 Tzeporah Berman is a controversial figure these days in the environmental movement. Joshua Berson |
Tzeporah Berman sure can elicit strong reactions from some of her fellow environmental activists. The Cortes Island resident, who helped organize the 1993 logging blockades in Clayoquot Sound, is the executive director of PowerUP Canada and a cofounder of ForestEthics. Yesterday (April 15), Berman reportedly sent a letter to NDP leader Carole James attacking her for opposing the carbon tax.
See also
B.C. deserves better environmental policies from B.C. Liberals and NDP
Many environmentalists consider Berman a sellout because of her support for the use of private power projects to generate green energy in B.C. Others have accused her of shilling for the B.C. Liberals and lavishing too much praise on Premier Gordon Campbell. On April 15, Mike Bruce, director of strategic campaigns and communications for COPE 378, the union representing B.C. Hydro workers, posted a message on Twitter stating that he was removing Berman from his feed, and adding: “Morning nausea not worth it for our generation’s Patrick Moore”.
In a phone interview yesterday, the Georgia Straight asked Berman to respond to some of the criticism.
Matthew Burrows: How do you feel being called this generation’s Patrick Moore?
Tzeporah Berman: [Laughs] I wondered when someone would get to that one. Patrick Moore is a consultant who is paid by industry to lobby on their behalf and I am not. I am speaking out on issues that I care about and that many people who support PowerUP Canada and the work that I do care about. To say there is a connection there, I think, is crazy. I’m not working to protect a particular industry or a particular political party. I am speaking out around the need for changing our priorities to address new and emerging concerns. That’s really difficult for some people.
MB: Which part is difficult?
TB: I think what we are seeing is that the challenges of the climate era require us to question the work that we do, the way that we live our lives, and what we support or don’t support.”
MB: What do you say to B.C. voters who want an ALR, endangered species legislation, and public forest lands [as promised in the NDP platform]? Aren’t you saying too many nice things about this premier based on his 2.4-cent carbon tax?
TB: I’m not saying the B.C. Liberals are good just because of the carbon tax. The carbon tax doesn’t stand alone. I’m saying that their climate strategy and their commitment to conservation efficiency and an economy-wide price on carbon and their commitment to expand the renewable-energy sector is leadership. I’m not saying that I agree with all of their platform or that they don’t still have a long way to go. For example, I’m opposed to the expansion of our highways and bridges instead of funding public transit. I don’t support their decision on Gateway. I don’t support their expanding the oil-and-gas industry in the north. I think we should be phasing out fossil fuels, and we should be phasing out and not increasing coal mining. I think the fact that British Columbia is allowing the mining of coal and then exporting it to China to be burned, while saying that they won’t built any coal plants here, is hypocrisy. I am not saying that I agree with everything that the Liberal government is doing. I’m saying that we need to prioritize leadership on climate change, because we’re racing against the clock. They have shown leadership on that issue. They still have a long way to go.
MB: Gordon Campbell was seen in his first term as one of the brownest premiers in history. It’s the optics for many people. You can say you’ll stump for him on the carbon tax, but is he doing anything anywhere else?
TB: I just laid out a bunch of other stuff. There are three issues to look at: conservation efficiency, economy-wide price on carbon, and building out a clean energy economy. They are showing leadership in all of those three categories. Do I care about biodiversity and all our streams and our forests? Absolutely. I’ve spent my entire adult life fighting for them. But the greatest threat to British Columbia’s biodiversity and wilderness today and our kids is climate change. I think that the time for purely oppositional politics is over. We do not have the time to be just outraged and not to be willing to stand in support of solutions that acknowledge that all solutions are messy. There is no silver bullet. Nobody has all the answers and no solution is going to be perfect. What I am saying is these are messy times and anyone who says they have all the answers in the climate era is lying. We need to look for climate leadership and support it when we see it, and try to work together to craft solutions and try to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and to increase green jobs in a green economy. Any other issues that we pick are going to be impacted by climate change, and you have to make a decision. And there is no perfect party. There is no perfect person. I’m not stumping for the Liberals. I’m not saying vote for the Liberals. I’ve been saying I’m not going to vote for the NDP, because I am horrified by them using climate change as a partisan football in this election.
MB: Because of their opposition to the carbon tax?
