Results of BC Green Party AGM election

Here are the official election results, as announced at the British Columbia Green Party AGM on Sunday 26 November 2006 in Vancouver:

Deputy Leader (vote by provincial council only)
Angela Reid

New Directors at Large
Roy Ball - Vancouver
Angela Reid - Kelowna
Rex Weyler - Cortes Island
Silvaine Zimmerman - Bowen Island

New Chairs
Chair - Desmond Rodenbour - Vancouver
Administration Chair - Tom Cornwall - North Vancouver
External Liaison - Peter Ronald - Vancouver
Membership - Kerrie Dickson - Nelson
Ombudsperson (male) - Stuart MacKinnon - Vancouver
Organizing Chair - Leanna Mitchell - North Vancouver
Policy & Research - Thomas Bradfield - Saanich
Publications - Dee Brennan - Vancouver
Secretary - Sven Biggs - Gibsons
Treasurer -Roman Goldmann-Vancouver
Vice Chair - Rex Weyler - Cortes Island

During the main business of the meeting, party members refined policies and clarified positions on maintaining public healthcare, protection of workers rights and continuing to oppose the building of new pipelines. “Every year, the AGM brings together party members committed to moving green policy forward, building the membership and raising the important issues the other parties fail to address, such as eliminating coal-fired power plants, ensuring watersheds are protected from mining and forestry, and finding sensible solutions to transportation that do not encourage the use of non-renewable energy,” said outgoing Leader Adriane Carr.

In addition to new council members, the party announced the election by the new BC council of Angela Reid to Deputy Leader. From Kelowna, Angela was elected to council as a member at large and will immediately assume the role of Deputy. “Climate crisis will be the defining political issue in the next decade, said Deputy Leader, Angela Reid “The Green Party is the only party prepared with a comprehensive platform to reverse the impact that humans have had on our environment. I am excited to be deputy leader of the party with the solutions, and to continue inspiring British Columbian’s with our vision for the future.”

“Moving towards the 2009 elections we are strengthening the group of people with expertise and dedication necessary to build green community, encourage grass roots democracy and generate innovative new policy,” said new party Chair, Desmond Rodenbour, known for his depth of experience in student politics.

The new provincial council struck a committee to determine the process that will lead to the appointment of an interim leader and the election of a new Party Leader.

Green quote of the day

"It’s a shame that the Greens didn’t make history, turning Elizabeth May into the Deborah Gray of the Green movement, but the results remain a rap on the door of the mainstream parties. There’s a new colour out there, and a vote for it is not a vote wasted."

- James Bow (of well-known blog, "Bow. James Bow.")

Green blogger participates in latest Blogger Hotstove

Mark Francis, aka The Sudden Sage, participated in the Sunday 26 November edition of The Blogger Hotstove, which can be downloaded here.

The Bloggers Hotstove is a weekly audio panel show, in which bloggers representing various Canadian political parties (and occasionally party-neutral bloggers) debate topical issues in Canadian politics.

Well done to Greg Staples, host of The Bloggers Hotstove, for including a Green.

The teaser for the current episode is as follows:

"Well, what do you expect us to talk about this week? Plenty of talk about the "Quebecois is a nation with a united Canada" motion, a round on the fiscal update, and on how a government can do nothing and the Net Debt is eliminated, opening the constitution to limit federal spending in provincial jurisdiction, the by-election in London (with some wishful Green thinking) and one last kick at the Liberal leadership can.

"This week's panel includes James Bow, Jason Cherniak, and yet another rookie panelist Mark Francis.

"On an audio note I went back to my tried and true method of recording and the results are a lot better."

CBC: Green party 'has arrived'

Green party 'has arrived' after 2nd place finish in byelection
CBC News Online

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May sounded victorious Tuesday in announcing that her second-place finish in the federal byelection in London North Centre Monday had won the Green Party a place on Canada's political map.

"We are electable. We have a full party. The Green Party really has arrived," she told CBC News early Tuesday. "We can be taken seriously as a credible political alternative."

May won 26 per cent of the popular vote in the byelection, placing second behind Liberal Glen Pearson, who won the seat with nearly 35 per cent. But May beat Tory Dianne Haskett, the former London mayor, who took 24 per cent of the vote.

May, a well-known environmental activist born in the U.S., said her strong showing is good news for the Greens because the party clearly increased its popular support from the last federal election.

