Back in the late '80s, Post cereal made a cereal to honor one of my favorite Muppets. The Swedish Chef finally got to bring his cuisine to the American public.

I never saw it in stores, but even if I had we wouldn't have bought it. We never had sugary cereal at my house. Anything that called itself "Cinnamonamony", no matter how hilarious, would be put right back on the shelf. As I got older and was allowed to make adult decisions, like choosing breakfast cereal, I was immediately attracted back to Croonchy Stars. Not for the Muppet on the box, nor the cinnamonamony-sweet crunch, but it was the prize inside I craved:

Jessie Becker here, delighted to tell you that today our neighbors to the north (or “neighbours”, to use the Canadian spelling) can instantly watch unlimited movies and TV episodes streaming from Netflix to TVs and computers for only CDN$7.99 a month. It’s the first time Netflix will be available outside of the U.S and I can tell you we’re all excited about it.

Netflix members in Canada can instantly watch movies and popular shows – such as “Superbad,” “A Beautiful Mind” and “Mad Men” – right on their TVs via Nintendo’s Wii, Sony’s PS3 game console, and coming later this fall, Microsoft’s Xbox 360, as well as models from Sharp, VIZIO, Haier and Best Buy’s Insignia brand. Plus, they can instantly watch via Apple’s iPhone or iPad and on PCs and Macs.

A hearty welcome to our Canadian friends, from sea to shining sea.

I typically do not re-post articles, but yesterday's piece is the Guardian is noteworthy. Titled "Canada's image in tatters" the article details at length Canada's roll as a corrupt petro-state, and the litany of damage our nation has caused to climate change negotiations.

The following is an excerpt that clearly paints Canada's true colours when it comes to the environment.

So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush.

Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

In 2006 the new Canadian government announced it was abandoning its targets to cut greenhouse gases under the Kyoto protocol. No other country that had ratified the treaty has done this. Canada was meant to have cut emissions by 6% between 1990 and 2012. Instead they have already risen by 26%.... the future cut Canada has volunteered is smaller than that of any other rich nation.

After giving the finger to Kyoto, Canada then set out to prevent the other nations striking a successor agreement. At the end of 2007, it singlehandedly blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialised nations. After the climate talks in Poland in December 2008, it won the Fossil of the Year award, presented by environmental groups to the country that had done most to disrupt the talks. The climate change performance index, which assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations, was published in the same month. Saudi Arabia came 60th. Canada came 59th.

In June this year the media obtained Canadian briefing documents which showed the government was scheming to divide the Europeans. During the meeting in Bangkok in October, almost the entire developing world bloc walked out when the Canadian delegate was speaking, as they were so revolted by his bullying. Last week the Commonwealth heads of government battled for hours (and eventually won) against Canada's obstructions. A concerted campaign has now begun to expel Canada from the Commonwealth.

In Copenhagen next week, this country will do everything in its power to wreck the talks. The rest of the world must do everything in its power to stop it.

None of this should represent news to any reasonably well informed Canadian. Seeing it laid out in one single column, however, should do more than give us pause. It should be the start of a serious conversation about what it is to be Canadian, and about what role we want to play in the world.

And nowhere is this issue more relevant than with respect to climate change, a crisis that most Canadians feel, "is the planet's defining crisis".

There was a major development over the weekend in the case of a US research vessel, RV Marcus Langseth, seeking to conduct seismic testing in Canada's first marine protected area.

Environmentalists are fuming after learning the federal government has given permission to a U.S. research ship to begin controversial seismic testing in Canadian waters, despite an ongoing court challenge.

"The issue at stake here is the fact that by issuing this clearance permit for the vessel, they are valuing American interests above that of the Canadian environment and Canadian species at risk," said spokesman Kori Brus. "They've given no reason; they've simply done it."

A foreign affairs spokesman on Sunday would not confirm the ship has been given clearance to begin its test program. He refused to comment, saying the issue was before the courts.

While the Canadian government is refusing to comment on a decision that threatens blue whales and the integrity of the nation's first marine protected area, environmentalists ARE fuming - and rightfully so. The federal government's own documents demonstrate a full awareness of the impacts this testing will have on endangered whales, and they have allowed this research to go forward regardless of the best science available.

We're in court tomorrow working to have the permit issued to the US vessel stayed. More to come then.

cross posted at Ecojustice

Following years of pressure from Ecojustice and other environmental groups, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice has announced that new sewage regulations for our municipalities are on their way:

Canadian municipalities will have to bring their leaky sewage treatment plants up to snuff under new regulations to be unveiled by the Harper government later this year.

The new rules will set performance benchmarks, timelines and monitoring and reporting requirements for the country's 4,000 wastewater facilities, Environment Minister Jim Prentice said Thursday in Saint John, N.B.

The feds are also planning to make funding available through the federal infrastructure fund. Taken together, these changes are long overdue, much welcomed, and fall directly in line with Ecojustice’s recommendations – most notably from our National Sewage Report Card, Great Lakes Sewage Report Card, and just last month in Flushing Out the Truth.

The draft regulations will be made available in December, and we’ll be looking forward to providing our comments to ensure that these long awaited changes provide the safe and healthy water that Canadians deserve.

Long time visitors are well versed in my support of Net Neutrality. From developments in the US Congress to Ted Stevens tubes, the issue is one of the single most important factors that will affect the future of public discourse and our democratic process.

The battle of Net Neutrality is now picking up speed in Canada, and the people at SaveOurNet.ca have put together an excellent video explaining the importance of this critical issue. President Obama has made an unambiguous commitment to the free and open accessibility of the Internet. It's time for Canada's leaders to do the same.

Cross-posted at Ecojustice

Earlier this week, I shared what is likely the biggest win yet for endangered species in Canada, or as The Canadian Press said,

An endangered bird with a spectacular mating dance could be the key to protecting at-risk species all across Canada.

Here's a video clip of the sage-grouse's famed mating ritual, which this week became a victory dance. Enjoy....

cross posted at Ecojustice


For the second time in the past month we can celebrate a major victory for endangered species, as the courts have come down hard on the federal government for their failure to protect the greater sage-grouse.

In a landmark court battle that will have implications for all of Canada's 585 imperiled species, the federal government will be forced to identify critical habitat for the endangered greater sage-grouse. It's a stunning win for the flamboyant prairie bird, which will disappear from Alberta in as little as 6 years unless it receives the protection it needs.

Our own executive director summed it up best,

“This decision confirms our view that the Ministry of the Environment is routinely breaking the law with species on the brink of extinction,” said Ecojustice executive director Devon Page who brought the case forward. “We won’t go away - if they continue to ignore the law, we will continue to hammer them in the courts."

Despite amply available research, and the presence of known nesting grounds frequented by the bird watching public, the government had been arguing that they couldn't protect key habitat for the sage-grouse because it did not know where to find it. The judge flatly disagreed,

The judge stated it was "unreasonable" for the government to claim it couldn't identify breeding grounds, known as leks, when knowledge of their locations was "notorious."

Once wide-spread across the Prairies, Alberta Fish and Wildlife counted just 66 males in the spring of 2009, a 20% decrease in just one year. With this win, and new protections, the sage-grouse can begin to recover its numbers and survive in the decades to come.

Update: Read more coverage at the Tyee.

cross posted at Ecojustice

The issue of pesticide free gardening is quickly escalating into a potential legal battle, as Henry and Vera Jones of Constance Bay have contacted us after the city threatened to mow down their natural garden and bill them for the pleasure.

A Constance Bay man who ran afoul of a city bylaw over the long, meadow-like grass in his front yard said he may begin legal proceedings against the city as early as Thursday.

Hank Jones said he is taking advice from the environmental-law organization Ecojustice, and is seriously considering filing for a court injunction to prevent the city from mowing the long grass and wildflowers that make up the budding wildlife garden in his front yard.

He said bylaws that encourage mowed, golf-course-style lawns and discourage natural, meadow-like properties contribute to environmental problems

To be clear, this is not about defending unkept lawns that pull down property values. Henry and Vera Jones are building an environmentally friendly, well cared for, natural garden that helps pollinate local flowers and food, and they are doing it without pesticides or harmful chemicals. They’re a model for responsible yard care, but the city is treating them like pariahs.

Check out the story in the Ottawa Citizen, hear Ecojustice lawyer Will Amos (pictured left) discuss the case on the CBC's All In A Day, and stay tuned for more...

US President Obama met with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper late last week in Ottawa. Following their brief meeting the two North American leaders outlined three main priorities for their bilateral relationship — working together to restore economic growth, a commitment to stabilize Afghanistan, and yes, a new initiative on environmental protection.

Indeed, in the lead up to yesterday's face-to-face Harper's statements about the environment were almost urgent. The Globe and Mail reported that,

"Mr. Harper said Mr. Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions."

Perhaps like yourself, the statement above did not quite line up with my memories of Harper's foot dragging and general denial of climate change. But I am open minded, and to that end I took a quick survey of past Conscious Earth posts related to Harper and the environment. Maybe I remembered his track record wrong....

• May 30th, '06: The Flogging of Corn Cob Bob
• Jun 14th, '06: Feds Refuse to End Oil & Gas Subsidies
• Aug 30th, '06: Harper's Head in the Smog
• Oct 6th, '07: Conservatives Rhetoric Announces An End of Rhetoric
  
• Nov 6th, '07: Harper Snubs EU, Cancels Summit
  
• Nov 7th, '07: Tories Recognize Global Warming...When it Suits Them
  
• Dec 15th, '06: Harper Plans Green Sham III
  
• Jan 5th, '07: Harper Names New Environmental Salesman
  
• Jan 9th, '07: Voters Won't Buy McHarper's Green Plan
  
• Jan 17th, '07: Tories Solve Global Warming....Conservative Style
  
• Jan 22nd, '07: Harper Sucks the Voters Green Thumb
  
• Jan 25th, '07: Canada Takes Heat from UK on Climate
  
• Jan 31st, '07: Harper Shoots His Own Foot in "Battle of Kyoto"
  
• Feb '09, 07: The Greenest Thing About Baird is His Tie
  
• Feb 15th, '07: Tories Embarrassed (Again) As Opposition Passes Pro Kyoto Bill
  
• Sep 7th, '07: Leaders Agree to Aspire to Stop Global Warming
  
• Sep 20th, '07: Canada Faces Lawsuit Over Kyoto Failure
  

Nope, guess not.

Apologies for the lack of of '08 postings. I felt the need to spend some time out of country following the Conservative's overwhelming "progress". Still, there was some promise to the initial dialogue between Obama and Harper including plans for greater collaboration on carbon sequestration and employing smart grid technology to the electricity infrastructure. However, the ultimate success of these initial talks will depend on how rapidly and aggressively the new president implements a cap and trade system on carbon, and how those regulations would apply to imported energy from Canada's tar patch.

Time will tell. In the mean time, here's a photo compilation from the Conscious Earth posts listed above.

Stephen Harper is facing the end of his short lived term as Canadian Prime Minister thanks to his naked attack on the Canadian democratic system.

Opposition leaders Stephane Dion (Liberals), Jack Layton (NDP) and Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Quebecois) signed an unprecedented agreement today to form a new coalition government and oust Harper's Conservative's from power in the wake of their move to strip political parties of federal subsidies.

The proposed coalition emphasizes Harper's failure to address the current economic crisis as the prime reason for their actions, but the real catalyst in forming the coalition was Harper's move to consolodate his overhwelming financial edge over his rivals by stripping them of a key source of funds.

The federal political subsidies are a balancing measure put in place to ensure that the narrow interests of any one party cannot unduly sway the direction of the country. If Harper could successfully remove this balancing measure, it would likely be the decisive edge that would have allowed the Conservatives to spend their way to a majority government in the next election. They would then be free to begin their real work of changing the Canadian political system to an American model where spending and money dictate policy.

