Yukon Green

Deal in Durban - Day 8

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

I and a couple thousand others just pulled an all-nighter here in Durban. We have a deal.

The deal is that we now have a follow up to the Kyoto Protocol. There are some things that are good about it... It starts right away - at the beginning of 2013 when the first phase of Kyoto is done. It runs for 5 years or maybe 7 years - that did not get worked out yet.

There was a lot of negotiation about whether or not it would be legally binding. Everyone understood that legally binding is important, but the risk, especially for the developing countries is that legally binding might impose too much of the burden on the poorer countries which have contributed much less to emissions.

The compromise language means that we won’t have certainty. What we do have certainty with is that Canada and the US are not contributing to the solution. It was really the EU which led the charge and made new commitments. India, China, South Africa and Brazil contributed more tot he negotiations than Canada did.

In the 8 hours of the pajama-party Durban negotiations, Canada did not speak once.

Outside of Canada and the US, the rest of the world sees a real urgency in shifting the energy economy. Here is my overall wrap:

Durban was a lot of work and in the end took a significant step forward on climate change although it left many things unanswered. Canada took some deserved heat from youth, India and Colossal Fossil. Pulling out of Kyoto was/is a specter for Canada and is a step in the wrong direction.

Thanks Durban, good luck world, get with it Canada.

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker

ps Durban has been lovely, but these annual gigantic chaotic meetings just do not seem sustainable.

Overtime in Durban - Day 7

Sat, 10 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

It’s just gone midnight here in Durban. Officially the agenda was supposed to end at 5 pm Friday. So we are now 31 hours over - and counting. Earlier today smaller groupings of countries were meeting to go over the compromise proposals.

Finally very late in the day, the big hall began to fill up. The meetings started. After some opening motherhood remarks from the President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane we got down to business and almost right away we hit problems. In fact things got confounded and confusing so fast I was left shaking my head. It was a real “cluster fccc”.

As of midnight we have muddled through two meetings and in both we’ve pushed the challenges up from the working groups to the official conference of the parties (this is where the word COP comes from). It is the exact same group of people and will be in the exact same space.

I don’t what we will get, but I do know whatever it is it will be later.

Here’s what’s on the table. We need a commitment to carry on from the first phase of Kyoto ending in 2012, with out a break. We need to make sure that the next phase is not too far into the future or else we’ll just put off solutions again.

We need legally binding targets. I know Canada has failed in its targets, but back when it was non-binding, everyone failed to meet their targets. It has to be binding and countries need to live up to their responsibilities.

That responsibility is the last piece we need. In order to get China and India and other key countries on board they need to know that we who have been most responsible for historic emissions and we have the greatest capacity to change are taking the lead. I tell you we are lucky to have the EU because they are the ones stepping up to the plate.

Where will we get to? I don’t know yet. Attrition and fatigue are setting in and it is even now evolving, still unfolding, as yet unresolved...

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast

John Streicker

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker

On the brink in Durban - Day 6

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

It’s somewhere close to midnight here in Durban, and most of the attendees have been sent home. The most senior officials from each country are staying to negotiate. This includes Ministers, Ambassadors, Senior Negotiators and I suppose their immediate support staff. Given that there are 190+ countries, that means that 1,000 people are staying to debate on through the night.

The official end to the conference occurred at 5pm this afternoon (Friday). They stopped the clocks to allow for more time to try and reach a deal. Even with just the high level group it will be tough to reach a deal with 1,000 voices and 190+ agendas. But with that many people reports leak out to us. One of them I found disturbing.

Around the globe there are Green MPs elected. Australia, Brazil, Canada, etc. including lots from European countries. It was green colleagues from Belgium that relayed to me a note about Canada’s performance in the high level (closed door) meetings. Late in the evening, our Minister of the Environment made negative remarks about the rapidly developing countries (Brazil, South Africa, India and China or BASIC).

India responded saying that Canada had no moral authority to speak on the matter because our emissions were so much higher than the BASIC countries, the BASIC countries were already doing more than Canada had despite the economic disparity and that Canada had rejected its responsibility. Ouch. Read the report in the India Times here.

Diplomacy will not allow these remarks to make it on to the official record. So while it is pleasantries on the outside, the undercurrent here is one where Canada is no longer held in respect.

Canada - we used to punch above our weight. Here it seems we are punching below the belt.

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker

ps Canada once again won the Colossal Fossil Award. Now five years running. A young Inuk, Jordan Kornek symbolically received the award on behalf of Canada. Reports are that MPs laughed in the house when word reached the floor that we had been receiving these dubious awards. Laughed. Shame on us.

Hope in Durban - Day 5

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

There’s always lots of hope around these conventions. Generally, we hope to achieve a strong agreement to prevent the world from reaching dangerous warming. And most are happy to hope for something passable. However, the politics, bureaucracy, science, economics and history, are so complex and knotted, that expectations are generally pretty low.

Still, yesterday a small sliver of potential opened in the stormy Durban skies. The EU plus the most vulnerable countries in the world (including Africa, the least developed and the low lying island nations) came up with a potential road map for a way forward. This group is proposing binding targets set by 2015.

I won’t get into the details - they are still convoluted and not yet resolved. Looks like the conference will run overtime trying to work something out. But Canada, and the US are not really part of this negotiation. And they likely won’t be, because we’re not seen as part of the solution.

One more item I wanted to include in today’s blog. Minister Kent did make several comments yesterday. Some were around the potential of 2015 for commitments. Most of this was overplayed in the reports.

What I found interesting was listening to the Minister discuss the science around “black carbon” - which is a fancy word for soot. Soot is accelerating the melt of the Arctic.

The Minister was informed and spoke well on the issue. He expressed a need to address black carbon based on the scientific evidence. All good. But it makes me wonder why we don’t use the same argument for the rest of the climate drivers like greenhouse gas emissions. This selectivity with respect to the science is troubling and hints that our elected leaders are willing to spin the science to suit the agenda.

As we move to the last day, Elizabeth and I will do our best to track, report and encourage the outcome. We remain hopeful.

Hope is both an advantage and a burden. If we didn’t have hope it would be tough to keep working in the issue of climate change and these incredibly convoluted negotiations. But too much hope leaves us without the necessary critical skills to call the bs when we see it.

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker

Youth in Durban - Day 4

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Things are heating up here in Durban. Today Minister Kent made his statement to the entire conference. The youth were there and they decided to demonstrate their frustration with and rejection of the Canadian position.