TB: Because they’re in opposition to the carbon tax, because they’re in opposition to smart meters and two-tiered electricity pricing, and calling for a moratorium on IPPs. The NDP is trying to turn the public away from climate solutions by fear mongering about price increases, and it’s dishonest. Their policies will have a similar impact to the consumers. It’s not just about carbon tax or cap and trade, because it’s not an either-or. It’s about an economy-wide price on carbon. Their cap-and-trade proposal will only affect 32 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions.
MB: Where do you get funding?
TB: From individuals and a couple of Canadian foundations: the Ivey Foundation, Tides Foundation, and that’s about it.
MB: Are you receiving funding from any independent power producers?
TB: No.
MB: Not from IPPBC?
TB: No. A lot of them came to the conference, and so a lot of them would have bought tickets to the conference. But we haven’t taken any funding.
MB: Any final remarks?
TB: I don’t take any of this lightly, you know? In fact, the last month has been one of the hardest times of my life. I think that this is really the environmental movement’s historic moment, where we need to be rising above both party allegiances and showing leadership on a number of critical issues, and working with First Nations and working with labour in working to find solutions now that we have traction with some of the issues I’ve been working on for so long. What I’ve seen is that most of the opposition to my having tried to raise this discussion and these issues has been position-based arguments. We need to have more dialogue and discussions about these issues. We need to be able to respectfully disagree. We need to not expect that everyone’s going to toe the party line on the issues, because no one has all the answers right now.
MB: Why has it been one of the hardest months of your life?
TB: Since I started talking about the need to support the expansion of renewable power—whether or not it is private or public—I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of e-mails from people that are excited that someone’s actually saying it. Then I’ve had dozens of calls from people who I’ve worked with for many years, and who I would consider my allies, who are very angry that I would even dare to talk about it. That’s been really hard. More than that, I’ve had blackmail calls, I’ve had threatening e-mails. I’ve had people saying to me, “You’re not allowed to talk about these issues. You can’t talk about these issues, because we—the greater we in the environmental movement—are opposing run of river or IPPs.” I thought I was part of a movement, not a cult.
Comment (24)
Comments
What isn't mentioned here is that when Tzeporah says she is not taking money from IPPs, they nonetheless were the principle attendees and funders of PowerUp's recent fund raising event in Vancouver.
They paid $450 per ticket. $450.
Just sayin'...
... you be the judge.
COPE 387's Mike Bruce makes an unfair comparison to Patrick Moore, a lobbyist? Apparently if you support something outwardly you are obviously beig paid. As usual he should do some homework before he sticks his foot in another pile of rhetoric. Who's paying you Mike Bruce? Members of the BC Hydro union through their dues? Makes you wonder if the union membership is ok with the aggressive approach their "elected representatives" are taking with their money. If it was me I'd be pretty angry.
We have to stop saying no to everything and start saying yes with proper guidelines in place, this can happen and we can top anything that is being done anywhere in the world. Why wouldn't you want to be part of the solution?
But one particular bit of material caught my eye. It's when Berman says:
"For example, I’m opposed to the expansion of our highways and bridges instead of funding public transit. I don’t support their decision on Gateway."
Stern and unyielding opposition to the PMH1 project is a Straight staple, and its sometimes hard to say if it's more Charlie Smith or more Matt Burrows favourite topic. Then again, it's one of mine, so what the Hell!
I think as far as the politics of this situation are concerned it's worth remembering a couple of things. First, the environmental movement has put strong pressure on the NDP over the past four years to do two things. Oppose a popular Liberal government policy, expanding the highway and freeway system, and support an unpopular Liberal government policy, the carbon tax. Coupled with the public statements dissing James and praising the carbon tax by people like Berman and Jaccard, and to some degree Gregor Robertson, none of this can be reasonably interpreted as some kind of coincidence. Rather, it's BC politics, one more time.
Second, all of this played out at a slightly lower volume in last fall's federal election with Dion's Green Shift, were many of the same players made the same "why no carbon tax" pitch to dissuade people from supporting Jack Layton. Given that Michael Ignatieff has now ditched the Green Shift, this provincial election is probably the last outing for the Liberal/ENGO/economist carbon tax meme.
Rod Smelser
Rod Smelser
Did Tzeporah Berman just call the Environmental Movement - HER movement - A CULT!?
Wow.
Below the belt. Someone check the water supply on Cortes.
"....them came to the conference, and so a lot of them would have bought tickets to the conference..."
