Great post from Glenn Hubbers on the wider implications of the ongoing BP oil disaster. Glenn has inspired me (as he so often does) and I’d like to add my two cents. It’s a bit of a diatribe but it feels good every now and then to blow off some steam. Hold on tight.

Let’s look at the widening circles of responsibility from this ‘low-probability/high-impact’ incident, which, by the way, is exactly how a nuclear meltdown would be described. Just sayin’.

The first circle is BP itself. There appears to be no doubt that the company was negligent, and willfully so, using lobbying money to buy their way out of legislated safety and environmental standards. But this is only the latest episode is a long series of moves by corporations to maximize profit. The next circle would be the oil and gas transnational but that rant has been done a thousand times.

The circle widens quickly to what it means to be a corporation. Certainly making money is not a bad thing but our government (which means WE the voters) has created an Incorporation system that allows, no, demands, that corporations act without social conscience in the maximization of profit for shareholders. In fact, the Conservatives are doing everything they can to block a piece of member-introduced Corporate Social Responsibility legislation from being passed. But that’s another rant.

As it stands, a company that does show care or consideration for its community and the earth can be sued by shareholders for not serving their financial interests fully. I believe that our Incorporation Acts need to be changed. Corporations are supposed to exist for the benefit of the community, but now it seems that the community exists only for the profit of the corporation. We have allowed ourselves to be reduced to consumers, mere units in an economic system that has somehow become more important than family, happiness, and spirit. No wonder we feel we have no power.

And wider. But who allowed this to happen? The government? It seems to me that our governments are increasingly more responsible to corporations than to citizens. Corporations use their influence more effectively than citizens and they are also able to create a culture that convinces us that Lost or American Idol matters more than paying attention to the food we eat, the air we breathe, or the water we need to live. Not to mention our next-door neighbour, or the despair of a country halfway around the world.

And, finally, it widens right out to us… as consumers: Glenn focused on the role of consumers in creating the demand that drives oil companies to increasing levels of profit. And it is true that we live in a culture that thrives on disposable, one-time-use products that is in no way sustainable, or justifiable from a social justice or global viewpoint.

… and as voters: I would put the focus right back on to the voters. One of the commenters on Glenn’s post suggested that voters have no power over public policy. Further, that we show up once ever few years, vote for a Party platform, and then have the right to return to our media-induced slumber, allowing our elected officials to do the best they can in our absence.

What a load of crap.

That is not democracy. And if we accept or, even worse, use that as an excuse to throw up our hands and say, ‘Oopsies, it isn’t my fault, I’m just a voter/consumer,’ then we will get the government that we deserve.

A democracy is not something that will sustain itself against the onslaught of private interests and vice. A democracy cannot just be a hobby, and certainly not something you only have to look at once every four years.

Our democracy is our job. If it is weak, then it is our responsibility to strengthen it. If our democracy is ailing (look at my post to see that this is a growing perception) then it is our job to revive it. Yes. Ours. We voters have allowed our democracy to slip away into the hands of power-hungry ‘leaders’ and profit-driven corporations.

And it is time to take it back.

Why not? They’re doing it for health care as well.

Thanks to William Munsey over at the Berry Patch for highlighting this threat in his latest post. He focuses on the ever-increasing plight of family farms, threatened by agri-business and indifferent government. The Green Party is certainly on the side of the small- to medium-sized farms and has an extensive policy to support them and make farming rewarding, financially as well as spiritually.

What concerns me here, what becomes an issue for the whole country, is the threat of NAFTA. As soon as we allow one jurisdiction to commoditize water we open the door to MNCs under NAFTA and our various free trade agreements.

Once we do that, we can kiss our right to water good-bye. Personally, I don’t want to live in a country where we have the most abundant freshwater resources in the world but we can’t access them, where they are no longer part of the Commons.

Let’s hope that the Council of Canadians and the Green Party hop on this bandwagon and rallies support to stop this move by a short-sighted, oil sands-obsessed government.

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

No really. Thanks to Huffington Post for giving me a great chuckle on this Wednesday afternoon of Bottled Water Week.

The Bottled Water Matters Report video purports to be journalism but is nothing more than a long-form ad for Bottled Water Manufacturers (BWM). Get it! Oh I love their sneakiness.

Whether it is the soft-ball questions and acquiescent head nodding served up in a style that, unfortunately, reminds me of the recent Google PM interview, or the assertions that plastic bottles can be recycled into medical equipment, beverage containers, or… plastic water bottles this video delivers beautiful nature scenes and enough sweetness to make one gag.

If you want to know about bottled water, check out Tapped or Annie Leonard’s new video. Or you can read a book, try Bottlemania or Blue Gold: The Battle Against Corporate Theft of World’s Water by our very own Maude Barlow.

