The more I think about Stephen Harper saying “Emerging economies already contribute close to half of all global emissions, and that proportion will rise to two-thirds in the future . . .If we don't control those, whatever we do in the developed world will have no impact on climate change," the more annoyed I get. Harper sounds willing to bet the future of our children and grandchildren on defending our economy at all costs. No, he isn’t even defending the entire economy – he is defending the interests of big oil producers mining the tar sands. (Tar sand extraction is a very big reason why Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions are extremely high. Greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands production are three times those of conventional oil and gas production.)
Climate change will create all kinds of problems – and the only solution to those problems will be cooperation on a global scale. The cooperation will be accompanied by endless boring, tedious negotiations that are also completely vital. Our Prime Minister is exhibiting none of the characteristics required to lead us and the rest of the world through the end of the age of oil. Let him know that we Canadians expect better. We expect our leaders to encourage creative solutions to climate change: we do not want them to stamp their feet and yell "You go first" at other countries.
Showing posts with label foot dragging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foot dragging. Show all posts
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Harper's Conversation on Climate Change
In Singapore, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/oct/22/carbon-emissions-data-country-world
We Canadians spewed out 17.9 tonnes of carbon EACH in 2007 - just a hair behind Americans. On a per capita basis, China released 4.8 tonnes while India released released 1.2 tonnes. Sweden emitted 6.3 tonnes - just to compare Canada to another developed nation.
Prof. Tim Flannery was also interviewed in Singapore : he said
Emerging economies already contribute close to half of all global emissions, and that proportion will rise to two-thirds in the future. If we don't control those, whatever we do in the developed world will have no impact on climate change. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/14/apec-summit.htmlOh sure - developing nations are the source of the problem - rigghhhhttttt. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is one of the worst ten polluters in the world. Have a look at the following site:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2009/oct/22/carbon-emissions-data-country-world
We Canadians spewed out 17.9 tonnes of carbon EACH in 2007 - just a hair behind Americans. On a per capita basis, China released 4.8 tonnes while India released released 1.2 tonnes. Sweden emitted 6.3 tonnes - just to compare Canada to another developed nation.
Prof. Tim Flannery was also interviewed in Singapore : he said
Canada is by far the biggest defaulter on its Kyoto obligations on a tonnage basis. And as a result of that there is a lack of trust.Why would anyone in the developing world trust Canada to take meaningful action on climate change? We are busy obstructing any chance at a deal in Copenhagen by blaming the developing world. Email or write the Prime Minister and tell him you want Canada to show leadership on this issue!
Friday, October 30, 2009
Undermining Democracy per deSmogBlog
From deSmogBlog:
"Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.....The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy."
Canada is currently one of the ten worst global warming polluters on the planet. And now, instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government has joined with the tar sands producers and, in their words, is going to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. Translation: Canada’s federal government is joining the ranks of the public relations industry and will sow obfuscation and confusion regarding global warming. Our politicians are dragging their feet to protect the interests of big oil in the tar sands in Alberta.
Send your MP and your Prime Minister a letter stating your disapproval. Please!
"Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.....The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy."
Canada is currently one of the ten worst global warming polluters on the planet. And now, instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the federal government has joined with the tar sands producers and, in their words, is going to EDUCATE THE PUBLIC. Translation: Canada’s federal government is joining the ranks of the public relations industry and will sow obfuscation and confusion regarding global warming. Our politicians are dragging their feet to protect the interests of big oil in the tar sands in Alberta.
Send your MP and your Prime Minister a letter stating your disapproval. Please!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
A Contradiction: Why We Don't React To Climate Change
Apparently I am not the only person to wonder what climate change deniers and evaders are thinking and why they are not responding to an obvious, very serious problem. In May 2009, Kari Marie Norgaard published a working paper for The World Bank entitled Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change.
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&entityID=000158349_20090519142931
Her salient points are as follows (direct quotes:)
• If significant global warming occurs, it will be primarily the result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. And the single most important source of carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels.
• Climate change . . . . offers a new opportunity for global solidarity and unity.
• Global climate change is a highly significant issue of global environmental justice.
• Public awareness and concern regarding climate change is not a function of scientific information alone, but psychological and sociological issues as well.
• People ACTUALLY WORK TO AVOID ACKNOWLEDGING DISTURBING INFORMATION in order to 1) avoid emotions of fear, guilt and helplessness, 2) follow cultural norms, and 3) maintain positive conceptions of individual and national identity.