In fact almost all of the conference participants were from Pirate Power and hangers on. Wonder how much she made? Sort of like the conference Plutonic exec who claimed his company didn't donate to the Liberals but bought lotsa delicious thousand dollar chicken dinners at Liberal fundraisers. Hmm I sense a pattern. Ms Berman has a family to support out there on Cortez Island and there are no jobs so we can see where the idea of trading her environmental chits for big Powerup conference ticket buys from Pirate Power makes sense.
"...one. Patrick Moore is a consultant who is paid by industry to lobby on their behalf and I am not. "
Well she has admitted her conference was industry supported, and one of the only other prominent "environmentalists"at her conference was no less than Patrick Moore. Guilt by association?
".. conservation efficiency"
About a billion in payments to Accenture for smart meters could be better spent on insulation. Of course Accenture pays a lot more in Liberal party campaign donations and would be much more likely to buy tickets to her next Power up conference than local insulation contractors. The contractor would provide a lot more jobs - not a concern to Berman and her Neocon masters.
", economy-wide price on carbon,"
Just BS. Carbon tax at Gordo's levels does nothing and Berman knows it. Cap and trade would work much better and that is confirmed by the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Certainly this is not enough of a reason to reelect Mr Brown, Gordon Campbell who is all for ruined salmon runs, offshore oil drilling, new tanker routes, and ruined river beds . So once again it looks like some way of cashing in her former environmental credentials for big Powerup conference bucks.
".. and building out a clean energy economy. "
Because BC needs to stop using fossil fuels for 80% of its energy needs , transportation and heating , green electricity with electric cars and heat are the answers her Pirate power sponsors have programmed her with. She dutifully regurgitates.
Unfortunately her Reck of the River pirate cronies are dumping power exactly when BChydro doesn't need it in early summer so it must be exported. Does not a whit to wean us off fossil energy. With the latest projected nuclear and solar rates as well as today's commodity electricity trades hovering between 1 and 2 cents a kilowatt hour, 30 billion over the next 40 years at 12 cents average per kwh lost to pirate power for exports could have been used to locate a few new generation Candu ACR-1000 nuclear reactors on top of Falcon's house out there in Cloverdale and generate 5 times the green energy for the same price. If BC Hydro bundled all these pirate contracts into a package and sold them on the commodities market they'd be unlikely to get even 10 cents on the dollar. Makes the fast ferries and convention centre losses look like a rainy Saturday on at a schoolgirl's lemonade stand but Berman cares not a whit.
Oddly she never speaks of telecommuting and three day work weeks which if made mandatory for BC's dinosaur business and government leaders would cut in half almost overnight BC's need for transportation fuels.
Lots of greenie sell outs seem to turn on the environment and do there best to elect Mr. Browns. Berman's Greenie counterpart Ralph Nader took 5% of the vote in 2000 and gave us 1 million Iraq dead, 8 years of environmental destruction, and the worst depression in a century. Still doesn't apologize nor do I expect the likes of Berman to show any regret when five years from now we are bulldozing over the remains of our environment after she helps give Gordon Campbell five more years to have at her.
seth
To be clear, there are many within the socio-environmental community who have worked tirelessly to oppose the Campbell-Falcon Gateway Project, for example, and yet who value the carbon tax as a needed component within a greater strategy to reduce our net GHG emissions. Ultimately, through the lens of environmentalism both the NDP and the BC Liberals have proposed progressive policies to address climate change. This is a virtually indisputable fact. It is also important to recognize, however, that both political parties have taken regressive environmental positions (Twinning the Port Mann Bridge, Axe the Gas Tax) designed, in part, to create clear and exploitable campaign “contrasts”.
The ominous consequence is that the environment is quickly becoming a prominent campaign wedge issue, as we have witnessed in the past few weeks, and that hard-line party ideologies are increasingly corroding the fabric of the BC environmental network. Berman needs to be commended for offering an alternative vision, one where strong environmental stewardship transcends petty partisan politics.
I wish we had more leaders like her.
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2009/04/17/Berman-not-curren...
Rod Smeler
Rod Smelser
It sickens me to read all the ad hominem attacks here and elsewhere online, that refuse to engage in actual thoughtful conversation.
I think the NDP is being very dinosaurish, and grossly political, to oppose the carbon tax, and to misguide the BC public about cap and trade. I'm no great fan of Campbell and the BC Liberals, but let's be clear: they have shown leadership with the carbon tax, AND are also plan to implement cap and trade. The NDP isn't unique in that, and it's many years off. In the meantime, a tax, as Berman reminds us, is an economy-wide change that will have broad - and immediate - impact, unlike cap and trade.
Will it hurt industry and individuals in the pocket? Yes. Could the tax be implemented more fairly in rural ridings? Sure. But it's time we woke up to the fact that if we don't all change, we're screwed. Plain and simple.
I've only ever voted NDP in this province, but I'm seriously considering a switch to Green this time. Not sure I can stomach it this time around.
Easy to demolish your opponents when you make them into something they are not.
She ignores that 13.5% of BC's GHG emissions comes from gas flaring and the NDP are being attacked by the Liberals for going after it (even though they have been dealing with it in Alberta). She hasn't to my knowledge attacked the Liberal party for ramping up the extraction of Iol and Gas to unprecedented levels. They produce GHG but not until they are used in other jurisdictions. But hse does say that BC is responsible for other jurisdictions when it comes to 'green electricity' production, and we should be exporting.
CCPA study is at (see page 5):
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2007/bc_oil...
If the goal is GHG reduction and BC is responsible for GHG reduction in other jurisdictions for electricity, why are we not responsible for the bigger problem we create by exporting iol and gas at the huge volumes in recent years.
Here is Marc Lee of the CCPA’s take on it:
“To accept an expansion of oil and gas, given its share of total emissions, would appear to be fundamentally undermine BC’s ability to meet its GHG reduction targets. Only if all other sectors of the economy delivered larger reductions as an “offset” could BC’s climate plan be realized.”
http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2009/04/16/how-green-are-bcs-climate...
I think, correct me if I am wrong, that the NDP is going after the gas flaring while the BC liberals are not. I am assuming the NDP wants to end gas flaring because in the article below the Liberals are attacking them and saying they won’t go after gas flaring.
Here are some things to consider :
“Campbell was attacking a proposal by the NDP to charge royalties on oil and gas used during flaring — a plan the NDP has said will generate more than $400 million over three years, and that will help the party afford to repeal Campbell’s carbon tax”
From
http://www.canada.com/Business/Campbell+woos+sector+With+promise+stabili...
Like a fundamentalist, she is blinded by empirical evidence and sees the world in stark black/white. Her analysis is shallow, another common feature of fundamentalists.
Run of the river projects smaller than 50 megawatts have not had to pass environmental review. Of those over 50 megawatts, my understanding is that none have been rejected by the Ministry of the Environment. Finally, where there are multiple river projects in one ecosystem--like Bute Inlet, their cumulative impact has not been subject to environental review.
But more than that, TB' does not discuss two major issues:
1) Our consumption of energy (that means all of our consumption including hers) needs to be radically lowered. Where does she address reducing demand?
2) If one is going to radically intrude on a good portion of the last remaining temperate rain forest, and shunting rivers, building hydro lines, and constructing roads in the wildrerness is radically intruding, then where is the careful assessment of biodiversity loss vs energy gain (especially when that gain comes at the wrong time of the year to help BC).
So, let's have the discussion and put on the table what is known, unknown; certain, and uncertain. Until that is done, the precautionary principle holds: don't screw up ecosystems about which we know very little, especially when no one is intruding on our species' mammoth energy consumption.
Fred Bass
I wonder, girlfriday, if you think these could be good reasons for opposing that policy? Or do think they're just excuses?
Rod Smelser
Yes, climate change is an important issue, and yes the biggest single human contributor to that, fossil fuels use, should be gotten away from, but issuing a blank cheque to big industry to stampede wholesale into the B.C. woods, trammeling river and streams as they go is an absolutely unacceptable idea. Trees need salmon, and salmon need rivers. The climate needs the oxygen produced by trees, and the mitigating effects of "carbon eating," and photosynthesizing they perform.
As Berman says, "There are no silver bullets," so why then advocate for an "all or nothing" license to ruin every river and stream in B.C. in the name of C.C. ?
We people need wild rivers, and so do the fish and trees and insects. If the seas do rise, they will rise, but killing rivers is no solution that.
At least he is upfront about what he is doing.
A lobbyist?
Well, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then...
Me thinks Ms. Berman get off her high horse and start campaigning to save rivers because me thinks this is far more important than selling off our water rights to feed the insatiable USA.
Previous to environmentalists there were conservationists.
The term conservation is much more clearer than environmentalism and its use predates environmentalism by some 500 years in our language.
The great Oxford word dictionary describes the meaning of conservation as such: "The action of conserving; preservation from destructive influences, natural decay or waste..." 1374 Chaucer, or "charge and care of rivers..." 1490, Act 4, Henry VII, C 15.