This has been the explicit goal of the modern conservative movement in Canada since it was first created a few short years ago, a fact outlined in startling and disturbing clarity in the 2004 National Post article by Adam Daifallah titled "Building a conservative Canada -- from the ground up":

The only way to affect such a (conservative) change is through an overt campaign to shift the Canadian political goalposts to the right. Redefining a country's national attitude of mind is not easy. But the American experience has shown it can be done.

U.S. conservatives have, over the last four decades, built a powerful institutional infrastructure. Well-endowed foundations, funded by various titans of industry, were established to erect think-tanks, underwrite conservative publications and promote a greater appreciation of conservatism in the national discourse.

The success of this experiment has been astounding. Conservative ideas, once thought to be on the extreme fringe, were popularized, beginning with the 1964 presidential candidacy of Republican senator Barry Goldwater. The result has been a tangible shift in the American Zeitgeist that made possible the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980.

If conservatism is ever to take hold here, the U.S. model must be replicated.

As a matter of political policy and ideology, the Harper Conservatives are not interested in the opinion or values of the Canadian people. They have an explicit agenda to change those values to match their own, and they realize that the shortest route to attaining that end is changing the political institutions that represent Canadian values, beginning with the federal government itself.

It won't work this time. Meanwhile, Harper will try to frame the opposition move as a political game, forgetting (as only the right can once they begin to lose) that it was he who set this playing field to begin with.

I've been substantially away from the home front news for quite awhile, but this is worth mentioning on both a national and personal note.

On June 18, Canada became the first country ever to be brought to court for failing to comply with its legal commitments to combat global warming, specifically its failure to meet (and perhaps more to the point, their failure to do anything about) their mandatory legal obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The lawsuit itself is being argued by a coalition of groups - most notably my former workplace, Ecojustice Canada - and seeks a declaration from the Court that the government has not complied with the law, and an order requiring it to do so. A decision is likely to occur in the coming months.

For readers unfamiliar with Ecojustice (formerly Sierra Legal Defence Fund), I strongly recommend them as a worthy organization to support (I do so myself). For my American readers, think Earthjustice.

The Federal Government is facing a lawsuit for its failure to take action on global warming and address Canada's commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

The lawsuit is a direct follow up to the Conservative government's failure to meet the demands of a private members bill passed by opposition parties this past February. That bill demanded that the minority Conservatives honour Canada's international climate change commitments and draft a plan outlining how they would do so.

But when the Conservatives unveiled their "Turning the Corner" plan for climate change, not only did they fail to meet the demands of that bill, they also demonstrated it in plain math - a move which may have swung the door wide open for this lawsuit to occur.

Conservatives, global warming deniers, and even some environmentally sympathetic Canadians, will be howling that there is no way we can meet those targets by 2012, the deadline of the Kyoto Protocol. They are probably even right. But getting Canada to meet Kyoto isn't necessarily the point of the lawsuit anymore than the point of the Conservatives' climate change plan was to actually address global warming.

The lawsuit is a pointed action directed at the federal government, regardless of what party comes into power next, to push them towards taking the most aggressive action possible against global warming. Kyoto may not be reachable, but this is no barrier to Canada developing a genuine plan to curb greenhouse gases. If the Conservatives present such a plan, you can be certain this lawsuit would disappear - even if that plan doesn't meet the strict Kyoto letter of the law.

The lawsuit was brought to Federal Court by Friends of the Earth Canada, Ecojustice Canada and private attorney Chris Paliare.

This weekend the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership will meet in Vienna, Austria to discuss a new era and international agreement governing the use of nuclear fuel.

The conference and partnership are being dubbed as an effort to "promote and safeguard the industry". What it is in fact is an attempt to redraw the lines of responsibility for the management of nuclear waste. The heart of the plan is a new agreement stating that all used nuclear fuel be returned to its country of origin for disposal.

Canada is the world's largest uranium exporter.

The proposal was brought forward by President Bush, and its motivation is clear. As a leader in nuclear energy use, the US is looking for ways to offload the costs of nuclear energy and waste management to other nations while continuing to enjoy the benefits - you know, like being wed to a massively subsidized, polluting, and expensive energy source that burdens the next million generations with toxic risk.