A block of youth stood up in the gallery turned their backs on the Minister as he spoke and revealed t-shirts which read “Turn your back on Canada”.

It was quiet, peaceful, and pretty effective (I was right beside them when it happened). Security came quickly and escorted the youth out of the room and out of the conference. The large audience applauded the youth. In fact the youth got more applause than Minister Kent.

“By stalling international progress, the actions of this government put the future of our country and our generation in danger; we won’t take that sitting down,” said James Hutt, one of the protesters from the Canadian Youth Delegation. “As long as Canada is at the negotiation table promoting industry over human rights, we will never see the climate agreement the world needs. It’s time to leave Canada behind.”

Unfortunately this is becoming one of the recurring themes here. Canada’s reputation is suffering. I don’t suspect any of these youth will be putting a Canadian badge on their backpacks anytime soon.

So what were the youth turning their backs on? They are concerned that Canada would rather promote fossil fuel industries than address climate change.

Later on when I spoke to the youth I found out that those that carried out the action had their accreditation revoked (they were evicted from the conference). They realized that it might come to this and they decided to go forward anyway. They care a lot about the issue of a sustainable and just world.

It is great that we have youth and many others here from civil society that here the courage to speak honestly and positively about the hard truths we need to face in shifting our energy economy.

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker

ps to read the full statement from Minister Kent, follow this link

Ministers in Durban - Day 3

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The “High Level” session started yesterday. This means that the big guns arrived, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and South African President Jacob Zuma. Our Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent got here yesterday although he has mostly been giving press conferences off-site.

Geoffrey York from the Globe wrote a good piece on yesterday’s announcement. Click here.

I appreciate that the Minister announced funds for international adaptation, but disagree with his negotiating: “Canada has made clear this year that Canada will not make a commitment to a second Kyoto period [...] We believe that, ultimately, a new agreement that includes all of the world's major emitters in both the developing and the developed world is the only way to materially reduce annual megatonnage to the point that we can work to prevent the global warming hitting or exceeding 2%"

The 2% comment was just a mistake, I think he meant to say 2 °C. So let me break this down: we don’t want the world to warm beyond 2 °C; Canada won’t make a commitment; we need other countries to make a commitment.

Which other countries would Canada like to see going first? Well, China and India. Over the weekend China signaled that it was willing to make commitments. Canada and the US responded with show me the details and we’re still not changing our mind...

And India? Well no commitment yet. It is worth noting that the it takes 10 people from India to make the emissions from 1 Canadian. And our emissions are over 3 x as high as the average Chinese person.

The path forward is stalled. The least developed countries want an agreement right now. They are very vulnerable to climate change. The EU wants to agree in principle now and work out the details over the next 4 to 5 years. The US position is to wait for 10 years and then make a plan. Hmmm, wait a decade? The science says that if we don’t turn the energy economy (and cap global emissions) in the next 5 years, we will exceed 2 °C and head into increasingly dangerous climate change.

And Canada? I think Canada actually wants no agreement. And with a consensus based process, it’s easy to achieve. And when we doan't reach an agreement, the default is, business as usual. Canada is working very hard though to make it sound (at least back home in the media) that we do care and are trying, yet it’s just not working out. Hmmm, what do you think?

Are you COPtomistic? Or is this a COP-out?

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast

John Streicker

Dissonance in Durban - Day 2

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

We had a highlight as we registered for the UN negotiations this morning. Elizabeth got an official delegate badge. Not from Canada - she got it from Papua New Guinea! Mike De Souza a reporter form Canada.com was there and had a story on line within the hour. May registers for Durban summit through developing country after ...

It is unfortunate that Elizabeth, and elected Member of Parliament is not part of Canada’s official delegation. Still I was excited about the Papua New Guinea inclusion because now it means that Elizabeth has access to more of the negotiations. For those of you that don’t know it, Elizabeth has been actively involved in these negotiations since Rio when she had 1-year old Victoria Cate with her.

It is good for all of us that she got the official delegate status.

From there we went straight into the Canadian Delegation briefing. Our delegation is led by Ambassador Guy Saint Jacques. Each day he briefs Canadian attendees who are not a part of the official negotiating team.

The negotiations are complex and I will spare you the burden of all of the details. However, the Ambassador said one thing that I want to share. It is at the crux of what is going on here.

Recall that the whole point of these meetings is to discuss what will come after Kyoto ends. Canada has announced that it will not take on a target during the next commitment period. Minister Kent confirmed this at yesterday’s press conference.

There have also been rumours of Canada formally withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol. For now these rumours remain unconfirmed, so let me leave that alone for now.

So the Ambassador said no new targets and then went on to say that Canada was negotiating for a “new universal agreement with common but differentiated responsibilities” and that Canada wanted to achieve that “as fast as possible”.

These two statements are so completely dissonant that I find it hard to comprehend how it is said with legitimacy.

Not setting targets (especially for a developed nation like Canada) is exactly what leads to a non-universal non-binding agreement. By definition.

Elizabeth and I both asked questions about this position. After the briefing The government liaison let Elizabeth know that her stature might make it challenging for the other Canadian attendees to feel free in asking questions.

Fair enough, although it was their choice not to have her on the official delegation.

Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast

John Streicker

Durban Blog - Day 1

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The Green Party of Canada contingency includes our MP and Leader, Elizabeth May, Jaymini Bhikha and me. We arrived in Durban for the second week of the negotiations to develop an international treaty on climate change. Don’t we already have one of those? The answer is yes, sort of.

We have the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It came out of the Rio Earth Summit back in 1992. Everyone signed on to that including the US. However, that treaty did not include legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meaning we did not think the treaty was enough to actually address climate change.

So we signed the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement on top of the UNFCCC treaty which sets some legally binding targets. Everyone except the US signed the Kyoto Protocol. This includes countries like Brazil, South Africa, India and China, the up and coming economies. In the media it’s sometimes reported that these countries didn’t sign Kyoto. That’s just wrong.

The reality is that the Kyoto protocol was built around “common but differentiated responsibility”, which is something that we as Canadians should understand. In plain language Kyoto said developed countries caused more of the original problem and have more wherewithal to shift their energy economy, so we should lead.

Kyoto runs out next year. It was only meant to be the first step in the long road to shift our energy economy. We’ve taken the last 5 years to try and come up with the follow-up to Kyoto. And that’s why we’re here in Durban.

When we arrived in Durban, I got into lots of conversations with South Africans asking what was Canada trying to do?