Both terms are problematic but I believe the term conservation holds many of the values in which "environmentalists" appear to uphold.
As Fred Bass has already stated, in terms of energy, or better yet, electricity usage or electrical (energy) production, we would be far better off conserving electricity than using or generating more.
All forms of electrical generation require some level of damage to our surroundings or environment and any "environmentalist" or "conservationist" would acknowledge that. Both should embrace conservation first principles though. It appears the Watson's or Berman's of the world believe 'adaptation' is the best route to take. This route is a route well travelled but it has nothing to do with conservation but has more to do with comingling with the values one used to oppose.
Berman believes she is doing the right thing, and with the help of the dominant media, she is indirectly heralded as another promoter of privatization or current public policy a la Gordon Campbell. Berman appears to accept this role as an indirect shill during a very important provincial election campaign.
Her embrace of this current media focus seems more in line with ego than true conservationist principles or even the loosey goosey environmentalist principles.
She has become one of the distractive side-shows of this election campaign and perhaps Berman should take time to reflect upon the use of her personality or ego by those who have other purposes in the use of her "brand".
In the article Berman declares that her 'positions' have made many of her old allies angry with her. Anyone who embraces the commodification or free marketing of our atmosphere would make any true ecologist, conservationist or environmentalist angry with her.
Environmental groups have been pushing for a carbon tax and alternative energy projects for years. That the NDP wants to roll back the only inroads they have made, instead of offering to do them properly, is why so many are pissed.
Had the NDP ran a fix the tax or focussed on the "revenue neutral" aspect of the tax, they probably could have gotten quite a lot of support.
However, for the NDP to rip a page from Stephen Harper's playbook and punch the environmental movement in the stomach to suck up to SUV drivers shows why the Green Party in BC constantly can pull in 10% of voters with next to no budget.
I feel sorry for many NDP supporters and even some of their candidates who I know are good people for having to put up with there constant lack of progressive leadership since they booted Harcourt out.
No wonder a majority of BCers don't think the BC NDP could run the economy, they can't even come up with a cohesive policy statement.
Anyways, there is only one winner in this and it is the Green Party.
Why? Because the first week of the campaign has not been about the economy or social justice, it has been about the environment which 75% of British Columbians believe the Green Party is the best equipped to deal with. Over the last year, the environment dropped from the number one issue of 30% of British Columbians down to 8% and until this came out it probably would have been a side issue in this campaign.
If the carbon tax remains the defining issue of this campaign, it could easily take the green party from 12% of the vote up to 18% across BC.
"Stern and unyielding opposition to the PMH1 project is a Straight staple, and its sometimes hard to say if it's more Charlie Smith or more Matt Burrows favourite topic. Then again, it's one of mine, so what the Hell!"
The small note of self-deprecation notwithstanding, you lay it on a bit thick here, don't you think Rod? Is this a wind-up? You are essentially accusing me, Charlie Smith and the Straight of stern and unyielding bias, just because Tzeporah Berman (with no prompting from me) said she opposed Gateway in a Q&A I did with her. How is that unprompted conclusion now my bias?
Also consider this:
1. You will see we included the premier's remarks on Gateway, in full, on video and in print in last week's paper and online. We also included the full transcript, and the premier's assistant, Bridgitte Anderson, will confirm to you that I let her and the premier know well in advance that we would discuss Gateway. They had four days to prepare. We didn't gang up and spring it on the premier.
2. The premier got some big coverage for the PMH1 Pitt River Bridge projects in mainstream media over the weekend, with Carole James faring far worse coverage-wise. I see that does not bother you.
3. I think you need to see how many times I have interviewed Kevin Falcon on Gateway and included his comments and picture.
4. Patrick Moore may not be known to all, Rod, but look at how many have commented on this story. We cannot attribute automatic ignorance to people. I would not deign to do that, as there has been far too much of that lately. People have brains. People are informed. They just need to see what's at issue and they can make their own decisions based on what they see.
5. Gateway is a huge project and we should be discussing it. And we do, and we include all sides...check the archives...
before CanWest blew up Tzeporah as a useful election controversy she initiated a firestorm on BC enviro listserves with her zerocarbon blogging about green power and nimby against runofriver and other IPPs. She was also on programs like the Bill Good show with the message 'climate change is a tipping point danger' and we need green power. This initiated a counter perspective - in blog comments at zerocarbon and on the landwatch and envirowatch listserves - basically making the point that green power - like the puny carbon tax - is not a solution to tipping point climate change but just another lie we tell ourselves instead of really getting serious about climate change. RoR, for example, would just increase emissions from BC because development of such was in addition to still subsidized oil and gas, etc.; we need to powerdown not powerup.
