ebutong.com

Thursday, September 18, 2008

In the lead-up to the 2008 Canadian federal elections much speculation was made about environmental issues and initiative, with various parties maneuvering to claim some portion of the green mantle. But it was the Liberal party which first brought a full-blown policy to the public.

In the months since the Green Shift initiative was brought forth, the political pundits and activists have both talked about this year as the first election where the environment would be a major issue on the minds of voters, and possibly a decisive one for the electorate.

It’s indeed true the environment ranks very high in minds of voters across the country, particularly among young voters. One national survey of Canadians between 18 and 25 finds the environment is the top issue. A poll of all voters found it to be the third most important single issue over all, behind the economy and health care, but the poll suggested that no one issue has really caught the attention of the electorate with many issues gaining similar attention.

The parties themselves seem indecisive, trying to claim a focus on environmental issues but rarely making specific proposals or promises, with the notable exception of the Liberals whose platform has been targeted by opponents and commentators as “wildly experimental” and “doesn’t go deep enough” by turns.

Examining the platforms of the New Democratic Party regarding air pollution and global warming as available on their website, one is struck by a lack of substance. Reference is made to C-377, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which the NDP calls “Layton’s Kyoto-Plus Bill”, which was passed in 2006. The party believes Canada can achieve its Kyoto requirements by 2012, though no mention is made of how a Layton government would do so.

In June of 2008 the Liberals tabled a plan, the Green Shift, which they claim would reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% under 1990 emissions – well below the 6% required by Canadian law when Canada ratified the Kyoto Accord – by 2020, which is rather after the 2008-2012 phase-in period required by that same law. The method of performing this reduction would be to shift the Canadian tax system, reducing income and revenue taxes by replacing them with taxes on greenhouse gas emissions. The plan generated considerable discussion and opposition, and the party has back-pedaled in some portions and added on in others, as well as announcing a couple of separate initiatives to soften the effects for farmers, homeowners, and fishermen among others.

A more diverse approach than solely a “Carbon Tax” is proposed in the Green Party’s platform, which presents an almost holistic approach of adherence to the Kyoto obligations, “Cap and trade” of carbon emissions, industry development with both green technology R&D and regulation as well as consumer subsidies, and their own version of a carbon tax. Alone of the parties they specifically mention the role of international diplomacy/trade as a part of their approach.

Such an approach appears to be anathema to the Conservatives, whose mantra since their election has been that Kyoto cannot be complied with without forcing an economic recession on the country, and used the Throne Speech of 2007 to reiterate that position. They have opposed cap-and-trade schemes in the past, but their platform for this election states their plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions includes emissions caps for “four air pollutants commonly associated with smog and acid rain,” as well as “tough emission reduction targets”.

In contrast to the laundry-list of unconnected initiatives on the Conservative’s website, the clean platform pamphlet created by the Bloc Québécois makes a simple and apparently heartfelt statement on the environment:

La lutte aux changements climatiques est devenue un enjeu fondamental pour l’humanité et le Québec est déterminé à apporter sa contribution, à sa façon. À Ottawa, c’est le Bloc Québécois qui mène la lutte en faveur de l’application du protocole de Kyoto dans le respect des choix du Québec.

Tackling climate change has become a fundamental issue for all of humanity and Québec is determined to make its contribution, in its own way. In Ottawa, the Bloc Québécois, respecting Québec’s choices, is leading the fight to enforce the Kyoto Protocol.

Just how they plan to enforce the Kyoto obligations is not stated, though they do discuss a carbon market, and tax incentives for home heating upgrade and transportation.

There seems to be a wide if somewhat shallow interest in the electorate as to just what each party is offering on the environmental file. But with sketchy platforms regarding environmental issues, it’s no wonder some of the parties have turned to the subject of economics in recent days.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, the only individual convicted in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, has been released by Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, on compassionate grounds.

Megrahi is suffering from terminal prostate cancer and will be allowed to return to his home country of Libya.

270 people were killed when, on December 21, 1988, the Pan-Am flight from London’s Heathrow Airport to New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport was destroyed by a bomb whilst in flight over southern Scotland.

A police convoy escorted Megrahi from his former prison home in HMP Greenock to Glasgow Airport, where he boarded an Afriqiyah Airways flight to Tripoli. He was told he could not remain in Scotland on security grounds.

In announcing the release on compassionate grounds, Justice Secretary MacAskill stated, “Al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power. It is one that no court in any jurisdiction could revoke or overrule. It is terminal, final and irrevocable. He is going to die”.

The conviction remains controversial. Last year then-president of US group Victims of Pan Am Flight 103 told Wikinews that the vast majority were satisfied in Megrahi’s guilt. UK Families Flight 103 painted a very different picture to Wikinews of the opinions in Britain: “UK Families have different views about Megrahi’s guilt or innocence. Certainly some, including my husband and I, believe that we are not in a position to make a judgment about whether he was involved in some way or not,” said group coordinator Jean Berkley, whose son was killed. “Much of the evidence at the trial was circumstantial and confusing and it is a fact that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission, after considering the matter for three years, came to the conclusion that there were grounds for appeal. The UK families are united in believing that the full independent inquiry for which we have been asking since 1989 should now take place, to deal with the many unanswered questions and enable the evidence which would have emerged from the now abandoned appeal to be made public.” This is in sharp contrast to The Daily Telegraph, which earlier reported that the majority of British families felt Megrahi was innocent.

The United States government had been strongly opposed to any possible release. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had previously called the possibility “absolutely wrong”. MacAskill sought to justify the decision by commenting that “Compassion and mercy are about upholding the beliefs th[at] we seek to live by, remaining true to our values as a people – no matter the severity of the provocation or the atrocity perpetrated.”

Megrahi issued a statement shortly before leaving HMP Greenock in which he maintained his innocence. “The remaining days of my life are being lived under the shadow of the wrongness of my conviction. I have been faced with an appalling choice: to risk dying in prison in the hope that my name is cleared posthumously or to return home still carrying the weight of the guilty verdict, which will never now be lifted. The choice which I made is a matter of sorrow, disappointment and anger, which I fear I will never overcome,” said Megrahi.

Robert Gibbs, press secretary for the White House, said “The United States deeply regrets the decision by the Scottish Executive to release Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi. As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland.” Many US victims have also reacted with anger.

Many US victims’ families have reacted with anger. One relative commented that “This might sound crude or blunt, but I want him returned from Scotland the same way my wife Lorraine was and that would be in a box.” Dr. Jim Swire, a UK victim, disagreed, saying Megrahi had “nothing to do with” the disaster and calling the earlier dropping of the appeal “a blow to those of us who seek the truth.”

Megrahi’s plane was greeted by crowds in Tripoli waving both Libyan and Scottish flags. Seif al-Islam, son of Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, held his hand as he exited the aircraft amid heavy security. Loudspeakers broadcast patriotic music and it is reported that celebrations are ongoing in Tripoli.