But by shear accident, Bush has stumbled into the polluter pays principle. If Canada is forced to be responsible for the toxic legacy of what we pull from the ground, then suddenly the apparent economic 'benefits' of nuclear mining will need to be weighed against the long-term costs of waste disposal for the first time - a prospect that will not sit well with Canadian voters.

Just as it is the oil company's responsibility to lead the global warming effort by endorsing plans to reduce emissions, just as it is the forestry industry's responsibility to engage in sustainable forestry, Canada has an equal responsibility in the nuclear age. If Canada is to continue to be the world's leader in producing uranium fuel, then it is our responsibility to be the world's leader in disposing of its waste.

If that is a responsibility that we are not prepared to bear, then we shouldn't be producing nuclear fuel in the first place.

Opposition parties are ramping up talk of bringing down the minority government after the Conservatives opportunistically posted their comprehensive climate change plan online while political attention was distracted by the ongoing North American leaders summit.

Both the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois are taking exception to the plan which fails to outline a path to meet Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets agreed to under the Kyoto Protocol. It also flies in the face of a private members bill passed by opposition parties that legally requires Canada to honour it's Kyoto commitments.

(NDP leader) Mr. Layton suggests the lack of action on climate change would force his party to vote against the Conservatives.

The Liberals did not return phone calls yesterday to say whether they would be willing to prop up the government after the lack of action on Mr. Rodriguez's law.

But Bloc Québécois MP Bernard Bigras, who is his party's environment critic, is making threats similar to those of Mr. Layton. The government is taking a "political risk" by ignoring the law, Mr. Bigras said. The plan released this week "is not acceptable, it does not constitute a response as required by the law that was voted upon by Parliament," he said.

At this stage, critics may be right in saying that it's simply too late for Canada to meet its Kyoto commitments. However, what's equally true is that the Conservative alternative is an industry friendly piece of toilet paper that falls far short of what Canada can and should do. The final blow will fall to the Liberals. Although a minority government, the Conservatives need the support of just one of the opposition parties to survive a confidence vote.

In the aftermath of a lengthy leadership race and a mediocre standing in the polls, the Liberals have looked reticent at pushing for an election. But if the NDP and the Bloc stand in opposition to the Conservatives the Liberals will face a real dilemma - show no leadership or credibility by siding with the Conservatives and their farcical environment plan, or face an election they are not equipped to win.

Here's some advice. The Liberals will not gain power again as long as they show zero backbone in the face of Conservative policies. They'd be better served by establishing, then holding true to, some principles rather than playing politics around them. If they do that, the votes will follow. Fail at that, and they will lose either way.

In the face of inaction by the federal Conservatives, Canada's provinces and territories wrapped up discussions on climate change policy today during the annual premier's conference being held in Moncton, New Brunswick.

Some moderate actions were agreed to, but no consensus was reached on the two big solutions - matching California vehicle emissions standards and establishing an inter-provincial cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Twelve of thirteen provinces embraced matching the California standards, which call for a 30% reduction in new car emissions by 2016. Only Ontario refused, saying that the province's troubled auto manufacturing industry was in no position to bear the burden. Meanwhile, Ontario did join British Columbia, Quebec and Manitoba in calling for a firm cap-and-trade system that would apply to all industries in the country.

Two questions. First, the provinces endorsing cap-and-trade represent almost 80% of the Canadian population - what's stopping them from establishing a carbon market on their own? Second, where does Ontario plan on selling all of their inefficient vehicles if every other province adopts California's emission standards?

Nobody ever said politicians made sense.

Throughout the past 18 months, the environment has seen a resurgence in the hearts and minds of voters as the reality of global warming hits home. However, on the heels of chronic inaction, governments and environmentalists are now riding a fine line towards voter backlash.

Public sentiment has been punctuated by two factors: rising environmental concern and a desire for leadership and solutions. In the face of rising greenhouse gases and a complete lack of accountability from industry, the public have been seeking action from elected officials - action that will make a seriously impact on emissions and begin to stop a looming environmental catastrophe.

Instead what we have seen is an utter unwillingness and inability on the part of both elected officials and environmental campaigners to hold industry to account, while all responsibility for the stewardship of nature is dropped onto the lap of the individual citizen. This trend is threatening to squander a rising environmental concern and alienate the people who genuinely want to be part of the solution.

Skeptical? Read on. In the past weeks policies have come forward that take a hard line on leaf blowers and lawn mowers, backpackers are being told how to go carbon neutral, and air travel, which accounts for just 3% of world's emissions, has been inexplicably cornered as a pariah in the fight against greenhouse gases. All of these actions have a single result. They guilt, restrict and constrain the behaviour of you and I, the citizens who genuinely want environmental solutions, while giving a free pass to the fossil fuel and automotive industries who are the real source of global warming.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives are boasting a war chest that is growing ten times as fast as the Liberals. When an election does come, this will be money targeted directly at moving public opinion away from the environment and in discrediting opposition leaders who choose to support it.

Both governments and environmentalists need to refocus quickly by increasing pressure on industry and calling for solutions that will genuinely solve the global warming problem. The public wants action and they are willing to do their part, but they will not be content to shoulder the work load for shirking corporations pulling in unprecedented profits on the wings of soaring greenhouse gas emissions.

In the face of global warming and eight dry years, the United States is confronting its worst drought since the Dust Bowl years of the Great Depression. Between 1930 and 1940, 2.5 million people were forced to leave the southwest plains and 50 million acres of formerly productive land was destroyed thanks to a combination of drought and poor farming practices.

Nobody is saying the impacts of this year's drought are on that scale. However, Alabama Senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions have are already requesting a disaster declaration for 19 Alabama counties as corn farmers and cattle ranchers face potential ruin. The more drastic consequences may occur much further north, in Canada.

The US federal government, particularly President Bush, still has not agreed to impose mandatory cuts on greenhouse gas emissions. Until they do, they are effectively saying that they are prepared to live with the consequences of global warming rather than try to prevent them. For the states already affected by drought this will mean longer and more severe water shortages and increasing strain on already endangered farmland. If that occurs, the US government will be left with three choices to address the looming catastrophe:

1. do nothing
2. relocate millions of people to more economically productive areas
3. gain controlling interests of Canada's fresh water supply.

One guess as to which option the US will choose. Abandoning large tracts of the country isn't just economically undesirable, it would also mean relinquishing two of America's most cherished bedtime stories - 1) that it's man's right to control and exploit nature for his own benefit, and 2) manifest destiny, the myth that "the American government was "destined" to establish uninterrupted political authority across the entire North American continent."

The US thirst for Canadian water is not a myth. It's a desire and policy goal that's been prepared for by international trade agreement's (NAFTA) and clearly stated by numerous US politicians, most recently Kansas congressional hopeful John Doll.

If the drought continues, look for renewed calls for large scale water diversions from Canada - an alarming possibility given rising world temperatures, shrinking glaciers, and a booming Canadian oil sands industry that has already swallowed up enough water rights to quench the thirst of a large city.

The Conservatives are facing the first global warming lawsuit every launched in Canada following the failure of their revised, and widely criticized, climate change plan showed that they planned to abandon the Kyoto Protocol.

Friends of the Earth Canada has launched a landmark lawsuit today against the Government of Canada for abandoning its international commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Filed in Federal Court in Ottawa by Canada’s largest environmental law organization, Sierra Legal, the lawsuit alleges that the federal government is violating Canadian law by failing to meet its binding international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the government must abide by its international agreements in preventing pollution. What this means on the ground is that the Harper government is facing an embarrassing lawsuit in front of the Canadian public that largely discredits their rhetoric while revealing how appallingly little they are actually aiming to do with their climate change plan.

A leaked document reveals that the BC government intends to capture the last of Canada's spotted owls for a captive breeding program while it logs the habitat they need for survival.

Only 16 northern spotted owls remain in Canada, all of them in the old growth forests of BC. In the US Pacific Northwest, the owl is also listed as endangerd but still survives in greater numbers.

A full copy of the leaked document can be read here.