Hydro-Québec’s plans to power New York City reignites historic concerns
Despite Hydro-Québec’s history of environmental devastation and exploitation of Indigenous communities, the crown utility is promoting its growing collaboration with First Nations to promote expansion into markets in the United States.
Hydro-Québec received final approval April 14 to supply about 20% of New York City’s annual electricity needs via the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE) transmission line that would travel 545 km underground from Quebec to the borough of Queens. The Quebec portion of the CHPE will be jointly owned by the Mohawk Council of Kahnawake, securing the community economic benefits for 40 years.
“The Champlain Hudson Power Express is a game changer,” Mohawk Council Grand Chief Kahsennenhawe Sky-Deer stated in a press release. “We are ensuring Indigenous people have a seat at the table as business partners and have a voice in the overall economy moving forward.”
With the city under pressure to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, which have provided nearly 90% of its power since a nearby nuclear plant was closed last year, New York is touting hydropower as a clean energy alternative. With permits in place and the support of city and state leaders, the $4 billion CHPE project is seen as the most readily available solution.
However, the project faces stiff resistance from environmental groups and Canadian Indigenous leaders. Organizations like Sierra Club and Riverkeeper argue the CHPE will squeeze out more energy-efficient local options, dredge up pollutants in the Hudson River and further damage Indigenous communities.
A coalition of five First Nations – Lac Simon, Kitcisakik and Abitiwinni (Anishnabeg Nation), Wemotaci (Atikamekw Nation) and Pessamit (Innu Nation) – that opposed similar export schemes to Maine and Massachusetts, wrote to New York deputy mayor Dean Fuleihan last May denouncing the project.
“There is a direct relation between the increased demand for electricity and their impact on our traditional activities and rights,” read their letter. “Not a single impact assessment has been carried out for the construction of 33 power stations in our traditional territories, which generate 36% of Hydro-Québec’s total capacity.”
Activists accuse the power giant of “greenwashing” its environmental impact. Decaying vegetation from dammed rivers causes methane, disrupting the natural carbon cycle, and the harmful neurotoxin methylmercury, which builds up in fish and other wildlife, disproportionately affecting Indigenous people up the food chain.
“In our eyes, it’s not all that clean,” said one of the coalition’s signatories, Lucien Wabanonik of Lac Simon. “It has major impacts on climate change that they don’t say when they speak to people in the States. We’ve been struggling for some time to at least have some agreements or compensation to help our people live on the land.”
Decades ago, the former Anishnabeg Grand Chief witnessed Lac Simon and other First Nations lands exploited by the corporation without consent or compensation, depriving members of their territory and way of life. While his community continues to rely on diesel generators, the nearby hydro reservoir that flooded their land sends power to consumers in southern Quebec and the United States.
“They never consulted us first, we were never compensated and don’t have any agreement yet to find solutions,” Wabanonik told the Nation. “There are a lot of things we need to talk about if they want to have an agreement with us. We’re open to real, long-term solutions because at this time we have nothing.”
While the Lac Simon community hasn’t benefited from hydro expansion, the coalition’s “Hydro-Québec Clash” website has stopped being updated because Wemotaci is currently in negotiations with the company. There’s also been less criticism from the Innu Nation since the 200 MW “Apuiat” wind-farm joint project was announced on their territory last year.
Although recently wind projects are presented as win-win for the planet and Indigenous communities, they represent a relatively small proportion of the power necessary to appease the Northeast’s growing energy demands.
Champlain Hudson’s opponents in New York worry that Hydro-Québec’s contract doesn’t commit it to delivering power during winter months, when electricity is most needed for Canadian consumers. This past winter, the company asked people to voluntarily use less electricity during the coldest days when demand was highest.
With Quebec’s hydro demand expected to grow by 20 TWh by 2029 and 100 TWh by 2050 – half of today’s output – the province isn’t likely to be able to meet peak demand by 2027. Hydro-Québec CEO Sophie Brochu recently admitted that the company hasn’t ruled out building new dams and is already evaluating potential sites.
“They’ll probably have to make dams or increase capacity of old dams,” speculated Wabanonik. “They asked people to diminish their hydro consumption this winter and now they say they have capacity to sell to the States. Hydro-Québec says two things at the same time – which one is reality?”
Although the New York City contract stipulates that electricity can’t come from new dams and includes provisions requiring consultations with Indigenous communities for construction of new transmission lines or refurbishments that might cause environmental impacts, questions remain about how Hydro-Québec can meet demand without increasing capacity.
Similar concerns contributed to Maine rejecting its transmission-line project in a referendum last November despite a publicity campaign reported to cost $20 million. If Hydro-Québec loses its case in the state’s Supreme Court, it could add more than a half-billion dollars to its existing nearly $50 billion debt.
A previous Hydro-Québec attempt to sell electricity to New York state was thwarted in the 1990s when a Cree Odeyak was paddled to the Big Apple to oppose the proposed damming of the Great Whale River. In 2019, New York officials toured and consulted with Indigenous communities to avoid repeating history.
Now, environmental activists in New York say there is still time to organize resistance before the Canada Energy Regulator approves the project.
“Hydro-Québec needs to understand the impact of its structures and that things need to change in many ways,” Wabanonik asserted. “Unity and collaboration among neighbouring First Nations is something that has worked well in the past.”
Patrick Quinn, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, The Nation
Wednesday, May 18, 2022
DIS-UNITED CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney intends to step down as UCP leader
globalnewsdigital -
© THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney provides details on sustainable helicopter air ambulance funding in Calgary, Alta., Friday, March 25, 2022.
Premier Jason Kenney announced his intention to step down as leader of the United Conservative Party on Wednesday night.
He announced the move even though his leadership still maintains approval from just over half of the members of his party, the UCP announced in a livestream Wednesday night.
READ MORE: Kenney dismisses need for big number in UCP leadership review
When asked if they approve of Kenney as leader, 51.4 per cent said yes while 48.6 per cent said no.
In all, 34,298 votes were passed.
Kenney said that while the results would not automatically trigger a leadership election, they were not what he hoped for nor expected.
"It is clearly not adequate support to continue on as leader," he said.
READ MORE: Kenney seriously considered leaving his post before deciding to fight for his job: audio recording
Kenney said the vote shows he doesn't have enough support as leader. He said he will push for a leadership vote to be held in a timely fashion.
"It's clear that the past two years were deeply divisive for our province, our party and our caucus."
More to come...
Video: Why all Albertans should be paying attention to the UCP leadership review
Premier Jason Kenney announced his intention to step down as leader of the United Conservative Party on Wednesday night.
He announced the move even though his leadership still maintains approval from just over half of the members of his party, the UCP announced in a livestream Wednesday night.
READ MORE: Kenney dismisses need for big number in UCP leadership review
When asked if they approve of Kenney as leader, 51.4 per cent said yes while 48.6 per cent said no.
In all, 34,298 votes were passed.
Kenney said that while the results would not automatically trigger a leadership election, they were not what he hoped for nor expected.
"It is clearly not adequate support to continue on as leader," he said.
READ MORE: Kenney seriously considered leaving his post before deciding to fight for his job: audio recording
Kenney said the vote shows he doesn't have enough support as leader. He said he will push for a leadership vote to be held in a timely fashion.
"It's clear that the past two years were deeply divisive for our province, our party and our caucus."
More to come...
Video: Why all Albertans should be paying attention to the UCP leadership review
Ashley Joannou , Lisa Johnson -
© Provided by Edmonton JournalJason Kenney meets supporters after speaking at Spruce Meadows in Calgary on Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
Jason Kenney is stepping down as leader of the United Conservative Party and will serve as premier of Alberta until a new leader is sworn in.
Only 51.4 per cent of the more than 34,000 mail-in ballots cast in the leadership review voted to keep Kenney in charge of the UCP he helped form, party president Cynthia Moore and chief returning officer Rick Orman announced via livestream Wednesday.
Kenney said even though that meets the party’s threshold of a majority, it’s “clearly” not enough support for him to continue as leader.
“The result is not what I hoped for, or frankly expected,” Kenney told supporters at a gathering in Calgary after the results were announced. With just over a year before the next election, he said he has asked party executives to schedule a leadership contest as early as possible.
“I’m sorry, but friends, I truly believe that we need to move forward united, we need to put the past behind us, and our members — a large number of our members — have asked for an opportunity to clear the air through a leadership election,” he said.
“It’s clear that the past two years were deeply divisive for our province, our party and our caucus, but it is my fervent hope that in the months to come we all move on past the division of COVID,” Kenney said.
Kenney’s ousting comes after more than a year of infighting including very open and public dissent from party members and his own caucus as the government managed a global pandemic coupled with a period of plummeting oil prices.
Party rules say the UCP caucus is required to name an interim leader “at the earliest possible opportunity.” The next caucus meeting is scheduled for Thursday in Calgary.
The party will then form a formal leadership election committee to set out the rules for finding a new leader. The interim leader cannot run for leader in that election.
Fort McMurray-Lac La Biche MLA and former Wildrose leader Brian Jean, who campaigned in a byelection on a platform to get Kenney out of office, has expressed interest in the premier’s job, as has another former Wildrose leader, Danielle Smith.
© Provided by Edmonton JournalJason Kenney speaks at an event at Spruce Meadows in Calgary on Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
In a statement Wednesday, Jean thanked Kenney for his service and confirmed he will run for leader. He said his campaign “will demonstrate how we can do things differently, together, to recapture the enthusiastic support of the over one million Albertans who elected us in 2019.”
In a statement of her own, Smith also thanked Kenney.
“The result we have witnessed today is a truly grassroots resolution. The membership of the United Conservative Party is hungry for a leader that will be responsive and fight for the interests of Alberta,” she said.
It’s believed that there are others who will throw their hats into the ring given the opportunity.
NDP Opposition Leader Rachel Notley thanked Kenney for his service to the province.
“There are obviously many things about which we don’t agree, but that doesn’t negate the time and sacrifice that goes into taking on the role of premier,” Notley said on Twitter. “The work is never easy. The days are long and often difficult, as I’m sure today is. I wish Jason the best.”
“He looked like he was going to tenaciously cling to this, no matter what, into the next election because he seemed convinced he was the only person who could lead the party to victory. He saw it as his party,” said Williams.
“Jason Kenney managed something remarkable in persuading (the PC’s and the Wildrose) to come together, but he made a lot of promises that he couldn’t keep,” said Williams, referring to opposition from party members who valued grassroots democracy.
