Policy, paying for Climate Change and cutting down opponents are part of a short post halfway through the federal election campaign.
 |
| The climate crisis positions |
Andrew Coyne contrasts bad policy versus no policy for the National Post. He comments on the real difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
Worse yet is the Conservatives’ “Green Home Renovation Tax Credit,” part of the party’s “real plan” for dealing with climate change. The credit is supposed to give families an incentive to make their houses more energy efficient. But families already have an incentive to do that: to save on their heating and electricity bills. Why do they also need a cookie from the government?...Whole sections of the Liberal platform appear to have been drafted between flights, without the barest draft of a hint of an inkling of how they would be put into effect... And thus: the party promises, not merely to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 — a target it is nowhere near, and not likely to achieve — but to reduce them to “net zero” by 2050. How would it succeed in such a remote and exalted ambition, when it has failed so signally in the present?
I’ll let the environment minister, Catherine McKenna, answer: “The point is right now, we need to get elected… If we are re-elected we will look at how best to do this.” Oh.1
 |
| Election direction for GHG reduction |
Global News reports an Ipsos poll that shows Canadians want to stop climate change, but half don’t want to pay an extra cent:
“There’s a big difference here between intent and behaviour,” said Sean Simpson, vice president of Ipsos...Ipsos also looked at how much all average voters who identify with one of the main parties are willing to pay, and it was voters who identify as Green supporters who were willing to pay the most with an average of $701. NDP voters on average said they would be willing to pay $375, while Liberal supporters said they would be willing to pay an extra $326. Bloc Quebecois and Conservative voters had the lowest averages of $254 and $206, respectively.2
The Star reporter Judith Timson suggests that demonizing an opponent is not going to win the election. The prevailing ethos today is “I don’t like that man, I must savage him as thoroughly as possible and deny everything he/she says has any merit or humanity at all.” We seem to have reached a point where many of us have no interest in even hearing an argument for — or from — anyone who doesn’t fully agree with us. That’s a dangerous and disheartening proposition as we head into a federal election and the federal leader debates. A strategy that demonizes an opponent may be a distraction in hopes the public does not detect a weak policy.
Credit the rise of populism, the death of truth or the decline of civility. Or the very real evidence that a virulent strain of racism and other forms of bigotry is on the rise.
It may be behavioural extremes that have brought us here — but behavioural extremes won’t fix us.When you want to be a leader in a country as wonderful and as diverse as Canada, you don’t have the luxury of walking away from those you disagree with, especially if you want to change their hearts and minds.
The goal is not to be nice, or so anodyne as to never give offence or to be afraid to be sharply critical of a policy or a point of view.
Nor is it to give racism or other forms of bigotry a platform. Informed criticism is the best.3
 |
| Distractions from policy |
Shawn McCarthy, an independent journalist and senior counsel with Sussex Strategy Group, reminds us that in confronting the global challenge, we need to focus on two critical factors: responsibility and leadership and remember a basic tenet of being moral human beings is that we don’t evade our responsibility because other people are not living up to theirs.
And it is true that Canada is a small player and global success in the battle against climate change depends to a great degree on three countries: China, the United States and India.
But that doesn’t absolve Canada. We’ve made commitments under a global agreement that only works if the parties meet their obligations. While other countries may not be on track, that’s a poor excuse for Canada to toss over the international deal that represents the best hope for the world to avert complete disaster.
(It is too late to avoid serious impacts from climate change – now we’re talking the pace of warming and the difference between ‘horrible for the most vulnerable people in the world’ and ‘catastrophic for all people’.)
In confronting the global challenge, we need to focus on two critical factors: responsibility and leadership.
A basic tenet of being moral human beings is that we don’t evade our responsibility because other people are not living up to theirs.
While Canada accounts for only 1.6 per cent of the world’s GHG emissions, this country is in the top 10 in total emissions. It’s also near the top of the charts in emissions per person, one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and gas, and among the wealthiest countries on earth.
So if Canada can’t show leadership on climate change, who will? The domestic actions won’t be easy, and they won’t be cost-free. But we can’t urge the largest emitters to make the swift and necessary transition if we don’t do so ourselves.
Political leaders, business executives and citizens need to take our collective responsibility to heart. Elections are a time for voters to reflect on those hard choices and take a stand.4
 |
| The crisis is not voted away |
The cost of failing to mitigate climate change effects will be much higher than the cost of acting now to achieve net zero emissions.
References
No comments:
Post a Comment