adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

News

Canada finally has a plan to meet its climate target — and maybe now there can be a real debate – CBC.ca

Published

4 years ago

 on


Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson is not an objective analyst of federal climate policy. But his analysis of the Liberal government’s announcement on Friday was not entirely fanciful.

“This is a day on which I think Canadians should be proud,” he said in an interview with CBC News on Friday morning, shortly before he stood with the prime minister in front of some trees at Ottawa’s Dominion Arboretum and announced a sweeping update to the Liberal government’s climate plan.

“Because this is the first time Canada’s ever had a plan that is being proposed that shows how we will not only meet, but we will exceed the targets to which we have committed internationally.”

Whatever pride Canadians might feel, Wilkinson no doubt hopes that a lot of it is directed at himself and the government he serves. As for the mere act of coming up with a plan to accomplish something this country has promised to do — surely that’s the very least a government is expected to do.

But the minister is also correct to point out that this is the first time any federal government has actually done so. More than 30 years after Canadian governments started making international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there is now an official path for Canada to meet one of those targets.

Better late than never?

“I think the big takeaway here is that, for the first time, Canada has a plan and with policy action that is consistent with ambition,” said Dale Beugin, vice president of research and analysis at the Canadian Institute for Climate Choices.

In that respect, the Liberal plan can be viewed simply as an explanation of what it will take to get it done — a reckoning with what many Canadian political leaders and voters have said they want.

In doing so, it could finally set up a clear debate about whether Canadians actually want to do their part to combat global climate change, whether any party can offer a more appealing plan for doing so — and perhaps what it would take to do even more.

Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson, left, and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Much attention will be paid to one particular piece of the plan — the increase in the federal carbon price — and that piece is significant. But the 78-page document presents 64 “new measures” and $15 billion in federal investment, including an overarching commitment to “integrate climate considerations throughout government decision-making.” Its breadth is worth noting for what that says about how all-encompassing the effort of moving to a low-carbon economy could be.

Not all of what the Liberals would like to do is firmly established. There are several commitments to “work with” provinces and sectors of the economy to develop policies in a number of areas — from building supplies and fertilizer to farming and interprovincial power grids.

But the Liberals estimate that the concrete elements of their plan — when added to the federal and provincial policies that already have been implemented over the last decade — would reduce Canada’s total annual emissions to 503 megatonnes by 2030, pushing this country past its commitment to reduce emissions by 30 per cent below the level of 2005.

How the political climate has shifted

Further possible reductions and an ambitious target for 2030 would be committed to after discussions with the provinces. All of that would, ideally, put Canada on a path to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

The key to reducing emissions will be the federal carbon price. Already the most politically controversial element of the existing Liberal plan, it is now set to increase by $15 per tonne each year between 2022 and 2030. That was the headline item from Friday’s package — and perhaps the fact that any party, let alone the one in government, would be willing to propose such an increase shows how much the conversation on climate policy in Canada has shifted.

As recently as 18 months ago, it wasn’t clear that the Canadian public would accept any explicit price on carbon. The Conservative Party clobbered the Liberals in 2008 with warnings about Stephane Dion’s “job-killing carbon tax” and they were trying to do the same to Justin Trudeau in the 2019 election.

Then-Conservative leader Andrew Scheer delivers a speech on the environment in Chelsea, Que. Wednesday June 19, 2019. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press)

But in last year’s campaign, it was the Conservative climate platform — which lacked a price on carbon and would have resulted in higher emissions — that emerged as the more significant political weakness. When all the ballots were counted, 63.3 per cent of Canadians had voted for a party — the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, NDP or Greens — that supported putting a price on carbon.

Wilkinson is familiar with that math and cited it on Friday morning while explaining why he thinks the public will approve of his government’s approach. “My view is Canadians actually understand that this is an important and thoughtful component of climate policy,” he said.

Wilkinson also came prepared with other arguments: that almost every economist will tell you pricing carbon is the most efficient way or reducing emissions, that a price on carbon offers an incentive for innovation and — crucially — that it also can be implemented in a way that is “affordable” for Canadians.

Waiting on the Supreme Court

Revenue from the fuel surcharge will continue to be returned to Canadians in rebates, now on a quarterly basis. As the parliamentary budget officer confirmed in 2019, the vast majority of Canadian households receive more from the rebate than they pay out in extra costs.

Even while nearly two-thirds of Canadian voters were siding with a price on carbon, the provincial governments in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario continued their legal challenge of the federal carbon price. If the Supreme Court rules against the federal government, the Liberals will have to adjust their approach.

