So far the comments to the post below have been disappointing: ‘Comments not worth commenting on’ – the usual back-and-forth of claims and disclaimers.
Whether climate change is a legitimate concern wasn’t the point of the post.
It was about the PM’s strategy: “… not to say anything at all, and keep the topic off the agenda” – thereby legitimizing the absence of serious debate as we Canadians move aggressively to become carbon dealers to the world.
That leaves a void which, like other vacuums, must get filled. But since the serious people, taking their queue from the man in charge, won’t engage, won’t debate, won’t declare (“I am not a scientist”), then many people will formulate a defensive response to deal with the underlying anxiety created by unceasing reports of observable and unpleasant change in the environment.
Here, as reported in The Dish, is what is happening in the States:
.
.
Apocalyptic beliefs, when they become the basis for political action, tend not to turn out well historically. What culpability does a leader have today if, knowing within reason that there will be severe consequences of inaction, not only chooses to do nothing but works to ensure that others don’t or can’t or won’t, even as the prospects darken?
“severe consequences of inaction” ??
Oh really ?
Those who don’t act? They are an abomination in His eyes:
James 1:23 – 1:25
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
Interesting. If we do nothing to slow it down, then global warming will certainly become the end times.
The cuts to the bone of a common fallacy among those concerned about climate but relatively disengaged on the politics. These people assert that the politics will change once disaster strikes. The model is that once the real costs of climate change are felt we will be dutifully motivated enough to call for political action to reduce GHG emissions and bear the costs.
Actually no, that is very likely not to happen. When droughts, hurricanes, floods happen with more frequency and severity the individual and hence political instincts will be to hunker down, to batten the hatches, to become *less* altruistic than more. Because climate presents no credible enemy in an SS uniform and pulls at the more base species vs. nature we’ll become more survivalist and the politics will follow.
Survivalist politics do not align with the forward-looking, trusting, and coordination based politics necessary to actually achieve global reductions in GHG emissions. My point here is not to depress you. My point is to say that it’s simply not enough to wave your hand and say, don’t worry we just need to wait for the next drought. We actually do need to worry about doing something before the next drought because once that happens it will make doing things even tougher. Which is why political engagement and intensity now matters alot more than blaze optimism and hoping for things to get worse before they get better. They only get worse if we allow it.
The extra carbon dioxide that we emit stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years as well, so at the point (if) we finally realize things are getting unbearable, and CO2 emissions level off or are reduced, things will still get worse for a long time before they level off. By punting things to the next generation, we are really royally screwing them.
Harper is not the only one using this tactic.
For another example, see Calgary’s mayor Naheed Nenshi. I pay fairly close attention to Calgary politics and I have not heard him talk about climate change, even when faced with the great flood of 2013.
Good for them ! Not everyone is buying into the “big government knows better” argument.
That’s politics. I think his reasoning for not mentioning climate change probably differ to Stephen Harper’s, and are more about pure survival.
I’m not so sure.
Jim Prentice and Danielle Smith both talk about the need for reducing GHG emissions. Surely if they think that’s a politically survivable comment (and indeed, for Smith, a politically necessary one: I’m sure she doesn’t give a crap about climate change), then Nenshi’s calculations should lead him to be at least as free to discuss the subject, if not more.
As well, Nenshi has a LOT of political capital in Calgary. Even if it would cost him some of that capital, if he cares at all about climate change, the VERY least he could do is start talking about it.
Instead, he’s doing the opposite. This week he spoke and voted with Calgary’s most regressive councilors to slash environmental projects from the city’s capital budget.
Really! Well, today I learned something.
pure survival, eh ? Humans and birds and plants will adopt .. didn’t Darwin postulate that ? Some areas will thrive, especially northern climates, and some will suffer .. with or without human induced climate change. Humans have lived here for 10,000+ years in all sorts of climates .. I have no doubt the human race will survive and thrive .. whether it is +3 degrees or -4 in 100 years !
Sorry Gord – I am of the pathetic group that finds this all too depressing for words. By “this all”, I mean Harper’s strategy, as well as the ‘discussion’ above. Having said that, I challenge myself to look for every small and large thing I can do in my own life to act in ways that do not add to climate change. Even though I was in university from ’67-’71 in the Los Angeles area, I never marched or joined a demonstration, but this fall I joined the March for Climate Action downtown. I have voted in every election since I was eligible to do so, and I am willing to vote strategically in this election to defeat Harper (meaning, I greatly admire Tom Mulcair, and would normally vote NDP, but I fear that this will give Harper the means to win once again). But I didn’t respond to your first post because I agree with what you said, and because I knew the discussion would degenerate into the stuff that I read above. So I keep my head down and do my best, and try to set an example when I can. In the meanwhile, bring on the opportunities, like the Climate March, for hope and visible action. I will be there, finally feeling like something I’m doing is making it harder for the Harpers of the world to keep mum.