Thanks to Treehugger for posting the new Annie Leonard video in honour of World Water Day 2010 – The Story of Bottled Water.

Well worth the watching, it lays out the product cycle for water bottles and the idea of Manufactured Demand. Of course, the site seems to be down right now (could it have crashed from too much traffic?), but I’m sure it will be back up soon.

March 22nd is World Water Day and it seems like an excellent time to muse over the current state of our water resources. Canada is so truly blessed with abundant fresh water and some of the healthiest tap water in the world and perhaps that is why we have been able to keep our per capita consumption rates down (though it has been steadily increasing).

This article from the Huffington Post is an excellent introduction to a few of the issues surrounding bottled water – peak oil, leaching chemicals, and corporatisation. “According to the UN, by the year 2020, two-thirds of the world will lack access to clean drinking water,” and there are many political observers who believe that the wars of the 21st century will be about water. Actually, these wars are already happening – the Golan Heights has been a constant issue between Israel and Syria and its main benefit is significant fresh water resources, providing over half of Israel’s fresh water.

The Council of Canadians has been fighting the privatization of Canada’s water resources for years, with fairly good success. It is also a solid Green Party of Canada platform plank that we support a public trust for water and enshrining the right to water in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By contrast, our current governments (and by that I mean the NDP, Liberals, and Conservatives) have done little to promote public, safe water and with each free trade agreement we make we move a little closer to losing our ability to maintain our common right to safe water.

Check out the new documentary, Tapped. Maybe we’ll have to have a GPC movie night…

This issue has recently gained the spotlight in Ontario with Bill-237 which would create corporations and implement full cost recovery and metering of municipal water supplies. This Bill was killed when McGuinty prorogued the Ontario Legislature but these seemingly innocuous steps have often been precursors to water privatization. While the Green Party supports full cost accounting it must be done in the context of preserving public access and management of this vital resource.

My family recently had the conversation about whether or not to continue using plastic water bottles. I confess that as a Personal Trainer I used my fair share of water bottles when I worked at the gym. Generally I would buy a bottle and then refill it from the water fountain for a few weeks and then replace it with a new one, but, still, that was a lot of plastic. I even remember buying a case one summer and carrying it around in my trunk – by the end of that case the water had taken on a distinctly funky taste, who knows how many pseudo-estrogens I ingested that summer from the heated plastic. My plastic water bottle usage is almost nothing now, thankfully.

Anyway, my partner’s three kids get a packed lunch every day, and as part of that they each receive a water bottle. Every school day. Finally, I couldn’t take it and after serious debate about practicality, health, taste (only one likes the taste of Brita water, the other two prefer tap water), and political image (after all it looks pretty bad to have the GPC candidate using that much plastic) – my partner went out and bought metal water bottles for all of us. Now the kids have ample water and our plastic recycling rate has dropped immensely. And everyone seems happy.

It makes me wonder what it would be like if Newmarket and Aurora went plastic water bottle-free?

I have to thank Elizabeth May for pointing this out last Friday at the Green Party of Canada Economic Summit in Toronto.

Please turn to page 102 of your copy of Budget 2010. You do have one, right? If by some oversight your copy hasn’t arrived yet, you can download it here.

Read with me, if you will, the first paragraph of the creatively titled section: Green Jobs and Growth.

Canada has established itself as an energy superpower, being the third-largest global producer of gas, seventh in oil production, and the world’s largest supplier of uranium. Our international reputation as a safe and reliable energy supplier creates unprecedented opportunities for exporting our energy products within an integrated North American energy market and to the rest of the world. Our substantial reserves of oil, natural gas and other energy sources make Canada an increasingly attractive destination for global investment. These major new investments will allow us to tap our abundant energy potential while contributing to faster economic growth, creating a significant number of high value jobs and rejuvenating communities, especially in remote and rural areas.

Awesome! It really convinces me that our government is on the right track with Green development. Gas, oil and uranium – it just doesn’t get greener than that. Okay, I’m totally kidding. The second paragraph is no better but the third paragraph is very promising with a discussion of renewable energy sources leading up to these bullet points.

Bullet 1: A billion dollars for “clean energy technologies” through the Clean Energy Fund. Since they’ve already allotted $800 million to carbon capture and storage (CCS) there really isn’t any doubt that it is actually a CCS Fund.

Bullet 2: A billion dollars over 5-years for the Green Infrastructure Fund. No idea? Me neither. So I looked here and, ohmigosh, this is brilliant.

Eligible projects are those that promote cleaner air, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and cleaner water and fall within any of the following categories: wastewater infrastructure; green energy generation infrastructure; green energy transmission infrastructure and solid waste infrastructure, and carbon transmission and storage infrastructure.

