Tesla finally unveils the Model X all-electric SUV

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

Finally, after delays on delays, Tesla opens the wings on the Model X SUV. It was worth the wait.

Tesla Model X rear rack — The Model comes available with a rear rack that can be put on in 10 seconds and haul 4 bikes or 6 sets of skis, while maintaining full functionality of the hatch.

reposted from the Chicago Tribune, Sept 30, 2015

Electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors has mastered the sporty two-seater and the elegant sedan. Now, it wants to conquer the family hauler.

After nearly two years of delays, the official launch of the Tesla Model X — one of the only all-electric SUVs on the market — on Tuesday night near the company’s California factory was delayed by a half hour. Cheers from the crowd indicated it was worth it.

CEO Elon Musk says the Model X sets a new bar for automotive engineering, with unique features like rear falcon-wing doors, which open upward, and a driver’s door that opens on approach and closes itself when the driver is inside.

“All these things together make the car amazing,” he said.

The Model X is the third vehicle from 12-year-old Tesla, after the Roadster — which was discontinued in 2012 — and the Model S sedan. It should attract new customers — particularly women — to the brand, and it goes on sale as the market for luxury SUVs is booming. U.S. luxury SUV sales were up 17 percent through August, five times better than the industry as a whole.

“If Tesla’s going to be a more significant player, they need more products, and SUVs are what the market is demanding,” said Michelle Krebs, a senior analyst with the car buying site AutoTrader.com. Musk said Tesla expects about half of its sales to be SUVs.

But there are drawbacks. Only a fraction of the sippy-cup set will be able to afford the Model X, even with a $7,500 federal tax credit. A fully loaded performance model is $142,000; exact pricing of the base model hasn’t been released, but Musk said the Model X will cost $5,000 more than an equivalent Model S, or around $93,000. Musk said the company will eventually offer a less expensive variant with a smaller battery.

The Model X shares a platform and motor with the Model S, which is made at the same factory. But unlike the S, which has several battery options, the X only has a 90 kilowatt-hour battery and only comes with all-wheel drive. The 90D version will go 257 miles on a full charge, while the P90D performance version will go 250 miles. Tesla’s high-speed “ludicrous mode” is offered on the P90D; it goes from 0 to 60 mph in 3.2 seconds. The base model goes 0 to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds.

The Model X has three rows and seats seven; on a test ride, the back row could fit an adult and had a surprising amount of headroom. The front windshield, which Tesla says is the biggest in the industry with broad view like that in a helicopter, sweeps back and over the front seats. Navigation, music and cabin controls are accessed through a 17-inch dashboard touch screen.

“The goal was to create an aperature more functional than a minivan,” Musk said.

The rear falcon-wing doors open up to a three-seat second row, which all move independently. Push a button and the second row moves forward to let passengers in the two-seat third row without having to remove child seats. The second row also has a flat floor, so backpacks and laptops can be stored under the seat.

The doors were among the reasons the Model X’s launch was delayed several times. Musk announced plans for the Model X in 2012; it was initially expected to go on sale in early 2014.

Musk says the company “got a little carried away” and might have designed the Model X differently if it had known the final engineering costs and manufacturing complexity.

“I’m not sure anyone should make this car,” he said. “There’s far more there than is really necessary to sell the car.”

It can tow up to 5,000 pounds, with 7 adults riding. There is cargo space in the rear and the frunk, or front trunk.

Musk also called it the safest SUV ever.

That complexity means there will be a slow production ramp-up this fall. Around 25,000 people have already placed orders for the X, Musk said. Customers who put in an order now will have to wait up to a year to get one.

At the Fremont factory event, SUVs were delivered to the first six buyers.

Last month, Musk lowered Tesla’s annual sales forecast from 55,000 vehicles to between 50,000 and 55,000. But Musk says Tesla is still on track to sell 500,000 vehicles by 2020. It expects to reach that goal with the introduction of its next car, the lower-priced Model 3, which is due out in 2017.

The Model X is alone, for now, in the all-electric luxury SUV market. Its closest competitor is the plug-in hybrid Porsche Cayenne SUV, which starts at $77,200. But others, spurred by Tesla, are planning their own all-electric models. BMW will start selling a plug-in hybrid X5 later this year, starting at $63,095 with standard all-wheel drive. Audi said this month that it will have an all-electric SUV by 2018.