“I think his political career is at an end,” said Williams.
Kenney arrived on the Alberta political scene in 2016, already well known as a former federal cabinet minister under prime minister Stephen Harper.
Kenney’s political legacy in the province was cemented when he helped orchestrate the merger of the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties, effectively uniting the right in Alberta.
He campaigned for and won the leadership of the PC party in 2017 on the platform to merge with the then-opposition Wildrose.
Kenney argued that multiple right-leaning parties were to blame for splitting the vote and giving Notley’s NDP a majority in 2015 after decades of conservative governments.
Kenney would go on to beat Jean and current Jobs, Economy and Innovation Minister Doug Schweitzer to become leader of the newly-formed United Conservative Party that would win a sizeable majority in the 2019 provincial election on a promise of “jobs, the economy and pipelines.”
By early 2020 Alberta was dealing with the global COVID-19 pandemic at the same time as oil prices turned negative. Kenney has faced criticism from both those who believe he did not do enough to slow the spread of COVID-19 and those who believed the restrictions went too far.
In early 2021, 16 UCP MLAs, representing mostly rural ridings, signed a public letter arguing that closing dine-in service in restaurants and lowering capacity for retail stores and gyms is the “wrong decision,” even as COVID-19 variant cases surged in Alberta.
Months later a now-former vice president of the party would call for Kenney’s resignation claiming that he had become a threat to the party after losing the public’s trust during the pandemic.
The infighting was enough to push Kenney to promise an early leadership review but when more than 15,000 people registered to vote at the in-person event scheduled for April in Red Deer, the party changed that to a mail-in ballot system.
That led to accusations of the rules being torqued in Kenney’s favour and suggestions it opened the door to cheating.
Correspondence obtained by The Canadian Press indicates Elections Alberta is investigating allegations of possible illegal bulk buying of party memberships.
As Alberta’s economy began to recover and oil prices climbed high enough to help the province project a balanced budget this year, Kenney pushed back against his critics, framing himself as an experienced leader who knows how to win elections.
He unapologetically called some of his opponents “lunatics” and warned that without him the United Conservative Party risks becoming home for those with extreme and intolerant views.
Alberta’s MLAs are currently on a constituency break and will not return to sit in the legislature until May 24.
Carson Jerema: Jason Kenney quits as Alberta's conservative movement eats itself
Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party has eaten itself.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney responds to the results of the United Conservative Party leadership review in Calgary on May 18, 2022.
The dismal 51.4 per cent approval rating that led Premier Jason Kenney to step down Wednesday night is a victory for a long-percolating revolt, mostly coming from the party’s right wing. But this is no win for conservative politics in Alberta and could signal the movement’s shift further away from where voters are comfortable.
Kenney’s handling of the COVID pandemic irritated the more conservative elements of his caucus, who had been publicly criticizing him and calling for his resignation for months. While some of the dissent came from corners that thought Kenney wasn’t doing enough to quell the spread of COVID-19, it was driven chiefly by those who thought he was doing too much.
This is a faction that demands nothing less than ideological purity, with any deviation dismissed as unforgivable, even traitorous, socialism.
Despite the malcontents, Kenney ran among the most consistently conservative governments in Canada in years. Whereas Ontario’s Doug Ford has been accused of governing from the centre even though he campaigned on the right, Kenney has more or less stuck to his principles.
This has included cutting corporate taxes by a third, taking a machete to red tape, reforming union rules so members have to opt in to contribute dues to political campaigning, expanding charter schools and a planned return to a flat tax. His government flattened spending and brought in Alberta’s first balanced budget in 14 years. Many of these policies have been controversial, no more so than the government’s overhaul of the school curriculum to place a heavy emphasis on facts and memorization. But the controversy was often confined to the left, to the Opposition NDP and its supporters.
By any measure, Kenney was a stridently conservative premier. As former Harper advisor Sean Speer argued in the Post recently, “the Kenney government has effectively turned Alberta into Canada’s conservative policy laboratory and in so doing is expanding the country’s other centre-right governments’ sense of what is possible.”
Even under COVID, Kenney attempted, often clumsily, to follow his libertarian instincts and lean first on guidance and encouraging personal responsibility, before bringing in restrictions. This led to multiple embarrassing comedowns, most prominently when the complete lifting of restrictions last summer led directly into some of the harshest pandemic rules the province had seen.
For the most part, however, Alberta used a light touch to control the spread of the virus. Those whose main complaint was that Kenney wasn’t pure enough may soon regret forcing him out of the premier’s office.
All last year, Kenney tolerated open dissent from critics, waiting weeks, or months, before turfing the most vocal of them from caucus. Those close to Kenney told me at the time that he was following his genuine belief that caucus should be free to speak. He hoped by offering an outlet for dissent, it would serve as a pressure valve.
Instead of endearing his critics to him, this approach to caucus management only emboldened them. In the fall, a group of angry MLAs were expected to bring a vote of non-confidence, but they lost their nerve when it was clear they didn’t have the votes. But after a group of riding associations requested it, a planned fall leadership review was moved to the spring.
Somewhat controversially, the party executive altered the rules to make it a mail in ballot, which prompted howls the change was made for Kenney’s benefit. Whether that was true or not, it clearly didn’t matter. The unhappiness the party membership had with the premier was evident.
With Kenney gone, there is no guarantee a more idealogical conservative leader will take over. A more moderate leader could force a split, while someone too far to the right may be unappealing to the average voter.
If it was a good night for anyone, it was Opposition Leader Rachel Notley.
Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party has eaten itself.
Alberta Premier Jason Kenney responds to the results of the United Conservative Party leadership review in Calgary on May 18, 2022.
The dismal 51.4 per cent approval rating that led Premier Jason Kenney to step down Wednesday night is a victory for a long-percolating revolt, mostly coming from the party’s right wing. But this is no win for conservative politics in Alberta and could signal the movement’s shift further away from where voters are comfortable.
Kenney’s handling of the COVID pandemic irritated the more conservative elements of his caucus, who had been publicly criticizing him and calling for his resignation for months. While some of the dissent came from corners that thought Kenney wasn’t doing enough to quell the spread of COVID-19, it was driven chiefly by those who thought he was doing too much.
This is a faction that demands nothing less than ideological purity, with any deviation dismissed as unforgivable, even traitorous, socialism.
Despite the malcontents, Kenney ran among the most consistently conservative governments in Canada in years. Whereas Ontario’s Doug Ford has been accused of governing from the centre even though he campaigned on the right, Kenney has more or less stuck to his principles.
This has included cutting corporate taxes by a third, taking a machete to red tape, reforming union rules so members have to opt in to contribute dues to political campaigning, expanding charter schools and a planned return to a flat tax. His government flattened spending and brought in Alberta’s first balanced budget in 14 years. Many of these policies have been controversial, no more so than the government’s overhaul of the school curriculum to place a heavy emphasis on facts and memorization. But the controversy was often confined to the left, to the Opposition NDP and its supporters.
By any measure, Kenney was a stridently conservative premier. As former Harper advisor Sean Speer argued in the Post recently, “the Kenney government has effectively turned Alberta into Canada’s conservative policy laboratory and in so doing is expanding the country’s other centre-right governments’ sense of what is possible.”
Even under COVID, Kenney attempted, often clumsily, to follow his libertarian instincts and lean first on guidance and encouraging personal responsibility, before bringing in restrictions. This led to multiple embarrassing comedowns, most prominently when the complete lifting of restrictions last summer led directly into some of the harshest pandemic rules the province had seen.
For the most part, however, Alberta used a light touch to control the spread of the virus. Those whose main complaint was that Kenney wasn’t pure enough may soon regret forcing him out of the premier’s office.
All last year, Kenney tolerated open dissent from critics, waiting weeks, or months, before turfing the most vocal of them from caucus. Those close to Kenney told me at the time that he was following his genuine belief that caucus should be free to speak. He hoped by offering an outlet for dissent, it would serve as a pressure valve.
Instead of endearing his critics to him, this approach to caucus management only emboldened them. In the fall, a group of angry MLAs were expected to bring a vote of non-confidence, but they lost their nerve when it was clear they didn’t have the votes. But after a group of riding associations requested it, a planned fall leadership review was moved to the spring.
Somewhat controversially, the party executive altered the rules to make it a mail in ballot, which prompted howls the change was made for Kenney’s benefit. Whether that was true or not, it clearly didn’t matter. The unhappiness the party membership had with the premier was evident.
With Kenney gone, there is no guarantee a more idealogical conservative leader will take over. A more moderate leader could force a split, while someone too far to the right may be unappealing to the average voter.
If it was a good night for anyone, it was Opposition Leader Rachel Notley.
Braid: After epic political success, Kenney is defeated by his own party
Don Braid, Calgary Herald -
© Provided by Calgary Herald
Don Braid, Calgary Herald -
© Provided by Calgary Herald
Jason Kenney speaks at an event at Spruce Meadows in Calgary on Wednesday, May 18, 2022.
There was only one way to upstage the hockey Battle of Alberta. Premier Jason Kenney found it, to his sorrow, by saying he will step off the stage entirely.
Despite predictions of a solid victory, only 51.4 per cent of more than 34,000 UCP members who voted in the leadership review said they approved of him.
Kenney had previously said that “50 per cent plus one” is the majority in a democracy, implying that was enough for him to continue.
To many observers it seemed he was quitting cold. But late Wednesday, it was confirmed that he intends to stay on as party leader until the next leader is chosen.
It’s even possible that he could run for the job again. That possibility did not get a denial from his staff Wednesday night.
In 2006, Ralph Klein stayed on for months after scoring 55 per cent approval. But those were different times. Despite problems with the party, Klein remained popular with the public.
Kenney’s effort to stay on will draw bitter opposition from his opponents in caucus and beyond. It will likely start Thursday, when many of them are expecting to vote on a caretaker leaders and premier.
Technically, Kenney has a case for staying on the job. He wasn’t actually defeated. He can argue that his resignation as party leader is voluntary and, like Klein, he gets to time it.
Kenney asnnopunced his intention to resign in a dramatic way , first saying he had his majority but suddenly adding: “It is clearly not adequate support to carry on as leader . . . I truly believe we need to move forward together, we need to put the past behind us.”
The small gathering of his strongest loyalists, an invited group that didn’t include many UCP ministers and MLAs, was shocked both by the result and the resignation.
Kenney asked the UCP board to set a date for a new leadership election.
