Flat earth attitude leads to flat line future

When are we going leave the climate change deniers behind, and start taking serious action on what should be the most urgent file on the desk of every government on earth?

When, to put it another way, can we put commentary from the folks who don’t think there’s a problem in the same category as we would arguments from the Flat Earth Society?

I say this after having read a CBC post under the heading, Recent warming over the past 100 years is not part of a natural process, studies find. Thanks for that, but I don’t need any more proof that climate change is a real and present threat, it’s happening as I type, it’s human caused, and it requires urgent action at every level.

That local governments, including The City of Duncan and The Municipality of North Cowichan, are responding to the crisis is a good sign (as reported in onecowichan.ca). We need more good signs at a higher level, and to insist on clear commitments from federal politicians vying for our votes Oct. 21.

The International Panel on Climate Change has given us 12 years to effect the massive transformations that need to be made to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of global warming; that global warming is already happening, and that it’s due to human activity is not a question that can seriously be asked.

Says the IPCC report, in its level headed language: Human activities are estimated to have caused approximately 1.0°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a likely range of 0.8°C to 1.2°C. Global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate. (high confidence)

Here’s the graph:

Leave the climate change deniers to their convoluted, dangerous logic, and let’s get on with concerted action to stop global warming – as has been agreed to in the 2016 Paris Climate Accord. We can’t afford to squabble anymore about the urgency of the situation.

The flat earther’s can go around proving their theories from now to eternity, and nobody’s really going to get hurt. No matter how far they wander in their zany speculations, no-one is going to actually fall off the edge. Climate change deniers, on the other hand, are preventing us from facing up to the greatest crisis that has ever faced civilization, and being innovators in the new economy that has to emerge, if we are going to avoid disaster.

Craig Spence, Editor


INTERESTING NEWS FOR INTERESTED MID-ISLAND READERS
You can sign up for the MiF newsletter, follow MiF on social media, or contact MiF directly by email or phone from our Connect page.

Looking up to young voters

We’ve got an election coming on in three months time, and like every other election, it’s the most important in our history… only this time I really mean it.

The people we put in power will likely be governing for the next three to five years. That’s a quarter to third the time the International Panel on Climate Change and a long list of organizations, scientists and environmentalists have allowed for the world in general, developed economies in particular, to get their acts together and treat climate change as the crisis it’s become.

There will be lots of issues to think about as October 21 approaches, but I ask you to give the parties’ leadership on climate change the most weight when you mark your ballot, and to spend time between now and then getting up to speed on the complex issues involved.

As a certified senior, I fear for the futures of my children and grandchildren – global warming is an unacceptable threat. But I won’t be around to experience the worst catastrophes that will result, if we continue in the profligate lifestyles my generation has brought into vogue. If you’re a young voter, you will be.

It’s your future we’re talking about here. So by all means, blame my cohort for the place we’re at; but take full responsibility for the direction we’re going to take as the second quarter of the 21st Century approaches, before it’s too later that it already is.


MiF will be doing federal election coverage from a Mid-Island perspective between now and Oct. 21. If you have suggestions about what we should cover, or questions you would like candidates to respond to, please get in touch…

[wpforms id=”1639″ title=”false” description=”false”]

Are we really doomed?

In a recent Tyee article, Who, or What, Will Stop the Battle against Biodiversity?, Andrew Nikiforuk laments the failure of the environmental movement to prevent the onslaught of rapacious humanity against nature.

“You can’t read the UN’s recent biodiversity report on the imminent destruction of one million creatures by human economies and not conclude that the environmental movement has failed, and spectacularly so,” he begins.

Not too many people would quibble with that statement. Perhaps there are some who still believe the environmental movement may gain traction as the pending catastrophes of unabated consumerism and industrialism become more obvious, but two mindsets are taking hold that gainsay that desperate hope:

  • increasingly the conversation around climate change is about how we, as a species (and to hell with every other living creature on the planet), can adapt to the unstoppable rise in temperature;
  • there is an almost palpable sense that no amount of protesting, letter writing, recycling and electric biking is going to stop the juggernaut of ‘progress’ in the consumerist genre, and as more and more people on the planet demand their slice of American pie, we will continue to race toward the tipping point of catastrophe at an ever accelerating rate.