Read more here:
http://tinyurl.com/uu86u

Québécois ARE a nation, but this vote is preposterous

My position regarding the current Québécois nationhood debate is probably most similar to that of Liberal leadership candidate Gerard Kennedy: that the Québécois are a nation; but that today's vote in the House of Commons was ridiculous, potentially dangerous, and completely unnecessary.

Simply put, Anglophones debating whether the Québécois may call themselves a nation is absurb and insulting.

First, let's be clear. The traditional meaning of "nation" is very different from "state" or "country", although people often use the former term when they really mean the latter. Nation comes from the Latin nation- or natio, which means "birth" or "race". In practice, it's a tribalistic, emotional group that one feels they belong to. Generally speaking, a nation rallies around a common language and culture that is different from its neighbours.

If we agree to that meaning of "nation", then it's obviously quite different from a "country" or a "state".

For example, the Basque nation exists, yet a Basque state does not. Basque people live in the states of France and Spain. The emotional identity of being part of the Basque nation is different from (or perhaps even transcends) being a citizen of France or Spain. In theory, one could be a proud Basque nationalist and a proud French of Spanish citizen, although many Basques would indeed prefer to establish their own independent nation-state.

If nationality (rather than statehood) is an emotional sense of belonging to a group (rather than politically-based citizenship), and a non-tangible feeling (rather than something you can hold, such as a country's passport), surely only members of a nation can describe themselves as indeed being a nation; and logically, that those outside such a group cannot take away such nationhood from them.

If this is agreed, then why on Earth are non-Québécois Canadians being asked to vote on whether the government of Canada should recognize the Québécois as a nation? If the Québécois feel they are a nation, then they are - simple as that. What is the point of debating whether the federal government should officially recognize such nationhood? And why would a nation seek such recognition from a state? Such a discussion assumes that nationality is defined (or more accurately, legitimized) by the state, when it is most certainly not. States are often defined by nation, but never genuinely the other way around.

If the Québécois feel they are a nation, then no state can either bestow or remove such nationhood from them. And if that is the case, then this silly recent debate is a moot point.

Imagine the reaction and bewilderment if the Québécois were to debate whether Anglophones or Aboriginals were genuine "nations". There would be laughter, scorn, and perhaps even outrage. Imagine how the Western world would react if the People's Republic of China declared that Tibetans were not a nation. Or if the Russian Federation decided that people of Chechyna or Dagestan did not form legitimate nations. There would be accusations of cultural, linguistic and political impersialism. How is it any different with the Québécois?

The Québécois are a nation - but such official recognition from a state changes nothing, and achives little (other than where politicians selfishly gain political capital by exploiting the fragile egos of Québécois with an inferiority complex - a minority in the province of Québec, and probably even a minority within the Québécois nation).

The reality is that there is no such thing as the "Canadian nation" - at least, not in the traditional sense of the term "nation". However, Canada is certainly not a traditional state - it is not built upon a single language, nor a single culture, nor a average-sized piece of land (at least not these days, anyway). Stretching three oceans, and encompassing a landmass almost three times larger than the European Union, Canada is more like a continent than a country. Not surprisingly, Canada thus contains considerable diversity.

But this non-traditional statehood is actually of great benefit - it means that Canada and Canadians can avoid many of the squabbles that plague other states, particularly nation-states. When civil war raged in the Balkans, many of us simply couldn't understand how this could happen. And that, in great part, is due to our identity and statehood as Canadians - which openly encourages and promotes diversity, rather than basing itself on who we are (and perhaps most importantly, who we are not). Canadian statehood avoids the "us versus them" dichotomy, and instead is built upon a welcoming inclusiveness that shuns social cleavages.

The greatest mistake we make is to assume that Québécois nationality (and its hypothetical recognition by the Canadian state) is a threat to the Canadian state. Pundits often argue that we can only have one nationality - and thus that people can only have membership in either the Canadian nation or the Québécois nation, but not both. I would argue that there is no Canadian nation - but instead a statehood (or perhaps a very different form of nationality) that can easily co-exist with the Québécois nation. Just as Basques can be proud Basque nationalists and proud Spanish citizens, so too can Québécois be proud of their Québécois nationality and of their Canadian citizenship - they are not mutually exclusive.

