I received a couple of comments from reader KPK which call into question my ethics as a Professional Engineer vs my affiliation to the Green Party, our stated policy of meeting Canada’s Kyoto obligations, and the methods by which we propose to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Grab yourself a coffee, this is a long one, but I hope you’ll stay with me.)
Professional Engineering vs The Green Party
First off, I take my obligations as a Professional Engineer very seriously and this is one area where I am easily offended when my ethics are questioned. For those that don’t know, you can read all about the profession on the web or refer to Professional Engineers Ontario. In a nutshell, engineers licensed to practice in Ontario (and elsewhere in Canada) are bound by an oath similar to what the public knows as the Hypocratic Oath (Thou shalt do no harm) for Medical Doctors. This oath, and the numerous regulations of the profession, require engineers to consider public safety ahead of all other considerations. Personally, I consider fighting the environmental degradation caused by our current way of life, which is so tied to our collective health, to be exactly in line with this oath. And fighting climate change is not merely in the interests of immediate public safety, but that of future generations.
Some people might be surprised at the number of engineers who have become involved with the Green Party, though really this should be no surprise. Engineers generally tend to be a rather logical lot and the Green Party’s policies are rooted in a logic that I’ve not found in any other political party. I believe our policies are pretty good, but the real logic lies in the way that they all tie together and do not contradict.
Our Kyoto commitments
KPK referred to the “impossibility of meeting our Kyoto targets.” As I considered my response it occurred to me that perhaps we (Greens) have not done a good enough job in explaining exactly what we mean by meeting our Kyoto commitments, so I’ll try to do so here. First a few facts.
- First off, Canada’s actual Kyoto target is not 6% lower than 1990 by 2012 as is commonly reported, but that the average over the 2008-2012 period be 6% lower than 1990. (Yes, this is actually lower!)
- Second, the current protocol contains mechanisms for meeting the commitment for countries which do not meet their emission targets, such as investing in emission reduction projects elsewhere. ie: buying credits.
- And third, were Canada to stay within the Kyoto protocol, which our rapidly-growing-older Conservative government is loathe to do, our penalty for not meeting our commitment is a larger target (by 30% or so) in the next round of negotiations.
As you can see, there is a clear difference between Canada’s commitment and Canada’s target emissions under the Kyoto protocol. The Green Party’s position is that we must meet Canada commitment, and the best method of doing so is to get as close to target as possible, and then buy credits for the rest.
So what this comes down to is this. Even if we can’t reach our target, do we meet our commitment or not?
Some say no. Certainly the Conservatives refuse to consider buying international credits, claiming it “sends our hard earned money offshore.” This is true, but it is the only means by which we can meet our commitment now that so much time as been wasted.
The Green Party believes we must, primarily because the Kyoto protocol became international law for the countries who ratified it. While it’s true that breaking this “law” carries no penalty other than making us a pariah in the international community, a country whose word means nothing, how could we reasonably expect to be respected in any future international negotiations when we so readily abandon the commitment that we made?
Is this the kind of Canada you want to live in? Not me.
On Carbon Tax vs Cap & Trade
Lastly, the Green Party has many proposals for lowering our emissions, through regulations which will change how business is done, providing the proper price signals so that consumer prices reflect the cost to the environment and yes, through a carbon tax and cap & trade mechanism. The Carbon Tax is not a new tax, but a tax shift off of income, payroll and corporate tax and onto emissions. This will make employment less expensive and place costs for corporations and people where they are controllable, in emissions and purchasing choices.
It’s also not as regressive as it first appears, since higher income people tend to have larger homes, larger cars, and consume more of the goods which will increase in price. That said, the Green Party recognizes that low income people will be affected, and would institute programs to alleviate the effect, give them the power to control their costs, while not taking away the price signal. Programs for lower income people are nothing new, in fact they are currently inadequate given the number of people we have living in poverty, so they need to be increased in any case.
