Posts Tagged ‘Michael Ignatieff’
Ignatieff’s ‘Clean Energy’ Proposal Bad Politics and Bad Policy
I am a former federal Liberal Riding President, and have largely distanced myself on matters of federal politics since leaving that position out of respect to those I worked with, but this I felt required comment. I hope it will not require much more action that writing a letter to the Leader of the Liberal Party to correct his facts.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff’s speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade demonstrated a staggering ignorance on the ‘clean energy’ file. His speech today demonstrated a total lack of understanding of this division of power. What’s more, he incorrectly accused Canada of not being a green energy leader. We are. Hydroelectricity represents 88% of the world’s installed renewable energy source. Canada is second only to China in the production of hydroelectric power, and is forth in the world for use of hydroelectricity as a percentage of supply.
The majority of Canada’s power production (just under 60%) comes from hydroelectricity. We’re three times greener than Denmark – but more importantly because of energy use, considerably more than that megawatt to megawatt.
Four provinces, and one territory have 75% or more of their power supplied by hydroelectricity. They are Newfoundland (not including Labrador) (73%) and Labrador(100%), Yukon (89%), British Columbia (90%), Manitoba (96%), Quebec (96%). – This is all clean energy.
Ontario’s Nuclear and Hydro combined represent 75% of power production – all of which is non carbon emitting and therefore would meet the definition of ‘clean energy’ in the context of Ignatieff’s speech, where clean energy was energy that did not contribute to global warming through CO2 emissions.
Michael Ignatieff is right that just 1% of installed power supply in Canada is wind or solar. That doesn’t change the fact that Canada is a clean energy leader through serious investment in reliable, predictable, and affordable renewable technology. A lack of wind and solar in the grid simply means the Provinces aren’t jumping on unreliable, expensive technology that doesn’t work. That’s a good thing.
Denmark and Germany are false idols of clean power. The majority of Denmark’s power comes from coal fired plants, and due to the unreliability of wind power, much of their production is exported to neighbouring countries that rely heavily on hydroelectric, but dial back it’s production to use the unreliable wind power when available. What it means is that Denmark isn’t nearly the clean energy leader that Canada is and that even with 19% of their grid being wind, they aren’t even displacing carbon emissions because they success in using this unreliable power is based on trading a stable source of renewable energy for an unreliable one. Germany is building 26 new coal fired plants to make up for the unreliability of wind power, and isn’t nearly as far along as Canada in carbon free energy either.
If you want to dabble in unreliable power production like wind – you need a smart grid, so you can shut the reliable stuff off when the wind decides to blow (this is seriously how the science behind this works). Smart grids cost billions and the only people who think the provinces should be developing smart grids are wind farm developers. It’s like if Ford or GM thought building more highways were a good idea. With hydroelectricity or any other proven source of power – where there is capacity within the grid you can build more supply into it, no need for the kinds of sophisticated, and otherwise unnecessary enhancements wind barons would have taxpayers paying for so we can buy their electricity at three to five times the cost any other form of power sold into the grid goes for.
As for Michael Ignatieff attacking the federal government because Barack Obama is spending six times more than the Canadian government on renewable energy this year, the United States is ten times the size of Canada, so a six to one ratio wouldn’t actually be that bad, but when you consider that over 85% of US power is produced by carbon emitting sources – the real story is how little the United States is doing. If he is worried about carbon emitting sources of electricty production he should be condemning the United States. Considering this is really a provincial issue in Canada, I don’t see why it would be that out of line for him to propose policy for another country too. After all neither is his jurisdiction. Many provinces did this work in Canada decades ago, and they did it right. It isn’t a fair comparison, and is irresponsible commentary from and political and policy perspective. The others (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and PEI) each have the responsibility to set their own production mixes, but this certainly is not the role for the federal government and never has been.
