Canada’s agricultural production is under threat as never before, but the Harper government is deaf, dumb, and blind to the threat. The threat is the climate crisis. Even if global emissions of greenhouse gases were to be stabilized tomorrow, we would face decades of destabilized climate conditions. However, there is no sign of current levels stabilizing, and as carbon emissions ramp up, so too does the threat of increasingly-severe droughts and flooding disrupting agriculture across Canada.

Last summer saw a record-breaking heat wave with widespread severe drought conditions right through the breadbasket of North America. Budgets, year after year, include hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to help farmers who have suffered crop loss due to droughts and floods. And the climate models project this worsening year after year.

Globally, crop failures due to climate change have already created food prices to spike. The 2010 heat wave that hit Russia, as fires ringed Moscow, caused Putin to end wheat exports. The international programs to meet the threat of famine were unable to meet the demand as higher food prices meant their budgets could not extend to buy the needed emergency food. Repeatedly and with increasing frequency, the world has faced food emergencies in the last few decades due to climate change.

All around the world, governments are mobilizing resources to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions while adapting to the climate crisis. Everywhere around the world that is except Canada. In the last few months, the Harper administration has cut programs to confront the threat to agriculture around the world and right here in Canada.

The inexplicable decision to legally withdraw from the UN Convention to Combat Drought and Desertification (UNCDD) makes Canada the only nation on the planet not to be part of the multilateral effort to help farmers deal with drought. The only explanation giventhat the treaty costs Canada too muchis laughable. At roughly $300,000 per year, the convention cost less than half the cost of one G8 gazebo, 109 days worth of care and feeding of one rented panda, one-third of the cost of shipping an armoured car to India, three per cent of the cost of the new Office of Religious Freedom, four per cent of the Prime Minister’s Office budget, or less than two days worth of the government-paid advertising of its own partisan agenda. The idea that Canada cannot afford $300,000 per year to participate in global efforts to confront the threat of drought and expanding deserts is a non-starter. That dog (as they say) won’t hunt. The more plausible explanation is that since drought is connected to climate change, and since the Harperized climate policies will not meet any targets, Canada wants out.

Domestically, the Harper administration has just killed activities to help make our Prairies more drought-resistantsome of which have been in place for over 100 years. The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration was created following the Great Depression and the devastating Dust Bowl in the Prairies. The 1935 Act of Parliament to create the PFRA explained its role was to “… secure the rehabilitation of the drought and soil drifting areas in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and to develop and promote within those areas, systems of farm practice, tree culture, water supply, land utilization and land settlement that will afford greater economic security…”

The PFRA took over the Prairie Shelterbelt program, which had been in existence since 1901, to help reduce wind, and thus erosion, through tree planting along the borders of productive fields. Now all of that is being cancelled.

One can search in vain, as I did to research this article, for any federal program to pursue adaptation to climate change for Canadian farmers. I found old references, but then realized the programs described were discontinued and their websites cached. There was a lot of activity on adaptation in the last years of the 1990s and early part of the 2000sbut no more. Even a program described as Canadian Agricultural Adaptation Program (sic) does not reference climate change. A $163-million, five-year program running from 2009-2014 has the following objectives: “Facilitate the agriculture, agri-food, and agri-based products sector’s ability to seize opportunities, respond to new and emerging issues and pilot solutions to new and ongoing issues in order to adapt and remain competitive.”

Is “new and ongoing issues” code for the climate crisis? Is this government so hobbled by ideology that its minions are too afraid to even mention the threat of climate change when discussing adaptation? Of course, if the program was focused on adapting to climate change, we would be helping farmers shift to more drought-resistant crops and practices, including those just cancelled in killing the PFRA.

The biggest threat to Canadian agriculture is the climate crisis. Stephen Harper’s personal unwillingness to confront the threat, or to admit its severity, must not be allowed to undermine our agricultural sector.

Originally printed in the Hill Times.

The post Climate crisis threatens Canadian agriculture, we need an agricultural adaptation plan, now appeared first on Elizabeth May.

We believe RAIPON’s closure by Russia is retaliation for the Association’s opposition to oil and gas development off the Yamal Peninsula in northwest Siberia.

RAIPON represents 41 indigenous peoples in the Russian North and has status as Permanent Participant in the Arctic Council. In Wednesday’s high-level Arctic Council meeting in Haparanda, northern Sweden, the desk under the RAIPON flag remained empty.

The Arctic Council has always been a positive model for multilateral discussions inclusive of indigenous peoples. It is not acceptable that the Russian Indigenous Peoples have been expelled in this way and we must do our utmost to support their inclusion back into the Arctic Council.

We appeal to our respective Foreign and Northern Affairs Ministers, and in particular to Minister Leona Aglukkaq, upcoming Canadian Chair of the Arctic Council, to call upon the Russian government to stop administrative and political pressure and interference into self-governance of indigenous peoples of the North and to encourage a cooperative and mutually respectful dialogue between RAIPON and the Russian Ministry of Justice to resolve this situation.

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Hanna E. Marcussen, Harald A. Nissen, Spokespersons for the Norwegian Greens

Ville Niinistö, Leader of Finland’s Green League

Alexey Kozlov, Chairman, Green Alternative Russia

Jill Stein, Presidential candidate 2012 for the Green Party of the United States

The post Leaders From Five National Green Parties Condemn Closure of Indigenous Association by Russia appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Israel’s Operation Pillar of Defense comes a mere three years after Israel’s Operation Cast Lead. The former operation was followed by a significant reduction in Hamas rocket fire, but only for a while. There needs to be a non-violent way to stop the violence.

“The Green Party of Canada urges both sides de-escalate the violence immediately, so a peace process can move forward,” said Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada leader and MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The Green Party of Canada supports Palestinian statehood. We base our support on U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181 and U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, advocating a two-state solution and defining borders.

One possible avenue is the Quartet Conditions. They were put forward a decade ago by the United Nations, the European Union, the United States, and Russia, and negotiations based on them, under U.N. aegis, are still ongoing. The Quartet offers support and aid to Palestine once Hamas agrees to non-violence, recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and commits to current peace agreements.

“We urge bringing all parties together in negotiation premised on the rights of all to space in the part of our planet from which so much of our religious and ethical tradition comes. Canada now has a recognized, growing number of accredited peace professionals. We recommend their participation be included,” added Ms. May.

“Peace-building will enable more aid to Palestine for health care and education, and will make possible focus on green economic development and attention to water conservation and distribution, for the future welfare of the region and its people,” noted Green Party of Canada International Affairs Critic Eric Walton.

The post Operation Pillar of Defense Is Not The Answer appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Attention should be paid to the fact that the Prime Minister has signed a deal with President Hu of China that promises investor protection. The text of said deal is not yet before the House of Commons, but everything I read about it (including from business analysts at Heenan Blaikie and Osler, Hoskin and Harcourt) anticipates the deal will include investor-state provisions similar to those in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows corporations from Mexico or the USA to claim damages against Canada if any level of Canadian government (municipal, provincial or federal) causes them to experience less profits than they had anticipated. Canada has actually repealed a law limiting a toxic gasoline additive when the US-based manufacturer sued under Chapter 11 — and we paid $10 million plus in damages. This outrage only gets more outrageous if the claims for multiple millions in damages come from a non-democratic enormous economy to which we have hitched our wagon as a compliant resource colony.

When will Mr. Harper share the text of this investor agreement with Parliamentarians? When will it be shared with Canadians? It was signed on September 8th when both Harper and Hu were in Russia. It must now be ratified. Assuming all the Conservative MPs who are worried about selling out our country to China do what they always do and submit to the will of the Boss, it will become a trade obligation. China will, if offended by any new health, labour, or environmental law, be able to make a claim for damages. I have already witnessed the chilling effect of Canada knowing a US based corporation can sue under Chapter 11. It was rumoured that former Liberal Health Minister Allan Rock refused to ban cosmetic use of pesticides for fear of Chapter 11 claims by US pesticide manufacturers.

What happens when Canadian laws, passed democratically, are struck down in hotel room arbitrations launched by the Communist Party of China?

I pay attention to things that CNOOC’s CEO says in public. In the August 29, 2012, Wall Street Journal, CNOOC CEO Wang Yilin said, “Large-scale deep-water rigs are our mobile national territory and a strategic weapon.” OK, so the bitumen isn’t mobile – until you mix it with diluents and stick it in a pipeline. But the oil sands do become Chinese territory. What did he mean about “strategic weapon?”

Are there national security implications?

I would love to trust in a national security review under the 2009 amendments to the Investment Canada Act, except that Stephen Harper specifically rejected the advice of the blue ribbon panel (struck after the Minmetal attempt to buy Noranda) that Canada needed a clear, objective definition of “national security.” The experts thought we should have a definition and use it to assess any takeovers of Canadian companies by foreign interests — particularly state-owned enterprises. Our PM rejected the advice. Instead the Canada Gazette for the 2009 amendments says that “national security” cannot be defined. It is, apparently, a fluid term.