On Thursday at least some UCP MLAs were expecting to carry out will carry out one of the most serious functions a government caucus ever exercises, choosing a new leader and premier.
That’s what happened in 2014 when Premier Alison Redford quit immediately as both leader and premier. Vetern Minister Dave Hancock became the caretaker premier.
On Tuesday I named several UCP members whose names were already being mentioned for the caretaker role.
They include Nate Glubish (Service Alberta); Demetrios Nicolaides (Advanced Education), Rajan Sawhney (Transportation); Ric McIver (Municipal Affairs); Nathan Neudorf (UCP caucus chair); and Sonya Savage (Energy).
The person who gets the caretaker job will have the critical task of running the party and government while restoring an image of sensible competence and unity.
But now, it appears that Kenney prevent that from happening, or try to. There will be furious backlash from MLA who think he needs to leave immediately for the good of the party.
Clearly, there will be a leadership election. Kenney said it’s necessary. What he did not say is whether or not he’ll be a candidate. Nothing in the UCP rules would prevent him from resigning, and then running.
There will be a struggle over whether the UCP edges more to the centre, or veers sharply to the right. Many of the MLAs who opposed Kenney prefer the latter.
New MLA Brian Jean will run. Danielle Smith will likely join in, too. They’re well-known voices from the party’s past, but many members will want to move beyond the old merger struggles.
© Provided by Calgary Herald
There was only one way to upstage the hockey Battle of Alberta. Premier Jason Kenney found it, to his sorrow, by saying he will step off the stage entirely.
Despite predictions of a solid victory, only 51.4 per cent of more than 34,000 UCP members who voted in the leadership review said they approved of him.
Kenney had previously said that “50 per cent plus one” is the majority in a democracy, implying that was enough for him to continue.
To many observers it seemed he was quitting cold. But late Wednesday, it was confirmed that he intends to stay on as party leader until the next leader is chosen.
It’s even possible that he could run for the job again. That possibility did not get a denial from his staff Wednesday night.
In 2006, Ralph Klein stayed on for months after scoring 55 per cent approval. But those were different times. Despite problems with the party, Klein remained popular with the public.
Kenney’s effort to stay on will draw bitter opposition from his opponents in caucus and beyond. It will likely start Thursday, when many of them are expecting to vote on a caretaker leaders and premier.
Technically, Kenney has a case for staying on the job. He wasn’t actually defeated. He can argue that his resignation as party leader is voluntary and, like Klein, he gets to time it.
Kenney asnnopunced his intention to resign in a dramatic way , first saying he had his majority but suddenly adding: “It is clearly not adequate support to carry on as leader . . . I truly believe we need to move forward together, we need to put the past behind us.”
The small gathering of his strongest loyalists, an invited group that didn’t include many UCP ministers and MLAs, was shocked both by the result and the resignation.
Kenney asked the UCP board to set a date for a new leadership election.
On Thursday at least some UCP MLAs were expecting to carry out will carry out one of the most serious functions a government caucus ever exercises, choosing a new leader and premier.
That’s what happened in 2014 when Premier Alison Redford quit immediately as both leader and premier. Vetern Minister Dave Hancock became the caretaker premier.
On Tuesday I named several UCP members whose names were already being mentioned for the caretaker role.
They include Nate Glubish (Service Alberta); Demetrios Nicolaides (Advanced Education), Rajan Sawhney (Transportation); Ric McIver (Municipal Affairs); Nathan Neudorf (UCP caucus chair); and Sonya Savage (Energy).
The person who gets the caretaker job will have the critical task of running the party and government while restoring an image of sensible competence and unity.
But now, it appears that Kenney prevent that from happening, or try to. There will be furious backlash from MLA who think he needs to leave immediately for the good of the party.
Clearly, there will be a leadership election. Kenney said it’s necessary. What he did not say is whether or not he’ll be a candidate. Nothing in the UCP rules would prevent him from resigning, and then running.
There will be a struggle over whether the UCP edges more to the centre, or veers sharply to the right. Many of the MLAs who opposed Kenney prefer the latter.
New MLA Brian Jean will run. Danielle Smith will likely join in, too. They’re well-known voices from the party’s past, but many members will want to move beyond the old merger struggles.
© Provided by Calgary Herald
Brian Jean and Jason Kenney shake hands after Kenney’s leadership victory on Oct. 28, 2017.
Jobs Minister Doug Schweitzer’s name often comes up. So does Finance Minister Travis Toews. Other campaigns will take shape very quickly.
Whoever wins, this remains a dangerous moment for the UCP.
The Progressive Conservatives never regained winning form after Premier Alison Redford quit in 2014. Dave Hancock became the caretaker and Jim Prentice the premier. But the NDP won the 2015 election, partly because of the long years of PC division.
Kenney’s biggest mistake, I think, was to preach party unity even as he attacked people on the fringe as lunatics and radicals.
He wasn’t talking about moderate UCP members who might disagree with him, but a lot of those people thought he was. That might have been the difference between 51.4 per cent and a survivable number.
Kenney’s political accomplishments have been remarkable. With ex-prime minister Stephen Harper’s backing, he launched a drive to unify the PCs and Wildrose, which led him to first win the PC leadership.
That was an awkward fit — Kenney owed far more to Social Credit than the PCs — but it led him directly to the negotiated union with Wildrose.
Then came the UCP leadership, followed by the 2019 election and premier’s office. Nobody had ever done anything like it in Alberta politics.
On Wednesday, Kenney suffered a setback he considered serious enough to leave the party leadership, eventually.
But that does not mean he’s done with governing for many more months, and even trying a comeback.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald.
Twitter: @DonBraid
Jobs Minister Doug Schweitzer’s name often comes up. So does Finance Minister Travis Toews. Other campaigns will take shape very quickly.
Whoever wins, this remains a dangerous moment for the UCP.
The Progressive Conservatives never regained winning form after Premier Alison Redford quit in 2014. Dave Hancock became the caretaker and Jim Prentice the premier. But the NDP won the 2015 election, partly because of the long years of PC division.
Kenney’s biggest mistake, I think, was to preach party unity even as he attacked people on the fringe as lunatics and radicals.
He wasn’t talking about moderate UCP members who might disagree with him, but a lot of those people thought he was. That might have been the difference between 51.4 per cent and a survivable number.
Kenney’s political accomplishments have been remarkable. With ex-prime minister Stephen Harper’s backing, he launched a drive to unify the PCs and Wildrose, which led him to first win the PC leadership.
That was an awkward fit — Kenney owed far more to Social Credit than the PCs — but it led him directly to the negotiated union with Wildrose.
Then came the UCP leadership, followed by the 2019 election and premier’s office. Nobody had ever done anything like it in Alberta politics.
On Wednesday, Kenney suffered a setback he considered serious enough to leave the party leadership, eventually.
But that does not mean he’s done with governing for many more months, and even trying a comeback.
Don Braid’s column appears regularly in the Herald.
Twitter: @DonBraid
CANADA
Parliament creates day to remember Tamil genocide in Sri LankaOTTAWA — Canada's Parliament has created a day to recognize the genocide of Tamil people in Sri Lanka.
Parliament unanimously adopted the motion to make May 18 of each year Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day.
Liberal MP Gary Anandasangaree put forward the motion on Wednesday.
Anandasangaree, the MP for Scarborough-Rouge Park, says in a statement that Canada became the first national Parliament in the world to create such a day.
He says the passed motion is the result of years of work by the Tamil community, survivors and their loved ones.
Anandasangaree says he knows much work lies ahead to make sure those responsible for the "atrocities" are held to account.
He says, "I hope this will give some solace to those who are impacted and traumatized by the genocide."
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 18, 2022.
This story was produced with the financial assistance of the Meta and Canadian Press News Fellowship.
The Canadian Press
Sri Lanka honours Tamil war-dead after 13 years
Anti-government demonstrators gather in remembrance of the thousands of minority Tamil civilians killed in the decades-long separatist war
Anti-government demonstrators gather in remembrance of the thousands of minority Tamil civilians killed in the decades-long separatist war
(AFP/ISHARA S. KODIKARA)
Amal JAYASINGHE
Wed, May 18, 2022,
Thousands of Tamils killed in Sri Lanka's decades-long separatist war were commemorated on Wednesday for the first time outside the minority's heartland in the north and east of the country.
Clergy from Buddhist, Hindu and Christian communities offered prayers in Colombo and lit a clay lamp for those who perished between 1972 and May 2009 when the fighting ended.
The ceremony coincided with the 13th anniversary of the ending of hostilities.
"This is highly symbolic and very important for Tamils," legislator Dharmalingam Sithadthan, an MP from the northern Tamil heartland of Jaffna, told AFP.
"In previous years, there were private memorials held in secret, but this public event is highly welcome."
Any remembrance of Tamil war victims had been banned under Sri Lanka's powerful Rajapaksa family which is currently under siege over the country's dire economic crisis.
The head of the separatist Tamil Tiger movement, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was shot dead by security forces on May 18, 2009, bringing a formal end to the bloody ethnic war.
Current President Gotabaya Rajapaksa led the government's military campaign against the Tigers as the head of the defence ministry under his president brother Mahinda.
Mahinda stepped down as prime minister last week after weeks of protests over severe shortages of food, fuel and medicines.
The government defaulted on its $51 billion foreign debt last month as it ran out of dollars to finance even the most essential imports.
The country's main Tamil party, the Tamil National Alliance, said the commemoration showed that the country's majority Sinhalese were willing to support reconciliation after decades of ethnic war.
"This gives us a lot of hope and I hope that Tamil people will also reciprocate," TNA spokesman M. A. Sumanthiran told AFP. "There may be pitfalls along the way, but this is a very good start."
- Porridge feast -
On Wednesday, volunteers offered porridge to passers-by as a symbol of the humble food that tens of thousands of Tamils were left with during the final stages of the war.
"The kanji (porridge) was the life-saving food for Tamil people in the last stages of the war," a Hindu priest said at the ceremony. "They struggled in the midst of shelling and bombing and underwent untold suffering."
Government forces imposed an economic embargo, ordered civilians into what they called "no-fire zones" and allegedly bombarded them killing an estimated 40,000 Tamils.
Successive Sri Lankan governments have denied allegations that troops committed war crimes but have refused to allow any independent investigation.
Rights activist Mari de Silva said she hoped Wednesday's commemoration would lead to ethnic reconciliation in the Sinhalese-majority nation.
"I sincerely hope this is also a first step towards real reconciliation in Lanka and that we can join the call for justice and accountability," she said on Twitter.