As such, the only threat to Québécois nationhood is when pneurotic Canadian federalists unnecessarily feel threatened by the idea of a Québécois nation, and denounce such notions as heretical, anti-Canadian beliefs. And this is precisely why today's Canada-wide vote on the official recognition of Québécois nationhood was so dangerous - as Anglophones were voting on Québécois nationhood.

In reality, today's vote was about whether to adopt a policy in which the government of Canada recognizes Québécois nationhood. It was not about asking Canadians whether Québécois nationhood is legitimate or not. Accordingly, people such as a Gerard Kennedy can "believe in" (!) the Québécois nation, and yet argue against a bill seeking official recognition by the federal government, as was passed by the House earlier today. However, the crucial problem is whether such a "no" vote would have enraged the Québécois, and been misinterpreted as the de-legitimization or denunciation of the Québécois nationhood by Anglophone Canada.

As such, I would have abstained from voting if I were an MP in the House today. But voting "yea" would have definitely been preferred to voting "nay", in my opinion. Just think how the Bloc Québécois and Parti Québécois would have twisted a "nay" vote to their own political gain.

But a "yea" vote it was to be. Already the Bloc are lining up to claim ownership of this change that actually changes very little, and to attempt to manipulate it to their political advantage. We shall see, in the weeks and months to come, just how successful they will be at doing so.

Elizabeth May campaign commercial on YouTube

Elizabeth May has a campaign commercial up on YouTube, which can be viewed by clicking "play" below, or by visiting the YouTube website.

Please remember to vote tomorrow, regardless of your political stripe, if you live in London-North-Centre.

Leaked poll: Liberals and Greens neck-and-neck in London

An internal NDP straw poll on the London-North-Centre byelection apparently shows the Liberal Party in a narrow lead, with Green Party leader Elizabeth May closely trailing in second place. The Conservatives polled in third, and the NDP a distant fourth.

If this is indeed true, Canada may be awarded with an historical result at the London ballot boxes tomorrow evening.

Just how many NDPers, in light of the leaked poll, would consider voting Green, so as to prevent a Liberal candidate from winning? Or even more interesting, with the Conservatives seemingly out of the picture, how many "green Grits" would consider tipping the scales over towards Green Party leader Elizabeth May, and voting with their conscience? Knowing that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions rose by 44% during the 13+ years of Liberal government after Canada became a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol, surely any potential future Liberal government would be best held to its promises if accompanied in the House by Green opposition colleagues.

Historically speaking, Greens have not been big fans of strategic voting, for obvious reasons related to the first-past-the-post electoral system. But this precedent may be ironically reversed tomorrow evening, to fantastic effect.

Vote with your hearts, Londoners. Make Canadian political history tomorrow.

May media medley!

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party of Canada and contestant in the London-North-Centre byelection, will be on the television and radio at least three times this evening.

First, May will have an half-hour interview on CHRW 94.9 FM's Green World from 6:00-6:30pm ET, a 30-minute show that focuses on the environment and human rights. Will be interesting to see if the hosts press May for her views on Canada's relationship with China, and how she would have handled things differently than Stephen Harper. The program can be listened to online at http://chrwradio.com/listen/ , and repeats Wednesday morning at 6:00am.

Second will be the all-candidates' debate, televised live on Rogers Television from 7:00-9:00pm ET, from the London City Press Club.

Rogers teases the debate with the following blurb:

Joe Fontana’s step down from federal politics has left an open seat in the riding of London North Centre - who will fill that seat is now the big question for constituents to consider. On Tuesday, November 21st Rogers Television will air coverage of the London North Centre by-election debate LIVE from 7:00 - 8:00 PM from the London Press Club.

George Clark, Rogers Television News Director will act as moderator. “While national attention is focused on this London by-election because of the minority government situation in Canada, “says Clark, “for those in London it is an intensely local issue.”

The candidates will be questioned by a panel comprised of local media. Rogers Television has confirmed this week that all seven candidates have agreed to participate: Elizabeth May - Green Party, Steve Hunter - Progressive Canadian, Will Arlow - Canadian Action Party, Dianne Haskett - Conservative Party, Megan Walker, New Democratic Party and Glen Pearson - Liberal and Robert Ede - Independent.

May will also appear on CPAC (Cable Public Affairs Channel), as PrimeTime Politics will have a segment about the London by-election. The one-hour program airs live at 8pm ET / 5pm PT, and repeats at 11pm ET / 8pm PT and again on Wednesday morning at 7am ET / 4am PT. CPAC can be watched online at http://www.cpac.ca/.