Smart people I respect, like Andrew Coyne, say “don’t worry — there’s no national security threat when you cannot take the resource out of the country.” But then I run into stories like this:

Beijing hints at bond attack on Japan

Jin Baisong from the Chinese Academy of International Trade – a branch of the commerce ministry – said China should use its power as Japan’s biggest creditor with $230bn (£141bn) of bonds to “impose sanctions on Japan in the most effective manner” and bring Tokyo’s festering fiscal crisis to a head.

Writing in the Communist Party newspaper China Daily, Mr. Jin called on China to invoke the “security exception” rule under the World Trade Organisation to punish Japan, rejecting arguments that a trade war between the two Pacific giants would be mutually destructive.

Separately, the Hong Kong Economic Journal reported that China is drawing up plans to cut off Japan’s supplies of rare earth metals needed for hi-tech industry.

– The Telegraph, September 19, 2012

OK, maybe he’s just threatening to destroy Japan’s economy. Maybe he doesn’t mean it. Maybe the WTO wouldn’t let him do it…. but then there was the Sino-Forest fraud, busted by the Ontario Securities Commission:

OSC puts the spotlight on Sino-Forest gatekeepers

In its allegations Tuesday, the OSC noted that auditors Ernst & Young “were not made aware” of Sino-Forest’s “systemic practice of creating deceitful purchase contracts and sales contracts.” The commission makes no further comment on the audit firm’s work. A spokeswoman for Ernst & Young could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The OSC issued a report in March calling on boards, underwriters, auditors and stock exchanges to improve the practices for listing foreign companies on Canadian stock exchanges, saying there has been a broad lack of “skepticism” about business practices in emerging companies like China.

– Globe and Mail, May 22, 2012

There’s a beautiful term: “broad lack of skepticism.”

It makes me nervous that Chinese companies are merely branches of the Chinese government. The Communist Party hierarchy appoints the boards of directors of CNOOC, Sinopec and Petro-China.

When I read in the business pages that Petro-China wants to bid on construction of the Enbridge pipeline, and read in the same story that Chinese companies are very competitive in their bids because of low labour costs, I picture the labourers who built the national dream of Pierre Berton’s imaginings… with a brutal and nasty history. We have a temporary foreign workers programme. It could happen. And the bitumen going through the proposed pipeline is to go to Chinese supertankers to Chinese refineries.

All this makes me nervous. It makes me nervous in two quite contradictory ways. Firstly, I am a tolerant small “l” liberal type of person. I am not Sino-phobic. China is not a country one can ignore. In terms of global climate negotiations, China’s engagement is essential. China has been, at least at COP17, far more progressive than Canada in talking about the need for a global climate deal.

I want greater ties with China for environmental endeavors, and cultural exchanges, and — yes – trade too. Losing sovereignty to China makes me nervous. I don’t want to be intolerant. But I want us to trade items made in Canada, by Canadians, to China. I don’t like the idea of China owning Canada. It makes it hard for us to point out to the Chinese government that it must start respecting human rights. We need to be really forceful in advocating for religious and political freedom in China. How do we do that when they have veto power over Canadian laws?

And then there are issues of global tensions. Mr. Harper and John Baird are talking tough to Iran. But what about the fact that, while we claim we are exerting sanctions on anyone doing business with Iran, Sinopec, now a major stake-holder in Syncrude, is Iran’s number one customer for oil? Or, that Chinese oil money helps prop up Bashar al-Assad?

So, bottom-line, the Nexen-CNOOC deal doesn’t have me nearly as freaked out as the investor deal Stephen Harper signed in Russia. But when I think about the idea of “net benefit” I just don’t see any answer but “no.”

The post Why I think we are absolute idiots if we approve CNOOC take-over of Nexen appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Greens have long called on the federal government to put an end to the industrial-scale kill by buying out sealing licenses and helping affected workers transition into sustainable seal eco-tourism initiatives.

“The sealing industry had been dying for years,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “It’s time to stop providing life support to this disappearing industry by ending the massive government subsidies. Taxpayers’ money is better spent creating sustainable economic opportunities in coastal communities.”

Markets for seal products have disappeared because countries around the world–including the US, EU and recently Russia–have banned seal product imports.The Greens are the only party in Parliament that would end the seal hunt to protect Canada’s reputation, the environment, the economic well-being of the sealers, and the seals themselves.

