Unsurprisingly, not much happened at the latest and greatest climate conference.  Many thanks to the hackers who spun up a flurry of negative PR for a meeting that only had the slightest chance of reaching a meaningful agreement in the first place.

What is utterly discouraging is that nothing will come of this.  It was a waste of time (emphasis mine):

“The agreement recognizes that an increase in global temperature should be kept to two degrees Celsius — the threshold that UN scientists say is needed to avert serious climate change — but the deal is not legally binding and has no long-term global targets for emissions cuts.”

So really, in essence, let us continue to our plunder of the earth.  We will make the requisite noises:

“Prime Minister Stephen Harper called the agreement “realistic” and said Canada was “very comfortable” with it.”

You know if Harper agrees with this particular tidbit of climate folly it is can only be a hollow shell of dank turpitude and risible half truths.  In other words nothing will change.

For the eternally optimistic:

“Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, welcomed the climate deal as an “essential beginning,” but said it must be transformed into a legally binding treaty next year.”

Yep.  The US will also get Israel to respect the 1967 borders, pay reparations to Iraq for ruining their country and will make peace with Osama bin Laden.  I’ll also be having a piping hot mug cocoa and a blueberry scone with Pope while we discuss how he should not act like such a douche bag.

Another Opportunity Missed To Be A Real Leader

by nonamedufus

Once upon a time, in a dark and melting land, lived a puppet known as Pinheadio who wished with all his wooden heart that he could be a real, live leader.  As the stiff, wooden Prime Minister of this Northern nation of Tim Bit crunchers and double-double swallowers known as Cantaduh, Pinheadio tried very hard to endear himself to the little people but each time his foot danced a step forward a string yanked it two steps back.

Now it was no secret that Pinheadio’s father and mentor, Hypcritto, who just happened to be the leader of the biggest nation of gallon for gallon gas-guzzlers of the free world, was the one pulling Pinheadio’s strings.

When you get in trouble and you don’t know right from wrong…give a little whistle.

There were those that wondered how Pinheadio and Hypcritto could be related since Pinheadio was as white as a newborn baby’s bum – and had often been referred to as something close to that description – and Hypcritto was as black as the coal-producing states he so craved electoral support from.  But the rumour was that Pinheadio was adopted, as most puppets are.  Pinheadio’s tell-tale black nose was the one give-away that the two were close.

The United States of Disunion’s influence on Cantaduh was unmistakable.  It could be seen in its trade, its economic policy, and in its television programming.

So it came as no surprise when Pinheadio chose to walk in lock-step with Hypcritto on a little matter of climate change, prompting many to repeat Marcellus’ oft quoted line “who cut the cheese in the state of Denmark”.

You see, Hypcritto trumpeted – don’t stand too close Pinheadio, you’ll get some on you – a new climate change charter that was “a meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough”.  Oddly enough, the charter contained no deadlines, no limits and wasn’t binding.  You’d think for all that cheesiness it would at least be binding.  Some deal!  And yet Pinheadio rushed in, where wise men fear to tread, and parroted his buddy’s exultations.  Well, at least there was no photo-op for the camera-shy Pinheadio to be late for.

We know why Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dee saw eye to eye.  But of course. As Hypcritto craves coal country’s backing, so too does Pinheadio prefer the petroleum patch’s support.  And this deal leaves wide open the setting of special emission levels for the energy sector.

Is this a good deal, overall?  Hmmm…  Why is Pinheadio’s nose starting to grow?

I had strings but now I’m free there are no strings on me…oops!

  

 

Wishing you peace on earth, good will towards all men, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and all of your loves ones, friends, nieghbours too.

 

Meanwhile as of  December 15, 2009, there have been 1,477 coalition deaths in Afghanistan as part of ongoing coalition operations

Canadian  death toll in Afghanistan reaches   in  132  in total
UK death toll in Afghanistan reaches   240 in total
US death toll in Afghanistan reaches 935, etc,… 

And no-one seems to know how many innocent civilians are being killed in this terrorism conflict by both sides too. A Number No One’s Counting?

 

There are clearly different ways at looking at the  world wide fight against terrorism, depending mostly it seems on your own nationality , personal and  religious beliefs. Is it as some do claim a money pit with no end objective in sight of being accomplished or is it a rightful, action, reaction to the world wide terrorists plots?  We all certainly   have  not “created” the past, present, future Muslim terrorist threats to our own security.

 

The  world wide fight against terrorism and not tourists  note,  is a real one for  there are still currently even  many, numerous Islamic extremists detained who have sought to  simultaneously detonate bombs on planes over the Atlantic, emulate 7/7 with further simultaneous attacks in London and blow up planes with explosives concealed in shoes.

 

Part of this war includes the reality that the US President Barack Obama has approved $2,775 billion in military aid to Israel, an overview of the US assistance to Israel shows that the US funding is a significant portion of Israel’s military budget, which amounted to $13.3 billion in 2008. The US used to provide both military and civilian aid, but it has since been merged entirely into military aid at Israel’s request. In addition to military aid, the US also provides $3.15 billion in loan guarantees to Israel.  Obama   continues the decades-old policy of extending unlimited support for Israel. Some say he should pursue a more even-handed approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict. And what does that mean now  men? Give the terrorists more money so they too now can buy more guns? There is a real need to subvert terrorism at every level, but is invading other countries the correct way to do this? or what is the valid alternative available? Some say by this approach we are in danger of becoming them, of being what they the terrorist  wish us to be, as bad as them?  Are we safer as a result of Afghanistan and Iraq ?

