Sunday, December 20, 2009

Brother, can you spare me a Swedish Fish?

I feel the need to apologize for the generous column-inches this blog devoted to the Copenhagen climate summit. As I suspected all along, there was never any REAL chance that the feeble-minded governments of the West could ever take the lead in moving its slothful populations -- raised on a steady diet of Swedish Fish, CNN sound bites, chrome-wheeled SUVs and the cheap abundance of Dollar Store shelves -- in the desperately-needed direction of quickly changing our behaviour and consumption patterns. Worse, my defeatist sentiment is hammered home with clear signals from our Conservative government that there was little or no interest in trying to use our middle-power status for positive change.

The most recent excrement to flow from Ottawa, that it won't rule out giving oil and gas companies an emissions break on the oil sands, is proof to me that the double-talk spin machine is lubricated and powered 100 per cent by fossil fuels, to the detriment of Canada's international reputation and respect. If I was ever more embarrassed to declare myself Canadian, I can't really remember.

Sure, there will be those out there who subscribe to the very basic understanding that it would be "bad" for our economic system. Like blackmail, this argument continues to hold sway because, well... I don't really know. Tell me what it is we produce in Canada that is so economically dependent on protecting massive carbon emissions (like the United States and China want to do)? There is mostly light manufacturing in Quebec and Ontario. There is mining in Northern Ontario and Quebec and various other locales, such as the Northwest Territories. There's logging and paper mills in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Frankly, all of these need an eco-overhaul as it is... but otherwise, our economy is built on entrepreneurs and commercial and retail operations. And if the stats are true, that 90 per cent of Canada's population lives within 300 kilometres of the US border and that our massive landmass and low population means a population density of about 3 people per square kilometre, why can't we progressively, quickly and urgently transition to wind farms and other energy alternatives (geothermal?) on land most Canadians will never see? I don't get it.

But, cleverly, while all the bickering goes on about tar sands and tax breaks for corporations, the Cons are pulling the wool over the eyes of Canadians on equally pressing issues of national character, international reputation and national security. Take the torture of Afghan detainees, for instance. This is not something Canadians should take lightly -- no matter how many schools or hospitals we say we are building in Afghanistan. Having lived in that part of the world before, family and tribal pride are far greater influences than any bricks and mortar buildings. This is not a criticism of the young Canadians in military uniforms dying needlessly in roadside bombs, but a scathing indictment of the stupidity of those running our government and their lack of understanding, specifically Peter MacKay who has presided over this fiasco. We torture ourselves when we torture others.

But Afghanistan aside, we have news of the sale of CANDU -- made-in-Canada nuclear energy technology developed by Canadians, for Canadians, with Canadian taxpayer money. Even if the 50-year-old technology is dated, it does not warrant a sale of what I call 'national innovation infrastructure'. Neglect of such infrastructure by our government is not an excuse for a fire sale to private interests. Regular readers of this blog know that I have a deep commitment to re-establishing centres of excellence across this country. Candu, the national space agency, our aerospace industry and our arts and sciences are examples of areas that need proper funding to put Canada back in a leadership position. Coincidentally, probably seeing the writing on the wall given what's happening in other critical Canadian industries, the aerospace industry is being proactive with a website and ad campaign -- "Our Aerospace Industry" -- to which I say, bravo! After all, success in Canada makes us all winners. In a very tangible way, it is "ours".

So what's the way forward? Good question. I found the recent article in The Walrus -- The Stranger Within -- provided an excellent overview of how the Liberal Party got to where it is today. And despite the modestly optimistic note the author, Ron Graham, closes the article with, it is by and large clear that Iggy and the Liberals are unlikely to pose any threat to our current status quo. We have no clear direction forward but are too fearful of the possibility of change; we know we don't like where we are, but aren't happy with the alternative. I guess you might say that makes all of us strangers within. Pass the Swedish Fish, please!

-----
Copenhagen cartoon copyright Graham MacKay.

2 comments:

MD said...

Thanks for the Walrus article. Very interesting and, I think, accurate. Environmental policy in Canada has been a mess since David Anderson retired (Stephane Dion's extraordinary performance at the 2005 Montreal Climate Summit notwithstanding), so I'm not surprised Iggy is unwilling to offer anything there.

More unforgivable is his unwillingness to stand forcefully for human rights, on everything from the torture question, to Abousfian Abdelrazik, to Omar Khadr. Iggy's tepid avoidance of the Khadr issue is particularly galling, because it is fed by the reactionary views and unpopularity of the Khadr family. If the party of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms won't stand up for the rights of Canadian citizens unless the cause is popular in the polls, what right do they have to ask for the votes of Liberal supporters?

Canadiun said...

You said it, brother! Absolutely. Iggy has been an undeniable failure on all accounts. Despite the fact that things are All Quiet on the Liberal Front right now, the party is rotting from the inside.