The cap & trade is my least favourite mechanism, as it allows corporations to buy their way out. But it’s necessary in that it allows time for technology to catch up while lowering emissions as quickly as possible. Companies that can act quickly will do so, and take advantage of a new revenue stream. Companies that can’t will have a means to buy time, and the cap will be lowered year by year in any case.
In summary, as an engineer I was attracted to the Green Party when I discovered the logic of its policies. It just made sense to me. And we believe that when you sit down and think about it objectively, it will make sense to you as well.
show hide 14 comments
Well said my friend.
Further to the criticism of engineers as members of the Green Party, I’d just like to ask M. (Mme?) KMK who is in a better position to understand, and correct, the technologies that we use that cause the environmental problems we now face than engineers?
Engineers of all stripes (mechanical, electrical, software, civil, architectural, etc.) are the very people who are behind the the new technologies and methods that we (the rest of the population) will rely upon to allow us to live comfortably in a new Green society.
Society in general, and the Green Party specifically, needs more committed engineers like yourself to study, understand, and ultimately solve the problems of the industrial age.
Keep on keeping on Glenn, all of the naysayers’ arguments will continue to fall under the bright light of logic.
Well said Glenn!!!! As an engineer (who works in the oil patch no less) who’s planning on having his P.Eng within a couple of months, I, too, take my professional commitment very seriously. I, also, was attracted to the Greens due to the logic and proactive approaches in their policies.
As I see it, engineers are the servants of society. We are tasked for making things better so that requires us to assess the situation, determine the range of outcomes (plus their probabilities) and address the outcomes BEFORE they become problems. With that in mind, it only makes more sense on why engineers (who are generally an apolitical profession) are joining the Greens… its the first platform to really speak to us in a logical manner.
Mark Taylor, EIT
Alberta Rep to GPC Federal Council
First of all I didn’t question Glenn’s ethics. If I left that impression I apologize. I was left with the impression that you thought we could meet our targets by 2012. Elizabeth May herself said on TV many times that Canada can meets it’s Kyoto TARGETS (not commitments) by 2012 . Maybe this is the problem with this whole debate. No one makes the distinction between TARGETS and COMMITMENTS.
Yes we could make our commitments by buying carbon credits (which I’m firmly opposed to) but that can cost up to $25 billion a year if we miss our targets big time. If that happens it’s probably more prudent for the government to take the 30% penalty in the next round (which I believe they are doing) – so technically they are following the protocol. I don’t think Canadians would be very happy shipping the equivalent revenue that the GST generates abroad.
BTW read Jefferey Simpson’s book “Hot Air”. It’s a real eye opener. Mark Jaccard’s analysis was also interesting.
I too apologize if I jumped to conclusions, but it was, after all, 4:00 am when I began writing that post. And I have a cold. And I had a headache. (This is where everyone feels bad for me!)
I have discussed this point with Elizabeth and other Green Party members and we are clear. We believe that if Canadians really wanted to, the Kyoto targets could be met. Barely. But after 15 years of doing nothing by successive Liberal and now Conservative governments, it would take a massive World War II level of effort by the whole of our society. Doable, but extremely difficult.
However, derailing the argument by arguing over whether it’s possible or not merely wastes more time which we do not have. Each year that goes by with a government that is driven by denial and pessimism is a lost opportunity and makes our work that much more difficult.
As I said in http://hubbers.ca/blog/2007/10/03/canwea-and-wind-power-vs-nuclear/“ rel=”nofollow”>an earlier post, we do not have time left to argue about what our targets should be before we start to act, and we must act decisively with solutions that will work, not voluntary, procrastinational targets. 2020 is too late. –Glenn
PS: I have not yet read “Hot Air”, but I plan to soon. I’m currently reading Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason”.
PS looking back at my previous posts, I don’t see where I accused you of unethical behaviour. What I did accuse you of was wanting to take extreme steps to meet our 2012 target. Engineers typically would embrace more moderate solutions. BTW are you allowed to put your P.Eng designation on lawn signs or does the PEO forbid this?