Historically, Canada holds a position of moral authority for them. They still remember clearly Canada’s support in overturning apartheid. So they are understandably surprised and confused that our position on climate change is to not take responsibility.

Let me give you a snapshot of South Africa. The population is about 1.5 times Canada's. Unemployment is running about 25%. The South African currency trades at about $1 = 7 rand. And the country uses coal to generate the lion’s share of its electricity. Some of the population here still does not have power.

So what does South Africa want from the climate change negotiations? South Africa recognizes that it contributes to the problem and is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. They would like to see the follow up to the Kyoto Protocol be negotiated now. But would they be willing to reduce their emissions?

The answer is yes. Despite their economic reality, they are willing to reduce their emissions by 24% by 2020. Compare this to Canada. We are stating that we will reduce emissions by 17% by 2020. But we don’t want to be held to that.

In talking with South Africans, I am humbled and embarrassed.

Tomorrow we get to register and get in to the conference. We will meet with the Canadian Delegation and I will report back my impressions on the state of the negotiations and our Canadian position.

Signed yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast

John Streicker

O Canada - let's negotiate in good faith

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0500

In the past week there has been a lot of news about climate change. The UN negotiations are underway (again).

In writing op-eds for the Star, I try to not come back to this topic too often. But the truth is, it is all I can think about right now.

On Monday, news leaked that the Canadian Government plans to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, our binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The leaked report claimed that the announcement would be made on December 23. Ouch.

So far these leaks remain rumours because our Minister of the Environment, Peter Kent, will neither confirm nor deny them. What he has said is that we will not make any new commitments.

Who cares? I do.

As a climate scientist, I have been trying for decades to alert our governments to the need to address climate change.

This year Arctic sea ice reached a new low. In terms of ice volume, 70% of summer sea ice has been lost in the past decade.

70%!

We should all care about this. Melting Arctic sea ice changes habitat, shipping lanes, access to oil and gas, sovereignty, not to mention weather patterns across North America.

Melting the Arctic also happens to accelerate the whole warming pattern of the planet. It is literally a game changer for our future.

Minister Kent and our government recognize this is happening. But they argue that we need to “balance the economy and the environment”.

Addressing climate change is really about shifting to a sustainable energy economy. Yes we will need to adapt, but the deeper question is about our energy.

In a moment, I will challenge the notion that the economy and the environment need to compete against one another.

Back in 1992 then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney signed on to our first international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ever since then, the issue of climate change has become more and more political.

The stakes are rising and I am concerned that we are dividing along political lines.

Particularly in the US, the issue has become incredibly polarized. For example, last year I went to give a keynote presentation at an American University. That day Sarah Palin was in the headlines calling climate change “snake-oil science”.

Yet many conservative values are consistent with addressing the issue: living within our means, being less wasteful of the resources that we have, energy security, investing for the long term...

By definition, our long term economy needs to be sustainable. This is true whether we are thinking about the debt crisis, jobs or energy. We already know that the energy of the future will be efficient, renewable and conservative.

This is how the economy and the environment can work together. Conservation and efficiency means we will use less resources and get more out of them.

Admittedly renewable energy projects will always have an impact on the environment. However, these environmental impacts are far less compared to the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

With respect to employment, our own Senator Lang pointed out last year, that shifting the energy economy would lose jobs in the oil and gas sector. True, but what he failed to point out is that even more jobs are projected with sustainable energy.

I am not suggesting that shifting the energy economy will be easy. Over the short term, it will be a challenge. We need to be smart about it. The sooner we start the easier it will be.

As Christiana Figueres, the UN climate chief, said last week leading up to negotiations taking place in Durban, South Africa, “what we are looking at is nothing other than the biggest industrial and energy revolution the world has ever seen.”

This weekend Minister Kent and I will be traveling to Durban to take part in the negotiations - not together.

After the news leaked about Canada’s position in the negotiations, South Africa's high commissioner to Canada Mohau Pheko, commented that "It's disturbing and very disappointing that a country like Canada would pull out after having given leadership in this particular UN convention which is so important for the world."

It is my deep concern that Canada is yet again trying to put off the challenge of addressing climate change. Worse, it appears that we are trying to undermine the entire international process in order to justify the decision to skirt our own responsibility.

This is not the Canada I believe in.

I wish I had the words to describe to you how critical I believe our choices are today in shaping the future that we now create for our children.

In Durban, I will do my best to work with the delegation from the Canadian Government. I will try to represent those Canadians that share the conviction that it is time to move towards sustainability, energy independence, green jobs, healthier environments and a smart energy economy.

It is our responsibility as citizens to encourage our government and successive governments to act with diligence and integrity.

I call on all of us to encourage our leaders to take responsibility and negotiate in good faith.

Remembering that risk is part of life

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Last night I was buying some groceries. There in the bulk food section was a bin selling peanuts. On that bin, of peanuts, was a customer safety warning...

“We cannot guarantee that any items have not come into contact with peanuts, nuts, or other allergens.”

The absurdity of the sign made me laugh, although I thought to myself it probably makes sense to just put a sign up to help alert those people with severe nut allergies.

However, it got me thinking more about how we deal with risk in our society, especially for young people. Is it right that we try to avoid risk?

A few years back I had a close call with anaphylactic shock. I was working in Louisiana and I ate some crayfish and had an unexpected reaction. I just made it to a hospital on time.

Following up from that I got a referral to see an allergy specialist here in Canada. When I went for my appointment to see that doctor, I could not help but notice that a lot of the other patients were much younger than me, like up to my elbow.

Turns out that more than 90% of his patients were children. In recent decades there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of allergies and asthma, especially among young people.

The best treatment for me and the kids with severe allergies is to avoid the stuff that we are allergic to (and to carry an EpiPen in case of an emergency).

When I asked the specialist why he thought the incidence of allergies was rising so much for children, he said that it was almost certainly because nowadays our homes and our living environments are more sterile. We don’t get enough exposure to allergens as we grow up.

In other words the root cause of the problem is a lack of exposure and our solution is to try to minimize exposure.

For some time now, I have been wondering if the ways in which we try to address some problems can actually compound them.

We love our kids, and we don’t want them to be exposed to dangerous situations. Especially for early childhood development. From prenatal to pre-school, we need our kids to be safe, secure and nurtured.

But part of how we nurture, even at the earliest age should include the opportunity to explore the world, the opportunity to make mistakes and to learn from them.

As family size has decreased over the years we have put more focus on direct parenting. The upside of this is that we provide more attention and support for our kids.