But even if the federal proposal prevails, there is no guarantee that the conservative premiers in those provinces will give up the political fight — particularly now that the price is set to continue increasing.

Conservative leader Erin O’Toole. The Conservatives’ criticisms of the new climate plan on Friday focused less on the policy and more on how it was drafted. (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

Erin O’Toole’s federal Conservatives quickly registered their displeasure — though their criticism curiously focused not on the substance of the policy but on a lack of consultation and the supposed sanctity of provincial jurisdiction. The usual opponents of climate action will also bark.

However much the global economy, governments in other countries and the public mood in Canada may have changed course, there is a reason why even proponents of ambitious climate policy were describing the Liberal move on Friday as “brave.”

The Liberals have other things to talk about on climate policy — easier things like investment and direct job creation. But they seem content to fight on the ground of pricing carbon. Perhaps putting a price on carbon has become a mark of credibility.

Either way, the Conservatives now have an opportunity to explain what they’d do differently — and whether they could meet Canada’s international commitments without adopting some of the policies they have criticized. For the New Democrats and Greens, there is a chance to show exactly what going even further would involve.

For years, the debate around climate policy in Canada has relied on magical thinking — the belief that targets could be set but only half-heartedly pursued, that targets could be met with relatively little effort, that whatever needed to be done could be done later, or by someone else. But the planet is quickly running out of time for magic.

In recent polling commissioned by Clean Energy Canada, 66 per cent of respondents said they wanted Canada to be among the most ambitious countries in the world when it comes to climate policy. Achieving that status surely begins with reaching Canada’s 2030 target.

If Canadians do want to pride themselves on their commitment to combating climate change and creating a cleaner economy, they finally have a better idea of what that might really look like — and a chance for a real debate about how, or whether, this country is going to carry its share of the burden.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

News

Arizona voters guarantee the right to abortion in the state constitution

Published

39 mins ago

 on

November 6, 2024

By

 

PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona voters have approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing abortion access up to fetal viability, typically after 21 weeks — a major win for advocates of the measure in the presidential battleground state who have been seeking to expand access beyond the current 15-week limit.

Arizona was one of nine states with abortion on the ballot. Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Abortion-rights supporters prevailed in all seven abortion ballot questions in 2022 and 2023, including in conservative-leaning states.

Arizona for Abortion Access, the coalition leading the state campaign, gathered well over the 383,923 signatures required to put it on the ballot, and the secretary of state’s office verified that enough were valid. The coalition far outpaced the opposition campaign, It Goes Too Far, in fundraising. The opposing campaign argued the measure was too far-reaching and cited its own polling in saying a majority of Arizonans support the 15-week limit. The measure allows post-viability abortions if they are necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the mother.

Access to abortion has been a cloudy issue in Arizona. In April, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for the enforcement of a long-dormant 1864 law banning nearly all abortions. The state Legislature swiftly repealed it.

Voters in Arizona are divided on abortion. Maddy Pennell, a junior at Arizona State University, said the possibility of a near-total abortion ban made her “depressed” and strengthened her desire to vote for the abortion ballot measure.

“I feel very strongly about having access to abortion,” she said.

Kyle Lee, an independent Arizona voter, does not support the abortion ballot measure.

“All abortion is pretty much, in my opinion, murder from beginning to end,” Lee said.

The Civil War-era ban also shaped the contours of tight legislative races. State Sen. Shawnna Bolick and state Rep. Matt Gress are among the handful of vulnerable Republican incumbents in competitive districts who crossed party lines to give the repeal vote the final push — a vote that will be tested as both parties vie for control of the narrowly GOP-held state Legislature.

Both of the Phoenix-area lawmakers were rebuked by some of their Republican colleagues for siding with Democrats. Gress made a motion on the House floor to initiate the repeal of the 1864 law. Bolick, explaining her repeal vote to her Senate colleagues, gave a 20-minute floor speech describing her three difficult pregnancies.

While Gress was first elected to his seat in 2022, Bolick is facing voters for the first time. She was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to fill a seat vacancy in 2023. She has not emphasized her role in the repeal vote as she has campaigned, instead playing up traditional conservative issues — one of her signs reads “Bolick Backs the Blue.”

Voters rejected a measure to eliminate retention elections for state Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.

The measure was put on the ballot by Republican legislators hoping to protect two conservative justices up for a routine retention vote who favored allowing the Civil War-era ban to be enforced — Shawnna Bolick’s husband, Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, and Justice Kathryn Hackett King. Since the measure did not pass, both are still vulnerable to voter ouster, though those races hadn’t been decided by early Wednesday morning.

