Here is a unique opportuity to gather with some other Canadian progressives and get into the issues of the day through the progressive lens. Great speakers and interesting folks wiht a focus on the future.
Here are the details and I encourage all of those so inclined to progressive politics to attend:
(La version française suit le texte anglais)
26-28 March 2007. QUICK: SAVE THOSE DATES!
Join world-leading Canadian and international thought leaders for Canada 2020’s must attend policy conference in the national capital region March 26-28, 2007.
Continuing the discussion that began last year at the inaugural conference, this year, Canada 2020 has teamed up with Crossing Boundaries to deliver a progressive, innovative examination of the challenging theme:
“Who should do what in a progressiveCanada?”
Join the discussion and tackle the tough questions:
What is the role of citizens, government, the volunteer sector and businesses in solving social and economic challenges?
What does this mean for the traditional roles and responsibilities of government when the old top-down approach no longer works?
The conference will apply this new governance model to two major issues – the economic digital divide and the environment.
Participate in a discussion that will shape the future of the country - Save the dates today!
Confirmed keynote speakers for the March 2007 conference include:
Booker and Whitbread winning author Salman Rushdie. With his usual flair, Rushdie will tackle the issue of multiculturalism and what it means for progressives today.
The man who inspired Al Gore (last year’s dinner keynote speaker) and the author of the Weather Makers, Tim Flannery. Flannery will offer his insights on who should be leading whom in the public debate over the environment – the public or the politicians.
Chris Anderson, the editor-in-chief of Wired Magazine and author of the widely acclaimed book on the new niche digital economy, The Long Tail. Anderson will challenge us to make the most of the transformational forces of the internet and new digital technologies. Canada , a country with a small market and a lot of geography, is well placed to benefit from the Long Tail.
New Brunswick Premier Shaun Graham will reflect how New Brunswick will engage the public in achieving its goal of making New Brunswick a have province by 2025.
Share your views and experiences. Test a new model of Progressive Governance. Meet with key leaders and decision-makers from the public, private and third sectors.
Registration will open February 1, 2007 on the Canada 2020 web site (http://www.canada2020.ca/). Early Bird rates will be available for the first 100 registrants.
See you there!
Canada 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Stelmach's GHG Reduction Plans for Alberta is in the Works
Alberta’s new Premier Ed Stelmach is reported to say that he will not be reducing GHG emissions and “…stands firm on greenhouse gas plan.” There seems to be as much misunderstanding and confusion on Alberta’s intensions on GHG emissions as there is about how equalization works.
The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.
Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.
Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.
The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.
The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.
We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.
The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.
UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318
The half truths around GHG levels are sometime factual and sometimes conceptual misunderstandings and at other times they are induced by selected rhetorical references for scoring cheap political points.
Alberta knows that our energy economy is a disproportionately high contributor to GHG. The issue is what we are doing about it. Quite a bit actually and lots more is in the works. Calls for absolute GHG emission caps may work in sectors that are established and mature industries. Power generation, transportation, building standards, agriculture perhaps lend themselves more readily to absolute caps becasue the marginal costs can be calculated. Oil sands on the other hand is an embryonic industry sector. It is also a large user of energy, heat and water and a big time emitter of GHG as a result.
Alberta's big emitter industries have already been working for a few years to reduce GHG levels. The model is based on intensity reduction goals They are voluntarily and on a specific industry sector basis. These deals were worked out between industry with the governments of Alberta and Canada. This all happened by the way on Dion’s watch as Minister of the Environment.
The results of the volunteer program, instituted in 2004 I believe, have already seen a 16% reduction of GHG by Alberta’s energy industry on per unit of output. We are getting more effective at reducing GHG’s but since the oil sands, and Alberta overall, is growing rapidly, the total emissions have obviously gone up. Current oil sands production is just over 1 million barrels per day with projections to reach 3 million per day in less than a decade. The problem is obviously not going to resolve itself.
The USA just released some fiscal costs of the Iraq war, and it is over $470 per year for every man, woman and child in the States. That is not sustainable either so we can expect pressure from them for more energy supply from Canada very shortly. So total GHG emissions from Alberta are going to continue rising. Especially if we want the oil sands to be developed as a safe secure, reliable continental energy source. But even with that reality, we can’t just presume to continue in the old extraction adn mining models either. We need to create, change and adapt to new technology for oils sands extraction. That change is going to happen because it has to, both environmentally and politically.
We have a new deal on GHG emissions in the political works and it seems that Alberta and Canada are again on the same wave length with the Conservatives of today as they were earlier with the Liberals. In the face of rapid growth and the growing demand for energy, and with no reliable data, as yet, on the marginal costs of absolute caps, the intensity model will have to prevail, at least for now. It is not the end game but an interim measure that will become regulated, not voluntary, and likely more rigourous standards and with penalties for lack of compliance. New technologies that emerge to reduce GHG emissions will have to become compulsory for new plants and the older operators will have to adapt and adopt them too. Efficiencies will result and eventually absolute emissions caps will make practical sense.