Well this engineer is becoming increasingly convinced that moderate solutions will not be adequate. As I have stated before, due to 15 years of inaction we are close to, if not already past, the point where we need to treat this like a war. And as we all know, wars require drastic, decisive actions. Thanks for the idea for the lawn signs. I doubt that PEO would approve, but I will be checking with them. –Glenn
Glenn, you may be right after all.. rumblings out of Australia suggest we may be already out of time. We are
warming at rate that wasn’t expected until a decade from now.
Thank you. I also saw http://www.thestar.com/article/264903“ rel=”nofollow”>this article earlier this week which pretty much validates your point. It also ties in with all the stories about how earlier IPCC reports have been watered down, so things are actually worse than expressed by them at the time.
People need to understand the urgency of this issue. It is not some faraway catastrophe that may or may not come to pass in a land far, far away. PEOPLE CURRENTLY ALIVE will judge our actions and live with the consequences. (Not that I wouldn’t care if it was a few generations further out, but it might be less urgent.)
So people who claim that we cannot afford to take action, or that environmental concern should be trumped by economic ones, need somehow to re-jig their priorities. The economy is a man-made construct, designed to serve our purposes, and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. As such, just like in wartime, it CAN be modified to achieve the goals that we set for ourselves.
This leads me to one more thing that I did not say in my post. No one in the Green Party is suggesting that targets can be met or that we can even be close without sacrifice. We are not suggesting that we can do it without lifestyle change. And we are not suggesting that it is a temporary effort, following which our economy can keep on going, business as usual. We are clearly stating that our lifestyle and economic construct are incompatible with sustainable life on this planet, and that we need to get down to the business of changing direction. And soon. –Glenn
Glenn,
If things are that bad then the Green Party may have to call for a complete shutdown of the oil sands rather than just a moratorium. It would be interesting to see how that would play out politically – especially in Alberta.
I suspect it would go over somewhat worse than the previous National Energy Policy, and fan the flames of separation in Alberta. The ironic upside is that the early effects of climate change are making themselves obvious in Alberta earlier than almost anywhere else in Canada (with the exception of the Arctic) so it’s becoming easier to get lots of Albertans onside. But this will have to be done at the provincial level, rather than being forced from Ottawa. –Glenn
Glenn,
I’m kinda surprised by your last comment. Everyone is pounding on Harper to do something about the oil sands but you are advocating to let it be done at the provincial level. We both know Stelmach won’t touch it with a ten foot pole. I doubt he will even touch the current royalty arrangement Alberta has with the big oil companies.
Sorry if I was misunderstood. I am in no way suggesting that the federal government does not have a role to play. There are a number of steps that can be taken at the federal level which would have the effect of slowing the oil sands activity to a more reasonable pace. There are federal environmental assessments, direct and indirect subsidies, federal taxes, etc., all of which can and should be dealt with by the federal government.
What I said (in reaction to your comment about advocating a complete shutdown of the oil sands) was that a complete shutdown by the feds would not fly in Alberta, and would fuel the flames of separation, unless and until Albertans are brought onside at the provincial level.
Besides which, I think you may be surprised by what happens. Stelmach will either change the royalty regime, or he will chance losing next the election. The majority of Albertans may not yet be demanding a shutdown of the oil sands, but they are demanding that the people (through the government) get their fair share of the spoils.
And then there’s the other twist in terms of whether a shutdown is possible. It is not possible unless we pull out of NAFTA since it would mean a steadily decreasing shipment of oil to the US. But to do that we must simultaneously decrease our domestic consumption. Oh wait, that’s exactly what the Green Party is proposing! Imagine that! –Glenn
Glenn,
I agree with your last statement. Under NAFTA we are obligated to provide the US with the same number of barrels of oil based on peak demand for the next 3 years before reducing production. I don’t think we have to pull out of NAFTA though .
