Senate reform meets climate change

I'm covering the reaction/outrage today over the Conservative senators' defeat of the climate-change bill. The Pembina Institute has been circulating a blog post that serves as good explanation to the fallout today. Because they seem to be having trouble with their website, I'm reposting it here, instead of just linking to it.

Canada’s only climate legislation defeated by government Senators

By Clare Demerse

Nov. 17, 2010

We got sad news last night about Canada’s Climate Change Accountability Act, a private member’s bill that could have helped move Canada into a leadership role in tackling global warming.

Before it even had a chance to be debated, the bill was defeated by Conservative Senators in a surprise vote.

MPs from all three opposition parties have supported the legislation, known as Bill C-311, so it passed its final vote in the House of Commons in May. Conservative MPs voted unanimously against it then and have opposed it every step of the way.

Late yesterday, after months of delay on discussing the bill, C-311 came up for a snap vote. It’s virtually unprecedented to hold a vote at that stage of considering legislation — before a bill has even been debated — and the move certainly took the bill’s sponsor by surprise.

The bill was defeated 43–32 along strict party lines (with the exception of Independent Senator Anne Cools, who voted with the government against the bill). More than 15 Liberals were absent from the Senate yesterday, as were two Progressive Conservatives and one Independent. Among those missing was the bill’s Progressive Conservative co-sponsor.

Pembina is a non-partisan think tank, but I don’t think there’s anything partisan about saying how disappointing yesterday’s vote was for us. C-311 would have set a science-based national greenhouse gas emissions target for Canada for 2050. It would then have required the government to adopt annual plans and implement policies to reach the target, and to report on their progress.

Anyone who’s serious about cutting greenhouse gas pollution would agree that we need a long-term goal and a transparent plan to meet it. Indeed, that’s exactly why the bill has won consistent support from all three opposition parties, who have passed nearly identical versions of the bill twice now (the first version was lost due to the 2008 election.) Polls have consistently shown that Canadians worry about climate change and want to see their government take stronger action to tackle it.

In the Senate, the bill was championed by a non-partisan duo of Alberta Senators, Liberal Grant Mitchell and Progressive Conservative Elaine McCoy. (The two House of Commons versions have been introduced by NDP MPs Jack Layton and Bruce Hyer.) Support for the bill came from environmental groups, youth, labour, and faith communities across Canada.

The loss of C-311 leaves Canada without any federal climate legislation on the table. Unless there’s a dramatic announcement, our government will head into the UN negotiations in Cancun later this month without any kind of a credible plan to meet its target, a point that columnist Jeffrey Simpson makes very clear in today’s Globe and Mail.

It would have been difficult to watch the Senate defeat this groundbreaking legislation under any circumstances. But to see it lost in this way is even tougher: C-311 was defeated without any debate, without the chance to call a single witness to explain what it offered, and at a moment when key supporters of the bill happened to be away from the Senate.

I think that Canadians deserved better. 

Comments

[Mike Bray]

Outrageous- no debate, just dirty tactics- Harper style. Defeat this dictator at the 1st opportunity.

[Rudy Haugeneder]

Some people believe man-caused climate change does not exist, and misuse information in a recent edition of the Scientific American.
The truth is:

"Misreading Climate Change on Scientific American

By Mariette DiChristina Oct 28, 2010 10:11 AM 27

We appreciate the attention that the November feature article "Climate Heretic," by Michael Lemonick, is receiving. But some have misread Scientific American's intent.

For instance, two sites, Climate Progress and FAIR, accuse Scientific American of having "jumped the shark" on climate.

In actuality, Scientific American reports on climate-related science in depth in nearly every issue and frequently online. You can see a sample list of past print and online-only articles at "Want to Learn More about Climate Change?," including coverage of carbon and climate back to 1959. Climate is the issue of our time. We covered the debate surrounding Judith Curry as a news event in this topic area—and as a way to foster discussion of climate issues in general. As is clear in the article, the vast majority of the scientific community—and Curry herself—believe the evidence supports the reality of anthropogenic climate change."

Clearly, not the Conservatives in the Senate.
Rudy Haugeneder
Victoria, BC

[aym]

totally disgusted with the senate. First it gets stacked full of Conservatives by Harper, who to tells his followers that he wants a more representative body, but in reality he has created a huge ideological block. My scorn knows no bounds.

[Dan Cummings]

"No debate" is the shrill cry. For shame. This bill started life in 2006 and has been debated ad nauseam in the years since. But also in the years since the whole foundation for claims of global warming has crumbled. The globe is not warming. The UN has been shown to have been engaged in global fraud, with false and manipulated data, bogus claims, and even the much-vaunted Chicago Carbon Exchange has shut down. The trail of deceit can be followed at www.NewsWatchCanada.ca/climategate.html and the many sites for which it provides links.

In the U.S. it has just been announced that the Cap and Trade Bill is dead upon the demands of newly elected West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (past Governor). So, we are again with the U.S. And given that air moves freely across the borders (some pretend it doesn't) that makes sense.

This Bill was a waste of time, but it would have been a waste of much more, our economy and our future. Thank goodness the chamber of sober second thought has come through for Canadians.

[scunny]

ENOUGH, EH?

This constitutes continued environmental sedition and all avenues, including the courts, should be explored as to how this government's grip might be loosened from the planet's throat.