The really big payoff for reduced GHG emissions in the Alberta energy sector will be when we truly come to see carbon dioxide as an asset instead of a liability. Once we commit and commence to capturing CO2 for use in enhanced conventional oil and gas recovery we will have turned a corner to toward realizing absolute, not just relative reductions of GHG from the Alberta energy sector. That is an idea whose time has come and the way has to be found to make that technology and its practical application a reality right now. That significnat culture change will change the climate in Alberta too - in more ways than one.
UPDATE: See these current and very related links:
Carbon capture...http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/capturing-carbon.html
Edmonton Journal story on oils sands mining option for heat source: http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=692459f7-5e3c-48db-b42a-32b730003c40
Edmonton Journal editorial:http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=4b21faea-acd2-41b7-b0d8-bc6b41e17318
Alberta Firewall Guy Clarifies Equalization Payments
There is a very good op-ed in the Globe and Mail today that clarifies many of facts and the questions around equalization payments from the government of Canada to the so-called have-not provinces. The piece is written by Ken Boessenkool, now GM of Hill and Knowlton Alberta and one of the famous Firewall Letter signatories in 2001.
The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.
The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.
Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.
The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."
Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.
It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.
The myth busting article reflects and aligns with the same reality outlined in an early post in this blog. No wonder I like it.
The Firewall letter was signed by other notables including now Prime Minister Harper, but then he headed the National Citizens’ Coalition. Failed PC Leadership candidate, now Alberta Cabinet Minister, Dr. Ted Morton also signed the letter. It was a letter addressed to Premier Klein recommending that Alberta withdraw from the Canada Pension Plan and set up its own cheaper scheme offering the same benefits. It recommended replacing the RCMP with a provincial police service. Both of these issues were part of the debates in the recent Alberta Progressive Conservative Party leadership campaign.
Other recommendations included Alberta collecting its own income tax and take complete control of Medicare even if that resulted in breaches of the Canada Health Act and withdraw of federal funds to the province for health care. These two recommendations have proven to be non-starters politically and economically in Alberta.
The motivation for the Firewall letter is captured in this sentence from the document: "It's imperative to take the initiative, to build firewalls around Alberta, to limit the extent to which an aggressive and hostile federal government can encroach upon legitimate provincial jurisdiction."
Another telling part of the letter dated January 2001 noted "As economic slowdown, and perhaps even recession, threatens North America, the government in Ottawa will be tempted to take advantage of Alberta's prosperity, to redistribute income from Alberta to residents of other provinces in order to keep itself in power."
Albertans overwhelming see themselves as Canadian even with a core group of about 10% separatist sentiment in the province. The mythology of a federal government plundering Alberta’s resources runs deep in certain sectors of Alberta society. It arises in the ghosts of another National Energy Program or the mistaken assumption that equalization payments are from Alberta resource revenues. The belief that equalization payments are made from federally expropriated Alberta resource dollars. There is no evidence for either of these myths but that rarely matters to some people in Alberta.
It really helps to have people like Mr. Boessenkool clarify the terms and scope of equalization as part of the national conversation, particularly around fed-prov relations and the role equalization plays as part of our Constitution.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
It's Not About Politics. It's About the Planet
I have been watching, with increasing dismay, the diminishing level of political discourse on the issues surrounding climate change in national Canadian politics. The “debate” is not on the issues, the merits of policy options or the design of the way forward. It is almost entirely concentrated on efforts to define the “other guy” in negative terms for some less than adequate political “advantage.”
The Cons have a big television buy for their Attack Ads, attempting to position Dion as the guy who is totally responsible for all Liberal alleged lack of action on environment policy for the past 13 years. The Liberal rebuttal is Harper is merely a born-again environmentalist of political convenience but not a true believer and therefore not to be trusted.
The facts and evidence in support of each position are thin at best but that is not the issue really. There is plenty of blame to go around but time for action is a-wastin’ and we need some definitive action and serious competent political leadership with a larger vision and a longer view than the pending election.
My sense is Canadians will reward resolute, stringent and responsible regulations on GHG limits. The policy we need must encourage and provide incentives for what is nothing short of a culture change in how we live as part of nature and not as its “masters.” That is what polls are saying will be rewarded by the majority of citizen's at election time.
The people are much farther ahead of the politicians in seeing it is time to act on the issues of climate change. We know this is about “us” as much as it is about “them.” We know “we” as individuals, families, communities, countries and enterprises have to change first. We can’t afford to wait for “them” to move first and we have precious little leverage on others save persuasion and market forces.
