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 »National Executive to Expand Definition of ‘Brass’
Good work grassroots! You made them budge. Now caucus and the national executive will not be making the decision completely alone and without consideration of the other 70 000 Liberal party members. But don’t get too excited, only riding presidents, defeated candidates, and commission club presidents will join the process.
I happen to be a riding president, but I still don’t think this is acceptable. Better, but not good enough.
Here are some problems as I see them:
1) Candidates for the Liberal Party Leadership should not be candidates for the Interim Leadership – Michael Ignatieff was wrong to attempt a power grab and force this latest brawl.
2) The Party annouced in a press release that this process has been created and will include consulting the ‘Council of Presidents’ – the problem? I am a member of that Council – we meet tonight at 8pm and I have yet to receive any communication to this effect. Are we expected to decide tonight or some other time before December 17th?
3) There has been no debate! – Bob Rae called for one public debate a week back in November and a single debate has yet to be had. The closest thing to a debate was that botched attempt in Mississauga where Ignatieff would not allow the media in. It’s important to remember at that point riding presidents were still considered part o the ‘family’ to Michael. That was before you needed to be a Senator or MP to be considered ‘family’ by him. This leaves us in a position where we’re calling the leadership based on media speculation and whatever backbiting and inside baseball we’re privy too… Does anyone else see a problem with this?
The selection of the interim leader will have a significant impact on who becomes the real leader. No matter what we need to have a convention to allow the party to at least ‘make believe’ the decision, so why not just have the race and allow a non candidate to lead the party in the interim. Afterall, that is kind of the idea.
Finally – a note to Liberal members. Please contact your riding president and defeated candidate. Tell them that you believe in democracy and do not support this strange interim = coronation process. Ask them to support the candidate that respects your constitutional right to elect delegates to select the leader.
If you need help finding the contact information of your MP, defeated candidate or riding president; please email me your riding name and I will do my best to help. My email is john.laforet@laforet.ca
2 Comments »What the Hell is Going On?
The internal gamesmanship within the Liberal Party could not be more ridiculous or inappropriate. I can appreciate that Mr. Ignatieff has had some bad experiences since returning to Canada and running to lead the Liberal Party. I would reference his first race, but by all accounts they never really stopped and it is really just a continuation. He was the front runner with caucus support last time. He didn’t win. He is the front runner with caucus support this time, so he is now trying to steal it before anything can go wrong. The Liberal Party has rules that allow people like me, who have been a member of this party considerably longer than guys like Mr. Ignatieff, to have a say in who leads us.
I know from the scathing emails I’ve received and the venom flowing from Liberals in Mr. Ignatieff’s direction that grassroots Liberals will not accept a ‘smash and grab’ approach to the Party’s leadership. His actions are dividing the party, and the real grassroots, who always have to contend with ‘instant liberals’ during Leadership races will leave over this. I’m hearing that in the emails I’m being sent as a Riding President. While I appreciate receiving these notes, the Council of Presidents who is meeting tomorrow night will not even get a voice in this completely undemocratic charade.
Michael Ignatieff should not be running to be the interim Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. His people should have supported the last leader delegates elected when they rejected him, perhaps if they had, this last election would not have gone so badly. Whomever becomes our party’s next leader will have real issues to contend with. The Liberal Party is broke, the grassroots have been stomped on, and there will be internal division in whatever is left once this process is over. We need someone who can unite the party, raise money and give us a hope in hell of winning back some of the ridings we’ve bled over the last four elections.
The process needs to be fair and democratic. We need to have an opportunity to allow for all Liberals to have a say in who our next leader is. We cannot afford a divisive power grab. We cannot afford for caucus to screw over the individual members that make up this party. They will do so at their own peril. Who will hammer in your signs, raise your money or pull your vote if you disenfranchise the grassroots?
I backed Dominic LeBlanc because I thought he would be the best person to lead the Liberal Party moving forward. I was upset today when he withdrew from the race, and equally upset that Dion is going to step out of the Leadership and allow this process to happen. Bob Rae will now need to hold firm, and give members of the party the right to voice their opinions. If the Ignatieff camp push him out of the race too, I fear this may be it for the Liberal Party of Canada as we know it. It is simply too weak for anyone to drive away supporters of other leadership campaigns. From all my conversations with Ignatieff people, that is the game. It is ok for them to not support our current leader, but any difference of opinion over the future of the party is enough to see you shut out. – I won’t expand on this point just yet, but do want to register my displeasure with what the Liberal Caucus in Ottawa is undertaking this week.
Should Ignatieff take the Leadership this Wednesday, the coalition is dead on arrival. He has made it clear through his waffling (my single largest issue past and present with supporting his candidacy) that he will not support working with the NDP to form a progressive government. The Liberal Party will be back to sitting on their hands, red faced and embarrassed or into an election we can’t win because we won’t have had the time to rebuild.
6 Comments »
