Category: Environment

An environmental take on strategic voting

Generally, I have to say, I hate voting strategically. However stupid it is in our “first past the post” system (and I still haven’t quite forgiven Ontarians for voting against changing it), I prefer to vote for something than against something else.

That said, I’m must admit to being relieved, this election, that the party I really do want to vote for also happens to be the party with by far the best odds of defeating the Conservatives in this riding.

But I come to this topic from an email I received from the environmental group, Just Earth.

What’s an environmentalist to do in the federal election? Even for card-carrying Greens, it is complicated. The party worst on the environment in general, and climate change in particular, is the Conservative party. All four others are better, although they differ on particulars. The Liberals have the excellent Green Shift plan, which the New Democrats reject, but the NDP is better on clean energy.

Strategic voting will be the option for many. A website has been launched that will help voters make a rational choice (www.voteforenvironment.ca). A riding by riding breakdown identifies races where the Conservatives won by a small margin, and are therefore vulnerable, and ridings where they are a close second and a threat. Some 60 ridings will make the difference, argues this (somewhat incognito) website.

With split votes, this would be the result: Conservative 147 seats, Liberal 76, NDP 34, Green 0, Bloc 49, independent 2.

If we “vote smart,” this would be the result: Conservative 97, Liberal 109, NDP 46, Green 1, Bloc 53, independent 2.

Not easy, though. Imagine being a federalist in Quebec faced with the “strategic” choice of with voting Bloc or getting another Conservative elected!

Also interesting was a report from the Sierra Club, which compares and grades the party’s environmental platforms as follows:

  • Green Party: A-
  • Liberals: B+
  • NDP: B
  • Bloc Québecois: B
  • Conservatives: F+

I must say, their assessment of the differences between Green, Liberal, and NDP on this front were smaller than I thought.

(Remember when votes used to get split on the right side of the political spectrum, too? I really miss those days.)

Canadian election week 3. Sigh.

By the end of the week, I was getting pretty grumpy with all involved.

  • The Liberals, for being organized enough to put together a great platform, but not organized enough to sell it.
  • The NDP, for being on the wrong side of the carbon tax issue, even though they have a leader who should have credibility and integrity on this issue, above all others.
  • The Conservatives, for… well, for a lot of reasons, as you know, but especially for pandering to the worst sides of human nature.
  • Far too many of my fellow Canadians, for responding to that appeal.
  • And the Greens, for… Actually, I didn’t get annoyed with the Greens. But I’ll also not convinced they’re quite ready for prime time.

So took a little break on the weekend, took in a little of that arts and culture ordinary Canadians don’t care about, traveled green (bus, train, feet), and found a few little positives.

  • My local candidates debate, where nobody seemed awful. And yes, I even mean the Conservative guy, who can’t be completely hopeless, since they actually let him talk to the media and all that. (Thanks be I’m not in Harold Albrecht’s riding!)
  • Some Facebook vote trading group has been started, in an “anyone but the Conservatives” bid. Say you want to vote NDP but live in a riding where they don’t have a chance, you trade your vote with someone in a more NDP-friendly riding, and you vote their choice for them.
  • All of our parties are still better than the Republicans and their leaders. There’s always that.
  • And, our media, at least some of it some of the time, providing the analysis and details that politicians won’t discuss.

And on that last point… A few favourites from last week.

On carbon taxes

It doesn’t matter how often proponents pledge to recycle carbon tax money into lower taxes on incomes and companies. It doesn’t matter how many economists argue in favour of pricing carbon through a tax.

The Conservatives have distorted the carbon tax idea and scared people. The economy would be “wrecked,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper says. Funny then that Demark, with a carbon tax for a while now, had higher per capita growth than Canada from 1990 to 2006: 36 to 32 per cent.

What, therefore, remains? Policy incoherence across Canada, and Conservative and NDP plans that won’t get the job done. Mr. Harper has not spoken in the election about his “plan,” except to say he has one. What is it?

So in May, the government published the latest iteration of an incredibly complicated regulatory plan, many of the details of which are still unknown. Normally, Conservatives consider complicated regulations as to be viewed with great suspicion. But their “plan” offers the mother of all regulatory schemes.

The plan contains lots of little programs for conservation and renewables. They’re mostly inoffensive, but they won’t bring many emissions reductions.

The silliest is the public transit tax credit, introduced in the 2006 budget as an emissions reducer. The vast majority of people receiving the credit were already riding public transit. By the government’s own numbers, the credit will lower emissions this year by a risible 30,000 tonnes at a cost of $220-million – a staggeringly high per tonne cost.

Jeffrey Simpson, Globe and Mail

That $773 dollar of your taxes per ton, folks. That’s so much better than the $10 a ton the Liberals are proposing! Those fiscal conservatives — they are so smart! I totally see why they vote for the party that is so wise about its spending.

On crime

The party’s obsession with crime-and-punishment policies repugnant to urban voters suggests one of two things: Either it is secretly worried about collapsing support on the Prairies – as if! – or else it actually believes that voters lust for vengeance against children (now known as “denunciation” among politically correct Martians – denunciation for life).

How is it that representatives who hail largely from Canada’s most badly policed, violent cities and towns presume so easily to lecture the leaders of Canada’s best-policed, safest city?

Torontonians both pay significantly more on policing per capita than other Canadians, according to Statistics Canada, and they enjoy significantly safer streets than the residents of virtually every town in the country – outside Quebec, which is both the safest and the most liberal-minded province.

Thus the fruits of being “soft on crime.” Crime rates have dropped an amazing 30 per cent since 1991.

John Barber, Globe and Mail

On leadership

Stéphane Dion is an odd case. He keeps yapping about his green plan even as party hotshots tell him the story line has changed, we’re off that stuff. Could he think it isn’t a show – that the planet really is in danger? Would that count as real leadership rather than the acted kind? Poor Stéphane. Could he ever play a leader? Doubtful, although if he got elected somehow, and everyone onstage – journalists, MPs – treated him as a leader, he might start feeling, and acting it. Ah, the magic of theatre.

Why hasn’t Harper the Strong pulled away from the field? Why is the Layton NDP stuck? How has the weak, frail Dion hung in – as if voters are seeking something outside the strong leadership box? Such as – weak leadership. Isn’t that what real democracy would be about? It would disperse leadership among its citizens. In ancient Athens, they chose most leaders by lot, after policies were established in public debate. They made an exception only for leaders chosen in wartime.

So maybe the leadership axiom isn’t so axiomatic. An Ipsos Reid poll this week found 62 per cent of Canadians say they’re most “swayed” by party stances on key issues versus 21 per cent by leaders. Pollster Darrell Bricker was so stunned, and so committed to official theology, that he insulted voters by saying he didn’t know if they meant it or were just trying to give “the right answer.” To gain what, his approval? Maybe someone should poll the pollsters on whether they think Canadian voters have any brains.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

On quality of Conservative candidates

Among Conservatives, there is a lot of grassroots support for Chris Reid’s brand of conservatism. He wants to close the CBC and scrap the Indian Act and seems to have deep-seated rage issues – but Team Harper dumped him anyway. Word is that Stephen Harper draws the line at homosexuals with guns; and really, considering his record on that file, I can’t say I blame him.

As for the pro-drug, pro-prostitution Mr. Warawa, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office now says that, as of three days ago, he has changed his views and no longer believes anything he ever said on any issue whatsoever.

Rumour is that he has been run through a Conservative re-education camp. A few pistol whips from a flak-jacket-clad Peter McKay (“Who’s the bitch now, Warawa?”) topped off with a chemical lobotomy, and the boy is as good as new, a virtual Bev Oda – happy to be seen and not heard from ever again. He will make one hell of a cabinet minister some day.

By the sounds of it, when it comes to dealing with party dissidents, the Chinese government could learn a thing or two from our sweater-wearing Prime Minister.

Rick Mercer, Globe and Mail

RDtNVC: Increasing energy prices without compensating with tax cuts

There were two letters in the Record yesterday related to the carbon tax plan. One asked how charging for pollution could possibly reduce it — wouldn’t companies just pass the increased cost onto customers as higher prices? The other asked, wouldn’t it be better to just force big polluters to pollute less, via regulation?

Both good questions. Comes down intuitively favoring a regulatory or “cap and trade” approach over a carbon tax, as so well articulated by Jeffery Simpson in the Globe and Mail:

They [the Green Party] bring urgency to the debate that the Conservatives lack, and they’ve got one thing right: that carbon emissions have to be assigned a price, that a tax is a defensible way to do it, and that the revenues from the tax are best recycled into lower personal and corporate income taxes.

