No disrespect to your grandmothers and grandfathers (they do their civic duty every few years), but this election, the narrative isn’t about them. It's 2011 and the election that started with the typical back and forth political spin between major parties and Elizabeth May shouting from the sidelines has taken a new direction. Suddenly, it’s energetic, engaged, and including a whole demographic of voters of whom in recent elections have usually been withdrawn from the political process. While the Tories claimed this was an election that no one wanted, it’s being turned on its head by the growing movement of "Vote Mobs" across the country. At 35 universities and counting, hundreds of youth are taking to their campuses and producing videos to share with the rest of their country. The message is simple: Youth are voting.

Days into the campaign, youth-related stories began to take hold in the media. From the student who was refused entry into a Harper rally because of her Facebook profile, the surprise welcome by University of Guelph students at Harper and Ignatieff campaign events, and the numerous Vote Mobs being planned through social media, students have started to take over the direction of the campaign. Groups like LeadNow, a new organization run by Canadians of all ages, have facilitated these vote mobs, many of which were inspired by Rick Mercer's Rant. Mercer stated: “If you're between the ages of 18 and 24, and you want to scare the hell out of the people who run the country, do the unexpected, take 20 minutes out of your day and do what young people the world over are dying to do, Vote!"

It now looks as if young Canadians are going to show up this time. This election seems to be everywhere, and especially dominating social media - which accounts for growing youth participation. After all, if you want to get young people involved you have to go where they are.

Knowing that youth are far more likely to vote Liberal, NDP, or Green, Canadian youth might effectively be accomplishing what Mercer suggested. “Scare (ing) the hell out of the people who run this country.” Federal Conservative candidate John Baird's recent comment about "flash" and "mobs" being "disconcerting" may therefore be appropriate. No one really knows what the vote mob movement will result in this election. Consider this: most youth aren’t registered to vote, don’t have a landline to be tracked by elections Canada, and haven’t given their cell phone number to a political party in order to be targeted through that medium. People can guess whatever they would like about how effective the youth vote will be in changing this election, but the reality is that no one can really know until all ballots are cast. Considering so little attention has been paid to the demographic in the past, parties may now have to scramble to try and sway what could potentially be large numbers of available votes that they haven’t garnered before.

Such ambiguity has to leave politicians apprehensive about how to now grasp the "youth vote". This, however, is easier said than done because not only is it unclear how many of the 3 million youth in Canada will cast a ballot this election, but also because this demographic doesn’t have just one priority they are allocating their vote towards. The youth vote won’t be captured by tossing out a bone like reduced tuition. Although such policy is relevant and important to youth, it isn’t good enough. Youth care about a variety of issues. A glance at the Vote Mob videos from across the country show that issues of environmental protection, women’s rights, aboriginal rights, income inequality, climate change, Canada’s international reputation, and education are all issues that youth want addressed. That being said, in an election that has focussed on few of those issues, the parties have much catching up to do to capture the support of a newly engaged, informed, and diverse generation. As a first time voter, my advice to each party would be to watch this movement carefully. If youth actually show up this time, this election could leave everyone surprised - without anyone having seen it coming.

Alexandria Mitchell is the co-organizer of the UBC VOTE MOB April 20th, at UBC. 12-2pm. Visit: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=117463898334533 for more information; Contact: ubcvotemob AT gmail.com

Listen to the song "Landfill in the Sky" by Canadian Idol contestant and Abbotsford resident Shane Wiebe:

A new song “Landfill in the Sky” has reverberated through communities from the City of Vancouver to Abbotsford to Hope. This modern day protest tune voices opposition to a waste management concept of incinerating trash. As former Canadian Idol Shane Weibe sings, "Burning garbage makes toxic waste, incineration leaves a bad taste," people are asking what all the fuss is about!

Metro Vancouver’s new solid waste management plan has ignited controversy everywhere it has gone for public consultation. The regional district is leaning towards a new and effective way to manage solid waste. At first glance it appears to be a significant step forward in regards to environmental sustainability. Chair of the Fraser Valley Regional District Patricia Ross recently said: "We are happy to support the initiatives in the Metro Vancouver plan to divert waste and increase reduction, reuse and recycling." By increasing the amount of waste diverted away from landfills through recycling and composting, from 55% to 70%, Metro Vancouver has made a forward-thinking decision that puts more focus on waste reduction. The controversy is over what to do with the remaining 30% of our garbage. The Draft Plan includes three possible options for the leftover waste. Metro’s favoured option is the construction of a new incinerator, followed by incineration in another location, or continued landfilling.

