O' Canada.

For all of us political junkies, a foreign leaders trip to Ottawa is like Diplomacy 101. Given the geography of North America, this is not surprising. Canada and the United States are neighbours living in close quarters along a relatively porous border and share about $1.5 billion worth of trade daily making the two countries the largest trade partners in the world.

Almost a tradition of sorts that a newly elected president comes to Ottawa for their first foreign trip. Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton made Canada their first stop, but recently wasn't this way. George W. Bush, journeyed south to Mexico for his first venture beyond his country's borders and waited nearly four years before being met in Canada's capital by hordes of angry protesters.



Air Force One landed at the Ottawa airport at approximately 10:24 am in steady snow and was greeted by Governor General Michaelle Jean, heading Obama into a day of meetings on touchy topics with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.



Under a cheering crowd of more than 1,000 people greeted Obama as his motorcade pulled up to Parliament Hill. One person carried a sign that read "Yes we CANada!"



Obama came bearing a pro-trade message to assuage Canadian concerns over protectionism; a promise of a new strategy in Afghanistan as Canada moves to pull out all its troops there by 2011; and talk of clean-energy cooperation as controversy hangs over Canada's oil-rich sands.



Harper and Obama met privately for 33 minutes, a session originally slated to last only 10 minutes. They then moved on to a meeting and working lunch with their staff. After a few hours, Obama said at a Parliament Hill press conference. "I love this country. We could not have a better friend and ally."

Both leaders welcomed efforts to strengthen both countries economies and said the two neighbours would work to strengthen the auto industry."The work that's being done by this government to stimulate the economy on this side of the border is welcomed, I’ve provided Prime Minister Harper with an assurance that I want to grow trade and not contract it," he said.

"We concur on the need for immediate, concerted action to restore economic growth and to protect workers and families hit hardest by the recession through lowering taxes, ensuring access to credit, and unleashing spending that sustains and stimulates economic activity," Harper said.

The news conference was short on detail, especially since Obama has caused some nervousness in Canada by promising during the presidential campaign to renegotiate NAFTA, the trade agreement linking the U.S., Canada and Mexico.



And the "Buy American" provision in the $787 billion US economic recovery plan requires that only U.S.-made iron, steel and manufactured goods be used for public works projects receiving money from the package. However, Obama has acknowledged previously that any purchases must be in line with international trade treaties, such as NAFTA. Harper said NAFTA gives both countries some leeway in domestic buying but both leaders said as economies around the world face challenges, it's important for the US and others to resist calls for protectionism.

Harper had said Obama's presidency is ushering in a new era of North American co-operation against climate change after George W. Bush's inaction held back Canada's ability to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions. In an interview with CNN yesterday, Harper insisted that Canada's climate-change policy has been hamstrung by the inaction of its largest trading partner. “In Canada, we've been wrestling for the last decade or so with our desire to try to have a regime, a regulatory regime, that would diminish our own carbon emissions. But we've been trying to do so in an integrated economy when the United States has not been willing to do so,” in an interview to be broadcast in two parts yesterday and today.

The issue has become a hot-button backdrop for the visit, as environmentalists campaign against what they call Alberta's “dirty oil,” fearing Harper is seeking to shelter the oil sands from emissions regulation.

Obama closed the press conference by thanking Canadians who helped in his presidential election campaign last year and joking about Ottawa's cold and snowy February weather. “I want to thank some of the Canadians who came over the border to campaign for me during the election. It was much appreciated. And I am looking forward to coming back to Canada as soon as it warms up.”

Upon leaving Parliament Hill, Obama made a quick unscheduled stop in Ottawa's Byward Market, near the US Embassy. Obama was served a "beavertail", a treat that consists of a deep-fried flatbread covered with cinnamon and sugar. Obama also bought souvenir snow globes for his two daughters. Asked if he ate the 'beavertail', Obama said, "I ate a little of it. It's very large!"

Jessica Millien, 17, an employee at the Beaver Tail Hut, said she screamed for five minutes with excitement after meeting Obama in person. Asked by security to bring one outside to Obama who was standing across the street with secret service guards around him. "I gave him his tail and shook his hand and had a conversation with him," she said. "I almost fainted. He just asked me about my day and what the tails consisted of. He's a really down-to-earth guy."

Obama did not address Parliament during his six-hour visit, but met with Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff at the airport before he was set to depart for Washington. All in all it was a productive trip and it would seem that Obama has left his 80% favourability with Canadians intact.

Are Lawyers The Best Way To Save The Earth?