There is another way of finding a price, through a cap-and-trade system, as proposed by the Conservatives and NDP. This targets mostly large polluters. Some of the costs are then passed to consumers. Using the tax, a method favoured by many economists, gives carbon a price certainty but doesn’t guarantee a particular emissions result; using the cap-and-trade produces a particular result but at an unknown price.

Politically, the cap-and-trade is a much easier sell, since the eventual effect on the ordinary person is indirect, whereas changes to the tax system are in the faces of consumers. The easier politics of the cap-and-trade explains in large part why Conservatives, New Democrats and U.S. politicians like it.

It’s too bad we can’t have a reasoned debate between these two approaches, instead of the slanging match and attack ads about the “carbon tax” that the Prime Minister calls “insane” and says will “screw” Canadians and “wreck the economy,” something that’s not happened in any of the countries that have thus far introduced one.

Now, I’m think of writing my own letter to the editor on this subject, and I can’t just plagiarize Jeffrey Simpson if I do that. So here’s my draft, which I’ll refine later! [I’m such a technical writer, sometimes. Just can’t resist the bulleted list!]

Something that seems to be missed in all the wild claims about the effects of a carbon tax on the economy and prices is that the regulatory or cap-and-trade system offered as an alternative will also raise energy prices — and without balancing them with an income and corporate tax cuts.

A cap-and-trade system involves only the largest polluters. Total target emission levels are set and are assigned a price. Companies who pollute the most pay the companies who emit the least. But exactly as with a carbon tax, some of those extra costs are likely to be passed on as higher prices for consumers.

The reasons the most economics and environmentalists — groups that don’t typically agree on much — favor a carbon tax over a cap-and-trade system include the following:

  • By involving everyone, not just the largest polluters, the potential reduction in pollution is therefore much greater.
  • With a cap-and-trade system, there’s no benefit to companies that will never reduce their emissions below the overall target, so they won’t. With a tax, the more they reduce, the more they save–and the greater the environment benefits.
  • It rewards companies and individuals who are already doing well, environmentally. They get more back in income and corporate tax cuts than they pay in increased carbon taxes.
  • Corporate and income tax cuts are generally stimulative to the economy, freeing up more money for investment, savings, and spending.

The truth is, the environmental policies of all the political parties–including the Conservatives–are going to increase energy prices. The question is, do you want an income tax cut to help you pay for those inevitable price increases, or not? If you do, then you should vote for one of the two parties planning to implement a carbon tax: the Green Party or the Liberals.

(2023 Postscript: These are the roots of the Conservative war on carbon taxes, but interesting that they supported cap and trade at the time. Also interesting that the Liberal plan was to reduce income taxes as compensation rather than the current “revenue neutral” approach. Finally, so sad that so many years later Canada has accomplished so little on this front.)

Canadian federal election: Week 2 recap

The Liberals were much more visible this week, taking my advice by taking on Harper on a number of fronts, including childcare. The Liberal team was emphasized, which seemed wise. Dion explained the Green Shift on The Current podcast, and was, to my mind, clear and convincing.

The NDP and the Conservatives, meanwhile, were busily injecting a rare note of humour into the campaign. The NDP experienced the resignation of not one but two, toke-smokin’, car-drivin’, former members of the Marijuana Party as candidates for the party in BC, because they apparently didn’t bother to YouTube them before offering them the nomination. And the Conservatives, of course, had the whole “death by a thousand cold cuts” kerfuffle. Am I a bad person because that made me chuckle?

Anyway, this inspired the fourth apology by Harper since the campaign began (emphasizing why he’s so reluctant to let his candidates speak to the media), but the first that seemed to stick. And stick. Please, enough with the calls for his resignation, already! Lack of regulation might be the serious issue here. A dark sense of humour is not.

The US economy provided some excitement, with huge companies collapsing and stocks going on a roller-coaster ride in the wake of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It ended only when the Bush government reversed its laissez-faire policies and stepped in with massive investment. (Fun fact: $1 trillion could buy you 5 billion iPhones. Or 1 war in Iraq.)

Canada never allowed sub-prime mortgages, and so isn’t at risk of this exact same crisis. But there’s a more general lesson here about what happens when governments aren’t involved enough, when companies (banks, meat) that need regulation don’t get it, when governments are downsized to the point of ineffectuality.