The Straight's editorial on the need for better environmental platforms for both parties was right on in portraying Campbell's climate change policies as just political stickhandling of an issue that wasn't going away by basically a pretty brown gov't intent on Gateway, oil and gas development, etc. The puny carbon tax has been indicted by many enviros as mis-educating the public about serious climate change at a very crucial time when Hansen was speaking out and when CLIMATE CODE RED was making the case for emergency action.
Those ENGOs that supported the Libs climate change policies basically believe that we can incrementally change to a green economy with green power in time to mitigate climate change which is ridiculed as a Hollyhock Pollyanna delusion that just wastes precious time. There is a real split in the enviro community about this and it's not the one portrayed by CANwest for election purposes. Consider an addict: a fattie, or a smoker or a druggie telling herself that she can basically keep on living the same life but with small smart steps get to a clean, green economy where all her problems are solved. Lies we tell ourselves when in fact we have a maybe terminal illness requiring major lifestyle change immediately.
So this is just a crude outline as background. If you are interested check out the blog comments at zerocarbon: mine, Ryan Durand's, etc. If you are still interested get back in touch with me and I'll send you much more,
Bill / Gibsons, B.C.
Larry Kazdan / Vancouver, B.C.
Matt, I think it's clear that the Straight's editorial posture is very strongly anti-PMH1, and that's pursued pretty much relentlessly as far as I can tell. If you did an interview with Premier Gordon M. Campbell, so what? I don't pay any attention to him, anymore than I do to Patrick Moore.
As far as the overall Gateway suite of projects is concerned, I believe it's fair to say that the Straight and other critics in Vancouver and Burnaby have tended to focus their opposition on PMH1, rather than on SFPR, where there are genuine environmental and land use problems. PMH1, being constructed for the most part in an existing ROW, simply doesn't have the impact of SFPR. Now, if you want to go through your complete archive and pull out some pieces on SFPR, fine. I am just saying that the general pitch, year in and year out, is that twinning Port Mann, or doing the P3 industry's new 10 lane structure, and widening Hwy 1 has been the principal focus for yourself and for Charlie Smith for several years.
And I think it shows in the selection of "experts" who are called upon to comment from academia. I put out this idea once before. Suppose there were professors of transportation studies at our universities whose chairs were funded by oil and auto companies, and they always criticized any rail or other transit project and always recommended more lanes of freeways. Would anyone have any problem figuring out what was going on? Now suppose there are professors of transportation whose chairs are funded by railroads and railroad equipment makers, and they always recommend more tranist, and furiously opposed any expansion of the freeway system, if the situation in Vancouver can be called a system. What is the presumption in this case?
Just on the matter of Tzeporah Berman and her PowerUP Group, The Tyee is reporting today that the United Steelworkers have withdrawn their support from PowerUp in response to Berman's excoriation of Carole James.
Rod Smelser
A more sophisticated Carbon Tax message would have had me voting NDP... Well, there is still time to change the message! After all the Liberals are no new shiny penny, and I really distrust Run of River despite Berman and Suzuki. Having studied dams and carbon in Uni., I say the ENGOs need to maintain a safe distance from this private power gold rush and keep the metaphorical high ground. If not possible to stay away, ENGO elites need to be less partisan and populist, so everyone who doesn't feel all doe eyed and innocent about the topic can refrain from shooting them down as we are doing now.
We need cap and trade for the big players, with respectably low caps. We need credits for the rural dwellers with low incomes. We need a higher carbon tax for the rest of us that supports transit and insulation retrofit grants, so that we actually change our behaviour... instead of spending our urban rebates on a new set of snow tires to head to Whistler with in the old ski bum buggy. We need teleworking incentives. Maybe a credit on blankets made in the province for keeping the thermostat low in winter - something gorgeous like I bought off an artisan machine knitter at Portobello West. We need a high/low rate electrical fee for residential customers so that such blankets are actually used. We need the academics in Canada to start posting something for us here on blogs about our local carbon footprints in our ostensibly beneficial activities - burning candles instead of light bulbs, buying new hybrids... it's called Lifecycle analysis, and it's alive and well in the UK and USA.
Please, leaders, let's not just have more business and politics as usual. Anyone listening out there, politicos?