Tar Sands = Climate Crime (video) - STOP THEM!

Greenpeace video.

Wanna know what Royal Dutch Shell has been doing in the Albian Tar Sands? Have a look for yourself:

BC Ferries needs a Green Plan

Everybody is going green these days, except BC Ferries. What's wrong with them? Don't they see the opportunities here?

I'll help them with a few money-making examples for a greener BC Ferries :

1. Lower the walk-on fee. Lower? Yes, lower. Cars don't eat food, they don't buy magazines, and don't play in the Arcade hall. People do. Focus on transporting people, not metal. People are still considered green (when in fact most of them aren't), but cars are not. When people have to spend less on a ticket, they're also more likely to spend a few more bucks during the ride.

2. Lobby for improvement of BC Transit. I find it still hard to believe that in the year 2007 there still isn't a BC Transit Express service from downtown Victoria to downtown Vancouver. What's taking so long? Many people bemoan the high rates for taking your car onto these ferries, still the only comfortable way to get to Vancouver (from Victoria). A return ticket for one car and two passengers is close to $120 dollars. Lobby to come up with a walk-on return pass under $40 per person. This would make walk-on travel convenient and affordable, resulting in more travellers. Lobbying doesn't cost money, only effort. Go!

When the above is implemented, these changes can lead to the next move:

3. Introduce smaller, walk-on-passenger-only ferries. These ferries should be able to operate for a lot less money, and could improve the service. Since they can be a lot smaller, they probably can go a bit faster too.

BC Ferries, Go Green!

OIL INDUSTRY did nothing for over a decade; so why reward THEM with INTENSITY TARGETS?

Since Canada's neo-cons love to come up with analogies, here's mine for intensity targets:

You own an old chevy, and you drive daily from Victoria (BC) to Sidney (BC) and back, which is about 60 kilometers. Now, you're asked to limit your reductions, but, you actually have ideas to travel around the world.

The Conservatives make both possible!

Just buy a small Toyota that will reduce at least 6% per kilometre and you can drive as far as you like, pollute as much as you like.

Yes, that's what intensity targets are about; make small improvements to your dirty industry, then you can pollute as much as you like. Who cares if the overall pollution rises?

Oil industry is like a dirty old Chevy
No wonder Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry, likes the new plan. They're the old chevy that should have been replaced over a decade ago, but now they can get away with polluting even more!

It's of course a lot easier for the Canada's neo-cons to blame Liberals for inaction (not enforcing emission regulations) than punishing the REAL source of pollution due to inaction; Canada's dirtiest industry, the oil industry.

footnote: It's interesting to see that both parties (Libs and Cons) are so much alike, even on environment; neither one is serious about Kyoto once in power.

Canada's New Government: Job losses only a crisis when WE call it a crisis

Good post by Robert McClelland:

SELECTIVE CONCERN ON JOB LOSSES

I see John Baird has all the rubes worked into a high state of dudgeon because he claims that if Canada tries to meet its Kyoto targets 275,000 Canadians might lose their jobs.

Well if that’s the case I wonder what state they’re in knowing that Canada’s manufacturing sector has shed 250,000 jobs over the past 5 years. What’s that? They aren’t concerned about those lost jobs.

“On March 28, along with the leaders of Canada’s largest private sector unions, I met with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour about the fact that since November 2002, Canadians have suffered a net loss of over 250,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. They acknowledged that they see the same numbers that we see but they did not see them as a crisis.”

So for the record, the Conservative position on job losses is:
275,000 hypothetical lost jobs = economic armageddon.
250,000 actual lost jobs = stop your bitchin.

Minister John Baird on YouTube: he doesn't seem to know the essential basics about the environment portfolio

Ask people on the street who John Baird is, and probably, many still won't know. But things could be worse, and when it comes to the current Conservatives, they almost always are.

Ask John Baird what the difference is between carbon tax and carbon trading, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here and here)

Ask John Baird which countries have a carbon tax today, and he won't have the answer.
(he could just look here)

Ask John Baird how much his department has spend the past year, and he won't know.

Meet John Baird, the "all new" Conservative Minister of Environment for the New (so-called) Government. And be amazed:



John Baird on YouTube

Exxon's "hidden" product placement; in PM Harper's speech.

Wondering where it was "hidden" yesterday? Well, when Harper was talking about how to curb greenhouse gas emissions, this is what he had to say:

"I don't think realistically we can tell Canadians stop driving your car, stop going to work, turn the heat off in the winter; these are not realistic solutions."

Yes, less driving is, according to our prime minister Stephen Harper, not realistic. Given the booming economy, Canadians should probably be driving more, realistically speaking of course.

Wonder why PM Stephen Harper supports driving more?

Exxon Mobile supports Conservatives, so Conservatives support Exxon; it's THAT simple. So where does the environment fit in? Well, it doesn't. Don't expect the Conservatives to move on the environment any faster. After almost a year of so-called "governing", the first environmentally friendly move from the CPOC still has to be made; let's call it "getting things done" liberal style.

So is PM Harper corrupt? Legally maybe hard to prove - but morally? Without a doubt.

Resources:
- Toronto Star
- DeSmogBlog.com
- CBC

Doomsday, Gary Lunn and the first Dutch Traffic Warning; Are Conservatives Connecting the Dots?

I'm in the Netherlands for two weeks and right now I'm in the middle of a severe storm:

The traffic authorities issued a warning to motorists not to use the roads if at all possible, in the first such use of the "traffic alarm" since it was instituted in November 2005.

The weather bureau said the storm, with southwesterly winds gusting up to 130 kilometers an hour, was the worst since October 2002. The storm, which follows a southwesterly storm a week ago, was expected to peak in the late afternoon. (source)

And I have to say; weather is seriously bad; winds of up to 130 km/hour are blowing through the country. Dutch train stations are closed, many flights at Schiphol airport are canceled; it looks like it's going to be the worst storm since 1990.

In international news, scientist are warning us (for the first time) for the world's two biggest threats. And guess what, terrorism is not one of them:

"As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on earth," said Professor Hawking (source).

Well, and then there's Gary Lunn. He uses the argument of global warming as a reason to expand nuclear activity on Canadian soil.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn yesterday said a $238 million green science fund, to be distributed over four years, will help pay for the research and development of technologies such as [...] nuclear energy.

First of all, nuclear energy is not a clean energy source. Secondly, I don't think Canada is in a "catch 22" like the US (Iraq, "should I stay or should I go now"); there are good other options that are clean and less dangerous.

We're in the 21st century, the century of sustainability. Let's walk the talk and do the math; nuclear technology is at the base of generating nuclear waste and nuclear arsenal, both contributing to the world's most important threats as outlined by Professor Hawkin.

There are many green solutions out there; this century is the (only?) time to do things right. With or without the Conservatives?

PMS is going green, Chrysler isn't, Exxon never will be

The CBC "doesn't get it";
(see picture)



Harper is trying really hard to look green.
(see picture)




But Chrysler is still in full denial.

Chrysler's chief economist Van Jolissaint has launched a fierce attack on "quasi-hysterical Europeans" and their "Chicken Little" attitudes to global warming.
(more)

I also ran into this site about Exxon Secrets and how the oil industry continuously buys supports for the "global warming does not cause climate change", similar to the "tobacco does not cause cancer" message.


More on
Chrysler: BBC News
Exxon: Exxon Secrets