hypocrisy.




We have (thus far) sacrificed more blood to wrest Iraq from tyranny than we lost on 9/11. In addition, according to the Congressional Research Service, as of May 15, 2009 (Report 7-5700/RL33110) we have spent and/or authorized $864 Billion in military operations on Operation Enduring Freedom, which includes Iraq and Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of those funds have been for the war in Iraq. Additional secret funding has been authorized for intelligence and special operations.




The total is more than (or, in the worst case, equal to) the funding required to guarantee minimally decent health care here.




In other words, the most senior members of the Republican establishment - and some Democrats like Max Baucus (D-MT) - have gladly spent more taxpayer funds to ensure health care as a Constitutional right in Iraq than they are willing to spend to give you any level of guaranteed coverage.




The source document I used is from the official United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq. If you'd like to download and review the full Iraqi Constitution, click HERE




This news is an example of the benefit of our online viral information age. The situation was first called to my attention late yesterday (September 8) by a long-term blogger, Korkie Moore-Bruno, on a think tank list of Obama supporters. Korkie posted an alert from her Facebook friend Jubal Harshaw. Give them credit for the heads-up; all I've done was verify the rumor with the United Nations.




It would seem that U. S. citizens might find out if their Representative and/or Senators have supported or voted to fund the war in Iraq. If so, do they support health care as a civil right for you?




If the answers to those questions are "yes" and "no," respectively, you might consider less hypocritical representation.