The UN Human Rights Council last year set up a mechanism to preserve evidence of war crimes in Sri Lanka so that prosecutions could take place in the future.
aj/ssy
Amal JAYASINGHE
Wed, May 18, 2022,
Thousands of Tamils killed in Sri Lanka's decades-long separatist war were commemorated on Wednesday for the first time outside the minority's heartland in the north and east of the country.
Clergy from Buddhist, Hindu and Christian communities offered prayers in Colombo and lit a clay lamp for those who perished between 1972 and May 2009 when the fighting ended.
The ceremony coincided with the 13th anniversary of the ending of hostilities.
"This is highly symbolic and very important for Tamils," legislator Dharmalingam Sithadthan, an MP from the northern Tamil heartland of Jaffna, told AFP.
"In previous years, there were private memorials held in secret, but this public event is highly welcome."
Any remembrance of Tamil war victims had been banned under Sri Lanka's powerful Rajapaksa family which is currently under siege over the country's dire economic crisis.
The head of the separatist Tamil Tiger movement, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was shot dead by security forces on May 18, 2009, bringing a formal end to the bloody ethnic war.
Current President Gotabaya Rajapaksa led the government's military campaign against the Tigers as the head of the defence ministry under his president brother Mahinda.
Mahinda stepped down as prime minister last week after weeks of protests over severe shortages of food, fuel and medicines.
The government defaulted on its $51 billion foreign debt last month as it ran out of dollars to finance even the most essential imports.
The country's main Tamil party, the Tamil National Alliance, said the commemoration showed that the country's majority Sinhalese were willing to support reconciliation after decades of ethnic war.
"This gives us a lot of hope and I hope that Tamil people will also reciprocate," TNA spokesman M. A. Sumanthiran told AFP. "There may be pitfalls along the way, but this is a very good start."
- Porridge feast -
On Wednesday, volunteers offered porridge to passers-by as a symbol of the humble food that tens of thousands of Tamils were left with during the final stages of the war.
"The kanji (porridge) was the life-saving food for Tamil people in the last stages of the war," a Hindu priest said at the ceremony. "They struggled in the midst of shelling and bombing and underwent untold suffering."
Government forces imposed an economic embargo, ordered civilians into what they called "no-fire zones" and allegedly bombarded them killing an estimated 40,000 Tamils.
Successive Sri Lankan governments have denied allegations that troops committed war crimes but have refused to allow any independent investigation.
Rights activist Mari de Silva said she hoped Wednesday's commemoration would lead to ethnic reconciliation in the Sinhalese-majority nation.
"I sincerely hope this is also a first step towards real reconciliation in Lanka and that we can join the call for justice and accountability," she said on Twitter.
The UN Human Rights Council last year set up a mechanism to preserve evidence of war crimes in Sri Lanka so that prosecutions could take place in the future.
aj/ssy
One of last Rwanda genocide fugitives 'died in 2002'
'Slaughter: Skulls and personal items of victims at the Kigali Genocide Memorial in Rwanda (AFP/Ludovic MARIN)
Jan HENNOP
Wed, May 18, 2022,
One of the last five fugitives wanted for his role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Pheneas Munyarugarama, died in Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002, UN prosecutors said Wednesday.
Munyarugarama, a local army commander, "died of natural causes" and was buried in Kankwala, in the eastern DRC, the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) announced in The Hague.
The news comes less than a week after the tribunal announced the death of Protais Mpiranya, the top remaining wanted suspect over the deaths of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in a 100-day slaughter.
"For the victims and survivors of Munyarugarama's crimes in the Bugesera region, we hope this result brings some closure," the tribunal's chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz said in a statement.
A former lieutenant-colonel in the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), Munyarugarama, who was born in 1948, was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda with eight counts including genocide and crimes gainst humanity.
"Munyarugarama was alleged to be responsible for mass killings, attacks, and sexual violence against Tutsi civilians at various locations in the Bugesera region, including the attacks on Tutsi refugees at the Ntarama and Nyamata Catholic Churches," the MICT said.
The tribunal said that after a "comprehensive and challenging investigation", prosecutors established that Munyarugarama "died from natural causes on or about 28 February 2002 in Kankwala... where he was also buried."
The tribunal said only four fugitives now remained on its books: Fulgence Kayishema, Charles Sikubwabo, Charles Ryandikayo and Aloys Ndimbati.
Top fugitive and alleged genocide financier Felicien Kabuga was arrested near Paris in 2020.
- 'Unmarked grave' -
The Libya and Belgian-trained Munyarugarama fled to the former Zaire shortly after the 1994 genocide where he joined remnants of the Rwandan armed forces, according to a summary of his movements, made by the tribunal's prosecutors.
In 1998, he helped recruit ex-Rwandan soldiers for the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebel group, largely basing himself in the DRC's eastern Kivu provinces as a senior FDLR leader.
In late 2001, the Hutu-supremacist movement was to gather in Kinshasa for talks on how to integrate itself into one structure, prosecutors said.
Munyarugarama, escorted by two relatives and FDLR escorts, "made a lengthy journey on foot... heading for Kinshasa", prosecutors said.
"The journey lasted several months and involved crossing arduous terrain including jungle, swamps and several difficult river crossings."
Munyarugarama "had difficulty with the river crossings... and nearly drowned, and afterwards started reporting feeling unwell to his travelling companions," prosecutors said.
Several days after reaching the small village of Kankwala in North Katanga along the way, "Munyarugarama fell ill" and died in 2002.
"Although the exact cause of death is unknown, due to a lack of trained medical staff and facilities, it was from natural causes," prosecutors said, adding he was buried there the next day "in a coffin in an unmarked grave".
Prosecutors last week too announced the death from tuberculosis of leading fugitive Mpiranya in Zimbabwe in 2006.
Mpiranya was allegedly among those who ordered the murder of then prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, 10 Belgian soldiers protecting her, and several other leading politicians and their families on April 7, 1994, in the early hours of the genocide.
jhe/dk/ah
'Slaughter: Skulls and personal items of victims at the Kigali Genocide Memorial in Rwanda (AFP/Ludovic MARIN)
Jan HENNOP
Wed, May 18, 2022,
One of the last five fugitives wanted for his role in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, Pheneas Munyarugarama, died in Democratic Republic of Congo in 2002, UN prosecutors said Wednesday.
Munyarugarama, a local army commander, "died of natural causes" and was buried in Kankwala, in the eastern DRC, the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (MICT) announced in The Hague.
The news comes less than a week after the tribunal announced the death of Protais Mpiranya, the top remaining wanted suspect over the deaths of some 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in a 100-day slaughter.
"For the victims and survivors of Munyarugarama's crimes in the Bugesera region, we hope this result brings some closure," the tribunal's chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz said in a statement.
A former lieutenant-colonel in the Rwandan Armed Forces (FAR), Munyarugarama, who was born in 1948, was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda with eight counts including genocide and crimes gainst humanity.
"Munyarugarama was alleged to be responsible for mass killings, attacks, and sexual violence against Tutsi civilians at various locations in the Bugesera region, including the attacks on Tutsi refugees at the Ntarama and Nyamata Catholic Churches," the MICT said.
The tribunal said that after a "comprehensive and challenging investigation", prosecutors established that Munyarugarama "died from natural causes on or about 28 February 2002 in Kankwala... where he was also buried."
The tribunal said only four fugitives now remained on its books: Fulgence Kayishema, Charles Sikubwabo, Charles Ryandikayo and Aloys Ndimbati.
Top fugitive and alleged genocide financier Felicien Kabuga was arrested near Paris in 2020.
- 'Unmarked grave' -
The Libya and Belgian-trained Munyarugarama fled to the former Zaire shortly after the 1994 genocide where he joined remnants of the Rwandan armed forces, according to a summary of his movements, made by the tribunal's prosecutors.
In 1998, he helped recruit ex-Rwandan soldiers for the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebel group, largely basing himself in the DRC's eastern Kivu provinces as a senior FDLR leader.
In late 2001, the Hutu-supremacist movement was to gather in Kinshasa for talks on how to integrate itself into one structure, prosecutors said.
Munyarugarama, escorted by two relatives and FDLR escorts, "made a lengthy journey on foot... heading for Kinshasa", prosecutors said.
"The journey lasted several months and involved crossing arduous terrain including jungle, swamps and several difficult river crossings."
Munyarugarama "had difficulty with the river crossings... and nearly drowned, and afterwards started reporting feeling unwell to his travelling companions," prosecutors said.
Several days after reaching the small village of Kankwala in North Katanga along the way, "Munyarugarama fell ill" and died in 2002.
"Although the exact cause of death is unknown, due to a lack of trained medical staff and facilities, it was from natural causes," prosecutors said, adding he was buried there the next day "in a coffin in an unmarked grave".
Prosecutors last week too announced the death from tuberculosis of leading fugitive Mpiranya in Zimbabwe in 2006.
Mpiranya was allegedly among those who ordered the murder of then prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana, 10 Belgian soldiers protecting her, and several other leading politicians and their families on April 7, 1994, in the early hours of the genocide.
jhe/dk/ah
'A nightmare:' UCP government urges Ottawa to halt Wednesday's enactment of gun control bill
Bill Kaufmann -
Calgary Herald
© Provided by Calgary HeraldA rack of
And a Calgary gun store owner said he’s been selling far more firearms than than normal this week to customers who want to avoid the stricter rules before they’re reality.
Bill C-71 which includes additional verification for acquisition and possession licenses for non-restricted firearms and additional book keeping for businesses will be ineffective in keeping guns out of criminal hands and doesn’t give those affected by it enough time to prepare, said Alberta Chief Firearms Officer Teri Bryant.
“Despite the federal government claiming Bill C-71 is important to our public safety, distressingly little has been done to prepare individuals, businesses or my staff,” Bryant said in a press release.
“Our office has been inundated with calls since news of the deadline emerged because Alberta firearms owners do not understand the changes and are concerned about the potential for a new backdoor long gun registry.”
Ottawa should either delay implementing the legislation for a year or scrap it altogether, she said.
In a letter to federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Bryant said there are additional fears that under Bill C-71, firearms described by Ottawa as assault weapons purchased legally prior to to the legislation could be confiscated.
“This concern has been heightened by your government’s plans under the May 2020 order-in-council to use the existing registry of restricted firearms to confiscate the property of owners who acquired firearms in full conformity with the law at the time of acquisition,” Bryant stated.
