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.
I went to Copenhagen as a proud Canadian, probably a little too idealistic and hopeful. Maybe, I’d bought into the whole Coca Cola corporately funded HOPENHAGEN idea, or maybe I had simply wished for governments, politicians, and NGOs to effectively come together based on their individual capacities and devise a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding treaty. This didn’t happen. Unfortunately whether the topic is climate change or fish farms, the urgency of the environment often seems irrelevant to policy makers. As the environmental movement became unified with social justice ones in the streets of Copenhagen and amongst civil society around the world, the passion and understanding of the stakes on environmental protection existed in abundance; however, they rarely ever made it into the Bella Center.
People tend to ask me why I think COP 15 failed, and what it was like being a Canadian amongst international antagonism on the topic of our tarsands and Kyoto. Well, it
certainly was interesting. Today, I call the negotiations at Copenhagen the “Erosion of the Canadian Legacy.” I can even remember staring at my webcam at midnight explaining to Mark Kelley of CBC News how the lack of political willpower on behalf of Canada was contributing to this. “We’re known as leaders internationally through peacekeeping, and human rights, however our reputation is really being damaged by the lack of action our government is taking.”
What would it take to have my country initiate some environmental leadership? What would be needed to urge my government to acquiesce some value on the important natural resources of the country for its health and sustainability? Based on some analysis, I came up with two reasons why Canada didn”t get anywhere in Copenhagen, and for the sake of simplicity, I’ve left out a determination of political willpower and corporate lobbyism.
The first comes from my recollection while sitting in the plenary hall that the actual solutions that were necessary weren’t even being discussed. At the end of it all, they agreed that a global temperature rise under 2 degrees is acceptable. Really? Author Naomi Klein hit the nail on the head when she said that, “The deal we really need is not even on the table.” How bizarre it seemed to see countries passionately crying for a change in global policy so that based on the expected effects of climate change, they could still exist in the coming years. Discussions in Copenhagen seem ill-described with any other words than simply: crazy. Unfortunately, the craziness of it all seems to parallel politics here in BC, where there is progress on one agenda, however, another crusade of government reduces all the good of that one forward step(Perhaps the carbon tax followed by the Gateway Project for example).
The second issue has to do distinctly with apathy. This is the most unfortunate of them all, however, it is the most exciting as Canadians have their own individual capacity to change it. Whether the issue at hand is climate change, public transportation, agriculture, or development, it all comes down to tuning in. While COP 15 was a failure, community causes and grassroots campaigns don’t have to be. I’m quite hopeful that I’ll never buy into another HOPENHAGEN type concept, nor is it likely that I will ever be a full idealist once again. Instead, I’m happy to be a realist, on the lookout for more people ready to Plug Out and Tune In, (link to Alex’s blog of the same name) reversing the great Canadian case of apathy.
In BC the government is offloading its climate change responsibilities to private citizens. Yes we all have to make personal changes, but it is so hypocritical to charge us carbon tax, expect us to all use CFL’s, and make other lifestyle changes while they charge ahead building fossil fuel dependent projects like the South Fraser Freeway, new Port Mann Bridge and Highway 1 expansion that will result in a net increase in Green house gases contributing to cllimate change, instead of showing the initiative to use the carbon tax revenues to fund transit transportation solutions that would actually make an improvement as the Olympic experience showed. The worst bit is that like all the other money the government is getting these days including the soon to be introduced HST the carbon tax revenue is most likely getting used for paying for the South Fraser Freeway etc, since more pavement and freeways (which are costing us billions (thousands of millions) are all that is getting funding right now. Everything else, schools, health care, arts, sports, women’s programs are all getting budget cuts.
Alex, bless her soul, is way off base when talking about so-called ‘climate change. At her tender age it behooves her to learn do more research on her own rather than listening to liars like David Suzuki and Algore on climate change. Man made Global warming is the biggest fraud of our century.
If she had done her home work on non-existent ‘global warming’, we could more easily accept her positions on salmon, river hydro projects, or whatever other cause she chooses to champion. She has a bright future as a leader if she will just research her facts.
If all of this climate change science and pseudo science is “much about nothing,” it poses the question of why the corporatocracy has gone to such incredible financial expenditure to “debunk the myth.” Surely all the skulduggery and flim-flam of the corporate flack catchers is entirely unnecessary. Methinks the naysayers do protest too much. By deflecting the serious questions and leading people down rabbit trails, precious time is being wasted. It seems that those who profit most from doing nothing, will willingly risk their future rather than jeopardizing next quarter’s earnings.
Climate change is the elephant in the room and looking at one anecdotal occurence of Arctic ice is irrelevant. Bees, bats & amphibians have sent a message of environmental destruction but people are still listening to economists that couldn’t predict a small economic crash and don’t know how to prevent the next one. Marine fish populations have been extirpated and most freshwater species have been decimated, now scientists are finding dead zones in world’s oceans including off the coast of Oregon. Mountain pine beetles are attacking our forests and the brilliant political
‘solution’ is to log or burn the trees before the beetles get it! Science and technology are providing sound biological answers but people & politicians think that progress is ‘making bigger mistakes’ and believe that some new technology will provide solutions.
My sad realization is that future generations and not the people that have wrecked havoc will pay for our greed and stupidity.
I hope readers will add a few bits of encouragement to Alex’s brave efforts.
If Alexandria Mitchell truly cares about the issue of climate change, she should learn about it before drawing conclusions. By learning, I mean looking at more than just the one-sided alarmist Al Gorey details. Forming an opinion requires an open-minded look. She must certainly know that it isn’t simply a topic revolving around those who care about the environment vs. corporations. Please become informed and you’ll be extremely happy that Copenhagen failed.
Insert “causes the climate to change” in the first sentence after “in the atmosphere”.
It is very important for those of us who care about the environment to repudiate the scam that poses as a political/environmental movement. Here in BC we are not only being taxed on energy use directly through the “carbon tax”, but municipalities and regional districts are expected to be “carbon neutral” or have to pay for “carbon offsets” by 2012. This will add to the burden of taxation on homeowners.
For all of you worried the ice level in the Arctic, it is back to near normal or normal.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/08/arctic-sea-ice-reports-who-to-believe/#more-18280
Assuming her heart is in the right place and Ms Mitchell really does believe that the 3% humans add to the tiny amount of the plant food, CO2, to the very low amount, 390 ppm, in the atmosphere, I have great news from another Canadian:
“Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of climate change.
“Recent attempts to silence Mr. McKitrick illuminate the extent to which the alarmists have abandoned proper scientific method in their pursuit of political goals.
“Mr. McKitrick has spent the past two years attempting to publish a scientific paper that documents a fundamental error in the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.”
read all about it:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/07/global-warmings-unscientific-method/