We need our biggest brains, our most creative minds and our wisest thinkers to be unleashed and able to focus to help design a different way forward. We don’t need more communications consultants commissioned to produce misleading manufactured political rhetoric.
The policy framework for all of this is simple to see but difficult to deliver. It has to link economic growth to enhanced ecological outcomes and provide for improve social cohesion – on a local, national and international context. No big Whoop! (sic)
The chance to actually rethink our operational definitions of success and progress is upon us. Growth without concern for all the costs involved and the integrated ecological implications is no longer "on." The public policy change parade is forming and is at the tipping point for a new public policy approach.
The new approach must balance economic well being, ensure ecological enhancement and advance our social cohesion. The practical people, be they in business, politics or social activist, who can get in front of that parade with credibility and ability, will be the new leaders and agents of this change.
We need to attract, nurture and reward a different kind of person to come into politics if we want to change the nature of how we are governed in our democracy. I have great respect for the abilities of all the current leaders in our federal political parties. My sense is we have good people in a poor system because the system often rewards the wrong things. It is too much about attaining and exercising power for its own sake and not enough about defining progress and measuring achievements for the sake of us all.
This will only change when citizenship becomes something we all value and return to using its power to make a difference. The political system is only as good as the express expectations and the forceful insistence's of its citizens.
The Cons have a big television buy for their Attack Ads, attempting to position Dion as the guy who is totally responsible for all Liberal alleged lack of action on environment policy for the past 13 years. The Liberal rebuttal is Harper is merely a born-again environmentalist of political convenience but not a true believer and therefore not to be trusted.
The facts and evidence in support of each position are thin at best but that is not the issue really. There is plenty of blame to go around but time for action is a-wastin’ and we need some definitive action and serious competent political leadership with a larger vision and a longer view than the pending election.
My sense is Canadians will reward resolute, stringent and responsible regulations on GHG limits. The policy we need must encourage and provide incentives for what is nothing short of a culture change in how we live as part of nature and not as its “masters.” That is what polls are saying will be rewarded by the majority of citizen's at election time.
The people are much farther ahead of the politicians in seeing it is time to act on the issues of climate change. We know this is about “us” as much as it is about “them.” We know “we” as individuals, families, communities, countries and enterprises have to change first. We can’t afford to wait for “them” to move first and we have precious little leverage on others save persuasion and market forces.
We need our biggest brains, our most creative minds and our wisest thinkers to be unleashed and able to focus to help design a different way forward. We don’t need more communications consultants commissioned to produce misleading manufactured political rhetoric.
The policy framework for all of this is simple to see but difficult to deliver. It has to link economic growth to enhanced ecological outcomes and provide for improve social cohesion – on a local, national and international context. No big Whoop! (sic)
The chance to actually rethink our operational definitions of success and progress is upon us. Growth without concern for all the costs involved and the integrated ecological implications is no longer "on." The public policy change parade is forming and is at the tipping point for a new public policy approach.
The new approach must balance economic well being, ensure ecological enhancement and advance our social cohesion. The practical people, be they in business, politics or social activist, who can get in front of that parade with credibility and ability, will be the new leaders and agents of this change.
We need to attract, nurture and reward a different kind of person to come into politics if we want to change the nature of how we are governed in our democracy. I have great respect for the abilities of all the current leaders in our federal political parties. My sense is we have good people in a poor system because the system often rewards the wrong things. It is too much about attaining and exercising power for its own sake and not enough about defining progress and measuring achievements for the sake of us all.
This will only change when citizenship becomes something we all value and return to using its power to make a difference. The political system is only as good as the express expectations and the forceful insistence's of its citizens.
Monday, February 05, 2007
Hancock Meets Clement; Renner Meets Baird and Boutilier Briefs Stelmach
Interesting developments in the offing on the fed-prov front with a raft of new meetings. The Alberta and Federal Ministers of Environment (Renner and Baird) and Health (Hancock and Clement) Ministers are about to meet. These meetings include provincial Ministers who are not the rookies in Cabinet but the issues are serious and they represent the top two priority issues facing the country. No indication yet as to the agendas will be but given the times and the pressures, they will likely be significant…especially with all the elections coming in the near future.
Interesting that Prime Minister Harper is giving a major speech tomorrow to the Canadian Club in Ottawa. This is just before the Council of the Federation First Minister's conference call on Wednesday. Harper's presentation is being billed as "equivalent to a Throne Speech." You can't tell me that is coincidence. Curious as to what he has to say, especially to the Premiers in this speech. My guess is they are his primary intended audience.