I’m am more of a believer in obligation-and-certificate trading systems than emissions trading or a carbon tax. You could at least regulate industries to reduce emissions by committing to investing in emission control technology – like having energy companies to provide 20% of their portfolio as renewable power over a certain period of time. This approach is effective,
A carbon tax would be my second choice but I see problems with it – for example:
Why should you penalize a mother for driving to the daycare to pick up her three kids? This is something that would occur on a daily basis thru no fault on the mothers part.
Also, why would you penalize rural folks who have to drive longer distances for necessities than urbanites?
Why would you penalize people for heating their homes when this is a necessity?
And why would you punish a family for electricity use when the reason they use more is because they have more kids or elderly parents living with them ie a larger household?
Also why would you punish the poor for driving to work in their 1980′s beaten up old car when that is all they can afford?
So until I get a satisfactory answer for these and other questions, a carbon tax is off the table.
You know, I enjoy the debate with someone knowledgeable about issues, and we could go on and on, and I’m sure in the end not convince each other of the best policy. At least we can concentrate on the things we have in common; the urgent need to address climate change emissions and the requirement to protect the lower income people in our society while doing so.
As for Carbon Tax, here are my thoughts on the points you raised:
It fits with the overarching Green policy of Tax Shifting. Remove the tax burden from those things we want to encourage, which are good for society, and place it on things we want to discourage, which are bad for society. And don’t worry, there will always be enough bad things to offer a tax base.
It places a monetary cost on what is currently seen as an externality, since in reality there is no such thing. We all live on the only planet we have. What we take from the environment and what we emit all comes from and goes back to the same place. NOT having a price to pay for CO2 emissions (or other pollution/emissions for that matter) is equivalent to subsidizing those endeavors which emit more. This is a major reason that renewable power is wrongly seen as uncompetitive with coal, for example.
I don’t see the Carbon Tax as punishing people. I see it as placing costs where they should be and then those costs being allocated based on choices.
I don’t really want to address each and every one of your examples, since that is a never ending quagmire where we can get bogged down in details and lose sight of the big picture. It will ALWAYS be possible to come up with people who will be hurt by any shift in policy. In this case, the people most hurt will be those that refuse to adjust their lifestyle, living arrangements, or other choices.
For those that cannot make these choices due to low income levels, we owe it to them to help in other ways, but keeping energy costs artificially low and externalities with no cost at all is not the right way to help.
In the case of families with more children, they are not punished by a Carbon Tax. If they are punished at all, it is by their own choice of family size. The way to turn that question around, given the current regime of subsidizing energy, is why should family A with one child and a 1500 sq ft house be subsidizing the choices of family B with 4 children and a 2500 sq ft house?
In discussing Green Party policy, I invariably end up at this same point, which brings us back to my original post about logic. If you look at one particular policy you may be filled with questions, what ifs, and examples where it won’t work. You need to view the entire platform together and envision the social change that is implied. –Glenn
Glenn,
I would think refunding money in the form of tax rebate checks would be fairer (especially for the poor). Each household could be given a carbon allotment based on the number of people living in the household (per capita perhaps?), family income and whether they are in a rural area or not. If they exceed this allotment they don’t get refunded the portion of the tax above their designated household “target”. As more greener options appear in the marketplace, those allotments can be adjusted downward. One example – people in Toronto can use the TTC because it is an available option to them whereas it isn’t to someone who lives in a small rural town who have to drive miles just to go grocery shopping. If other options suddenly become available to them, like a municipally sponsored shuttle bus for shopping then you can decrease their allotment. The only area where I think it would be fair to charge everyone the same tax right now is on airfare. People don’t have to fly.When they do it’s usually for business or vacation.
Similarly for industry you can refund part of the money in the form of lower corporate taxes . Any companies not making their assigned reduction targets would end up paying part of the tax above their target.
What you are suggesting sounds like a combination of tax shifting and rationing. Not quite the way the Green Party proposes it, but along the same lines. We have not yet got to the point of rationing. It has been suggested by George Monbiot in Heat as a required element going forward, but I don’t think that this is even close to politically sellable, or necessary, when we have not even begun to pick the low hanging fruit.