“Federal and provincial governments have injected millions of dollars to attempt to revive the sealing industry, with zero success but a great deal of bad publicity for Canada,” said Georges Laraque, Green Party Deputy Leader and animal welfare advocate. “It is now clearer than ever before that these subsidies are embarrassing and wasteful political spending. We should transition workers out of an industry that is rapidly imploding. Developing marine energy and tourism would let communities benefit from the natural beauty and riches of their coastal lands.”

The post Greens applaud Harb seal bill appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There were also suggestions regarding how Canada could help the situation. CIDA is currently providing funds of civil society groups in Ukraine as well as Ukrainian diaspora groups and further involvement was encouraged by the witnesses. The witnesses agreed that these initiatives were important in keeping Ukraine engaged with the international community, which is preferable to isolation and closer ties with Russia. Another way that was suggested was for Canada to send a large number of election observers for the upcoming election, as has been done in the past. In general the witnesses were very positive about the efforts that Canada has made to date and expressed their wishes that such initiatives continue.

The post Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development (FAAE) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Canada should not be surprised by China and Russia choosing to veto a UN Security Council resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down.  “We predicted that Russia and China would be very reluctant to approve a future UN Responsibility To Protect (R2P) mission in Syria after the mission creep in Libya turned it into an active regime change exercise,” said Green Leader Elizabeth May (Saanich-Gulf Islands).  “The needed Security Council trust around the use of R2P was imprudently damaged.”

NATO’s mission creep in Libya eventually resulted in heavy continuous bombing of Tripoli to effect regime change, though the original R2P Security Council resolution was only to take limited military action in Libya to protect civilians in imminent danger.

“Russia and China must surely recognize that their own interests are not served by the growing internal violence in Syria and need to quickly re-engage in crafting a new Security Council Resolution that prevents R2P mission creep,” added Eric Walton, Green International Affairs Critic. “Time is quickly running out for diplomacy – even for direct Russian efforts”   added Mr Walton.

Pro-democracy protests in Syria have been underway since early last year, with massive civilian casualties. President Bashar al-Assad has responded to the protests with lethal military force.

The post Violence in Syria must stop appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Last week the European Union announced a boycott of Iranian oil, delayed until July, to pressure the Iranian regime over its disputed nuclear program.  The Iranian government has in turn threatened to disrupt oil tanker shipping from the Gulf through the Straits of Hormuz in the event of economic restrictions on its own oil exports.  The United States government has indicated it would militarily oppose such an action.  At the same time, Asian nations that import 75% of Iranian oil exports are resisting joining the boycott for either economic reasons or because they consider the boycott counter-productive.

“This kind of brinkmanship diplomacy is more likely to build resentment and solidarity among the Iranian people and strengthen the hand of the government,” added Green International Affairs Critic Eric Walton. “If Iranian authorities are being honest with their own citizens and the international community about their nuclear program – and we should start with the good faith assumption that they are – they will suffer no financial penalty on oil exports.”

Combined with this pragmatic shift in tactics would be an agreement to address Iranian regional security concerns and commence Regional Nuclear Arms Reduction talks with neighbouring nations already possessing nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, Russia, China,  and Israel.

The post Brinkmanship Diplomacy with Iran Counter-Productive appeared first on Elizabeth May.

When I wrote “Fact Check on Kyoto Distortions” on November 28, 2011 for my blog, I covered the most frequently cited, misleading/dishonest bits of spin on the subject. That blog covered the top 5, but now there are more. It’s time for “Fact Check on Kyoto Distortions—The Sequel.”

Distortion number six:  If Canada does not withdraw from Kyoto, we will owe billions in penalties.

Fact Check: Sadly, there are no effective compliance mechanisms under Kyoto.  There are no financial penalties.  I say “sadly” because effective compliance mechanisms were available to the negotiators in 1997.  The 1987 Montreal Protocol to protect the Ozone Layer had a great enforcement tool —  trade sanctions.

If any party to the Montreal Protocol on ozone were to violate its commitments to reduce and ultimately eliminate use of ozone-depleters, the other nations in the protocol could punish the offender with trade sanctions.  In 1995 the World Trade Organization was created.  Although there were no rulings on the matter, its Trade and Environment Committee raised the question of whether there were any environmental treaties that compromised trade, concluding that the enforcement mechanisms under the Montreal Protocol might violate the GATT.  By 1997 in Kyoto, Canada refused to sign onto any Protocol that included trade sanctions, as did many other countries.  This is why Kyoto’s enforcement mechanism is essentially a wet noodle. The only sanction is that in negotiating a second commitment period target, whatever amount of the first target that country missed, it would have to add an additional one third of a ton as penalty.  But since the target is individual to each country and since it is a product of negotiation, it would be easy enough to negotiate the next phase target in a way that anticipated the .3 ton top up.

