Friday, July 04, 2008

 

Green with envy

Mrs Forsey just about got it. While she sees the symptoms she hasn't quite yet realized the root cause of our problems within the canadian federation and that is we have no equality and as such the political system is nothing more than per capita colonialism perpetrated by the national political parties. Democratic Discrimination against the minority populace provinces by all of the national parties in there never ending bid to gain power by stealing from the minority prov and giving to the majority prov to win votes.

You might win a battle but the war will always be won by the majority provinces unless and until the canadian political system changes to give all of the members of the federation equality in a none partisan senate and the Supreme Kangaroo court of canukistan.

While the catch phrase of referring to Quebec as Green with envy is nice the reality is they will always take the dog in the manger role as long as they can get away with it through the national parties weakness of our per capita colonialist system.

The Independent NL
Where is support for green energy?
How green are the greens? The question arises because of the national attention focused lately
on those who say they want to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and so protect the environment.
All federal political parties profess to be green. Not green as in “inexperienced”
or “immature,” of course, but green as in “let’s fight global warming” (or climate change, as it is now called) with a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade scheme. Moreover, each party claims to be greener than all the rest.
Why, then, do they not support one of the largest, greenest energy projects in the country?
The proposed hydroelectric development
on the lower Churchill River would, by replacing coal-fired generating
plants, displace an estimated 16 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions
every year.
Not only would that electricity be clean and forever renewable, it would be relatively cheap, which is especially desirable at a time of spiralling energy prices. Jean-Thomas Bernard, an economics
professor at Laval University, was quoted last year as saying he believes
the lower Churchill project is the lowest-cost power left to be developed in eastern Canada.
Ontario has frequently pointed out the project’s benefits, green and otherwise.
And early this year, Nova Scotia’s Premier Rodney MacDonald said the lower Churchill project “is a major opportunity
to help the Atlantic provinces contribute to both regional and national climate-change goals.”
Oddly enough, however, the biggest stumbling block to development of this very large green project is Quebec, which prides itself on being the greenest
province (or greenest “nation”) in the country.
Yet, by opposing federal involvement in a national energy grid — whereby electricity from the lower Churchill could cross Quebec to other provinces — Quebec has held up the development
of this green project since it was first proposed 36 years ago.
Another way to get electricity from Labrador to export markets — much more costly — is via an underwater cable from Labrador to Newfoundland and then back to the Maritimes.
Have you heard Prime Minister Stephen
Harper and Liberal Leader Stéphane
Dion support either route? Both have been ominously silent — despite the fact that both, like Quebec, pride themselves on being green.
green shift?
For example, Stephen Harper’s government
declared in the Throne Speech last year that “the world is moving on to address climate change and the environment,
and Canada intends to lead the effort at home and abroad.”
And Stéphane Dion in June introduced
his “green shift” policy (which included not a word about shifting to the green power potential of the lower Churchill). His concern is with reducing
greenhouse gas emissions by imposing
a carbon tax.
Why the silence on providing federal
support for a national energy grid, the benefits of which have been known since it was proposed by Prime Minister
John Diefenbaker in 1962?
The bottom line is that both federal leaders and the province of Quebec have more important priorities than fighting climate change.
Federal politicians want to appease Quebec. Perhaps they’re afraid that supporting a national energy grid will spark “civil unrest,” as Prime Minister Lester Pearson feared in the 1960s; or prompt threats to separate; or merely jeopardize their chances of picking up some of the 75 seats Quebec has in the House of Commons. Who knows?
Quebec, for its part, wants to continue
to profit from the hydroelectric potential of Labrador. The greenness of money — the estimated $19 billion it’s reaped from the upper Churchill hydro development — is more important than helping to protect the environment.
The greenness of envy is another factor.
Quebec covets Labrador. In 1982, the Quebec government went so far as to prepare legislation to assert sovereignty
over Labrador. After considering it in cabinet, however, Premier René Lévesque said that “for the foreseeable future, that question is not actively under
study.” The cabinet presumably figured
it would be more lucrative (all of the plea$ure, none of the responsibility)
simply to prevent Newfoundland and Labrador from selling to anyone but Quebec, which would then be able to dictate prices.
That is what it did in the Churchill Falls contract of 1969, and what no doubt it has been hoping to do since 1972 when the question of developing the lower Churchill first came up.
So, how green are the greens? Well, given that Quebec, Prime Minister Harper and Liberal Leader Dion are so willing to deny Canadians in Ontario
and the Atlantic provinces the benefits of the clean, renewable, relatively
cheap electricity from the lower Churchill, the answer is clear: in the environmental sense, at least, they’re as green as they think voters want them to be — as long as they don’t have to take a principled stand.
But perhaps the question is best answered
with another question: if environmentalism,
inexperience, immaturity
and envy are green, what color is hypocrisy?
jmforsey@sympatico.ca
‘It belongs
in the
chamber pot’
Dear editor,
Your horse manure headline stinks (‘What Danny Williams is to horse manure,’ Bill Rowe column, June 20 edition). Some unnamed Liberal senator was quoted by Bill Rowe, saying what Einstein was to physics and Gretzky was to hockey
is what Premier Williams is to horse manure.
It was a nasty thing for the senator
to say, but it was hardly much better for The Independent to print the quote in the headline. Is this how we bring a higher level of maturity
to public discourse? Is this how we teach our young people to treat one another with respect? It sounds more like a schoolyard bully’s taunt than the statement of a Member of Canada’s Upper Chamber. It belongs in the chamber
pot, not in public discourse or a reputable newspaper.
Terry Murphy
St. John’s
JOANGuest columnFORSEY

Labels:


Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]