Posted on

Doing Away With Pointless Partisanship

The big news today is the leak of documents from the Heartland Institute, an American conservative think tank that is proudly skeptical of climate change. Whether the leaked documents are authentic is yet to be determined, so we should reserve judgement for now. However it underscores the continued attention we give to the us vs. them climate change paradigm, a way of thinking that ignores what both sides actually have in common.

As climate change continues to be used as a political wedge issue, garnering support based on ideology rather than science, the public is becoming increasingly partisan. That the percentage of Canadians who believe there is evidence for climate change is a full 22% higher than Americans reinforces that politics, media, and ideologies have a significant effect on our perceptions – after all, if we were basing our opinions on scientific evidence, then we would expect numbers north and south of the border to be comparable. Science does not care much for borders. The same study notes that in Canada, public opinion is also divided along political lines; 64% of Conservative voters recognize evidence of climate change, compared to 84% of New Democrat voters and a full 91% for the Liberals. All of this points to an urgent need to reframe the discussion of climate change along non-partisan lines. By demonizing the opposition, and using rhetoric like “anti-science” and “willful ignorance”, those of us on the opposite end of the argument alienate potentially powerful partners.

Similarly, what international climate change negotiations have shown us is that a top-down political process relying on consensus among players with widely varying interests is extremely unlikely to bring the necessary results. And even if we were successful in negotiating a treaty and severely reducing our emissions, according the IPCC, the effects of the current levels of emissions on sea level and atmospheric temperatures will be continued to be felt for a timeframe beyond comprehension.

IPCC graph on rising seal levels
IPCC graph showing rising sea levels despite drastic CO2 reductions

Despite these alarming and dire predictions, greenhouse gas emissions reductions are necessary and desirable. Yet there is almost insurmountable difficulty in achieving a common agreement that seems fair and equitable. Regardless of whether such negotiations are successful or not – and clearly we should all hope against hope for a breakthrough agreement – most of what we can do starts here at home.

Consider the following graph, produced by McKinsey and Co in 2010. This represents the cost of carbon abatement through a number of technologies and practices.

McKinsey Abatement Curve
The McKinsey C02 cost abatement curve

Those boxes to the left indicate lower potential for CO2 abatement, with rising potential to the right. However what we should focus on is the vertical axis, which is all about cost. Those strategies that fall below the main axis are net negative cost; that is, they would save us money. While clearly the opportunity for cutting GHG emissions becomes greater with greater cost, there is no ignoring the not-insignificant action that we could be taking for actual cost-savings.

Electricity generated from landfill gas, switching to LED lighting, increased efficiency in residential appliances and electronics, hybrid cars. These are all steps that we could be taking right now, steps that would create jobs, save money, and at the same time reduce emissions. All this could come without the governmental regulation on emissions that is so feared by Conservative voters worried about the state of the economy. These are places where we could all win, and all be on the same page.

The rhetoric of science versus anti-science, anthropogenic climate change versus natural historical cycles, and liberal versus conservative, are all getting in the way of those areas in which cooperation is not only possible, but desirable. We can hope that future international negotiations will see greater success, but moving ahead to cut our own emissions and lead more energy efficient lifestyles can begin right now, and also save us a few dollars along the way.

(Featured photo courtesy of spettacolopuro/Flickr)

Posted on

Our Collective Myth

In a few weeks, the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) will be meeting to review Canada’s adherence to their international obligations. It’s been over forty years since Canada became a signatory to the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; this has provided governments at all levels ample opportunity to review legislation and policies in light of their responsibilities. So to the media, and to the average Canadian, the review is likely little more than a formality – surely our peaceful and enlightened northern state is at the forefront of the defense of human rights worldwide.

It is this comforting myth of Canadian moral superiority that blinds us to the absolute tragic day to day realities of a not-insignificant number of our own citizens. Yet we cloud our compassion by blaming victims, and creating an us and them paradigm. But how would the public react if one day our national newspaper ran a story stating that Jewish women are three times more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and seven times more likely to be murdered, than non-Jewish women? The backlash would be immediate. Editorials would be written calling Canada a country troubled by violent prejudice, deeply seeded anti-Semitism, and rampant xenophobia. The governments would coordinate to make an action plan to determine the cause of this staggering injustice, police forces would set up a joint task force, public inquiries would be held, and the public would demand answers as to why such a historically persecuted group can find no escape from continued discrimination. All of these reactions would be appropriate, just, and necessary.

Yet as soon as we change Jewish to Aboriginal everything changes. Now the public reaction is muted. The media runs a story and then lets it lie. Communications from governments are of false sympathies and empty commitments, followed up by policies that seem to blame the victims and ignore root causes. This is our reality, and this is the Canada that we live in. Aboriginal women are three times more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and seven times more likely to be murdered. Read that sentence again. Read it one more time. Let it actually sink in what that means in terms of a complete and utter failure on the part of our country to care for its people and understand their situation. This is our fault, and this is our shame.

Those on the other side of the debate will argue personal responsibility. They will argue that our regrettable history of colonialism has long been mended; after all that was generations ago. How short our memories have become. Imagine that your grandparents had been stolen from their homes as children, physically and sexually abused by the only parental figure in their lives at a residential school, and taught that they were lesser persons and their entire culture was blasphemy. Would that not have had an effect on you, growing up? Would you be able to turn it all around and escape from the cycles of abuse and poverty? Does that sound so easy? We are beyond arrogant and ignorant to believe that such abuse and denial of rights can be erased with nothing more than a formal apology in Parliament.

When action has come on this issue, it has been haphazard and predictably unjust. In the aftermath of the Robert Pickton trials, the Government of British Columbia set up a Missing Women Commission of Inquiry to look into police investigations into dozens of women who went missing in the Vancouver Downtown Eastside between 1997 and 2002. Despite paying lip service to an inclusive proceeding that respected the voices of all parties involved, Women’s groups, Aboriginal rights organizations, and Downtown Eastside community groups were unable to participate after being denied public funding by the Attorney General of BC. By the very circumstances that necessitated the inquiry – the lack of political voice of these women – they became unable to take part and lend their necessary and relevant voices to the discussion. Meanwhile, police and members of the justice system are fully represented, all paid for by public funds.

This is a tragic farce, a mockery of justice. This is the very essence of discrimination. How can we expect a group that lacks financial resources and political clout to make their voices heard above the state? Why have an inquiry without giving voice to those groups who are the very subject of that inquiry? And perhaps more tragically, why does nobody seem to care? This is but one example of the continued failure of the Government of Canada, the media, and the greater polity, to take heed of tragedies within our own home.

It’s possible to list all the legal arguments as to how our collective lack of action doesn’t live up to our international commitments. This has been done in submissions to CERD, and hopefully the committee members will press our delegation hard on these issues. But let’s set aside legal arguments for now. Let’s forget that human rights weren’t born of law, but of compassion, understanding, and morality. Until the public takes notice, stops blaming the victims, and realizes that discrimination through inaction is just as harmful as discrimination through action, then Aboriginal women in Canada – in our country – will continue to be disappeared, assaulted, and murdered. All this will happen while we sleep easy, comforted by the continually propagated myth of Canada’s undeniable respect for human rights and freedoms.

(Feature photo courtesy of pierre pouliquin/Flickr)