 

 

In reality  the US and UK were Islamic extremist targets before 9/11 so to that end so the rest of the world too  have not ‘created’ the Muslim terrorists threat we now face. For have many   established and have unfailingly supported Israel, regardless of the barbarity of its also unacceptable  behavior in pursuit of it’s own defense? And is our fighting the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is the main  thing that will prevent any more  terrorist attacks? it seems so?

 

For a start some of Islamic Terror attacks preceding 9/11:

26 February 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6 killed.

13 March 1993 – 1993 Bombay bombings. Mumbai, India. The single-day attacks resulted in over 250 civilian fatalities and 700 injuries.

28 July 1994 – Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vehicle suicide bombing attack against AMIA building, the local Jewish community representation, leaves 85 dead and more than 300 injured.

24 December 1994 – Air France Flight 8969 hijacking in Algiers by 3 members of Armed Islamic Group of Algeria and another terrorist. 7 killed including 4 hijackers.

25 June 1996 – Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded.

14 February 1998. The 1998 Coimbatore bombings occurred in the city of Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. 46 people were killed and over 200 were injured in 13 bomb attacks within a 12 km radius.

7 August 1998 – 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.

4 September 1999 – A series of bombing attacks in several cities of Russia, kills near 300 people.

12 October 2000 – Attack on the USS cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

Funny!

From The Globe and Mail

The 2009 Copenhagen summit has finished with a deal being signed between participating nations. Sounds good doesn’t it? The world’s leading countries agreeing to set tough new standards for meeting climate change targets. Well, not this time.

From CBC:

“However, the agreement is not binding and does not set new greenhouse-gas reduction targets. Instead, countries are to set their own emission-reduction commitments, which would not be legally binding.”

Is anyone really surprised that Prime Minister Stephen Harper agreed to this? Since his first minority government in 2006, Harper has been given “failing grades” by the Sierra Club of Canada, the government’s own environmental advisory committee slammed Harper’s efforts, and most recently the Liberal Part of Canada has stood up and flat out declared Harper a “climate-change denier.“

So the only thing we have gained from the Copenhagen summit is a non-binding agreement for Canada to create its own targets to reach, which as CBC has stated, “would not be legally binding.” So what will  Harper, who over and over again has been shown to not have climate change at the top of his priority list, do when, rather, if this comes up in the House of Commons?

Well, he will play politics as usual. Put forward some mediocre targets that environmentalists view more as an insult than any meaningful step forward, then he will call for unity in the House of Commons, so “together as Canadians we can create a ‘made-in-Canada’ climate policy to help move out country into the future and protect our unborn grandchildren…” enter bland political rhetoric here.

The fact remains that Harper is acting in the interest of one section of Canada, not very surprisingly, the west. Alberta in particular. It is hard to blame Harper for wanting to keep the economic boom going in Alberta, it would be (almost) impossible for him to balance the needs and wants of the oil economy with the environmentalists, though to enter half-heartedly enter into this debate in the manner that Harper seems to be, is simply insulting to not only the world but all Canadians.

~James

As the climate discussions wind up in Copenhagen, it is entirely clear that the Canadian Government has no intention of acting to decrease the harmful emissions generated by the tar sands in Alberta. In many ways, the government has no intention of doing anything on many of the environmental fronts – pollution of the air, water and land. This government has failed Canadians and by doing so is also failing the international community.

What is most amazing is that the Canadian people aren’t up in arms!!!! It’s as if all that has been happening – H1N1 vaccine fiasco, Afghan detainee fiasco and the government’s lame defense, the blatantly political handing out of government cheques for infrastructure projects, the thumbing of the nose at parliamentary committee meetings,  and now the failure to play any role at all other than obstructionist and non-entity at Copehagen is having any effect on Canadians.

What is going on here??? Yes, the Liberals haven’t been particularly effective at providing an alternative to the Conservatives, but…???

Well its official, the government has put the CANDU division of the AECL up on the bidding block. As anyone who has followed this story knows, this day was inevitable and now the bids will hopefully fly. In a news release, the government said bids would be assessed on how well they meet a number of objectives, which include: “ensuring that Canadians have nuclear as a safe, reliable, and economic clean energy option; controlling costs to the government while maximizing the return on the taxpayers’ investment; and positioning the nuclear industry in Canada to seize domestic and global opportunities.” But what can we really hope for? As it has already been suggested any buy out by competitors like Areva or Westinghouse would probably find the CANDU technology abandoned and the company gutted for human capital.

AECL has been a huge hit in the wallet for the federal government so the move to privatize is understandable. The sad thing is that this could have been avoided if more provinces would have taken an initiative and supported the home made nuclear technology. Only 3 provinces have embraced CANDU technology in its 50+ years, what kind of message does that send to potential international clients? And alas the obvious snide remark is,

“A nuclear renaissance? No CANDU.”