Under the existing system, voters decide every four to six years whether judges and justices should remain on the bench. The proposed measure would have allowed the judges and justices to stay on the bench without a popular vote unless one is triggered by felony convictions, crimes involving fraud and dishonesty, personal bankruptcy or mortgage foreclosure.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Voters back Nebraska’s ban on abortions after 12 weeks of pregnancy and reject a competing measure

Published

41 mins ago

 on

November 6, 2024

By

 

OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Nebraska voters supported a measure Tuesday that enshrines the state’s current ban on abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy in the state constitution, and they rejected a competing measure that sought to expand abortion rights. Nebraska was the first state to have competing abortion amendments on the same ballot since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, ending the nationwide right to abortion and allowing states to decide for themselves. The dueling measures were among a record number of petition-initiated measures on Nebraska’s ballot Tuesday.

What were the competing abortion measures?

A majority of voters supported a measure enshrining the state’s current ban on abortion after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy in the state constitution. The measure will also allow for further restrictions. Last year, the Legislature passed the 12-week ban, which includes exceptions for cases of rape and incest and to protect the life of the pregnant woman.

Voters rejected the other abortion measure. If they had passed it by a larger number of “for” votes than the 12-week measure, it would have amended the constitution to guarantee the right to have an abortion until viability — the standard under Roe that is the point at which a fetus might survive outside the womb. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation.

Abortion was on the ballot in several other states, as well. Coming into the election, voters in all seven states that had decided on abortion-related ballot measures since the reversal of Roe had favored abortion rights, including in some conservative states.

Who is behind the Nebraska abortion measures?

The 12-week ban measure was bankrolled by some of Nebraska’s wealthiest people, including Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts, who previously served as governor and donated more than $1.1 million. His mother, Marlene Ricketts, gave $4 million to the cause. Members of the Peed family, which owns publishing company Sandhills Global, also gave $1 million.

The effort was organized under the name Protect Women and Children and was heavily backed by religious organizations, including the Nebraska Catholic Conference, a lobbying group that has organized rallies, phone banks and community townhalls to drum up support for the measure.

The effort to enshrine viability as the standard was called Protect Our Rights Nebraska and had the backing of several medical, advocacy and social justice groups. Planned Parenthood donated nearly $1 million to the cause, with the American Civil Liberties Union, I Be Black Girl, Nebraska Appleseed and the Women’s Fund of Omaha also contributing significantly to the roughly $3.7 million raised by Protect Our Rights.

What other initiatives were on Nebraska’s ballot?

Nebraska voters approved two measures Tuesday that will create a system for the use and manufacture of medical marijuana, if the measures survive an ongoing legal challenge.

The measures legalize the possession and use of medical marijuana, and allow for the manufacture, distribution and delivery of the drug. One would let patients and caregivers possess up to 5 ounces (142 grams) of marijuana if recommended by a doctor. The other would create the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, which would oversee the private groups that would manufacture and dispense the drug.

Those initiatives were challenged over allegations that the petition campaign that put them on the ballot broke election rules. Nebraska’s attorney general said supporters of the measures may have submitted several thousand invalid signatures, and one man has been charged in connection with 164 allegedly fraudulent signatures. That means a judge could still invalidate the measures.

Voters also opted Tuesday to repeal a new conservative-backed law that allocates millions of dollars in taxpayer money to fund private school tuition.

Finally, they approved a measure that will require all Nebraska employers to provide at least 40 hours of paid sick leave to their employees.

The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

Source link

Continue Reading

News

Abortion rights advocates win in 7 states and clear way to overturn Missouri ban but lose in 3

Published

43 mins ago

 on

November 6, 2024

By

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Voters in Missouri cleared the way to undo one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion bans in one of seven victories for abortion rights advocates, while Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota defeated similar constitutional amendments, leaving bans in place.

Abortion rights amendments also passed in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland and Montana. Nevada voters also approved an amendment, but they’ll need to pass it again it 2026 for it to take effect. Another that bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes” prevailed in New York.

The results include firsts for the abortion landscape, which underwent a seismic shift in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ruling that ended a nationwide right to abortion and cleared the way for bans to take effect in most Republican-controlled states.

They also came in the same election that Republican Donald Trump won the presidency. Among his inconsistent positions on abortion has been an insistence that it’s an issue best left to the states. Still, the president can have a major impact on abortion policy through executive action.

In the meantime, Missouri is positioned to be the first state where a vote will undo a ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with an amendment that would allow lawmakers to restrict abortions only past the point of a fetus’ viability — usually considered after 21 weeks, although there’s no exact defined time frame.

But the ban, and other restrictive laws, are not automatically repealed. Advocates now have to ask courts to overturn laws to square with the new amendment.