Video: Canadians in Nairobi for Elizabeth May

Canadians attending the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Nairobi, Kenya, have made a video expressing their support for Elizabeth May in her by-election campaign for London-North-Centre.

Three Canadians appear on the YouTube-hosted clip.

To watch the clip, press "play" below, or click here to go to the YouTube page.

Raging Grannies demand BC legislature resumes fall sitting

Perplexed by the BC government's decision to replace the provincial legislature's fall sitting with a mere day of debates, the infamous BC Raging Grannies will be making their presence felt at the legislature in Victoria this afternoon. The Grannies will be staging a singing protest at 2:00pm, and will sing "Gordie Boy" - a parody of the famous "Billy Boy" song. Full lyrics follow below.

Whether or not you take the Raging Grannies seriously, one must wonder what sort of message is being sent out by the British Columbian government to replace an entire autumn sitting of the legislature with a single day of debate. There are numerous issues that require public debate - in particular, the new public-private partnerships board (Partnerships BC) which has assumed control of all municipal projects worth more than $20 million (I think that figure's right - quick to confirm it, but gave up after 10 failed Google minutes).

Is parliamentary debate no longer necessary in Western democracy? Is it simply enough for voters to cast a ballot once every several years - and for the victors to do as they please between elections?

Hat tip: The Legislature Raids

Vancouver Sun prints "Going Green" section

The Vancouver Sun's current weekend edition (Saturday 19 November) contains a 16-page section entitled "Going Green". It touches on a host of environmental issues, including finance & growth, urban planning, energy, transport, waste disposal, shopping, food, etc.

The section also features a host of local, innovative "green companies" that are pioneering the way towards what the Green Party calls a "green economy" - such as Victoria's Carmanah Technologies Inc., who are developing leading-edge solutions in LED lighting; and Vancouver's Paradigm Environmental Technologies, who won a BC Technology Industries award for its technology that enables sewage sludge to be converted into methane, which can then be used as an energy source.

The Sun will publish a "Going Green" section each quarter, the next being in February 2007. To reserve space, contact Bill Mullaly at bmullaly [at] png.canwest.com or phone 604-605-2665.

The full list of article in this weekend's section is as such:

• How big is your footprint?
  
• Saving our planet, more or less
  
• Valuable education
  
• A bright idea
  
• The green team
  
• Right now, for the first time in tens of thousands of years, you can swim to the North Pole
  
• First question: How big is your footprint?
  
• Personal eco-footprint calculator
  
• Getting gassed out
  
• The truth about cats and dogs
  
• Celebrating sensibly
  
• I'm dreaming of a green Christmas
  
• Smart Gadgets
  
• Limited time offer: guilt-free shopping
  
• YOUR SAY: What do you do to reduce your eco-footprint?
  
• What is sustainable living?
  
• Star power
  
• It's not hard being green
  
• The S-word is paying off
  
• Leading lights
  
• Home improvement
  
• I want to ride my e-bicycle
  
• Zip around the city
  
• Cars still winning the race
  
• Scrap the old hunk o' junk
  
• There's no fast road to clean air
  
• Transit numbers 'encouraging'
  
• New uses for trash
  
• Plant turns waste into energy
  
• Choosing a water heater
  
• Make your garden greener
  
• What's for dinner?
  
• Rice-husk panels turn waste into walls
  
• Schools teach 'eco-literacy'
  
• A sporting chance
  
• Saving the World One Book at a Time
  
• Shelf Life: BACK TO BASICS
  
• Face the facts about 'natural' ingredients
  
• Making a difference
  
• Going green: Is it something we leave for others to do?
  
• On the Web
  
• 10 Ways to make a difference
  
• What a waste
  
• Airplane food for thought

"Viral" support campaign for Elizabeth May gains momentum

A campaign to help support Elizabeth May's contesting of the November 27th by-election for London-North-Centre has begun, in which supporters post photographs of themselves holding signs supporting May.

The campaign has already spreadly rapidly, or "virally", as the campaigns as referred to by the marketing industry, across the internet, and have appeared on numerous websites and blogs.

The ideas was spawned from the American book, Sorry Everybody, a collection of photographs of liberal Americans apologizing on behalf of their country to the rest of the world for putting George W. Bush into the White House.