Global civil society responds to the failure of leaders to raise ambitions for a real deal in Copenhagen.

On what was scheduled to be the last day of the Copenhagen climate talks, a diverse crowd of global civil society locked out of the negotiations sent a clear message of “Climate Shame” to Obama, Merkel, Hu, Harper, and other leaders who are most responsible for the current stalling of the negotiations.

Let’s be clear. There is one reason why climate negotiations have not moved forward in Copenhagen – the failure of the U.S. and other developed nations to support  emission reduction targets and climate finance at the levels needed to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Today a UN document was leaked that stated what many climate experts have been claiming throughout Copenhagen – that the combined commitments of all nations in Copenhagen would leave the world with 3 degrees celsius of warming and 550ppm eCO2. A rise of 3C would mean up to 170 million more people suffering severe coastal floods and 550 million more at risk of hunger, according to the Stern review.

We’ve just heard that Obama has postponed his flight and is in meetings with key world leaders into the night. Let’s hope these leaders see the light and raise their ambitions in the final hours. I wouldn’t count on it. Either way, we will fight on.

Canadians have had to face stiff criticism as of late. With the Colvin scandal challenging Canada’s human rights reputation regarding prisoner treatment in Afghani prisons to the Canadian presence in Afghanistan in the first place, Canadians are having to field an array of critical voices from all sectors of the world politic.

Most depressingly, and perhaps most importantly, Canadians and the rest of the world are currently fighting the most important battle of our generation. Instead of praise in our war against climate change, however, the Canadian government rightfully deserves further negative press.

As the developing and developed world stare disinterested at one another, ‘compromise’ does not provide an expansive enough definition to explain the latest round of failure, there is little hope that a comprehensive agreement will be ready for signature by Copenhagen’s grand finale today. Even if the process was thought unlikely to result in success from the beginning, however, the Harper government decision to have Jim Prentice (Canadian Environment Minister) handle most - if not all – public announcements regarding the proceedings, indicates a deep seated hesitation by Stephen Harper to stand behind the abysmal environmental record of his conservative government.

Not since the UN General Assembly in September, when Harper decided it best to address the country from behind a Tim Horton’s counter in Oakville, Ontario – eschewing the podium offered to him, as all leaders are, in the United Nations headquarters in New York City – have Canadians had such obvious reason to cry foul regarding government mishandling of the climate debate. Time and time again, Harper, through his inaction and suffocating silence has illustrated that while climate change might be the biggest political issue of our time, he is unwilling to make it the biggest issue of his time.

While it might be more pleasant to sup with the royal family in Denmark instead of speak candidly or — as unlikely as it sounds – openly about Canadian failings within the international community (Canada is rated last amongst the G8 Nations regarding planned/attempts to curb greenhouse emissions). The challenge for the Harper government seems to be between the conservative base (with has provided the support contingent upon government protection of the energy sector) and the majority of Canadians who want to see substantive action taken to reduce Canada’s ecological footprint.

While U.S. President Barack Obama was criticized in the U.S. media not attending the Copenhagen summit earlier in the proceedings – arriving for the final hours in order to sign the, now-unlikely, comprehensive accord – Harper’s refusal to accept responsibility for the failings of the Canadian policy process should illicit more than mere ripples in public discourse.

As the world struggles to find consensus on the global issue of this and future generations, Canadians should be embarrassed. Not because we are “punching below our weight” as some have claimed, but because we are failing to get in the ring in the first place.

Government announcement that the most profitable section of AECL will be sold to private firm is deja vu all over again. They are either stupid or corrupt in helping the private firm. This is like the Mulroney medical isotope fiasco all over again. Mulroney gave a lopsided contract award to MDS Nordion to profit from medical isotope produced by AECL. AECL aside from having to provide the capital and produce the isotope end up gaining nothing which lead to the current medical isotope crisis. Now the only profitable section of AECL will be sold off again to a private firm at a time of nuclear renaissance where China have been in talk with AECL to work on CANDU that uses Thorium, something China have more of than Uranium. But guess where the profit from China’s tens of new reactor will go to once CANDU have been privatized. To the lucky private firm Harper decide to award the sale to of course.

Are they really this short sighted and stupid or simply corrupt? One excuse being used was it will save the taxpayer money. That’s full of stinky S__T! The isotope and research division of AECL still have to be shouldered by taxpayer. But now the profitable division is taken away which means they’ll be solely relying on taxpayers money now with no possible source of income.

Thanks Harper for giving CANDU to a private firm. Worse than Mulroney who gave medical isotope profit to MDS Nordion and the privatization of Petro Canada. As the nuclear power sale is set to skyrocket and enormous profit to be made due to pressure on government worldwide to cut pollutant and greenhouse emission. We then rush to sale a promising technology to a private firm. China already have CANDU (built on time and on budget) and with their joint research with AECL, it won’t be surprising if they chose CANDU for the bulk of their new Nuclear plant. I find it hard to believe that Harper can’t see something that is already at work. China have signed agreement with AECL. Are they really stupid or just corrupt?