At the lower end of the market, there’s the $32,000 Kia Soul EV, an electric crossover, but it only has a 93-mile range. Toyota briefly sold an electric version of the RAV4 SUV, but that was discontinued last year.

Associated Press contributed

SOURCE

democracy, Ecocide ALert, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Poll: Most Albertans want stronger climate change policies

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

Survey shows public support for climate action and a stronger price on carbon

Press Release by Pembina Institute, Sept 30, 2015

EDMONTON — New public opinion research shows that 53 per cent of Albertans want the province to adopt stronger policies to cut carbon emissions. This result comes from a survey of more than 1,800 Albertans conducted by EKOS Research Associates and commissioned by the Pembina Institute.

Half of Albertans (50 per cent) also support the introduction of a carbon tax that applies to all polluters, including both individuals and companies. Support for this kind of carbon price is 10 to 20 percentage points higher when the revenue is directed to specific sources, such as infrastructure projects or technologies that reduce carbon emissions.

Quick facts

A majority (56 per cent) of Albertans think the province has an obligation to cut emissions to address climate change, with only 26 per cent disagreeing.
A large majority of respondents (70 per cent) support investing in renewable energy sources to reduce the province’s reliance on coal-fired electricity.
Most Albertans (53 per cent) want the province to adopt stronger climate change policies, even if that means oilsands companies must pay higher costs to produce oil.
Two-thirds of Albertans (66 per cent) think the government should prioritize diversifying the province’s economy over helping the oil and gas industry be more competitive (29 per cent).
Roughly half of respondents (48 per cent) think that the oilsands industry is currently large enough, or that its size should be reduced.

Poll details

A total of 1,855 residents of Alberta aged 18 or older were surveyed from August 28 through September 10 by EKOS Research Associates. They were surveyed using a combination of live-caller telephone interviews — including both landlines and cell phones — and an online probability panel.

The margin of error for the full sample is ±2.3 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. The data have been statistically weighted by age, gender, region and educational attainment to ensure the sample’s composition reflects that of the actual population of Alberta according to 2011 Census data.

Quotes

“It’s encouraging to see such strong support among Albertans for action on climate change. This poll shows that the public is open to many of the solutions being considered, such as an economy-wide price on carbon pollution, or phasing out coal power and replacing it with renewables.”
— Simon Dyer, Alberta Regional Director, Pembina Institute

“This has been a year in which Albertans defy stereotypes, with this poll being one more example. There is a large constituency in Alberta that wants to see the province be an environmental leader on issues like climate change and the development of the oilsands.”
— Frank Graves, President, EKOS Research Associates

-30-

Visit the Pembina Institute’s website to download a copy of the full report.

Download (PDF, 362KB)

Activism, democracy, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Vote for a Better, Cleaner Canada: David Suzuki

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

By David Suzuki, reposted from DeSmogCanada, Sept 9, 2015

No matter what anyone says during this long federal election campaign, climate change is the biggest threat to Canadians’ health, security and economy. The scientific evidence is incontrovertible, the research wide-ranging and overwhelming.

Wastefully burning fossil fuels at such a rapid rate is jeopardizing the planet’s life-support systems — harming human health, destroying landscapes and habitat, causing widespread extreme weather events and contributing less to the economy and job-creation than clean energy development. Not only that, our rate of using and exporting these fuels means reserves will be depleted before long. In the meantime, as easily accessible sources run out, fossil fuels have become more difficult, dangerous, expensive and environmentally damaging to exploit.

Canada has a long history of extracting and exporting raw resources to fuel its economy. But that’s no longer a sensible long-term plan, especially with non-renewable resources. It’s incomprehensible that a country with such a diverse, educated, innovative and caring population can’t get beyond this outdated way of doing things. The recent oil price plunge illustrates the folly of putting all our eggs in one fossil fuel basket.

