Tweet
How will John Kerry handle his first meeting with oil-obsessed Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird?
Newly appointed U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will meet on Friday with his Canadian counterpart, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. In any such bilateral meeting, it is paramount that each participant trust the words of his counterpart. After all, when it comes to the world of diplomacy, where wars are settled and treaties are signed, there’s little more than words and trust.
As a former employee in Canada’s Foreign Affairs I have attended many bilateral meetings with foreign dignitaries. If I were advising Kerry, I would suggest one question he should ask of John Baird to see if he is an honest broker.
The question is: “Is Canada committed to confronting climate change?”
John Kerry is, and has been for a long time, a vocal leader on the issue of climate change. Sources inside his former Senate office have told me Kerry regularly expresses his commitment to act on climate change and understands the imperative of curbing water and air pollution to safeguard the economy.
Canadian Minister John Baird has a very different stance towards the climate change challenge, preferring to express contempt for proposals to implement market-based solutions to Canada’s soaring greenhouse gas emissions. For example, just last year Baird told Parliament that the Harper government disbanded the National Roundtable on Energy and Environment because they did not like the Roundtable’s recommendation that Canada adopt a tax on carbon.
“Why should taxpayers have to pay for more than 10 reports promoting a carbon tax, something that the people of Canada have repeatedly rejected? It should agree with Canadians. It should agree with the government. No discussion of a carbon tax that would kill and hurt Canadian families,” Baird stated in Parliamentary debate.
For the record, polls consistently show that the majority of Canadians are in favour of a tax on carbon pollution. Even many of the companies operating in the tar sands are calling for a carbon tax.
When it comes to the issue of climate change, Kerry and Baird are diametrically opposed. If Baird is honest with Kerry he should explain to the freshly minted Secretary of State the rationale for the Canadian government’s backtracking on international commitments to address climate change. Perhaps he can also explain why his party is currently running a national attack ad campaign against the Opposition party for proposing a carbon tax.
On the other hand, perhaps Baird will instead try to steer the conversation to what the Harper government considers a much more important and dire issue: President Obama’s approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline that would pump millions of barrels of Canadian tar sands crude to U.S. refineries to largely serve an overseas market.
The Alberta tar sands is considered one of the dirtiest and most carbon intensive industrial projects on the planet. From extraction to upgrading, a barrel of oil derived from bitumen can be three to four times as carbon intensive as a conventional barrel of oil produced in the US or Canada.
Kerry, being the savvy diplomat he is, could (and hopefully will) point out to Baird, that any conversation about the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline is intrinsically tied to Canada evolving its postion on climate change. If Canada is serious about aligning with the U.S. on climate policy, as Stephen Harper has expressed, then Baird should be fully briefed and ready to cooperate based on President Obama’s stated commitment to tackle climate change in his second term.
In his inaugural address two weeks ago President Obama said:
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”
The Keystone XL pipeline poses a key test for President Obama’s commitment to fulfill his promise on climate action. Encouraging rapid expansion of Canada’s tar sands operations is irreconcilable with aggressive efforts to curb climate change pollution in North America.
If Minister Baird is honest with his counterpart, he will admit as much to Secretary Kerry. Anything less than honesty on Baird’s part will start Canada’s relationship off with the new Secretary of State very poorly. It is a tough position for Baird to be in, but it is one created by the Minister and the Conservative government itself.
Photo by Andrew Rusk released under a Creative Commons license.
19 Comments
Thanks a lot, very informative.
So your post just admitted Baird lied about Canadians being in favor of a carbon tax. Once a liar, always a liar. It’s obvious who he works for, and it isn’t the Canadian people. He should do very well for HIMSELF in politics.
Keystone XL pipeline will be approved. Lube up, progressives. Ass rape starts in 10…9…8…7…
i am not expecting great things about the Keystone XL Pipeline. After all, our own Sate Department originally requested that the Pipeline go through. It was only when the Republicans were back in charge of things in Congress, that Hillary Clinton came out and said she opposed it.
As usual it will be kabuki theater.
Easy to not be concerned about pollution when Canada can export its pollution to the US with the leaking pipeline so they have a port to sell to China. How stupid can the US be?
You almost got it right.
It is misleading to talk of “Canadian Tar Sands’ when much of it already belongs to the Chinese before it ever leaves the ground.
The Harper government believes the U.S. is over a barrel (pun intended). The preferred route is the XL route because it is the least expensive and therefore the highest profit for the oil sands corporations. If the U.S. fails to approve, Harper fully intends to build a pipeline across BC to the Pacific coast and develop an oil-port there, possibly at Prince Rupert. Either way, the tar-oil gets exported. If the U.S. doesn’t co-operate the U.S. will be cut out of the loop and be foregoing the economic enhancement from building, refining and shipping that the tar-oil will provide. Tar sands development is not something that the U.S. has control over. Only the Canadians can stop it.
I, for one, am perfectly willing to be cut out of those profits.
“. the U.S. will be cut out of the loop .”
So what?
As a country, the US has little to gain and much to lose.
The oil and pipeline companies OTH …
For the record, I oppose the XL pipeline on environmental grounds (ground water pollution and global warming). However, if we think stopping XL will stop tar sands we are deluding ourselves. U.S. citizens have no say in tar sands development–the absolute most we can do is slow the process by a few years until Canada completes an alternate route, and the global warming disaster will proceed apace. Unless Canadians manage to put a stop to madness the madness will continue, regardless of the U.S. position, and U.S. environmentalists are just going along for the ride. I fully expect the State Department to approve the XL pipeline, though, and they will do it on economic grounds, not environmental grounds. As I stated above, there is a huge amount of money to be made by U.S. corporations, and by some of the states that the pipeline traverses, and both will support XL because of that. Last I looked, Texas was a bit short of environmentalists, and most of the objection to XL was because of heavy-handed condemnation of property for the right-of-way and not because of global warming or water pollution, which are the issues that affect us all. Again, unless the Canadian people put a stop to this we are screwed.
Bairds mom and dad
http://www.icollector.com/Petunia-Pig-color-illustration_i10498886
http://secureworldpost.secureworldexpo.com/here-comes-frankenstein/bride-of-frankenstein-boris-karloff-1935/
CB, all that Bitumen will be refined right there in Houston, eh…? I also heard the Super Tankers to transport it, was being designed to clear the tighest Lochs of the Panama Canal, by a mere 6 Feet…! *gah*
Btw, how many of y’all can say you’ve been to Ft. Mackay…?
“Texas was a bit short of environmentalists,…”
On site opposition to the TX portion of Keystone has been spearheaded by a bunch of Occupy Houston people and Occupiers from neighboring cities, all making common cause with besieged property owners.
While what you say is entirely true, I stand by my statement and as evidence I give you…….the State Government of Texas, duly elected by the asshat majority that populates that particular section of the country. Hopefully, that will change in the next 8 years or so.
The Canadian government is basically a colonial farm team for the multinational corporate headquarters. The current Conservative model leans right in matters cultural in a ‘lite’ version of American conservatism although further right than previous iterations of Canadian conservative parties whereas previous Liberal models have resembled an approximation of what moderate liberals imagine the Democratic Party to be in terms of social policy. The tar and chemicals that will travel down that pipe to Houston are mined, transported and ultimately processed by the usual multinational suspects. Some Canadian corporations are involved as are American, Asian and European ones but they owe no more loyalty to the people of Canada and have no more respect for the environment than any of the others. There is a protest movement afoot north of the border but the battle is only beginning and will be long and hard fought. And the power and money is, as usual, mostly on one side. The Canadian government has already tried and failed to use the solidarity and support of U.S. progressives for Canadian protestors to demonize the movement as foreign interference in national affairs. Since the power behind the tarsands exploitation is multinational and the opposition to resistors is coordinated between business and government, perhaps it would be a good idea to make the resistance multinational in response. Anything less might not be enough. Business doesn’t respect borders, maybe progressive resistance needs to take a page from their book.
Good point about resistance being multi-national. Some unions have that message too. Time is of the essence.
We will see how many environmentalists have a soul after the XL Pipeline is approved by Kerry and Obama. Will they protest or change the subject and repeat how important it is to elect democrats because the republicans are so much worse?
Leo Gerard is a great example, Lillith…!