I think online blog discussions, due to the relative ease of trolling, is pretty much the worst place to discuss an issue like this. I personally don’t know why such people read this blog to begin with, but since they do, the best policy is probably to ignore them and save our fight for the real world. This what we’re reading here in the comments is not representative of the real world, just as every bike lane thread that attracts so many outraged comments didn’t couldn’t get Vision unelected.
So keep up your marching and kudos to you! =)
Thanks, Tessa. Good approach. Feeling a little cheerier!
Ocanada73, I have resolved to stop reading Pricetags too for the same reasons. I don’t want to continue witnessing the incessant frothing and wibbling commentary from the scientifically illiterate deniosphere reducing the cogency level of debate on here anymore.
I intend to stay positive doing what I can, keep walking and riding my bike, taking trains, buying second hand clothes and all that good stuff. Plus take the #135 up to the Kinder Morgan site tomorrow to deliver a giant batch of cookies I just baked.
Going to feed protesters not trolls from now on!
Outstanding, Penny. I will keep reading Gord’s blog – I learn a lot – but will NOT read the comments for any of his posts that might attract trolls. I usually follow that rule, but this time got hooked by Gord’s “Is Climate Change Consequential?- 2” comments about the fact that people were missing the point. Gord has so many good streams on PriceTags that it’s one of my best ways of keeping up with regional issues.
How did you get to the climate march ? Did you walk there or e-biked ? Or did you fly in a plane and join a quasi-religious group for a feel-good meeting against those evil capitalists allegedly wrecking the planet ?
Hello, sarcastic troll. I took the bus, and the Canada line. Anything else negative you want to add?
Why is someone that disagrees with your word view a troll ? Man made climate change is a fiction perpetuated by government funding dependent scientists .. and many scientific studies have shown that the science is not settled. The earth has NOT been warming for 20+ years .. and 10000+ years ago was far far warmer than today with no ice caps whatsoever. Many environmentalists are anti-human in that rising energy prices will kill millions, especially the poor and in the developed world.
Well Thomas, your post of 7:24 pm on Nov 25 was trolling in the opinion of several here, so whatever your world view, if you troll you should expect to be called out on it. Any comments on political leadership on climate issues, which after all is the subject of the thread?
Harper is right to not comment.
He should state that far more forcefully, like Brad Wall fro example who is calling on Quebec and Ontario to support the Energy East pipeline to ship oil to Eastern Canada as opposed to importing it from Iraq, Iran, Algeria etc. which would actually lower GHG in Canada as shipping by pipeline is very efficient, more efficient than by ships or by rail.
Stephen Harper should have said s.th. like” Canada is an oil exporting nation, with the world’s 3rd largest oil reserves. Plus huge gas and coal reserves. Much wealth is created in Canada through oil, gas and coal extraction, refinement and export.. Reducing oil & gas activity in Canada causes poverty, higher unemployment, lower salaries, more homelessness, weaker social services systems and will do little, if any, for the “climate”.
Or, that he’d call out the fictitious science like the Australian prime minister who branded the carbon tax a “wrecking ball across the economy”, raising the cost of business and destroying jobs. http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21607865-prime-minister-follows-through-election-promise-axed
I consider climate change to be extremely important, but the solution is to get going on dealing with it, and stop having meta-discussions about the need to have discussions and just to work. Politicians should be required to articulate their position and define a clear action plan for addressing climate change. Instead of asking them if they believe in climate change, treat climate change as a given and ask them what they are intending to do about it.
You can spend your life fretting about idiots and religious extremists but this does not help. Just get on with saving the planet already and if we succeed in saving the planet despite the inactivity of religious believers that’s fine.
Rising energy costs will kill 100’s of millions. We need to be aware that a growing economy with more wealthy residents is good for humans .. and since humans are part of the environment they should not be treated like some cancer that has to be eradicated. You cannot live in much of Canada, or northern US or northern Europe without oil or gas heating. If one advocated “no oil” one essentially postulates depopulation of vast regions of this wonderful blue planet.
It is usually wealthy individuals, living off other humans endeavors that are the loudest climate change believers, like Al Gore, David Suzuki and others, many on this blog here living is cozy Vancouver.
High energy prices = lower living standards = higher food costs = higher heating bills = starvation = death.
It is this chain of events that is not followed trough to its conclusion.
Yes, we ought to reduce pollution, and yes we ought to be more energy efficient, and yes we ought to consume less, but there are many, billions in fact, that cannot consume less as they will die. The only chance for them is MORE energy consumption to improve their standard of living.
Climate change believers believe in less humans consuming less (oil & gas) energy. Without oil or gas we will not have enough energy as solar or wind is intermittent and far more expensive.
Indeed, climate change is a given, with or without humans. They used to grow wine in the UK or grew crops in Greenland, due to warmer climates .. 100’s or 1000’s or 10,000’s of years ago .. so what is so bad about that ?
The mass delusion, and crooked science (disproven temperature hockey stick, email scandal, “consensus” of allegedly 1000’s of government funded scientists .. ) is astounding.
To deny climate change is not consequential is the same as sticking one’s head in the sand. We are already facing the consequences of our inaction and ongoing destruction of our planet. People need to get real about what is happening around them.