Photographs from May supporters from across Canada have already appeared on various internet sites, and are increasing by the day.

A small collection of such photographs of Elizabeth May supporters can be found on her blog. Green Party supporters are encouraged to make their own photographs, and submit them to the Elizabeth May campaign.

Garth Turner joins Green Party byelection campaign

Maverick (or should I say, "Progressive Conservative") MP Garth Turner has announced that he "...will campaign for Green Party Leader Elizabeth May in a byelection in London, Ont.", according to the CBC.

Garth held a press conference earlier today, in which he formally quit the "hats and horses" (aka Reform/Alliance) party, and provided evidence that what was once the most grassroots of all federal parties has become the most elitist party in the history of Canada, ignoring the decision of local electoral district associations in favour of the dictates of party strategists.

Garth clarified false rumours that he would become the first Green MP by joining Canada's hottest new political party, and instead wants the Greens to elect their first MP by their own merit - in the form of Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, who is competing in the London-North-Centre by-election.

With all of the mudslinging going on amongst the old-line parties, and given the innovative and positive policies of the Green party, Garth just may get his wish.

Elizabeth May, O.C. and M.P. Has a nice ring to it.

Tory public transit priorities are all wrong

Funding for public transportation is woefully inadequate here in Canada. Outside of our major cities (and even in the suburbs of our largest cities), public transport does not receive enough funding.

So when Stephen Harper pledged $37 million today towards public transit (part of a $80 million promise back in June), one would think that people of "non-blue" political stripes would be heaping praise on the Tories.

Sadly, there is little to praise Harper about. All of the funding is to go to transport security. Not better quality public transport. Not more quantiful or convenient public transport. But "higher security" public transport.

Stop me if I'm alone here, but this is the most ridiculous and unnecessary waste of money from a government supposedly obsessed with stopping government wastage.

We don't have armed military on every Canadian street corner. Nor do we have CCTV installed in every nook and cranny of our cities, as the British do. So why spend so much money making public transport supposedly "secure"?

The money would have been far better invested in purchasing more infrastructure: more buses, more subways, more tunnels, upgrading or repairing outmoded equipment, and hiring more staff. Instead, we'll have more CCTV cameras, or more guards.

This was a genuine opportunity to make public transportation more enjoyable and convenient to use. The easier it is to use public transport, the more people will use it as an alternative to automobiles. That alone would have made big two improvements:

• more people using public transport, especially during off-peak hours, would lead to a better feeling of overall passenger safety
  
• less greenhouse gas and pollution emissions from cars

Will this "investment" make public transportation any easier to use than it is at present? No.

Do Canadians avoid public transport because of safety concerns - be it from theives or from terrorists? According to the Canadian Urban Transit Association:

"...transit provides the safest means of travel in urban areas, and only travel on major scheduled air carriers has lower fatalities for each passenger kilometer of travel. The limited data on security incidents indicates that transit passengers in stations or onboard transit vehicles are substantially more secure than the overall urban population."

So what is the point of this spending? Is this more irrational rhetoric by government to convince us that they're protecting us, so that we'll re-elect them? Is this a case of our government abusing public fears about terrorism to further their own selfish interests?

I'll be bluntly honest (and not at all politically correct) - many Canadians don't like taking public transportation because of the perception of "weirdos" who they'll encounter during the journeys (particularly during off-peak hours), and because public transport is extremely inconvenient to use (not offering a competitive alternative to the automobile).

The solution is simple - more quantiful and convenient public transport. Here in the UK, taking public transport is like walking in the downtown of a city - you see a huge cross section of society. So many people, from all walks of life, use public transport, that who your fellow riders are is basically a non-issue.

The more convenient it is to use, the more people will use it. And that will lead to increased safety. And less pollution and greenhouse gases. And fewer traffic jams.

Is such thinking incredibly bold and innovative? No. It's just that the Greens seem to be one of the few political voices in Canada with the common sense to support such social planning.

New Elizabeth May policy clips on YouTube

Forget the media spin - hear directly from a candidate as to where she stands on the issues.

Elizabeth May wants to be the Member of Parliament for London-North-Centre, and is competing in the federal by-election on November 27.

The following are four policy video clips, hosted on YouTube:

Post-Secondary Education

Tax Shifting

Changing the Climate in Parliament

Kyoto and Jobs - the Convenient Truth

We remember

State Funeral petition reaches 50,000 signatures

The Dominion Institute's online petition calling for a future state funeral to commemorate the eventual passing of Canada's last First World War veteran resident in Canada has reached its goal of 50,000 signatures.

