I like to read the major daily newspapers to see what the media moguls want to tell us about what is actually going on. For the most part I read these online, so I see more of the Toronto Star and National Post that I do of the Globe and Mail, since their articles are often locked.
The Star runs a regular opinion column that I call “She said, she said” with typically opposing views by Rondi Adamson and Linda McQuaig. The contrast of opinion on the same issue can be quite informative regardless of which (if either) you may agree with. Generally I agree and disagree with elements of both, but this is a sure sign of being Green and the fact that I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
In their latest columns
- Bill signals Kyoto is dead for Canada — and so are unrealistic emission targets, says Rondi Adamson
- `Axis of Oil’ more important to Prime Minister than health of planet, says Linda McQuaig
these writers have commented on the proposed “Clean Air Act”. Linda McQuaig calls it bowing to the oil industry while Rondi Adamson calls it an admission, finally, that Kyoto is dead and that we will work toward realistic and achievable targets instead.
The statement, that the Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels of GHG emissions has been repeated so many times by Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose that it is now repeated by many other Canadians, certain industries, and various reporters in the mainstream media.
And believe it or not, this post is not going to address whether the target is achievable. (It is, and the Green Party’s GP squared plan would get us there, but that’s not the point of this post.)
Instead I want to address these words, unachievable and unrealistic, so that when Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose use them we can be sure of how their use of these words differs from ours.
- Passing on a world which is livable for both humans and other species, in which our children and grandchildren and future generations have an equal opportunity to live, eat, work, play, and have families of their own, without meeting our Kyoto targets and the drastic cuts to GHG emissions that we really need, is unachievable.
- Expecting to do so is unrealistic.
- Making the required cuts to GHG emissions without examining our lifestyles, business practices, and regulatory regimes at all three levels of government, recognizing the daily decisions that have environmental impacts, and then make changes is unacheivable.
- Expecting to do so is unrealistic.
So if anyone accepts the Conservatives position that the Kyoto targets are unachievable and unrealistic, let’s just be sure that they understand the consequences of that acceptance and have also accepted the affect on their childrens future.
If I am faced with a voter who has considered the facts and thinks it’s acceptable to pass on an uninhabitable world, then fine. I will shrug my shoulders, shake my head, and move on to the next voter.
