Are We Green or Are We Mean?

Source: By Drew Halfnight, AOL.ca

Posted: 11/04/09 12:39PM

Filed Under: Environment

As the international community prepares for December’s historic climate change summit in Copenhagen, Canadians are facing an identity crisis.

Are we green or are we mean?

Have we accepted the dire consequences of global warming – the flooding of coastal wetlands, the acidification of oceans, desertification and drought, higher extinction rates, more severe storms – as the price the planet should have to pay for the success of our current national economic program?

Or are we the tree-huggers we always thought we were, prepared to adapt our companies and ourselves to new environmental standards in order to mitigate those disastrous outcomes?

According to the Climate Confidence Monitor, 55 per cent of Canadians, a slim majority, agree that a new treaty to limit emissions is important or extremely important.

In other words, just over half of Canadians wants action in Copenhagen. The other half doesn’t.

Deadlock.

The truth is, Canada has always been one part green, one part mean. And today, perhaps more than ever, our measure of mean is having its day.

First of all, Canada has let its greenhouse gas emission rate creep skyward, so that today they are 35 per cent above 1990 levels. By contrast, during the same period, Europe cut emissions by eight per cent.

More recently, Canada balked at the first-ever comprehensive proposal to seriously curb emissions, the Green Shift. We continued to throw our support behind the largest and dirtiest energy venture on the planet, Alberta’s oil sands, abandoning the Kyoto Protocol and undermining international efforts to move forward on climate change.

In the meantime, we’ve found a lot of excuses to justify our laissez-faire approach and to keep our critics at bay. We are a big, cold, resource-based economy. We need to keep the oil-rich provinces happy. The U.S. wants our crude.

But recent events are finally bringing our identity crisis to the surface. In brief:

-About 200 protesters stormed Question Period to demand that Parliament implement the NDP's Climate Change Accountability Act, Bill C-311

-A report by the David Suzuki Foundation and Pembina Institute estimated the costs involved in meeting the government’s emissions-reduction targets. Environment Minister Jim Prentice called the report “irresponsible.” Alberta premier Ed Stelmach vowed to fight carbon taxes aimed at the oilsands

-HSBC released its annual Climate Confidence Monitor study, which suggested the recession has slightly eroded Canadians’ concern about climate change. It also found 69 per cent of respondents worldwide saw addressing climate change as at least as important as supporting their national economies

-One hundred world leaders gathered in Barcelona to discuss climate change. With no plan to speak of, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was a no-show

-Prince Charles told a Newfoundland audience that Canada must show “leadership” on climate change

-Speaking in Ottawa, director-general of the World Trade Organization Pascal Lamy called the climate crisis “the single biggest challenge to civilization as we know it.” In his lecture titled “Climate first, trade second,” Lamy said the WTO would “greet with open arms a new international climate accord"

While some mix of economic and environmental imperatives is sure to drive the climate change mandate in the long run, we have no shortage of cautionary tales about the dire consequences of laissez-faire environmental policy. I am thinking for example of the Lubicon Cree, a small band in northern Alberta that has been fighting logging and oil interests there since at least the 1970s.

Left out of a 1899 treaty that would have granted it land rights, the Lubicon Lake Indian Nation has seen its ancestral hunting and fishing grounds criss-crossed with 2,000 kilometres of road, 32,000 km of seismic lines and 2,000 oil and gas sites. Despite censures from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Amnesty International, the Alberta and federal governments have continued to allow companies to carry out massively disruptive projects on Lubicon land.

Today, Amnesty reports that the economy, health, way of life and culture of the Lubicon have been “devastated” by these developments.

Canadians have a choice. Are we strictly capitalists, as the governments and corporations showed themselves to be in the Lubicon case? Or are we stewards of the environment, as the Lubicon are attempting to be?

Are we mean or green?

Bookmark