The bill was passed in June 2019 but Bryant said those licensing provisions were only announced May 11, giving those affected little time to either adopt or understand them.
Canadian gun control groups contend the legislation is needed to enhance public safety by keeping better track of gun licenses and sales and banning what they call “military assault weapons.”
The Coalition for Gun Control argues the federal government isn’t doing enough to clamp down on firearms amid a rise in shootings in recent years and is calling for a national ban on handguns with limited exceptions.
“Canada is one of only a few nations in the world to have moved backwards with gun control reform,” states the group’s website.
“Few Canadians know that the AR-15, a military weapon used in many mass shootings, is sold to civilians in Canada. Many Canadians think handguns are virtually banned — there are now almost 1 million legally-owned handguns in Canada.”
Acccording to RCMP which oversees the verification system, individuals and businesses need to obtain a reference number from the Registrar of Firearms confirming the validity of the buyer’s firearms licence before transferring a non-restricted firearm.
Businesses will also be required to retain sales and inventory records related to non-restricted firearms for a minimum of 20 years.
“This is not the return of the Long Gun Registry. The records created by businesses will be held by businesses — not government — and the police will require judicial authorization to access them,” states the RCMP’s website.
One Calgary gun store owner said the new legislation is burdensome, ineffective and a threat to privacy.
But James Cox said he’s seen a huge bump in sales in the past week as customers try to beat the clock before Bill C-71 takes effect.
“I’m going to send (Prime Minister) Justin Trudeau thanks for all the extra business,” said Cox of the Shooting Edge, 510 77 Ave. S.E.
“People want to get the semi-autos before the registry kicks in.”
But Cox said his gratitude towards the Liberal government ends there, adding responsibility for additional verification is being downloaded on businesses.
And he said the demand for more personal information from firearms purchasers will put their privacy at risk, for no good reason.
“It’s just Liberal talking points that it’s going to get weapons off the street, but how is that?” said Cox.
“These guys are out of control … it’s going to be a nightmare.”
A number of Alberta gun shops, he said, are shutting down to better prepare for the legislation’s implementation.
The use of firearms like the AR-15, he said, is already highly-restricted and that particular rifle has never been used in crimes in Canada. BULLSHIT
“This isn’t the U.S. – the reason we have fewer firearms deaths in Canada is because of (mandatory) training,” said Cox. GUN CONTROL BY ANY OTHER NAME
In 2020, there were 19,350 gun-related homicides in the U.S. – 70 times the 277 recorded that year in Canada.
The U.S. population is about 10 times larger than Canada’s.
Public Safety Canada didn’t comment on the Alberta government’s request to halt the legislation’s implementation.
BKaufmann@postmedia.com
Twitter: @BillKaufmannjrn
UCP AND THE CONS ARE FRONTS FOR THE (TINY) CANADIAN GUN LOBBY
Ottawa should delay or fully disarm “a long gun registry” set to take effect Wednesday, says the Alberta government.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
Bill Kaufmann -
Calgary Herald
© Provided by Calgary HeraldA rack of
And a Calgary gun store owner said he’s been selling far more firearms than than normal this week to customers who want to avoid the stricter rules before they’re reality.
Bill C-71 which includes additional verification for acquisition and possession licenses for non-restricted firearms and additional book keeping for businesses will be ineffective in keeping guns out of criminal hands and doesn’t give those affected by it enough time to prepare, said Alberta Chief Firearms Officer Teri Bryant.
“Despite the federal government claiming Bill C-71 is important to our public safety, distressingly little has been done to prepare individuals, businesses or my staff,” Bryant said in a press release.
“Our office has been inundated with calls since news of the deadline emerged because Alberta firearms owners do not understand the changes and are concerned about the potential for a new backdoor long gun registry.”
Ottawa should either delay implementing the legislation for a year or scrap it altogether, she said.
In a letter to federal Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino, Bryant said there are additional fears that under Bill C-71, firearms described by Ottawa as assault weapons purchased legally prior to to the legislation could be confiscated.
“This concern has been heightened by your government’s plans under the May 2020 order-in-council to use the existing registry of restricted firearms to confiscate the property of owners who acquired firearms in full conformity with the law at the time of acquisition,” Bryant stated.
The bill was passed in June 2019 but Bryant said those licensing provisions were only announced May 11, giving those affected little time to either adopt or understand them.
Canadian gun control groups contend the legislation is needed to enhance public safety by keeping better track of gun licenses and sales and banning what they call “military assault weapons.”
The Coalition for Gun Control argues the federal government isn’t doing enough to clamp down on firearms amid a rise in shootings in recent years and is calling for a national ban on handguns with limited exceptions.
“Canada is one of only a few nations in the world to have moved backwards with gun control reform,” states the group’s website.
“Few Canadians know that the AR-15, a military weapon used in many mass shootings, is sold to civilians in Canada. Many Canadians think handguns are virtually banned — there are now almost 1 million legally-owned handguns in Canada.”
Acccording to RCMP which oversees the verification system, individuals and businesses need to obtain a reference number from the Registrar of Firearms confirming the validity of the buyer’s firearms licence before transferring a non-restricted firearm.
Businesses will also be required to retain sales and inventory records related to non-restricted firearms for a minimum of 20 years.
“This is not the return of the Long Gun Registry. The records created by businesses will be held by businesses — not government — and the police will require judicial authorization to access them,” states the RCMP’s website.
One Calgary gun store owner said the new legislation is burdensome, ineffective and a threat to privacy.
But James Cox said he’s seen a huge bump in sales in the past week as customers try to beat the clock before Bill C-71 takes effect.
“I’m going to send (Prime Minister) Justin Trudeau thanks for all the extra business,” said Cox of the Shooting Edge, 510 77 Ave. S.E.
“People want to get the semi-autos before the registry kicks in.”
But Cox said his gratitude towards the Liberal government ends there, adding responsibility for additional verification is being downloaded on businesses.
And he said the demand for more personal information from firearms purchasers will put their privacy at risk, for no good reason.
“It’s just Liberal talking points that it’s going to get weapons off the street, but how is that?” said Cox.
“These guys are out of control … it’s going to be a nightmare.”
A number of Alberta gun shops, he said, are shutting down to better prepare for the legislation’s implementation.
The use of firearms like the AR-15, he said, is already highly-restricted and that particular rifle has never been used in crimes in Canada. BULLSHIT
SEE BELOW
“This isn’t the U.S. – the reason we have fewer firearms deaths in Canada is because of (mandatory) training,” said Cox. GUN CONTROL BY ANY OTHER NAME
In 2020, there were 19,350 gun-related homicides in the U.S. – 70 times the 277 recorded that year in Canada.
The U.S. population is about 10 times larger than Canada’s.
Public Safety Canada didn’t comment on the Alberta government’s request to halt the legislation’s implementation.
BKaufmann@postmedia.com
Twitter: @BillKaufmannjrn
A short history of the AR-15 in Canada
Demanded action
Many newspapers and MPs also demanded action. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, a Progressive Conservative Québec MP, asked:
“Why are weapons of this kind allowed in Canada? Why do we let people own such dangerous and destructive weapons? That doesn’t make sense. Protecting the public and public safety should be our prime concern.”
The federal government eventually moved a number of semi-automatic firearms to the lists of restricted and prohibited weapons, but many other such guns remain in the non-restricted category.
Manufacturers and retailers have aggressively marketed these “black guns” or “modern sporting rifles” in Canada and the United States. The popularity of such weapons has contributed to a substantial increase in the number of restricted firearms owned by Canadians in recent years.
Semi-automatic military-style rifles have become an important symbol for critics of the Canadian gun control regime.
The National Firearms Association has employed an image consisting of a silhouetted maple leaf incorporating such a gun. A rival group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, has used a similar logo.
Conservatives friendly to gun groups
The Conservative Party of Canada has been especially cozy with gun groups in recent years and opposes the proposal to ban assault-style firearms, including the AR-15. In fact, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer tabled a petition in 2016 calling for the AR-15 to be reclassified as a non-restricted firearm.
The future availability of the AR-15 and similar guns in Canada therefore appears to rest on the results of the upcoming federal election.
Canadians must decide if such guns should remain on the market or whether Canada will take a course similar to the United Kingdom, Australia and, most recently, New Zealand, and limit the availability of such firearms.
THE CONVERSATION
Published: September 22, 2019
Canada’s governing Liberals have proposed a set of new gun control measures that would ban military-style assault rifles, including the AR-15. They contend these weapons “are specifically designed to inflict mass human casualties and have no place in Canadian society.”
The response from gun groups has been vitriolic. The National Firearms Association, for example, says that the Liberals’ gun proposals are an “attack on the rights, freedoms and property of Canadians.”
The decision to highlight the AR-15 in the proposal is unsurprising. The gun has been controversial since its introduction into the Canadian marketplace.
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the standard military weapon, the Colt M-16, used during much of the Vietnam War by the United States. After Colt’s patent for the AR-15 expired, other gun-makers began selling generic models. Colt recently announced it will stop producing the AR-15 for the civilian market, though other manufacturers will continue to make versions of the weapon available to the general public.
The AR-15 appeared in the Canadian market by the mid to late 1970s. Some Canadians immediately began to express concern about the gun. The Windsor Star, for instance, wrote in 1975 that criminals “might very well show some interest in the high-powered AR-15.”
Read more: Calls for stronger handgun laws in Canada have deep roots
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also raised concerns about such firearms, and in 1977 the federal government declared the AR-15 a restricted weapon, meaning that a potential purchaser had to pass a higher threshold to acquire the gun.
This move angered some gun groups, who charged that the classification decision was based on the gun’s appearance rather than its capability. An advocate for firearm owners, Michael Martinoff, responded by declaring before a parliamentary committee that he would refuse to register his AR-15.
The complaints of the gun community led the government of former prime minister Joe Clark to reclassify the AR-15 as a non-restricted firearm. The Liberals under Jean Chrétien again made the AR-15 a restricted weapon.
Favourite weapon of mass shooters
In the United States, the AR-15 has been employed by shooters in some of the country’s most infamous mass murders.
Some gun advocates claim the gun has never been used in Canadian criminal activity. That’s inaccurate.
In 1982, Saskatoon police shot 18-year-old hostage-taker Richard Landrie after a lengthy standoff. Landrie was dressed in battle fatigues and armed with an AR-15. He fired 50 rounds during the standoff, shooting off one of his hostage’s fingers.
