The press attacks on the LeapManifesto when it was considered by the New Democratic Party  piqued my interest. “A Hard Left Turn to Nowhere,” thundered the National Post. Barrie McKenna of the Globe & Mail proclaimed that “The Leap Manifesto is a Prescription for Ruin.” Macleans lamented “How to Kill the NDP.” Some columnists concluded that the “loony left” had captured the party (even though the party had not endorsed the manifesto). What is all the fuss about?

The Leap Manifesto is not as well-focused or as well justified as one might like. It bears the marks of its origin as a position paper drafted by 60 environmental, labour and aboriginal activists. But it does rightly assume that any serious effort to limit GHG emissions and thus mitigate climate change demands a fundamental revamping of our economy and society. If we are serious about responding to the climate challenge, we have to accept that minor tinkering and anticipated technological change will not suffice.

The manifesto begins by claiming that we face the deepest crisis in recent memory. Fair enough. But it then proceeds to list three issues – aboriginal rights, poverty and inequality, and #climatechange (listed third). This approach, I think, is unfortunate: it would have been better to have focused exclusively on climate change, treating the other two (important) issues as forming part of the solution to this central threat. Also, the manifesto preaches only to the converted. It doesn’t provide any context: why is global warming likely to be catastrophic, even if the average global temperature is restricted to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels? Don’t assume that potential supporters are fully aware of the dimensions of the dangers we face.

The vision of an alternative, sustainable world is succinctly and passionately presented. Yes, we could make the transition to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050, if we set our minds to it. Yes, we could, in this transition, build a more just society by eliminating racial and gender inequality – but why do other forms of inequality receive no mention? Yes, a shift of occupations to the service sector, especially in the “caring” professions, would be needed. And it would be great if “many more people could have higher wage jobs with fewer work hours.” But how would this be achieved, and how would people spend their freed-up time?

The manifesto then makes clear that this vision will require fundamental change. “Small steps will no longer get us to where we need to go. So we need to leap.” The metaphor is apt. However, the manifesto needs a more explicit program. It talks about the inherent rights of indigenous peoples, but how do these rights relate to climate-change mitigation and what role will aboriginal bands play in the movement? The document then too delicately alludes to opposition to “new infrastructure projects”; why not forthrightly register opposition to any further pipelines from Alberta’s oil sands? The oil sands companies produce a relatively dirty form of crude at high environmental and monetary cost Hope of Canada meeting ambitious carbon reduction goals necessitates keeping the bitumen in the ground.

Most other leaps are defensible, though they all need in-depth elaboration and discussion. Perhaps it would have been more politic not to mention “energy democracy,” whereby communities would collectively own their energy resources. This goal is likely to foment a great deal of opposition. The strategies for raising the augmented tax revenues required to make the transition to a low-carbon future – higher taxes on the wealthy, higher royalties on resources, a financial transaction tax and carbon taxes – are by now standard fare on the left. However, if Canada imposes such measure on its own, the sudden outflows of capital will destabilize the economy – an eventuality that later iterations of the manifesto should address.

The leap also has an important political dimension. The aim is essentially to transform the #NDP from its existing “Third Way” accommodation of neoliberalism into a grassroots movement dedicated to the alternative vision mentioned earlier. The manifesto also refers to a “bottom-up revival” as part of a strategy of deepening democracy in Canada. In light of the vast socio-economic change entailed in rapidly stabilizing the climate, developing a popular movement and advocating deeper democracy are the only sort of politics that are likely to work. Presumably, a reinvented NDP would link up with a variety of #socialmovements with similar aims – associations of environmentalists, labour, indigenous people, feminists, racial/ethnic minorities, electoral-reform advocates, university students, sustainable food proponents, and others. How such a democratic political movement might form and act in a unified manner will doubtless be the subject of future discussions.

Is the Leap manifesto too radical? Not at all in light of its aims. The transition to a sustainable economy will not, and cannot, be a genteel tea party. What do you think?

by