Stephen Harper has no plan to address global warming. He doesn't even intend to deal with it. His shuck'n jive act yesterday in Vancouver made that pretty obvious. Oh sure, he's going to deal with global warming, he's going to tackle greenhouse gas emissions - he's going to get around to that, uh, well, sometime.
Of course this is the same clown who continues to quietly undermine the scientific community by backing global warming deniers and making vague references to how the science is "still evolving" on this threat. Little Stevie says he might be able to find better ways to solve the problem. Yeah, like what? Maybe, just maybe, if he does nothing it will simply go away.
What if he's wrong? What if the scientific community is right? What if The Royal Society and guys like Dr. James Lovelock actually do understand what they've been studying for decades while Stevie was busy learning to count beans? What if the coal and oil lobby is waging a war against the environmental science community so that it's industry can steamroller ahead despite the probable consequences? What if?
Imagine if a dozen fire inspectors came through your home and eleven of them pointed out what they claimed to be severe fire hazards. Would you let your kids sleep there and just ignore the warnings or would you fix the problems that have been pointed out to you? Would you tell yourself that it's just the opinion of only eleven out of twelve so there's no need to do anything yet? You might, but only if you were a complete idiot.
The science is in. The warnings have been given, the risks clearly stated. The industrial nations have to deal with this.
Harper, like his friends in the fossil fuel industry (which includes the premier and cabinet of Alberta), like to take swipes at the Kyoto accord. They create an illusion that Kyoto is an end unto itself and then point out that, because it doesn't include India and China, it's pointless. They also argue that global warming will continue even if the Kyoto targets were met.
Let's get the facts straight. Kyoto was never intended to solve global warming. It was more like teaching us to ride a bike without training wheels. You have to learn to ride halfway down the block before you can ride that bike all the way to school. Kyoto is to get us to change our outlook on this danger. It's a way to show us that we can tackle greenhouse gas emissions without our societies collapsing and to show us what is possible. Kyoto is a way to show the developing nations that the already developed nations are willing to lead the way and that they should join us.
Kyoto is not the answer. It just points to the answer.
What is the downside of taking action to address global warming, to cut back our emissions of greenhouse gases? We get told all manner of dire consequences will befall us, just so long as you define "us" as the fossil fuel industry and its friends. Compare that with the downside of doing nothing if the scientific concensus is right.
In whose interests is it to postpone or simply avoid measures to combat greenhouse gas emissions? Is it in your interests, or your children's or your neighbours'? No, of course not. It is, however, very much in the interests of the major greenhouse gas producers and, when it comes to them, there's no bunch quite like the oil sands companies. While Stephen Harper is prime minister, he'll make sure that they win, you lose.
If there's one thing Stephen Harper has shown us it's that he's no "Mr. Dithers." When he wants to act, he acts. He acts even when he hasn't got the country behind him. He doesn't let principles or rights stand in his way. That's why it's so easy to see right through his environmental blather this week.
Canada produces the dirtiest oil on the planet. The Athabaska tar sands are an environmental nightmare because they produce about as much pollution getting the gunk out of the ground and turning it into SUV juice as will be produced when it's burned in some American parade float. Look at that equation for a minute: Americans get the fuel, their oil companies get the profits, the Alberta government gets a little taste of the action and Canada and the world get the awful pollution left behind. That sounds fair, doesn't it?
Alberta is insistent that it's fossil fuel revenues not be included for the purpose of the provincial equalization calculations. Well, if the oil is Alberta's and the boon from that oil is exclusively Alberta's, why don't we in the rest of Canada insist that, fair is fair, and the pollution ought to be entirely Alberta's responsibility? What's wrong with telling Alberta that, if it wants to export this stuff, it first must solve the land, water and air pollution fallout from the tar sands development? Solve it as in end it. Let's demand Kyoto level greenhouse gas limits from Alberta. They've certainly got the money to pay for it. Why should they be allowed to line their pockets and leave their environmental mess to everyone else?
We can't let Little Stevie get away with this one. We just can't. If the scientific community is right, the clock is ticking and we have a matter of years, not decades, to take meaningful action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
No comments:
Post a Comment