What does Climate Change
have to do with Democracy?

Everybody else is talking about it, so I thought I’d wade into the climate change issue.

Let me state up front: The science behind this environmental issue is real. I’m not even going to get into that debate because there isn’t one.

What I do find unpleasant, and occasionally alarming, is how some climate change proponents seem to think it’s all that matters. It’s assuming almost the quality of a new state-religion – where "you’re either with us, or you’re with the bad guys" – or just plain backward. Apparently we should simply sign off all future decision-making power to them to do their bidding – supposedly on our behalf.

It shouldn’t be that way.

 
Pour traduire la page
cliquez un drapeau!

Solving problems any other way is contrary to our system of governance that we call "democracy".

That’s why I feel the need to offer up a comment.

I agree with the Green Crowd that this issue needs to be addressed, quickly, and with broad, robust international actions. But I also have some concerns about what will be involved in reaching the targets. Few seem willing to discuss the sacrifices.

Let’s face it, our lives are going to change forever if the environmentalists get their way, just as our lives will if we don’t do anything and temperature increases cause the dramatic climate shifts we’re being warned about.

We’ve heard a lot of alarming "facts" about the price that we’ll pay for non-compliance. I’d like to ask: What sorts of sacrifices will we have to make to achieve compliance,

One of the ways our daily lives will dramatically change?

Our relationship with our "cars"

There are many other day-to-day examples of changes that will occur but, let’s not fool ourselves, for the average citizen this is going to be a big one.

Our lives will change in the way we meander to the mall to pick up groceries or the latest electronic doo-dad. Compliance might even affect family sizes since "big" cars are going to be so hard to find – or afford.

And the way we work is going to change. Where, when and how we work is one thing; for some of us, the question is even more fundamental: Will we be able to continue working if we can no longer use or afford the work vehicle we depend on? The environment lobby admits there will be "changes to employment" but, let’s be clear: Job losses will certainly result, and "you" may be one of those whose job is eliminated. There’s no guarantee of a "net job gain" as new types of jobs come on-line.

Oh, did I forget to mention the cost of gas!?

Not really, because that’s one that Canadians seem prepared to pay pretty well anything for.

Expect $5 per litre within a decade; sooner, if our governments sign on to the truly aggressive targets some are talking about. After all, we’ve already shown we’ll pay any price for gasoline.

We’ve demonstrated to our political masters that our tolerance is almost limitless. We will tolerate almost any price increase, "sin tax" and premium thrown at us.

In economic theory, the word "absorb" is used instead of "tolerate".

Liquor and cigarettes are the best illustrations, but anything we consider a "luxury" is in the same category: A "sin-tax target". And, of course, these days our government seems to consider fewer and fewer things to be "necessities" and more and more things to be "luxuries".

You can’t blame them.

Governments are only using the same technique that labour unions use to nick pennies off our paycheques, or where Wal-Mart makes 1 cent off of each item they sell, or where charities beg us for a dime to feed the poor. It’s the practise of "economies of scale", where millions upon millions of small bits, in the end, turn into titanic sums of cash, or profit.

And of course cash of this quantity means power.

So it’s no wonder that governments would use the same technique to furnish the vast sums of money needed to fund their national visions – slaying Greenhouse gases being only the latest offering.

Lastly, we have to realize that these changes are "imminent".

Unlike, say, dealing with the national debt, the big changes I’m talking about are going to be in our lifetime.

Now, although I sound like I’m picking a side, going after our cars MAY BE the easiest, best and most appropriate thing to do. They represent the #1 carbon footprint item of the average person.

Personally, I use my car to go to work, but using it to, say, go on a sightseeing "drive" is completely foreign to me. I just don’t do that. My neighbours know me well as "that guy who toddles along on his old fashioned bike everywhere".

So I’m lucky because in the revolution to come I should be able to adapt to restricted car use fairly easy.

However, I know that my level of dependency on my personal automotive use is far from "average". For the millions of people out there for whom this is not the average, dealing with the new relationship with their cars might be traumatic.

Here’s a funny – or maybe not so funny – thought. Over the decades, environmental advocates have been stereotyped as hippies who grow their own food, make their own clothes, sleep in the wilderness and absolutely abhor capitalism!.

In fact, I think that, several years or maybe a decade down the road, there’s a possibility that Al Gore, the world’s number one climate change advocate, may become the world’s first trillionaire! All he has to do is be the "face" or spokesperson for any number of approved GREEN products or services, and at a penny commission a pop, poof, he’s a personal multi-national.

Certainly, if Mr. Gore is not challenging Bill Gates for the personal wealth crown in a few years, he needs some new financial advisers.

Now, Gore and others in the Green revolution may completely merit the fame, if not fortune, that accompanies their noble mission, but it does seem slightly unseemly when you think about it.

While Bill Gates had the momentum of the thirst for technology on his side, he faced a lot of risks in the free market as he turned Microsoft into a powerhouse. The environmentalists, on the other hand, are going to have internationally-binding directives, the power of the government, and possibly state-sanctioned monopolies on their side, with few choices for the consumer and citizen on the other.

Think of the money.

Think of the power.

So let me suggest the following.

Citizens and consumers are going to be the ones who end up paying for all of this, as they have for every other "great" political vision through the decades.

Fighting climate change is not unique to any other "war" that we’ve fought, and won, using the peoples’ blood, sweat, toil and, of course, money. I have little doubt the war on climate change can be won. The question I pose, as I usually do, is: Don’t you think, maybe, just maybe, the people should be consulted directly on when, how far, how fast, how much?

Do our leaders have it in them to let us in on it?

Why not have a good 3-month national campaign with all the pro’s and con’s and timelines and COSTS laid out for people to hear and see. "Sell" them on the problem AND the real, necessary, tough solutions. Then, let the people decide the matter, in a national vote.

After all, our politicians have already wasted over 10 years of debate on the Kyoto Accord. Can’t we invest 3 months or 6 months to ask those who are going to have to pay the price for any action or inaction?

Then the matter’s settled, and we can get moving toward the agreed-upon outcome – and also to solving some of the nation’s other serious problems that seem to have completely dropped off the radar screen.

A national vote is the democratic approach. To do otherwise is to continue to allow politicians to bully the people into submission.

But, surely, all sides in the climate change debate know that when the millions of little "people" in a democratic system are on-board, tremendous things happen.

It’s really the "mother of all economies of scale" in action.

The alternative?

Well, we can continue to just leave it to academics and experts to berate us if we don’t immediately comprehend the complexities and completely agree with them.

Or, we can leave it to political parties that assure us that they "know what Canadians are thinking".

Or lobby groups full of "smart people" who know what’s best for us.

All that they ask of us is that we: Agree with them, vote for them, and send them our money.