Filed under: 1
Green Party of Ontario announces new Interim Female Deputy Leader
20.12.2007 – 21:21
For Immediate Release
Toronto – December 20, 2007 – Frank de Jong, Leader of the Green Party of Ontario, today announced the appointment of Melanie Mullen as Interim Female Deputy Leader for the provincial party. She replaces outgoing Deputy Leader Victoria Serda.
“On the heels of our greatest election success to date, the Green Party is naturally undergoing a bit of reorganizing. Some of the people who worked so hard on the campaign understandably need a break from the day-to-day activities of running the Party,” Leader Frank de Jong said. “We’re very happy to welcome Melanie on board as the Party builds towards an even stronger campaign for 2011.”
Mullen, from Niagara Falls, comes to the Green Party as an experienced environmental engineer. She is looking forward to contributing to the GPO Provincial Executive for the next few months, filling a key role as one of two Deputy Leaders. The Male Deputy Leader is Dr. Sanjeev Goel, of Brampton West. The GPO will hold a formal contest for a full-term Female Deputy Leader at its Annual General Meeting this spring.
“I want to thank Victoria for her efforts to help build the Party, to develop her local Constituency Association, and the great amount of time and effort she put in during our 2007 campaign, both as Deputy Leader and as the GPO candidate in Huron-Bruce,” de Jong said. “As both GPO Deputy Leader and a municipal councilor in Saugeen Shores, she had been balancing a busy schedule that made it difficult to fulfill all of her objectives, so I understand her decision to step down.”
Serda had been the GPO Female Deputy Leader since September 2006. She was instrumental in overseeing the most recent election campaign, which resulted in the Party tripling its membership and its share of the popular vote, an unprecedented achievement for the party. Serda is also a certified Climate Change Messenger on behalf of Al Gore and The Climate Project. She has presented Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth presentation to more than 19,000 people across Canada, more than any other presenter in this country.
Mullen is a graduate of the Environmental Engineering program at the University of Guelph and has an extensive background in environmental activism. Most recently, she represented the Green Party of Canada at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali and helped to organize the International Greens meeting in Bali and the release of the Global Greens’ statement on the Bali negotiations.
In 2006, Mullen received the Canadian Engineering Memorial Foundation Award for Ontario which honours excellence and dedication to education, women in engineering and the environment. Mullen returned home to run as the Green Party candidate for Niagara Falls in the 2007 Ontario provincial election where she received 11.4% of the popular vote – the second highest percentage garnered by any female Green Party candidate.
Mullen is fluent in both English and French.
- 30 -
Media enquiries contact:
Anouk Hoedeman, Media Relations
613-236-7772
ahoedeman@gpo.ca
Filed under: 1
Running into Saturday morning and afternoon, today’s plenary session of the COP (Conference of the Parties) holds out hope to be the most important step FORWARD towards a unified fight against Climate Change.
The negotiations were originally scheduled to end on Friday, December 14th. But we are still here on Saturday, and after two nights in a row of negotiations beyond 3 a.m., fortunately everyone is still talking. But as of late morning, we don’t yet have an agreement.
At one point, the plenary session was halted at the request of China, which protested that it was being kept apart from the G-77 countries, which were off in another room trying to hammer out language that would allow them to come to agreement on the final text.
Then after moving speeches from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who both implored the delegates to come to an agreement, a dramatic closing scene developed that perhaps no one could have imagined.
India put forward an amendment on behalf of China and the G-77 countries, that was fair to the developing countries, because it made it clear that they had the right to take into account their own struggles with poverty and basic sustenance for their people while they simultaneously tackled climate change.
But with almost all the nations of the world in support of this amendment, the U.S. delegation cast a dark shadow upon the proceeding by claiming, incredibly, that such an amendment would make the final text ‘unbalanced’, even though the clause pertaining to the developed nations allowed them to take into account their own national circumstances.
In response there was a parade of nations criticizing and in some cases even ridiculing the U.S. position. In a particularly poignant moment, the delegate from Papa New Guinea told the U.S. “if you aren’t ready to lead, then get out of the way” for those of us that are. After perhaps two dozen nations made their case, the debate came back to the U.S. and this time – fortunately for the Earth – they stopped blocking consensus and finally agreed to support the final text.
Although the consistent international unilateralism of the Bush Administration made it seem like they would be immune to such peer pressure, the spectre of the whole world imploring the U.S. to do the right thing seemed to have an effect.
But it may have been due to the fact that public opinion in the U.S. is increasingly in support of doing something about climate change and the Bush Administration was concerned that if they blocked the Bali process, it could help give the White House to the Democrats in 2009. Also as a timely sign to the U.S. negotiators that they wanted action, the U.S. Congress had just passed the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. Or, perhaps the European Union’s threat to boycott the Major Economies Meeting (MEM) if there is no deal in Bali was enough to call the U.S.’s bluff.
The Major Economies Meeting (MEM) was created by the Bush Administration andis seen by many in Bali as an attempt to sabotage the UNFCC. The MEM brings together the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters – Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, South Africa and United Kingdom, plus the EU – in an attempt to build a position on climate change outside of the U.N . The MEM is proposed by the U.S. to meet several times in the next year. But after the EU’s threatened boycott – and with the U.S. finally accepting the final Bali langauge – it seems like this attempt to undermine the UNFCCC process has lost some of its steam.
While the final Bali Roadmap is light years from where most green-thinking people would have liked, at least we’ve got an agreement to keep talking, which means negotiations will continue between now and 2009, when an implementation plan is projected to be signed.
The Bali Roadmap categorizes developed countries and developing countries, and includes the right to develop and address poverty while simultaneously reducing emissions. It includes agreements with regards to ;Technology Transfer; and the Adaptation Fund – both of which could be much deeper and stronger, but at least there is an initial great step with both.
There is also provision for counting preservation of existing forests as a greenhouse gas emission credit. This is also a great first step, amidst hope that perhaps de-forestation could be halted by 2020 and loss of diversity by 2010. Of course this is not fast enough and we need de-forestation to stop today, especially in response to the noted signs of internal collapse within the Amazon and elsewhere.
However, despite the fact that Climate Change is more real than ever now in 2007, we came out of Bali without any clear greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. In its Fourth Assessment on Climate Change, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) talked about the need to major reductions by 2020 and on this basis, a reference to 25-40% cuts for industrialized countries by 2020 over 1990 levels was included in a draft agreement produced during the middle of the Bali negotiations. This range reflected cuts that the IPCC said were essential to prevent global temperatures rising above two degrees Celsius.
However the inclusion of a specific range of targets – even non binding ones – was strongly resisted by the governments of the United States, Russia, Japan and Canada. As a result – especially bowing to pressure of a U.S. veto, the IPCC report barely merited a footnote reference in the final Bali report.
So where do we go from here? The prospects of runaway Climate Change are too severe to wait for the Bush Administration or the Harper Government. Like Al Gore said during his Thursday night speech during the conference, the rest of the world has to move ahead now, and leave a space in the document to be filled in later, once the Bush Administration is changed in 2009 – and hopefully the Harper government before then.
All of us here in Canada have to do our part – and publicize and demand action now – and make this a major issue in the next Federal Election. Its really in all of our hands. And we must act. Now.
Filed under: 1
Green Party of Canada – Melanie Mullen interviewed by CTV – 04:05
Melanie Mullen, Green Party of Canada representative to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, interviewed by CTV Canadian television. December 13th, 2007. Bali, Indonesia.
Green Party of Canada – Melanie Mullen asks Stephane Dion – 02:23
Melanie Mullen, Green Party of Canada representative to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, asks a question of Canadian Liberal Party Leader Stephan Dion, at a UNFCCD side event. December 12th, 2007. Bali, Indonesia.
Green Party of Ontario – Melanie Mullen candidate forum – 10:21
Melanie Mullen, Green Party candidate for Ontario Provincial Legislative Assembly, speaks at a candidate forum in her Niagara Fall Melanie Mullen, Green Party candidate for Ontario Provincial Legislative Assembly, speaks at a candidate forum in her Niagara Falls Riding. September 2007. On Election Day, she received 11.4%.
UN Climate Change Conference – Feinstein on final agreement – 12:09
California Green Mike Feinstein reports on the final plenary session negotiations and agreement at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 15th, 2007. Bali, Indonesia.
UN Climate Change Conference-Feinstein on final negotiations – 02:47
California Green Mike Feinstein reports on the controverisal breakdown of negotations on the final
morning of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. December 15th 2007. Bali, Indonesia.
Filed under: 1
Remarks by Melanie Mullen on Mr. John Baird, Canadian Minister of the Environment’s speech to the International Negotiators in Bali Thursday December 13th 2007.
Mr. John Baird opened his speech with “I want to make it clear that Canada is determined to meet our commitments”. He started his speech by insulting the international community- knowing very well that “our commitments” are not the assumed Kyoto commitments. He continued with quite the slight of hand saying by 2020 we will meet a 20% emissions reduction from the current emissions but did not mention the base level 1990 emissions agreed to in Kyoto.
He also spoke with support for “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Normally, when countries speak of this it is to reflect the right to develop for developing countries and to address the issues of poverty at the same time as struggling to reduce their emissions and effect on climate change. It is certainly not to excuse developed countries who are trying to avoid their historic responsibility.
Canada’s speech was followed by Honorable Ms. Lavinia Bernadette Rounds Ganilau, Minister from Fiji who charged industrialized countries, like Canada, with the crime of climate change inaction. She insisted that those countries honorably take responsibility of their actions before small nation islands like FIJI are literally droned out by climate change.
Nowhere in Mr. Baird’s speech did he mention Canada, and all developed countries, historic responsibility of climate change. But he however did conclude with the hypocritical statement “Let us agree to put the greater good ahead of our individual needs.” There are currently 47 small island sates completely vulnerable to climate change. If the world knew that 47 countries around the world were going to be completely obliterated but did not know which ones, then do you think Canada would take the Bali negotiations seriously.
Melanie Mullen Being interviewed after Stephane Dion by CTV Canada – Green Party Remarks of Baird’s Speech
Filed under: 1
The Canadian NGO’s – whom are a core inspiration in the CAN meetings and among the truly glowing active people in the entirety of the conference — exposed a leaked federal document December 8th revealing the Harper government explicitly instructing the Canadian negotiators to demand that the poorer countries accept exactly the same binding absolute emission reduction targets as countries like Canada who have 10 times higher per capita emissions.
Harper is dismantling Canada’s credibility. Rajendra K. Pachauri – chair of the Nobel-Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- said that Canada has a “government of skeptics” that “do not want to do anything on Climate Change”
This action violates the back bone–defining principle of the Kyoto Protocol, which is referred to as “common but differentiated responsibilities”, to reflect the historical responsibility and capacity for emission reductions.
If Harper and others like him are wrong, what approach could address climate change and global social justice at the same time?
I attended a workshop on Global Development Rights (GDR) that may provide exactly such a framework. The premise for GDR is that “the world’s wealthy minority has left so little atmospheric space for the poor majority, that even if industrialized country emissions were to be suddenly and magically halted, the dramatic emission reductions demanded by the climate crisis would require the developing countries to urgently decarbonizes their economies, and to do so while they are still combating endemic poverty.”
This is not only the core of the physical challenge, but also the crux of the international political impasse that now stymies the negotiations.
What the GDR framework does, is not only acknowledge the right to develop for the Southern countries, but it places that principle at its structural core. It seeks to secure for developing nations a viable portion of what GDR authors call the “scant remaining atmospheric space” and secures for them the right to prosper in it. It does so by codifying this right to develop in terms of a development threshold, below which individuals are not required to help shoulder the burden of solving the climate problem – in effect defining a basic threshold of both “survival income” and “survival emissions”.
People above this threshold – like most Canadians and others in the developed world, are taken as having already realized their right to develop – and thus they must share the burden, not only for reducing their own countries’ emissions, but playing a meaningful role in reducing the emissions in others who can not otherwise afford it.
This is exactly what the UNFCC’s principle of “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities” means in practice. The GDR have actually developed mathematical projections of just how much of the global emission reduction burden various countries and others share – the US, not surprisingly, has about 1/3 of the global burden, the EU about 1/4 and China about 8%..there were no quotes on Canada?
Assuming the political will on the part of the more developed countries – including Canada – to take on their rightful responsibilities under this kind of formulation, what kind of Climate regime do we need, especially in the South?
1. Ensure mitigation consistent with emergency climate stabilization program globally
2. Enable the depth and extent of adaptation inevitably needed
3. Safeguard the right to develop to a healthy lifestle
As part of this examination of the burden from North to South, we also need to confront the exportation of dirty industries – and their emissions – to developing countries, and we must ask “who should bear the responsibility for reducing the emissions associated with production when well-off “First Worlders” buy cheaper products produced overseas in environmentally destructive manner?
How does our Green principle of True Cost pricing apply here, when we are trying to truly incorporate the cost of Global Health? And how do issues of social justice in trade get included? For example, do we help to fund cleaner production processes in export-dependent Southern countries, in order to preserve jobs there? Or is it better to “re-localize” production in Northern counties, cutting down on transport and keeping the investment in more environmental technology closer to home?
Lastly, we need to incorporate the fact that in 2050 our world will be a different place because of our rapid change in development, the climate, economies, power and state of the environment. Forecasting the targets and making these assumptions is building on a source of uncertainty – yet one that we cannot avoid.
Speaking of another climate change uncertainty, panelist Mohamed Adow from Kenya concluded with a very clear and unique statement. “You will never know which cut will bring down the tree, so every cut counts for everything.” In our interconnected world, we need to stop cutting the tree, from all angles.
And speaking of trees, another concept being discussed by the North and South is trying to keep the carbon stored in the forests from being released, there has been specific discussion concerning the Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries – REDD. According to ForestEthics Canada, British Columbia alone can store 18 billion tones of carbon, yet annual logging releases 51.6 million tones of CO2, more than half that released by all light-duty cars, trucks and motorcycles every year in Canada (96 million tones). So let’s start by cutting the logging here at home!
Filed under: 1
Tonight I attended a side event put on by the Government of Canada entitled:
The Government of Canada’s approach to climate change “Turning the Corner”.
To my dismay – but not my surprise – the event was nothing more than yet another example of Blatant False Advertising by the Harper Government and John Baird to all those actively engaging in Canada’s position on climate change.
Despite pre-event advertising to the contrary, the Government presented no plan – and in fact has no plan to actually deal with climate change.
Instead of hearing Baird defend his position, the packed room of True Canadians and their global neighbors heard three limited technical presentations on patented processes dealing with carbon sequestration, biofuels and waste-to-energy conversion. The audience was told that Baird was going to speak after the presentations, but he apparently left before the presentations were finished.
Baird literally and figuratively turned his back on the Canadian people, without any discussion regarding plans or principles to achieve the 60-70% domestic emissions reduction the Government claimed in its advertised description of the event.
This is the ugliest kind of deception in politics. Where is accountable government when our Environment Minister can slither out of an ultimately misleading Government of Canada event at the UNFCCC, without a word, acknowledgement nor explanation of its actions? I question whether Baird actually understands Climate Change.
If I had gotten a chance to ask him a question, I might have said that the Harper government needs to explain how changing the emissions base line from 1990 to 2006, contrary to all other nations who signed Kyoto, is going to lead to more not less emission reductions.
Its time for the Government to show real leadership and join the rest of world in setting aggressive and binding emission reduction targets now, including the 25-40% reductions for industrialized nations by 2020, and to work with the global community to ensure that all nations – north and south – have the capacity to meet these goals.
Epilogue: YOU DECIDE:
Here are the two factual occurrences this evening. The description of the event in the UNFCCC Daily Program was written as follows:The Government of Canada’s approach to climate change “Turning the Corner”.
The Canadian Minister of the Environment (tentative) and senior officials will present an overview of Canada’s climate change plan that is designed to reduce domestic emissions by 60 to 70 per cent by 2050 as well as discuss key principles needed for a global post-2012 agreement.
What occurred were these three technical presentations:
1. Weyburn Oil Production :Weyburn Carbon Dioxide Storage Project Largest in the World
2. IOGEN Corp. : Cellulose Ethanol
3. Plasco Energy Group Inc.: waste conversion to energy.
This is one meeting where he did show up, but blamed everything on Canadians
Filed under: 1
This past week, I have been an observer to negotiations on the most important issue of our time – tackling climate change.Thus far, there are generally high hopes, a positive vibe, free bikes for delegates and a solar taxi – with the hard negotiations still to come next week.However, there has been a creative tension between developing countries such as India and China and developed ones like Canada, Japan and the U.S. Since the developed countries have historically created the emissions, enabling them to enjoy a high quality of life, the developing countries question their responsibility to make drastic cuts in their own emissions and forgo their own chance to enjoy the same standard of living – especially when developed countries like Canada have not met their Kyoto Agreement targets and the U.S. hasn’t even signed.
Running parallel to the governmental proceedings are a series of NGO events. I’ve attended the daily briefings to the NGO community by the Climate Action Network, which is a coalition of over 150 grassroots Climate Change groups and organizations. The briefing room is full each day, as hundreds of activists share their experiences and debate strategy. Among the issues they hope to affect are Technology Transfer, Adaptation, Climate Development Mechanisms (CDM), De-forestation, LULUCF and Bali mandate post-2012. Will the Bali negotiations get us on the path to the kind of Greenhouse Gas Emission reductions we’ll need to prevent catastrophic climate change? What role will Canada play? All of this is on the table and will unfold over the next week.
Each night a group of grassroots activists gives out the “Fossil award” for the three countries that have so far impaired progress in the negotiations. I’ve attended these announcements every night, and they combine a comical countdown to the winners (losers?), together with a tragic realization of the seriously negative impact from these countries on the negotiations.Sure enough, Canada’s Harper government won first prize on Day One, with Hannah McKinnon of the Canadian Youth Delegation (and Canadian Green) “accepting” the award on behalf of Canada, with the following justifications:
* For insisting, in a belated AWG submission today, on “emission reduction obligations for all the largest emitting countries.’* Canada was isolated on this point at last month’s Commonwealth summit, and begins the Bali conference by continuing this failure to recognize the differentiated responsibilities of developed and developing countries.
* After reneging on its own Kyoto commitment, Canada has no credibility in demanding new obligations from others.To follow the Fossil awards at home, see www.avaaz.com/fossils
So what is the proper relationship between the responsibilities of developing and developed countries? The accumulation of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) already in the atmosphere from the developed countries is more than 70%. Therefore they should pay proportionately for new technology and forest conservation globally.
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) – which will receive the Nobel Peace Prize on Monday – states to cap global warming at no more than two degrees Celsius we need a 50%-80% CO2 equivalent reduction by 2050. Therefore all countries should take part in the global effort, including developing countries whose emissions are very influential not withstanding the fact that their per capita averages are very low in comparison to the average developed countries in North America and Europe. The decisive factor in the future is the absolute global figure of GHG emissions so all countries need capacity and political will to do their part.
Filed under: 1
29.11.2007
Give up climate change obstructionism, Green Party tells Harper
OTTAWA — The Harper government must abandon its obstructionist
position in international climate change negotiations and re-commit
Canada to the Kyoto goals, Green Party leader Elizabeth May said today.
“Recognizing that we can no longer reach our legally binding Kyoto
target of greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels within the
first commitment period, we should certainly commit to getting as
close as possible,” she said.
“We must immediately pay the $1.5 million we have owed to the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM) secretariat for two years. Former
Environment Minister Rona Ambrose once said that it has been paid and
then she said it would be paid soon. Her successor John Baird said
last spring it would be paid soon. Yesterday he said the same thing.
Ms. May said that Canada should offer to share climate change
mitigation technology with developing countries on a concession
basis, pledge to help meet the challenge of adaptation, support the
French proposal for an aviation fuel tax to create a fund for
adaptation, and be open to developing country targets being
structured around deforestation where appropriate and sectoral based
targets (such as the electricity sector in China).
“We should call for the US to rapidly ratify Kyoto as a sign of good
faith with the rest of the world now that the only other hold-out
nation, Australia, is ratifying.”
Ms. May said that anyone who still doubts that decisive action on
climate change is urgent and long overdue should refer to recent
comments by Sir Nicholas Stern, the former World Bank chief economist
whose climate change review released last year laid out a grim and
shocking picture of the economic and human costs of the looming
climate catastrophe.
Speaking recently at Manchester University, Sir Nicholas said: “If I
was doing it again I’d portray the risks as bigger.” He laid out a
six-point to-do list for the world leaders attending the climate
change negotiations in Bali next week:
- 80 per cent reductions in global emissions by 2050
- Better carbon-trading system
- Major reform of Kyoto’s Clean Development Mechanism
- Anti-deforestation campaign
- Rapid advance on technologies for electricity generation
- 0.7 per cent GDP in aid from first to third world by 2015.
Ms. May urged Minister Baird to note the Stern recommendations and
incorporate them into the Canadian position in the Bali negotiations.
Filed under: 1
November 22, 2007
Petty Baird won’t escape a mauling: Green Party
OTTAWA – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today blasted Environment Minister John Baird for blocking opposition Members of Parliament from joining the official Canadian delegation to the United Nations climate change summit in Bali next month. Mr. Baird has broken the long-standing tradition of leaving partisanship behind while on the world stage.
“Mr. Baird’s attempt to exclude opposition MPs from Canada’s delegation is shameful and outrageous,” said Ms. May. “This move is clearly designed to stifle dissent and shows that Conservatives care more about their own image than taking action on climate change.”
Ms. May added that Canada’s disgraceful position on climate change will be attacked by every
responsible player in the UN negotiations, as it was at last year’s summit in Kenya.
“If Mr. Baird thinks that trampling on tradition and leaving the opposition at home will allow him to ooze through the Bali negotiations unnoticed, he is in for a surprise. He and the Bush administration will be isolated and, with Australians poised to elect the pro-Kyoto Labour Party this weekend, even John Howard won’t be there to help out.”
Mr. Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper must be reminded that most Canadians did note vote for the Conservative party, said Ms. May.
“The vast majority of Canadians support action on climate change – not the regressive policies of the Conservative party,” she said. “Mr. Harper only has a minority mandate and has no right to exclude opposition members from these crucial negotiations. This behaviour displays his lack of preparedness to be Prime Minister – he doesn’t understand the climate crisis and he doesn’t understand democracy. ”
-30-