Back in August Stephen Hockman QC proposed an interesting idea. Namely proposing that a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment. Hockman argues that for the lack of solutions at hand for addressing climate change, "only an impartial adjudicating body is capable of providing the catalyst for a global consensus as to the fairest way to distribute the burdens that accompany solutions to the climate change problem."

The understandable reluctance of developing countries to sign up to carbon commitments - unless the developed world is prepared to make an equitable contribution - calls for more radical options. Those options must be realised at state, regional and international levels, and they will require political, economic and legal solutions.

In this mix, international legal instruments are crucial. The existing tools lack the necessary jurisdiction, clout and transparency. The time is ripe for a serious consideration of an international court for the environment. Such a court was mooted in Washington in 1999, but sank without trace. Today, however, we cannot afford to drop the ball.

Hockman, who is also a trustee of Client Earth, a nonprofit environmental law group, argued that such an institution would also offer a centralized system, "an enhanced body of law regarding environmental issues, and consistency in the resolution of environmental disputes". He wrote that such a court should be compulsory and have its own scientific body to assess technical issues.

However some are skeptical as to whether this concept would work, as Environmental Capital notes:

But what about the two giants in that global economy? The U.S. and China together account for about half the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions. Any meaningful climate-change pact begins and ends with what Washington and Beijing decide. And while both presidential candidates are less hostile to the ICC, ceding control to supra-national jurisdictions generally gives the U.S. pause. Chinese leaders, meanwhile, have not traditionally embraced global law or institutions with open arms.

Concluded Environmental Capital: "Are lawyers really the best way to save the earth?"

Karma's a Bitch.

With last week GM reporting a $15.5 billion loss in the second quarter, it is quite clear that American car manufactures are getting their come-uppance.

Edmunds.com published a list of the top 10 most efficient 2008 sedans available. They ranked the cars based on EPA fuel economy numbers. And sweet moses would you guess that not one from an American manufacturer made the list! Even the Wall Street Journal, not known for its criticism to big business, has sharp words about American car manufacturers.

Now we see the results of the myopia that has afflicted Detroit auto executives. These are the people who staked their companies' futures on gas-guzzling, heavyweight behemoths.

Auto execs claim they were giving Americans the products they wanted. Really? For proof to the contrary, look at their U.S. market shares, which are slumping to historically low levels as Japanese auto makers gain ground.

In lieu of GM's stunning losses, I was reminded of the complete and utter arrogance they displayed when they crushed its fleet of EV-1 electric vehicles in the Arizona desert. The EV-1 was among the fastest, most efficient production cars ever built. It ran on electricity, produced no emissions and catapulted American technology to the forefront of the automotive industry.

The story of the EV-1 is documented in the amazing film Who Killed the Electric Car? It chronicles the life and mysterious death of the EV-1 and it examines the cultural and economic ripple effects caused by its conception and how they reverberated through the halls of government and big business.



A summary:

The film deals with the history of the electric car, its development and commercialization, mostly focusing on the General Motors EV1, which was made available for lease in Southern California, after the California Air Resources Board passed the ZEV mandate in 1990, as well as the implications of the events depicted for air pollution, environmentalism, Middle East politics, and global warming.

The film details the California Air Resources Board's reversal of the mandate after suits from automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the George W. Bush administration. It points out that Bush's chief influences, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and Andrew Card, are all former executives and board members of oil and auto companies.

A large part of the film accounts for GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and dispose of them. A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed; GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed).

Embedded below, the film in its entirety:



If the above does not work, visit this LINK.

However its not all bad news. In the same WSJ piece - it would seem that some have climbed aboard the bus.

In a recent meeting with Ford executives, CEO Alan Mulally dared to challenge the Detroit gospel that you can't make money on small, fuel-efficient cars.

At last Ford appears to be making bold moves to design and sell vehicles that people want. In Paris earlier this summer I spotted an unfamiliar car so attractive that I went over to see what it was. It was a Ford. Presumably this is one of the six European models that, as part of the "Drive One" campaign, Ford will introduce in the U.S. Ford is also boosting production of its fuel-efficient "EcoBoost" and four-cylinder engines, speeding up hybrid introductions and converting three truck plants to small-car production.

Even GM seems to be facing reality. It said it's planning for oil prices in a $120-$150 range for the foreseeable future, boosting light vehicle production, and suspending production at four truck plants. It, too, is accelerating production of efficient four-cylinder engines, and announced a global Chevrolet small-car initiative.

While promising, what pulls my chain about the above is that rather than take responsibility for the planet and in the role these car companies play in emissions, the American car manufacturers are only taking these steps because of the price of gas. Let's hope their successful. However as they say, karma's a bitch.