As world leaders prepare for the December UN climate summit in Paris, we need our government to play a responsible, constructive role. Canada has been chastised at previous summits for obstructing progress and working to water down agreements. The summit’s goal is for all the world’s countries to reach a legally binding pact on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions to keep global average temperatures from rising more than 2 C, the threshold beyond which experts and world leaders agree could bring catastrophic consequences.

The consequences are already severe and will get worse if we don’t act. Increasing extreme weather, including heat waves, floods, droughts and storms put lives, agriculture and economies at risk. Subsequent conflicts over resources reduce global security and exacerbate refugee problems. Pollution from burning fossil fuels increases heart disease and respiratory illnesses, including asthma. Deep-sea drilling, oil sands mining and mountaintop removal destroy the ecosystems, habitat, wildlife and natural capital on which our health and survival depend.

Everyone seeking election must get serious about the climate, so no matter which party or parties form government after October 19, Canada will be part of the solution.

Continuing with business as usual will only ensure more extreme weather leading to floods and droughts; negative health impacts, including increases in premature deaths; harm to food production and security; more pipeline, rail and marine accidents; and missed opportunities to diversify the economy.

Although climate change, resource development and infrastructure have been raised in this election, the talking points don’t always match the severity of the problem. It’s up to all of us as voters to question candidates and inform ourselves about the various party platforms before casting ballots — and to make sure all the parties and their candidates listen and make climate change a priority.

Canada is a great country, an example to the world of how people with diverse views, backgrounds and cultures can live well together and take care of each other. We are blessed with spectacular nature, abundant clean water, fertile agricultural land, rich resources, an educated populace, vibrant democratic traditions and strong social programs. But we can’t take any of it for granted. We must protect what we have and strive to be better, to move beyond our outdated ways of thinking and acting.

There are numerous election issues that can’t be ignored, including health, child care, jobs and the economy, infrastructure, education, international trade and relations, and our global responsibility to confront terrorism. Addressing climate change by shifting from the short-term prospects of the polluting fossil fuel economy to a more stable, healthy, green economy would go a long way to reducing health-care costs, creating jobs, diversifying the economy and improving our international reputation.

We have an important choice, as voters and as a country. We can heed the scientists, health-care specialists, religious leaders, politicians, international organizations, business people and citizens around the world who say we no longer have time to lose when it comes to protecting the climate and ourselves. Or we can carry on as if nothing is wrong, and live with the mounting consequences.

Exercising your democratic right as a voter is a critical step.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

democracy, Ecocide ALert, Politics, Preventing Ecocide

Larry Colero: Demolishing democracy is a Conservative tradition

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

null — Larry Colero is the Green Party candidate for South Surrey–White Rock.

By Lary Colero, reposted from Straight, Sept 29, 2015

Mainstream media keep telling Canadians the big issue in this election is the economy. But more prominent in my riding, at least for residents with any foresight, are immediate concerns about ocean-going tankers carrying bitumen and trains carrying unidentified hazardous goods along an unstable and densely-populated coastal route. If there were an accident or natural disaster, the impacts of a bitumen spill or train derailment on safety, health, coastal communities, and ecosystems could be irreparable, including the loss or elimination of thousands of jobs in tourism, retail, and fisheries—all in the name of the economy.

In any case, our ability to make the right choices when it comes to the economy, tankers, trains, or any other issue is entirely dependent on the health of our democracy. Parliament has become a partisan shouting match, with no consequence for contempt or cabinet ministers who admit they told lies. There is no substantive debate of blockbuster Omnibus bills. If we can’t “save democracy from politics” as Elizabeth May says, Canada’s elected representatives simply cannot represent us, no matter how good their intentions.

One of the reasons I chose to run for the Green Party is its long-standing policy to allow MPs free voting in Parliament. If elected, I will be able to represent my constituents instead of being whipped into voting according to the party leader’s will. Other parties may promise free voting prior to an election, but neither their policies nor past practices support those promises.

Even more troubling than dictatorial party leaders and partisanship in the House, is our government’s increasing tendency to avoid putting important questions to a vote at all. When the Harper government shifted the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan into active combat and the longest-running war in Canadian history, thousands more men and women were sent to risk their lives without any vote in Parliament. Unfortunately, there were no Green Party MPs in Parliament to speak out.

