From a Federal Liberal MP’s point of view, and I trust it, our Conservative government will do nothing to turn things around regarding rising carbon emissions and global temperatures.
We have a government that puts too many things before the environment, the future.
E.g., our economy first (when did the environment ever get a $50 billion stimulus package?), our excessive lifestyle first, our GDP first, the tar sands first, more prisons first, etc.
["Can a chicken escape climate change?"]
Is it any wonder I say at times, you’re on your own if you want to see reductions in carbon emissions?
Not only does our government promote weak-kneed policies, as far as the environment and a healthy, sustainable future is concerned, but it receives a lot of vocal support.
Case in point. Our local paper, The London Free Press, featured a hollow ‘Three cheers for Environment Minister John Baird’ point of view earlier this week.
It was entitled ‘Speaking climate truth makes Baird hot stuff.’
(Beware. Any piece linking the words “climate truth” and “Baird” is bound to be malicious).
It begins:
“Environment Minister John Baird goes to the UN’s climate change smoke blower in Cancun, only to be accused back home of being a bull in China’s shop. He should be let loose more often.”
(The UN’s attempt to facilitate progress is a ‘smoke blower’, but Baird’s lack of any plan - any plan to reduce emissions - is a good thing?)
“What got Baird in the bad books of the left was his rightful insistence that if a billion Chinese didn’t give a damn about change then what’s the point?”
Now, if you’re looking for any history about China’s position re climate change relative to the US position, you won’t find it in a Baird-supporter’s ‘point of view’ piece. (One titch of history is provided in Part 3, link below).
And if you’re hoping for ideas from Canadian Conservatives or its Environment Minister about what could be done to prepare for the inevitable change in economic direction that will be required now and in the future, look away.
The point of view continues, listing a few reasons why we should view Baird and ‘business as usual’ Canada as the good guy and China as the bad:
“Last year, partially because of the recession, Canada had a 2% drop in greenhouse gas emissions while China increased its by 8%... (Canada is) a massive country with a small population... not cheap to heat, and not cheap to get around. That’s the reality.”
I’m glad the writer mentions the recession. The next one may be only way we’ll ever lower emissions again. Not that I look forward to it, but it may just be around the corner.
No mention was made, however, about the number of jobs wealthy countries, such as Canada, have exported to China (thus contributing to China’s growing economy and carbon emissions) because we are addicted to cheap goods aka Dollarama and Wal-Mart style.
And, yes, it is expensive to live in Canada. But not for long. Very soon it will be “even more expensive.” Climate change has a way of mucking up monthly budgets!
The writer ends with a question. (Oh, I love a quiz).
“Some billion Chinese have spewed out 8% more in Greenhouse gases than they did the year before, while a comparative 35-million smidgen of Canadians managed to lower their levels by 2%. Who’s the bad guy here?”
Wait. Wait. I know the answer to this one. It’s...
“Well, apparently,” says the writer, “it’s Canada - and Baird, of course...”
He took the words right out of my mouth.
More to follow.
***
Please read Our growth has limits PT 1 for more context.
Please read Our growth has limits PT 2 for more context.
Please read Our growth has limits PT 3 for more context.
Please read Our growth has limits PT 4 for more context.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment