BC NDP Voted Against Cap and Trade Legislation in 2008
Update: Per a comment below, after I posted this story, Sean Holman at Public Eye Online called to say that the NDP had voted against this cap-and-trade enabling legislation because of secrecy provisions within. (Thank you, Sean.)
In turns out that the David Suzuki Foundation objected on the same grounds (see the first attached document), after which the government withdrew the secrecy provisions (see the second attached document), before the final, contrary vote.
On April 3, 2008, the BC government introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.
On May 28th 2008, the BC NDP, who claim that the issue of climate change must urgently be addressed, voted en masse against the bill.
The Minister of the Environment, Barry Penner, described the Act as:
You can read the entire introduction of the BC Government's Cap and Trade Act here.
As Penner points out, this critical Act enables the BC government's involvement in the Western Climate Initiative, a collaboration of seven U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. The WCI was created in February 2007 to identify, evaluate, and implement collective and cooperative ways to reduce greenhouse gases in the region, focusing especially on a market-based cap-and-trade system.
Nick Heap, Climate and Energy Policy Analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation explains the importance of the Western Climate Initiative:
"... on the whole it's a promising initiative. What's remarkable about this initiative is that when it started early in 2007 there were no Canadian jurisdictions involved. The WCI came out of wish of American States to be more proactive than the American Federal government was willing to be. And the provincial governments have the same dynamic with our Federal government. The governments of British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario in that order have all joined on because they want to take action on climate change and they want to see action sooner than what will happen under the federal framework
Thus, the WCI was the leading (and then, only) opportunity to create a cap-and-trade regime - and thanks to the work WCI members have already done, it may be the policy body from which a continental cap-and-trade agreement flows. Yet the NDP, which is now proposing a cap-and-trade regime in its election platform, voted against it.
So, NDP leader Carole James says that her party cares about climate change, but leads her caucus in an "axe the tax" campaign against the BC carbon tax, which most economists agree is the cheapest, most efficient mechanism to fight global warming.
Ms. James further says that her party prefers cap-and-trade regulations to carbon taxes, but then leads her caucus in a vote against the only cap-and-trade mechanism currently on offer anywhere in North America.
It looks increasingly like this batch of BC New Democrats care very little about climate change and a great deal about jockeying for political advantage at any price.
We are sending a copy of this post to BC NDP candidates, asking whether and why they oppose BC's involvement in the Western Climate Initiative. Here's a list where you can find your BC NDP candidate if you're interested in doing the same.
Go here to find out more details about DeSmogBlog's monthly book give-away.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Minister Penner_Cap and Trade_2008_04_15.pdf | 72.51 KB |
| COG release April 21 08 v3.doc | 169 KB |
This one is actually a little surprising given the fact that 'cap and trade' has been a buzz phrase around the party since the last policy convention. There must have been some internal wrangling and disciplining at the last minute before the vote.
The rumor is that Carole James whipped her party into voting against it.
Sean Holman of the excellent BC politics website Public Eye Online called to point out that the NDP voted against the WCI legislation on the basis of the secrecy terms within. (He was in the Legislature on the day of the vote.)
Fair enough, but I find this Opposition-for-the-sake-of-it tiresome, especially when - as with the carbon tax - the New Democrats organize a whole public campaign against the kind of policy measure that they once said they support.
Midway through the term, while the Liberals were in power and the NDP were not, B.C. voters didn't have a choice between a carbon tax or a different but equally progressive climate change policy. It was carbon tax or nothing (at least until the WCI was in place), and the NDP agitated for nothing. Then, three months after the carbon tax battle started, the NDP voted against this potential alternative (the WCI) - on a technicality or a point of prinicple, call it what you will.
The upshot is that the Liberals - not given to environmental heroism in the rest of their policy platforms - have taken a pretty impressive leadership position on the carbon tax, and the NDP, rather than criticizing the Liberals for not moving quickly enough (which would have been reasonable), have attacked or opposed good policy.
And yes, on the question of internal wrangling: I don't think that story has yet emerged, but I'll be interested to hear (and happy to support the wranglers) when it does.
I started my public political life as an environmentalist, and still consider myself strongly committed to the cause of environmental preservation, but have been shaking my head at the complete misrepresentation of the NDP record by so-called stewards of the environment. To wit:
Richard notes Sean Holman's 'Public Eye' column, but fails to note Carole James quoted in the legistlature:
"Speaking in the legislature on April 15, 2008, party leader Carole James stated the "New Democrats strongly support the implementation of cap-and-trade. It's a critical piece to our climate change agenda." But what they opposed, according to Ms. James, was the secrecy of that legislation, which has given the government "full discretion to make the decisions behind closed doors on (cap-and-trade) offsets, on reporting and monitoring, on penalties."
The Campbell Cap and Trade plan claims to have 'hard caps', but they're not. There is no hard legislative requirement to reduce emissions. A pulp mill in BC can simply buy carbon credits from a tree planter in Oregon, without reducing GHG emissions one microgram, except on paper. All this plan will do is to create another opportunity for the same Wall Street types who drove our economy into the ground, to make more profit on the back of the environment.
As for the carbon tax, it cannot and will not reduce carbon emissions as promised by Campbell, and as touted by so-called environmental groups. Stats Can figures have shown that the consumption of fossil fuels in BC actually increased by 4% since the tax was introduced. Stats also show that consumption remained relatively static during the recent rise in gas prices to $1.50 per litre. So much for the theory that pricing carbon will result in a reduction in emissions.
The carbon tax is also regressive social policy -- negatively affecting low and middle class citizens disproportionatley. A recent study by the CCPA, 'Is BC's Carbon TAx Fair?' shows that the lowest 20% of households will see an impact of 0.7% on average, compared to 0.3% for the highest 20% of households. The report also projects that by 2012/13, the bottom 20% will face a net loss of 1% of income as a result of the tax.
The Carbon Tax plan also lets some of the biggest polluters off the hook. A story reported on The Tyee website shows that 30% of BC's total GHG emissions are not covered by the tax. Getting off scot free are: 'fugitive emissions' from the oil and gas industry (9% of total); 'Industrial processes' including cement and aluminum manufacturing (5% of total); non-fuel emissions from agriculture (4%); landfill emissions (7%) and more.
The NDP calls for taxing carbon at the source - the extractors, producers, manufacturers and refiners - where it belongs, instead of shifting consumption taxes down the wage scale onto middle and low-income wage earners. They also advocate for actual hard caps on emissions, and a cap-and-trade system. I doubt the effectiveness of cap-and-trade, but the Liberal plan is worse. Only by placing REAL hard caps on emissions, with significant consequences for failing to meet targets, combined with real incentives to innovate and exceed targets, will we achieve actual emmisions reductions over the long term.
These so-called environmental stewards are also strangely silent on the real BC Liberal record on the environement, which includes spending $3.5 billion on a ten-lane bridge over the Fraser River -- which will only encourage urban sprawl, increase single-vehicle traffic and dramatically boost carbon emissions. They also have nothing to say about the near-complete de-regulation of environmental enforcement in this province under the Campbell Liberals, including a 30% cut in funding, staff and resources for environmental enforcement, and an abdication of public responsiblity for enforcement - making industry responsble for monitoring themselves.
Oh, and then there's the BC Liberal endorsement of off-shore oil drilling, coal-bed methane production, and clearing the way for oil, gas and mining exploration in provincial parks. Give your heads a shake, folks. If you think Gordon Campbell's Liberals give a fig about the environment or climate change, I have a Highway to Nowhere in Alaska I'd like to sell you.
Shane Simpson, NDP candidate - Vancouver Hastings took the time to write us a lengthy response to our article:
Shane Simpson and I have not discussed the NDP opposition to the WCI legislation. We have had extensive discussions about the carbon tax, which left me impressed by his intelligence and unconvinced on his policy position.
Now it all starts to make sense. I mean, why would an organization like the David Suzuki Foundation turn 180 degrees away from its progressive roots and attack the BC NDP, in a highly partisan and ill-informed public criticism of its environmental policies, on the opening day of an election campaign?
As it turns out, the chairpserson of the Suzuki Foundation and the founder of DeSmog Blog, James Hoggan, is an active supporter of the BC Liberal party -- having donated almost $9,000 to the party in the last 3 years.
An article just posted in The Tyee website: 'I'm a Liberal supporter': Suzuki Foundation chairman' notes some interesting facts about Hoggan:
"Elections B.C. records show foundation chairman and communications advisor James Hoggan is a frequent Liberal donor.
The B.C. Liberal Party received six donations totaling $8,943 from James Hoggan and Associates from 2005 to 2008. Hoggan’s company was paid $353,855 by the B.C. government from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, according to Public Accounts.
“I don’t think it’s any secret that I’m a Liberal supporter,” Hoggan told 24 hours."
So, is this REALLY a debate about climate change, or is it a back-room attempt to curry favour with the BC Liberal government, and stand his company in good stead if Gordon Campbell is re-elected?
As it turns out, Richard Littlemore, who authored this story, and worked with the Suzuki Foundation on the climate change file, is a prominent member of Mr. Hoggan's public relations firm. Money talks, eh boys?
