It’s All Good Rhetoric –
– but about as useful as a pail with no bottom.
The following exchange comes from the Thursday, March 26, 2009 federal Hansard
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Ind.): Mr. Speaker, I just sent the Minister of the Environment parts of three reports that predict that rising sea levels will affect Nova Scotia more than most other areas.
The first report is the United Nations report that predicts that all highway and rail links to Nova Scotia could be severed. The second is a Government of Canada study that predicts the town of Truro could suffer catastrophic damage. The third report says that changes to ocean currents will result in the eastern seaboard having the highest sea level increase on the planet.
Could the minister outline the steps his department is taking to assess the future risk and outline his action plan to deal with the rising sea levels in Nova Scotia, and specifically on the Bay of Fundy?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is concerned about rising sea levels. I can certainly confirm that I have seen a rising level of correspondence from the hon. member on this subject.
The real challenge is to reduce emissions. That is why we are engaged with Todd Stern, who I have recently spoken to, the American negotiator on international climate change, leading up to negotiations in Copenhagen. We will pursue a binding international agreement that reduces emissions and pursues long-term transformations in technology that also applies to all major emitters. Those are the Canadian principles upon which we will proceed.
Possibly 20 years ago the challenge may have been to reduce emissions, but that’s not the challenge anymore – the challenge now is what to do about the rising sea levels Casey is talking about, because there’s jack sh*t that reducing emissions will do in sufficient time to stop them from rising.
I consider ‘climate change mitigation as the priority‘ talk to be one of two things:
- a sign of willful ignorance
- a sign of willful delay
– and in the case of Prentice, and the Conservative Party of Canada, I consider it a sign of willful delay.
I can envision no emission reduction amount that, in our lifetimes (or even our children’s lifetimes), will have any significant effect on a process that began some 200 years ago — at least no emission reduction amount that we can live with.
The discussion that needs to happen at this point is the one Casey tried to start – “what is the action plan to deal with the rising sea levels in Nova Scotia“, or anywhere else along Canadian shores for that matter?
What is the agriculture plan?
What are the farming plans?
What is the forestry plan?
Will Canada try and save coastal communities or abandon them?
Why is the Canadian government, and indeed the Canadian people as a whole, so seemingly unwilling to engage in those types of discussions?
I believe you don’t understand the New Conservative role of the Minister of the Environment. It’s to eliminate environmental assessments, etc, to expedite infrastructure spending.
Please try to keep up with the evolving roles and responsibilities in government these days.
And a levy is not infrastructure?
My point is that the talk of climate change mitigation as any sort of priority over climate change adaptation is, at this stage of of the game, pointless.
The smokescreen that Prentice is fronting is a popular one, deluded, but popular none the less. It says that we can somehow reduce global emissions to a level that will result in coastal communities like those noted by Casey not being flooded by rising seas before they are actually flooded by the rising seas – and that’s just not possible.
At some point (hopefully sooner rather than later), there will have to be a discussion about whether or not we (as a country) try and salvage these coastal communities, or whether we abandon them – and neither Prentice, nor the government of Canada, is doing anyone any favours by not beginning that discussion now.
Sigh. Stageleft, stageleft, stageleft. If climate change was REAL, maybe. And if, by SHEER coincidence, those coastal communities end up under the sea, the government will merely ask why in hell are Canadians choosing to live under water when there is so much dry land for sale in Alberta.
There is, as you correctly point out, the idea that the Conservatives simply do not believe there is anything happening — or if it is, it is either a temporary portion of a larger completely natural cycle, or just possibly even gods will… in which case the ‘lets
pretend we’re trying tofigure out a way to stop this thing‘ is nothing more than the delaying tactic I mentioned in the post in anticipation of a final “see, we told ya so” 50 years from now.Prentice was pretty much the same at Indian Affairs; smiles, empty promises to keep the media happy or confused (not that hard), while running interference so the government could do what it wanted – not what it should. He accomplished nothing of real value there. He’ll probably play the same cards at Environment.
Here’s a link to a NYTimes opinion piece that suggests a polar nature preserve to allow the big players (U.S. and Russia) to get what they want without too much head-butting or stomping on the bit players (Iceland, Norway, Finland, Canada and others).
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/28/opinion/28borgerson.html?_r=1
I wonder if they also suggest declaring Indigenous Arctic peoples a protected species of northern fauna? Whatever. I find the ignorance of northern peoples and issues astounding, and the arrogance of southerners that northerners don’t deserve a say in what will happen, astounding.