The Metro Board must determine a solution to an issue that is growing, literally, every year. Developing a solid waste management plan that is sustainable, cost effective, and environmentally conscious is not an easy task. The current program of landfilling is admittedly not the optimal solution - based on emissions of methane gas that are released from that landfill, in addition to chemical leeching of products. In a day and age where the provincial government is looking to reduce GHG emissions, it is more than clear that there has to be a better way.

Interestingly enough, environmentalists concerned about climate change have formed their own type of opposition to incineration because the science says that waste-to-energy (WTE) facilities like the one Metro Has proposed, emit more C02 per unit of energy produced than a coal-fired power plant. Ben West of the Wilderness Committee calls emissions from energy production the “low hanging fruit” of reducing our carbon footprint. West explains that, “According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, waste incineration releases 1355 g of carbon per KWh vs. 1020 g per KWh for a coal fired power plant. To put that in perspective natural gas creates 515 g per KWh.” This is information that certainly can’t be ignored in all of the “public consultations” that are being presented around all the communities Metro has visited. In fact, a recent UBC study says “Any new source of combustion in the Lower Mainland, including mass burn waste incineration, is simply not advisable.”

Residents across the Fraser Valley have begun to band together to raise their voice against incineration. I myself have toured a waste to energy facility in Denmark, similar to many of those all over Europe that Metro advisors cite as successful. My experience resulted in skepticism on the topics of emissions, health risks, and economic costs and impacts. My skepticism only grew as I investigated Metro’s draft plan. FVRD Chair Patricia Ross calls the claim of success all over Europe as a “farce.” She says: “There have been bans, calls for bans, and shutdowns. One company Covanta has been fined. People are realizing that incinerators haven’t lived up to their promise, but this technology is new to Canada and we are easy targets for the pro incinerator lobby.”

In many cases, opponents here aren’t even arguing against the case for WTE’s success in Europe. They are saying it’s not right for this air shed, being one of the most sensitive in the world. A new website, Air Quality Matters, explains that: “Coastal wind patterns and the nature of our geography create a sensitive air shed in the Fraser Valley, particularly susceptible to the build up of air-borne contaminants.”

Whether it is the Irish Doctors Association highlighting health concerns over the dioxins and nanoparticles that are produced through the incineration process, or the increased threat to the air shed, garbage in Metro Vancouver has been getting heat from Fraser Valley Residents. The crisis with DDT is something to think about when we utilize technologies and products without knowing the possible risks. Do we want to wait 20 years to find out that the new particles that we have been breathing in have caused mutations and serious health issues? These particles will also contaminate our prime agricultural land, an important aspect of industry and community in the Fraser Valley. So how beneficial will the Hundred Mile Diet be then? Even Chilliwack school trustees have chosen to openly oppose the plan and write a letter to Metro Vancouver.

At the same time, it isn’t just the health and environmental case that causes a stir with opponents. A recent KPMG study questioned the economics of Metro’s business plan, adding to the chorus of concerns over financial estimates as stated by Abbotsford South MLA John Van Dongen: “I am not convinced by the business case. People at the Vancouver Board of Trade and Surrey Board of Trade do not agree with Metro’s estimates.” Chilliwack MLA John Les spoke at a recent public meeting: “The more I listen, the more I hear, the more sceptical I am becoming.” He criticized Metro in regards to Douw Steyn of UBC, a well known expert on air quality who was fired by the GVRD after opposing incineration. “It seems to me that if you propose a certain solution you ought not to be afraid of a wide ranging and open debate” said Les.

Who is paying for this massive capital investment? The plan includes building a new public utility, and my mother says there are no free lunches. If we actually do reduce our waste beyond the 70% number that Metro has decided on - because the market is already starting to drive change, whether it be biodegradable chip bags or otherwise - we stop using the incinerator once we are dependant on the power? Who, at the end of the day will really profit?

John Les ended by saying: “Be very afraid. This could really hit you in the pocketbook.'

As Mayor Sharon Gaetz talks of being sold a bill of goods, and the waste management plan points directly to incineration, the other side of the story is finally being told. Effective waste management and positive air quality needs to be maintained in the Fraser Valley.

Furthermore, this is not solely a “Valley issue” - it is an issue that Mayor Gaetz warned Metro residents to be very wary of. Gregor Robertson and the City of Vancouver voted unanimously to oppose incineration as a waste management option.

As Metro continues their public consultations, residents of each respective community seem perturbed by incineration, and even more perturbed by Metro’s approach. The meetings drag on for hours and are blatantly pro-incineration. It seems a bit off a stretch for Metro to say that they are considering 3 options for the remaining 30% of garbage when their presentation includes a painted picture of a shiny new incinerator in the Regional District. If you want to hear from all the countless individuals who have cited health risks, scientific studies, and cost concerns, you can go and look it up on their website. According to the Abbotsford News, “Patrick Powers, one of the last speakers of the day at the Abbotsford Consultation, sat through four hours of discussions before getting the opportunity to speak. ‘If I want to see anything other than your sales pitch, I have to look elsewhere and dig it up,’ Powers exclaimed.”

The case is clear that a more aggressive goal of waste diversion through composting and recycling needs to be employed. Cities like San Francisco have committed to being ‘zero waste’ by 2020. Building an incinerator in Metro Vancouver is a regressive way of dealing with waste. The business case isn’t there; the health implications are too unknown; the threat to the Fraser Valley air shed and food quality is too great a price tag to ignore. Metro Vancouver’s last public consultation will be held on July 14th, and it is the last opportunity to voice opinions on the Draft Plan before it goes to Environment Minister Barry Penner for approval. To share your thoughts on maintaining air quality and ensuring sound economics for our province send an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. by July 14th.

With the G8 and G20 Summits over, one doesn't have to look far for examples of anger and frustration at what did and didn't happen.

There are many important questions being posed now that world leaders have left Toronto and the streets have been swept clear of broken glass and trash. From all NGOs being excluded from the media centre (the one with the infamous fake lake), and the violence on Queen Street in Canada's largest city, to the reluctance to discuss important topics like climate change - the G8/G20's legitimacy as effective bodies for global affairs has been called into question.

The concept of an overly expensive summit, which has long been a popular talking point for federal opposition parties, has become a hot topic for taxpayers and activists alike. The billion dollar price tag becomes even more of a black mark on Harper's government and the entire G20 body when we discover that past summits' security costs have been significantly less.

Toronto Mayor David Miller is demanding to know why negotiations were held in such a large city centre, while the “big-city mayors' caucus" is challenging Ottawa to pay up and compensate the businesses affected by protests and civil disobedience.

Public opinion may heat up one more level with concerns of what The Guardian journalist John Hilary called "skulduggery" in Toronto last weekend. International media filmed police cruisers going up in smoke while Toronto Police have since been accused of playing a public relations game. Cruisers were allegedly driven into crowds, and left to be lit on fire while TV cameras around the world captured footage of the proclaimed anarchists' handiwork.

All of these popular media headlines did little to explain real problems that have developed within the ranks of civil society. Furthermore, they entirely neglected to share with Canadians what actually happened at the summit. Only now have we begun to hear fragments of what happened with regards to the controversial bank tax, climate change, and national deficits.

Most problematic is the fact that people have lost faith in the Canadian government, corporations, law enforcement, and other relevant institutions. This G8 and G20 illuminated the holes in Canadian accountability, security costs being only the tip of the iceberg compared with broader issues.

Ideas on how to effectively deal with the big challenges of our time seem scarce. Perhaps this is the reason why 10,000 people felt they needed to flood the streets of Toronto to yell out their frustrations to what seemed like deaf ears within the summit.

Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent on a meeting for world powers, while small nations were excluded from discussions on how to handle the global economy. The decisions made at the G8 and G20 will significantly affect the nations that didn't have a voice at the negotiating table. The G20 is essentially a special club, that exists so countries like Canada and the USA can avoid the far less expensive and far more egalitarian United Nations - which gives a voice to small countries while allowing effective debate and discussion.

As Toronto returns to normalcy, my view of the G8 and G20 Summits has shifted dramatically. If the real problems of the world are ever to be solved, a more cohesive and effective method of dialogue and debate must be used. Now more than ever it seems necessary to try and unite advocates on the variety of causes people are currently campaigning for. The United Nations, an able body built on unity and cooperation, is there for us. Let's use it.

It may be a little passé already to mention the Copenhagen Climate Conference, however, I hope you‟ll indulge me anyway. Little seems to have been said about it from the federal level since the proroguing of parliament this year, even though an international embarrassment was caused for this country.