Rethinking Lifestyle

Who remembers the Montreal Protocol these days? Who remembers the concern over the hole in the ozone layer? Scientists discovered the hole, identified that it was the result of the release of CFCs (a refrigerant) into the atmosphere, and warned us that if nothing were done to curb the release of CFCs, we would be faced with unacceptable levels of UV radiation. It was accepted that something needed to be done globally, hence the Montreal Protocol in 1987. This came into being under leadership from Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.

Just this month a team of scientists have released a report on computer modelling they have done which projects that had that Protocol not been negotiated, and had the countries of the world not adhered to the Protocol, we would all be frying as a result of the combination of global warming and increased UV radiation.

Who remembers acid rain? Because of acid rain the pH of soils and lakes was changing. This never affected western Canada much, but was a huge problem in eastern Canada and Europe. Awareness of acid rain began in the 1960s and led to research in the 1970s. In 1985 the Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program was signed, and also in 1985 the Helsinki Protocol was agreed to by most nations of the world. These agreements, too, were signed under the leadership of a conservative prime minister. Today we don’t worry about acid rain.

Climate Change and Global Warming is every bit as much of a threat as the hole in the ozone layer or acid rain. We have been able to to deal with the threat to the ozone layer and acid rain, but we seem unable to deal with Climate Change and Global Warming. Why is this? I don’t know, but want to speculate about this below.

My conviction is that it is because of the rise of excessive, destructive partisanship. I am not a political scientist, but it seems to me that there was a time when it was easier for conservatives and liberals to agree that something needed to be done, and do it! Today one gets the impression that a policy or intervention is opposed simply because it comes from the other side.

This is what seems to be the case today with the carbon tax, or as I prefer to view it: a shift from taxing income to taxing extraction. How else can one explain the fierce resistance there is to this shift.

The Inter-government Panel on Climate Change is again warning about the inevitability of destructive climate change if we continue burning hydrocarbons at the current rate. This warning is coming from the world’s best scientists, and a reasonable response would be bold action. What we get is an anemic carbon tax from our government, and even that anemic tax is opposed.

Yes, our politicians are responsible for their platforms, but I do believe they are reflecting what we the voters want. We are too fearful that a bold government action will affect our comfortable lifestyle. This needs to change.

Inherently a bold response to the threat of climate change does not belong to any one party. I would expect the response to the threat to vary between parties, with the response determined by the party’s ideology, but a rational response to this very real threat should be equally bold from all parties.