politics – Page 5

My new anthem

Here’s a fine song by Vancouver singer/songwriter Jeremy Fisher, a banjo-and-voice ditty called Built to Last. It comes to you courtesy of worklessparty.org, website of the Work Less Party, which sounds like a bunch of slackers but actually makes a good case for reducing unemployment and environmental damage by lowering the number of hours we are expected to work, here in North America. The case is laid out (in scattershot fashion) in books by the party’s founder, Conrad Schmidt. I’ve read the first, with the lovely title Workers of the World, Relax.

Places like Denmark, i’m told, have all but eliminated unemployment by going to a four-day work week. At first they had all the predictable worries about higher business costs and falling GDP, but reportedly the people love it. I know a lot of friends who would gladly take the cut in pay for a higher quality of life.

I liked Built to Last enough that i checked out Jeremy’ MySpace page. It has several more songs, plus some artful animation videos featuring the likes of Mel Gibson (co-starring with Jeremy in the unreleased film Passion of the Easter Bunny) and an inside scoop on the infamous Billy Bob Thorton meltdown with Jian Gomeshi on Q. Multi-talented guy!

The Munk-eys debate

Hah! Did you watch the Munk debate on climate change last Tuesday (viewable online at the link, i think)?

George Monbiot, journalist, and the Green Party‘s Elizabeth May versus Bjorn Lomborg, environmental skeptic, and Lord Nigel Lawson, former financial journalist and ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, two high-profile deniers. Most instructive.

I’d say Bjorn pretty much won, by cleverly steering its focus to the word “defining” in the (poorly framed) question under debate: “Be it resolved climate change is mankind’s defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response“. He argued that there are other serious crises that deserve the world’s attention too, which the pro side could hardly disagree with. So the whole thing devolved into a wrangle about that.

Surprisingly, neither “denier” actually tried to deny that climate change is upon us; rather, they (Bjorn in particular) openly acknowledged that the climate is changing. So apparently that point is now conceded, and we now need a different word for that camp. In their eyes the wrangle is now about where we direct our effort — meaning, of course, money, which seems now to have entirely eclipsed principle, moral duty or anything else not readily summed up in billions, as the basis for our decision-making.

They say we should spend our money and effort (and money, did i mention money? They sure did, over and over) not on retooling our energy system to keep CO2 levels from increasing in the atmosphere. Instead, we should spend it in ways that will save lives now — on things like HIV/AIDS and malaria and making starving, isolated African tribes wealthy. (Bjorn’s example, not mine.) Because that will save more lives in the short run. And besides, it’s evident that we here in the West will not suffer too badly from climate change, insulated as we are by our wealth (and geography). So the same reasoning (except maybe for the geography part) should apply to the tropical world that will bear the brunt of climate change effects in the next century.

Exactly how this applies to the Maldives, for example — which are forecast to be entirely underwater sometime during this century — was not clear. Maybe everybody there will be rich enough to own a yacht. As for the millions we save now from disease, well, let’s hope they can all eat “the sand which is there” when their agricultural lands desertify. Ha ha, i kill me.

Pundits to the left of them,
Zealots to the right of them …
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six billion.

(With apologies to Alfred Tennyson.
And the whole ecosphere.)

Oh, well that’s okay then

Recently received from the federal Liberal party (info@liberal.ca), in response to my email berating the party for not supporting the NDP’s bill C-311.

Dear Greg:

I would like to acknowledge receipt of your recent e-mail regarding Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change.

As this is a Private Member’s Bill it was a free vote for all members of the Liberal Caucus. Those Liberals who voted for the motion did not vote against Bill C-311, but rather voted for a 30 day extension of hearings at the Environment Committee. We continue to support Bill C-311 in principle but wish to examine it further in Committee to ensure that Canada actually achieves greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions. Currently, Bill C-311 only focuses on emissions targets but has no mechanisms to achieve them.

The Liberal Party remains focused on actual ways to reduce GHGs. That is why we have committed to the largest investment in clean energy Canada has ever seen. We are also working with ENGO’s, to implement a strong cap-and-trade system with hard caps, with no loopholes, that will actually achieve real reductions.

The Liberal Party is committed to an ambitious result from Copenhagen, unlike the Reform-Conservatives whose sole objective is to sabotage international progress in the fight against climate change. However, it is clear that no progress will ever be achieved so long as Stephen Harper is Prime Minister.

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Sarah Cloutier-Powell

Correspondence Officer/Agent de correspondance
Liberal Party of Canada/Parti libéral du Canada
Telephone/Téléphone: (613) 237-0740
Fax/Télécopieur: (613) 235-7208

Letter to Lunney

With the Copenhagen conference on climate change just a couple of months away, and with Canada’s Conservative government continuing to exhibit a lack of interest (or an active interest in inaction) in leading the way on this crucial global issue, i thought it meet to let my Member of Parliament know that at least one of his constituents is (a) paying attention, and (b) deeply, deeply concerned.

Anybody with kids in their life — not just your own, but any kids: nieces, friends with kids, newspaper delivery boys — has got to be incredibly concerned at the world that is fast shaping up to be their legacy from us. Crop failures, hunger on an unimaginable scale, food/water/territory wars, enormous desperate migrations … these almost certainly await the aforementioned kids if we, their guardians, do not take deep and collective action now.

“Action” … that would be the problem, eh? What’s a body to do? Well, the Michael Moore film i saw last night (Capitalism, a Love Story) reminded me that as democracy-dwellers one of the primary things to do is to vote for the world we want, and then to let our elected representatives know that we want them to do the right things.

It’s easy to be cynical. It’s easy to not be bothered. But it’s almost as easy to write a letter. It doesn’t have to be a work of art, it just has to be from the heart. And then sent off.

I’ll be corresponding with my good friend Prime Minister Stephen Harper (pm@pm.gc.ca) quite a bit in coming weeks, and i hope you will too. In the meantime, here’s a letter (with added links) i just emailed to my MP, Dr. James Lunney.

Dear MP Lunney, (nanaimo@jameslunneymp.ca)

With the Copenhagen global conference on climate change coming up fast, I have been doing some background reading on what Canada’s Conservative government has been doing about this hugely important issue.

What you have been doing, it seems, is mostly foot dragging. I read about the “intensity-based” cap-and-trade plan that will likely do nothing to reduce overall emissions. I read about short shrift being paid to international conferences, in favour of photo-ops. I read about weak “commitments” and easy finger-pointing. What I am NOT reading about is real, vigorous action and true leadership in the face of a global crisis.

Continue reading “Letter to Lunney”