Canadians need a new national animal

Compelled by a strange feeling of responsibility to manufacture one of those generic end of/beginning of the year articles, I recalled a memory from my childhood. Thumbing through a geography textbook as a young mushroom-haired boy, probably wearing either a Spiderman jumpsuit or an entire Toronto Blue Jays uniform, I found a cartoon that was comparing the size of Canada with Russia. Russia, represented as a grinning bear in a fez cap, was much larger than Canada, which was depicted as a beaver holding a hockey stick. In my approximately seven year old brain, these images didn’t demand much scrutiny beyond wondering what the bear thought was so funny. After all, what’s laughable about a beaver? Nothing, that’s what.

The beaver is a builder, a herbivore, an aquatic genius, a noble beast with work ethic that can make hot-blooded Protestants feel fancy. Indeed, the beaver is a majestic creature, an animal that deserves better than to be sullied as Canada’s national creature. A suggestion: re-illustrate our geography books to include a species that actually reflects Canada’s behaviour domestically and internationally. I think some variety of snake is more fitting. Unlike beavers, snakes do not have legs, movable eyelids, external ear-openings, or eardrums, just like many of the government officials and corporations that represent us here and abroad. Therefore, considering the troubled eggs our dry-eyed, legless, and hard of hearing Canadian elites have been laying all over the planet this year, I don’t believe it’s fair to ridicule the beaver any longer as Canada’s national creature.
(more…)

It’s finally the end of the Copenhagen climate change summit. I don’t know about anyone else, but I had my hopes up. After almost two weeks of high-level collaborative teamwork you’d expect something more to show for it than the sooty remains of a huge carbon footprint. To be fair, our world leaders have come up with an insight that is staggering in its implications (see #2… no pun intended): “Deep cuts in global emissions are required.” I thought we already figured that part out. Oh snap! But wait, there’s more! The U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon tells us that, “although the accord may not be what everyone had hoped for, it is a beginning.” Apparently Kyoto is now passé; in 1997, I thought it was a beginning. In spite of my disappointment at the outcome of the conference, however, I can rest easy because Canada’s Minister of the Environment, Jim Prentice, assures me that this not legally binding accord is “an excellent agreement.” With Canada’s record of escalating carbon emissions each year since the Kyoto Accord was signed – a 27% increase from 1990 benchmark levels – how can I not feel good about this?
(more…)

The CBC's Rex Murphy.
Photo Credit: National Speakers Bureau

I returned to my favorite blog-site intending to write about the fortunate stupidity of Iranian Mullahs in further undermining their legitimacy this bloody weekend when I found Brian Gordon, yet again railing against the CBC. To recap on Brian’s views, he wishes that media were fact-checked for scientific accuracy and that only scientifically accurate data and historical truths where such truths are held in consensus are reported. Despite our mutual antagonism Brian and I are not, at heart, ideologically opposed. Still, I felt the need to respond to him, again, because the consequences of his “vision” for Canadian media are ultimately totalitarian. There are traditionally two paths to totalitarianism: informed religiosity, and uninformed naivety. The views of Mr. Gordon represent the latter. Regardless, Brian and I both agree that there is an imminent threat to human survival due to global warming and exponential human growth, we both disdain the CBC and Rex Murphy (though for different reasons), and we don’t think much of the supposed intellectual abilities of professing Christians. On the subject of ontology we also agree that there is “truth” and that such truth must be discernible, replicable, and observable. To us it is clear that our species is going to soon run out of space and food, it is clear that gravity is a force, and it is clear that evolution drives all life on this planet. To any thinking and enlightened person truth does not come from the ridiculous and silly texts of sheep-herders, nor does it come from some “expert’s opinion.” There are truths that people don’t like (for example, that generally speaking, men are stronger than women) and truths that they do (for example men generally live shorter lives than women). Truth is held not by people but by evidence.
(more…)

Terminology from George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 often gets thrown around in politics. For instance, it’s not unusual to hear those on the Left claim the state’s monopoly of public surveillance, such as the cameras in London or homeland security bills in the USA, are signs of a looming Big Brother. It’s also not unusual to hear those on Right alluding to thoughtcrime whenever they’re being accused of human rights violations.

But perhaps the doubleplusgood thinkers of them all are the Ministers of the Conservative Party of Canada. While not specifically using the terminology with any particular proficiency, these parliamentarians recently exemplified their understanding of the novel in what can only be described as a textbook case of espousing doublethink. In the novel, doublethink means to accept and believe information (espoused by the state) that one rationally knows to be contradictory. The case in point? Copenhagen.

Once upon a time there was a quaint little climate summit in the quaint little country of Denmark. Statesmen, and stateswomen, from all over the world came to negotiate an accord that would hopefully save the planet’s environment from spinning wildly out of control into the fiery depths of hell. Canada, as the sovereign country occupying the world’s second largest land mass, would naturally have a lot invested in the crisis, as its vast territory covers an array of starkly different ecosystems, including that of the Arctic, where Canada’s iconic polar bear has recently been seeing less seal than Heidi Klum on a weekend.
(more…)

Should they share the blame?
Photo Credit: The Age

As the world turns its attention to the climax of the climate summit in Copenhagen this week, it is worth considering some of the criticism that has been aimed at the Canadian government over the last month or so. Much of it has been vitriolic in nature and seemingly unrelenting in the build up to the meeting in the Danish capital. And as has been the case in the preceding months, much of it has centred on the issue of the Athabasca Oil Sands and the lingering fallout from Canada’s failure to adhere to their Kyoto pledge of lowering carbon emissions. The question though, is whether this sustained anger is justified?