Hey is not just the big three Bell, Rogers, Telus who are guilty of unacceptable business practices. http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/about-time-big-3-put-into-their-place-bell-rogers-and-telus/

British watchdog   fines Canadian bank 7.0 million pounds – Yahoo! Canada News LONDON (AFP) – Britain’s financial watchdog on Thursday said it had fined Canada’s Toronto Dominion Bank 7.0 million pounds (7.9 million euros, 11.3 million dollars) for failures related to the pricing of products. “The Financial Services Authority has today fined Toronto Dominion Bank (London Branch) 7.0 million pounds for repeated systems and controls failings around the pricing of sophisticated financial products,” it said in a release. “This is the bank’s second fine for systems and controls failings and the fourth largest levied by the FSA.” The watchdog added that the fine would force the bank to make a negative adjustment to its accounts of 96 million Canadian dollars in July 2008. “The breaches relate to pricing issues that were uncovered on a proprietary trader’s books within Toronto Dominion’s credit products group,” the FSA said in the statement. “Amongst other failings the FSA found that Toronto Dominion failed to follow their established procedures in ensuring the trader’s books were independently verified, and did not have adequate controls in place which could have detected the pricing issues.” http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/091217/canada/britain_canada_banking_regulate_fine_company_dominion

How come Canadians, Canadian firms  still have to be fined by the US or UK government for their wrong doings and not by  their own Canadian Government firstly now too often too. Remember the Canadian Conrad Black sitting in a US jail

I was surprised to find on my internet site statistics that a common search term was “Canadian Liars”.. http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/17147/

Quebec-based internet service provider Cogeco Inc. has stopped advertising its services as the fastest in in two Quebec cities after the Competition Bureau ruled the ads were misleading. The federal agency said the misleading claims about Cogeco’s services services in Drummondville and St-Hyacinthe had been clarified, but didn’t didn’t provide details on when the ads ran or say if its probe was spurred by a consumer complaint. The bureau said consumers had no way to compare the speed of Cogeco’s services with those of all of its competitors in the two cities, and it was therefore impossible for Cogeco to claim that they offered “the fastest” service. Cogeco’s CEO Louis Audet defended the ad campaign, saying the firm at the time had used an internet site that rates broadband speeds globally.  Cogeco is now using another method to compare speeds with them. Audet said he considers the Competition Bureau’s investigation to be minor. “I think what we were doing was rather benign. We advertised ourselves as the ‘fastest’ which is really the platform that we use across all of our territories where we compete with Bell and Telus,” he said.http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/091217/business/consumer_consumer_cogeco_1

Telecommunication firms, Banks, Real estates firms, used car salesmen, are all in the same class, category, same compartment in hell.. they often lie, deceive , put a facts spin on the facts so next the consumers will to take out loans, will  invest, will  buy.. Buyer Beware.. and many civil and public servants, cops, politicians, accountants too  now are no better.. Claims about speed and reliability are becoming issues of dispute among Canada’s major wireless companies, too. They are fighting legal battles over those issues as they position themselves for more competition as more players enter the cellphone market. On Wednesday, a B.C. court ruled that Bell Mobility could not claim it was Canada’s “most reliable network” after Rogers challenged Bell’s ads as misleading.  Last month, a B.C. court brought an injunction to force Rogers Communications to stop claiming it was Canada’s most reliable network. That was the result of a complaint by Telus.

As the CBC’s Lynn Burgess knows first hand I seriously challenged Bell’s claim of being the most reliable network, as I have often posted on my sites this fact as to how unreliable they rather were . I have often rightfully said it is a very common unacceptable Canadian practice to lie in business and we keep on getting new news media evidence of this now as well.. http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/bells-lies-vs-reality-again/ 

Like I have even said before ” Cellular firms get new customer rules but they still have not honoured all the old ones.. Canada’s mobile phone companies will be required to make sure consumers understand their contracts when they buy a cellphone under a new code of conduct but will the phone companies next fully honour the same contracts? Unlikley. Most Consumer advocates don’t think much of the new code. A code of conduct adopted by Canada’s cell phone service providers is a political answer that doesn’t address real consumer concerns, another competent  critic now has still charged .The code will be administered by the useless, pretentious  Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, a body set up two years ago by the industry to negotiate disputes between customers and companies.     In its first year, 2007-08,  CCTS was still unable able to resolve about 40  per cent, of the complaints according to its own website. What a very high failure rate.  About one-third of the complaints were related to wireless services. 40  per cent, that is about the number of unhappy Customers with Bell’s Internet services too”    http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/commissioner-for-complaints-for-telecommunications-services/ 

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is Shauna’s last post from Copenhagen. Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting feedback during this process.

Thumbs down Canada: one of the advertisements placed in the Copenhagen International Airport by a global coalition including tcktcktck.org and Greenpeace.

It’s the end of my stay in Copenhagen. I woke up early this morning, packed away all of the literature I collected from the Bright Green trade show, and headed off to the airport. My taxi driver asked me what I thought about all of “this klima talk.” “Did you know they are spending $28 million dollars a day for this – and for what I ask you – nothing – that’s what”, he scoffed.

On the way to the airport we stopped by Christiania, the large community that was set up by squatters on the outskirts of town. It has been the host to a number of Copenhagen climate change events led by artists and musicians. It’s an intriguing development that stretches several city blocks. The taxi driver loves Christiania. He tells me that Snoop Dog visited it last year and proclaimed that it was heaven on earth. I’m not so sure, but I’m impressed with the community they have created among the old dilapidated buildings. It’s a nice contrast to the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver.

