Prime
Minister Harper is a very intelligent man, but there are some things
that he just can't understand. Or, more accurately, won't understand.
Harper's
most dangerous delusion is not accepting the scientific consensus that
the biggest threat facing Canada - and the world - is the destruction
of our environment in general, and global warming in particular.
Protecting
your people from danger should be the highest priority of any national
leader. Yet while Harper wastes Canadian lives and treasure in
Afghanistan, he ignores the most serious threat to national security.
He
has long denied that global warming is real, and a few years ago,
Harper actually claimed that the Kyoto Treaty "is a socialist plot to
take money from rich countries and give it to poor ones." (As if that
was a bad idea!)
But he is smart enough to know that now he has
to portray himself as "green" if he wants to stay in power. Surveys
show that Canadians understand that the emission of carbon dioxide and
other noxious gases presents the single gravest danger to our country.
But like George Bush, Harper's "leadership" regarding environmental destruction is worse than weak; it is non-existent.
The
Prime Minister claims to understand the seriousness of the problem, yet
has done nothing to protect Canadians. Instead of taking the decisive
actions that citizens have a right to expect from their government, the
Prime Minister made the absurd claim that living up to our legally
binding Kyoto commitments would mean shutting down the country. (Not
coincidentally, that was the same propaganda repeated by corporations
in the oil and automobile industries).
Worse than mere ignorance
and inaction, the federal government has done everything it can to
stand in the way of significant global progress. The position that
Environment Minister Baird took at the recent Bali conference, for
instance, was the height of hypocrisy and obstruction: in addition to
opposing significant mandatory reductions, he proclaimed that Canada
would do nothing unless every other country agreed first. Some
leadership!
Both Harper and Bush act as if they are more worried
about protecting the profits of their corporate supporters than the
well-being of their citizens.
One thing is certain: if we don't
invest in sustainable solutions now - such as mandatory reductions in
greenhouse gases, carbon taxes, and improved public transportation - we
will end up paying much higher costs in future.
Harper's
misleading statements about costs are contradicted by a British
government report written by former World Bank economist Nicholas
Stern, which concluded that only one percent of global gross domestic
product (GDP) per year is needed to avoid the worst effects of global
warming, while the failure to do so could risk global GDP being reduced
by up to twenty percent.
Taking action is not only possible -
it won't break the bank. It is the cost of inaction that we can't
afford. Unless the public demands that all levels of government act
immediately, we may soon go past the ecological tipping point. "If
there's no action before 2012, that's too late," said Rajendra
Pachauri, a scientist and economist who heads the Nobel Prize-winning
International Panel on Climate Change. "What we do in the next two to
three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
This
crisis, however, is also a great opportunity. For instance, the
Canadian government gives billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to
oil and gas companies, and governments around the world waste over $1.2
trillion dollars every year on the military. Continuing to spend money
on war while claiming that we can't afford to protect the natural world
upon which we depend on for life is perverse.
Justice also
requires that we do not forget the majority of people around the world,
the poor, who use so little of the Earth's resources. A typical
Canadian, for example, produces about 20 times as much carbon dioxide
as a person in India.
Grassroots groups at the Bali conference
underlined the importance of "climate justice." They argued, "countries
and sectors that have contributed the most to the climate crisis -- the
rich countries and transnational corporations of the North -- must pay
the cost of ensuring that all peoples and future generations can live
in a healthy and just world, respecting the ecological limits of the
planet."
We have enough wealth to address environmental needs,
to develop sustainable technologies, create millions of new jobs, and
reduce global poverty - if we make these goals our priorities.
While
individual solutions, such as buying smaller cars and efficient light
bulbs will help, strong government polices are indispensable. Just as
Canadians mobilized to take part in defeating fascism in World War Two,
we can reorganize our economy and summon the will to defeat the threats
that we face today.
U.S. President Eisenhower, who was also the
general in command of allied forces in Europe during the Second World
War, understood that citizens have the ultimate power, but only if we
use it.
"One of these days," he said, "the people of the world are going to demand peace, and governments better get out of the way."
Peter
Prontzos is a research associate with the BC office of the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives and teaches political science
at Langara College in Vancouver.