May 14, 2009
16 Comments

BC Election Post-Mortem

by Tzeporah Berman

The satirist's view -- Harrop in the Vancouver Sun

Well, Canadians dodged a bullet in the BC election. BC will not be rolling back energy conservation, clean power and carbon pricing. I expect that a successful political campaign against the fundamentals of climate policy (especially following the federal fiasco), would have sent the retail politics of climate to a very reactionary place across Canada and a G8 country backtracking in the lead up to Copenhagen would have been very damaging to global aspirations.

The BC election showed climate policies are not necessarily a liability. On the contrary, they were by many accounts (see “Related” below) a positive factor. And whether or not we have proven that you can win elections based on action against global warming, it is certainly true that campaigning against climate action exposes you as unscrupulous.

But dodging a bullet is not progress. Far from progress, BC was a rearguard battle to keep the modest laws we had in place. And in the world beyond politics – the melting, heating one — we need very aggressive progress. In that regard, the BC election revealed several very sobering realities:

Partisan gamesmanship: Unlike the national consensus developed in leading jurisdictions that the only respectable argument should be about how to accelerate climate policy, Canada (like the US) remains stuck with political parties that are willing to play games with the planet’s liveability. The political strategy of preying on fears about energy prices was certainly tarnished, but I suspect we haven’t seen the last of it – there is a big difference between campaigning to hold ground and campaigning to gain new ground.

Enviro Leadership: No matter how clear the science of climate change has become, no matter how vocally the scientists speak out during the election and call on enviros to follow the science, there remain environmental leaders and even good-sized environmental groups that have not made global warming a priority. Incredibly, there were even groups circulating voting guides in which climate was not on the list of priority voting issues.

Policy coverage: The carbon tax became the symbolic issue in the public dialogue but its benefits were poorly conveyed: lots of chatter about behaviour change and very little about catalyzing cleaner technologies or pricing as a critical driver in building a clean economy. Developing a renewable energy sector got some press but largely focused on a single technology (run of river hydro) and the bizarre debate (unique in the world to British Columbia) over whether to abandon the development of a clean energy sector in favour of building exclusively through an integrated state monopoly. Most important, energy conservation policies were nowhere on the radar despite being arguably more important than carbon pricing or renewables. This despite the fact that conservation measures were under full attack. Conservation doesn’t have the sex appeal of renewables or potency of carbon pricing but we have got to find a way to make it unacceptable for politicians to oppose the basics like 2-tiered electricity pricing, smart meters, etc.

Fossil Fuels?: Not much attention was paid to the need to up our ambition and eliminate fossil fuel emissions. In fact issues like the oil & gas build in Northern BC, freeway expansions, tanker traffic, tar sands pipelines and the like went mostly undebated. This was the predictable result of the NDP’s decision to campaign against the policies on the books — the public conversation was about the status quo, not about what we should be doing next. But the conversation about fossil fuels and the scale of the challenge is the conversation we need to stimulate.

So, now we drive the province towards more aggressive policies and leverage other provinces and federal action. Now that BC will not be playing a role in thwarting global efforts, we have got to focus on our federal government in the run up to Copenhagen – will Ottawa continue a strategy of obstructionism (more) and undermine the Obama efforts, or will the Feds try to make Canada proud of our role in the world once again?

Related:

Email This Post Permalink Share This

16 Responses so far...

  1. Helesia Luke says:
    May 21, 2009 at 11:20 am

    “One lesson the current financial crisis teaches us is: beware of the new carbon markets that constitute today’s main official response to climate change. These markets are startlingly similar to the financial derivatives markets that have thrown banking systems into chaos and the world economy into a tailspin.”
    http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=82167989269&h=7WNgS&u=tgYMq&ref=mf

  2. mehdi najari says:
    May 20, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    Chris Hatch, Thank you for reviewing the principle reasons for 2-tiered electricity rates and smart meters. But as you know the devil is in details of specific program. So would you be kind to explain the specific program proposed by BC government. What are the incentives for efficient use and penalties for high use. What is the level for efficient use and what is the cut of point for high use. What percentage of total electricity use in BC is residential and what percentage is business and industrial use. Does the government purposed plan reduce our carbon foot print and how much.

