(The following article is from the December 1-31, 2009, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $30/year, or $15 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $45 US per year; other overseas readers - $45 US or $50 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Kimball Cariou

Canada joined with the United States in telling other countries at the UN climate talks in Barcelona in early November that it wants a less binding, less ambitious, and less fair global climate deal.

     "Canada's government has switched from promising repeatedly to get tough on polluters to instead saying it will get tough on the poorest people in the world in watering down a climate deal," said Steven Guilbeault of Equiterre. "If this is what Minister Prentice means by not being a `boy scout,' then it means that the life support systems of the planet are in deep trouble."

     "The Canadian government is clearly doing the bidding of Alberta and the tar sands," said Graham Saul of Climate Action Network Canada. "They just keep trying to throw wrenches into the works."

     The Climate Action Network says it remains optimistic that the elements of a strong deal are still on the table, that a fair, ambitious, and legally binding agreement can be reached at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December. The Network stresses that science says that any agreement must limit global temperature increase well below 2 degrees C, and emissions must peak by the year 2015, as indicated by the International Panel on Climate Change's last assessment report.

     Environmental groups also warn that the deal to be reached in December must also provide adequate financing from rich, polluting countries for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries as well as a fair contribution of mitigation action from large developing countries.

     "The Canadian Government needs to live up to the promises it has been making for years," said Dale Marshall of the David Suzuki Foundation. "That means finally producing regulations to tackle global warming pollution that are based on the best climate science and that are worthy of being brought to this crucial global summit."

     "The Canadian Government has proven that it will not give up its laggard role in these critical negotiations. This government knows perfectly well what needs to happen to make Copenhagen a success and they need to get their act together and come up with a plan," said Virginie Lambert Ferry of Greenpeace Canada.

     Shortly after the Barcelona meeting, a coalition of leading non-governmental organizations called on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to join over 40 world leaders who have already accepted an invitation to attend the United Nations climate summit this month in Copenhagen.

     "This is a time for statesmanship. World leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to find common cause on the most urgent issue of our time. Mr. Harper must go and represent Canada," said John Bennett, Executive Director of Sierra Club of Canada.

     "Canadians expect Mr. Harper to be there and to bring home a successful agreement," said Mark Fried, policy coordinator at Oxfam Canada. "We have a chance to be leaders - particularly on adaptation funding for developing countries. Perhaps international pressure will influence him in a way that Canadians haven't yet been able to."

     At present, Canada's emissions target falls far short of what the science demands, and Canada has made no meaningful commitments to provide financial support to poorer countries to tackle climate change.

     "On the world stage, Canada is being seen as an obstacle to success at these negotiations. Attending the climate summit would prove that the Stephen Harper government isn't only looking out for the interests of the Alberta tar sands and is serious about responding to this crisis," said Graham Saul, Executive Director of Climate Action Network Canada. "The current government needs to realize the opportunity in front of us. The U.S. is already outspending Canada 14 to 1, per capita, on investments in renewable energy, and Europe has been ahead of the game on this for years. Harper needs to commit to Copenhagen today so we can get Canada back in the game."

     But evidence continues to mount that the Harper government is more concerned about energy industry profits than the environment or public health. In the latest development, a new Greenpeace report says the government plans to short change Canadian victims of nuclear accidents by allowing reactor operators to provide billions less in industry compensation than other western countries in the event of a reactor accident.

     "By capping the nuclear industry's liability for accident clean up and damage to health at an unrealistic level the Harper government shows it thinks Canadians deserve less industry compensation than nuclear victims in other countries," said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Greenpeace's energy campaigner. "Why should nuclear operators get subsidies while victims pay?"

     The report, The Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act: Is it Appropriate for the 21st Century?, was released on Nov. 16 to coincide with federal hearings on the proposed Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act. The report warns that the legislation's artificial cap of $650 million on reactor operator liability doesn't meet international standards and would hurt the growth of green power by relieving the nuclear industry of the responsibility of paying sufficient insurance costs. The report estimates the legislation would effectively subsidize nuclear operators from $4.8 billion to 9.7 billion annually.

     "Unlike other energy sources the nuclear industry has this special law to relieve it of paying its own insurance costs," said Stensil. "This creates an unfair playing field for green energy and would force Canadians to pay for the nuclear industry's pollution."   A massive taxpayer liability has been created by shifting responsibility for nuclear accidents from the nuclear industry to the federal taxpayer. The report recommends legislation to require the nuclear industry to pay its own clean up and damage costs and publicly report any taxpayer liabilities.

     The nuclear industry needs this special legal protection, the report says, because insurers and even nuclear vendors consider reactor accidents a realistic possibility that would bankrupt them. Instead of addressing the fundamental design flaws that make all current and proposed reactors vulnerable to Chernobyl-style accidents or terrorist attacks, the industry and its regulators have downplayed accident risks with the public by failing to examine or publicly release information on nuclear accidents. The report calls for disclosure of such information.

     At present, Canadian victims of a nuclear accident would receive $650 million in industry-insured compensation, Americans over $10 billion and victims in Western Europe and Japan $1.2 billion. Germany has no limit on the liability of nuclear operators.

     The nuclear industry's own studies contradict the Harper government's proposal that $650 million is sufficient and show that a small-scale foreseeable accident at the Pickering B nuclear station would cause $1.2 billion in health damages alone. The health costs of a Chernobyl-style accident would top $50 billion.

     The impact of avoided insurance premiums permitted by the current legislation is equivalent to a 5.4 to 11 cents a kilowatt hour subsidy to nuclear operators and deters green power development.

     Greenpeace says the legislation is more proof the nuclear industry has failed to innovate and build safer and cheaper reactors despite billions in public subsidies. In May, Ontario demanded the Harper government dole out billions in subsidies to build the untested prototype Advanced CANDU from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

     "A few years ago the nuclear industry claimed it could build reactors without public subsidy, but today it wants massive public bailouts and protection from nuclear accidents. Harper's accident legislation shows nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe," said Stensil.