Consumers Should Pay?

Ahead of next month's climate change summit in Copenhagen, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has been lobbying for what he calls 'realistic' targets. Stelmach means, of course, non existant targets, but he can't be blamed: if Canada were ever to make a serious push to reduce carbon emissions, the oil sands industry would be the first to suffer.

Steven Harper seems to agree with his fellow Albertan. He is standing his ground and refusing to commit to more than 'modest' emissions cuts. He is also doing his best to lower expectations for the Copenhagen Summit, suggesting that Canada's current plan to reduce emssions is not open to renegotiation. Stephen Harper, in other words, has made it clear that Canada will not be a player in Copenhagen.

This is all very unfortunate, because there may acutally be a lot at stake for Canada, especially for Alberta.

Under the current system, carbon emissions are calculated to represent the exact amount of carbon released by each individual country. Canada releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere to extract oil, even though most of this oil is consummed abroad, in the US and in Asia. In other words, Canada is blamed for extracting oil that its neighbours consume, and Canada is expected to make its oil more expensive to reflect the environmental cost of extracting it.

What's wrong with that picture? Well, simply that there is very little incentive for countries that use oil to overcome their dependency when they are not themselve bearing the environmental cost.

Say for example, that country A harbours a carbon intensive economy that imports most of its oil from its neighbour, country B. Country B, under the current formula, is classified as an environmental villain that is expected to make its oil expensive to import so that country A will reduce its consumption. Clearly, this is not fair. Why should country B be responsible for encouraging country A to change its practices?

Canada is country B. Many European countries, including Germany, which imports huge quantities of Russian oil, ressemble country A.

A good way to get around that problem would be to include the environmental cost of extracting oil as part of the carbon footprint of the countries that consume it. Thus, United States would be blamed for consuming dirty oil from the Tar Sands, rather than Albertans being blamed for refusing to damage their own industry to reduce american consumption.

In the end, it doesn't matter who pays because the price of dirty oil goes up and consumption logically goes down. But perceptions matter. Alberta shouldn't be blamed for selling its oil at market price, Americans should be blamed for consuming it. If we want to encourage consumers and industries to chance their ways, the burden should lie with them.

Rather than trying to avoid the Copenhagen summit, this is what Harper should be pushing for.

Montly Cartoon

My eyes are closing as I write this post, so I will do what I usually do in these situations and post the CARTOON OF THE MONTH!

Here is is, drawn by Gable, in Wednesday's Globe and Mail.

Harpocrisy At Work

Stephen Harper gave a speech in Markham during which he talked at length about the importance of press freedom.

“Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees,” Harper explained.

Funny enough, Harper refused to take questions from journalists after the speech.

Oh... and he still hasn't commented on the Afghan detainee allegations. There's no chance of asking him next week in Parliament though, because questions addressed to the Prime Minister need to be submitted in advance to the PMO. Press freedom, in other words.

Encore et toujours hypocrites

Lorsque la CIA ou l'armée américaine est accusée de crimes de guerres, toute la planète, le Canada y compris, s'insurge contre les États-Unis. Mais lorsqu'un diplomate canadien déclare que notre armée transférait des détenus afghans aux autorités locales en sachant qu'ils seraient torturés, l'affaire est facilement oubliée.

La question des 'détenus afghans' a fait irruption en 2006 lorsque des enquêtes réalisées par l'ONU et le Globe and Mail ont identifié des cas où des prisonniers Afghans livrés aux autorités locales par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Le gouvernement Harper a vite étouffé l'affaire. Ni les médias, ni les électeurs crédules ne lui en ont tenu rigueur.

L'affaire fait un bref retour dans l'actualité aujourd'hui après le témoignage terrifiant de Richard Colvin, un diplomate qui a passé 17 mois en Afghanistan. Cet article de Cyberpresse résume bien la gravité des accusations de Colvin. Il prétend notamment avoir envoyé 20 rapports aux hauts dirigeants de l'armée où il indiquait que des détenus transférés par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Comme réponse, on lui a demandé de privilégier le téléphone plutôt que l'écrit lorsqu'il était question de ce sujet délicat...

Sans vouloir faire de faux parallèles, ça rappelle quand même l'histoire d'un certain Roméo Dallaire, qui envoyait un flux continu de rapports à ses supérieurs aux Nations unies les suppliant d'envoyer des renforts pour qu'il puisse freiner la folie génocidaire au Rwanda. En vain, comme nous le savons tous trop bien.

Il semblerait que le Canada, loin d'être cet ilot de paix et de modération, ait beaucoup de choses à se reprocher. À suivre, malheureusement.

Omar Khadr

It was decided this week that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, would be tried in a New York civil court. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, will seek the death penalty.

Eric Holder, despite his promise to work for Muhammed's execution, has actually done him a kind of favour. He could have had Mohammed tried in a military court, where proceedings would have been shrouded in secrecy. Instead, he has made him the centre of attention in a case that is sure to turn into a media circus. Khalid Mohammed has even expressed his wish to die as a 'martyr', so the death penalty might end up turning more muslims -and indeed non muslims- against the United States.

As the decision about Khalid Mohammed was made public, another decision mattered even more to Canadians. Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen who was captured in Afghanistan aged 16 and spent the last 7 years of his life at Guantanamo bay, will be tried in military court.

US military courts, by the way, are awful beasts. They accept certain kinds of 'coercive evidence' and have unique proceedures that lack the transparency of civil courts.

So here's the situation. The mastermind of the terrorist attacks that killed 3000 innocent people is getting a civil trial, while Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing an American soldier by throwing a hand grenade, once again, aged 16, is being put through the ordeal of a full military trial.

Our Government is allowed to ask for the repatriation of Omar Khadr, a request that is virtually certain to be granted. But our government is refusing to do so. What does this say about the people running our country? Actually, what does this say about us, we the people who voted them in?

Sarko

Une histoire qui fera rire bien des gens: http://decodeurs.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/11/09/sarkozy-etait-il-a-berlin-le-9-novembre-1989/

Figurez-vous que Nicolas Sarkozy (ou peut-être plutôt son attaché de presse) a affiché sur sa page Facebook le récit d'un voyage à Berlin en novembre 1989 où il aurait assisté avec Alain Juppé à la chute du mur.

Et bien non!

Des incohérences dans le texte Facebook de Sarkozy ont mis des journalistes du Monde sur la piste du scoop. Ils ont fait enquête, et voici leur conclusion: Sarkozy était bien à Berlin en novembre 1989... mais le 16, pas le 9!

Reste à voir ce qu'en pensera Sarko.

Back To Blogging - Le retour du combattant

Hi All, salut la compagnie -

As you've hopefully noticed, I've taken a break from my blogging activities because I've just gone through the two busiest weeks of my lives. Mais me voici de retour!

Pas grand chose à signaler en ce début d'hiver, à part la décision prise par Michael Ignatieff de remplacer son chef de Cabinet, Ian Davey, par Peter Donolo, un ancien conseiller de Jean Chrétien. Davey est celui qui a recruté Ignatieff alors qu'il était encore à Harvard. Il a ensuite dirigé sa campagne de leadership.

Ignatieff paraît en tout cas particulièrement impitoyable... un peu l'inverse de Dion. Peut-être faut-il être impitoyable pour réussir en politique. Dion aurait sans doute été différent, mais on sait tous ce que la majorité a pensé de lui...