To your point about the needs of rural people being different than urban, there are pros and cons to each living arrangement and each would be affected by a carbon tax in a different way. For example, food prices would increase and whereas most rural people have the option to mitigate this by growing their own vegetable gardens, this is less of an option for urbanites. One of the things that I strongly advocate, for Climate Change as well as Peak Oil, is urban community gardening. Where I live there is an overhead power transmission line just down the street. I’m wondering if Hydro One would be open to people using the right of way for a garden. Hmmm, something to look into. –Glenn
Essentially yes, it is carbon rationing. You basically get an “allowance” on carbon emissions in the form of tax rebates prior to actual taxation. The poor are not disadvantaged using this method because households are treated roughly the same with some adjustments based on the variables of income, household occupants and population density. Rich people will end up paying most of the tax because they have bigger homes, more automobiles and travel by air more often.
Funny you mention the book Heat. I just purchased it but have not read it yet. It will be interesting to see how the author’s proposals differ from mine.
Glenn,
I’m quite familiar with the Engineering Code of Conduct. In fact, here’s where I myself quoted it in a blog entry (timely as it turns out) on the experimental GPC blog site (before the current public version)
http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/541#comment-7614
So, given that you claim “This oath, and the numerous regulations of the profession, require engineers to consider public safety ahead of all other considerations” where were you and other GP engineers, and why were you not speaking out against the GPO/GPC’s public endorsement (through press releases and blog entries on the main GPC site) of a recently ended hunger strike.
To me this is completely immoral and unethical to promote such possible injury to another’s personal health. Why weren’t the party’s engineers speaking out against it?
For the record, I agree with you about your comments wherein we must be careful not to impugn the reputations of professional people working at the CNSC. If “rubber stamping” is indeed what people observe, then it would be best to have some examples, phrased in the form of a questionable situation which may need to be investigated. And if professional engineers are found to be acting improperly, or not raising the flag when witnessing others doing so, then they should be subject to a disciplinary investigation. For my part, I have no evidence of this and have made no such claims.
That said, I see the issue of this recent hunger strike as completely different.
I do not condone hunger strikes as a method of stimulating political action. It is not something I could personally do and would certainly be very upset to have someone I know and love taking this action. However, it is clearly a personal choice made by an individual and does not impact public safety per se, just their own. She endangers no one else in taking this action and while I may not agree, I support her right to make that choice.
As to where I stand on the issue for which she clearly feels so much passion, I support her cause, if not her choice of methods.
I understand that there are many engineers who work in the nuclear industry. They are convinced of the safety of the life cycle operation of nuclear power. I am not. I understand (in rough terms) the design and operation of a nuclear power plant enough to know that a great deal of time and money is spent on backup systems for backup systems, and that this is done to ensure, to the extent possible, a safe operation of the plant. However, the cost in terms of human life and environmental damage should a rare accident come to pass seems to me to be too great for even a minute risk.
The exception to this is the issue of uranium mining. There is plenty of documented evidence about the effects of uranium mining. Examples of contamination of waterways, human and wildlife health impacts, and the environmental damage from mine tailings which companies are not required to deal with are too numerous to ignore.
And while I am on the subject I’ll say this. While I am clearly against nuclear power it is not for the above safety reasons that I normally take this stand. I am against it for economic reasons. The economics of nuclear power are false, and until we can evaluate the true costs against the alternatives, I refuse to even get dragged into an argument of the safety and environmental issues.
For those that claim that we need nuclear power to resolve climate change, I say BS. Perhaps if you put your blinders on and look only at the microcosm of Ontario a case may be made. However, in order to even keep nuclear at it’s current share of global electricity production over the next 50 years, mankind would need to embark on the single largest construction effort in the history of the human race. It is physically impossible.
So if nuclear power will not resolve the climate crisis on it’s own, does it have a place in the suite of solutions that are needed? I’ll give a qualified maybe. But first we must get the economics right, and then we need to have an honest debate about the risks and the potential worst case costs. And this is a level of honesty that has never yet been part of the discussion.