I juxtapose Christiania with the Bella Centre and the sterile environment that surrounds most international negotiations. For anyone who has spent time in the bowels of the United Nations building, you can understand why creative thinking does not flourish in such dark and dismal spaces. Perhaps if our negotiators could just get out of these tombs, they might see the light. Instead they are burrowed away in their negotiating rooms, sustained with bad coffee and sandwiches and forced to negotiate into the early hours of the morning.

Alas, if I could only blame their limited vision on their working conditions but I know better. As I arrived home and crawled into bed last night, I was pleased to see that the lead story on the National was COP 15 related. Terry Milewski was reporting on the leaked documents outlining Canada’s new targets for green house gas emissions. If our strategy in Copenhagen wasn’t bad enough, now Canada is actually suggesting a dramatic weakening of our emission targets.

The reason for this weakening is to harmonize the Canadian oil companies with the weakest elements of a proposed bill in the United States that would protect energy intensive and trade exposed industries. Herein lies the difficulty for Canada when President Obama arrives in Copenhagen. Canada has decided not to negotiate with other nations in Copenhagen in good faith. Instead, our Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment have chosen to align themselves with the most conservative forces in the US.

The Obama administration is trying to carve out a greener, more progressive policy for the US at COP 15, but they will not be looking to Canada for support in this. Harper and Prentice have staked out their territory and unfortunately they have stood in line with the Republicans (intentionally or not) who are in Copenhagen to thwart the President’s initiative.

As I look back on this week, I can’t help but wonder how Canada could have fallen so far and so quickly from grace in the eyes of the global community. Is it our government’s inexperience in international negotiations that has brought us to this unenviable position? Or is it that they cannot see the larger picture because of their close bond with the oil and gas industry? Where are the voices of the other businesses in this country that stand to gain enormously from shifting to a greener, low carbon economy?

I think it is going to take a miracle to get a good deal out of Copenhagen. And if it is one thing I’ve learned in this last week, it’s that the negotiators are immune to the pleas of citizens. So, if citizens don’t matter, perhaps the engines of our economy should speak louder. Perhaps it’s time for other businesses to get vocal. If Coca-cola, Microsoft, Lafarge, and Unilever can call for a price on carbon in Copenhagen, perhaps it’s time that RIM, SNC Lavalin, Bell, MEC and other Canadian countries flexed their muscle.

Where: Stephen Harper’s Calgary constituency offce, 1600 90th Ave SW
When: Wednesday, December 16, 2009 beginning at 10:00am

Update! Sit-in participants demand Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s resignation

Update! Photos of the action

December 16, 2009 (Calgary, AB) – At 10:00 this morning, twenty citizens occupied Stephen Harper’s constituency office to offer the ultimatum of taking aggressive action on climate change before the end of the Copenhagen conference or resign as the Prime Minister of Canada. This is the eighth peaceful sit-in since November 23 when seven Albertans were arrested after demanding that Jim Prentice commit Canada to a fair, ambitious and binding treaty in advance of the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen.

“Prime Minister Harper is sabotaging efforts to solve the world’s climate crisis. Around the world Canada is being called a corrupt petro-state, is widely considered the worst blocker of negotiations, and is now even seeing calls for Canada to be banned from the Commonwealth” said Joel Woodhouse, who is currently inside the sit-in. “As Canadians, we are not going to tolerate more of the same from the prime minister so we’re giving him two options: sign on to the minimum reductions scientists say are necessary or resign your position as Prime Minister.”

The UN-established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that Canada faces serious threats to human health, major displacements of people and destruction of coastal infrastructure, chronic water shortages, and more. Worldwide, the Global Humanitarian Forum states that every year climate change causes over 300,000 human deaths, 325 million people to be severely affected, and economic losses of US$125 billion.

Yet Canada continues to obstruct the current round of climate negotiations in Copenhagen. The policies that Canada’s leaders are advocating in Copenhagen are the opposite of what Canadians want. Before the Copenhagen negotiations began, a poll found a full three-quarters of Canadians were “embarrassed” by Canada’s stance on climate change. During the negotiations, Stephen Harper’s inability to represent Canadian interests has become clear.

“Demanding a Prime Minister’s resignation may seem extreme. Frankly, we don’t know what alternatives remain. We have written letters to our representatives, we have requested meetings with our representatives and we have worked on climate change solutions in our communities for years,” says sit-in participant Susan Stratton. “Canada’s government is still obstructing climate talks and refusing to make any real change. This shows despicable disregard for future generations and for the millions already dying and losing their homes because of climate change. “

Like a pot-smoking university student, who, upon reading a study disputing the connection between drug use and brain function cries foul of all science and therefore the illegality of marijuana, watching the Harper government and the province of Alberta defend their actions at the Copenhagen summit on climate change is similarly laughable.

Perhaps a more apt political connection to the current Alberta defence of oil sands extraction, and appropriately capturing our politicians’ unadulterated arrogance, was the Bush administration’s spin and propagandizing of Iraq’s terrorist connections and weapons of mass destruction to make it incumbent upon themselves to force a war in Iraq. It’s about the continuance of self-fulfilling agendas, greed and power. Truly, that is it. Alberta is a province so entirely hypnotized by oil’s financial windfall that they’ll defend their callous actions to any extent and at any expense.

