Measures announced in last week's budget suggest the Harper government has decided to drop any and all pretence of being green.
The document's lack of environmental conscience has Green party leader Elizabeth May seeing red. The MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands declares on her party's website that the budget is "the worst in the history of Canada.
"This is devastating," May stated. "This is a war on the environment. It cannot go unchallenged."
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, meanwhile, expresses concern the budget makes only two "passing references" to the term climate change. Two additional references to climate, the centre reports, refer to the investment climate.
Other critics predict the government's posture will be counterproductive, fuelling civil disobedience and public protest activity, as well as legal action against contentious resource developments.
Specifically, the budget:
. Mandates cuts of $88 mil-lion to Environment Canada, $79 million to Fisheries and Oceans and $29 million to Parks Canada, over three years.
. Slashes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's budget by 40 per cent, and sets clear timelines for environmental reviews to speed approvals for industrial projects. This measure will apply retroactively to the B.C. Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Its review hearing was cancelled Monday in the midst of a grassroots protest in Bella Bella.)
. Adds $8 million to the Canada Revenue Agency's budget for audits aimed at stripping charitable status from groups exceeding a 10-per-cent political advocacy limit in spending.
. Kills off the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and its budget of $5.2 million, which was charged with providing policy analysis and advice to government.
"Wiping out this respected think-tank while Canada still lacks a credible plan for achieving its own 2020 green-house gas reduction targets," warns the Pembina Institute's Ed Whittingham, "will make it that much harder for Canada to do its fair share in addressing the climate challenge."
Further, "while no money is directed to energy efficiency or renewable energy, tarsands subsidies [totalling $1.4 billion annually] remain untouched," observes Andrea Harden-Dona-hue, climate justice campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
"While daunting," Harden-Donahue writes in a blog on Rabble.ca, "we must not forget the power people have when we organize collectively."
One positive environmental budget measure that has been cited: $50 million over two years to implement Species at Risk legislation.
So, why would Conservatives introduce a budget that alienates so many folks?
First, it has a majority government. For the first time, the Conservatives won't need sup-port from other parties to pass their budget bill.
Second, they believe they don't need the support of voters who prefer to thwart economic development in the interest of being green.
The Harper team has carved out its constituency and it's not the Greenpeace brigade or Council of Canadians supporters.
It knows that those who hold the environment as a high priority almost certainly will vote New Democrat, Liberal or Green.
Instead, Harper and Co. is staking its political future on a "jobs and growth" strategy, one reliant on developing Canada's resource bounty and marketing it globally.
Accordingly, Stephen Harper has not been the least bit hesitant - even before an environmental assessment is completed - to champion Enbridge's proposed pipeline through B.C., infrastructure that would cross a myriad of salmon streams, taking oil-sands product to a tanker port in Kitimat, where it would then traverse crystal-clear waters through treacherously narrow channels en route to Asian markets.
The reality is, those who wring their hands over the Great Bear Rainforest simply are not Harper's voters.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Barbara Yaffe
The document's lack of environmental conscience has Green party leader Elizabeth May seeing red. The MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands declares on her party's website that the budget is "the worst in the history of Canada.
"This is devastating," May stated. "This is a war on the environment. It cannot go unchallenged."
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, meanwhile, expresses concern the budget makes only two "passing references" to the term climate change. Two additional references to climate, the centre reports, refer to the investment climate.
Other critics predict the government's posture will be counterproductive, fuelling civil disobedience and public protest activity, as well as legal action against contentious resource developments.
Specifically, the budget:
. Mandates cuts of $88 mil-lion to Environment Canada, $79 million to Fisheries and Oceans and $29 million to Parks Canada, over three years.
. Slashes the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency's budget by 40 per cent, and sets clear timelines for environmental reviews to speed approvals for industrial projects. This measure will apply retroactively to the B.C. Northern Gateway Pipeline. (Its review hearing was cancelled Monday in the midst of a grassroots protest in Bella Bella.)
. Adds $8 million to the Canada Revenue Agency's budget for audits aimed at stripping charitable status from groups exceeding a 10-per-cent political advocacy limit in spending.
. Kills off the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy and its budget of $5.2 million, which was charged with providing policy analysis and advice to government.
"Wiping out this respected think-tank while Canada still lacks a credible plan for achieving its own 2020 green-house gas reduction targets," warns the Pembina Institute's Ed Whittingham, "will make it that much harder for Canada to do its fair share in addressing the climate challenge."
Further, "while no money is directed to energy efficiency or renewable energy, tarsands subsidies [totalling $1.4 billion annually] remain untouched," observes Andrea Harden-Dona-hue, climate justice campaigner for the Council of Canadians.
"While daunting," Harden-Donahue writes in a blog on Rabble.ca, "we must not forget the power people have when we organize collectively."
One positive environmental budget measure that has been cited: $50 million over two years to implement Species at Risk legislation.
So, why would Conservatives introduce a budget that alienates so many folks?
First, it has a majority government. For the first time, the Conservatives won't need sup-port from other parties to pass their budget bill.
Second, they believe they don't need the support of voters who prefer to thwart economic development in the interest of being green.
The Harper team has carved out its constituency and it's not the Greenpeace brigade or Council of Canadians supporters.
It knows that those who hold the environment as a high priority almost certainly will vote New Democrat, Liberal or Green.
Instead, Harper and Co. is staking its political future on a "jobs and growth" strategy, one reliant on developing Canada's resource bounty and marketing it globally.
Accordingly, Stephen Harper has not been the least bit hesitant - even before an environmental assessment is completed - to champion Enbridge's proposed pipeline through B.C., infrastructure that would cross a myriad of salmon streams, taking oil-sands product to a tanker port in Kitimat, where it would then traverse crystal-clear waters through treacherously narrow channels en route to Asian markets.
The reality is, those who wring their hands over the Great Bear Rainforest simply are not Harper's voters.
Original Article
Source: vancouver sun
Author: Barbara Yaffe
No comments:
Post a Comment