  3. Chris Hatch says:
    May 19, 2009 at 10:41 am

    Dear Mehdi — Both energy efficiency measures have proven their worth. And neither are Campbell’s idea — they have been in place and successful in other jurisdictions in some cases for decades. BC is just proposing to catch up on some basic steps. The early steps for electricity conservation are fairly straightforward: BC has among the cheapest electricity rates in the world and as a result is among the most wasteful — we use many times more juice than others for the same activities. Its that old principle that if we don’t value something, we don’t treat it with respect. What other provinces and countries have done in this regard is to set different rates for different amounts of useage. So if you use the average amount, you pay the basic rate. But if you use more, you pay more. So you build in incentives for efficient use and penalize high uses, create incentives for more efficient technologies etc. This kind of flexibility allows the utility to do more sophisticated things too as they are doing in Ontario: ie make rates cheaper at certain times to move demand to times of the day when the grid is less clogged.

    As to smart meters, these have several benefits. They have been in place in the Nordic countries, Germany etc for some time. The most immediate effect is that energy use drops just by giving people information about what they’re using. Sort of like the Prius effect — just by driving with the information in front of them, drivers become more efficient — studies show double digit benefits. And in the longer term, smart meters are being installed by governments like the Obama administration because they are an early step in building a “smart grid” — often described as an energy internet — where everything is interconnected and interactive. The plan is to have distributed energy generation linked into the smart grid interacting with all the millions of users. You get a more efficient and resilient system that’s more attuned to what users need as opposed to what the big generating stations want. So, just to use one example, ultimately your electric car is linked together with thousands of others acting as huge battery storage when that’s what the grid needs, acting as an electricity source when that’s needed. Homes generate electricity and feed through the meters to the grid, electricity generation plants provide just what’s needed, when it’s needed etc. The often used analogy is from the tech world — the 20th century grid vs the smart grid is like old mainframes vs the modern distributed internet.

    Energy conservation (or “efficiency” or “productivity” or however you choose to frame the issue) has enormous potential gains but its one of those issues where the theory is much harder than practice. In theory we can easily see how much more efficient, say California or Sweden or Japan are than BC, but reorganizing the rates and grid is politically very difficult. Any kind of change to the energy system creates all kinds of backlash and fears about rate increases especially somewhere like Canada where we’ve built our buildings and transportation infrastructure on the assumption that energy will always be plentiful and very cheap. So even in very cold regions you have poorly designed and insulated buildings because people can just crank the thermostat and it doesn’t matter. And we can live far from work and our only worry is about the commute time, not the cost of driving (not to mention the carbon emissions). But I think the bottom line for electricity is not so different than oil and gas — we have gotten used to energy being far cheaper than its real cost both to ourselves and the planet. “Internalizing” those costs and making the system smarter and more efficient so that we act in our own interests isn’t the only thing that’s needed but it is certainly one of the biggies.

  4. Peter says:
    May 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm

    “Incredibly, there were even groups circulating voting guides in which climate was not on the list of priority voting issues.”

    I assume you are referring to the Wilderness Committee’s Vote Wild! report here, as I don’t recall any other guide in mass circulation. Keeping this short, it mentions a regime by which an energy build-out could actually be green, and extensively covers the Gateway Program.
    Now, if you meant some other voting guide, please let me know. Otherwise it looks, once again, as if you are reducing climate policy to carbon pricing. As you are well aware, this is a great way to sever youreself from the grass-roots of the movement.

    “In fact issues like the oil & gas build in Northern BC, freeway expansions, tanker traffic, tar sands pipelines and the like went mostly undebated. ”

    I mean, really. You were chief among those not debating these issues. That you would bring this up as a point is cringe-inducing.  You beat one party with the climate stick while letting another walk away entirely unscathed. Your chutzpah is, I confess, charming. That doesn’t quite mitigate the bare-faced hypocrisy of attempting to climb to the high-ground here. I hope you feel shame over this point.

    And Tzeporah, was that you in the receiving line for hugs from Gordon Campbell at the Liberal victory party?

  5. It’s time to rally around cap and trade « GreenPolicyProf says:
    May 18, 2009 at 10:07 pm

    [...] BC election is over and Gordon Campbell’s Liberals have secured a third term in office. For many climate activists, that the Liberals did not lose this election because of their carbon tax is a positive sign. As [...]

  6. mehdi najari says:
    May 17, 2009 at 1:55 pm

    Chris Hatch wrote;” it was the NDP’s opposition to the core energy conservation policies (2-tiered electricity rates, smart meters etc) that was nowhere on the radar. I find it hard to imagine you meant to argue that you wished the NDP’s opposition to energy conservation (in practice) was more prominent?”. Chris would you please explain the importance of (2-tiered electricity rates, smart meters etc) and the specifics of what Gordon Campbell government purposed. i do not see what is being purposed at all positive.

  7. Barry Saxifrage says:
    May 16, 2009 at 10:13 pm

    I switched my vote from NDP to Green this time because the NDP was openly attacking the fundamental tools for stopping climate chaos.