– Glenn
I do not condone hunger strikes as a method of stimulating political action. It is not something I could personally do and would certainly be very upset to have someone I know and love taking this action. However, it is clearly a personal choice made by an individual and does not impact public safety per se, just their own. She endangers no one else in taking this action and while I may not agree, I support her right to make that choice.
Thus is where we part ways. This was not just any individual acting on their own, exercising their personal rights. It was a member of the GPC council, using her newly elected position to promote her cause, using the website to promote it, and in fact encouraged to put her health at risk, by the leadership of the GPO and the GPC. One of whom had previously undertaken a similar effort some years ago, and reportedly still suffers the health effects today.
It was not a passive effort by the GPO/GPC but rather a fully promoted effort. I have no doubt without this type of encouragement, the effort would have ended much earlier. Someone within the party should have spoken out against it. I’m sorry you didn’t nor don’t feel inclined to do so. I certainly tried behind the scenes through e-mails, and would have done so irrespective of the cause.
And while I am on the subject I’ll say this. While I am clearly against nuclear power it is not for the above safety reasons that I normally take this stand. I am against it for economic reasons. The economics of nuclear power are false, and until we can evaluate the true costs against the alternatives, I refuse to even get dragged into an argument of the safety and environmental issues.
So, would you agree with me then that it would also be improper to claim that alternatives to nuclear energy are viable, economically or technically, without having done independent studies to demonstrate the case? Because this is what the GPO does in Ontario. And when asked for the details, the proponents run and hide. Case in point:
http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/627
As far as costs go, are you aware that many of the alleged costs/subsidies that the anti-nuke crowd use originate from a study by an activist while under the employ at the Sierra Club? Don’t you think this fact should be revealed in GPC press releases, such as this most recent one:
http://greenparty.ca/en/releases/11.12.2007
Given who wrote the press release, is this not a conflict of interest that should be divulged when such non peer reviewed studies are used?
But first we must get the economics right, and then we need to have an honest debate about the risks and the potential worst case costs. And this is a level of honesty that has never yet been part of the discussion.
I’m all for honesty.
———-
Until you pointed it out, I was unaware of any connection between the Green Party and the hunger striker in question. Sorry if this sounds a bit lame, but it has not been an issue that I have delved into to any great degree. Note: I am taking your word here that the connection you make is true, but still have not confirmed this point.
That said, I would not encourage anyone to use hunger striking as a political tactic. It is dangerous. If the GPC or GPO councils did in fact officially encourage this, I would agree that I would not support such a move. But I highly doubt that anyone was forced to take this action. To your original point however, my objections are that it is a dangerous practice and I cannot imagine taking that step myself, but I do not see this as a public safety issue or that my engineering ethics would compel me to take action. I am aware that Elizabeth May herself went on a hunger strike at some point in her past, but I do not know the details of the events that lead her to take such drastic action. Perhaps that is to whom you refer.
As for energy costs, I would agree with you (I think this is what you are saying) that we should consider the true life cycle costs of any of our alternatives, to compare them on an equal basis and make informed decisions. What I see working in the industry is people who are anti wind complaining about subsidies for wind, people who are anti nuclear complaining of the subsidies for nuclear, and people who are anti fossil complaining about the subsidies for fossil fuels. I believe we should cut subsidies for all and compare them equally. Or at the least, show the subsidies for what they are so that we can judge if that is money well spent. For the record, any ability to pollute for free is, in effect, a subsidy to that industry. It is unfair, for example, to say that coal is our cheapest power source when there is no price on CO2 which is being dumped into the atmosphere at no cost.
I’m not aware of the source of the 3:1 ratio that is quoted, although intuitively, given line losses, mechanical efficiencies, etc. it seems to make sense to not need the energy in the first place rather than generating it. Of course you can’t get it down to zero. But since our industrial society uses more than double the energy per capita of other, northern, modern industrial societies, it seems we have a lot of improvement to make begore we need to worry about the cost effectiveness of further cuts.