[Harper’s] inability to think in a positive, passionate way about large political projects shows starkly at this tense economic moment. In policy, he prefers to act small. His favourite word is modest. “Our plan is simple, modest and practical,” he said about a tax break for home buyers. As if he’d rather do nothing but, in a pinch, will settle for the least possible. His modest GST cuts give little relief, but they whittle government revenues down so he can claim we can’t afford much anyway. This week, he announced a ban on tobacco ads, which are already banned, and sales to kids, ditto. I know this “modesty” reflects Stephen Harper’s political philosophy and he could rattle on passionately about why government should do the least it can, for the good of us all. It’s the reason he wants a majority: so he can do even less and eliminate more. But he may be the wrong leader at the wrong time.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

Canadian federal election: Stepping back to survey the week

The most interesting, and heartening, event this week was the Green Party being admitted to the leader’s debate after public protests of the initial exclusion. I heard leader Elizabeth May interviewed on CBC’s The House, and the woman is a breath of fresh air. She’s smart and articulate, but doesn’t hide behind that political “bull” filter that all the other leaders do.

The Conservatives have campaigned effectively this week, and this point certainly look to be on a victorious path. I’m not sure any of their gaffes—the infantile Dion cartoon (I’m just not linking to it), insulting the father of a slain soldier[had link here, but it’s no longer valid]—will really stick. But it certainly highlights to me just how mean and nasty significant parts of the Conservative crowd can be. Why so angry, folks? You’re winning!

The Liberals really weren’t very prominent, getting attention mostly for defending themselves against Conservative attacks. A good defence is important, but they need way more offence. It’s not as though the Conservatives haven’t left them plenty of targets. Start shooting at them, already.

The NDP, on the other hand, I’ve seen a surprising amount of. They’ve run an ad that I think isn’t too bad, though it’s a bit low on specifics. [Had link to this also; also no longer valid.]

I’ll end with some favourite comments from others this week:

But the mystery is: Why did the Harper-Layton-media juggernaut back down here? I never expected it. Jeffrey Simpson says they “misread public opinion,” which “insisted Ms. May be heard.” So what? The public wants lots of things. Usually it’s just ignored.

Rick Salutin, Globe and Mail

But increasingly, Mr. Harper himself looks like a deer frozen in the headlights of onrushing economic and environmental change. He insists now is not the time to risk a new course. But what does he propose?

It sounds more and more as if he is seeking a mandate to do nothing.

Ian Porter, letter to the editor

On some August nights, my father, a professor of economics and a rather conservative man, would phone me (during the cheap hours) to try to explain Stéphane Dion’s plan.

“It’s brilliant,” he’d say. “The cheapest way to lower greenhouse gases. It’ll lower income taxes, which slow growth …”

My father said Stephen Harper must know that it’s a good plan. “He can’t not know. He’s an economist. He’ll have an election before someone finds a way to explain it to the likes of you and his party goes down.”

Tabatha Southey, Globe and Mail

Reason of the day to not vote Conservative: Lying about gas taxes

This is from 2008. Re-reading in 2023, I had forgotten that the initial Liberal carbon pricing proposal would have exempted gasoline prices.

Well, I’m very pleased at this breaking news that Elizabeth May of the Green Party will be part of the televised Leaders Debate after all. And in honour of that, let’s look at an environmental issue today.

Monday, I received yet another one of those delightful (🤢), taxpayer-subsidized little Conservative polls in the mail.

This one had a headline from the Vancouver Sun on the front, with a graphic of a car fuel tank: “New 2.3 cent carbon tax sends gas price up a dime in places.” Inside, it says “Just imagine how much Stéphane Dion’s carbon tax will raise the price of gas…”

The Conservatives are lying. Knowing what a hot potato it is, the Liberal Green Shift plan is clear on this point: “This won’t include any extra tax on gasoline at the pump.” The justification for this exemption is that there is already a federal excise tax on car gasoline, set at a rate higher than that proposed for the carbon tax.

There is a debate to have here.

Is it good that diesel and natural gas prices will increase, while car gasoline prices do not? Some environmentalists would said no.

Or, what about getting rid of the excise tax and replacing it with a carbon tax? Some might think that would be a beneficial move for consumers, as gas prices might actually go down initially.

