Federal Election 2015: The Politics of Improvisation (Part 3), minor players / lessons learned?

Elizabeth May: age 61, American born, environmentalist, activist, lawyer - federal Green Party

  
               
            May is ethically appealing: she has a very long history of activism for social justice and environmental issues. She has authored eight books on these subjects and served as founding executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada from 1989 to 2006. Her contributions have been recognized by several awards and honors conferred. She is committed. She is also, alas, an underdog. Aside from May herself, the Greens have only one other elected serving federal member.

          One of the things that has always puzzled me about this strange world: why, if everyone (or nearly everyone) is "for" the environment, are the Greens not in power? As a civilization - and as Canadian citizens - we seem to speak the serpents' language: each word has two meanings..  

           Perhaps it is time to consider the building of coalitions, perhaps even the merging of parties, to produce a viable opposition to the pro-business coalition that is the federal Conservative Party..





Gilles Duceppe: age 68, professional politician, separatist (proponent of secession of Québec from the Canadian confederation) - Bloc Québécois

 
            The Bloc Québécois is the federal arm of the (nominally) separatist Parti Québécois. The goal of the Bloc is to represent Québec in Ottawa, to get us the best deal possible, during the time it takes for Québec to separate from Canada and become an independant Republic.


             The Bloc is losing support among Québec voters. The reasons are multiple and various but the effect of this disenfranchisement is to free a lot of voters who may tip the volatile three way federal race in one direction or another, either toward Trudeau (Liberals) or Mulcair (NDP). Harper is very unpopular in Québec and Bloc voters definitely would not vote for him. Disenfranchised Bloc voters could tip the Trudeau / Mulcair balance in this key province and thus determine the outcome of the election. Remember - as of this writing (September 2 and 15, 2015), it is still a (very) tight three way race..


             When all is said and done, we Canadians don't have much on our platters! Our "leaders" lack vision. (In this we are neither worse - or better - than the rest of the world. I am merely making an observation.)


            With the exception of Elizabeth May of the Greens, not one leader has understood, has made any effort to teach the populace that the natural "ecology" is the very foundation stone upon which the human "economy" is founded. Nor have they addressed the reciprocal feedback links between ecological crises, demographics, social justice, terrorism, war and youth radicalization in our "globalized" world. Apparently globalization has only one allowed set of meanings: those referring to the profits and control of multinational corporations, the legal and fiscal regimes they operate under and other such matters.. People don't count.

            Thus the persistent failure to divert first world economies from heavily "extractive" energy sources - coal, oil, gas, uranium; thus the failure to promote decentralized, environmentally friendly, (inherently) democratic , renewable energies both at home and in the third world. These failures are at the root of many social and geopolitical problems today: witness the waves of immigrants / refugees flooding Europe, witness international terrorism (including youth radicalizaion in the West), witness religous fanaticism, witness social decay, witness dangerous and unsustainable levels of Climate Change and Global Warming.. The central issue of sustainable development has not been accorded the priority it deserves. Why? That is the central question.

Hervé Kempf: fin de l'Occident, naissance du monde

Texte de réflexion

      Pour limiter les dégâts du Changement Climatique dus au gaz carbonique (CO2), il a été proposé de limiter l'émission de CO2 à 700 milliards de tonnes d'ici 2050.

Hervé Kempf: fin de l'Occident, naissance du monde (Éditions du Seuil, Paris, 2013), page 60 (emphase ajoutée):

       "Sur quarante ans, ce budget de 700 milliards de tonnes représente environ 2 tonnes et demie par humain et par an. C'est à peu près le volume émis aujourd'hui par un Indien ou un habitant d'Amérique latine, mais en dessous de la moyenne mondiale, qui est de l'ordre de 5 tonnes. Un chinois émet en moyenne 6 tonnes, un Européen ou un Japonais 9, un États-unien 18, un Africain, moins d'une tonne.