I noted that you make a point of renewables not being scalable to the same degree as the traditional sources of energy. Please note that I am a proponent of small, distributed energy. I would prefer to see power generation that makes sense for each community spread far and wide rather than large generating stations and big transmission. I would prefer to see no plants larger than 100 MW (admittedly I just picked this number out of the air.) For wind, I would prefer to see the Ontario government embrace the Denmark model of encouraging community co-ops owning a turbine or two rather than large companies building large wind farms. I believe that this model would be far cheaper in the end and result in a much more stable grid.
– Glenn
I noticed you have turned comment moderation on, so I will say this privately.
The fact that you support the moratorium on uranium mining, I hope, did not colour your view as to whether or not to speak out within the GPC against this strike effort.
Keep in mind, there is not even a proposal for a mine – the company hasn’t even done any exploratory work, or determined if it was economically or politically viable. I have no opinion on the matter, as I am unfamiliar with today’s standards for mining uranium, and the particualr risks this site may or may not pose to the public. As I have often stated on other blogs, this is best left to the professionals that are qualified in this area, and best dealt with through independent studies and through public hearings where the issues from both sides can be put forward for proper consideration.
I think it would be unwise to base one’s opposition on previous efforts back in the 60′s or earlier when the full effects of radon, tillings etc. were not fully understood by professionals.
There are qualified people who know better than you and I on this issue, and there are plently of opportunities through evironmental assessments and hearings for opponents to have their positions heard. A hunger strike fits in there nowhere .
——————-
I have comment moderation on due to a spam problem, but I always approve any comments that are not spam, regardless of whether they are favourable to my positions. I do, however, reserve the right to delete flames and abusive language.
No, my support for a moratorium on uranium mining in no way coloured my views or my decision not to speak out since, as I said, I was not aware of any connection between the GPC/GPO and the woman who took the decision to start a hunger strike. I did not comment on an issue that I knew so little about.
I think it very wise to base one’s decisions on the past, since people were assured then as now that there were no public safety concerns. Therefore, I think it is only prudent that the proponents of such a proposal should have to satisfy the questions posed to them, to ensure the public safety, and to take full responsibility should that be compromised.
Yes, there are plenty of people more qualified to speak on this issue. But I think that one of the things I bring to the political table, being an engineer in the power sector, is the capability of understanding what are honest answers and what is political spin. I may not always get it right, but I do try.
Environmental Assessments? This is where we part ways. The current methodology for environmental assessments is to conduct a study of the environmental and socio-economic impacts of a proposed project, and to come up with applicable modifications or mediation if impacts exists. The process, and certainly the public input into it, begins long after the project proponent is convinced of the need/desire to proceed. Nowhere in this process is there room for the public to question whether the project should proceed in the first place.
Case in point: Ontario’s Integrated Power System Plan.
In December 2005 the OPA submitted “supply mix advice” to the government. Following this, the minister issued the “supply mix directive” which pretty much followed the advice given by the OPA. The OPA has now written the IPSP and submitted to the Ontario Energy Board for consideration. This document, the OPA was very clear, is their proposed means of fulfilling the instructions of the supply mix directive. They make a point that the supply mix directive is not in question, just whether the IPSP is the most prudent means to fulfill it. The government has also been clear that, while individual projects will be subject to environmental assessments, the overall IPSP or supply mix is not.
In asking my contacts when a concerned public or opposition parties were supposed to be able to object to this process, or object to the supply mix, I was told, “We just had an election. That was your opportunity.”
The OPA is full of “experts”, mostly hired from OPG and Hydro One, and typically married to the concept of large power generation and large transmission.
Yes, I agree with you that a hunger strike does not fit. But our government has systematically denied all of the opportunities which are supposed to be in place.
So please don’t tell me that I should defer to experts and rely on an environmental assessment process.
– Glenn
[...] written about this several times before, here, here, here, here, here, and here and I think I’ve been abundantly clear in my position. [...]