George Monbiot, writing for the British Guardian newspaper last month, declared that ‘’this thuggish petro-state is today the greatest obstacle to a deal in Copenhagen.” And while Monbiot is known by some in his home country for his reactionary journalism and bluntly made points, it was still enough to provoke a reply from the Canadian government. In an article, also published in the Guardian, Jim Prentice, Canada’s minister for the environment, claimed “Canada will continue to play an active and constructive role at Copenhagen.” Prentice’s claims seem to have been in earnest, as UN climate change chief Yvo de Boer commented last week that Canada has been “negotiating very constructively” in Copenhagen.
(more…)

Embattled Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Photo Credit: CBC

In a span of just a few short weeks, Stephen Harper and his minority Conservative government have demonstrated a near total lack of credibility on two important issues which have dominated Canadian news – their stance on the environment and their knowledge and involvement in the alleged torture of detainees in Afghanistan.

The two issues are not by themselves connected, but they have managed to induce Mr. Harper and his government to deal with them in a strikingly similar fashion; that is, they first vehemently deny that any such issues exist, then they categorically refute that they have played any role in creating or contributing to the existence of these issues, and finally they attempt to downplay any legitimacy of the criticisms cast against them for their inability to deal forthrightly with the repercussions of their actions and or inactions once the issues and the government’s complicity with them have been exposed.
(more…)

Rex Murphy's View of the Earth

In a recent post, I pointed out that Rex Murphy is spouting climate denial based on the testimony of two self-annointed climate ‘experts,’ McIntrye and McKitrick. Quack #1 is a former mining stock promoter, and #2 is an economist. But who knows more about the science of global warming than stock promoters and economists, eh?

Rex can’t handle the truth because it contradicts his economic beliefs. Like many, Rex doesn’t understand that the economy is part of the environment, not the other way around. Rex Murphy is a modern-day inquisitor, terrified that a new view of the world will upset his privileged place, and I say the CBC should not be paying him to propagandize. I’ve discussed the deniers in greater depth on my climate change blog: The Great Global Warming Inquisition: Where Scientists are Galileo and the Church is Market Fundamentalism.
(more…)

The Copenhagen summit is a hot topic for conversation. Recent polls show that a broad spectrum of Canadians are calling for decisive action on climate change. One wonders why Stephen Harper, who is on a quest for a majority government, continues to ignore an issue that speaks to so many Canadians.

A Conservative prime minister adopting an aggressively environmental platform seems ludicrous, but the political map of Canada is changing. Liberal strongholds are disappearing faster than the polar ice caps. Conservative candidates are beginning to see that environmental action is about saving the economy, not crippling it. It could be that the shortest road to a majority is for Stephen Harper to redefine the Conservative stance on climate change.
(more…)

Just as I was starting to panic and think that I would have nothing to write about for my next blog, Mr. Harper came through for me in his most recent decision to attend the Copenhagen climate change meeting. Not that I think he shouldn’t attend it, I do – but the fact that he wasn’t going to attend until Obama decided to reminds me of high school, or maybe even junior high. Now I understand that rubbing elbows with Obama is probably a big thrill, one I would enjoy too, but seeing as Alberta alone emits more pollution than some small countries, I think Mr. Harper should have been attending regardless of what his US counterpart was doing that day – because it is the right thing to do, not the popular thing.

Like many of us years ago, I watched Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. However, unlike many of you, I made the mistake of watching The Day After Tomorrow right after it. The combination of the two scared the hell out of me. If you’ve seen the two films you understand what I’m talking about. If you haven’t, basically The Day After Tomorrow is like if An Inconvenient Truth was a movie and not a documentary: the world goes into another ice age because the North Atlantic current shuts down from melting ice caps and Canada gets wiped out by snow and ice; only the Southern hemisphere is unaffected. Now I know it’s just a movie and everything, but the science is basically true, and to me, that’s freakin’ scary. We’re talking doomsday stuff here, and need I remind anyone that 2012 is right around the corner. I’m not suggesting we base federal policy on the Mayan calendar, nor am I preaching a doomsday is imminent, but if we continue on this path, we will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure it sells big bucks in the theatres, but I’d like theatres to be around in the next few decades and maybe more after that, I mean, I do have nieces and nephews.
(more…)

The political means of addressing climate change are once again up for discussion.

Nostradamus was right. The year 2012 will certainly bring the end of an era.

Next month’s UN convention on climate change in Copenhagen reminds us that the Kyoto Protocol is on its last legs.

Indeed, the world’s first legally-binding legislation on greenhouse gas emission and climate change, for years battered and bruised through political conflagrations, diluted by the rhetoric of parliamentarians and spokespersons, pondered, plied and twisted through years of delay, and ultimately never ratified by the United States, is in need of a successor. And if Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s prognostications prove accurate, a definitive deal will not be reached in the Danish capital.
(more…)