This is a really bad issue for Michael Ignatieff to seize on. He is misleading the public about the powers and responsibilities of the Federal government, the experiences in other countries, and trying to ignore what is a really great Canadian success story – hydroelectricity – so he can score some shots, irresponsibility trying to look green for supporting an unreliable technology that not only doesn’t work but isn’t part of the area of responsibility he is seeking from the public. It also costs a bizarre and indefensible amount of money and is probably the hottest political issue in Ontario with an organized grassroots opposition movement opposing it.
I will be writing Mr. Ignatieff, in my capacity as President of Wind Concerns Ontario to discuss the success story of clean energy in Canada as it relates to hydroelectricity, to share my perception of electricity as a provincial jurisdiction and to strongly advise against trying to use wind and solar as a political wedge, because it is one which such a strong force of opposition working against it, and such a limited merit that it neither makes political sense or public policy sense.
I also intend to engage the Conservatives, NDP, Bloc and Green Party in defending the good work if many provinces in seeking carbon free electricity and educating Canadians on these successes and not allowing any party leader to mislead the public on the facts, should the Opposition Leader seek to continue this current line on Canada’s reputation as a renewable energy leader.
16 Comments »Two Polls, Two Stories – One Paper
I like polls. I really do. In large part that may be because I’ve worked in public opinion research in various capacities now for over two years. Having a real appreciation for the science and methodology of how 1000 random Canadians can reflect the views of the population as a whole within a respectable margin of error of 3.1% helps I think.
Anyways – This isn’t about me liking polls, this is about one of the problems polling has, which is the contradictory tales polls can tell, sometimes all at once. The Toronto Star yesterday had two stories relating to polls that I found interesting, the article was titled “Harper Tories keep big lead in poll” and the second “Ignatieff, Harper virtually tied in poll”. Does anyone see the problem with this?
So the Star carried these two articles with two polls from two different firms on a similar, but different topic. The first article was a poll conducted by Ipsos Reid, not to be mistaken with Angus Reid, who did the second poll. The Ipsos poll was on voting intention and suggested that if there was an election held tomorrow Canadians would overwhelmingly vote for the Conservatives with 45% going Tory, 26% Liberal, and 12% NDP. A poll like that would suggest two things, the first being that Harper’s Conservatives have made serious inroads and that the NDP’s bubble is in danger of bursting. It would also suggest that the election designation of Michael Ignatieff as Leader of the Liberal Party has not changed the national picture at all; in other words, no post leadership bump. All of this stands to reason with the other polling that has been done that suggests Harper could win a massive majority if we returned to the polls, and that the NDP would suffer more than the Liberals (why I have no idea).
The Angus Reid poll that the Star’s second article was about said that Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper are in a statistical dead heat for who would be the best to lead the country, while Layton has fallen back to third place. The breakdown was as follows: 28% of Canadians suggested Ignatieff was the best man for the job, 27% for Harper, 10% for Layton, 16% didn’t want any of the above while 15% weren’t sure.
My question is if we’re supposed to believe the accuracy of public opinion research (and I generally do) then why the differences in polls. A typical industry response would be that you cannot compare the two as they asked different questions, which is true, but at the same time, if Canadians don’t think a guy is the best choice to be Prime Minister, but are voting for him, it just doesn’t make any sense. The best I can tell is that the voting intentions poll is the most important of the two and the real story in the Angus Reid poll is that all four party leaders lose to the combined “none of the above” and “I don’t know” option. That probably isn’t good news, except that the support for Ignatieff and Layton as the best person to be Prime Minister does add up to exactly what their total vote share would be if the Ipsos poll is correct, therefore suggesting that it is Harper’s voters who are more inclined to fall into the “none of the above and I don’t know” categories. Harper’s numbers are at two year lows, and Ignatieff’s are quite a bit higher than Dion’s. Perhaps this is the effect of both Ignatieff’s possible bump and the real bruising Harper has taken for putting Canada in this situation. Still the ballot question is the one that counts.
