Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Vandalist: Ripple Effect
Toronto Will Host 2015 Pan American Games
We love the television advertising campaigns the WWF comes up with, and their latest is no exception.
The ad does provoke some important questions, however, about the ability (or lack thereof) of individual action to create adequate change without government intervention. The first panel at yesterday's GreenTOpia launch dealt with this extensively. Keith Stewart (coincidentally, a campaigner with WWF) explained that even though he's taken extensive personal action (he has solar panels on his house, doesn't own a car, eats local food), if everyone lived like he does we'd only be halfway towards where we need to be to avert climate catastrophe.
Watching the above video, it's interesting to note that a good chunk of the societal changes they point to—not smoking in public places, wearing seatbelts, etc—came about due to government intervention.
How then, the question was asked over and over again yesterday by an engaged audience desperate for answers, do we get our political leaders to do what's necessary? The panel's response: it's not rocket science. If a politician says or does something you don't approve of, let them know and don't vote for them. Conversely (and even more importantly), if a politician says or does something you support, make sure you're there to defend and support them.
Engagement with democracy is a responsibility of living in one. When we're informed and involved, we get the government we need. When we become distracted by political games or we cynically disengage from the political process altogether, we get the government we deserve.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Also necessary is a political process that doesn't discriminate. ie: You shouldn't have to be rich with corporate backing to run for office.
True, though the political funding regulations in Canada are actually pretty good. Federally, corporate and union donations are now illegal, and the maximum individual donation is $1100 (though you can push this to $2200 by donating to a local campaign and to a federal party). The average individual donation for most parties is around $80.
That being said, of course it still helps your bid for office if you're rich and/or have rich friends for a number of less direct reasons.
The next frontier is getting lobbyists under control. That's where money is best able to influence party policy, away from direct contributions to campaigns and out of the view of the public.
Our political leaders? China and India will be deciding the world's environmental fate, if anthropogenic warming is in fact a looming catastrophe.
Some other random thoughts...
Cycling seems to be less popular here (in TO) than it was when during the enviro movement of the early 90s. Bike path construction seems to have ceased. It seems less acceptable somehow - drivers have less sympathy for cyclists and it's more dangerous with so many more drivers on the roads. (I say this as someone who used to feel comfortable commuting 20-40k/day by bike.)
People these days talk a lot, watch a lot of enviro movies and stuff, and trash-talk about conservative politicians, but they still want to be able to drive their cars and buy lots of toys.
My gut feeling is that "stopping global warming" is a lost cause. We should get used to the fact that a lot more of Canada is going to be habitable and farmable, should the warming trend actually continue.
"Our political leaders? China and India will be deciding the world's environmental fate, if anthropogenic warming is in fact a looming catastrophe."
That may be the case, however, the west has been driving cars while lesser developed countries have been dealing with our pollution (shit) for the past 100 years. So, now China and India want their turn at that middle-to-upper class dream and now the west is crying foul.
It's not about "calling foul." It's simple arithmetic, and no amount of self-loathing is going to change that.
spacejack: When the world successfully dealt with acid rain, it was the wealthy countries who developed the technologies and tactics to solve the problem, and then provided those tools to the developing world. The same strategy must be implemented to address climate change.
While you're right that a certain amount of change is already unavoidable (we're at 455 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and headed for a global increase in temperature of more than 2 degrees), I'd caution you against overly-simplistic predictions of what that will mean for Canada's climate. Global climate systems are extremely complex and we have very limited ability to predict what a rise in average global temperature will actually mean in any one geographical area.
Also, acknowledging that we can no longer "stop" climate change does not mean we can say "oh well" and relax. In fact, it should be a rallying call to redouble our efforts. According to the latest science we can't afford to allow emissions to continue to rise at the rate they're going without completely destabilizing all of the systems that currently provide us with food, water, and habitable conditions. And that's, like, kinda a big deal.
Chris - maybe saying "lost cause" wasn't the best choice of words. I guess I'm just trying to speak to any younger versions of myself who feel like I did, hearing apocalyptic predictions for the future. If the predictions global warming alarmists were making in the 1980s (when I was in my teens) were correct, we'd all be dead by now.
I also know what it's like to have naive ideas about authoritarian governments that would have the kind of power to force people to live like Keith Stewart (or myself) do. The cure would be worse than the disease.
Simple aritmetic? Self-loathing?
My statement was that the west has had their turn with unlimited capitalism, growth and consumption and if there were any kind of threat of any kind of check, limit or balance, people balked. The EPA was anti-business, would kill the economy. So, why should we expect any different from the countries who are growing.
neat little factoid: It takes about 5-10 days for coal burning pollution from China to reach here.
They said the sky was the limit...and they were right:- )
The reason China didn't have its turn with "unlimited capitalism, growth and consumption" is because Chairman Mao was busy killing off 80,000,000 of his own people with his deranged communist policies.
I tend to agree with Spacejack. While I enjoyed the panelists, I found that some of the more "live a life of austerity now" crowd had authoritarian, anti-democratic bents.
This is the "people are too stupid to figure out what they should do so we should have a government force them to do this against their will - this happens to be a government the likes of which I might be a member" crowd.
This is a serious crisis, but we must always maintain our commitment to democratic government and not get lured into the idea of "the people's government" (which is not elected, but is still doing what we think is right for the environment)
No helmet for the cyclist, and he is riding on the sidewalk! Tsk Tsk...
As opposed to the number of people George Bush is killing for his deranged capitalist policies.
You act like no one has ever died or taken a beating for capitalism.