Media reports also indicate that AR-15s have been seized in several drug raids, taken from alleged bank robbers in British Columbia, involved in a 2009 murder and employed in the 2004 drive-by shooting of Louise Russo in suburban Toronto as she waited in line to buy a sandwich for her daughter.
Other shooters have used similar semi-automatic guns to kill multiple victims.
Most notoriously, the Montreal massacre shooter used a semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 when he murdered 14 women in 1989.
Published: September 22, 2019
Canada’s governing Liberals have proposed a set of new gun control measures that would ban military-style assault rifles, including the AR-15. They contend these weapons “are specifically designed to inflict mass human casualties and have no place in Canadian society.”
The response from gun groups has been vitriolic. The National Firearms Association, for example, says that the Liberals’ gun proposals are an “attack on the rights, freedoms and property of Canadians.”
The decision to highlight the AR-15 in the proposal is unsurprising. The gun has been controversial since its introduction into the Canadian marketplace.
The AR-15 is the civilian version of the standard military weapon, the Colt M-16, used during much of the Vietnam War by the United States. After Colt’s patent for the AR-15 expired, other gun-makers began selling generic models. Colt recently announced it will stop producing the AR-15 for the civilian market, though other manufacturers will continue to make versions of the weapon available to the general public.
The AR-15 appeared in the Canadian market by the mid to late 1970s. Some Canadians immediately began to express concern about the gun. The Windsor Star, for instance, wrote in 1975 that criminals “might very well show some interest in the high-powered AR-15.”
Read more: Calls for stronger handgun laws in Canada have deep roots
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police also raised concerns about such firearms, and in 1977 the federal government declared the AR-15 a restricted weapon, meaning that a potential purchaser had to pass a higher threshold to acquire the gun.
This move angered some gun groups, who charged that the classification decision was based on the gun’s appearance rather than its capability. An advocate for firearm owners, Michael Martinoff, responded by declaring before a parliamentary committee that he would refuse to register his AR-15.
The complaints of the gun community led the government of former prime minister Joe Clark to reclassify the AR-15 as a non-restricted firearm. The Liberals under Jean Chrétien again made the AR-15 a restricted weapon.
Favourite weapon of mass shooters
In the United States, the AR-15 has been employed by shooters in some of the country’s most infamous mass murders.
Some gun advocates claim the gun has never been used in Canadian criminal activity. That’s inaccurate.
In 1982, Saskatoon police shot 18-year-old hostage-taker Richard Landrie after a lengthy standoff. Landrie was dressed in battle fatigues and armed with an AR-15. He fired 50 rounds during the standoff, shooting off one of his hostage’s fingers.
Media reports also indicate that AR-15s have been seized in several drug raids, taken from alleged bank robbers in British Columbia, involved in a 2009 murder and employed in the 2004 drive-by shooting of Louise Russo in suburban Toronto as she waited in line to buy a sandwich for her daughter.
Other shooters have used similar semi-automatic guns to kill multiple victims.
Most notoriously, the Montreal massacre shooter used a semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 when he murdered 14 women in 1989.
Jean-Francois Larivee, husband of Maryse Laganière, who was shot and killed by Marc Lépine in the Montreal massacre in 1989, attends a news conference in Montreal in 2011 to push for gun control.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graham Hughes
That heinous crime led to calls to ban military-style semi-automatic rifles. A student-led petition garnered more than 500,000 signatures demanding the ban.
That heinous crime led to calls to ban military-style semi-automatic rifles. A student-led petition garnered more than 500,000 signatures demanding the ban.
Demanded action
Many newspapers and MPs also demanded action. Jean-Pierre Blackburn, a Progressive Conservative Québec MP, asked:
“Why are weapons of this kind allowed in Canada? Why do we let people own such dangerous and destructive weapons? That doesn’t make sense. Protecting the public and public safety should be our prime concern.”
The federal government eventually moved a number of semi-automatic firearms to the lists of restricted and prohibited weapons, but many other such guns remain in the non-restricted category.
Manufacturers and retailers have aggressively marketed these “black guns” or “modern sporting rifles” in Canada and the United States. The popularity of such weapons has contributed to a substantial increase in the number of restricted firearms owned by Canadians in recent years.
Semi-automatic military-style rifles have become an important symbol for critics of the Canadian gun control regime.
The National Firearms Association has employed an image consisting of a silhouetted maple leaf incorporating such a gun. A rival group, the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, has used a similar logo.
Conservatives friendly to gun groups
The Conservative Party of Canada has been especially cozy with gun groups in recent years and opposes the proposal to ban assault-style firearms, including the AR-15. In fact, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer tabled a petition in 2016 calling for the AR-15 to be reclassified as a non-restricted firearm.
The future availability of the AR-15 and similar guns in Canada therefore appears to rest on the results of the upcoming federal election.
Canadians must decide if such guns should remain on the market or whether Canada will take a course similar to the United Kingdom, Australia and, most recently, New Zealand, and limit the availability of such firearms.
Author
R. Blake Brown
Professor, Saint Mary’s University
Disclosure statement
R. Blake Brown receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Professor, Saint Mary’s University
Disclosure statement
R. Blake Brown receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
SEE
Canada’s Billion Dollar P3 Boondoggle
What the Liberals and Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know
The real story behind the cost overruns at the Canadian Firearms Centre
The real story behind the cost overruns at the Canadian Firearms Centre
"Just read your piece on the firearms P3 – quite a revelation. I am amazed we have never heard this before – congratulations for bringing it to light." Murray Dobbin, author of Paul Martin Canada's CEO
ABOLISH THE MONARCHY!
Indigenous Canadians make a painful plea on eve of British royal visitIF THE POPE CAN APOLOGIZE SO CAN QEII
Mon, May 16, 2022
(Reuters) - As Britain's Prince Charles and his wife Camilla prepare to visit Canada this week, some members of the indigenous community are calling on the British royal family to formally acknowledge the harm colonization did to First Nations people.
The royal couple will arrive in St. Johns, Newfoundland on Tuesday on a three-day trip that will include stops in Ottawa and the Northwest Territories and focus on the issues of reconciliation with indigenous peoples and climate change.
The impact of colonization, the residential school system and the loss of lands is what the crown represents, Mary Teegee, the executive director of child and family services at Carrier Sekani Family Services in the province of British Columbia, told Reuters.
"They also have to understand that they are not the leaders in our nation," Teegee said, adding that recognition of the harms of colonization are needed rather than just a "trite" apology.
Although Canada ceased being a colony of Britain in 1867, it remained a member of the British Empire, with a British-appointed governor-general acting on behalf of the monarch.
And it was under the guise of the crown and Canada's federal government that some 150,000 indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and enrolled in a Christian-run network of residential schools between 1831 and 1996.
That policy, described by some as a form of cultural genocide, and survivors' accounts of harsh, paramilitary-like conditions have been under the microscope since the discovery in 2021 of the remains of more than 200 children buried in unmarked areas on the grounds of one such school in B.C.
CBC News on Monday quoted Cassidy Caron, the president of the Métis National Council, an indigenous group, as saying Queen Elizabeth should apologize to the residential school survivors.
Caron said she plans to deliver that message when she meets Charles, the heir to the British throne, and Camilla during their visit, which is part of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations marking the queen's seven decades on the throne.
'DISTANT ALIEN THING'
Jess Housty, a community organizer for the Heiltsuk Nation in B.C., said that while she doesn't care about the visit, it's hard to ignore the colonial past and the "bad relations that have happened for centuries."
The monarchy is "this distant alien thing that feels really irrelevant in my life and work," Housty said.
An opinion poll https://angusreid.org/canada-constitutional-monarchy-queen-elizabeth released by the Angus Reid research group in April shows support among Canadians to abolish the country's constitutional monarchy rising, with about 51% saying it should disappear in coming generations, up from 45% in January 2020.
While acknowledging there were a lot of people in her community who didn't actively support the monarchy, Housty conceded that many had been excited when Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate visited her area in 2016.
That excitement is on display once again this week, said St. John's Mayor Danny Breen, who told Reuters that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is looking forward to the arrival of Charles and Camilla.
"People have respect for the queen and have respect for the family," Breen said.
(Reporting by Jenna Zucker; Editing by Denny Thomas and Paul Simao)
Mon, May 16, 2022
(Reuters) - As Britain's Prince Charles and his wife Camilla prepare to visit Canada this week, some members of the indigenous community are calling on the British royal family to formally acknowledge the harm colonization did to First Nations people.
The royal couple will arrive in St. Johns, Newfoundland on Tuesday on a three-day trip that will include stops in Ottawa and the Northwest Territories and focus on the issues of reconciliation with indigenous peoples and climate change.
The impact of colonization, the residential school system and the loss of lands is what the crown represents, Mary Teegee, the executive director of child and family services at Carrier Sekani Family Services in the province of British Columbia, told Reuters.
"They also have to understand that they are not the leaders in our nation," Teegee said, adding that recognition of the harms of colonization are needed rather than just a "trite" apology.
Although Canada ceased being a colony of Britain in 1867, it remained a member of the British Empire, with a British-appointed governor-general acting on behalf of the monarch.
And it was under the guise of the crown and Canada's federal government that some 150,000 indigenous children were forcibly removed from their families and enrolled in a Christian-run network of residential schools between 1831 and 1996.
That policy, described by some as a form of cultural genocide, and survivors' accounts of harsh, paramilitary-like conditions have been under the microscope since the discovery in 2021 of the remains of more than 200 children buried in unmarked areas on the grounds of one such school in B.C.
CBC News on Monday quoted Cassidy Caron, the president of the Métis National Council, an indigenous group, as saying Queen Elizabeth should apologize to the residential school survivors.
Caron said she plans to deliver that message when she meets Charles, the heir to the British throne, and Camilla during their visit, which is part of the Platinum Jubilee celebrations marking the queen's seven decades on the throne.
'DISTANT ALIEN THING'
Jess Housty, a community organizer for the Heiltsuk Nation in B.C., said that while she doesn't care about the visit, it's hard to ignore the colonial past and the "bad relations that have happened for centuries."
The monarchy is "this distant alien thing that feels really irrelevant in my life and work," Housty said.
An opinion poll https://angusreid.org/canada-constitutional-monarchy-queen-elizabeth released by the Angus Reid research group in April shows support among Canadians to abolish the country's constitutional monarchy rising, with about 51% saying it should disappear in coming generations, up from 45% in January 2020.