After mentioning Ipsos Reid and Angus Reid, for the sake of clearing up any confusion I thought I would explain who is what. Ipsos Reid used to be called Angus Reid Group and is the largest Canadian Research Firm. It was founded by Angus Reid and bought by Ipsos several years ago. Ipsos is a Paris based international research organization. Angus Reid – the man, founded Angus Reid Strategies a couple of years ago and now exclusively does market research online. In short, they are two companies with similar names because they were both founded by the same pollster, although are entirely separate entities that even use largely different methodologies. That part I won’t touch though because the last time I commented on the accuracy of online polls I ruffled some feathers.
2 Comments »The Battle for Progressive Hearts and Minds
Progressives have known since the emergence of Stephen Harper on the national stage that he represents a vision for Canada that is as close to the polar opposite of ours that could be found in politics. His ability to lie ruthlessly, pass legislation that amounts to no more than window dressing and then break the very same law is astounding. Harper poses the single greatest threat to our multi party democracy that Canada has ever seen, and unfortunately for us, Canadians seem to be buying it.
Harper’s Conservatives are polling at 45 percent – a record high for the re-branded Conservative Party. The Liberals under Michael Ignatieff are at just 26 percent, no different than they were in the last election under Stephane Dion. The NDP is polling well back from it’s last electoral bench mark at 12 percent and the Green and Bloc results are basically the same as the last election. In short, if there was an election tomorrow we’d lose and we’d lose badly.
Stephen Harper knows this as well. He knows that 56 percent of Canadians would rather return to the polls than allow this coalition to happen, should the opposition see fit to defeat him. He knows that a majority of Canadians agree with scrapping public financing of political campaigns and is all too aware of the damage he could inflict by bringing that back. Liberals, New Democrats and Greens need to think long and hard about how best to handle this, being mindful of the fact that as it stands, public opinion just isn’t there.
We have to recognize to the average Canadian has said loud and clear they have no time for the gamesmanship in Ottawa, and appear to be placing blame for it at the feet of the Liberals and the NDP. They are right to be disgusted by what is going on, and should be outraged by what’s happening in Ottawa. Consider this, on a day when the auto sector is dying and literally every single car plant in Ontario has planned at least a temporary shut down or lay off in the next two months, Michael Ignatieff and Stephen Harper meet to discuss the upcoming budget, and neither shares a single proposal with the other.
If I was a CAW member at the Chrysler minivan plant in Windsor and I knew that on December 22nd when I went home for my Christmas holidays, my employer would be laying me off for at least four weeks, I too would have no time for this. Sadly, it even isn’t just the minivan plant in Windsor. It’s the large car factory in Brampton, Ford’s Oakville and St. Thomas operations and General Motor’s Oshawa plants. They are all facing similar fates. If car manufacturers stop making cars, the manufacturers of car parts stop making them too. The auto industry then begins to unravel it’s 20% of Ontario’s GDP and this recession becomes a hell of a lot worse.
Canadians are right to be scared. They have a government that is scrooge like, and stalling on providing the support necessary to at least project workers in the short term while a longer term solution can be found. They need to see a plan, from either the government or the coalition of progressives that want to replace the government. They need to see that there is a plan to help them and that they won’t be screwed regardless of who is in government.
We have a real opportunity to work together to create a comprehensive plan to protect well paying manufacturing jobs here in Ontario and the rest of Canada, and do so in a way that demonstrates why governing from the centre is generally the best. But we need to do it now, not just for political advantage, but to begin to make good on the pledges our leaders have been making.
Partisanship is one thing, progressive policies that would work for Canadians are another all together. Let’s get to work finding the solutions that will make it so the families of hardworking auto makers can have a decent Christmas and know their jobs are waiting for them after the holidays. Come out with the coalition’s plan, or at least a set of broad principles on what we’d do differently and let the Conservatives steal them if they will. After all, right now our leaders in Ottawa need to be focused on the real task at hand which is fixing the economy, not playing a really twisted game of cloaks and daggers with each other.
3 Comments »
