<![CDATA[Parry Sound-Muskoka Green Party - Letters to the Editor]]>Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:39:12 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[The Nuclear Gamble]]>Mon, 18 Apr 2011 13:16:30 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2011/04/the-nuclear-gamble.htmlSometimes a series of seemingly unrelated events come together at just the right time to frame an interesting debate on a serious issue.

This is certainly the case with recent discussions on the future of nuclear power as two recent events have brought to light some of the biggest concerns with the future of this type of power generation.

Obviously, the first event in the news is the recent earthquake in Japan and the subsequent breakdown of several of their nuclear reactors. The stress of what has happened coupled with the horror of what could have happened has left many people around the world questioning the wisdom of continuing to rely so heavily on such a potentially harmful fuel.

The other recent incident that has received some (but not enough) press is the transportation of radioactive material over the Great Lakes. The fear is that an accident on the big water could reach the shores and affect people who are ill prepared to deal with the potential fallout.

This concern is amplified by the fact that this small amount of waste is just the tip of the iceberg since every nuclear power plant is characterized by tons of spent uranium that remains radioactive for literally thousands of years.  This has to be stored in a safe and stable environment and kept cool.  Where to keep all of this waste is a constant concern and in Japan and the cooling pools are currently spilling their radioactive water into the sea. There is really no solution for this problem and it promises to get worse over time.

Supporters of nuclear power have pointed out time and time again that the chances of a catastrophe at a nuclear power plant are remote.  This is a fact that is hard to argue with. Indeed over the years there have only been a few major issues with nuclear power.

However, the rarity of major problems is clearly offset by the equally hard to argue fact that any problem when dealing with radioactive material can quickly become devastating. We have seen Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and now Japan have issues that have resulted in injuries and deaths while severely altering landscapes and lives.  The scary part is that these accidents were not even as bad as they could have been.

Of course it goes without saying that maintaining and monitoring nuclear power plants is extremely important and thus, very costly.

It is also worth noting that the very material used to produce power, uranium, has to be mined and this is, like any other mining, expensive and leaves a scarred landscape. Of course, it also has to be transported to the plant, which adds more cost.

The point is that nuclear power is often touted as a good and often “green” power alternative since the actual amount of emissions released from the production of nuclear power is much less than a coal fired plant.

In reality though, when you take into account the entire process of nuclear power production, from mining of material to disposal of waste, it is anything but green and certainly not cheap especially when compared to the alternatives.

At the end of the day, despite how remote the chance, which would you rather be living beside if an earthquake ever hit Ontario, a windmill or a nuclear power plant.

I thought so.

]]><![CDATA[Missing the point]]>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 03:00:00 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2011/03/missing-the-point.htmlI found it a little funny that in last week’s editorial your paper seemed to miss the point of the Green Party “attack” ads that were released last week.
I thought it was fairly obvious to most people (including the over 40 000 Canadians who signed on to our anti-attack ad Facebook group in less than 5 days) that the ads were in no way like the other parties as you had suggested. They were in fact the exact opposite.
Our ads were intended to highlight and reject the negative culture of the other parties and their divisive advertising. Hence the play on the word “attack”.
Anyone who actually took the time to view the commercial would immediately see that the Green Party was taking a stand against attack ads and that we felt Canadians in general did not support or appreciate this kind of American style politicking.
As for your implications that we were wasting money, I would like to point out that our ads cost less than $10 000 dollars, which is tiny compared to the millions in pre-election advertising already done by the other parties. We relied on social media and people power to spread our message allowing citizens to make the choice to share our message, rather than forcing it down people’s throats during breaks in their favourite television program.
I am sorry that you missed the subtle message of our campaign but given the simplistic nature of most attack ads, I can almost understand why it would be hard to believe that a political party would actually be encouraging intelligent discourse.
Fortunately, the Green Party continues to be different.
Glen Hodgson
Parry Sound-Muskoka federal Green Party candidate
]]><![CDATA[Contempt for democracy is unacceptable]]>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:43:05 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2010/08/contempt-for-democracy-is-unacceptable.htmlThe decision by Prime Minister Harper to suspend parliament and the cynical defense of this act by MP Tony Clement is troubling and the Tories must be taken to task for their arrogance.

I echo the comments of Green Party leader Elizabeth May.
“Harper's move this week is premised on the assumption that enough Canadians simply do not care about democracy or the role of Parliament.   It presumes that Parliament can be shuttered for trivial political reasons; that legislation, committees, government accountability, a climate plan, progress on pensions, the investigation of the alleged cover-up in the treatment of Afghan civilians and other detainees --- that none of that matters enough to have consequences for Mr. Harper.”

Outrage to this decision should transcend Party lines and I urge all the Canadians to tell MP Tony Clement and Prime Mister Harper that we live in a democracy and we expect that our leaders will understand this and behave accordingly.

Mr. Clement even suggested on CBC radio that the constituents in his riding could care less. Fortunately, it appears that he has misread the mood of the people he is supposed to represent.

Democracy does not exist at the whim of the Conservative government. If Mr. Harper and his Conservative MPs aren't interested in doing their job, then they should step out of the way and let someone else take over. It is time for real leadership and I am convinced that this government doesn’t appear to be prepared to provide it.

Glen Hodgson
Federal Green Party Candidate
]]><![CDATA[Whales survive close call]]>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:41:13 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2010/08/whales-survive-close-call.htmlWith worldwide attention firmly focused on the FIFA world cup in South Africa, another major event that should have received more attention quietly came and went in Morocco. The meeting was the annual gathering of the International Whaling Commission, the governing body charged with monitoring world whale populations.
Incredibly, the main topic of discussion was a relentless push by some nations, led by Japan, to convince the IWC to open a hunting season on the world’s whale populations. Commercial whaling has been banned since 1982 and some whale populations are down to just several hundred individuals and critically endangered. Yet, this motion still managed to make it on the agenda and had a very good chance of passing.

The lobbying for support included large bribes to smaller countries that have a vote and are in desperate need of cash and have little connection to the whales that often just pass by their shores.

Fortunately, mainly because there are still some committed activists out there that refuse to be distracted, the motion failed, but it was close.

Unfortunately, some nations like Japan and Iceland still harvest a large number of whales ever year under a silly exemption to the whaling moratorium that allows for a certain number of animals to be taken for “scientific research”. In this day and age DNA samples can tell you almost everything that you need to know about each individual whale. These biopsies can be taken easily with little harm to the mammal making the professed need by these nations to kill whales for research an absolute farce.

Ironically, Japan had offered to reduce its “scientific” killing of whales if the IWC agreed to let it harvest whales commercially and it was a compromise that, many nations (and even apparently the organization Greenpeace) considered to have some merit. However, tellingly, at the last minute Japan refused to reduce any of their whale kill targets.

The weak rational given by some supporters of a call to lift the ban suggests that a few countries simply ignore the current moratorium and, if lifted in favour of a limited hunt, then countries that currently violate the existing law may be more willing to observe the new quotas. Critics of this support suggest that rule breakers shouldn’t be rewarded and if they broke the old law, how could they be trusted to honour a new one?

Almost every species of whale has populations that are in decline or sometimes severely endangered. Not only do whales have to contend with the “research” vessels hunting them down, but they are also regularly hit by ships or caught in one of the thousands of fishing nets that are floating lose around the world’s oceans.

Add to this the very low reproduction rate of most whale species and it becomes apparent that the loss of any whales at this point in time has a big impact.

The fact is that whales pose absolutely no threat to humans, they rarely compete for marketable fish and they cruise the world’s oceans leading a relatively peaceful existence despite being some of the biggest creatures on earth. There is also no real need for whale meat or any other whale products as there is nothing that a whale can provide that we need or cannot find from other sources.

They are also some of the most intelligent creatures on earth with tight social structures, incredibly complex and detailed language and deep family bonds.

So, with no rational human need for whales and a recognition of how intelligent the mammals are and how drastically whale numbers have declined, there is absolutely no possible reason to continue to harvest these magnificent creatures.

There will come a time when we look back at our slaughter of whales and wonder how we could ever have been so callous and short sighted.

Leave them alone.
]]><![CDATA[To the editor...]]>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:39:43 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2010/08/to-the-editor.htmlTo the editor:

While watching the costs associated with the G8/G20 (30?) meeting continue to spiral out of control while the fences separating the people from their elected leaders grows ever higher, a simple question needs to be asked and I am afraid that is being lost in a sea of artificial lakes and sound cannons.
Why is it that we need to spend over a billion dollars to keep our elected leaders away from the very people that they are supposed to represent? Perhaps if the billion dollars being invested to build fences and outfit security personal had instead been spent improving the lives of the worlds people maybe could have avoided the barriers. Maybe if instead of degrading the environment and widening the gap between the richest and the poorest people on earth, our leaders had made an honest attempt to support women, tackle global warming and share some of the wealth, they wouldn’t have to buy so much tear gas to spray on those participating in democratic protests.

I plan on marching peacefully at the Peoples First! We Deserve Better rally along with others from women’s groups, and social justice and community organizations who will be attempting to remind our leaders that we can and must do better to ensure a peaceful world and a healthy environment for the next generation.

If they listen, maybe our future leaders won’t need to spend so much money keeping their citizens away from them.

Glen Hodgson
Parry Sound-Muskoka Federal Green Party Candidate
]]><![CDATA[Eco fee misses the point]]>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 09:38:34 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2010/08/eco-fee-misses-the-point.htmlYou would be forgiven for not noticing but on July 1st when the new HST came into effect, another fee was quietly introduced. I am referring to the newly added Eco-fee on many commonly purchased products like batteries, pharmaceuticals and paint.

The idea behind the tax (as it is being labelled by many frustrated consumers) is sound. Essentially, an extra fee is attached to certain products in order to provide funds that will be used to ensure the proper disposal of the item at the end of its lifespan.
Unfortunately, there are many flaws in the present initiative that seemed to have been missed either by accident or by design.

The biggest problem rests in the fact that the fee will do nothing to deter companies from making cheap, toxic or poor quality items. At present, once a product leaves the store, the responsibility for disposal of the product falls squarely on citizens and this is evident when we see the portion of our tax bill dedicated to pay for dumps and transfer stations. The idea of the Eco-fee is to add extra money into the price of the product to fund the proper disposal of any hazardous goods.

This is a noble thought but unfortunately, the companies merely build the cost right into the price of the item. This is something they were encouraged to do by Stewardship Ontario, the independent organization that collects the Eco-fee, and provides drop off points (called Orange drops) for the hazardous items.

 The claim is that the industry pays the price. But, by passing on the cost to the consumer, it is very clear that it is us who end up paying and the company is let off the hook. Not only do they not pay, an initial survey on the Eco-fee suggested many retailers level charges that far exceeded the actual amount the item is supposed to be taxed resulting in the company or retailer actually collecting more money than they are required to.

In addition, since the fee is added at the end of the transaction and on a random assortment of items, it is very hard to tell if the product you are buying is subject to a surcharge unless you pour over the bill. Thus, it doesn’t result in avoidance of certain less environmentally friendly products, since you don’t know until you go to pay that the item has the additional cost attached,

Also, there was virtually no notice of the eco-tax being added. The idea of introducing a green initiative, if it is actually meant to be of an actual ecological benefit, is to help people change their habits. You do this through education and by helping people to understand their alternatives.

The fact that there was virtually no notice or education around it, makes the Eco-fee more about the “fee” than it is about the “eco”.

Add to this that some of the products on the list are either already environmentally friendly (like rechargeable batteries) or vital for safety (like fire extinguishers) making them very poor choices for the additional cost.

Regardless of the intent of the Eco-fee, the way that it has been handled and the incredibly poor timing of its introduction has made it very hard to see the overall benefit of such an initiative.

The idea behind the Eco-fee is sound, but it is hard to look beyond some of the major flaws in the program to salvage some of the initiatives good aspects.

It is doubly frustrating since the mismanagement of “green’ initiatives can all too easily turn the average person against ecologically responsible proposals and less likely to support further ideas.

Let’s just assume that this wasn’t part of the plan.
]]><![CDATA[Local Greens reaffirm commitment at AGM]]>Sun, 18 Jul 2010 21:14:24 -0500http://www.psmgreenparty.ca/1/post/2010/07/first-post.htmlThe Parry Sound-Muskoka Chapters of the Federal and Provincial Green Party held their Annual General Meeting on Wednesday, March 31, 2010 night in Port Carling. The meeting featured speeches by both the Federal candidate, Glen Hodgson and Provincial candidate, Matt Richter.

The Party also used the opportunity to elect executive positions and provide an update on past and coming activities of the local Greens.
Richter took advantage of the event to outline some of the key messages that the Provincial Green Party will be highlighting in the 2011 election.

“We need to come back to a focus on community, green economies and health and well being,” said Richter. “One need only to look at the rising cost of health care to realize that our present path is making more and more people sick and we have to stop this trend and start focusing on keeping people well. This means maintaing a healthy environment, creating stronger, more vibrant and walkable communities and creating green jobs that enhance our lives, rather than degrade them.”

In this light both the local Provincial and Federal Greens have been hosting events and participating in community actions that help the Greens highlight and meet these goals.
Federal candidate, Glen Hodgson, was more pointed in his comments and took square aim at the ruling Conservatives.

“I am so distressed with the decisions of the current government. Canada’s international reputation has taken a beating under Stephen Harper. Our blocking of meaningful Climate change agreements, our inaction on Species at Risk legislation and the continued embarrassing displays of some of our cabinet ministers are just the most recent failings that have severely eroded people’s faith in our government,” commented Hodgson.

The evening finished with a sneak peak at the film Food Inc. The Green Party will be hosting a screening of the film in Parry Sound on April 13th followed by another showing in Bracebridge on April 19th in Bracebridge.    

Contact information:
Glen Hodgson
95 James Bay Junction, RR#2
Parry Sound
705 378 4065
waubeek@hotmail.com

]]>