       La logique des chiffres est claire: les habitants des pays riches doivent réduire fortement leurs émissions. Mais aussi, de plus en plus, certains pays émergents comme la Chine, qui excèdent déjà le niveau souhaitable du point de vue du bien-être mondial et durable.
 ...
       Récapitulons:

- Nous vivons un moment historique de convergence, ou d'égalisation, des conditions matérielles d'existence.

- Il se produit dans un contexte de dégradation écologique tel que, si nous laissons se poursuivre celle-ci, l'amélioration de la condition humaine ne sera plus possible.

- Le mur écologique (limites à la croissance, physiques et écologiques) implique que l'égalisation mondiale se produise par un abaissement de la condition des plus riches, et donc par une réduction de la consommation matérielle des pays occidentaux.

        La conjonction de ces phénomènes historiques - la convergence de l'ensemble du monde vers des conditions matérielles d'existence semblables et la gravité de la crise écologique - dessine l'évolution de l'histoire dans les prochaines décennies.

         Il y aura deux façons de vivre cette évolution:

- soit les pays occidentaux et les autres pays riches tenteront de bloquer cette tendance historique, et les rivalités pour l'accès aux ressources, notamment, s'accroîtront, jusqu'à multiplier les guerres;

- soit les sociétés occidentales s'adapteront volontairement à ce courant historique, et le monde pourra alors faire face à la crise écologique de manière pacifique, tendant vers la formation d'une société planétaire certes traversée de tensions, mais rendue cohérente par l'intérêt commun de la survie dans les meilleures conditions possibles.

           Le choix entre ces deux adaptations n'a pas encore été fait, ce dont on ne saurait s'étonner dans la mesure où la situation est encore confuse et où les enjeux ne sont pas encore perçus par les populations. " (fin citation)

          J'ai choisi ce morceau parce qu'il illustre bien le nerf de la guerre de nos défis actuels: surpopulation, développement soutenable, équité sociale et accès à la richesse - naturelle ou culturelle - collectives,..
  
         "Tout le monde" - ou presque - est d'accord. On devrait réduire nos émissions de gaz carbonique. Sauf que.. les émissions continue à grimper.

 Concentration atmosphérique de CO2 en parties par million depuis 1960
(observatoire de Mauna Loa, Hawaii)

 PPM de gaz carbonique depuis 1700 provenant des carottes de glace des glaciers avant 1958, l'observatoire de Mauna Loa après

            Effectivement, comment convaincre le monde des pays riches à réduire leur "consommation matérielle"? C'est pas facile! La publicité nous "programme" de faire exactement le contraire!

            Pire! Les profits - donc les ventes - donc la consommation - sont le sang et la vie des corporations multinationales, celles qui sont les vrais Maîtres du Monde actuel. Tout ce qui touche à des profits des "Multis" est défendu, on comprend..

           Mais, parce que tout le monde veut paraître vertueux, ces mêmes Multis lancent des "produits verts" qui détruisent un peu moins l'environnement soit dans leur production, soit dans leur usage, soit les deux. L'acheteur se sent rassuré: il a fait "sa part", il "protège" le monde pour que ces enfants et petits-enfants peuvent vivent bien et s'épanouir. Le hic: ces produits n'adressent pas le vrai problème que M. Kempf a souligné. Il faut que les gens des pays riches voit la lumière: il faut changer nos façons de vivre, de faire, d'agir.. Il faut que les gens des pays riches se donnent le temps d'analyser la situation actuelle et se proposent des solutions concrètes et faisables. En fait, nous avons déjà pas mal de solutions en main mais la volonté de s'en servir collectivement nous manque encore. Des campagnes de désinformation très efficaces provenant des industries de l'énergie fossile et des "think tanks" à leur solde ont émoussé des tentatives de lancer l'économie verte (surtout aux États-Unis):

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2015/08/the-organisation-of-denial-conservative.html