Looks great right up until the end… do you see it? CCS! “The fund will focus on a few, large scale, strategic infrastructure projects.” Definitely something to keep an eye on. To be fair, almost half of the Fund has already been allocated and none of it is for CCS so far. Here are the projects so far – mostly water treatment and energy transmission. I stand corrected.

“But it has to get better!” you say. All right, let’s move on. After some discussion on transforming the forestry sector the Budget moves on to Modernizing the Regulatory System where we find efforts to streamline major projects (insert oil sands and CCS joke here) and this nugget: “Responsibility for conducting environmental assessments for energy projects will be delegated from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency to the National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for projects falling under their respective areas of expertise” (p104).

No. Seriously. The government is moving Environmental Assessments away from CEAA to the National Energy Board. Say good-bye to any attempts at oversight. Getting angry now? I am.

But it gets better. There is some good ideas on page 105 about Forestry and Accelerated Capital Cost Allowances for renewable energy projects. Good, good, things are looking up. Projects for Great Lakes and Arctic monitoring and the development of Environmental Sustainability Indicators. Not sure how those will provide jobs or grow the Green Economy but they are nice. I’m starting to feel a bit more hopeful. And then…

The section finishes with Nuclear Energy on page 107. The section basically says, and this is a heavy paraphrase, “It’s losing lots of money but we’ll continue to support it!”

Just a reminder that if you want to see Green Economics then you had better Vote Green.

After taking a more careful read through the new Budget I’ve been able to add a few more numbers to my prior post on oil and gas subsidies.

I’m still not up to Mr. Duceppe’s $3.2 billion in subsidies but I’m getting closer.

First off, we have the temporary 15-per-cent Mineral Exploration Tax Credit (METC), first implemented in 2003 and now extended until 2011. (At least they didn’t increase it to 30% as they were lobbied to do by PDAC last August.) The METC is mentioned on page 97 of the 2010 Budget but is only supposed to cost $65 million over the next two years so that can’t be the main item (p338).

The METC is a tax-incentive that investors and companies involved with renewable energy can not hope to match because you don’t have to explore for the sun and wind, nor do you have to damage the Earth to harvest them because they are above ground, not buried in a rock. It is part of the Green Party of Canada platform to change the Income Tax Act to level the playing field between renewable and non-renewable energy development.

Or, Mr. Duceppe could have been referring to the 5-year, $1 billion Clean Energy Fund “to support research, development and demonstration of promising clean energy technologies, including carbon capture and storage technologies” (p103 Budget 2010). $800 million has already been given to various carbon-capture projects including the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line (ACTL).

This one is a total joke, carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an unproven technology at this scale that our government is relying upon to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry to acceptable levels. If they invested directly in Green technologies, this would be unnecessary.

But that still doesn’t get us to $3.2 billion – I’m stalling out at less than $1.1 billion. Numbers that I’ve run into around the internet are $1.4 billion. Still pretty uneven.

There is particular concern about the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance program which allows tar, excuse me, oil sands developers to write off capital expenses faster than normal. Apparently, though, the government is planning to phase this out by 2015.

I have to agree with PDAC on one thing – if you are going to have a tax incentive, or any investment incentive, it needs to be predictable. Investors do not like temporary programs.

It was so fast I had to go back and read it again. On Tuesday during Question Period, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe and PM Stephen Harper had a little exchange about oil and gas companies that caught my eye while reading the Hansard. (Yup, I’m totally poli-geeking out.) Here is the exchange under Oral Questions: Government Spending.

{snip}

Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is quite right to say that this is a first: it is the first time I have seen a government abolish vacant positions.

The government could recover $3 billion if it prohibited the use of tax havens, but it prefers to abolish vacant positions. It could do away with tax benefits for the oil companies, which would save $3.2 billion, but it prefers to abolish vacant positions. It could cut military spending by $1 billion, but it prefers to abolish vacant positions.

Will the Prime Minister admit that what is lacking is not solutions, but political will?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, obviously, the first step in abolishing positions is not to fill them. If the leader of the Bloc would care to suggest any other positions that should be abolished, I encourage him to do so.

The Bloc leader talks about subsidies for the oil companies. This government has cut taxes for all businesses in Canada, not just the oil companies. This is another example of grandstanding by the Bloc.

{snip, emphasis mine}

umm… I could be wrong here but I’m pretty sure that Mr. Duceppe was not talking about tax cuts for the oil and gas industry.

Actually, I’m almost positive he was talking about eliminating the incentives for oil and gas exploration and production that result in a more-than billion dollar subsidy for oil and gas companies and their investors.*

Sadly, none of that was mentioned due to the deft handling by Mr. Harper. Very impressive. And too bad that Mr. Duceppe couldn’t handle the pass.

*I’m not sure where Mr. Duceppe got the $3.2 billion figure from – let me know if you do.