The Council of the Federation meeting scheduled for Feb 7 has been reduced to a conference call due to scheduling problems. Too bad because it would have been interesting to see how new Premier Stelmach would make out on his debut First Ministers meetings. I would be anxious, at many levels, to see how Premier Stelmach would be served by his newly minted Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Guy (Alberta as the Bad Boy of Confederation) Boutilier. Stelmach has done this Intergovernmental job, and by all accounts was pretty good at it so his expectations of his new Minister will be very high.
Speaking of Minister Boutilier, we see he is about to be seized with a challenge on the aboriginal aspect of his portfolio. The foster child care for aboriginal children have seen Grand Chief Phil Fontaine make demands for better responses to the needs of aboriginal children at risk. Given that the issue is receiving front page coverage, it would not be a surprise if this was a “walk on” agenda item at the First Ministers meeting on Wednesday.
The usual fed-prov posturing can be expected but it will sure be disappointing if all we see is finger pointing. The turmoil caused by a tragic death of a 3 year old boy in Alberta’s foster care guarantee serious media scrutiny on the foster care concerns for aboriginal children. How will Alberta, namely Minister Boutilier, respond? Will Alberta actually engage and work with their Conservative brethren on this issue? The good news is Jim Prentice, the most competent of all the federal Ministers, is on the Canada side of the issue.
Let’s hope we don’t see a classic case of over promising and under delivering that seems dog the Boutilier political approach. For example, looking at his past musing on the twinning of highway 63 to Fort McMurray one has to wonder if his motivation is always just purely political and power plays.
Media reports recently say he was assuring the Fort McMurray folks the road twinning could be done in 3 years. But that was when he was a Cabinet Minister supporting Lyle Oberg, the then Infrastructure Minister, and PC Party leadership bid. Oberg is the same Minister who was turfed from caucus by his colleagues for accusing them of having political skeletons (which he failed to prove) and for using (abusing?) his portfolio to advance his leadership aspirations last spring. Well the reality sets in now that the need for hype has passed and the twinning looks like it is now stretching out to seven years and counting.
Harsh reality and patience are the defining characteristics of the good folks of Wood Buffalo and the city of Fort McMurray in particular. How much long do the citizens of Fort McMurray have to suffer? And at so may levels and in so many ways and in the face of so much growth pressure?
Interesting that Prime Minister Harper is giving a major speech tomorrow to the Canadian Club in Ottawa. This is just before the Council of the Federation First Minister's conference call on Wednesday. Harper's presentation is being billed as "equivalent to a Throne Speech." You can't tell me that is coincidence. Curious as to what he has to say, especially to the Premiers in this speech. My guess is they are his primary intended audience.
The Council of the Federation meeting scheduled for Feb 7 has been reduced to a conference call due to scheduling problems. Too bad because it would have been interesting to see how new Premier Stelmach would make out on his debut First Ministers meetings. I would be anxious, at many levels, to see how Premier Stelmach would be served by his newly minted Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs Guy (Alberta as the Bad Boy of Confederation) Boutilier. Stelmach has done this Intergovernmental job, and by all accounts was pretty good at it so his expectations of his new Minister will be very high.
Speaking of Minister Boutilier, we see he is about to be seized with a challenge on the aboriginal aspect of his portfolio. The foster child care for aboriginal children have seen Grand Chief Phil Fontaine make demands for better responses to the needs of aboriginal children at risk. Given that the issue is receiving front page coverage, it would not be a surprise if this was a “walk on” agenda item at the First Ministers meeting on Wednesday.
The usual fed-prov posturing can be expected but it will sure be disappointing if all we see is finger pointing. The turmoil caused by a tragic death of a 3 year old boy in Alberta’s foster care guarantee serious media scrutiny on the foster care concerns for aboriginal children. How will Alberta, namely Minister Boutilier, respond? Will Alberta actually engage and work with their Conservative brethren on this issue? The good news is Jim Prentice, the most competent of all the federal Ministers, is on the Canada side of the issue.
Let’s hope we don’t see a classic case of over promising and under delivering that seems dog the Boutilier political approach. For example, looking at his past musing on the twinning of highway 63 to Fort McMurray one has to wonder if his motivation is always just purely political and power plays.
Media reports recently say he was assuring the Fort McMurray folks the road twinning could be done in 3 years. But that was when he was a Cabinet Minister supporting Lyle Oberg, the then Infrastructure Minister, and PC Party leadership bid. Oberg is the same Minister who was turfed from caucus by his colleagues for accusing them of having political skeletons (which he failed to prove) and for using (abusing?) his portfolio to advance his leadership aspirations last spring. Well the reality sets in now that the need for hype has passed and the twinning looks like it is now stretching out to seven years and counting.
Harsh reality and patience are the defining characteristics of the good folks of Wood Buffalo and the city of Fort McMurray in particular. How much long do the citizens of Fort McMurray have to suffer? And at so may levels and in so many ways and in the face of so much growth pressure?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)