Opinion

Wed, 2013-06-12 09:30Guest
Guest's picture

How Harper Treats Differences of Opinion

Stephen Harper

This is a guest post by Gerry Caplan, a Canadian academic, public policy analyst, commentator and political activist.

Soon after the 2011 election, with his majority government at last in hand, Prime Minister Harper decided that nothing, but nothing, was more important to Canada's entire future than a pipeline to carry oil from Alberta to the Pacific. This came as a shock to many Canadians, first because it hadn't been raised in the election, second because many believe that to combat global warming we must reduce, not expand, our reliance on fossil fuels.

In some countries, those who disagree with their government's policies are vilified, demonized, accused of being unpatriotic and operating under the influence of malign foreign influences. In Turkey, for example, Prime Minister Erdogan blames anti-government protests on terrorists and extremists supported by "foreign conspirators."

The same is true in Egypt, as Deepak Obhrai, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, informed the House just this week. An Egyptian court had convict 43 non-profit workers of illegally using foreign funds to foment unrest in the country and sentencing them up to five years in jail. This was unacceptable, Mr. Obhrai said.

Thu, 2013-06-06 12:37Guest
Guest's picture

Taking Back Our Democracy: Bridging the Generational Divide

Alex Himelfarb

This is a guest post by Alex Himelfarb. Originally from his blog, this reflection on Canadian democracy is no less relevant today than it was at the time of its publication, nearly one year ago. 

Mon, 2013-06-03 07:13Carol Linnitt
Carol Linnitt's picture

Harper’s Attack on Science: "No Science, No Evidence, No Truth, No Democracy"

This is a DeSmog Canada post originally commissioned for the Academic Matters: The Journal of Higher Education May edition "The War on Knowledge."

Science—and the culture of evidence and inquiry it supports—has a long relationship with democracy. Widely available facts have long served as a check on political power. Attacks on science, and on the ability of scientists to communicate freely, are ultimately attacks on democratic governance.

It’s no secret the Harper government has a problem with science. In fact, Canada’s scientists are so frustrated with this government’s recent overhaul of scientific communications policies and cuts to research programs they took to the streets, marching on Parliament Hill last summer to decry the “Death of Evidence.” Their concerns— expressed on their protest banners—followed a precise logic: “no science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy.”

“No Science”

Since 2006, the Harper government has made bold moves to control or prevent the free flow of scientific information across Canada, particularly when that information highlights the undesirable consequences of industrial development. The free flow of information is controlled in two ways: through the muzzling of scientists who might communicate scientific information, and through the elimination of research programs that might participate in the creation of scientific information or evidence.

Mon, 2013-05-27 13:23David Ravensbergen
David Ravensbergen's picture

The Duffy Affair: Accountability According to Stephen Harper

desmog canada mike duffy

When Stephen Harper was first elected Prime Minister in 2006, he promised to bring a new era of accountability to Ottawa. Harper and the Conservatives swept to power on a wave of popular indignation over the Liberal sponsorship scandal, arriving in Ottawa with talk of ending the elite impunity that had taken hold after the long rule of “Canada’s natural governing party.”

Harper announced his intentions in a 2005 speech: “We must clean up corruption and lift the veils of secrecy that allow it to flourish. We must do nothing less than replace the culture of entitlement with the culture of accountability.”

Eight years later, with a growing expenses scandal in the Senate prompting the resignation of Harper’s chief of staff Nigel Wright and forcing senators Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin out of the Conservative caucus, the culture of accountability appears to be slow in taking hold.

Tue, 2013-05-21 10:16Elizabeth Hand
Elizabeth Hand's picture

Does Alternative Energy Threaten Canadian Culture? Probably Not.

wind energy

Alternative energy strategies in this country are often viewed as impractical or even anti-Canadian because they suggest a departure from oil dependence. The oil industry insists that oil is an absolute necessity and that phrases like ‘global warming’ and ‘rising emissions’ are blowing things out of proportion.

But, perhaps the idea of oil as a necessity is blown out of proportion. While the real threat of climate change makes itself known around the world, some countries are taking it seriously enough to invest in more sustainable power sources.

This last Friday, a record-breaking level of CO2 was measured at the Mauna Loa research facility in Hawaii. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million—the highest concentration in over 800,000 years. Scientists say that levels shouldn’t exceed 350 ppm in order to prevent a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius. Reaching the 400 ppm measurement shows things are changing faster than scientists had previously imagined.

