That's the name of a new series which, in the coming weeks, will look at and evaluate the climate-change platforms of each of our political parties. Last night's segment was on the Green Party, and since it is first in the series, I cannot tell whether the tone will be the same in succeeding segments. I did think Donna Friesen seemed to be looking for practical and financial weaknesses in the Greens' approach, but that may indeed be the template for this series.
Start at the 12-minute mark to begin the report:
I've mulled this over for a while and it strikes me that this approach frames the climate crisis as a political question rather than a scientific issue. I think that framing sets us up to fail. Political will changes with the winds. It's incompatible with long-term planning and commitment.
ReplyDeleteThe focus seems limited to mitigation - greenhouse gas emissions reductions. That's a global issue. GHGs go into the atmosphere, a global resource. That's important, to be sure, but I think that's the most abstract issue to many voters. Our government can only do so much on mitigation and we're really slackers.
Yet to focus on mitigation to the exclusion of adaptation and resilience seems foolish. These are the areas where governments, acting locally, are almost exclusively responsible. What are we doing to prepare for the climate impacts of the next two, three decades? What are we doing to make our municipalities, our communities, our basic infrastructure more resilient to what is coming?
Even on just one part of our environmental crisis we're focusing on just one aspect, one of several, emissions reductions. Important, yes, but not to the exclusion of everything else.
We also need policies intended to restore habitat, the loss of which is one of the key drivers of biodiversity collapse. That, however, is not part of the conversation.
There's no discussion of growth or how we bring our society, our economy, back into harmony with our environment.
We can't talk of overpopulation because that's hardly within the remit of our elected officials. However it is an issue that needs to be addressed, especially when the overpopulated nations demand that we reduce our excessive consumption to the prejudice of their nations.
Perhaps we can only address each party's eco-credibility at the most superficial level. Perhaps we can only consider it as a political problem, not a science-driven imperative.
I agree that the problem is multi-faceted, Mound, but to get action on even one aspect would be a real accomplishment. We seem to lack the capacity to see the problem in broader terms.
DeleteAnd that may be our ruin, Lorne. For governments, the allure of carbon taxes is that they're practically effortless. Collect the revenue (ideally have someone else collect it, i.e. at the gas pump), do a quick bit of accounting, process refund cheques to some, nothing to others, and - voila - a living, breathing war against climate change. No vision required, no sticky commitment required, it can be lifted as easily as it was imposed. Business virtually as usual.
ReplyDeleteThe barn looks great with that fresh coat of paint and whitewash but no one notices that you've stopped dunging out the stables or planting the fields.
Those neglected chores, however, accumulate. They grow larger and more challenging and perhaps even so large as to be insurmountable.
Carbon taxes do the nation little real good. They don't repair, restore or replace bridges, roads, railbeds. They don't replace fossil fuel utilities with alternative energy systems. They don't fund flood control or drought relief infrastructure. These are short and mid-range challenges that are neglected, costly and time-sensitive. As they fail, whether through age or worsening climate conditions, they will cost us far more in failure than they ever would have to cost to rebuild. We're putting all that on our tab and it's mounting quickly.
Fighting climate change will be the fight of our young nation's life and it will be costly. It would mean the end of the era of "everyday low taxes." It would mean sacrifice by all. Yet here we are telling the public this won't cost them a dime, they might actually make a few bucks. Climate change solved, painlessly. Only that's a lie and a very dangerous lie.
I totally agree, Mound. The imposition of a carbon tax by the feds allows for some cosmetic crowing while ignoring the underlying cancer. I do believe the cap-and-trade system we had in Ontario before Doug the Thug axed it was far more efficacious, in that the monies were directed toward the very projects you refer to.
DeleteAll of the elements of the plan are -- as Chan says -- "tall orders." And that boils down to political will. Collective political will is hard to find these days.
ReplyDeleteIn their blind quest for power, Owen, our political 'leaders' are failing all of us profoundly.
Delete