    The only tool that has ever worked to cut energy demand is to raise the price per unit of energy. Period. The NDP said no to this fundamental essential tool required to reduce our dangerous, wasteful energy consumption.

    They insisted that the vast majority of dirty fossil fuels in BC should be made even cheaper by removing climate pollution pricing.  They said no to both carbon tax and to cap & trade pricing for transport and home heating fuels. Those are the vast majority of our emissions.  They also insisted that electricity should be cheaper, un-tiered and without smart meters to reduce need for more energy projects to be built.

    Cheap energy = more use = more waste = more energy projects = more pollution.

    It is totally crazy at this stage of climate crisis to LOWER the price of carbon fuels. It is not just a “symbol”, it is a fundamental requirement to save our kids future.

    The europeans tax themselves $1.90 per liter for gasoline. In BC we tax ourselves about $0.25. And guess what? We use far more than they do. Literally tonnes more each per year. And we trash the climate many tonnes more each as a result. And we are far more vulnerable as individuals and society to the market price of BigOil that we have no control over at all.

    Most of the energy we use in BC is dirty fossil fuels and most of that is imported BigOil. Clean electricity is less than a quarter.

    Running a campaign based on promising voters even cheaper dirty energy as we teeter on the cusp of climate tipping points is totally inexcusable.

    Not only did NDP say “no” to essential demand reduction pricing they also said “no” to building out local clean energy alternatives.

    Climate change is not going away. It is already hammering BC and the world. It is just going to get worse and worse until we get to zero carbon. No political party can fight the physics of our atmosphere and oceans. You can’t vote pander to ocean acidification or the greenhouse effect. Even Campbell figured that out years ago. Hopefully whoever controls the NDP platform from here on will too.

  8. David says:
    May 16, 2009 at 10:35 am

    If the approaching climate crisis had actually been on the public’s radar to the extent you like to imagine, the Greens would have won hands down. But the vote showed that by and large most voters want to live in the past, in a fantasy world that no longer exists. 4% more voted for privatizing Liberals than the socializing NDP, in the fear-driven yet vain hope that their business connections (NOT skills, mind you) would pump up the bubble of a ponzi growth economy again. This is the straight path to climate armaggedon and ecological ruin, yet nearly all the mainstream politicians are still making such bankrupt stump speeches, climate and overshoot be damned.

    The other irony is that the Libs are saying the election validated their energy,  climate and conservation policies, and companies like Plutonic-GE are pumping up their stock bubbles on Wall Street again after this minority “victory”, yet if you look at the electoral district map of BC, the NDP pretty much swept the entire coast, took every riding where plans for oil tankers, pipeline ports, ruin-of-river and  festering fish feedlots are happening.

    So it’s a bit early to call for a post mortem, since there are many torpedoes still heading for the Liberators’ ship, and the NDP will probably undergo profound change as the dinosaurs die off. The dismal failure of STV and the retrenchment of FPTP will prolong this neo-fascist abuse of power and the privateering  liquidation of BC’s public assets that the Liberals have turned into a slaughterhouse art form. It’s dismaying to see environmentalists of your intelligence still trying to climb onboard this bloody prirate ship to get a contract for painting it green.

  9. Bill Henderson says:
    May 16, 2009 at 7:36 am


    First of all, climate change was only a symbolic politics distraction in an election that was about leadership in the economy, stupid.

    Secondly, by seriously mis-educating the public suggesting that the Libs puny carbon tax was a mitigation measure to rally around those enviros that messaged in support of a very brown Lib gov’t just put another impediment in the way of getting to mitigation of a scale needed. Instead of using the election opportunity to educate what getting back under 350 ppm must mean the messaging reaffirmed that climate change isn’t even as important as health care funding.

    Franky Luntz and the Delayers couldn’t sing a more sleep inducing, new denial song. The epitome was the open letter from enviro leaders: It’s time to put the planet before politics http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090508.wPOLbc_letter0509/BNStory/politics/

    This open letter was an attempt by leaders very much concerned by climate change to try and use the BC election to keep BC on the present very limited path to climate change action. It is realpolitick messaging about what should be the next governments priorities. They are trying to hold the Liberals to task and get the NDP back in the fold while highliting emission reduction actions they think possible and advantageous.

    Look at the scale of emission reduction if these BC environmental leaders ‘clear solutions’ are implemented. Look down the list of actions they advocate: transit, investment in green infrastructure, retrofits and carbon pricing; look at the figures and programs envisioned and ball park what level of emission reduction would happen if the next government adopted all of these mitigation actions.