While acknowledging there were a lot of people in her community who didn't actively support the monarchy, Housty conceded that many had been excited when Britain's Prince William and his wife Kate visited her area in 2016.
That excitement is on display once again this week, said St. John's Mayor Danny Breen, who told Reuters that the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is looking forward to the arrival of Charles and Camilla.
"People have respect for the queen and have respect for the family," Breen said.
(Reporting by Jenna Zucker; Editing by Denny Thomas and Paul Simao)
Most automakers fall short on climate goals: report
Globally, more than half of all new vehicles coming off of production lines in 2029 would need to be electric for the sector to be compliant with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels
.png)
- Lagging behind -
"Almost all automakers are failing to keep pace with the transition to zero emissions," said Influence Map program Manager Ben Youriev.
"Those lagging the furthest behind are also the most negative when it comes to climate policy advocacy."
Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and BMW come closer to the 52 percent threshold for compatibility with Paris temperature target, with 36 to 46 percent of their fleets planned to be electric in 2029.
Besides Tesla, only Mercedes-Benz -- at 56 percent -- is projecting a transition in keeping with that target.
To evaluate automaker trajectories, Influence Map cross-references different datasets.
Researchers used the International Energy Agency's (IEA) scenario for decarbonising the transport sector rapidly enough to not jeopardise the 1.5C goal, which would need 57.5 percent of all cars produced in 2030 to be electric.
The IEA's Net Zero by 2050 report also assumes the share of renewables in global electricity generation would be about 60 percent in 2030.
The Influence Map report then compared this goal with IHS Markit production forecasts to 2029, corresponding to a 52 percent share of electric vehicles in the IEA schema.
Collectively, the combined global production of battery electric vehicles by all automakers is forecast to only reach 32 percent by 2029.
That means the auto industry would need to boost production of zero-emission cars by 80 percent in order to hit the IEA 2030 production target.
- Impact of government policy -
The report findings reveal the critical impact of government policy on the pace of the transition away from internal combustion engines, which account for around 16 percent of global energy-related CO2 emissions, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In the European Union, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, Toyota's produced fleet is projected to be 50 percent electric by 2029.
But in the United States, where fuel emissions standards are less stringent, that figure is only four percent.
Similarly, Ford's EU-based production is forecast to be 65 percent electric by 2029 -- nearly double it's global average.
One pension fund with shares in Toyota and Volkswagen expressed concern about the Influence of the Map findings.
"As investors, we are concerned with the picture painted which confirms that some companies in the auto industry are placing themselves on the wrong side of history when actively opposing much needed climate change-related rules and regulations," Anders Schelde, CIO of Denmark's AkademikerPension, with $20 billion of assets under management, told AFP.
"We are also worried about Toyota scoring worst among peers on climate lobbying as the company is jeopardizing its valuable brand."
mh/pvh
Globally, more than half of all new vehicles coming off of production lines in 2029 would need to be electric for the sector to be compliant with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels
(AFP/SONNY TUMBELAKA)
Marlowe HOOD
Wed, May 18, 2022,
Only two of the world's 12 top automakers plan to make enough electric vehicles by 2030 to stay in step with Paris Agreement climate goals, experts said Wednesday.
Globally, more than half of all new vehicles coming off of production lines in 2029 would need to be electric for the sector to be compliant with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, according to Influence Map, a research NGO that evaluates corporate climate goals and policies.
At the same time, 11 of the 12 carmakers -- while publicly supporting the Paris Agreement -- have actively opposed government policies to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles, especially the phase-out internal combustion engines, Influence Map said.
Japanese auto giants Toyota, Honda and Nissan are especially far off the mark, with non-polluting cars accounting for only 14, 18 and 22 percent, respectively, of their planned production in 2029, the report said.
South Korea's Hyundai, US manufacturer Ford and France's Renault -- with 27, 28 and 31 percent of their global fleets projected to be electric in seven years -- were only marginally more on track.
The standout exception is US-based Tesla, a "pure player" manufacturer that has only ever made electric cars and trucks.
Marlowe HOOD
Wed, May 18, 2022,
Only two of the world's 12 top automakers plan to make enough electric vehicles by 2030 to stay in step with Paris Agreement climate goals, experts said Wednesday.
Globally, more than half of all new vehicles coming off of production lines in 2029 would need to be electric for the sector to be compliant with the goal of capping global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, according to Influence Map, a research NGO that evaluates corporate climate goals and policies.
At the same time, 11 of the 12 carmakers -- while publicly supporting the Paris Agreement -- have actively opposed government policies to accelerate the shift to electric vehicles, especially the phase-out internal combustion engines, Influence Map said.
Japanese auto giants Toyota, Honda and Nissan are especially far off the mark, with non-polluting cars accounting for only 14, 18 and 22 percent, respectively, of their planned production in 2029, the report said.
South Korea's Hyundai, US manufacturer Ford and France's Renault -- with 27, 28 and 31 percent of their global fleets projected to be electric in seven years -- were only marginally more on track.
The standout exception is US-based Tesla, a "pure player" manufacturer that has only ever made electric cars and trucks.
.png)
"Almost all automakers are failing to keep pace with the transition to zero emissions," said Influence Map program Manager Ben Youriev.
"Those lagging the furthest behind are also the most negative when it comes to climate policy advocacy."
Ford, Stellantis, Volkswagen and BMW come closer to the 52 percent threshold for compatibility with Paris temperature target, with 36 to 46 percent of their fleets planned to be electric in 2029.
Besides Tesla, only Mercedes-Benz -- at 56 percent -- is projecting a transition in keeping with that target.
To evaluate automaker trajectories, Influence Map cross-references different datasets.
Researchers used the International Energy Agency's (IEA) scenario for decarbonising the transport sector rapidly enough to not jeopardise the 1.5C goal, which would need 57.5 percent of all cars produced in 2030 to be electric.
The IEA's Net Zero by 2050 report also assumes the share of renewables in global electricity generation would be about 60 percent in 2030.
The Influence Map report then compared this goal with IHS Markit production forecasts to 2029, corresponding to a 52 percent share of electric vehicles in the IEA schema.
Collectively, the combined global production of battery electric vehicles by all automakers is forecast to only reach 32 percent by 2029.
That means the auto industry would need to boost production of zero-emission cars by 80 percent in order to hit the IEA 2030 production target.
- Impact of government policy -
The report findings reveal the critical impact of government policy on the pace of the transition away from internal combustion engines, which account for around 16 percent of global energy-related CO2 emissions, according to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In the European Union, which aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, Toyota's produced fleet is projected to be 50 percent electric by 2029.
But in the United States, where fuel emissions standards are less stringent, that figure is only four percent.
Similarly, Ford's EU-based production is forecast to be 65 percent electric by 2029 -- nearly double it's global average.
One pension fund with shares in Toyota and Volkswagen expressed concern about the Influence of the Map findings.
"As investors, we are concerned with the picture painted which confirms that some companies in the auto industry are placing themselves on the wrong side of history when actively opposing much needed climate change-related rules and regulations," Anders Schelde, CIO of Denmark's AkademikerPension, with $20 billion of assets under management, told AFP.
"We are also worried about Toyota scoring worst among peers on climate lobbying as the company is jeopardizing its valuable brand."
mh/pvh
Automakers lobbying toward climate catastrophe, production goals won’t meet <1.5C target
Jameson Dow
Electrek
- May. 17th 2022
Major automakers are currently on track to fail to meet necessary climate goals to keep the world under 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, according to a new report by InfluenceMap.
The report showed that while companies are largely making climate-forward public statements, these statements do not match up with their actions in terms of future production plans or their lobbying efforts.
The report compared production forecasts to the International Energy Agency’s 2050 road map, which detailed that 57.5% of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2030. The report focused on 2029 model year vehicles, as that is the last year before the 2030 timeline.
Per the report, 11 of 12 automakers (excluding Tesla) fall short in terms of future production plans or lobbying efforts. VW was found to have acceptable lobbying efforts but deficient global production plans, while Mercedes’ production plans are good enough but policy advocacy lags behind even US automakers. Current industry production forecasts may even put the world on track to exceed 2 degrees Celsius of warming if more isn’t done to bring them in line with necessary climate goals.
Unsurprisingly, Japanese automakers lag behind the rest, occupying the bottom 3 positions on the table. Nissan is slightly better than Honda and Toyota in this respect but still lags behind all non-Japanese automakers. However, the report, which used data ending March 2022, did not account for Honda’s April announcement of increased EV investment, which could improve its position.
The report noted that most companies tend to embrace and advocate for better climate policy in direct proportion to their future EV production goals, but that a few companies are outliers to this trend. BMW, Stellantis, and Mercedes have all set relatively high targets (but not high enough, except Mercedes) for future production, but their engagement with lobbying efforts has largely been against climate action.
While US automakers are currently doing better in policy advocacy than most others (in a break from the past), US policy is nowhere near what’s required to meet climate targets. As a result, automakers who sell in the US have significantly lower sales targets in the US than elsewhere. For example, Toyota plans 49% BEVs in the EU by 2029, but only 3% in the US. US EV production percentage is projected to be lower than Chinese and EU EV production in 2029.
Automotive industry lobbying groups are further pushing against climate action, and the companies examined (except Tesla) all belong to and actively engage with at least one lobbying group that is actively fighting against regulations on polluting vehicles (represented by each company’s “relationship score”).
Even Tesla had a little room for improvement, earning a “B” for their lobbying efforts. This was largely down to their relative lack of “engagement intensity” on policy issues – while the company does generally lobby in the right direction, there are other companies that lobby significantly harder and more effectively than Tesla does. Regardless, Tesla still stood out from the pack as far and above the best example of an automaker covered by the report (their CEO – who supports climate-harming increases in oil drilling – notwithstanding).
The situation is even worse outside of the major markets of the EU, China, and the US, where automakers have single-digit-percentage EV plans and expect to offload their polluting gas vehicles onto the populations that are generally the most negatively affected by global pollution.
SUV production was found to be a major threat across the industry to decarbonization. Production forecasts show that SUVs will rise from 39% to 47% of light-duty vehicles with all automakers planning to increase SUV production, increasing emissions from light-duty vehicles and eating away at some of the improvements from gradual electrification of the vehicle fleet. SUVs have been the second largest cause of emissions increases globally over the last decade.
