flowery words or bold solutions?



In last Tuesdays Speech from the Throne Premier Campbell and the BC Liberal government unveiled what has been described by many as a "breathtaking and bold" plan to tackle the growing challenge of greenhouse gas emissions. The governments aggressive plan will see a reduction in emissions of 33% by the year 2020 and will require the concerted effort of provincial and municipal governments, industry and every British Columbian in order to be successful.

"I'm very encouraged by this." David Suzuki

The preliminary plan introduced on Tuesday has received the approval of government leaders and environmentalists alike including the Governors of all pacific coast states (most notably Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger), the Sierra Club and David Suzuki himself who has said "...I think this man (Campbell) is capable of making this kind of shift, and I have great hopes for it.?
In fact, unless I've missed someone the only group slow to accept the Liberals plan of action has been... you guessed it, Carole James and the BC NDP. What a surprise!

"The fact that this government has even embraced the notion of a target is a really good sign." Karen Campbell, staff lawyer for the Pembina Institute.

This is odd however considering the words of Vancouver-Hastings MLA and NDP environment critic Shane Simpson who told News 1130 prior to the Speech from the Throne that "...they (the NDP) will be looking for meaningful action from the government and, if its there we will support it". Interesting! The government has promised to do its part to fight global warming and climate change by, among other things:

• extending the $2000 tax incentive to anyone buying a hybrid vehicle.


• helping and encouraging individuals to make their homes more energy efficient.


• ensuring that all electricity produced in the province has net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2016.


• requiring 100% carbon sequestration for future coal-fired energy projects.


• introducing and supporting anti-idling measures for commercial vehicles.


• reducing congestion on lower mainland highways through the provincial Gateway Program and introducing a toll on the twinned Port Mann bridge.


• phasing in new, aggressive tailpipe emission standards.


• leasing or purchasing hybrid vehicles for government use.


• reducing energy consumption and emissions in the public sector.


• encouraging personal choices that are sensible to the environment.
  

"I am pleased that British Columbia has committed to joining the fight against climate change." California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

I don't know about you but all of this sure looks like "meaningful action" to me. So where is the support of the NDP as promised by Shane Simpson? Carole James calls the governments plan "flowery words" and accuses the premier of "grabbing onto the issue of the day." Ms. James says that Premier Campbell has a poor record when it comes to following through. This is interesting when you consider that The BC Liberals have already pledged nearly half a million dollars towards projects that directly reduce our footprint on the environment (these projects include the Green Cities Project, Hydrogen highway, Localmotion fund and more) and much more in projects that will indirectly reduce the occurrence of climate change.

"Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications for socialist principles." NDP MLA Corky Evans August 29, 2006

How does this compare with the NDP? Lets look at their stance on energy for starters. Shane Simpson is adamant in his call for government to reject any proposals for coal-fired energy. A week ago I read a piece where Carole James rejected "conventional" coal-fired energy projects but I do note that she is now against all forms of coal energy. As environment critic I suppose that it is reasonable to expect Mr. Simpson's skepticism in this area but how does this explain his position on environmentally clean "run of the river" projects like the one proposed for Ashlu Creek? Shane is against Ashlu creek (despite the fact that the project is supported by such groups as the Squamish Nation), primarily because the NDP does not like the idea of private ownership of energy. No matter how green it is. His stance with Ashlu would seem to put him at odds with what his responsibilities should be in respect to the environment as a critic.

"I will say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late '90s, was not good on climate change..." MLA Michael Sather, Hansard, April 5, 2006

Never mind the type of vehicle that the Leader of the Opposition drives and forget about the NDP's historical position calling environmentalists the enemies of the province. The NDP record on the environment leaves me wondering who has really "grabbed onto the issue of the day".

Within its opening paragraphs the throne speech asks "What can we do today to secure the future of our children and grandchildren?" This is a very good question. The speech calls for partnership and action to meet the objectives of a changing world and Shane Simpson has said that the NDP would support a good plan. Since almost everyone has said that this plan is a good one you have to ask what happened to the support? This session of the legislature isn't even a week old and the finger pointing by the opposition has already begun. This should be an interesting year. Stay tuned!