In 2014, Canada’s sovereignty was crucially undermined under the guise of another “free trade” agreement. The FIPA, an Investor-State Treaty with China, was negotiated and signed in almost complete secrecy, with no parliamentary or senate committees to weigh its benefits and risks, and no debate or vote in Parliament. Announced quietly and hardly mentioned in the news, FIPA binds Canada until 2045, giving foreign investors the right to sue our federal, provincial or municipal governments for billions in estimated lost profits if our elected representatives try to protect our safety, quality of life or environment from an industrial threat.

FIPA also specifies that whatever fines our governments pay can never be divulged to taxpayers. An associated outcome is that governments, especially municipalities, will be intimidated into simply not passing legislation that protects us.

A similar agreement is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which the Conservatives are continuing to negotiate during this election even though Parliament has been dissolved. Even if they did have the authority to negotiate, what gives any party in power the right to bargain away our great-grandchildren’s constitutional rights in secrecy and without due process?

A related concern is the Conservatives’ penchant for squelching dissenting voices, censoring scientists, and destroying research data needed to make informed decisions. Without knowledge of the facts, elected representatives are kept in the dark, conveniently more vulnerable to being educated by lobbyists and corporate-controlled media.

Our challenge in this election is to convince voters that our disabled democracy is a much greater threat to their safety, security and quality of life than ISIS. We need to bring back representative democracy before we can do anything else. SOURCE

Activism, Ecocide ALert, Politics

Northern Gateway battle lands in Court

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

Hearing on Enbridge’s controversial pipeline project begins tomorrow

By Devon Page, Executive Director, reposted from EcoJustice, Sept 30, 2015

Opponents of Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project will finally get their day in court. Or, to be more precise, six days in court.

Ecojustice lawyers will be there, on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, Living Oceans Society and Raincoast Conservation Foundation, to make a case for why the Federal Court of Appeal should revoke the federal government’s approval of the project.

Eighteen lawsuits, including ones brought by our clients, have been filed and consolidated in to one mega-hearing that begins in Vancouver tomorrow. In the courtroom, Enbridge and the federal government will be up against steadfast, unwavering opposition from a diverse set of interest that includes First Nations communities, environmental groups and organized labour.

The legal case

A staggering 96 per cent of the groups and people who participated in the review process oppose Northern Gateway. The 1,177-km project would cut across many First Nations territories, cross hundreds of fish-bearing waterways, and increase tanker traffic off of B.C.’s unpredictable north coast, which is prone to stormy conditions and massive wave swells. Our clients remain concerned that this project poses a risk of an in-land pipeline rupture (see: Enbridge’s Kalamazoo River oil spill) or a tanker spill at sea (see: Exxon Valdez oil spill), both of which could have devastating long-term impacts on the communities and ecosystems along the Northern Gateway route.

Despite this, the Joint Review Panel tasked with assessing the project recommended that the federal Cabinet approve the pipeline. “Canadians will be better off with this project than without it,” the panel concluded in its final report.

Respectfully, our clients disagree. The panel’s final report is flawed and contains several legal errors. Therefore, it cannot be used as the basis for the federal government’s approval of Northern Gateway.

Our clients argue that the environmental assessment for the project was not complete. They allege that the review panel report erred by (among other things):

failing to comply with the Species at Risk Act with respect to humpback whales;
failing to balance Northern Gateway’s economic benefits and environment impacts; and
failing to complete a lawful assessment of how bitumen reacts in marine environment.

(Read the full factum)

Any decision about Northern Gateway must be based on the best available science, especially when there is so much at stake. The panel’s flawed report cannot, and should not, stand as the final word on whether Northern Gateway is in the national interest.

The bigger picture

Pipeline projects like Northern Gateway have a single purpose: To move huge quantities of dirty fossil fuels from the landlocked tar sands to overseas markets. New pipeline infrastructure will facilitate tar sands expansion — already Canada’s fastest growing source of carbon emissions — and unleash more carbon into a world already battered by the effects of climate change. A report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives estimates that if built, the Northern Gateway project would trigger the release of an additional 80-100 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere each year.