Automotive industry lobbying has improved in the last two years that InfluenceMap has looked into this, with most of the industry now earning better scores than they did in 2020. Volkswagen (or should I say Voltswagen?) has shown the most improvement, raising their score from a D- to a C, while Ford and GM have improved significantly as well. This shows that the industry can respond and still improve, but it remains to be seen if that improvement will happen fast enough. Regardless, industry lobbying activities still represent a major blockage to addressing climate change through policy.
Electrek’s Take
These climate goals are necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, including the possibility of positive feedback loops that will only make it harder to bring warming under control. The necessity of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius is not some political opinion but a result of the projections of thousands of scientists showing that we are at a breakpoint where we can still avoid the worst and costliest effects of climate change.
And there is no way that we can negotiate or lobby our way out of this. In this negotiation, our adversary is physics, and physics does not care about how many dealers you have to wrangle, how many engineers you have to retrain, how many battery recycling plants you need to construct, or any of the other traditional excuses the auto industry has made for their complacency. It only cares that you need to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and it’s not going to budge or compromise, no matter how hard you lobby it or how difficult you say compliance would be.
We must keep warming underneath these target temperatures. We caused it, we are the only ones who can stop it, so we must get to work.
Simply put, automakers and governments (and consumer demand, see SUVs) must do better than what current production plans and policy indicate, lobbying against progress needs to end, and the industry must take action – today. We have to do more. End of discussion.
Jameson Dow
Electrek
- May. 17th 2022
Major automakers are currently on track to fail to meet necessary climate goals to keep the world under 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, according to a new report by InfluenceMap.
The report showed that while companies are largely making climate-forward public statements, these statements do not match up with their actions in terms of future production plans or their lobbying efforts.
The report compared production forecasts to the International Energy Agency’s 2050 road map, which detailed that 57.5% of light-duty vehicle sales must be zero-emission by 2030. The report focused on 2029 model year vehicles, as that is the last year before the 2030 timeline.
Per the report, 11 of 12 automakers (excluding Tesla) fall short in terms of future production plans or lobbying efforts. VW was found to have acceptable lobbying efforts but deficient global production plans, while Mercedes’ production plans are good enough but policy advocacy lags behind even US automakers. Current industry production forecasts may even put the world on track to exceed 2 degrees Celsius of warming if more isn’t done to bring them in line with necessary climate goals.
Unsurprisingly, Japanese automakers lag behind the rest, occupying the bottom 3 positions on the table. Nissan is slightly better than Honda and Toyota in this respect but still lags behind all non-Japanese automakers. However, the report, which used data ending March 2022, did not account for Honda’s April announcement of increased EV investment, which could improve its position.
The report noted that most companies tend to embrace and advocate for better climate policy in direct proportion to their future EV production goals, but that a few companies are outliers to this trend. BMW, Stellantis, and Mercedes have all set relatively high targets (but not high enough, except Mercedes) for future production, but their engagement with lobbying efforts has largely been against climate action.
While US automakers are currently doing better in policy advocacy than most others (in a break from the past), US policy is nowhere near what’s required to meet climate targets. As a result, automakers who sell in the US have significantly lower sales targets in the US than elsewhere. For example, Toyota plans 49% BEVs in the EU by 2029, but only 3% in the US. US EV production percentage is projected to be lower than Chinese and EU EV production in 2029.
Automotive industry lobbying groups are further pushing against climate action, and the companies examined (except Tesla) all belong to and actively engage with at least one lobbying group that is actively fighting against regulations on polluting vehicles (represented by each company’s “relationship score”).
Even Tesla had a little room for improvement, earning a “B” for their lobbying efforts. This was largely down to their relative lack of “engagement intensity” on policy issues – while the company does generally lobby in the right direction, there are other companies that lobby significantly harder and more effectively than Tesla does. Regardless, Tesla still stood out from the pack as far and above the best example of an automaker covered by the report (their CEO – who supports climate-harming increases in oil drilling – notwithstanding).
The situation is even worse outside of the major markets of the EU, China, and the US, where automakers have single-digit-percentage EV plans and expect to offload their polluting gas vehicles onto the populations that are generally the most negatively affected by global pollution.
SUV production was found to be a major threat across the industry to decarbonization. Production forecasts show that SUVs will rise from 39% to 47% of light-duty vehicles with all automakers planning to increase SUV production, increasing emissions from light-duty vehicles and eating away at some of the improvements from gradual electrification of the vehicle fleet. SUVs have been the second largest cause of emissions increases globally over the last decade.
Automotive industry lobbying has improved in the last two years that InfluenceMap has looked into this, with most of the industry now earning better scores than they did in 2020. Volkswagen (or should I say Voltswagen?) has shown the most improvement, raising their score from a D- to a C, while Ford and GM have improved significantly as well. This shows that the industry can respond and still improve, but it remains to be seen if that improvement will happen fast enough. Regardless, industry lobbying activities still represent a major blockage to addressing climate change through policy.
Electrek’s Take
These climate goals are necessary to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, including the possibility of positive feedback loops that will only make it harder to bring warming under control. The necessity of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius is not some political opinion but a result of the projections of thousands of scientists showing that we are at a breakpoint where we can still avoid the worst and costliest effects of climate change.
And there is no way that we can negotiate or lobby our way out of this. In this negotiation, our adversary is physics, and physics does not care about how many dealers you have to wrangle, how many engineers you have to retrain, how many battery recycling plants you need to construct, or any of the other traditional excuses the auto industry has made for their complacency. It only cares that you need to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, and it’s not going to budge or compromise, no matter how hard you lobby it or how difficult you say compliance would be.
We must keep warming underneath these target temperatures. We caused it, we are the only ones who can stop it, so we must get to work.
Simply put, automakers and governments (and consumer demand, see SUVs) must do better than what current production plans and policy indicate, lobbying against progress needs to end, and the industry must take action – today. We have to do more. End of discussion.
'Nakba recognition' resolution submitted by Rashida Tlaib, 'squad'
© (photo credit: ERIN SCOTT/REUTERS)
A resolution proposing to officially commemorate the “Nakba” in the United States was submitted on Tuesday to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan, 13th District).
“Today, I introduced a resolution recognizing the Nakba (catastrophe), where 400 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed, [and] over 700,000 Palestinians [were] uprooted from their homes and made refugees,” Tlaib wrote on Twitter.
She thanked the co-sponsors of the resolution, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Cori Bush, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Marie Newman. Along with Tlaib, the first four co-sponsors are members of what is known as “The Squad” – six relatively young Democratic US House representatives. The sixth Squad member, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, was not a co-signer.
The Nakba resolution
The bill calls to establish an official means for the US to recognize and remember the Nakba – the establishment of the State of Israel and the exodus of Palestinian refugees caused by the 1948 War of Independence when the nascent state was attacked by several of its Arab neighbors.
The “Nakba resolution” proposes that the US government cease to engage in denial of the Nakba and encourage education and public awareness of it.
“The Nakba is well-documented and continues to play out today,” tweeted Tlaib. “We must acknowledge that the humanity of Palestinians is being denied when folks refuse to acknowledge the war crimes and human rights violations in apartheid Israel.”
Further policy would see the US continue support for Palestinian refugees through UNRWA, and “support the implementation of Palestinian refugees’ rights as enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNGA 194 [...] says that Palestinian war refugees should be permitted to return to their homes or be compensated for damages.”
“We cannot understand the current conflict without acknowledging the tragedy of the Nakba,” wrote Newman. “I’m proud to stand with Palestinians in IL-03 and everywhere as we call for your history to be recognized and respected.”
Historical narrative
The resolution describes the historical narrative beginning with the forced partition plan of the Mandate, which was supposed to protect the rights of the minorities. It says that when Israel had declared independence, hundreds of Palestinians were already expelled or fled due to attacks by Zionist militias.
The document asserts that a total of 750,000 refugees were created by the end of the war, and that Israel had conquered an additional “23 percent of Palestine beyond those areas allocated to the Jewish state under the partition plan.” The proposal also states that refugee status is conferred to the descendants of those disenfranchised by the war.
Nakba Day is commemorated every year on May 15.
© (photo credit: ERIN SCOTT/REUTERS)
A resolution proposing to officially commemorate the “Nakba” in the United States was submitted on Tuesday to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan, 13th District).
“Today, I introduced a resolution recognizing the Nakba (catastrophe), where 400 Palestinian towns and villages were destroyed, [and] over 700,000 Palestinians [were] uprooted from their homes and made refugees,” Tlaib wrote on Twitter.
She thanked the co-sponsors of the resolution, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Ilhan Omar, Rep. Cori Bush, Rep. Jamaal Bowman, Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Marie Newman. Along with Tlaib, the first four co-sponsors are members of what is known as “The Squad” – six relatively young Democratic US House representatives. The sixth Squad member, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, was not a co-signer.
The Nakba resolution
The bill calls to establish an official means for the US to recognize and remember the Nakba – the establishment of the State of Israel and the exodus of Palestinian refugees caused by the 1948 War of Independence when the nascent state was attacked by several of its Arab neighbors.
The “Nakba resolution” proposes that the US government cease to engage in denial of the Nakba and encourage education and public awareness of it.
“The Nakba is well-documented and continues to play out today,” tweeted Tlaib. “We must acknowledge that the humanity of Palestinians is being denied when folks refuse to acknowledge the war crimes and human rights violations in apartheid Israel.”
Further policy would see the US continue support for Palestinian refugees through UNRWA, and “support the implementation of Palestinian refugees’ rights as enshrined in United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNGA 194 [...] says that Palestinian war refugees should be permitted to return to their homes or be compensated for damages.”
“We cannot understand the current conflict without acknowledging the tragedy of the Nakba,” wrote Newman. “I’m proud to stand with Palestinians in IL-03 and everywhere as we call for your history to be recognized and respected.”
Historical narrative
The resolution describes the historical narrative beginning with the forced partition plan of the Mandate, which was supposed to protect the rights of the minorities. It says that when Israel had declared independence, hundreds of Palestinians were already expelled or fled due to attacks by Zionist militias.
The document asserts that a total of 750,000 refugees were created by the end of the war, and that Israel had conquered an additional “23 percent of Palestine beyond those areas allocated to the Jewish state under the partition plan.” The proposal also states that refugee status is conferred to the descendants of those disenfranchised by the war.
Nakba Day is commemorated every year on May 15.
French court upholds Syria 'complicity in crimes against humanity' charge against Lafarge
A French appeals court has confirmed that the cement giant Lafarge must face charges of complicity in crimes against humanity over alleged payoffs to the Islamic State group and other jihadist groups during the Syrian civil war.
02:51
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)