Editorial

There are many reasons why federal Liberals gathering in Montreal this weekend should want to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government. First off, there’s Harper’s willingness to do George Bush’s dirty work in his war on drugs by sending Canadian troops into southern Afghanistan to destroy the local poppy-farming industry. This has enraged local Afghans, driving many to support the fundamentalist Taliban, who try to kill our soldiers.

Then there is Harper’s discomfort with funding arts and culture, his punitive justice policies, his support for massive military expenditures, and his attacks on aboriginal rights, both at the United Nations and even in a letter to the editor of the Calgary Herald. Harper has also shown a disturbing eagerness to cater to the religious right by opposing same-sex marriage and cancelling funding for constitutional challenges by disadvantaged groups, including gays and lesbians.

But the best reason to topple Harper must be his contempt for addressing the world’s greatest challenges: global warming and declining oil reserves.

The effects of global warming are becoming increasingly obvious. Extreme storms—often cited as a consequence of a warming planet—recently resulted in two million Lower Mainland residents having to boil their water. Precipitation in northeastern B.C. fell this year to 52 percent of normal levels, creating havoc for the agricultural industry. Near-record low levels of water were flowing in the Skeena, Thompson, and Peace rivers before the winter freeze. A mountain pine beetle infestation has devastated forests across the province.

Only the federal Liberals have sufficient support across the country to defeat the Harper Conservatives, who steadfastly refuse to draw connections between rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmos ­phere and what’s happening on the ground in B.C.

That makes this weekend’s Liberal leadership convention important to all of us. The delegates could be choosing Canada’s next prime minister.

There are four candidates with a real chance of winning: former environment and unity minister Stéphane Dion, former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy, rookie MP and former journalist and academic Michael Ignatieff, and former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae.

It’s probably tempting for the delegates to look at the last poll and choose the candidate with the best chance of defeating Harper. That’s what we’ve come to expect from federal Liberals, whose raison d’íªtre has always been seizing power. “Campaign from the left, but govern from the right” is the federal Liberals’ unspoken motto.

But this time there is a difference. The planet is seriously ailing. And one candidate, Stéphane Dion, has a bold, detailed plan to address the economic and environmental havoc that will result from global warming and the end of cheap oil.

“The last federal campaign, nobody spoke about energy,” Dion told the Georgia Straight early in the campaign. “With me, it will not happen.”

Dion’s 53-page energy-and-climate-change plan describes how his government would meet Canada’s obligation under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by six percent below 1990 levels by 2012. There would be tax credits of up to $3,500 for energy-efficient home retrofitting. He is promising “green mortgages”—allowing tax deductions for interest payments—to finance energy-efficient home renovations. There would be point-of-purchase rebates and tax credits to support the purchase of energy-efficient appliances, electrical equipment, and heat pumps.

By 2010, Dion would require gasoline to contain 10-percent ethanol, which is made from corn or other plants. Biodiesel would be required to have at least a 10-percent renewable content.

That’s not all. Crown corporations would buy electric or hybrid vehicles. There would be tax credits for businesses that introduce highly efficient refrigeration and heating systems. A GST tax credit would be available for building supplies for highly efficient green buildings.

For Liberal delegates, choosing Dion entails certain risks. As the Toronto Star’s national-affairs columnist Chantal Hébert has suggested, there isn’t a great appetite for another prime minister from Quebec, and Dion hasn’t yet connected with the public. But for younger Canadians and for future generations, are there not greater risks in choosing a potential prime minister who hasn’t fully engaged his mind and his heart in addressing global warming and the end of cheap oil? Dion knows the future of the Canadian economy is inextricably linked with weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and becoming a world leader in sustainability.

Prior to the Industrial Revolution, there were approximately 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now there are approximately 380 parts per million, and in recent years average global temperatures have reached the highest levels in recorded history. Many scientists believe that’s because carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases are forming a greenhouse effect high up in the atmosphere, preventing heat from escaping.

Dion pointed out in his 53-page policy paper that half the Arctic ice will likely melt by 2050, and the entire Arctic could be free of ice by 2100. He understands the urgency of the situation. As Al Gore showed in the movie An Inconvenient Truth, ice reflects heat back into the atmosphere. But as the Arctic ice melts, more heat is captured by the water, resulting in the loss of more ice.

Right now, the Atlantic Ocean’s Gulf Stream current brings warm air in a “conveyor belt” from the Caribbean to Northern Europe, creating enjoyable weather for millions of people. But as Ben Parfitt reported in the Straight in February 1999, if enough Arctic ice melts, it could disrupt this process, halt the conveyor belt of air currents, and send much of Europe into a deep freeze. There is also a danger that most of Greenland’s ice will melt, elevating sea levels by up to seven metres and flooding cities.