The downside is that we sometimes shelter them to the point where they lack experience or worse where they don’t have the need to learn about consequences or responsibility.

We tend to drive our kids to school and to their activities. We schedule a lot of their time. We can sometimes hover a little too closely.

This past summer, a friend from Ontario told me that her kids go to a school with no-touch rules. Imagine no tag in the school yard!

I don’t think we should sterilize our world so much. It’s important for young people to explore boundaries and to learn how to make critical decisions as they grow into their roles in our communities.

It’s good for kids to climb on the monkey bars and every once in

a while to fall off and scrape their knees.

All of life contains risk. I hope that we don’t become so worried about the risks in life that we forget to let ourselves learn how to live.

Electing a new government for the Yukon

Fri, 07 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0400

I have just come from the leader’s debate and I’ve got Yukon politics on my brain.

On Tuesday we go to the polls and we will elect a new Yukon government.

When I say new, I am not predicting who will win.

If you look at who is running for each of the parties, there are very few incumbents.

Even if every one of them wins, and some of them are in tight races, we will still have more new faces in the legislature on Wednesday.

We will also be electing a new premier.

Again, I am not predicting who will win. Darrell Pasloski has yet to be elected and neither Elizabeth Hanson nor Arthur Mitchell have been premier.

So on Tuesday after the long weekend we will have a new Yukon government with a newly elected premier.

Will our new government be different?

Last night at the debates, I was looking for one difference in particular and I am concerned that I did not see it.

The difference I hope and work for at all level of politics has nothing to do with choosing between left and right. It is about about putting the Yukon and Yukoners ahead of political stripes.

It sounds so simple.

I can tell that the public thinks our elected officials should put the Yukon ahead of party politics. I could feel it in the audience last night.

And politicians say “of course they put the Yukon first”, but does this really happen?

I was one of the names drawn to get to ask a question at the debate.

I asked whether the leaders would demonstrate their willingness to work together by acknowledging a constructive strength in their fellow candidates.

In their responses I did not, unfortunately, hear any compliments.

When asked again directly by the moderator, each of the candidates did say that they were committed to working better together.

But over the course of the debate I was not feeling a lot of love or respect between the three candidates.

I realize it is not easy to do. And we voters sometimes help to make the situation harder.

Our electoral system was originally developed for a two-party winner-takes-all system.

Politicians running for office realize that in order to win, they need to stand out and that often means criticizing the other politicians and their parties.

Constructive criticism of decisions and actions is important. However it is a trap to always see the other point of view as flawed.

And it is al too easy to go from thinking someone’s ideas are wrong, to thinking they are wrong, to thinking that they are malicious.

In our system, the political party has become the political master. It is predictable that we become polarized.

Question period feels more like the Yukon follies. Politicians on one side of the legislature / house are “adversaries” with the other side.

This system is entrenched and I think we lose sight that it can and should be different.

One simple way forward is for our leaders to lead by example, to develop a culture of mutual respect and trust in the legislature.

Let me take this moment to drop a pebble in the water and pay each of the candidates a compliment.

Liz Hanson, thank you for your principled approach to politics. The path towards inclusive and constructive governance is a long one, and I am glad you are on it. And I really liked your stick-it-on-the-fridge commitment list for accountability.

Darrell Pasloski I appreciated your call to “stop the politics of division”. While I do wish the Peel watershed issue could have already been resolved, it is good to hear that you are committed to the public process.

Arthur Mitchell, thank you for your eloquence. Your moments of humour help us to remember that we are all real people sharing a journey.

Because the CBC somehow forgot to invite the other two leaders to the debate last night, let me also thank Gerald Dickson and Kristina Calhoun for their courage to run and their vision for the Yukon.

Whichever one of you (or ones of you) forms the next Yukon government, let me point out that your legacy will be stronger and we will all be better off if you find a way to work constructively across party lines.

That’s the kind of leadership I hope we elect.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone. Please vote on Tuesday.

To Peel or not to Peel

Fri, 05 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Two weeks ago the Peel Watershed Planning Commission made its final submission: protect 80% of the Peel.

With a territorial election looming and with so much competing interest at stake, deciding on the fate of the Peel is a loaded subject.

The Peel is significant for Yukoners in several ways, as traditional territory, remote wilderness and mineral potential.

Representatives of these interests, have all stated their positions. First Nations have said clearly that they would like to see 100% protection, but are willing to support the 80% proposal.

Environmental groups say they would like to see 100% protection, but are willing to accept the plan as is. Right now, the mining industry is waiting to hear from the Yukon Government but previously the Chamber said that 80% protection went too far.

When it comes to land use, what do Yukoners want? I respect that there is no such thing as a average Yukoner. But overall what do we want?

My sense is that we want it all ways. This includes respect for First Nations traditions and culture, intact wilderness and an economy with mines that don’t harm the environment.

Is this possible? Probably not for the Peel, yet I do think we could move a lot closer to this vision for the Yukon with a few simple steps.

First in my mind would be to show respect across this debate.

When environmentalists talk about mines, we should avoid hypocrisy. Our Canadian lifestyle does depend on minerals. All of us create the demand and we do benefit from an economy enhanced by mining.

When miners talk about mining and development, it is important not to dismiss broader issues. Sure the business case of a mine is an important consideration, but so too are environmental and social impacts of the mine throughout its life-cycle - including reclamation.

Once there is respect for and from each other, it would help to get more cross-talk happening.

For example this spring both the Environment Fair and Mining and Geology Week Celebrations, were held on the exact same weekend, but in different locations!

Imagine if Environment folks had a wall tent set up at the Mining and Exploration Discovery Camp, and if the Chamber of Mines had a booth at the Environment Fair? This would build better dialogue.

More than just talking together, I think we need to get the various groups working together.

When a First Nations partners in a mine there is more likelihood of spin-off jobs and business being embedded in the Yukon rather than heading outside.

Having environmentally conscious engineers working on mines in the planning and production phases, will help to ensure that the mines are less wasteful of energy and resources. The mine benefits on it’s bottom line and we all benefit with a lower impact project.

Imagine if the environmental impacts, assessment and remediation plans of a mine were developed in direct consultation with local environmental agencies? You may think that I’m a dreamer...

Let’s bring it back to the Peel. The Commission realized early on that it was not going to be able to accommodate all opposing interests in this one plan.

So after a a lot of work (6+ years so far), they have recommended 80% protection.