Nikiforuk goes farther than saying enviros have failed, though. By some circuitous trail of deduction I can’t fathom, he actually blames the environmental movement for the mess we’re getting ourselves into.

Citing the ‘brilliant Austrian cleric’ Ivan Illich, who said the environmental movement might not amount to much, Nikiforuk says: “In many respects environmentalism has allowed a civilization intent on hacking off its limbs one by one to properly record the loss of each appendage and then pretend the amputation isn’t all that consequential.”

Hardly a rallying cry for the exhausted troops under their green banners to keep up the good fight, despite the odds!

I’m still not convinced it’s a case of sloppy writing; or confounded logic that has led to this gloomy impression of environmentalism as a worse-than-ineffectual movement, but whatever the cause, I think Nikiforuk has weighed in on the wrong side of the balance… there has never been a greater need to muster green sentiments then right now.

What are the enviros up against? Reading the comments to Nikiforuk’s article will give you an idea of the kinds of attitudes that are prevalent, and which the Green movement has to be mindful of. Here’s a culling of thoughts taken from more than a hundred comments to his article:

  • Humans are a pernicious species, separate from nature.
  • The only solution to impending global catastrophe would be extermination of the human species.
  • A knowing intelligencia is manipulating the economic and political process to perpetuate the capitalist, consumerist thrust of human growth and development.
  • The motive for planetary pillaging is profit.
  • Corporate entities have an overwhelming advantage when it comes to influencing public attitudes and opinion.
  • The environmental movement has failed.
  • We are doomed to a dark age of civil and social collapse which will entail unspeakable devastation and suffering.
  • Science, which has brought us the standard of living we enjoy, will not be able to come up with solutions to prevent the planetary collapse our standard of living entails.
  • Population growth combined with the ever increasing demands of consumerist modes of living are unsustainable factors that inevitably lead to disaster.
  • Humanity cannot survive if the intricate web of biodiversity is degraded.
  • The pre-industrial mode of living was more in tune with nature than the post-industrial.
  • We could have achieved a higher standard of living without the kind of environmental plundering and social disruption that occurred.
  • The democratic process can’t lead to the type of change that’s needed to prevent global catastrophe.
  • Individuals, when it comes down to making the ‘right’ choices, will always choose the ‘wrong’ things: more consumer products that make life easier and more fun.
  • There will be winners and losers no matter how the future unfolds: change, to harmonize our behaviour with nature, entails dislocations such as job loss, divestment and so on; the status quo will lead to untold suffering for many, new forms of consolidated power for a few.
  • If people shared, we could attain a high standard of living without destroying the planet… but human beings are by nature greedy, self-centred, rapacious and destructive.

Knowing the mindset of thine opponents, and thine allies is fundamental to any sort of political success. Opponents words can (and must) be turned in your favour; supporters’ views can (and almost always will) be used against you. Nikiforuk has penned a strange sort of logic in his article about ‘the battle against biodiversity’, but he’s touched some important nerves in the process.

Subscribe to MiF Updates

* indicates required




Gas price increase in context

Next time I’m grumbling about the cost of pumping gas into my tank, and blaming –falsely – the darn gas tax, I might want to picture the analysis submitted in a letter to the editor of the Times Colonist by Thomas Martin of Victoria (depicted above). In the May 6 edition, Martin says, in reference to a TC article, New Alberta refinery could help with squeezed gas supply: Horgan, April 27:

High gas prices have made the news (again). I sat down, did the math and found the increase will cost me only $120 annually.

My car, if you account for maintenance, depreciation, financing and insurance, costs about $8,000 a year. Rent, utilities, phone and internet for my one-bedroom cost $22,200.

If we have the infrastructure, I can choose to drive my car less, but I will always choose to have a roof over my head. I hate driving to work. However, our government’s choices make us dependent on the automobile for daily life, and thus forced to spend absurd amounts on what should be a luxury item.

If politicians actually cared about the ordinary person, they would give us options to reduce car dependency (more bike lanes, better transit, etc.) and work to reduce the cost of necessities such as housing.

Makes dollars and sense to me!