Four of our former prime ministers are either bored or in a desperate search for relevance and media attention. What else could explain their collective decision to place their names on a public statement that essentially calls for Canada’s government to solve global warming?
The four Al Gore wannabes (Kim Campbell, Paul Martin, John Turner and Joe Clark) have united with other Canadian leaders in such scientifically strategic areas as, uhm, novel writing (Margaret Atwood and Michael Ondaatje), unions (the Steelworkers Union and the Canadian Federation of Students) and, maybe, large Sikh Temples (the press release says the president of the largest Sikh Temple in North America is an endorser, but his name doesn’t appear on the website). To be fair, there are also business leaders (Stephen Bronfman), a handful of academics and some environmentalists.
Clark (long remembered for being a decisive leader) says he signed because he’s concerned about the “lack of decisive action by Ottawa,” while Campbell says there has been a “persistent void at the highest political levels” in dealing with climate change (if anyone would recognize a persistent void at the top, it would be her). Given the collective scientific weight of this diverse group, I’m sure Prime Minister Stephen Harper immediately placed their demands on his to-do list— right underworld peace and curing cancer. No disrespect intended to any of the above, but I don’t want Margaret Atwood dictating scientific and economic policies to any government, let alone our government.
This statement comes from the newly formed and supposedly non-partisan group called Canadians for Climate Leadership, and it calls for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by “perhaps more than 80 per cent by the years 2050.” To accomplish this, it demands that the federal government take immediate steps to ensure dramatic emissions cuts and investments to “deploy climate-safe technologies at a staggering rate.”
The two-and-a-half page statement has a sense of urgency, but it lacks substance. It gives no suggestions (other than taxes and cap-and-trade systems that Canadians will reject) as to how to accomplish this or how to do it without destroying the economy. Yet one endorser who helped to develop the “recommendations” says the statement is “the most compelling and viable approach to solving the climate crisis I’ve ever seen in Canada.”
Two Climate Change directors who are listed represent the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute— both far left of the political spectrum. That’s the same Suzuki Foundation that last year sent its leader on a cross-country tour in a diesel-spewing, luxury bus built for 54 but carrying only an entourage of eight. Suzuki told Canadians that THEY have to be willing to make economic sacrifices and take action to save the environment, even while his own organization refused to pay extra for a more environmentally friendly bus.
This is why Canadians hate it when leaders sign important public statements calling for change from government or individuals in terms of the environment. There is always a whiff of hypocrisy in the air.
Like Stephane Dion, who revealed this week that he had no idea what a carpool was. It’s one of the most simple, effective ways to reduce vehicle emissions, yet in his rush to solve our climate change problems by slapping a carbon tax on everything we need to live, he didn’t bother to read the memo describing this suburban phenomenon that perhaps deserves a tax break. Similarly, the Liberal campaign jet is a 29-year-old Boeing 737 that consumes 35 per cent more fuel than the planes being leased by Harper and Jack Layton. (Elizabeth May likely uses a borrowed Prius for her cross-country travel comfort). The Liberals acknowledge the problem, and say they are purchasing carbon credits to offset their major contribution to Canada’s air pollution. But who is going to keep track of their carbon emissions and payoffs to hold them accountable? And paying a carbon sin doesn’t diminish the harm done to the environment, the pollution is still there.
Doesn’t it make more sense for the Liberals to pay a bit more and lease a plane with fewer carbon emissions? Surely Canadians recognize that a party that proposes more government intervention and oversight to solve our environmental problems, yet believes the above scheme makes economic and environmental sense, might not have the best judgment when it comes to running the country.
A big reason that so little has been accomplished to ameliorate the problems stemming from climate change is the politicization of this issue. Activists and those with public name recognition are using the media to usurp the role of scientists and economists in creating the solutions we need. They don’t necessarily have to say anything that resolves the issue, they just use their names to create the impression of credibility.
Most Canadians have already said they won’t accept economic hardship and impractical solutions to climate change. Watching hypocritical leaders try to woo their support will only push Canadians further away from doing the very things that help the environment.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