CANADA is again shamed by the HARPER CULT.

[Dan Cummings]

"No debate" is the shrill cry. For shame. This bill started life in 2006 and has been debated ad nauseam in the years since.

But also in the years since the whole foundation for claims of global warming has crumbled. The globe is not warming. The

UN has been shown to have been engaged in global fraud, with false and manipulated data, bogus claims, and even the

much-vaunted Chicago Carbon Exchange has shut down. The trail of deceit can be followed at

www.NewsWatchCanada.ca/climategate.html and the many sites for which it provides links.
In the U.S. it has just been announced that the Cap and Trade Bill is dead upon the demands of newly elected West Virginia

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin (past Governor). So, we are again with the U.S. And given that air moves freely across the

borders (some pretend it doesn't) that makes sense.

This Bill was a waste of time, but it would have been a waste of much more, our economy and our future. Thank goodness

the chamber of sober second thought has come through for Canadians.

[Frank Docherty]

Global Warming??? ( http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/070711-mammoth-picture.html ) "The six-month-old female mammoth is the most well-preserved example yet found of the beasts, which lumbered across the Earth during the last Ice Age, 1.8 million to 11,500 years ago." In the year 2010, when the power goes out for 24 hours, we lose everything in the freezer. If "Global Warming" was a threat, in any way shape or form, we would never find a 2 MILLION-YEAR-OLD FROZEN ELEPHANT !!! If anybody has trouble grasping this concept, simply climb Mount Everest and count the frozen remains of our homo sapiens who never made it back to base camp!

[jad]

Perhaps if Liberal senators really feel strongly about this (and any other matters under debate) they might consider showing up for work more frequently.

[DavidNutzuki]

Wouldn’t a real environmentalist jump at the very suggestion that the CO2 effects are seen now to be little if any.? You know, for the kids sake. For the children’s sake.
If you had a cancer-like growth, would you want the doctors to say it is benign?
How can you Doomers not be ashamed of yourselves for hoping for this hell on Earth? Climate Changers were just pathetic car accident rubber-Neckers who like to watch the thrill.
History will show you Doomers denied all denier science as being dishonest. All of it. This can’t go on for another 24 years. Talk about unsustainable……………
Get ahead of the curve. The theory predicted anything from total unstoppable warming all the way down to little if any effects. THAT’S the theory and I’m betting few of you Doomers knew that. “unstoppable warming all the way down to little if any effects.” is the theory. Read it out loud to yourself. Even I agree with that “science“, and I’m a believer turned denier. Yes I as a denier agree that the effects will be “unstoppable warming all the way down to little if any effects.” The last 24 years of no climate crisis and failed promises agrees too. How do you prove a prediction to be real.? Add science plus journalism plus the fear loving masses and we get modern day witch burning.

[Martin Wills]

I can't believe the stupidity of some of these comments. Global warming is a fact. The only question is why? Is it natural, caused by changes that occur every few millenia, or is it caused by human activity?
In either case, it's not a good thing and we should be doing whatever we can to minimize its effects. The fact that these unelected senators, put there by Harper's patronage, killed a bill that had been passed by the Commons is just plain wrong.

[Anne Peterson]

How much is the government spending on paid apologists to defend them on discussion threads in the media? The upshot of that is that Canadians can safely disrgard any pro government comments, because they could be phoney.

My Harper hysterically stated that we could lose 'millions' of jobs. Speaks to his judgement alright. If the amount of tax money given to the oil companies was ever made public Canadians would be very angry. If the amount of tax money given to the oil companies was poured into geo thermal technology it would create '.millions' of jobs and it wouldn't poison the river that runs past my door. .

[Paul]

Most of these comments are the equivalent of saying "When I look out my window, I can see that the Earth is flat therefore the Earth is flat." You don't disprove climate change by seeing a corpse while mountain climbing.

[co2hound]

Dan - great incoherent comment! I haven't a clue what point or points you are trying to make.

I think we should roll the dice on this one. Let's crank up the CO2 and do the experiment. Some folks think CO2 will help plants to grow ... and a little heat won't be so bad. Give us extended summers.

As Randy Newman's song, Political Science says

"Let's drop the big one and see what happens."

[Paul Murphy]

We debate "ad nauseam" because we walk around in a thick, self-indulgent fog and risk leaving a mortally wounded globe for our youngsters to "handle(?)".

[Leslie Firth]

There is more than one important issue here. As far as I'm concerned, the tragedy is not so much in the content of the bill that was defeated as it is the method by which it was defeated. The precedent is set now for an unelected group of people to reject the recommendation of our elected representatives. How is this different from a dictatorship? This slow and insidious erosion of our democracy is truly frightening. I trust that Canadians are smarter than the Harper government gives them credit for and will remember this when the time comes for an election.

[Gabby in QC]

There's nothing much to say or do but laugh at people who accuse pro-Harper/pro-Conservative commenters of being "paid apologists" for the government.
Does that mean that all those who support the opposition’s POV are similarly paid by those parties?
Please grow up and accept the fact that not everyone shares your POV, nor is there a conspiracy to spread Conservative policy by legions of paid commenters.

[Anne Peterson]

Harper stated that he put money into his budget to hire people to rebut criticism on the discussion threads of maajor media outlets. That is not laughable.