Rethinking Lifestyle

A condo in Florida has collapsed killing approximately 150 people. This must cause others living in high rise buildings to wonder about the safety of their residence. But what else should this event teach us about our lifestyle choices?

According to news reports, an engineering report had identified significant structural issues, and had recommended remediation. The condo board had recommended that the remediation be done, but the condo maintenance fee would need to double. Some condo owners could not accept this increase, and it seems the board of directors was unable to take action. One result was that the chair of the board of directors resigned. Given that the residents of this condo were mostly upper middle class, it is unlikely that this reluctance was due to an inability to pay. It was more likely the result of an attitude that this costly repair has not been necessary until now, so why can’t we just continue with the status quo?

This situation reminds me of our attitude towards the global challenges of our time: climate change, resource depletion, overpopulation, etc. The scientific reports are in and they state clearly that the earth cannot continue to bear the strain we are imposing on it. At some point it will say “enough.” But since it has not done so yet, many people ask: “Why can’t we continue with the status quo?” Others don’t even ask the question. They simply continue their lifestyle without even considering the question.

The answer to the question “why can’t” is that at some point, just like the condo, the earth will actually say “enough”. The record heat in B.C., the forest fires and the destruction of the village of Lyton are just the most recent indicators that the point of collapse is closer.

We must certainly consume less individually. However, just as one condo dweller alone (not even the chair of the board of directors), could not avert the collapse of the condo, so our earth is threatened by corporate inaction. We need government policy. We need global policy. The most obvious policy in this regard is to shift from taxing citizens’ income to taxing detrimental activities while rewarding beneficial activities. Government leaders have time and again said that we must meet certain greenhouse gas emission targets, but when it comes to implementing policy that will result in significant behavioral change, government always backs off. The reason is that when they test the waters, they find that people will not accept policy that will make their current lifestyle uncomfortable. For example, a policy to encourage the purchase of electric cars is acceptable to tax payers, but a policy to discourage driving and travel is not.

Another example was highlighted in last week’s Carillon. Bill C-206, which will eliminate the federal carbon tax from certain farm fuels, was seconded by our own MP, Ted Falk, The intent of the federal carbon tax, generally, is to change behavior. The intent is to motivate all Canadians, including farmers, to find ways of carrying out their activities using less fossil fuel. But like a dissenting condo-owner calling to maintain the status quo, Bill C-206 further weakens the already too timid carbon tax.

Who knows how many other condos have been inspected and found to be structurally weak? Maybe ten. Maybe 100. I don’t know. In how many cases has remedial action been taken? One has collapsed! Is this an incentive to be complacent, or an incentive to act with urgency?