          Il faut que les populations des pays riches prennent l'initiative et commence à s'organiser (! Auto-organisation !) aux niveaux locaux et régionaux, qu'elles commencent à réduire leur empreinte écologique. Surtout, il ne faut pas attendre que nos gouvernements fassent quelque chose! Nos gouvernements ont été infiltrés par les lobbys des Multinationales afin de maximiser les ventes et les profits de ces dernières. Il faut plutôt que les citoyens s'affirment et exigent l'engagement actif de l'État. L'État doit régler la pollution et le gaspillage des matières premières et de l'énergie. Où il y a volonté, il y a moyens. Aujourd'hui c'est la volonté collective qui manque dans les pays riches. On voit partout les indices qu'une telle volonté existe déjà  - dans un état "latent". Le fait que les "produits verts" sont vendable l'indique. Se rendre au bureau à vélo est devenu chose banale dans biens des grandes villes. Des gouvernements commencent à se rendre compte de l'importance future du transport commun. La volonté du changement existe, ou, mais il est encore "latente", trop latente - le temps presse..

          Qu'est qu'on peut faire pour accélérer cette prise de conscience dans les pays riches?

         - ou bien, faut-il attendre de grandes mortalités à cause de la hausse du niveau de la mer avant d'agir? Et si l'on attend, sera-t-il trop tard pour agir?

Hervé Kempf: ibid, page 72: "La grande convergence historique pose fondamentalement la question de l'équité mondiale, tandis que la crise écologique historique pose celle de la répartition de ressources biosphériques limitées.

          Mais ce n'est pas le chemin que prennent les classes dirigeantes dans le monde d'aujourd'hui. Face aux difficultés, que appellent de leur part un changement radical d'optique, elles se cabrent au contrarie et tentent conserver à tout prix l'ordre ancien - leur ordre." 

Federal Election 2015: The Politics of Invprovisation (Part 2), the main opposition

Justin Trudeau: age 44, son of Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Bachelors in Arts and Education, taught school, advocate for liberal causes, professional politician - federal Liberal Party

         Trudeau is a wild card. Boyish, affable but lacking his father's feistiness (Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister 1968 - 79, 1980 - 84). To date he has been something of a disappointment on the federal political stage. In parliamentary debates he has shone less brilliantly than the (definitely) feisty, pugnacious New Democratic Party (NDP) leader, Tom Mulcair. If he played his cards right the Mr. Nice Guy image could have been asset for Trudeau, contrasting with the petty, mean-spirited, authoritarian Harper team style. Many people today desire change (and a change of government above all). The Mr. Nice Guy image could have embodied or symbolized the desire for real change. Unfortunately Trudeau was not able to back up his Mr. Nice Guy image with other required leadership qualities: affirmed competence, assertiveness, confidence, steadfastness. On several occasions Trudeau has been indecisive. He has failed to take ownership of any cause with which the electorate can identify him (in the way, for example, that Harper has claimed ownership of the "economy" card or the "defense of Israel" card). Tudeau remains somewhat politically amorphous: he may be against Harper, but what is for? His boyishness and, at times naive, off the cuff, improvisation have made him seem immature - which the Harper, spin doctors were quick to catch and exploit in attack ads.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/conservative-ad-uses-isil-propaganda-and-anthem-to-attack-trudeaus-foreign-policy 

           Trudeau, they say "is in over his head", "is just not ready".

           Speaking here of his projected public image,Trudeau does not appear to be a deep thinker at a time when deep re-thinking of old ways of doing things is primordial. Reflecting his inability either to  capitalize on his family name or to forge his own political persona, he has slipped in the polls and is struggling to gain lost ground.

 Voting intentions as of 28 August, 2015:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html 

New Democratic Party: 33.2%
Conservatives:              29.1%
Liberals:                       27.6%

             I get the impression that Trudeau is constructing his political platform on the results of focus groups. Thus echoing Harper's populist appeals to his hardcore, redneck base, Trudeau - himself a teacher - recently appealed to financially strapped teachers by promising to reimburse out of pocket classroom expenditures. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-promise-tax-refund-for-teachers-out-of-pocket-school-supplies/article26106853/ 

         Mickey-mouse vote grabbing tactics like this ($60 million per annum) may be "worthy" of dangerous populist reactionaries like Harper but utterly fail to address the real systemic problems and deficiencies of our educational system. For example, considered as an investment in future national development, how much is our educational system worth? How much should we invest in it at the public (federal, provincial) level? What are the overarching goals of our national public system and how should these evolve over time? And so on..