Sun, 2013-05-19 20:20Adam Kingsmith
Adam Kingsmith's picture

The Commons Don't Have To Be So Tragic

United Nations photo of air stack emissions

“The Tragedy of the Commons” is like a desolate nursery rhyme, dogmatic economic fallacy, and apathetic environmental apology all bounded into one twisted fable.

Titans of industry and government policymakers alike have invoked its “insights” as vindication for a whole laundry list of derogatory actions. In Canada alone, the commons myth has been employed to rationalise everything from granting private enterprises purchasable “permits” to pollute our precious air and water supplies, to invalidating Indigenous land claims and privatising even the most basic of social services.
 
Originating from an infamous 1968 essay by American ecologist Dr. Garrett Hardin in the prestigious journal Science, “The Tragedy of the Commons” has been quoted or cited in hundreds of books and thousands of articles, making the seminal work a “dominant paradigm within which social scientists assess natural resource issues.”

In essence, Hardin’s thesis can be stripped down to a singular notion -- the pursuit of self-interest in an open-access commons leads to ruin. Thus while people know that depleting a common resource can hinder societal wellbeing, without controls on access and use of the underlying resource, a tragedy of the commons is inescapable.
 
Sat, 2013-05-18 12:49Guest
Guest's picture

It's Thomas Midgley Day: Celebrate The Status Quo!

Thomas Midgley

This is a guest post by Seth Godin, originally published on Seth's Blog.

Today would be his 124th birthday. A fine occasion to think about the effects of industrialization, and what happens when short-term profit-taking meets marketing.

Midgley is responsible for millions of deaths. Not directly, of course, but by, "just doing his job," and then pushing hard to market ideas he knew weren't true—so he and his bosses could turn a profit.

His first mistake began when he figured out that adding lead to gasoline appeared to make cars perform better. At the time, two things were widely known by chemists: 1. Adding grain alcohol to gasoline dramatically increases octane and performance, and 2. Ingesting or sniffing lead can lead to serious injury, brain damage and death.

The problem for those that wanted to be in the gasoline business was that grain alcohol wasn't cheap, and the idea couldn't be patented. As a result, the search was on for a process that could be protected, that was cheaper and that could open the door for market dominance. If you own the patent on the cheap and easy way to make cars run quieter (and no one notices the brain damage and the deaths) then you can corner the market in a fast-growing profitable industry...

Fri, 2013-05-17 09:00Stephen Leahy
Stephen Leahy's picture

Why Scientists Will Not Sleep Well Tonight

Individuals protest the arrival of Stephen Harper in New York

Around the world scientists are not sleeping well. They toss and turn knowing humanity is destroying the Earth’s ability to support mankind. The science is crystal clear and all of us 'ought to shaking in our boots' Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme told me last year.

But hardly any of us are shaking in our boots. Why is that?

Thu, 2013-05-16 12:48Carol Linnitt
Carol Linnitt's picture

Harper's Pro-Tar Sands Claims Looking Worse for Wear After New Group Launches 'Reality Check' Website

Stephen Harper at the Council on Foreign Relations

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took to the stage today at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York to discuss Canada’s economy, environmental regulations and support of the Keystone XL pipeline among other things. The Prime Minister’s appearance marks a break in a steady stream of tar sands advertising shouldered primarily by Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

Harper’s overarching message when it came down to pipeline politics was this: Canada is working on its emissions problem, so Americans concerned about the environmental fallout of the Keystone pipeline needn’t worry. Besides, there are far more important economic benefits associated with the energy project that the U.S. “can’t afford to turn down.”

That is to say, the Prime Minister’s address, a rarity these days, brought little else than more of the same.

Mon, 2013-05-13 15:05Farron Cousins
Farron Cousins's picture

Could NAFTA Force Keystone XL On United States?

As the public anxiously awaits the U.S. State Department’s final decision on the fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline, the discussion has largely ignored the elephant in the room: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.)

Thanks to NAFTA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, the State Department will likely be able to do little more than stall the pipeline’s construction. In its simplest form, NAFTA removes barriers for North American countries wishing to do business in or through other North American countries, including environmental barriers. The goal of the agreement was to promote intra-continental commerce and help the economies of all involved in the agreement.

Pages

Subscribe to Opinion