    Puny – well to me puny; not anywhere near necessary. Say maybe the level of the BC government’s emission reduction targets: emission reduction aiming at less than 30% not 80% by 2020.

    There was a good review of Thomas Homer-Dixon’s new book by Andrew Nikiforuk in this weekends G&M. Nikiforuk called Canadians carbon hedonists guilty of massive risk-taking and generational theft. He’s right – our carbon footprint is at least five times above what is needed to get back under 350. The open letter is from carbon addicts lying to themselves and to you, Their ‘fast track climate action plan’ is woefully insufficient considering the scale and immediacy of climate change danger. Look what’s not on these environmental leaders climate change to do list:

    No immediate end of coal and dirty oil production and use. No shift of subsidies from oil and gas to renewables. No rationing of car and truck use. Advocacy of a totally inadequate, almost delayer tactic, carbon pricing – where’s the call for an effective three figure price on carbon? No call for a steady-state economy. No messaging about the need to powerdown when the Canadian carbon footprint is more than five times higher than a possible sustainable footprint of less than 1metric tonne annually shared by 6 of the 7 billion people on the planet.

    Tzeporah and the MSM are happy that putting a price on carbon wasn’t an election loser this time. Huh? This election wasn’t in any way a referendum on climate change action. And like Waxman – Markey in the States, the lesson for enviros as well as the public is that the low and leaky pricing of carbon possible within our present political and economic systems will have minimal effect on emissions and only wastes precious time.

    Putting the planet before politics? Hardly. Playing petty politics instead of showing leadership.

  10. Douglas Gook says:
    May 15, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    There was a party running in this election that had conservation front and center…. it had a progressive platform that was second to none among the leading GHG fighting jurisdictions…. it promoted `steady state’ economics instead of cancer economics….. it had comprehensive alt energy policies that wouldn’t wreck rivers and give our water to disaster capitalist corps like GE…. and it continues to get one of the highest popular vote % of any Green Party at state/prov or national levels anywhere on the planet, where those elected Greens in those pro rep jurisdictions make up the progressive front of coalition governments.
    And I know BC can do so much better if all progressive enviros support the important role that the GPBC plays in setting out the leading edge policies so that the other parties have to follow!!!!
    The citizens assembly/electoral reform, getting junk food out of schools and the climate action plan (flimsy and weak) were not in the Liberal Party platform; they weren’t in the NDP platform; they were in the GREEN PARTY OF BC platform!
    I credit the 13% (2001) and 9.2% (2005) of BC voters for achieving this policy progress. The Liberals tacked on these policies to try to get some of that vote. The impact that could be achieved when we stop ignoring this success, back it with gusto, donate resources and even run as candidates, would be massive. We would get people elected (even with this defunked system) and would have the possibility of being key leading edge parts of coalition governments.
    Continue to vote/promote mediocraty and we end up with `Idiocracy’ (please watch this comedy film – it isn’t far off what we have today!!!!)
    If this connects please get involved. The GPBC meets for election debrief and 2013 planning session in Victoria on May 23rd. Call me if you want to chat 250 747 3363
    douglas gook

  11. Andre says:
    May 14, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    There are too many contradictory directions by the BC Liberals to argue that their win is as a clear vindication of their policy choices.

    I agree that the NDP focussed their arguments poorly. However, it feels to me that they made no attempt whatsoever to reach out to young voters, say 18-33 year olds. Climate Change is their issue, and I’m guessing they’re willing to rally around it. It’s the case South of the border, but here, no effort whatsoever was made to target the issue to them. Nothing the NDP did or said (minimum wage notwithstanding) seemed to resonate with young voters, as far as I can tell. Arguing that to:

    “game’ neo-liberal systems – the same systems that got is into the mess we are in now – will ultimately prove to be a distraction.”

    strike me as a typical worn-out argument that means nothing with them.

    I wonder what proportion of non-voters belong to the 18-33 age group? I’m curious to know, given that neither party offered much of interest to them, though their support could have had a significant effect on the election outcome.

  12. Helesia Luke says:
    May 14, 2009 at 5:15 pm

    In response, I don’t think you got MY point.  IF, some voices wanted to bring up other topics, nothing stopped them from doing so.

    In my view, this narrow-minded fixation on making deals with the architects of our present dilemma will not be a successful strategy. It strikes me as rather provincial actually. As others in the world examine the ideological and regulatory underpinnings of global economic collapse, here in BC some people are still clinging to the idea that their version of free market incentives and disincentives will save the day as emissions climb.

    In the meantime, the cause of climate action sheds supporters as they are marginalized by a survivalist mentality that ignores suffering and the interconnectedness of our communities.   