        Recently, in an attempt to woo the Left, Trudeau has shown interest in a few truly progressive measures: spending money to build needed infrastructure including green energy and climate change adaptation measures.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2198876/trudeau-pledges-6b-over-4-years-for-green-infrastructure-projects/ 

       In a bold gesture - probably born of desperation following his drop in the polls - Trudeau has even demonstrated a Keynesian willingness to run deficit budgets to build the base of future prosperity (note 1). Will Trudeau continue to push the envelope of political possibilities to the Left? With his falling popularity, he has little to lose and much to gain..

Thomas Mulcair: age 61, lawyer, professional politician, leader of the official opposition, former Québec Liberal member of parliament, humble (socio-economic) origins - New Democratic Party

Unlike Trudeau, Mulcair does project the alpha male image and since he is perceived as far to the Left of Harper, it probably serves him well: at least it gains him air time. He is now number 1 in the polls, edging out Harper by a nose (don't forget: the vote on the Center - Left is split between the Liberals and the NDP). Mulcair is seen as more effective in opposition to Harper than Trudeau during parliamentary debates. Mulcair's people probably don't know what to do with the NDP's rising popularity. They must realize that their current popularity is not ideologically rooted but a reaction to ten years of Harperism (don't they??). The recent popularity of the party is fragile. It could vanish like frost at sunrise. It is an ephemeral gift of the political gods to be seized and exploited - but how?            Accordingly, Mulcair works to dispel the NDP's scary "socialist" image. At the same time, he wants to win votes from the Left wing of the Liberal Party and appeal to Red Tories disgusted by the negative atmospherics, the cheap populism and the openly anti-social justice policies of Harper's government. It's not an easy call: appealing to the Left of both opposing parties while trying to shuck off the scary socialist bogeyman! It's not surprising Mulcair's recent positions appear a bit contradictory..          Recently, for example, he announced his attention to work for a zero budget deficit as soon as possible. The paradox here is glaring! Here we have the "social democrat" Mulcair, taking a stance on fiscal policy to the right of the Liberal Trudeau! Will Mulcair's transparent opportunism cost him the election? (For the moment he has a slight lead, despite the vote splitting on the Left.) Mulcair is treading dangerous waters, given that, traditionally, a large part of the appeal of the NDP was their image as clean, honest, morally engaged players.           The NDP has recently made surprising gains in the polls (now slightly in the lead). This raises the risk of a split vote on the Left, allowing Harper to skittle down the middle to yet another term in office. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP accept the idea of a formal or informal coalition to unite the Left and defeat the Harper gang. Perhaps we need a proportional electoral system..

notes:

1- Keynesian deficit spending: simply put, governments should spend money in economic downturns in order to stimulate the economy. Thus, if Trudeau wins and holds to his word, he would invest in green energy projects (even if this meant running the federal budget in the red), creating both short term employment and long term fossil energy Independence.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm

Federal Election 2015: the politics of Improvisation (Part 1)

 abbreviations used:

CC - Climate Change
GW - Global Warming
NDP - New Democratic Party
 
       Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. After ten years in power, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is feeling the hot breath of scandal on his shoulder: senators accused of claiming rebates for living expenses they are not entitled to.. So he decided to bite the bullet and call an election before things got worse. The election will be 19 October, 2015.

        Like all contemporary politicians (or most, anyway..), Harper seeks power, either for its own sake or to implement some God-forsaken 18 - 19th century ideology (in Harper's case: the "Free Market" / neo-conservative idiotology imported from the United States)

The Real Issues: the four major challenges facing humanity at the dawn of the third millennium are

The Four Principles of Sustainable Economy or how to create a sustainable economy in conformity with the laws of

- physics (particularly thermodynamics)
- ecology (particularly protection of vital ecosystem services)
- social psychology (collective decision making)
- the ethical, spiritual dimension: what is the good life? what values to die / live for?


internal blog link: four-pillars-of-sustainable-economy

          So how do our current leaders measure up to the challenges we collectively face?