I think we should adopt the plan, and at the same time move forward to build the broader vision around a healthy environment and responsible mining in the Yukon.

For this to happen we now need some leadership. It is time to hear from the Yukon Government.

Of course the decisions are hard, but all sides need clarity going into and coming out of the territorial election.

We need decisions around the Peel and a road map for the for the future of the Yukon.

Voting for the Yukon

Fri, 08 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The Yukon has politics on its brain - again. This spring was a federal election. This fall is a territorial election. Next year is municipal....

This is my first column back with the Star after breaking for the federal election, and I want to talk about voting.

Before I begin, I would like to publicly thank Larry Bagnell and congratulate Ryan Leef.

For the past 11 years Larry put in a tremendous effort making himself available to Yukoners and representing us in Ottawa as our MP. When Ryan won the federal election this past May he graciously stated that he would “have some very big shoes to fill.”

One of the issues that hurt Larry in the election was that he voted for the long-gun registry in the fall of 2010. That vote was whipped, meaning that his party insisted that he vote a certain way.

There are very few MPs or MLAs that break party ranks when a vote is whipped. And most votes are whipped.

The reason is that voting against party lines (even if it is to represent the will of your constituents) typically ends up with the MP or MLA being kicked out of the party.

So it is not surprising that Larry chose to vote how he did. What was surprising to me was when Ryan Leef stated that he would always vote for and with the Yukon.

I for one welcome Ryan’s campaign pledge to put the Yukon ahead of his political party. But I don’t think it will be easy.

Let me give you an example. Two weeks ago Canada refused to list asbestos as a hazardous substance for export. This was a political decision.

Listing asbestos as hazardous, would not mean that we could not export it. It simply means that we would be required to alert importers and get their prior informed consent.

Every other country in the world, was willing to list asbestos as dangerous. But not us.

During the last election Ryan Leef’s campaign was supported by a visit from Chuck Strahl, the outgoing Canadian Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

Strahl, it turns out has inoperable/terminal lung cancer as the result of exposure to asbestos. Despite this tragedy and a very personal awareness of the issue, I don’t believe that Minister Strahl ever spoke publicly against his government’s policy on asbestos.

This story illustrates for me how difficult dissent is within the traditional parties. Difficult or not though, being able to vote for the people you represent over political power is a goal worth striving for.

The real issue here is that we have been polarizing and concentrating power in our Parliament and elections. Our first past the post system, which creates a majority government out of 40% of the popular vote, needs an overhaul.

An all-or-nothing style of Parliament creates a system where whipped votes are more common and more difficult to fight against for individual MPs.

We need a system where MPs are not worrying about choosing between party demands and constituent needs and can instead vote freely for what they believe in.

We need an electoral system where people are not worrying about strategic voting and vote splitting, and can instead vote freely for who they believe in.

In fact we need a system where we want to vote.

During the federal election I heard a great idea. Our first in-person all candidates debate was held at Vanier High School. After the debate, one of the moderators, a student from Vanier, spoke to me.

This young woman suggested that if the voting age was lowered by a year or two and if we made a course in civic engagement part of the core high school curriculum, then we would establish voting as a habit early and build engagement across the spectrum.

Here was a young person looking for constructive solutions to increase voter involvement!

One of the good news voting stories here in the Yukon was that we increased voter turnout to 68% this federal election. This was one of the highest in the country (7% above the national average of 61% turnout).

All four candidates, Ryan, Larry, Kevin Barr and I agreed that we should cooperate to raise the vote.

It reminds me that when we rise above our political differences and work together, we cover more ground.

---

As I was writing this article, I received the sad sad news that Steve Cardiff, MLA for Mount Lorne died in a car accident. Steve has done a yeoman’s service for the Yukon and the NDP. Our thoughts and love go out to Steve, his family and friends.

Shifting democracy

Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Exactly 3 weeks ago today, Hosni Mubarak departed Egypt. It was after 3 weeks of massive protests.

This revolution in Egypt was part of much wider unrest across North Africa and the Middle East.

It has marked an emergence of democracy in the region. It has also marked a shift in how democracy takes place.

Not just in Egypt. I think we have just been presented a new face in the evolution of political democracy.

Of course it is always a challenge to discern a shift when you are so close to the realities on the ground.

For example, you wonder what people thought with the advent of the printing press 550 years ago? When they printed the (Gutenberg) bible, did they know that this would turn out to be a pivotal moment?

When we look back now, the patterns surface from the pages of history: people got bibles and so they learned to read... demystifying religion led to an erosion of traditions... separation of church and state ultimately ushered in modern democracy...

I think this has just happened again and I think it will shape the future of democracy. All democracies. Which is a big deal.

About 15 years ago the internet was being billed as a technological revolution. It was going to change everything. There was a lot of media hype about it.

Then after a minute (or a month) of glory, there was a lot of press questioning if it was all hype.

At the time, I thought that yes the internet would definitely be a game changer, and that it would do this in small and subtle ways that would add up over time to something significant.

15 years ago, I actually spent half a year working and traveling in the Sahara. They did not have the internet. There weren't many phones or paved roads where I was, let alone computers.

Today, there is internet in North Africa, and digital recorders and cell phones, and a lot of people who are pissed off at the disparity between those in power and those in the streets.

Starting late last year in Tunisia and spreading across a region wider than Canada, we have now seen rallies, protests, uprisings and even two revolutions.

And I mean "seen". Digital technology means that we get to see it broadcast live.

The most painful (so far) of the uprisings is in Libya and it will not resolve for some time. It is a bitter irony that the revolt taking place in Libya is trying to oust a dictator who himself took power in coup 40 years ago, to overthrow a regime that was brutal to its people.

This then is a reminder that when it comes to power, sweeping changes are not always for the better. And of course unrest in the Middle East will mean higher oil and food prices for everyone.

But overall, the move from autocratic to democratic regimes is definitely for the better. Social justice leads to stability, peace and prosperity.

The "virtual" revolution that took place in Egypt was led by young people, students and especially by young women.

It was not about them seeking power, it was about them standing up and speaking truth to power when that power had failed to retain any moral authority.

I found the message and the messengers to be uplifting.

And their method of generating enough nerve and solidarity to stand up to armed authorities? Cell phones, social media like facebook and twitter, and access to the internet.

They were able to communicate with each other outside of the state controlled channels.

Then some of the governments shut down cell and internet access. Control the media... only modern technology is not so easily controlled.

When governments began to close media access to the protesters, groups like Avaaz (www.avaaz.org), an effective international advocacy community, decided to supply people on the ground with satellite phones so that they could still get their messages out.

It is hard not to be swept up in the drama - both the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. But what I am trying to draw to our attention is the subtle change in how people are communicating, sharing information and making decisions. In other words how does the democracy of the protest work?

Well, it is more immediate. Real time even. It is organic, there are no rules of order or minutes. And it resonates with younger people.

Here in Canada we know that youth have the lowest voter turnout. Many people describe them as apathetic.

I think young people actually care lots. I think it is fairer to say that the system they face no longer reflects their values or their method of engagement. It is not their thing.

But I do not think young people will be content to have little or no share in the power that affects their lives for too long.

And it is not so much who gets elected, as it is how those who are elected will talk with the people they represent, how they will build public engagement in the new democracy.

My sense is that the future of democracy will require a transparency which is 180 degrees from where we have been going lately with closed doors, in-out deals and attack ads.

Time for a new politics which is held up to the harsh light of smart-phones.

Yukon exposure

Fri, 04 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The price of oil just hit $100 a barrel. What does this mean for the Yukon?

The obvious answer is that fuel prices are rising. Today the cost of gas at the pump is $1.20 a litre ($1.27 for diesel) and it is expected to go up.

This also means the cost of home heating is going up. Lucky thing our electricity does not depend on diesel..

Actually, every winter, at least when it is cold out, we are now burning diesel

Two weeks ago at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Yukon Energy President, David Morrison, described that power demands are exceeding hydro capacity (see "Alternative energy is high on YEC's agenda", Whitehorse Star, Jan 26).

So if we are burning diesel and if costs are going up why don't we hear more about it?

Maybe it is because our economy is doing well. Both our government and mining sectors are very active.

The price of oil has gone up, but the price of metals has gone up more, so we are in a mining boom.

But all of us, including the mines, and especially those of us living close to the bone can feel when fuel prices go up.

Maybe this is just a temporary spike in oil like a couple of years ago?

Not according to the Financial Times and other reports coming out of the World Economic Forum held last week.

Demand for fossil fuels is increasing globally and supply is dwindling pushing us to seek oil and gas in more remote and/or costly locations: oil sands, deep water and the high north.

The shocking reality is that for the past decade oil prices have gone up by almost 20% per year.

And prices are only expected to go higher. No doubt they will fluctuate, but overall they will climb.

In the Yukon we are very dependent on energy. With prices rising and out of our control, we are exposed.

We are in a better position than our sister Territories, but the Yukon is still a collection of Northern communities spread out on the far end of a long highway.

Energy security is a major challenge for the North. What are we doing about it?

Before I describe my suggestions, I should acknowledge that we have already begun the transition to a clean economy with a focus on green energy: renewables, efficiency and conservation.

Suggestion 1: bring down our heating costs

Years ago, I got a call from Old Crow asking whether it was smarter to heat with an oil monitor or wood in the high North.

I said that the best heating was insulation. It's still my number one suggestion for all of the Yukon: build super-green and reduce energy use every month.

Government should set the standard that all buildings be super-green and at the same time ensure air-quality is addressed.

Super-green adds only about 5% to the cost of a new home. At that price, it pays back from day one, meaning that the savings in heat is much more than the cost to service the loan to build super energy efficient.

This means it is an advantage to even the most modest income household.

We all hate extra regulations, but if government consults with industry folks to get the standards right then they should be happy too, because it will mean more business for them. Much more as we get into retrofits.

Suggestion 2: build the local economy

When we think about energy, we most often think about electricity, but our biggest energy use is actually transportation.

There is nothing that will create more energy security and stability than enhancing our local Yukon economy so that we are less dependent on goods traveling up the Alaska Highway.

One basic good that we should work to produce locally is food.

According to the Agriculture Branch 95% of the food we eat comes from outside. Shifting to local foods - country foods, gardens, greenhouses, local farms - is a win-win. It is more sustainable and it is healthier.

Suggestion 3: create energy conservation officers

I call them ECOs. Every mine, every large government department, every large institution should have a person whose role is to save energy and materials.

The cost of their position would be more than offset by generating savings, not costs.

In fact, all of us should be our own household energy conservation officer. The simple reality is that the more we save energy, the more we save money.

Suggestion 4: develop renewables and get ready for the switch

We are fortunate to have hydro power here in the Yukon. Unfortunately we have less power in the winters when we need it most. We are now beyond the capacity of our existing hydro.

Loads are projected to increase. The Yukon has a growing population, Yukoners are consuming more power and mining is booming.

As well, rising fuel prices and the need to shift to a low carbon energy economy due to climate change means that we will put even more pressure on our power grid as we switch from fossil fuels.

For example, electric vehicles are coming.

So we need to develop more renewable energy sources here in the Yukon. Now.

Fortunately Yukon Energy and Yukon Government are moving in this direction.

But there are some tough decision that we will face. This is one of those moments when we as Yukoners will shape the direction of the Territory.

If you have suggestions, now is the time to get involved.

ps, yesterday, I created a facebook group called Yukoners Demand Less. The idea is that we will work to bring consumption down whenever we see power usage in the territory approaching peak hydro capacity. All Yukoners are welcome. Just say no to more diesel power!

Election update

Tue, 25 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Hi Yukon Greens

Welcome to 2011, the new decade and a year of elections.

The talk is of a spring federal election. It always seems like the talk, but attack ads have already begun to air. The quality of our current political leadership continues to sell Canadians and our political system short.

If an election is triggered by the federal budget, then the writ will drop in March or April. And it will likely be a short election again - 5 weeks, because short elections discourage voter turnout.

Our team is preparing now in the event of a spring election. It is our intention to run a full fledged campaign. We want to create a new frontier in Canadian politics, and we want the Yukon to lead.

We will need your help.

The simple things you can do right now are to make sure your membership is up to date, share our email list with others to get them to sign up and let us know if there are ways you can contribute to a campaign.

Our riding business meetings are first Monday of the month (7-Feb is next one) 7pm at 502 Wood Street.

On a related note, I saw that over the holidays Prime Minister Harper appointed two more Conservative Senators. That makes it a majority - and they can now reject or stall anything from Parliament. Who needs a majority when you can just appoint one?

I find it shocking to hear the Conservatives continue to campaign that they want to reform the Senate.

All this just hardens my resolve to try and create a new political voice in Canada.

Best from John

Yukon - Column of the wild

Fri, 07 Jan 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Media, just like politics, tends to focus on the sensational and even more so on the negative. We all get so used to it, that we can sometimes forget to appreciate life around us.

Here at the start of a new decade, deep in our not so wintery winter, I wanted to write a column that sings the praises of the Yukon.

In my first summer North of 60, I spent every free evening wandering into the hills around Whitehorse. On the weekends I got out of town to explore more of the Territory.

One long weekend I was supposed to go hike the Chilkoot with a friend, but she had to cancel at the last minute. So instead I hitched a ride to Kluane and did a three-day solo hike to the Kaskawulsh glacier.

Most of the trails in Kluane were closed due to grizzly activity. It was a bad year for salmon and so a lot of bears were hunting for berries.

The Slims river hike is not some marked trail. You walk in using the terrain as your guide.

The second day into my hike, I crossed some huge flats with berries all around me. Everywhere was bear sign: prints in the mud and fresh scat.

Next thing I knew, fog rolled in and I couldn't see the river or the hills or even the lay of the land.

I was scared (as my wife Susan would say, "I was scared for Fox Lake"). I sang and whistled out loud until I finally crossed those flats and hiked up out of the fog.

Later when I made camp on a ridge and looked back along the valley I thought about the beauty and abundance of life.

I decided then that I would live in the Yukon.

I came back in winter to see what the light was like. I was not worried about the cold, but I wanted to be sure that I would not find it too dark.

It turns out that I find our winters to be full of moonlight, starlight and when we're lucky, northern lights. The days may be short but they are bright.

I not only fell in love with the Yukon again, but I also met Susan and I fell in love with her too. By the way, we met at play called "Sex Tips for Modern Girls" at the Guild theatre.

What is it about the Yukon?

I believe that despite our diverse backgrounds, we share a common experience that this place holds potential for us. In fact it is our range of lifestyles that helps define the Yukon.

From First Nations to francophones, from miners to musicians, from public servants to the colourful 5%, we all of us share a sense that the Yukon is special. Something about the Yukon seems to resonate and sustain us.

It is a privilege for us to live together within this wide landscape.

Of course, life does not stand still. Change is coming to the North. And in any case, there are challenges that we face here in the Yukon.

It is my hope that as we shape our future, we do so thoughtfully, to convert our challenges into possibilities and that we never take the Yukon for granted.

With that in mind, it has been my opportunity to write this monthly opinion column in the Star now for over a year. Thank you for reading it.

2010 review - Canadian democracy

Fri, 03 Dec 2010 00:00:00 -0500

When it comes to politics I am all about one issue. Democracy.

20 years ago, I lived in a country which had just gone through an attempted coup - Trinidad & Tobago. 15 years ago I spent half a year under a military dictatorship - Tchad. This is why I can say sincerely that I truly appreciate Canada, where we live in a participatory democracy.

This does not mean that everything here in Canada is rosy on the political front. It simply means that we have the power and the privilege to shape our future as a country

If things are not going the right way, we need to say so. This is me saying so.

Here is my democratic year in review.

In January of this year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper decided to prorogue Parliament. This was not a snow-day. It was shutting down the business of our democracy for more than two months.

The real concern for me was that this was done as an executive decision. If we are going to close Parliament, it must be a decision made by our elected representatives.

Then in the spring, Parliament passed an omnibus budget bill. Hiding legislation unrelated to the budget removes transparency and accountability.

In the summer we had the G8 and G20. That must have been a tough job for security. However, our democracy was crippled that weekend.

We must provide an avenue for peaceful, respectful voices, even when they disagree with our own. Our government should take the responsibility for the cost overruns and for the obstruction of public voices during the summit.

This fall we extended our stay in Afghanistan - but we did not debate the choice in the House of Commons. If we are going to ask our military to put their lives on the line for us, then we need a debate (and decent pensions for our veterans).

Then just after Remembrance Day our Senate decided to defeat a bill, without deliberation, that was passed by Parliament.

Until the Senate is elected it should work to improve legislation passed by Parliament, not defeat it.

It is my impression that our current government will now try to claim that it has always supported Senate reform, after appointing 34 Senators to create a Conservative majority!?!

One good note for the year is that Canada finally signed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. They did it very quietly, but it was the right thing to do.

Overall, 2010 was harsh for Canadian democracy both nationally and internationally.

Rather than just complain about the past year, let me make suggestions for next year.

Don't prorogue without asking. Don't bury legislation. If we are going to host a summit here in Canada, then show respect for diverse voices (and cut our security costs in half at the same time).

Seek the will of the public and our elected representatives on critical issues, and then listen to that will. If the Senate is not working, then reform it. Don't say you are going to reform it and then stack it.

Democracy is messy. But excessive power vested behind closed doors is dangerous.

It does not matter which political party we are talking about. Government must be responsible to the public.

We are lucky in Canada to live in a participatory democracy. It works best when we participate.

I am calling all Yukoners, all mushers, all miners, young people, old-timers, First Nations, can-can dancers, longest-night lovers, and all of us to tell our elected officials what kind of future we want and how we're going to help create it.

In 10 days time there will be a Yukon by-election. I encourage everyone in downtown Whitehorse to vote.

I dare you.

Canada and climate change: abandoned leadership

Fri, 05 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0400

Earlier this week I was asked to give an overview of climate science to a meeting of professional engineers.

Yesterday I received a message from someone that wanted to know what was going on with climate change. He somehow thought that only four scientists still support the findings of the report that won the Nobel Peace Prize two years ago!

I am uncertain where people get their information, so please allow me as a climate researcher to describe the current state of climate science, where we are going and what we are doing about it.

Before I get going, let me admit that this is not a sexy subject. We all talk about the weather, but climate hardly feels like breaking news.

That said, climate change has become one of the defining issues for us globally and will be for many decades to come. It is boring, but important.

Are we still warming? Yes.

2010 is not done yet, but even if it drifts through the last two months with moderate temperatures, it will end up being the warmest year on record.

In fact, it is also the warmest year in the past 120,000 years according to ice core data (this data helps us to understand about ice ages).

2010 is the warmest year in the warmest decade. Since 2000 we have had 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. And we project more climate change to come.

Isn't this just natural warming? No.

The scientific community is virtually agreed that the warming is due to the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.

It's definitely not natural warming from the melt of the last ice age - that finished about 10,000 years ago. That's when we entered into a very stable climate period and it also marks the start of agriculture.

We don't think it is the sun or sunspot cycles. Scientists have considered the sun, but it doesn't fit with what we are observing. The greenhouse traps the sun's heat and warms the planet. Adding to it increases the temperature.

This is the accepted theory by the many thousands of scientists working on the problem worldwide. There are some scientists that disagree with the theory, and it is important to have critical though on the subject.

But you should know that the scientific agreement is quite strong that climate change is real and dominantly caused by human activity. We also realize that the emissions we create today have an impact on the climate for a long time to come.

I will tell you something that very few people know. Most of the warming does not go into the atmosphere. Five times more warming goes into the soil and to melt glaciers than goes into the atmosphere. And most of the warming (fifteen times as much) goes into the oceans.

So what? Is it a big deal? Yes.

Not all warming is bad. But this warming is actually quite rapid. To give you a comparison, this warming is about thirty times faster than the rate at which we melted the last ice age.

When you warm that rapidly, you disrupt ecosystems. The UN has just finished its 10th annual meeting on biodiversity and they have declared that 20% of species globally are now at risk of extinction.

Other species which are not at risk are still under pressure. This year we assessed a 40% decline in plankton in the world's oceans! While plankton may not sound terribly exciting, it is the very base of our entire global food chain.

But what does it mean to us as people, as opposed to the environment? The real risk to society is water supply and agriculture. Water and food both depend on a stable climate.

Storms and storm damage is the sort of stuff that the media like to report, but it is difficult to separate climate change from regular weather when we talk about individual events. Climate change is not sensational - it is just a very big problem.

Five years ago the Pentagon did an assessment and determined climate change to be the biggest risk for global human conflict - bigger than terrorism.

What do we need to do? Shift the energy economy.

The solution is simple to express but difficult to accomplish. We need to move off of oil, gas and coal and onto renewable energy, with a healthy dose of efficiency and conservation.

Given that oil and gas reserves are limited anyway, the price will go up, so the switch is inevitable.

When do we need to start making the shift? 20 years ago.

Okay, we can't turn back the clock, but I am a little pissed off that we didn't start back when the scientific community alerted us. I began teaching climate change at university over twenty years ago.

And frankly I feel a wave of shame when I speak in front of high school students who were born after we knew that we needed to act. These young people will be forced to deal with the legacy we are handing them.

I understand that fossil fuels have been a good energy source, that they are widely used and that it will take effort to shift. That's why we need to begin right away. The longer we wait, the rougher and more abrupt the transition will be.

Can't we just change our lightbulbs? No.

By all means, it is important to take responsibility at the individual level, but we must now start to move our whole economy and that will take a coordinated response from our government.

Yet the Canadian government is stalling, and it has been stalling for a very long time now.

The fact that Canada has abandoned our commitment on climate change is one of the principle reasons that we were not voted onto the UN Security Council last month.

This month Canada will be back negotiating climate change again. It is critical that we call for real action and leadership on climate change now.

It is time to change our light bulbs and the course of our government.

Gun Owners Against Violence Against Women campaign?

Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 -0400

On September 22, Parliament narrowly voted to maintain the long gun registry.

How long have we been trying to sort out the registry now?

15 years ago when this all started, I was amazed at how much passion there was around the issue.

I thought to myself then: "I wonder how we can harness all of the energy on both sides of the issue to address the underlying concern of guns and safety in society."

Fast forward 15 years and we haven't moved an inch - sorry a centimeter.

Hunters, First Nations, farmers, sport shooters and legitimate gun owners across Canada continue to feel vilified by the registry.

Estimates are that less than 50% of the guns out there are actually registered.

It has cost much more than was originally projected; the government says that the expenses are in excess of $1 billion so far.

Women's groups, policing officials and the majority of Canadians want to see gun registration. In a national poll that came out this week, 2/3 of Canadians support the registry. There is an notable urban - rural split.

And the split on the issue is still obvious.

I can understand that the problem is complex, but after 15 years, why have our politicians not sorted this issue out? I think the answer is that they don't really want to.

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper was here in the Yukon one month ago, he was asked a question about the next election and whether the local Yukon candidate will be encouraged to engage the media more.

He responded that the Yukon only wants two things: a person who will represent them in Ottawa; and someone who will vote to end the long gun registry.

I found this response to be narrow and dismissive of us as Yukoners (plus it didn't answer the question).

Still his response tells me one thing: that the gun registry will likely be a central theme of the Conservative campaign.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff decided to force his MPs to vote for the gun registry - even though the attempt to end the long-gun registry came as a private member's bill. This further politicized the vote.

In political circles this is known as a wedge issue. It drives a wedge between voters. Political parties like to set themselves apart.

Wedge issues polarize us and parties actually want voters to focus on these divisive issues.

Here's an example from the last federal election. During the final public debate a young woman came forward and asked a serious question about education. To my surprise, one of my fellow candidates chose to ignore the question and instead respond about gun control.

The reality is that political parties like these election issues so much, they don't actually want to address them. They prefer to keep wedge issues unresolved.

It doesn't matter that they are not doing their job, nor that the public trust gets eroded. What motivates political parties is power.

It frustrates me that politics gets in the way of addressing problems. And it angers me that we are being played.

So what should we do?

Leaving politics out of it for a moment, I actually think that there is some significant common ground on the two sides of this debate. Let me paint you a picture.

Those folks who are advocating for the registry are motivated by wanting to create a safe society. Legitimate gun owners care about the same thing!

Yes they want to own a gun, but they don't want to be considered criminal or marginalized as an offender for doing so. Typically, they are on the side of law and order.

What if some of the Yukon anti-violence organizations and the Fish and Game Association or the Gun Club were to sit down at a table and discuss how to work together to achieve a safer more inclusive Yukon?

Maybe the organizations that promote the legitimate and safe use of firearms could extend a message to their community that focuses on zero tolerance for violence.

Can you imagine a Gun Owners Against Violence Against Women campaign? As role models within that community, it would be a powerful message.

And what if at the same time, women's organizations stood up and praised legitimate gun owners for taking a stand against violence? That would also be a strong message.

It is my guess that this would move us further down the path to a just and safe society than the past 15 years have. All it would take is some respectful dialogue, some trust and some shared responsibility.

It does not yet address the cost of the gun registry, but crime prevention always has its cost (and societal) benefits. Maybe we could reduce the $10 billion currently budgeted on increasing the number of prisons over the next five years?

What about the government? Well, if they don't appear to be taking the lead, maybe they will follow.

---

John Streicker is a professional engineer, and the Green Party candidate for the Yukon. His column appears on the first Friday of each month.