Krispy still thinks the NDP is 'progressive' and that because the early Suzuki Foundation had a prominent former NDP member as its Executive Director (Jim Fulton) the Foundation is therefore steeped in 'progressive' roots. As I mentioned in another blog comment, the NDP and the environmental movement have always had an uneasy relationship. Because of its long history in opposition in the province of BC, the NDP had attracted oppositional political currents along the way, as various groups sought expression through the party to protest against the reigning Socreds. For some years, there was an almost natural alliance between green and labour groups, but as the importance of the environment as an issue grew,, so did cracks in the alliance, as lines were drawn and the support base consolidated around various industrial sectors. Nowadays, the NDP and Greens are openly hostile to each other.
When the BC Green Party formed and started to gain political ground, it was at the expense of the NDP. In fact, the Greens soon turned out to be more 'progressive' than the NDP, campaigning under Stuart Parker against regressive social policies by both Socreds AND the NDP (i.e. BC Benefits package).
The NDP stopped being 'progressive' a long time ago. Poor people in the province still remember the welfare cuts, the transit increases, the ferry increases and Bingo Gate. Environmental groups still remember Clayoquot Sound, the union-backed Forest Alliance, and the spectacle of NDP leaders and forest workers blockading a Greenpeace ship, as Glen Clark, in his best Joseph Stalin voice, called environmentalists "Enemies of BC". Natives still remember Gustafsen Lake. It was mayor Larry Campbell (COPE) who championed the Olympic Games, and Jim "What's Wrong With Profit?" Green (COPE) who initially opposed the Woodward's Building for social housing. And the NDP has fought the kind of pro-rep electoral reform sought by the Greens for so long. Yeah, the NDP is real progressive.
I've got news for Krispy: Politics makes strange bedfellows. Who knew? David Suzuki is still a Green, but James Hoggan is a Liberal, and oh, Rafe Mair is now a Green. It's all so crazy. (I don't know what Richard Littlemore's political affiliation is). I seriously doubt Hoggan's endorsment of the BC Liberal Party spells the end of the Suzuki Foundation's credibility as an non-partisan environmental think tank, though. The environmental movement is stronger than this tempest in a tea pot.
Here's one for all those tin foil hatters out there.
The NDP are using the same lines the Republicans are using to oppose cap and trade by Obama.
So the NDP are now working with Cheney.
Your readers may be interested in this recent post on the Public Eye website yesterday:
"TransLink board member and former Teck Cominco Ltd. corporate affairs director Sarah Goodman has joined Tides Canada as its business development and services vice president. In 2007, the organization provided grants to many of the environmental groups best known to British Columbians - including the David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, the Pembina Foundation for Environmental Research and Education, the Sierra Club of BC Foundation and the Western Canada Wilderness Committee. Tides Canada has also recently been mentioned in the media as one of the initiators of Tzeporah Berman's PowerUP Canada. Prior to joining Teck Cominco, Ms. Goodman worked for Weyerhaeuser Company Ltd. in a number of "senior executive roles" including government and public affairs vice president."
[comment moderator note: no need to post the entire article, just provide a summary and the link]
Krispy, are you seriously trying to trash the reputations of the Tides Foundation, Suzuki, Pembina, Forest Ethics, WC Squared, the Sierra Club and Powerup Canada because Tides hired someone who used to work at Weyerhaeuser? Can you afford to make enemies that lightly?
You can argue all you like that people have nefarious motives for objecting to the NDP policy on carbon taxes, but here's two things to consider:
1. In an election campaign, you shouldn't wander around condeming large groups of well-intentioned people, many of whom have not yet said anything negative about you (but might soon).
2. Maybe people (journalists, scientists, environmentalists, economists) are objecting to the NDP position on carbon tax because, well, the position is terrible.
Change the policy and we'll clear off. Scout's honour.
PS
Welcome to the DeSmogBlog; we're always happy to have new readers. Tell your friends.
First, there were four of these organizations who lined up in front of the press on the first day of the campaign to sandbag the NDP. As such, it is right to question their motives, especially considering that the BC Liberals have such an abysmal record on the environtment. The other groups have been more measured and balanced in their comments on the carbon tax/GHG issue.
To be so scathingly critical of a party policy that is, in total, more enlightened and effective at reducing GHG emissions than Campbell's boondoggle, one must question their motives. When high profile Liberals like James Hoggan and Teck Cominco execs start taking over highly-placed leadership/development (read fundraising) positions in environmental organizations, you know something is up.
As a person working with/for James Hoggan, who has benefitted from the $353,000+ in government communications contracts, I hardly think you are in a position to take the high moral road in this debate.
DeSmog Blog has taken a highly partisan, pro-Liberal, anti-NDP position and is using your pseudo-environmental web site to promote the re-election of the BC Liberal party -- which has the worst environmental record of any government in this province's history -- is well beyond the pale.
Simply put, the carbon tax is bad environmental policy, and is regressive social policy.
"To be so scathingly critical of a party policy that is, in total, more enlightened and effective at reducing GHG emissions than Campbell's boondoggle, one must question their motives."
How do you know the NDP's climate policies are 'more enlightened' and 'more effective at reducing GHG emissions'? Have their specific policies been implemented elsewhere?
"When high profile Liberals like James Hoggan and Teck Cominco execs start taking over highly-placed leadership/development (read fundraising) positions in environmental organizations, you know something is up."
Wow, James Hoggan is one of thirteen Board members of the DSF. This is hardly 'taking over' the organization. Is Margaret Atwood and Sting part of this conspiracy too?
"DeSmog Blog has taken a highly partisan, pro-Liberal, anti-NDP position and is using your pseudo-environmental web site to promote the re-election of the BC Liberal party -- which has the worst environmental record of any government in this province's history -- is well beyond the pale "
DeSmog isn't promoting the election of any party. It has criticized one policy of one party specifically related to climate change (climate change is what DeSmog is all about). If you are insinuating by these comments as well as others you've made here that DeSmog is one of several environmental organizations now being infiltrated by right-wing business executives to undermine the environmental movement, you might want to read through many of the DeSmog articles in which right-wing environmental policies have been similarily criticized e.g. Harper, the tar sands in Alberta, U.S. policies, Sarah Palin, etc. Your assumptions are irrational and constitute a leap from the actual text.
Yes, the Liberals have an abysmal environmental record (though certainly no worse than the Socreds), but no one here (as far as I can tell) is defending the Liberal Party's environmental record or even necessarily their overall environmental platform. DeSmog favours the carbon tax as a specific mechanism to address climate change only. Parks, regulations, salmon farms, the ALR, fisheries, highways, off-shore drilling, and clear-cutting are all worthy targets of critique. However, when many of the world's main environmental organizations, scientists and economists think that a carbon tax can be useful, if not esential, for battling against climate change, then DeSmog's position can hardly be attributed to partisan politics.
I'll take your note under advisement. But seeing as you have deleted the rest of my post, I'll post it now:
You see, the neo-cons are very good at donning sheeps clothing when it suits their political interests. They know they are very vulnerable on environemental issues. So, what better way to protect their flank, than to stack AGMs of non-profit societies, get on the boards, and then begin to control the funding sources (see Tides Canada post above).
Then, you come up with a cockamamie scheme like Campbell's carbon tax - which is really regressive taxaztion policy, because it has a greater impact on lower income levels - which leaves big oil and gas producers virtually off the hook, while we pick up the tab. Pretty soon, they have the tunnel-visioned enviros eating out of their hand (and silk-lined pockets).
You know, it's interesting, I notice that the carbon tax supporters never mention the disastrous environmental impacts of the $3.5 billion Gateway project, or the Libs' support for offshore oil drilling, or their legislation allowing oil, gas and mining in provincial parks, or support for coalbed methane exploration, or the fact that forest companies and industrial sector now regulate themselves, and environmental ministry staff can't even investigate unless they receive a complaint. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Krisp, you seem not to be paying attention. We're not supporting the Liberals, and we're sure not endorsing their whole platform: we're supporting the carbon tax - now, same as always.
And we're not against the NDP. We're appalled by their opposition to a policy that economists around the world agree is the least-cost, most efficient, MOST TRANSPARENT public policy to address climate change.
Once again, tell the NDP to change the policy and we'll clear off.
I have heard Carole James speak about cap and trade and she and the New Democrats are definitely for it. It's in their platform. So your blog is misleading. It's disturbing because usually I'm speaking out against climate change deniers who like to spin and distort so that it appears that scientists are speaking out against climate change.
You know I have enough work fighting climate change deniers so please don't give me more work.
I wouldn't agree to a Liberal plan steeped in secrecy and I wouldn't trust Gordon Campbell when he's broken so many promises. Also, I understand that the NDP consulted the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute who both found fault with the plan. Why would you agree to a plan that lacks hard targets or public input or transparency or accountability or any sort of oversight? I would feel manipulated - like being a token player set up for a photo op.
The Campbell Liberals have cut and slashed environmental protection and parks, support selling farmland to developers, selling our rivers, support offshore drilling, and allow threats to our wild salmon because of unfettered fish farm activity. Oh yes, there is more, but I do want to mention TILMA
TILMA - Trade Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement - a deal signed in secret by the Campbell Liberals and pushed through without any public consultation or debate in the legislature. There is no evidence of any trade barriers between BC and Alberta. TILMA is a huge threat to fighting climate change. TILMA is about de-regulating and putting a chill on any initiatives which would "restrict or impair" a company's ability to make profits. Environmental regulations may be viewed as restricting or impairing investments. The "chill effect" is in the form of an unelected disputes panel which can award up to $5 million to an Alberta investor.
I will definitely be voting for Carole James and the New Democrats.