Stephen Harper: age 56, Master's degree in Economics, professional politician - federal Conservative Party, elected Prime Minister three times (into his 10th consecutive year)

  
         Stephen Harper's buzzwords: steady the course! "It's the economy, stupid".

         Harper, let's be honest, is the lapdog of the petroleum industry.

book-review: tar-sands-dirty-oil

         Harper, while still an Albertan provincial politician, appealed to populist and reactionary sentiment by claiming that Global Warming (GW) and Climate Change (CC) are part of a socialist plot to destroy the economies of the West.

harper's-letter-dismisses-kyoto-as-socialist-scheme

        Reality Check: As a PHYSICAL phenomenon - studied by Atmospheric Physics - GW / CC has diddly-squat to do with politics. As the sun shines equally on the good and the wicked, so GW / CC respects no political ideologies (or idiotologies). The politicization of GW / CC in North America is a cultural aberration, a folly, designed - constructed - to maximize the short turn profits of the fossil energy sector and its industrial / financial network: finance banking, heavy industrial infrastructure manufacturers (steel, pipelines, boilers, construction..) and associated service industries. One hardly need add that Big Coal / Oil / Gas and Nukes have a controlling, distorting influence in the flow of information reaching the public through their advertising contracts with the mass media.

https://theconversation.com/what-happened-to-climate-change-fox-news-and-the-us-elections-9814

        Harper, of course, is part of this "nexus of influence" designed to hinder the transition to a sustainable green energy / post-industrial economy. As one might expect from those great neo-con defenders of "democracy" and "liberty", Harper has done his share of suppression when it comes to earth scientists who dare to challenge the wisdom of his business-as-usual policy.

internal blog links: suppression of science in Canada under Harper

the-organisation-of-denial 

http://transparencycanada.blogspot.ca/2013/12/are-we-well-decadant.html

new-face-of-authoritarianism-in-Canada

are you a fanatic?

         Harper likes to present himself as a great economic strategist and pragmatist, rather than what he is: a narrow minded ideologue with an incredibly narrow tunnel vision of reality - economic, political, ecological.. For example, as an economic "strategist" he has managed to put all our eggs in the petroleum sector, neglecting the manufacturing sector (most especially, small and medium scale enterprises) and the emerging green energy sector. He has failed to meet the challenges and opportunities of the Post Cheap Fossil Energy Economy. In his ten years as Prime Minister he has (totally) failed to direct our national resources, talents and energy into vital sectors of the emerging economy: 

- green energy infrastructure (windpower, solar, tidal energy..)
- public transport, 
- energy conservation, 
- improved product design, 
- new service industries,
- small scale finance, 
- participatory public policy making, 
- decentralized decision making,
-  the revivification of local / regional economies,
-  the development of new and profitable expertises and skills, etc.

          Ten years is a long time, and, as a nation, we have nothing to show for it.

          Worse, Harper's tunnel vision has left Canada a diminished, less resilient nation, less able to adapt to the tsunami of change we are living through. Our international reputation as a fair and objective player has been shot to hell. Successive short-sighted governments - Liberal and Conservative - have reduced us to the level of buffoons on the world stage. It began with our failure to act on our Kyoto Accord Greenhouse Gas Reduction commitments - thanks to the Liberals under Jean Chrétien who hypocritically ratified the Kyoto Accord for that one! Later, the pathetic attempts of the Harper government to openly sabotage the Accord signaled that we were no longer in the progressive camp. Finally, Harper's kneejerk support of right wing Israeli government policies finished off whatever shards of reputation that might have remained. In the race to the bottom, Liberals have been about as guilty as Conservatives. The Conservatives are simply a bit more honest and open about what they stand for.

nytimes: the-closing-of-the-canadian-mind.html?

"The early polls show Mr. Harper trailing, but he’s beaten bad polls before. He has been prime minister for nearly a decade for a reason: He promised a steady and quiet life, undisturbed by painful facts. The Harper years have not been terrible; they’ve just been bland and purposeless. Mr. Harper represents the politics of willful ignorance. It has its attractions."
  
          Amen!