Climate change impacts were excluded from Northern Gateway’s scope of review, but the numbers make it clear that the project is a one-way ticket in the wrong direction on climate change and totally out of step with the need to reduce global carbon emissions — now. At the very least, these figures cast doubt on the assertion that pipelines and the baggage they come with are in the national interest.

Here’s what is in the national interest: A clean, low-carbon economy. One that recognizes that economic stability and resiliency is incompatible with a strategy that doubles-down on tar sands expansion. One that recognizes that a strong economy and a healthy environment go hand-in-hand.

Instead of debating new pipeline infrastructure that will lock us into a fossil fuel economy for the next 50 years, we need to have a real conversation about how to prepare Canada to thrive in a low-carbon future.

It’s a future within our reach. Research from a group of Canadian scholars, released earlier this year, confirmed that through a series of practical steps, like adopting successful provincial carbon-reduction initiatives at the national level — think B.C.’s carbon tax and Ontario’s phase-out of coal-fired power plants — Canada could dramatically cut its emissions and reach 100 per cent reliance on low-carbon electricity by 2035.

And in the meantime, the Ecojustice team will go to court to stand up against projects that threaten to lock us into the status quo, like Northern Gateway. With your support, we can build the case for a better earth.

SOURCE

democracy, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics, Video

TPP ministers back at table as Canada preps final offer on dairy, autos

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

12 Pacific Rim countries set to reach agreement in principle in Atlanta by end of week

Young dairy farmers were part of a protest in downtown Ottawa on Tuesday, as supply management defenders from Ontario and Quebec expressed their concern over the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press)

By Janyce McGregor,reposted from CBC News, Sept 30, 2015

How badly do Stephen Harper’s Conservatives want Canada to be part of this week’s anticipated Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal? We’re about to find out, less than three weeks before the election.

Ministers from the 12 Pacific Rim countries today begin what’s expected to be their final talks in Atlanta. Hopes are high for an agreement in principle by week’s end.

But this is a complex, multi-directional trade pact, not a charity: no one gets in free.

That’s the catch for Canada, even as multiple federal government departments — agriculture, natural resources, fisheries and oceans — already circulate statements about what Canada gains in new export markets.

The cost of TPP admission will be controversial, in particular for the final two sectors in play: the recently troubled automotive manufacturing industry and the supply-managed dairy business.

“If Canada is not prepared to move on either one of those, personally I think an agreement can be done without Canada fairly easily. And I don’t think [U.S. President Barack] Obama would lose any sleep over that… or anybody else,” said trade lawyer Mark Warner.

Neil Macdonald: The myth of Canada’s ‘special relationship’ with the US

NAFTA do-over?

As Canada joined the already-ongoing talks three years ago, critics warned TPP was a back door to reopening the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA.)

Then, July’s ministerial talks in Maui went sideways shy of the finish line, as Mexico and Canada nixed a bargain between the U.S. and Japan to change regional content rules for automotive manufacturing.

To stay tariff free under NAFTA, an auto part needed 60 per cent North American content, and an assembled vehicle had to contain 62.5 per cent North American content. The U.S. and Japan now suggest 30 per cent for parts and 45 per cent for vehicles.

Senior negotiators scrambled towards a compromise between the two, perhaps closer to what Japan wants. But there could be exemptions for particular parts or technologies.

Harper previewed the concession during the Calgary leaders’ debate, saying the industry won’t like everything.

Last Saturday, International Trade Minister Ed Fast’s office started suggesting media contact two major Canadian auto-parts employers supportive of the deal: Rob Wildeboer from Martinrea and Linda Hasenfratz‎ from Linamar Corp.

“If a company like Linemar stands up around London, Ont., and says we’re OK with this, there will be some weight to it,” Warner said. “It seems to me that [Harper] probably has enough cover to make the concessions that he needs to make.”

Plus, the 60 per cent rule is “silly to defend,” he said. “It was linked to a footprint for the automotive industry in southwestern Ontario that no longer exists… our industry has been cut in half.”

NAFTA didn’t stop recent declines and auto companies can’t be strong-armed into doing business in Canada, he said.

“Are you really going to spend a lot of political capital… to defend something that’s obviously not working?” Warner said.

Cows come home

When Canada joined the talks, debate began over whether the price of admission was a dairy concession.

