I certainly applaud the spirit of this Star letter:
As the mayors of the GTA come together to ask for funds to clean up from the recent ice storm, I hope that they will recognize the likelihood that this disaster and recent GTA floods were “acts of man.” While most climate change scientists, conservative as they are, will not point at a single extreme weather event and proclaim it the result of global climate change, they do recognize the resultant increased frequency of severe weather events.
The provincial government has followed through on a promise to close coal-fired power stations as one step toward reducing CO2 emissions in Ontario. The Harper government has done little except interfere with efforts to reduce human caused climate change. Driven by the dictates of the fossil fuel industry, the federal government continues to pave the way for tar sands expansion and the transportation of dangerous and CO2 emission-rich products in the form of bitumen.
I implore the municipal mayors to seek relief funds from those who have contributed to climate change and profited (directly and/or indirectly) from the expansion of the tar sands. The costs of global climate change are mounting. Ontario citizens should not have to pay for this.
We must seek compensation from those who are increasing the risks of extreme weather events, namely the fossil fuel industry and their puppet regime, the Harper government.
James S. Quinn, Professor, Biology Department, McMaster University
With the latest Nanos poll suggesting that Canadians are awakening from their long slumber, perhaps the idea isn't as far-fetched as some might think?
Lorne, I believe a special legislation will be required to claim damages from the fossil fuel companies. I may be wrong. However, public should not expect that Harper government will pass such a legislation.
ReplyDeleteThat is no doubt true, LD, and it is unlikely a government of any political stripe would make such a move. Nonetheless, the public recognition of where the bulk of the blame resides is a first step down a long road that one hopes will lead to a new awareness of the perilous times in which we live.
DeleteGovernments has passed special legislation to collect money from tobacco companies. Perhaps, in time, they do it for fossil fuel companies.
DeleteI think the money from tobacco companies came as a result of government-initiated lawsuits, doconnor. Perhaps it is time for someone to start a class-action suit on behalf of all of us!
DeleteIf Barack Obama has been paying attention to Canadian polls, he won't approve Keystone, Lorne. And, who knows? He may listen to Neil Young.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the oil interests are reacting with such vociferous bitterness to Young's comments shows that he has really touched a nerve here, Owen. I am delighted, and hope his denunciation ultimately contributes to better days for the planet.
DeleteMost kids in my residence had a guitar. And they played, almost exclusively, Neil Young songs. What I found strange was that most could not tune their guitars properly. This led me into a small cottage industry of 'guitar tuning'. Most evenings someone would show up at my door with their guitar for tuning. The price was one, uh, let's call it 'cigarette' for one tuning. I once overheard a couple of fellow residents discussing me: "He is a bit of a jerk, but he sure can tune a guitar".
DeleteSo, thanks Neil for what you did for me then, and what you are doing for all Canadians now.
Amen to that, brother.
DeleteOwen Gray, I am afraid Barack Obama will be pressured by fossil fuel lobbyists and he may given in.
ReplyDeleteI believe his initial intention for healthcare reform was public healthcare but private companies prevailed - with the help of Congress, of course. Decision making in U.S system is treacherous given the so-called separation of power. Differences between House of Rep and Senate are insurmountable at times unless one party has majority in both houses.
@LeDaro: I have a different take. I think BO will reject Keystone. The U.S. will be swimming in oil and gas in a few years' time and, I suspect, will not need to exercebate the glut with more foreign (Can.) oil. BO has consistently said that the oil would not be for domestic U.S. consumption.
ReplyDeleteOn another matter: Lorne made a link to the Bloomberg story today on a Nanos poll relating to support for Keystone. The Bloomberg story correctly refers to support in the latest poll done in Dec. last year as 52 +/- 3.1 % without referring to it, as Nanos did yesterday on his own website, as "majority" support.
Not sure if it was Nanos' intention to spin this number (52 +/- 3.1 %) as still "majority" support but anyone with any ounce of statistical training would have realized that because of the statistical noise (i.e. the MOE of 3.1% according to Nanos own figures), the claim of majority support (defined as over 50%) is really very cheesy at best. Also, Nanos apparently failed to mention that the opposition in B.C. was over 50%, in other words, to use Nanos own spin, he should have pointed out "majority" opposition in B.C. to Keystone.
No wonder people who pay attention are cynical with polls where the pollster seems intent on spinning the findings rather than just reporting the numbers as they are.
I watched Nik Nanos on Power and Politics yesterday, Anon, and the impression I got was that he felt it was quite significant that the majority support for the pipeline has dropped 16 points since last spring. One can only hope that is evidence of a building momentum.
Delete