While unable to get to a computer, I have been getting interesting emails from concerned folks, including this email from Charles Adler, in which he included the text for his latest column:
As I apply my ink stained fingers to the trusty keyboard, it's been more than 72 hours since Mark Holland, the Liberal Natural Resources critic, belched out the most threatening words I have heard in a political conversation in years.
But for some reason the Mainstream Media has seen them not worthy of attention.
Now perhaps the mainstream media feels that this is not a good time to second guess the fantasies of the Opposition Natural Resources critic. After all Dion and his crew are supposedly on the right side of the Kyoto angels. Perhaps waving a red flag at Alberta is considered the right thing to do in Western Canada. Why dwell on the obvious cause of CO2 emissions in Ontario and Quebec, the fact that half the population of the country, lives, works and drives there?
It's much easier for Liberals to demagogue the issue and pretend that it is ALBERTA energy that embarasses Canada in the hallowed shrine of Kyoto. Perhaps one ought to stop giving the mainstream media excuses for ignoring Mark Hollands sourgas? Maybe it's the oldest reason in the hills. Holland is to the left of the Canadian centre. Does anyone doubt that if a member of Harper's gang were to say something that came right out of rightfield that might be embraassing to the leadership that it would find itself planted firmly on the front pages as well as the teleprompters of Mansbridge, Robertson and Newman?
Warren Kinsella, who was interviewed on Adler on Line after Mark Holland offered his emissions, said he coudln't believe what Holland was saying and thought the Liberal brain trust would immediately disown this stuff.
Well, the Liberal Party brain trust has made some noises about "distortions":
Conservative attempts to distort the Liberal position on the Alberta oil sands are unacceptable, said Liberal Natural Resources Critic Mark Holland.
"The Liberal Party will continue to support the development and expansion of the oil sands in a reasonable and sustainable manner," said Mr. Holland. "Any other characterization of our position is nothing more than an attempt to fear-monger. If this is the reaction that we can expect to calls for sustainable development of the oil sands, the Conservatives must be willing to develop them no matter what the environmental or social costs."
And if the development was not "reasonable"?
A day after Mark Holland's threatening remarks, he appeared on my Corus colleague Dave Rutherford's program and was asked whether a Dion government would consdier nationalizing oil companies if they didn't meet Kyoto standards. Holland replied, "If they refuse to work with us....there will be consequences."
First, some translation. No Convervative government will ever have its energy platform characterized as reasonable by Mark Holland. It is not about the rate of production or the size of the emissions. It is about who is in charge. The only reasonable plan is one run by the Liberal Party. Will it involve more oil, or less? Who knows? More emissions, or less? Who cares?
As long as the Liberals are in charge, it will be reasonable. Mark Holland says as much during the interview with Charles Adler:
Holland: Take a look at the energy that's required to extract it from the ground, uh, even, there's a report, now when we look at it, it's gonna require something like 20 nuclear reactors at 600 megawatts in order to just provide the power necessary for THREE times the existing capacity.
Adler: So, would a Liberal government ban that from happening?
Holland: Well, what I think what we would do is that we would manage that resource responsibly and we would.
Notice that Mark Holland does not say a Liberal government would use less energy or more. He refuses to be pinned down on just exactly is the right amount to use. All that matters is that if Liberals were running the show, things would be reasonable and responsible, but not necessarily different.
To be fair, Mark Holland does go on to say that the Liberals would spread the production of all that energy over a longer period of time:
Holland: Well that would mean, in my opinion, we need to stabilize the oil sands, we need, we don't need to be multiplying them times five.
Adler: You mean taking less stuff out of the sands is what you're saying?
Holland: Exactly, using it responsibly, over a protracted period of time, making sure that we can actually meet our international commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
So the amount of greenhouse gas produced would be the same, but over five years instead of two, for example. I don't know what difference that would make in 10 years, but then I'm not a climate scientist. Or an alarmist, for that matter.
But here is where the double-standard becomes clear:
Holland: Yeah, I think what you're going to be seeing is, we're going to say that you can not exploit, uh, that resource, that you can't basically go in there and pump it out as fast as you can and give it to the Americans, uh, and sell out our national interests and, blow apart our emissions targets. I mean, the reality is that, that the Conservative government doesn't believe one iota in climate change - that this is, this is a shell game, that the only thing they have done is re-introduce measures that were already working. I mean, they've wasted a year, re-introduced programs that were already in existence and they brought them back, um, in many cases, much weaker than they were previously.
First, the oil is being sold to the Americans, not given to them. Since when is selling oil to Americans not in our national interest? Does Mark Holland have another market in mind? Is it in our national interest not to sell oil?
But the second half of the response is where the we see how Liberals think. According to Mark Holland, the Conservatives have re-introduced measures that were already working, meaning measures put in by the Liberals, and in particular, by Stephane Dion when he was environment minister.
That's a good thing, right? The measures are working, after all, according to Mark Holland.
But because the Conservatives were doing it, it was a waste of time. Not a waste of time for Stephane Dion to put in these measures for the Liberal government to implement. Soon after the measures are in place, the Conservatives take over, and the same measures are a waste of time.
Even though Mark Holland has to say that the measures are working or else be caught criticizing his boss.
Can anyone else follow his thinking?
Like Hugo Chavez, ultra-socialist president of Venezuela, Mark Holland is a fan of government intervention. Like Chavez, Mark Holland thinks Canada ought not to be selling oil to the Americans, that doing so threatens our national interests. I can only imagine that Mark Holland realizes, like Chavez has, that communist China (a huge polluter exempt from Kyoto requirements) is the only viable alternative market. Like Chavez, Mark Holland enjoys making vague threats directed at capitlists and the markets -- it's easier than actual policy and plays to the "scrapper" persona Mark Holland is cultivating.
All in all, I have to say I feel lucky to be out from under the representation of Chavez-lite.