According to Jeremy Leggett, author of The Empty Tank: Oil, Gas, Hot Air, and the Coming Global Financial Catastrophe (Random House, 2005), sea levels could rise another five metres if the West Antarctic ice sheet slides into the ocean. “Loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet could destabilize the even bigger East Antarctic ice sheet, which could raise global sea levels 50 metres,” he noted.

Unlike many politicians, Dion also comprehends the impact of declining global oil supplies. One campaign document quotes a 2006 paper by energy analyst Matthew Simmons, who has pointed to evidence that a bunch of OPEC nations, including Saudi Arabia, have grossly exaggerated their listed proven oil reserves. If Simmons is correct, the world’s economy will face huge energy-price shocks.

In October 2005, Simmons told the Straight that oil prices could eventually exceed US$200 per barrel. That could have catastrophic economic consequences for a cold country such as Canada. As Leggett noted in his book, declining oil supplies could result in a sharp increase in the use of coal, which is one of the dirtiest energy sources.

Dion’s economic and environmental plans would ameliorate the worst effects of global warming with a comprehensive list of carrots and sticks, all with the goal of reducing Canada’s dependency on fossil fuels.

One recent poll suggested that another Liberal front-runner, Bob Rae, has a slightly better chance of knocking off Harper. But Rae hasn’t demonstrated Dion’s zeal for the environmental issues before entering the race. On October 13, Rae unveiled a two-page paper to address global warming that didn’t include measurable outcomes for greenhouse-gas reductions.

In the past, the electorate might have accepted politicians who offered cue-card policy papers to voters. Now, the stakes are far too high.

To his credit, Rae has advanced a more enlightened foreign policy than Michael Ignatieff, who was one of the few Liberals who supported extending Canada’s mission in Afghanistan to 2009. Ignatieff also supported the U.S.–led war in Iraq and NATO’s illegal attack on Yugoslavia in 1999.

When Ignatieff recently spoke to the Liberals’ biennial policy conference, he said the party had “three essential purposes”: to protect and enhance national unity; to preserve and defend national sovereignty; and to advance the cause of social justice.

“Unity, sovereignty, justice: the three fundamentals. Everything else is detail,” Ignatieff said, according to the speech posted on his Web site.

Through much of the past decade, Ignatieff has treated global warming as just another detail. He won some environmentalists’ support by proposing a carbon tax to try to reduce the use of fossil fuels, but one doesn’t get the sense from his campaign documents that he is as engaged as Dion in addressing the twin threats of global warming and protecting Canadians from looming energy-price shocks.

As Dion pointed out in his paper, a flat carbon tax won’t be much of a disincentive as energy prices rise, making it a “mere nuisance” for large producers. Dion argues that a better solution is a government-backed carbon market, with absolute emission caps for industry by 2012. The government would buy carbon credits, creating a market for sellers who take steps to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. He estimates this could save 75 to 115 megatonnes of carbon emissions annually from 2008 to 2010.

Dion’s plan is a terrific start, but it’s far from perfect. His suggestion of a $2,000 tax credit for highly efficient vehicles is inadequate to offset the current price differential between hybrid and nonhybrid cars. Dion’s plan also offers just a penny per kilowatt-hour in subsidies for low-impact renewable energy, which doesn’t bridge the price gap between coal-fired electricity and energy created from wind or the sun. In addition, Dion’s platform is exceptionally weak on public transportation.

The final front-runner, former Ontario education minister Gerard Kennedy, has some strengths. He headed a Toronto food bank that served 150,000 people. Like Rae, Kennedy has advanced a list of progressive environmental policies during the campaign. Unlike Rae, Kennedy has been endorsed by Charles Caccia, the federal Liberals’ long-time conscience on green issues.

Why choose Dion over Kennedy, who might be more electable because he’s not from Quebec? First of all, Dion has 10 years of experience in the federal cabinet. Kennedy has never been an MP, and he backed down from running in a recent Ontario by-election. Kennedy hasn’t shown he is tough enough to take on the polluters, whereas Dion has already demonstrated that he’s not afraid of getting his nose bloodied in political battles.

When he served as unity minister in the Jean Chrétien government, Dion was dogged in his dealings with Quebec separatists. And anyone who takes on the Canadian fossil-fuel industry should expect to endure some vicious attacks, like the kind Dion experienced following the Quebec referendum. Dion will get pummelled by industry officials if he fulfills his promise to put labels on new vehicles—ranging from green to red—based on their carbon-dioxide emissions.

“I will ensure that Canadians have access to all the information they need, when they need it, in a form that is easily understood, to make responsible choices for themselves and for the environment,” Dion has promised.

For that, and his other efforts to cope with the biggest challenge of the century, Dion deserves to become the next leader of the federal Liberals.