The malicious decision-making and two-facedness that Stephen Harper, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach and Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner employ is identical to that of drug dealers, mob hitmen, and the likes of Ponzi schemers Bernie Madoff or Gary Sorenson. They are selfish, sly and greedy and are irreverent to the negative impacts they have on the people around them, but exonerate themselves in the name of money. Their love for people, ideas and long-term thinking is shallow. Their commitment to the good of their province and country is skin deep. They communicate almost exclusively with their inner circles (mostly corporate power brokers), treating the rest of Canadians like idiots and that we can’t possibly understand the bigger picture. It’s sleazy and patronizing. They each hold their heads high as they walk to their cars each morning, fully knowledgeable that they’re complicit in destroying the world for their children and for others, yet are entirely and uncompromisingly consumed by the idea of wealth, power, and the expressed wishes and needs of those that support them.

That, or they’re all idiots, and I wouldn’t write off that possibility for at least two of them.

Oil sands production – the industrial rape and pillage of Alberta’s northern landscape – strips oil-rich dirt from the earth’s surface. From a moral perspective, the practice is not unlike diamond mining in Africa, asbestus mining in Quebec, or child labour in China. All are profoundly morally unacceptable, defended by their practicing parties and overarching governments because of their economical impact, and our consumerist societies increasingly depend upon them whether they help keep the costs of consumer goods low, or fuel regional, provincial or national economies. Additionally, it is every other country in the world that cries foul against them, and the offending nation defends its actions by pointing fingers at other similar offenders elsewhere. It is as though we are only interested in associating with the weakest link, rather than proactively engaging in leadership.

The fact of the matter is that this is contempt for our environment. Where do they get off having such a significant impact on the world that other people live in, simply for the sake of money? Add to this a recent announcement by Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice that his administration actually has plans to hit even lower targets than they’d set for themselves before, by enacting special protections and tax breaks for oil sands development under the terms of the industry being a vital (and thus unaccountable) trade commodity.

And why aren’t we trying to take the high road? Why does a man like Rob Renner go on radio talk shows defending the oil sands as an acceptable and modest practice of extracting fossil fuels, disputing science and overlooking serious health impacts in neighbouring communities? I’m not asking him to hate the oil sands or stop funding them (though engaging a realistic impact assessment is actually his job); rather I ask why he cannot simply rationalize his province’s destruction of its own natural environment for the sake of money, and call a spade a spade. He would rather dispute proven and indisputable scientific facts (which make him sound like a Rumsfeldian or Bushist idiot) than accept that what is being done in Alberta is wrong, though we make a heck of a lot of money from it. Tragically, it is because of this stonewalling that we cannot begin to make progress and walk, however slowly, towards the light at the end of our poisonous and calamitous tunnel.

The facts are clear, and they are this:

- Oil sands development and extraction in Alberta are an enormous (Canada’s worst) contributor to greenhouse gas emissions

- The destruction of northern Alberta has serious impacts on ecosystems (the muskeg and boreal forest) and wildlife (recall the deaths of over a thousand ducks in one incident), which further degrade our environment

- Oil sands tailing ponds and effluence are making people sick in nearby communities

- Oil sands depend on more resources, including fuel and water, for production than they produce themselves

- The oil sands contribute several billion dollars to both the Alberta and Canadian economies

- Other countries depend on, or will come to depend on, our oil and thus position us for a strong exporting stature (though that would be finite and thus limited)

Why can’t we all agree on these items and begin having real conversations and debates in terms of viability and our future? Why are we misinforming and therefore blindfolding ourselves?

Calling into dispute the science behind the warnings, and in fact defending the practice as sustainable and sensitive does not only frustrate those potentially interested in leading us in new directions; it makes the province and those that defend it look stupid. Again, I draw parallels to Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and George Bush, who, despite overwhelming evidence against terrorist connections or weapons of mass destruction (and their lack of ability to find any afterall) pushed forward on increasingly obvious private agendas to invade and overthrow Iraq. Their leadership was laughed out of office; their ineptitude scrawled onto every historical annal that has been published and will be for a hundred years.

Alternative fuel research is being torpedoed by Alberta’s multi-billion-dollar investment in compensatory research – carbon capture and storage (CCS) – which allows oil sands development to continue unabated while these recovery techniques are explored. Additionally, CCS is unproven, theoretical, and would require even greater fuel consumption just to function. Some estimates say it would be necessary to increase a refinery’s fuel consumption by 20-40% just to capture and exhaust the carbon underground. So we’re feeding our environmental recovery by burning more fuel… Again, arrogance and hidden agendas.

K, you distract the staff, while I pocket the goods. Then we’ll be out of here with the stuff we’re after, and no one will ever know…

The defensiveness and distraction provided by our governments are nothing more than a ploy to mislead and confuse the public so that the ‘debate’ (which is truly sound science, yet the conversation has been made to be seen as unproven bias) can continue, rather than determining a better – and God forbid, different – course of action.