So how does the Minister of Environment get away with saying something that is patently untrue?  He chooses his words carefully.  This is how Peter Kent explained it in a recent opinion piece in the Financial Post:

“The math is clear: The total number of carbon credits required multiplied by the average cost of a carbon credit is $14-billion. And the facts are simple: You cannot enter the second commitment period without completing the first, and we either pay the $14-billion or we would be in violation of the protocol.”

Kent is careful to say that the $14 billion is the cost of compliance. Hypothetically, if we were suddenly to decide we wanted to meet the 2012 target Prime Minister Stephen Harper repudiated back in 2006, when he cancelled all programmes to reach the Kyoto target, it would only be possible through buying credits.  Sure, it might cost the $14 billion Kent has claimed, but no one in their right mind would do that, and there is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol to force Canada to spend a dime.

Distortion number seven: “You cannot enter the second commitment period without completing the first.” (see Kent quote above)

Fact Check:  It certainly sounds logical, but it is not true.

There are two ways in which the statement can be interpreted and neither is true.

1. The first issue is the matter of staying in the Kyoto Protocol as a party, but not agreeing to second commitment period targets.  Japan and Russia are doing just that, but neither face penalties.  Japan is still hoping to hit its target, and is already below 1990 levels of emissions (while Canada is 28% above 1990 levels).  Japan is unlikely to hit its target, but has said it will stay in Kyoto, participating as a party.  It will be both out of compliance and refusing to take on second commitment period targets.  It will not face penalties because (see above), there are no penalties under Kyoto.  Canada is not the only Kyoto Party out of compliance; but we are the only country planning to legally withdraw.
2. The second way of framing Kent’s distortion is to say that Canada could not take on a new round of legally binding targets without first meeting the 6% below 1990 target by 2012 we legally obligated ourselves to meet under Kyoto.  This is also not true.  The targets in the second commitment period are a matter of negotiation.  To get Canada committed to new legally binding emission reductions, other countries would likely be accommodating.  As an example, back in 1997, Australia refused to sign onto Kyoto unless their target was 8% above 1990 levels, when all other industrialized countries were pledging to cutting below 1990 emission levels. Australia’s increase in emissions was allowed through negotiation.  There is nothing in the protocol that requires being in compliance with the first commitment period before negotiating the second.

Distortion number eight:  Canada has withdrawn from Kyoto.

Fact check:  Canada has filed a legal notice of intent to withdraw.  It will take legal effect in December 2012.  Until then, Canada is a Kyoto party.  Let’s cancel that letter and start being responsible global citizens.

The post Fact Check on Kyoto Distortions 2 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

By some lights it was a breakthrough to have China and India and Brazil talking about targets — even though they have only agreed to start getting there.  It is an enormous relief to have a second commitment period under Kyoto, starting immediately at the end of the first. But Canada is, of course, refusing to take part, plus Japan and Russia.  The USA remains perpetually hobbled by domestic politics and somehow year after year and COP after COP, the US ducks its responsibilities.

Canada’s role, Fossil of the Year for the 5th consecutive year is no surprise. Canada’s interventions and actions have the effect of weakening texts and hardening positions. As I head home I am so worried about the reports that the Prime Minister wants to legally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. For all the damage we have done thus far, such an action would hurt the new agreements from Durban before the ink is dry.  We need to stay on top of this threat, reportedly to be executed on December 23.

The frustrating, maddening, even terrifying aspect of climate talks is that GHG levels keep rising while multilateral negotiations try to determine the time table by which they will be reduced. – eventually. It reminds me of the unacceptable negotiations with forest companies. We used to call it “talk and log.” The climate equivalent, climate negotiators talk while profligate use of fossil fuels ramps up year on year.

We need the equivalent of a cease fire.  No new GHG added, no new tar sands projects approved.  We cannot afford to keep adding an ever increasing volume of warming gases into the atmosphere, while negotiating when we plan to begin to slow it down.

And that is why we have to find a way to pick up the pace. We are risking putting the atmosphere on an irreversible trajectory to runaway global warming. We need to stop the rise in GHG — everywhere on Earth by 2015.  On current levels of political will, we are not yet close to the actions we need. Still, thank goodness Durban gave us something in the right direction. Now we need to get back to public mobilizations to improve the agreements and really reduce GHG.

The post Last thoughts on the Durban package appeared first on Elizabeth May.