Could be an interesting discussion. Too bad we won’t hear it–because the Liberals will be too busy fighting the Conservative lie that the carbon tax includes gas at the pumps.

Why debate the facts when you can just fudge them, eh? The truth is for wimps.

Canuck election

Well, like it or not, here we go, with federal politicians trying to draw to your attention away from Obama vs. McCain long enough for you to notice there is another election—one that you can actually vote in!

Me, I’m thinking of voting Liberal. I don’t usually do that, but I like the green shift policy, dammit, enough that I don’t care that Stéphane Dion’s English isn’t smooth. But if you can’t fathom him as your leader, I can see why you might want to turn to Jack Layton, whose English and French is pretty good, and whose party  has some reasonable policies of their own. Or, shake things up with the Green Party, who really do need a few elected seats in the House.

I think any of those choices are defensible. The only vote I can’t agree with is that for the front-running and likely winner of this election, the Conservative Party of Canada.

The reasons? Oh, so many reasons! In fact, time permitting, I could probably post a new reason every day.

My response to the Conservatives little Tax poll

Conservative MP’s keep mailing me. They give me these flyers that either say that they are great, or that some other party (usually the Liberals) are terrible, then ask me to check off a box on whether I agree with them and mail it back to them.

So far, I’ve only responded once, telling them I thought their GST tax cut was a stupid idea and they should really have just cut my income taxes. This is my response to their “Who do you think is on the right track on taxes?” question. After checking the Stephane Dion / Liberal box, I added this note:

You seem a bit confused by what the Liberals are proposing here. It’s not actually a tax on everything. It’s a tax on carbon emissions. Now, if that ends up affecting many products, that’s because our society has grown far too dependent on fossil fuels. Is this tax the best way to end that dependency? I don’t know. But it’s certainly better than doing nothing.

You also state that Liberals are desperate for money. Well, that’s a bit rich, isn’t it, from a government that has more or less squandered the big Liberal surplus on various spending programs and a very ill-conceived GST tax cut. Not too mention mailing me I don’t know how many of these silly little polls of yours.

But what’s more infuriating here is that the Conservatives are just hurling insults at the Liberals instead of engaging in an intelligent debate on this very important issue. The Liberal plan is crazy. It’s a tax on everything. It’s a trick that Dion devised downtown urban elites (and what does that one even mean? If you live downtown, it’s hard not to be urban, right? Which, of course, 80% of Canadians are. And “elites” just means smart, successful people—can’t imagine why Dion would think they have anything of value to impart!)

The Green Shift is not a tax trick; it’s a plan. You do tax carbon; you reduce income taxes. While designed to be revenue neutral overall, it’s not going to be revenue neutral to everyone, it’s true; those who pollute more will pay more.

Why don’t you talk about that? Why don’t you get into the specifics of it, and attack those where warranted, instead of hurling vague insults? Afraid that ordinary Canadians won’t get it, won’t understand? After all, they’re not very smart, not like those “downtown urban elites”… You said so yourself.

See, isn’t this fun? You should try it yourself.

Commuter challenged

Last week I attempted, for the first time, to participate in the Commuter Challenge. More people than I expected haven’t heard of this before, but the idea is that, for a week, you try to get to work by some way other than by driving yourself there. As part of the company “Green Team”, I felt I should try to participate, even though I really like the convenience of driving myself to work and back.

I don’t live far from work—Google Maps reports that it’s 3.7 km, one way. Cycling would be the most logical alternative mode of transport, likely not taking much longer than the drive in rush hour.

The problem is, I’m not much of a cyclist. I don’t feel in shape for the activity, I do not like driving on the sides of city streets, I don’t want to feel sweaty at work all day, I don’t want to feel obliged to have to bike home again if it’s raining by then.

Next up: the bus. Grand River Transit has developed a new EasyGo system that is pretty cool. You enter your start and end locations and times; it gives you the full bus route to take. Unfortunately, that also revealed a slightly absurd, 30-40 minute itinerary, with one or two transfers.

Telework was an option. While I couldn’t and wouldn’t want to work at home the whole week, I did have a laptop and a method of connecting to the work network, so that was my method for a couple of the days. For the others? I finally went with “get a ride with husband” in the morning (which he helpfully pointed out just meant that he had to drive a little farther before going to work), combined with walking back home. Which took me 40 minutes.