An online CBC News story was posted early on Friday, and the resulting publicity helped give the petition its final few thousand signatures by late Friday / early Saturday.

619,636 Canadians served in the First World War, and only three are still alive: Percy Dwight Wilson, 105, and Lloyd Clemett and John Babcock, both 106.

Green deputy appointed by Tories to National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy

David Chernushenko, the senior deputy to the leader of the Green Party, has been named to the National Roundtable on Environment and the Economy, a panel that advises the federal government on environmental policy.

A written statement from Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose stated:

"With their knowledge and experience, Mr. Chernushenko, Mr. Haig and Dr. Jaccard, will be able to examine the environmental and economic implications of issues brought to the NRTEE and offer judicious advice on how to reconcile these often competing interests with a view to moving society towards a cleaner and healthier Canada."

CTV seems to think that it is an attempt by the Conservative government to show that they are consulting across partisan lines:

"The move is seen as an attempt by the Tories to deflect some criticism over their handling of the environment file.

By reaching across party lines, the Conservatives can claim that they are seeking out all viewpoints and policy advice to cut down on air pollution and reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

The same CTV piece, written by astute political commentator David Akin, points to the Greens rapidly becoming a significant player in Canadian politics:

"For the Greens, it is among the visible symbols that they have arrived as national political force. The most recent polling for CTV News shows that the Greens have nearly doubled their voter support since the January election, to more than 9 per cent from 5 per cent on Jan. 23."

A video clip of CTV Newsnet coverage can be seen here.

Chernushenko, who holds a Masters degree in International Relations from Cambridge, was also appointed to the Green Party of Canada's shadow cabinet yesterday as their portfolio holder for International Relations and Global Security.

With Greens now participating in House of Commons Committees and advisory panels appointed by the federal government, the media consortium's attempts to block the Green Party from the televised leaders' debates are becoming increasing tenuous...

Green Party announces Shadow Cabinet

The Green Party of Canada today announced its new Shadow Cabinet, comprising of 34 posts.

Think you know the Green Party? Take another look. The new cabinet includes Mark Taylor - an Albertan engineer in the oil and gas sector - as portfolio holder for Energy Policy.

The full list of Shadow Cabinet positions is available here.

As with most Green Party procedures, policies are created in a "bottom-up" or "grassroots" method. In plain English, that means that policies are open to debate and majority consensus, rather than dictated by a select group of party strategists.

If you would like to play a role in such Green policy formation, consider joining an issue caucus! Each shadow minister will be compiling a group of volunteers to help conduct research policy ideas, communicate with Green Party members and create dialogue with the general public. If you would like to get involved, please contact the relevant shadow minister directly (contact info should be available here in the near future, or drop me an email and I can help sort you out).

(Photo courtesy of Grant Neufeld.)

Elizabeth May in House of Commons Committee, will discuss Tory muzzling on CPAC tonight

Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May, who is running in the London-North-Centre by-election, took part in the House of Commons' Environment and Sustainable Development Committee this morning.

She will be appear on the CPAC French-language program Revue Politique tonight at 10pm ET / 7pm PT, where she will discuss her appearance, and will talk about the independence of the Environment and Sustainable Development Commissioner.

May held a press conference immediately after this morning's committee meeting, in which she accused the Conservative government of muzzling the federal environment commissioner, Johanne Gelinas. Auditor General Sheila Fraser's office acknowledged Thursday that it is reviewing whether Environment Commissioner Johanne Gelinas will continue to issue independent reports.

59 Green Party candidates elected in US elections

The Green Party of the United States made major gains in Tuesday's US elections, with 59 Green candidates elected to public office across all ends of the country - including the new mayor of Richmond, California.

Other highlights included:

• Rich Whitney received 11% in his run for Illinois Governor (despite incumbant Gov. Rod Blagojevich spending $800,000 in taxpayers' money trying to keep Greens off the state ballot).
  
• Pat LaMarche, running on a strong universal health care platform, drew nearly 10% in her campaign for Governor of Maine.
  
• Joyce Robinson-Paul received 14,109 votes for 14.7% (second place) in her race for D.C.'s U.S. Senate seat.
  