• The one criteria of whether an issue will make it to the level of a recognized “social problem” is THAT THE CONDITION CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTION.
• This seems to be rather a depressing list, doesn’t it? In response to the above problem, Norgaard asks “How can the knowledge that there are psychological and social barriers to our effective action be turned into a basis of pro-active public policy?” People DO care about climate change, and do support stronger climate policies.” Her solutions for policy makers and activists alike (direct quotes:)
• Frame climate message in ways that are non threatening and that appeal to a positive sense of the self.
• Create a set of realistic opportunities for participating in positive actions. This will contradict isolation, build community, [and] create positive frames of reference.
• Focus on what can and should be done rather than focus overly on information.
• Provide information on how local events are connected to global phenomenon.
• Contradict fear by providing honest information AND hopeful examples.
• Contradict guilt by acknowledging the present and providing opportunities to engage in more responsible behavior.
I would add that activists and policy makers should emphasize that the issue of climate change CAN BE solved through collective action.
http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/main?menuPK=64187510&pagePK=64193027&piPK=64187937&theSitePK=523679&entityID=000158349_20090519142931
Her salient points are as follows (direct quotes:)
• If significant global warming occurs, it will be primarily the result of an increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. And the single most important source of carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels.
• Climate change . . . . offers a new opportunity for global solidarity and unity.
• Global climate change is a highly significant issue of global environmental justice.
• Public awareness and concern regarding climate change is not a function of scientific information alone, but psychological and sociological issues as well.
• People ACTUALLY WORK TO AVOID ACKNOWLEDGING DISTURBING INFORMATION in order to 1) avoid emotions of fear, guilt and helplessness, 2) follow cultural norms, and 3) maintain positive conceptions of individual and national identity.
• The one criteria of whether an issue will make it to the level of a recognized “social problem” is THAT THE CONDITION CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH COLLECTIVE ACTION.
• This seems to be rather a depressing list, doesn’t it? In response to the above problem, Norgaard asks “How can the knowledge that there are psychological and social barriers to our effective action be turned into a basis of pro-active public policy?” People DO care about climate change, and do support stronger climate policies.” Her solutions for policy makers and activists alike (direct quotes:)
• Frame climate message in ways that are non threatening and that appeal to a positive sense of the self.
• Create a set of realistic opportunities for participating in positive actions. This will contradict isolation, build community, [and] create positive frames of reference.
• Focus on what can and should be done rather than focus overly on information.
• Provide information on how local events are connected to global phenomenon.
• Contradict fear by providing honest information AND hopeful examples.
• Contradict guilt by acknowledging the present and providing opportunities to engage in more responsible behavior.
I would add that activists and policy makers should emphasize that the issue of climate change CAN BE solved through collective action.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
True Confessions
Recently, I experienced an extremely uncomfortable moment at a Social Environmental Action committee meeting. There I sat, a dedicated environmentalist, in the midst of a group of environmentalists…. this doesn’t sound like a lead in to mental anguish, does it? But while discussing water conservation, I realized (roll doom-laden Wagnerian music here) that I enjoy squandering water. I like to hose down our red brick patio and the cedar deck in the heat of the summer. Everything is so fresh and clean afterwards – literally sparkling as the sun reflects on puddles of water – and the bricks are so cool I can cross them in my bare feet without doing an imitation of a badly trained modern dancer. I discovered I’m not alone in my water wasting ways. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says the only people piggier about water than Canadians are the Americans. And every person in my home town must use water the way I do: we use twice the water of the average Canadian.
Clinging to my delusion that this isn’t such a bad thing, I did some research. OuuuuUUUCCCHH! The OECD, that bastion of environmental concern, states “high consumption places stress on rivers, lakes and groundwater aquifers and may require dams and flooding with serious ecological impacts.” They then intone “high levels of water use require ever increasing and expensive investments in water system infrastructure.” Yup, doing what I do hits the rest of Kamloops right in the pocket book: the water treatment plant is fast approaching full capacity. Get ready to pay higher taxes and utility fees if nothing changes.
Clinging to my delusion that this isn’t such a bad thing, I did some research. OuuuuUUUCCCHH! The OECD, that bastion of environmental concern, states “high consumption places stress on rivers, lakes and groundwater aquifers and may require dams and flooding with serious ecological impacts.” They then intone “high levels of water use require ever increasing and expensive investments in water system infrastructure.” Yup, doing what I do hits the rest of Kamloops right in the pocket book: the water treatment plant is fast approaching full capacity. Get ready to pay higher taxes and utility fees if nothing changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)