Presuming for a moment that oil sands are not ruining the environment, we do know that this resource will dry up eventually. What forethought, then, is the province and country putting into our next lucrative and home-grown energy export? Surely the oil companies have all the resources they need to continue business as usual (land rights, governmental permissions, legal protections), so our defence of them is very likely irrelevant. So what’s next? Why can’t we see past the ends of our noses and begin to plan for the future, regardless of what that is? And why are our elected officials schilling on behalf of oil companies anyway?

And returning back to the indisputable science confirming the negative effects of the oil sands, why aren’t we recognizing the environmental impact and our responsibility to protect ourselves, and investing in these new arenas now?

As reported in a previous Socialist Voice article, on November 18, Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin told the Standing Committee on National Defence of the Canadian Parliament that in 2006 and 2007 Canadian troops knowingly turned Afghan civilians over to the Afghan National Police for interrogation and torture. Soldiers or diplomats who disagreed with the policy and spoke out were ignored or silenced. Colvin’s testimony touched off a political firestorm.

-

-

Denial and stonewalling

On December 7, the Globe and Mail published the field notes of Canadian officers concerning one detainee who had been turned over to Afghan authorities in June, 2006 and then was taken back into Canadian custody after suffering a brutal beating. The officer wrote, “We then photographed the individual prior to handing him over, to ensure that if the Afghan National Police did assault him, as has happened in the past, we would have a visual record of his condition.” (Emphasis in Globe article.)

As the notes reveal, it was common knowledge among Canadian soldiers that the captives they “rendered” to their Afghan allies were routinely abused and tortured.

The story is significant because the government and military have flatly denied Colvin’s testimony, going so far as to label him a “dupe of the Taliban.” But the denials have fallen flat.

On December 8, the current chief of staff of the Canadian armed forces, General Walter Natynczyk, appeared before the Standing Committee and repudiated the June 2006 field report, saying his troops were mistaken in believing that they were responsible for the detainee’s condition. The Canadians were on a joint patrol with Afghan forces, the general argued, so he was an Afghan detainee over whom the Canadians had no responsibility.

Less than 24 hours later, Natynczyk hastily convened a press conference to say that he was mistaken. “I did not have this information [his officer's report] in May of 2007 nor yesterday,” reported the Globe on page one the next day. (Emphasis in Globe article.)

The newspaper headlined the story, “In Command, In the Dark.”

The focus on this single case by the mainstream press and opposition political parties leaves the impression that the whole controversy boils down to it alone. In reality, Colvin reported routine transfers of many Afghans, and his was only the most recent such revelation.

The Globe shook Canada’s Afghan war policy in April, 2007 when it published a series of articles detailing multiple cases of detainee abuse. After a botched attempt to deny the evidence, the Conservative government of the time announced it had reached yet another deal with Afghan authorities to ensure proper treatment of detainees. “This issue [Colvin's revelations] was dealt with 2, 3, 4 years ago,” said Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently.

Now the Globe and Mail reveals in a December 14 front page story that, “An unknown number of Taliban insurgents captured by Canadians and turned over to Afghanistan’s secret police are unaccounted for-a serious violation of the Harper government’s “improved” detainee-transfer agreement…”

Defying Parliament and courts

Far from backing down after Natynczyk’s public humiliation, the government is taking its obstruction of any inquiry into the scandal to new heights. It has blocked investigation by its own Military Police Complaints Commission by refusing to give it relevant diplomatic reports and correspondence as well as military reports. It has fired Peter Tinsley, the head of the commission and refused to replace him, effectively bringing the MPCC’s work to a halt.

The government is defying Parliament itself. On December 10, the House of Commons voted 145 to 143 to demand that the government release the relevant diplomatic papers surrounding the scandal. The Harper government has refused. Parliament is now adjourned until January and it’s not clear if or when the opposition parties will take action to force compliance.

As if the government didn’t have enough critics already, its smear attacks on Richard Colvin have met with an anguished response in the foreign service. A total of 111 (and counting) former Canadian ambassadors have signed an extraordinary public statement condemning the government’s attacks. They argue that diplomats must be free to speak their minds without fear of retribution or public dress-down.

The opposition parties

A political scandal of this character and scope should give a boost to any political party that opposes Canada’s war in Afghanistan. Sadly, there is no such party in the Parliament. The opposition Bloc Québécois and New Democratic Party have, in the past, voiced opposition to the war and Canada’s aggressive role. They have now fallen largely silent. Neither party has made the slightest criticism of the recently-announced escalation of the war in Afghanistan by U.S. President Barak Obama.

The Bloc and the NDP are calling for a public inquiry into the latest revelations of detainee abuse. But they have ducked any criticism of the war itself or the conduct of the Canadian military, saying that it’s all the fault of the political leaders.

Their critique is so weak that the pro-war Liberal Party is able to pose as the lead voice in the call for a public inquiry. Canada joined the assault on Afghanistan in 2002 and escalated it significantly in late 2005, both times under a Liberal government.

Another critic of the war who is simultaneously loyal to the military and political institutions prosecuting it is Scott Taylor, publisher of Esprit de Corps magazine, which has a wide readership in the Canadian military. He calls Afghanistan a “quagmire” for NATO forces and says that Canada is propping up a “corrupt regime.” He wants a public inquiry where the military can come forward to explain its detainee policy and listen to proposals to change it. “Then we can put all this behind us,” he told CBC Radio on December 10.

Forget, for one moment, about detainee abuse. What about the thousands of Afghans who have died, and continue to die, as a result of the NATO war in their homeland – from indiscriminate bombings, chance encounters with foreign troops, forced dislocations or hunger and disease?

The last inquiry to take place into the conduct of the Canadian military looked into allegations of torture and abuse of prisoners it captured in Somalia in the early 1990s. The inquiry was shut down by a Liberal government when its line of questioning reached too far up the political and military chain of command.

Roger Annis is an aerospace worker in Vancouver and an editor of Socialist Voice. He can be reached at rogerannis(at)hotmail.com.

 Roger Annis is a frequent contributor to Global Research.  Global Research Articles by Roger Annis

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16559

So first of all, an apology. Over the past week and a half, I’ve been totally unable to keep this up. BUT, the good news is, I’m back. And just in time, too.

Tomorrow I’m sure there will be a lengthier post about Copenhagen, and the “dirty old man” I come from. But first…

The Liberals were suggesting today that Stephen Harper would probably rather be anywhere but Copenhagen. I don’t disagree; I’m sure he’s miserable. But in the midst of their Harper-bashing, the Liberals decided to post this:

I really doubt Harper would rather be shot down on live television...

To the Liberals’ credit, they took this down after a couple hours. But this was their way of saying Harper would rather be Lee Harvey Oswald getting shot than be in Copenhagen….

That’s about as ugly as The Guardian calling Canada a “dirty old man.”

Well, no progress today for Elizabeth but she is hanging in there like a trooper.  Hopefully we can get some things moving this week and get Harper out!  Harper is dug-in like a soldier in a trench.

Chloe is the one on the right - this was taken at a happier time in her life.

Chloe is still a little bitter by the arrangement but she was all over Elizabeth last night – maybe thats a sign that things will be changing soon.  She tucked herself in under Harper and went to sleep last night.  The fact still remains that she is not listening to her dad, and uses her aunt sara’s bed as a hiding place.  On a related note, Chloe did tell me that Sara’s fate may end up like my aunts.  At least there is Kevin as a back up

BC mom warns consumers of changing cellphone contracts that could rack up costs Winnipeg Free Press -  VANCOUVER, BC – A British Columbia mother is warning consumers not assume their cellphone contracts are written in stone after new charges started appearing on her bill a year into her three-year agreement.  Rosanna von Sacken, who bought a Rogers Wireless plan that included phones for her three teenage children, discovered her contract terms had changed last summer allowing new charges for incoming text messages.Rogers started charging 15 cents for incoming messages not included in texting plans about a year after Telus and Bell implemented the same fee. That’s despite her original contract signed in September 2008 stating that all text messages are free. Each child also has a plan for unlimited texts for 10 numbers.With three teenagers, von Sacken said the extra charges started to add up quickly on her bill this fall.She complained to the company and the Better Business Bureau, but both said nothing could be done because of fine print in her original contract which states  Rogers can change the contract terms “upon notice.”   “The p oint here is the way their billing practices go. It’s wrong for Rogers to be allowed to change these fees and services,” in the middle of a contract, von Sacken said.   Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, said  complaints such as hers are “chronic” across the country. “It’s quite disgusting that you have to read through the fine print with a magnifying glass to understand what you are signing,” Cran said, adding that Rogers isn’t the only company consumers are complaining about. “Too much of this stuff goes on in Canada.”Cellphone service and equipment also ranked the highest on the list of complaints nationwide by the BBB in 2008. 

Like I have even said before ” Cellular firms get new customer rules but they still have not honoured all the old ones.. Canada’s mobile phone companies will be required to make sure consumers understand their contracts when they buy a cellphone under a new code of conduct but will the phone companies next fully honour the same contracts? Unlikley. Most Consumer advocates don’t think much of the new code. A code of conduct adopted by Canada’s cell phone service providers is a political answer that doesn’t address real consumer concerns, another competent  critic now has still charged .The code will be administered by the useless, pretentious  Commissioner for Complaints for Telecommunications Services, a body set up two years ago by the industry to negotiate disputes between customers and companies.     In its first year, 2007-08,  CCTS was still unable able to resolve about 40  per cent, of the complaints according to its own website. What a very high failure rate.  About one-third of the complaints were related to wireless services. 40  per cent, that is about the number of unhappy Customers with Bell’s Internet services too”    http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/commissioner-for-complaints-for-telecommunications-services/

Rogers Wireless Comes Under Fire, Charges for “Free” Text Messages Mobile Magazine

 http://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/17147/ Mad Canadian telecomunications giants slug fest

and what about them also going after the big guys like Bell, Rogers, TELUS too?

 I TOO HAVE MADE ERRORS, ERRORS IN JUDGMENT, MISTAKES, BUT AT LEAST I TRY HARD NOT TO DO IT AGAIN, SOMETHING THE COPS AND JUDGES, CRTC, CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS  WOULD DO WELL TO TRY REALLY HARD AT  NOW AS WELL.. INSTEAD OF TOO OFTEN REPEATING THEM..