• Green candidate Tom Kelly, running for the U.S. House in Colorado's District 1, received 25,096 votes for 21%.
  
• Also in California, incumbent City Council member Larry Robinson was reelected in Sebastopol, retaining the Council's Green majority, in place since 2000.
  
• The Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party needed 3% in a statewide vote to maintain ballot status. Dr. Jill Stein, running for Secretary of the Commonwealth, accomplished this by receiving 351,495 votes (the most votes for any Green candidate on November 7) for 18% in a two way race. Jamie O'Keefe, running for State Treasure, also had a high enough vote percentage to accomplish this. He received 16% (322,493 votes).
  
• 8.7 million voters across the U.S. voted for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and for impeachment resolutions on local and state ballots that were promoted or supported by Greens. Troop withdrawal initiatives won in all ten localities in Wisconsin, including Milwaukee, and all 11 communities in Illinois, including Chicago. Of 139 cities and towns in Massachusetts voting on the troop withdrawal measures, only a handful voted nay on initiatives demanding that Congress and the White House end the war immediately. In California, San Francisco voters supported a local impeachment measure by 59.41%. In Berkeley, a similar resolution won the support of 68.56% of the electorate.

A geographical breakdown of all elected Greens is as follows:

• California - 20 elected
  
• Wisconsin - 11 elected
  
• District of Columbia - 8 elected
  
• Maine - 4 elected
  
• Colorado - 3 elected
  
• Massachusetts - 3 elected
  
• Oregon - 3 elected
  
• Alaska - 1 elected
  
• Arizona - 1 elected
  
• Florida - 1 elected
  
• Hawai'i - 1 elected
  
• Nebraska - 1 elected
  
• New York - 1 elected
  
• Minnesota - 1 elected

Read more here.

Has Gordon Campbell gone soft?

We're seeing an odd yet vaguely familiar transformation in British Columbian premier Gordon Campbell.

After years of "tough love" economic policies that stripped significant funding away from "social justice" causes in order to balance the province's finances, Campbell now seems to be having a change of heart. Suddenly he seems significantly more concerned for the well-being of his province's most down-trodden, and some gains in environmental protection.

Changes have gradually appeared over the past year or so, culminating in the recent announcement that the de-institutionalization of mental health care has been a failure and will be addressed, and that shelter rates for welfare recipients will be increased.

There have also been some mildly promising signs on the environment - money promised for Victoria sewage treatment infrastructure; promises to build more bike paths, walkways, green ways, and improved access for people with disabilities, a "LocalMotion" fund aimed at getting British Columbians out of their vehicles, and that all new cars leased or purchased by the B.C. government will be hybrids.

British Columbia, and Vancouver in particular, has witnessed such an incredible change in persona in one of its key public officials in recent years - former Vancouver mayor Philip Owen. Owen had been at the helm of the right-wing (and misnomered) Non-Partisan Association for three terms - but part-way into his final term, he became obsessed with helping the Downtown Eastside and its impovrished residents, culminating in a progressive drug and harm reduction strategy that still in place today.

So is BC premier Campbell going through a similarly miraculous change as Owen had several years ago?

It's difficult to say. On one hand, "social justice" (and to a lesser degree, the environment) is becoming much more prominent in the BC Liberal government's rhetoric these days. However, there is still significant evidence to suggest that the BC Liberals are still the same neo-conservative group that swept into power in 2001 after the collapse of the BC NDP, and that their primary objective of minimizing government through mass privatization of public service remains a key tenant of their policy agenda, and that economic policies will continue to subjugate recent announcements towards "social justice" and the environment.

For example, the Campbell Liberals still seem to be cheerleading the Asia Pacific Gateway and Corridor, a sexy-sounding plan that will simply expanding the width of roads and highways in BC, likely causing a considerable increasing in automobile usage, and thus greatly increase smog levels and BC's contribution to global climate change.

Much worse, the BC Liberals seem committed to privatizing British Columbia's hydro-electricity production, giving the profits of production over to private corporations, rather than putting such funds back into provincial purse to pay for government services. This unprecedented sell-off of BC's public water system is being conducted in an alarmingly clandestine manner, with no legislative debate (after all, the entire fall session has been cancelled) nor public consultation. In fact, municipal control of such supplies will likely be overridden in order to smoothen the provincial government's agenda.

This planned hydro sell-off is apparently just the tip of the iceberg, with the infamous "Partnerships BC" being set up by the provincial government to facilitate the many more planned privatizations of BC's public assets and services. One such example is the partial privatization of Vancouver General Hospital two weeks ago, which was announced not long after the creation of a farcical "Conservation on Health" public consultation, the result of which seems already decided by the provincial government.

With all this evidence in mind, perhaps Gordon Campbell's recent "softening" is not so much a radical personality shift, but rather a clever public relations stunt to ensure a third electoral victory for the BC Liberals in 2009. The Liberals are perceived as the primary champions of economic issues, the NDP for social justice, and the Greens for the environment. If the Liberals feel they are losing ground to their opposition, it makes sense for them to attempt to address the two areas that the NDP and Greens are seen to specialize in. Hence many "green" announcements, and sudden concern for British Columbians who have been neglected by Victoria for the past five years.

---------

As a side note, the Green Party of British Columbia is not inherently against public-private partnerships, but such ventures should only be contracted into with the consent of the majority of British Columbians, with the certainty British Columbians retain the ultimate majority control over their public resources and any related profits, and that British Columbians will have the most to gain from such new relationships.

Partnerships BC has been set up without public consultation, and seems to be ideologically driven - which is most alarming of all. Have such public-private partnerships been proven to work in other Western democracies, such as northern Europe? Or are we having our province used by the BC Liberals as guinea pigs for an ideological agenda?

If these private-public partnerships work, then great - bring 'em on. However, we should not be venturing into legally-binding contracts worth billions of dollars and jeopardizing the ownership of BC's tremendous public assets if such arrangements have not already been tried and tested in other jurisdictions. Just ask the UK Conservative Party, who are now regretting much of the privatization of the former Margaret Thatcher regime.

This debate should not be ideological - it should be factual, and should deliver results that are in the best interests of British Columbians. Anything less is a betrayal of our province.

Senior economist: We can stop climate change and still see economic growth

An optimistic yet challenging vision for tackling climate change emerged from the UK on Monday, with the British government's release of a report entitled "The Economics of Climate Change".

• Executive Summary
  
• Full Report
  
• Presentation Slides

Written by former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, the report is the first of its kind, pricing the expected cost of tackling climate change - but more importantly, also pricing the likely economic cost of inaction.

As The Times reported, climate scientists have largely been unable to provide any robust economic analysis of the costs of climate change. Paul Ekins calculated in 2004 that it would cost the US no more than 1% of its GDP to meet the Kyoto Protocol - but little else had been released by senior international economists until this past Monday.

Describing climate change as the "greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen", Sir Nicholas noted that the UK could no act alone - that climate change requires internationally-agreed measures. British prime minister Tony Blair stated that the report "demolishes the last remaining argument for inaction on climate change". Treasury head Gordon Brown reflected similar comments about the imperativeness of resolute international action.

Sir Nicholas, who is also head of the UK's Government Economic Service, rubbished claims that curbing climate change would paralyze Western economies. He argued that by spending 1% of GDP each year, the UK would save 5%-20% of its GDP by the end of the century.

The economist went on to argue that stabilizing greenhouse gas levels will not halt economic growth. He noted: "The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. With strong, deliberate policy choices it is possible to 'decarbonize' both developed and developing economies on the scale required for climate stabilization, while maintaining economic growth in both."

Sir Nicholas also noted the development of business opportunities from new technology would help compensate the costs of tackling climate change - with markets for low-carbon energy products expected to be worth $600 billion by 2005.

"Above all, reducing the risks of climate change requires collective action. It required co-operation between countries. It requires a partnership between the public and private sector. It is still possible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, but it requires strong and urgent collective action. Delay would be costly and dangerous."

Camilla Cavendish of The Times provided a very apt summary of the likely impact of Sir Nicholas' report:

"The science debate is effectively over. The Stern review means that the economic debate is all but over. Only the political debate is left."

In Britain, that political debate has pretty much concluded as well: all three major parties support major efforts to tackle climate change - and it is arguably the Conservatives who are demanding the greatest action.

Meanwhile, back in Canada... what, pray tell, do you think our Conservative government's response will be?


Video coverage

Sir Nicholas Stern's press conference presentation (16:55)

Tony Blair warns of disasterous consequences (2:48)

Gordon Brown on the 'moral imperative' to tackle climate change (15:56)

Chancellor's answer about taxing high-carbon businesses (1:34)