Happy news was that I did get my exercise in, and on days I probably otherwise would not have. The weather proved to be cooperative—didn’t get rained on, wasn’t ever excessively hot or cold. Except for the one spot with the pond Canada geese and their chicks, and the (live) groundhog I saw one day, the walk route itself was rather uninspiring, even boring. But the iPod proved a helpful tool for dealing with that.

The challenges? Well, it made doing errands pretty tricky. Cats ended up chowing down on yellowfish tuna in olive oil because I wasn’t about to cart home a bunch of can cat food from the store near the office, as I usually do. Telework Monday I drove myself to a medical appointment and back; otherwise I would have missed too much work time. Right after walk-home Tuesday I got into my car for an event in downtown. Though the bus route to there was very good, the bus options home were not. Wine bottles to return to the Beer Store near work? That didn’t happen either.

I also had to really downsize the amount of stuff I normally carry. For the most part, this just proves I normally carry way more than I need. But keeping a bag lunch at proper temperature and weight—tricky. The glass bottled water I used as an alternative to plastic? Too heavy to consider. Carrying my laptop and accessories and papers so I can work effectively at home? Not practical— hence my using the ride option as well.

So, unfortunately, I’m unlikely to stay with regular alternative commuting options. But I will work at home more often, as possible. It’s good to know that walking—and even transit—are actually possible on days the car is in for servicing, or whatever. And walking made it clear that plenty of people deal with the busy city streets by riding their bikes on the sidewalk, so though you’re not supposed to do that, it maybe makes biking an option.

It was good to try it out. If you didn’t participate this year, look out for out next time. Gas ain’t getting any cheaper…

Living the 100-mile diet… At least for one meal

The “One Book, One Community” choice for Waterloo region this year is “The 100-Mile Diet”, an account of a BC couple’s attempt to restrict their diet to food produced within 100 miles of their home, for one year. In that spirit was the Region of Waterloo Chef Association President’s Dinner, in celebration of Earth Day. By combining with Foodlink Waterloo Region, they wanted to show that even in April, when local produce options are limited at best, a fine meal was possible.

The evening began with a “Champagne reception”, featuring a nice, Inniskillin sparkling wine. Jean and I debated how “environmental” our presence at this event was—certainly it supported the producers and the idea; on the other hand, we did drive there.

Issue unresolved, we found that seating was in tables at eight, so we randomly selected one that had two spots available. While at first it looked like everyone was only going to talk to those they already knew, a gentleman from Wellesley suggested we all introduce each other, and things got rolling.

It was an interesting group. One couple owned Lyndon Fish Hatcheries—and also happened to have 10 children. The main focus of their business is growing fish to feed other fish hatcheries, but they do a small sideline in smoked arctic char. More on that later. They were there with another couple. He worked for Laidlaw and was frequently consulting his Blackberry; apparently he frequently had to fly out to various offices on short notice. But he wasn’t the type you’re probably picturing now from that description—he was much more down to earth.

The Wellesley couple owned a small food shop in that town. She was noticeably younger than him, with a thick Ukranian accent, but they’d met in New York City. Apparently he decided on the first day that they’d end up married, and proceeded to woo. She expressed perfect satisfaction with life in Wellesley, despite spending her teenage years in Manhattan.

So amid the lively conversation, we got some pretty nice food. First course (earth) was a nice celeriac and potato soup. Second course (water) proved the highlight—the smoked char on greens and tomatoes (greenhouse, if you’re wondering about that one), with a side of brie. Great fish! And we had it first hand that it had all been smoked the night before. Third course (air) featured pheasant and chicken. Then there was a lovely sorbet of apple and chardonnay from the Breadalbane Inn (which I think we need to try). Fourth course (land) was black Angus filet mignon, potatoes, and green beans (definitely a surprise this time of year). Dessert was a nice trio of tiny crepes with apple butter, delicious double brie ice cream, and equally delicious maple syrup tart.

Despite a few moans and groans, everyone at the table seemed to manage to eat everything. Oh, and there were also wine pairings: a nice white meritage from Jackson-Triggs, a good Pinot from Inniskillin, and a bigger red—Cabernet?—to go with the beef.

The evening ended with an auction for a personal chef’s dinner (we dropped out after the first price point) and some door prizes, one of which we won! Dinner for four at Conestega College. All in all a good evening out, whether or not the earth thanks us for it.