“Today, Missourians made history and sent a clear message: decisions around pregnancy, including abortion, birth control, and miscarriage care are personal and private and should be left up to patients and their families, not politicians,” Rachel Sweet, campaign manager of Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said in a statement.

Roughly half of Missouri’s voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to AP VoteCast, a survey of more than 2,200 of the state’s voters. But only about 1 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in all cases; nearly 4 in 10 said abortion should be illegal in most cases.

Bans remain in place in three states after votes

Florida, Nebraska and South Dakota became the first states since Roe was overturned where abortion opponents prevailed on a ballot measure. Most voters supported the Florida measure, but it fell short of the required 60% to pass constitutional amendments in the state. Most states require a simple majority.

The result was a political win for Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican with a national profile, who had steered state GOP funds to the cause. His administration has weighed in, too, with a campaign against the measure, investigators questioning people who signed petitions to add it to the ballot and threats to TV stations that aired one commercial supporting it.

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the national anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America, said in a statement that the result is “a momentous victory for life in Florida and for our entire country,” praising DeSantis for leading the charge against the measure.

The defeat makes permanent a shift in the Southern abortion landscape that began when the state’s six-week ban took effect in May. That removed Florida as a destination for abortion for many women from nearby states with deeper bans and also led to far more women from the state traveling to obtain abortion. The nearest states with looser restrictions are North Carolina and Virginia — hundreds of miles away.

“The reality is because of Florida’s constitution a minority of Florida voters have decided Amendment 4 will not be adopted,” said Lauren Brenzel, campaign director for the Yes on 4 Campaign said while wiping away tears. “The reality is a majority of Floridians just voted to end Florida’s abortion ban.”

In South Dakota, another state with a ban on abortion throughout pregnancy with some exceptions, the defeat of an abortion measure was more decisive. It would have allowed some regulations related to the health of the woman after 12 weeks. Because of that wrinkle, most national abortion-rights groups did not support it.

Voters in Nebraska adopted a measure that allows more abortion restrictions and enshrines the state’s current 12-week ban and rejected a competing measure that would have ensured abortion rights.

Other states guaranteed abortion rights

Arizona’s amendment will mean replacing the current law that bans abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. The new measure ensures abortion access until viability. A ballot measure there gained momentum after a state Supreme Court ruling in April found that the state could enforce a strict abortion ban adopted in 1864. Some GOP lawmakers joined with Democrats to repeal the law before it could be enforced.

In Maryland, the abortion rights amendment is a legal change that won’t make an immediate difference to abortion access in a state that already allows it.

It’s a similar situation in Montana, where abortion is already legal until viability.

The Colorado measure exceeded the 55% of support required to pass. Besides enshrining access, it also undoes an earlier amendment that barred using state and local government funding for abortion, opening the possibility of state Medicaid and government employee insurance plans covering care.

A New York equal rights law that abortion rights group say will bolster abortion rights also passed. It doesn’t contain the word “abortion” but rather bans discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” Sasha Ahuja, campaign director of New Yorkers for Equal Rights, called the result “a monumental victory for all New Yorkers” and a vote against opponents who she says used misleading parental rights and anti-trans messages to thwart the measure.

The results end a win streak for abortion-rights advocates

Until Tuesday, abortion rights advocates had prevailed on all seven measures that have appeared on statewide ballots since the fall of Roe.

The abortion rights campaigns have a big fundraising advantage this year. Their opponents’ efforts are focused on portraying the amendments as too extreme rather than abortion as immoral.

Currently, 13 states are enforcing bans at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions. Four more bar abortion in most cases after about six weeks of pregnancy — before women often realize they’re pregnant. Despite the bans, the number of monthly abortions in the U.S. has risen slightly, because of the growing use of abortion pills and organized efforts to help women travel for abortion. Still, advocates say the bans have reduced access, especially for lower-income and minority residents of the states with bans.

The issue is resonating with voters. About one-fourth said abortion policy was the single most important factor for their vote, according to AP VoteCast, a sweeping survey of more than 110,000 voters nationwide. Close to half said it was an important factor, but not the most important. Just over 1 in 10 said it was a minor factor.

The outcomes of ballot initiatives that sought to overturn strict abortion bans in Florida and Missouri were very important to a majority of voters in the states. More than half of Florida voters identified the result of the amendment as very important, while roughly 6 in 10 of Missouri’s voters said the same, the survey found.

___

Associated Press reporters Hannah Fingerhut and Amanda Seitz contributed to this article.

___

This article has been corrected to reflect in the ‘other states’ section that Montana, not Missouri, currently allows abortion until viability.

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending