1. Can you give our
viewers a little bit of background on why and how you
became interested in Environmental issues
and Politics?
de Jong - My farm upbringing had an
indirect but profound effect on me with respect to how I
view nature. As a child on a Southern Ontario dairy farm
it was clear to me that the financial health of our
family depended directly on nature. Droughts, too much
rain, insect infestations, the death of a cow, etc. all
cause my parents to be glum or depressed, and good times
we saw them happy, confident and relaxed. As a farm
child my 6 brothers and sisters were almost free labour
for my parents, and mostly we was happy to be of service
and proud in the knowledge that I was contributing to
our family income. The flip side of this was that when
by accident we broke an implement or caused some other
problem we felt guilty of diminishing our farm income.
Becoming politically active came years later was
unrelated to my upbringing. My parents, relatives and
most of our farm neighbours were Dutch immigrants who
were glad to be alive after the 2nd world war; they had
no pretensions to being in positions of responsibility
in our community, province or country. My parents had no
political involvement at all short of voting. I think
they voted Liberal, but they never said, nor did I ever
ask. It was never dinner table discussion, or if it was,
I totally ignored it. As a child I had no worries about
the planet or local ecosystems. In the 60's and 70s in
my community at least, this concern was not at all part
of our lives. We, foolishly, assumed all was well.
I was born in 1955 to Dutch immigrant parents and grew
up on a dairy farm north of Guelph. I earned his B.A.
from the University of Western Ontario in 1978 and a
B.Ed. from the University of Ottawa in 1979, but this
had nothing to do with politics or environmentalism.
Throughout the 1980s I was active on the issues of
nuclear weapons, pro-choice, Ontario's old growth
forests, and Central America solidarity. In the early
90s I became involved in Green electoral politics and
now argues for green tax shifting, true cost pricing,
100% renewable electricity for Ontario, preventive
health care, province-wide organic agriculture, funding
for only one public school system, minimal tuition,
bio-based manufacturing, total waste diversion. I became
a member of the Green Party of Ontario since 1987, and
have been leader since 1993.2. In your opinion is
there a growing lack of understanding on green issues
between those who live in densely populated urban areas
of Ontario and those who live in rural areas? --- Are
there specific areas of compatibility on Green issues
for both areas and are there unique challenges for both?
de Jong - In some way rural folks
are more in tune with nature since they must live with
weather, distance, landscapes in a much more intimate
way then city folks. Rural people often depend on nature
directly for their living which is not the case with
urbanites. But the irony is because they live "in"
nature much more then city folks they often take nature
for granted and cause damage by neglect or by design. On
the other hand since city people perhaps then to
romanticize nature more and imagine themselves living
closer to nature, they tend to donate more time and
money to preserve nature
outside of the city or even in other countries. It's
hard to know, but many people in both rural and urban
areas are very dedicated to living lightly on the
planet.
3. It is well known that climate change and other
issues regarding atmospheric and land pollution are
caused by high density population - If elected
would you consider slowing or stopping the rate of urban
expansion as one of the ways to reduce pollution.
de Jong - Ontarians would like to live where
you wake up in the morning to the sound of birds rather
then traffic, where there are wildflower butterfly
gardens rather then parking lots, where the air is
clean, and where kids and seniors can walk and cycle without fear.
The private automobile reduces the quality of life in
cities and towns. Cars -regardless of what propels them
-- are expensive, polluting, noisy, and dangerous. They
monopolize up to 40% of urban land, yet serve the
transportation needs of only 50% of society stranding
everyone who is too old, too young or too poor or too
disabled to drive.
With the reality of climate change, peak oil, toxic air,
all urban areas in Ontario must be rebuilt into walkable
communities linked by transit, cycle paths and walking
paths. Communities of roughly about 20,000 can be
designed so everyone can walk to basic amenities like
jobs, shopping, schools, churches, theatres, parks
cafes.
The necessary emergency, transit, trades and police
vehicles should be plug-in hybrids, electric, or
hydrogen vehicles.
The Green Party of Ontario will facilitate the
reconstruction of the present car-dependent sprawl into
low-energy walkable communities without government
subsidies by implementing market-based mechanisms.
4. If we as a society adopts the idea of a green
economy there will be a tremendous shift in our
lifestyles and values. Do you think that Canadians are
ready to adopt these changes and what role do you think
governments will play to help make these adaptations?
de Jong -Yes.
There are many easy things people can do to help the
planet that won't require major changes to their daily
lives, like using compact fluorescent bulbs, recycling,
cycling or walking more, using a clothesline, buying
local
food, not using pesticides.... Then there are bigger
eco-improvements which will require more modifications
to their lives, like buying smarter appliances,
insolating their homes, not flying unless necessary,
eating lower on the food chain... Thirdly, there are big
changes that people can take that take serious
dedication like having fewer or no children, moving
to a walkable neighbourhood and get rid of their cars,
going off grid, becoming a vegetarian, switching to a
greener job... For the sake of future generations, we
should all try to live as lightly on the planet as
possible.
Specifically:
5. Climate: Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution
In your opinion are we as a society capable of making
the necessary changes to stop the present trends in
climate change in time or is it too late?
de Jong -
Don't know, but we must try.
1. The GPO objective is to reduce Ontario's CO2
emissions 90% below 1990 levels by 2050. (We also need
intermediate goals.)
2. Ontario will reduce CO2 emissions through tax
shifting -- not with a new tax -- by implementing a
revenue neutral shift off incomes and businesses and
onto CO2. This will reduce pollution and encourage
value-added, labour-intensive local production.
3. CO2 taxes will be applied at point of entry of oil,
gas, coal into the province rather then on emissions in
order to green the entire manufacturing process and not
just target consumers, allowing the invisible green hand
to reduce co2 emissions without government
micromanagement.
4. Our plan will help northern communities and
Ontario farmers by taking advantage of the sequestering
capacity of forests and agricultural land.
6.
Fossil fuels: The GPO will address climate change
through tax shifting, not by additional taxes. Unless
the federal government applies an adequate carbon
trading system, the GPO would phase in a carbon tax at
entry point of oil, gas and coal into the province,
raising it over 10 years to $30 per tonne of assessed
CO2 as part of a revenue-neutral tax shift off income
and business taxes. Ontario emits 200 Mt of CO2, an
average of 20 tonnes per capita. Fully implemented a $30
per tonne carbon tax would generate roughly $6 billion
per year, allowing the reduction of Ontario income and
business taxes by this same amount.
7.
Forests: Preserved boreal forests store 170 tonnes of
carbon per ha; up to 50% more then managed industrial
forests. To conserve forests the GPO would move the
responsibility for issuing cutting licenses from the MNR
to northern Ontario communities and then, as part of the
carbon tax shift, compensate communities for the carbon
sequestration they provide by keeping forests intact.
8.
Agriculture: Through tax shifting, the GPO will
encourage farmers to move to organic techniques since
organic agriculture sequesters significant tonnage of
CO2 per year per Ha, storing more each year as soil
builds thicker. In comparison industrial agriculture
releases existing CO2 as it degrades topsoil. Ontario
farms will be encouraged to produce fuels like
bio-diesel and bio-gas (not ethanol).
9.
Electricity: The GPO will remove price caps and apply
the true costs of electricity to allow
conservation and renewables to become cost effective.
Our objective is 100% renewable electricity by 2050
without subsidies, with electricity generated by wind,
low-impact hydro, biomass, biogas and solar. The GPO
will not build new natural gas and will phase out
nuclear and coal as conservation and renewables come on
stream. We oppose constructing new transmission lines to
the proposed Manitoba Conawapa dam.
10. Landfills: are the largest source of
anthropogenic methane, a greenhouse gas that is 40X as
potent as CO2. If we're serious about climate change in
Ontario then we need to set solid limits on MSWs
(Municipal Solid Waste) divert ICW's (industrial
commercial waste) towards energy production and build
municipal composting infrastructure. We can begin by
supporting 60% MSW diversion by 2010 and recapturing of
landfill methane.
If Earth's average temp rises by over 2 degrees by 2050
it is predicted to drive up to 30 per cent of know
animal species to extinction, with migrating birds
especially vulnerable.
11. Water Pollution:
Many municipalities are paying enormous amounts of money
to construct water pollution control plants - Are
taxpayers getting their fair return in investment here
to control water pollution or should we be concentrating
on reducing the sources of pollution so that we do not
have to build very expensive water treatment plants?
Municipalities bill their customers around .001/litre
for water, which means about 1/10th of a cent per litre.
A litre of water at a store cost about $1 per litre.
This means that bottled water costs about 1,000 the cost
of tap water.
As part of the tax shift away from retail sales tax,
corporate taxes and income taxes, the GPO should support
a province-wide water-taking levy. Other provincial or
local water taking regulations would remain in effect.
Aside from generating revenue and incenting water
conservation, a water levy would provide a mechanism to
determine how much water is being taken yearly, from
where and for what purpose.
To encourage water conservation, the GPO supports a levy
at the rate of $0.001 per litre on all water taking from
ground water or surface water, for farmers, industry, or
households. If the full permit amounts were used this
would generate $1.8 billion to the provincial
government. If 75% of the amount of the permit was made
use of, this levy would generate $1.35 billion.
12.
Population in higher density population is better
environmentally than low
density population? And if it is - what changes to the
present planning act
are needed.
de Jong -
To achieve sustainability Ontario needs to either reduce
its population by
3/4 or reduce industrial throughput by 3/4, or a
combination. The size of
the economy is not relevant, only the amount of nature
that we consume per
capita.
Population X Consumption Level = Ecological Impact
It is right to challenge the conventional wisdom that
increasing the
provincial population from 12 million to 16 or even 18
million over the next
25 years is wise and prudent. The resulting demands for
water, sewer
systems, roads, utility corridors, aggregates and urban
expansion will be
more then Southern Ontario's ecosystems can support.
Arguably Ontario's population level is already over its
ecological limits.
We import half a million barrels of crude oil every day,
we export garbage,
we are paving over our best farm land, our air is badly
polluted, and one in
5 children lives in poverty.
It is clear that, for ecological reasons, not racism,
the government should
consider the carrying capacity of our natural systems in
future land use
decisions.
It is not only population numbers but also per capita
consumption that
determines our impact on the natural world. Sustainable
population levels
depend on how high we live on the ecological hog. If we
reduce consumption
and pollution then perhaps population could safely
increase.
Ontario should optimize its population level, not
maximize it. We should
evaluate our carrying capacity and then balance the
number of human to
match.
13. Refuse - How can we dramatically reduce the amount of
refuse that we are generating?
What is the best way to dispose of our refuse?
de Jong - Per capita, Ontario citizens produce 160 pounds of
garbage per year each.
Less then 1% of televisions and only 2% of computers are
diverted from
landfill in Ontario, Expanding existing dumps or
starting new ones are no
longer viable solutions. Rural Ontarians should not be
forced to accept the
smell, truck traffic, threat to ground water, and
reduced property values
that garbage dumps bring. Presently Ontario has goal of
60% diversion. The
Ontario government must take action to divert 100% of
the waste stream. Nova Scotia
diverted 50% in 5 years creating 1000 jobs in 1996, and
since then up to
2,000 jobs in industries separating materials. Markham
is not at 70% waste
diversion.
Even though today's incinerators are cleaner then in the
past, the emissions
still contain toxic nanoparticles that evade even the
most modern pollution
control devices. And what isn't released into the
atmosphere is leftover ash
which is an acidic toxic composite, representing 30% of
the original bulk,
which must be buried in a hazardous waste site at added
expense and danger
to underground water. Furthermore, incineration is
double the cost of
landfill.
When polyvinyl chloride is burned in any incinerator
some dioxin is
produced, and even tiny amounts act as hormone
disrupters. And when plastics
are burned the greenhouse gasses associated with
manufacturing new plastics
(including upstream emissions from oil fields,
pipelines, refineries) are
double the emissions created in recycling plastic.
Incinerators distract from recycling, reuse, repair,
recover and composting
programs since the used materials that burn most readily
are those that are
most easily recycled.
Garbage is mistakenly left up to local politics when it
should be within
provincial, federal and international jurisdiction.
Municipalities won't be
able to get to zero garbage without "extended producer
responsibility"
legislation from the federal and provincial governments.
International protocols regulating product design are
also part of the
solution. All products and packaging must be designed
from the outset to be
repairable, reusable, recyclable, recoverable or
compostable.
There should be no such thing as garbage, dumps or
incineration.
14. Energy Generation :
What are the most least costly viable types of energy
that do not have
impact upon our environment and how can we implement
them in Ontario?
de Jong -
Currently, some 26 per cent of Ontario's electricity is
generated by burning
fossil fuels, such as coal and gas, which emit carbon
dioxide and other
pollutants into the atmosphere. Ontario should allow the
price of
electricity to reflect its' true costs, Ontario could
meet its energy needs
without nuclear, coal, oil or gas generation. Instead,
we can achieve a
sustainable energy future through a mix of renewables
including wind,
low-impact hydro, biomass, biogas and solar combined
with aggressive
conservation programs and demand management.
15. Other Issues
It is said that the Green Party is a one issue party -
how do you respond to this sort of criticism ? What solutions does the
Green party have for stimulation of Ontario's manufacturing sector,
revitalization of the tourism economic sector, crumbling infrastructure
especially in large metropolitan areas like Toronto, rising cost of
education and healthcare,
support for our troops in Afghanistan, equalization
payments to the provinces from the feds?
de Jong -
So far the public knows little about the Green Party
other then that its
self-evident environmentalist leanings. Perhaps most
interestingly is the
confusion as to where is the Green Party positioned on
the political
spectrum in Canadian politics - left, right, or center.
Or perhaps the Green
Party does not fit the left-right continuum at all.
To examine how the Greens fit in, we should look at the
core beliefs of each
major party.
Conservatives take pride in their pursuit of fiscally
responsibility,
Liberals strive to provide everyone with a high quality
of life, and the NDP
emphasizes social progressivism and economic equity.
Greens, of course,
have ecological sustainability as their principle
tenant. From another
perspective, Conservatives focus on the economy,
Liberals emphasize material
comforts, the NDP stresses social justice and Greens
prioritize a healthy
environment.
Of course, all political parties have policies that
address each of these
issues and none of them are mutually exclusive.
However, it is clear that
each party has a different emphasis in the way they rank
priorities.
Historically, the principle political concerns in Canada
were fiscal
responsibility, economic growth to provide the capacity
to purchase consumer
goods, and social programs. Each of these priorities
had a political party
to champion the cause. And now that environmental
problems are an
unavoidable issue, it is clear that Canada needs a new
party, a Green Party,
which prioritizes ecological sustainability.
It is clear that band-aid solutions will not address the
ecological crisis
we are facing. Regardless of which traditional party is
in power,
environmental problems are multiplying. One reason is
that none of the
industrial age parties are truly capable of integrating
ecological thinking
into the core beliefs of their political platforms. It
is not because they
don't care about the environment. Rather, it is because
they cannot make
the transition to ecological age thinking since the
environment is simply a
plank in their platform and not at the core of how they
think about public
policy.
Ecology is the core premise of the Green Party, but how
does this translate
into public policy? The Green Party emerged from
leftist environmental and
social justice movements, and initially Greens focused
on social issues and
environmental preservation through government
intervention in the economy.
However, over the years Greens have realized that
ecological thinking must
be an integral part of economic activity and not viewed
as a constraint on
economic growth.
While Greens still hold firmly to principles of social
justice and economic
equity, they have developed innovative policies that
harness market
mechanisms to achieve ecological sustainability and
social justice. Greens
recognize that markets can be powerful engines for
innovation, creativity
and efficiency. However, government policies over the
past century --
primarily tax breaks and subsidies for industrial
development -- have
distorted markets in ways that enable businesses to
externalize costs onto
others, the poor future generations and other species.
In other words, a
few have gotten wealthy at the expense of the general
taxpayer, the natural
environment, future generations, and other species.
Greens believe that ecological economic policy begins
with a reform of our
tax system and by ending subsidies for industries that
exhaust natural
resources and produce pollution. Businesses should not
be taxed for hiring
people or for making a reasonable profit. Instead, they
should pay levies
and fees for squandering resources, using land
inefficiently and polluting
the planet. People should not be taxed for working, but
should pay for the
amount of land, energy and resources they use. A Green
government would
shift taxes off labour and onto resources so that people
would have a
financial incentive to choose green products and
lifestyles and so that
businesses could operate profitable green enterprises.
Greens believe that the government shouldn't participate
directly in the
market but only create the rules for it to operate in
the public's interest.
A Green government, for example, would not build wind
turbines. But it
would end subsidies for dirty power and tax nonrenewable
sources of energy
so that individuals, churches, schools, businesses and
coops could generate
green power profitably. A Green government would not
legislate a ban on
cars, but it would implement resource taxes that reflect
the true cost of
operating a personal automobile. A similar argument can
be made for ending
sprawl, producing affordable housing, reducing pollution
and transitioning
to organic agriculture. When the market reflects the
true costs of our
activities, ecological actions save money.
The Green Party still espouses the goals of Canadian
left, but it has
incorporated key ideas from the Canadian right into its
economic program as
the best means to achieving those goals. The Green
Party is neither left,
right, nor center. Greens are fiscally responsible,
socially progressive and
environmentally aware. The Green Party is a new party
for a new era in
which the exploitation of the earth's people and
resources are no longer
tenable. The Green Party doesn't care where it fits on
the political
spectrum, but our goal is to get elected to address the
ecological crisis.
16. Transportation:
de Jong
-
Transportation: The Ontario government's transportation
planners have paid
little heed to the threat of climate change and the
inevitable decline in
oil production as the resource is depleted. Even with
the knowledge that
cars contribute significantly to greenhouse gas
emissions, and even with
studies showing that children growing up within half a
kilometre of
expressways suffer permanent lung damage, Ontario
continues to build
400-series highways and other car-dependent new
construction. The GPO
advocates walkable communities linked by efficient
transit.
16. Patrick White in March 7, 2008 wrote: " In the next
year or so, world oil production will peak and then promptly plummet, forced
down by sinking reserves. While supply crashes, demand will grow.
Virtually overnight, fuel will become so dear that farm tractors will go idle,
people will go hungry and homes will go cold. Financial markets will collapse
and social chaos will follow."
Do you agree with his scenario?
de Jong - It could potentially happen, yes. We should move to
local agriculture as
much as possible as fast as possible to avoid such a
crisis.

Frank de Jong at the Brockville
Farmers' Market
Frank de Jong,
Green Party of Ontario Leader
e-Mail:
fdejong@sympatico.ca
Phone: 416-559-6941
Web Site Address: www.gpo.ca |