Other countries sure hoped so. Now the answer appears to be yes. But on what, or perhaps whose, terms?

Harper needs to position Canada’s final offer inside, not offside with his pledge to defend supply management or risk backlash, particularly in Quebec and parts of rural Ontario.

The impetus for change must be his own, not something forced by Americans or anyone else.

“Decisions to be made on whether we have such a system or not are decisions that we want Canadians to take, not foreigners to take,” Harper told reporters on the campaign trail Wednesday.

Warner sees an implied linkage between the auto concession and the final offer on dairy — not a straight tit-for-tat, but a measure of commitment.

“If Canada were to make some concessions on the rules of origins for autos, then the demands coming back from the United States on dairy would be softened. I don’t think they would be eliminated, but I do think it would be enough to get to some kind of agreement,” Warner said.

Fast’s strong denials last weekend that Canada would offer the market access the U.S. asked for — 10 per cent of Canada’s consumption — suggests Canada won’t go too far with its offer, Warner said.

This week’s talks may not finish sorting out what countries get exactly what dairy imports. Import penetration is already at 6.3 per cent for cheese (more if the Canada-Europe trade deal is ratified), 10 per cent for butter and 10 per cent for milk powder.

“Our trading partners would just like to see us move. I don’t think we have to go the full distance,” Warner said, adding that some would be happy enough to see a shift in Canada’s “architecture.”

That “architecture” shift shakes the so-called pillars of the supply management system: production control, price-setting and import control. But planning is underway for a multi-billion dollar transition program to help that happen gradually.

The corporate dairy industry is preparing more than their rhetoric might imply, Warner said.

Sales job or sell-out?

Harper wants to fuel the home stretch of his election campaign leading up to the Oct. 19 vote with a success story on trade.

Ed Fast confirms attendance in Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations in Atlanta

While neither Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau nor NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has put down markers for the kind of TPP deal an alternative government could accept, a perceived lack of transparency during the negotiations offered low-hanging fruit for critics.

A handful of ridings could swing into the loss column for the Conservatives, particularly in Ontario, over both these concessions. But other voters the Tories target may embrace the deal.

Lower consumer prices are coming, Conservatives will say.

But for dairy, Canada’s lower retail competitiveness, higher labour costs and the relatively smaller economies of scale on farms and at processing facilities matter as much as the price farmers receive.

There are “one thousand different interests” to be balanced, Harper said. Including some political ones.

SOURCE

democracy, Fascism/Corporatism, Politics

If you’re worried about TTIP, then you need to know about CETA

September 30, 2015 Gaianicity Leave a comment

Protestors take part in a demonstration against TTIP and CETA in front of the party headquarters of the Social Democrate Party in Berlin on September 20, 2014 WOLFGANG KUMM/AFP/Getty Images

By Nick Dearden, reposted from The Independent, Sept 29, 2015

Canada and the EU signed a deal last year. It had been kept a secret from the public right until the final stages. Once passed into law, it will allow the British government to be sued in secret tribunals by multinational Canadian and American businesses, under a system so arcane that even those who negotiated the deal have admitted that it needs to change.

Despite this, the deal is about to start being pushed through the European Parliament, and then our own parliament, where our representatives are not even allowed to amend it. But they will have a yes or no vote. And they need to vote no.

What is CETA?

CETA – or the Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement – is a trade deal between Canada and Europe.

It’s part of a new generation of deals, which includes the controversial TTIP. The thing is, it’s not really a trade deal at all. It’s more of an investor’s charter, which gives big business and big finance huge new powers and rights.

The one positive thing about CETA is that it’s no longer secret. It’s already been signed and that means that we’re allowed to see it. Its 1,500 pages of text show us that it’s not only a threat to our food standards, but also our battle against climate change, and ability to regulate big banks. What’s more, it could even threaten our our power to renationalise industries, such as the railways.

At the heart of CETA is a new legal system, open to foreign corporations but not ordinary people. Let’s say the British government makes a decision. This could be to outlaw dangerous chemicals, improve food safety, put cigarettes in plain packaging, or protect a place of natural beauty from fracking. Under the deal, a Canadian company, or any company with a Canadian subsidiary, can sue the British government if it thinks that the decision is unfair. And by unfair we simply mean they can’t make as much profit as they expected to make. The trial would be held as a secret tribunal, overseen by corporate lawyers, and without any right of appeal.

