Category Archives: climate crisis

Will Someday Come Soon Enough?

climate crisis, green party

In 2004, the Green Party of Canada ran on the election slogan “Someday is Now.” It was a way of speaking to the many people who want to support the Green Party someday, just not “this time.” They’re going to wait until we have a chance, or until things get really bad.

Of course, the first condition is circular. People won’t vote for us until we have a chance, and we won’t have a chance until people vote for us (unless they vote for this first). As for the second condition, it’s already been met, even if it’s not yet tangible.

It’s never been a question of if the Green Party will be elected. The question is if we’ll get elected in time.

In time for what is another question. More and more scientists are of the opinion that global warming has become a self-sustaining reaction and can’t be stopped, and Stephen Hawking is suggesting that we give up on this planet and find a new one. In that case, our job will shift from averting disaster to dealing with it.

In his new book, Thomas Homer Dixon argues that, while he believes a total global collapse is avoidable, a number of smaller collapses have become inevitable and will fundamentally change the way we live. The good news is that this presents an opportunity for what he calls catagenesis: a chance to rebuild these systems from the ground up, exploiting all the things we wish we knew then.

At a breakfast forum a month ago, I introduced myself to Tad (that’s what his friends call him, you see) as a former candidate and asked how he thought that idea could be presented in a way that would be politically popular and earn votes. He responded that he sees very little chance of voters showing any desire to deal with these problems until they’re already upon us. Once we’re in the middle of it, he says, will be the real opportunity for political ingenuity and problem solving.

This Canada Day weekend, the Dominion Institute and The Toronto Star published an essay by Andrew Cohen imagining what Canada will look like in 2020. The good news? Cohen predicts the Green Party will form a government as soon as 2012. The bad news? The main reason is that’s when “global warming began to wreak havoc.”

So, I’ll meet you in Ottawa in six years. Dress lightly, bring sunscreen.

Two Climate Crisis Quotes

climate crisis, green party

Normally I wouldn’t devote a post to reproducing what others have said, but 1) I’ve already made a real post today, and 2) these are both too good to ignore.

The first extract is the final paragraphs of Jeffrey Simpson’s column in yesterday’s Globe and Mail. The second is a letter to the editor, also published in yesterday’s Globe, from Green Party leadership contestant Elizabeth May.

Enjoy.

The government’s entire political/re-election strategy is based on adopting tangible, easily understood policies that touch the daily lives of citizens. Whether those policies make good sense is almost beside the point, politically speaking, provided they are popular.Climate change doesn’t meet that tangible test, except in the Arctic or perhaps regions infested by the mountain pine beetle (whose spread is aided by the lack of cold winters). Air pollution such as smog is much more tangible, which is why the Conservatives were much more specific about that challenge, promising to “develop a Clean Air Act.”

If the Conservatives ever got serious about climate change — and that’s a very big if — they would start using the price mechanism to encourage behavioural change.

As in, adopting much tougher, California-style vehicle-emissions standards and allowing the auto companies to price their fleet mix differently. As in, mandating emissions for companies such as oil and natural gas extraction, but offering companies taxation incentives for disposing of the carbon dioxide. As in, a beefed-up, domestic carbon-emissions trading plan.

As in, a whole range of initiatives that a government even half-serious about climate change would adopt, remembering that the root of the word Conservative is “conserve.”

The Stanley Cup contest provided an iconic backdrop for a climate-change debate. As a Canadian, I rooted for the Oilers, but my money was on the Hurricanes.We know from Katrina that hurricanes hit oil production hard, whereas producing and burning more oil only makes hurricanes stronger.

Two Visions of the Future

climate crisis, cycling, toronto

Yesterday’s TTC strike serendipitously coincided with the opening of Toronto’s Bike Week. For the annual kick-off event, cyclists from across the city converged on Yonge and Bloor (conveniently close to where I live) for a “group commute” down Yonge St, then over to City Hall for a free pancake breakfast.

The group left the intersection of Yonge and Bloor around 8am; I got the time wrong and showed up at 8:20. As I began my trip, cars clogged the streets. I slowly weaved through near-gridlock as frustrated drivers leaned on their wheels. Taxi passengers watched meters tick on as people on the sidewalks passed them. Confused commuters waited at the corner for buses that weren’t coming. A friend of mine later told me that Bay Street was the same. This is Toronto without transit.

It only took a few minutes, however, to catch up with the group commute as they headed down Young street. Hundreds of bikes took up the whole right lane for as far as I could see. The cars were stuck behind me–a distant memory–leaving only cyclists and pedestrians. I came up to a friend of mine and we started chatting. Others were deeply engaged in conversations with strangers. Torontonians were enjoying their city, their public space. This is Toronto without cars.

At an event I attended today, Toronto Star columnist Christopher Hume put it another way. “The greatest shame,” he said, “was that all of those people who filled the street were taken from subways, buses and streetcars instead of from cars.”

I’m not saying we should get rid of all cars (yet). It’s just that, for a moment, I saw Toronto without them. And it was a beautiful sight.

Climate Crisis Smoke And Mirrors

climate crisis, health

Greens have sometimes drawn comparisons between those who argue against the science of climate change and those who argue that smoking is not that bad for you.

As it turns out, we’ve been painfully right. As in, they’re the same people. A recent issue of Vanity Fair exposed a global warming critic named Dr. Frederick Seitz for having also been paid by the tobacco industry to deny the links between smoking and cancer.

I bring this up because my buddy Andrew Frank just emailed me to let me know about another double-agent, Steven Milloy, who’s recently been quoted with some frequency by the National Post. Read Andrew’s clever and well-written take on the subject here, and heck, share the link with your friends too.