    Again:
    “There are other perspectives on climate action. Some of us believe that efforts to ‘game’ neo-liberal systems – the same systems that got is into the mess we are in now – will ultimately prove to be a distraction. A costly distraction that penalizes the poorest among us while taking us away from implementing a variety of solutions. One need look no farther than the economic free-fall enabled in large part by Ayn Rand influenced thinkers who believed that self-interest would prevent bad decisions. It didn’t.”

  13. Chris Hatch says:
    May 14, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    Helesia, I believe you may have misunderstood the point — it was the NDP’s opposition to the core energy conservation policies (2-tiered electricity rates, smart meters etc) that was nowhere on the radar. I find it hard to imagine you meant to argue that you wished the NDP’s opposition to energy conservation (in practice) was more prominent?

  14. Pat says:
    May 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

    Helesia — you were a candidate for the party that called environmentalists the enemies of the state last time in government but get all holier-than-thou about what the existing government does?!

    Both parties have offered nowhere near the climate policies needed but at least the fiberals are moving forward not backward. If you’re the green party, you get to list a bunch of issues landing in your mailbox and say you’d do better. If you’ve been in government recently and attacked environmentalists, brought in fish farms, highways, unregulated run of river etc, then it’s pretty hypocritical.

    I’ve been reading Berman’s blog for a while and she’s taken a lot of heat but been very clear and I agree with the core of her election arguments — we need energy conservation policies which the NDP opposed, we need low carbon renewables which the NDP would freeze, and we need carbon pricing just like every scientist and international policy expert has called for. And we need to amp up these policies not roll them back. For climate activists that understand the policies, the carbon tax was a symbol for all these climate policies. We need a debate about electrifying transport, densifying populations, integrated public transit  and phasing out fossil fuels and none of this can happen while your party is demagoging over 4 cents a litre of gas.
    If your party learns its lesson and argues for stronger climate policies than the other, then I’d vote for you. But this time out you looked like Harper or the American republicans.

  15. Helesia Luke says:
    May 14, 2009 at 4:29 pm


    I am saddened, bewildered and slightly angered by the political bias and spectacular arrogance exposed in this post. If “energy conservation policies were nowhere on the radar” perhaps it was because some enviros insisted that carbon pricing dominate the airwaves with constant media releases and commentary.
     
    As an NDP candidate, I talked to voters everyday during the campaign and discovered that many – often the most affluent, driving the worst polluting vehicles viewed carbon pricing as a mea culpa – pay more and continue as usual. They extended the same thinking to industry.
     
    There are other perspectives on climate action. Some of us believe that efforts to ‘game’ neo-liberal systems – the same systems that got is into the mess we are in now – will ultimately prove to be a distraction. A costly distraction that penalizes the poorest among us while taking us away from implementing a variety of solutions. One need look no farther than the economic free-fall enabled in large part by Ayn Rand influenced thinkers who believed that self-interest would prevent bad decisions. It didn’t.
     
    I will say here, what I said during all candidates meetings, every member of an environmental group should remember how many times in the past eight years those organizations have called on you to sign a petition, write a letter or attend a rally to protest a bad Liberal environmental policy.
     
    As a person who played a large role in determining what enviro topics were part of the public discourse during the election, I find it truly lacking in self awareness that Ms. Berman wrings her hands now about what should or shouldn’t have been discussed.
     
    The next time a call to action lands in my inbox to halt offshore drilling, bring in protected species legislation, place a moratorium on fish farming, stop dumping untreated waste in the Georgia Straight, save the Great Bear Rainforest, protest a gutted and gutless environmental assessment office, oppose Gateway and the Port Mann Bridge expansion – all issues that are tied to climate action -  I will pause to reflect on those who were willing to trade a single perceived gain for so much bad policy.

  16. Colleen says:
    May 14, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Pretty good post Tzeporah. It’s sort of like relief that the firefighters stopped your house from burning down. It’s a good thing but all you’re left with is what you started with.

    The worst thing about James tactics was a deliberate focus on making us spend the whole election on whether or not to go backwards. She knows there’s a climate crisis and still forced us to have a whole election as a referendum on the carbon tax ie nothing new. I think the transparent dishonesty did more than the bad platform — everyone just knew she was manufacturing issues she didn’t actually believe in. I thought Stephen Hume got the NDP self destruct campaing pretty right today:
    http://www.vancouversun.com/entertainment/campaign+lost/1594949/story.html
    So much for the NDP being out from under the sway of the politicized unions in BC! Let’s just hope there’s some soul searching now about how Campbell holds his coalition together and James kills hers. And YES — on to copenhagen! Let’s get Harper’s act together!


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Not a Member? Click here to register.