Canadian companies are already doing this all over the world. A company called Gabriel Resources recently announced it was suing the Romanian government for damages, after parliament blocked the development of one of their gold mines over environmental fears. They now face a compensation claim for possibly billions of pounds. CETA would open this system to thousands more companies, including US companies with subsidiaries in Canada, like Wal-Mart, Chevron, Coca Cola and Monsanto. It is inconceivable that Britain wouldn’t face a case.

Such a furore has been created around these “corporate courts” that the European Commission itself has said they are outdated and need to be reformed. In a consultation last year, 97 per cent of the 150,000 respondents to a consultation exercise said they didn’t want such a system. Yet it’s in CETA – and there’s nothing we can do to remove it short of rejecting the whole thing. And rejecting the whole thing is exactly what we need to do. Here are some of the reasons why:

It will allow toxic tar sands to flow into Europe

Tar sands oil is one of the most environmentally destructive fossil fuels in the world, and the majority of this oil is extracted in Alberta, Canada. The impact on the climate of tar sands is much higher than conventional oil, not to mention the complete devastation it leaves when it’s extracted.

There is currently little tar sands in use in the EU, but that’s changing. When the EU proposed prohibitive new regulations to effectively stop tar sands flowing into Europe, Canada used CETA as a bargaining chip to block the proposal. Now, if CETA passes, that decision will be locked in. Any attempt by the EU to revisit the question would undoubtedly see the EU facing a massive compensation claim from the tar sands industry.

CETA does have a sustainable development chapter, which is a positive move for a trade agreement. But this chapter focuses on fisheries and forests, and doesn’t cover mining, energy or transportation. No wonder the campaign group Council for Canadians says the chapter is “largely aspirational and lacks any effective enforcement mechanism.”

Financial regulation will be weakened, and workers’ rights threatened

The whole purpose of CETA is to reduce regulation on business. The idea is that will make it easier to export. But it will do far more than that.

Through the pleasant sounding “regulatory cooperation”, standards would be reduced across the board on the basis that they are “obstacles to trade”. We’re looking at a race to the bottom in areas such as food safety, workers’ rights and environmental regulation.

The ability of governments to regulate financial services would be impaired. Limiting the growth of banks that have become “too big to fail” could land a government in a secret tribunal.

Through something called a “ratchet clause” current levels of privatisation would be “locked in” on any services not specifically exempted. If Canadian or EU governments want to bring certain services back into public ownership, they could be breaking the terms of the agreement.

Britain could lose its culinary identity

The UK has failed to protect UK food standards and labelling while negotiating CETA. The EU has a system for protecting regional food quality and benefiting local economies. That’s why only sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France can be called Champagne and Cornish pasties can only be be made in Cornwall.

With CETA, France and Italy have negotiated 42 exemptions to protect local products from Canadian imitations, including brie and parmesan cheese. But the UK has failed to protect any of its regional products. Under CETA, we could be eating Yorkshire Wensleydale cheese produced in Ontario and Cornish pasties from Nunavut.

CETA is expected to be ratified by the European parliament in 2016. It’s by no means a done deal, with significant numbers of MEPs baulking at agreeing to such a deal. Nearly three million people across Europe have signed a petition calling on the EU to halt CETA, and the better-known TTIP. In Canada, a campaign has been waged by trade unionists and environmentalists for several years to stop the deal, because it threatens to bring their own country under similar attack from European corporations. A looming election could change the balance of forces for the better there.

CETA will be the first trade deal of its kind to come before the European and British parliaments. A no vote would also make sure it was the last, as it would deal a fatal blow to the corporate lobby’s offensive. Let’s make sure that happens. SOURCE

Ecocide Alert

Monthly Archives: September 2015

Tesla finally unveils the Model X all-electric SUV

Finally, after delays on delays, Tesla opens the wings on the Model X SUV. It was worth the wait.

Like this:

Poll: Most Albertans want stronger climate change policies