Thoughts on Politics

In very broad terms, I have come to think of myself as “socially progressive” yet “fiscally conservative.” It is important from the outset to explain what I mean by these terms.

I expect my understanding of “socially progressive” fits the norm. I enjoy our pluralistic society. I seek inclusivity and don’t react well to divisive “us versus them” politics. I look for what brings us together, our common interests, not what keeps us apart. I celebrate individual uniqueness, while embracing all that we share in our various communities. I may bristle at times, however, when I find myself in the midst of too much “political correctness”. We need to know when to lighten up. I have never been a practicing Christian, but am not offended by the greeting of “Merry Christmas”. It is a greeting of good wishes and a well intended, pleasant social custom. Although usually I am not one to say it, I accept it in the spirit it is given.

My understanding of “fiscal conservatism” however, may differ from the mainstream. Most people seem to view it as spending the least amount of money, every year, and do whatever it takes to avoid a tax increase or any other expenditure. To me, it means spending the correct amount of money today, and every day, to ensure that in the long term we spend the least amount of money. I have made several presentations to Ottawa City Council on this theme.

It means long term cost effective planning. It means seeking the long term efficient ways of doing things. It means fully accounting for all of the costs. Unfortunately, we have done very little in our society to capture the environmental costs of what we do. That is a failure to think long term for which future generations will pay big time.

So, where does this put me politically? How have I voted? Much to the chagrin of many of my friends, I have usually voted for the Liberal Party here in Canada. Ever since the social conservatives took control of the Conservative Party of Canada, I have found them increasingly distasteful. Too often they focus on what separates us, instead of what brings us together.

The New Democrats on the other hand also rarely got my vote. I simply viewed them as too attached to big labour. I have found big labour to be more concerned with “jobs, jobs, jobs,” rather than the consequences those jobs. For example, in January, 2007 “the NDP Leader was taken to task this week in a letter from Buzz Hargrove, head of the Canadian Auto Workers union, who said Mr. Layton’s call for regulations that would require more environmentally friendly cars will kill jobs.”(Globe & Mail) Yes, the New Dems can generally be considered “socially progressive”, but often they want to spend money first and ask how we are going to pay for it later. (Ow! That should jab some of my friends.) Oh, I know they mean well, but, it often seems like too much old style thinking.

So, that left me with the Liberal Party as the place I usually parked my vote. That is, until the last federal election, when they had to be spanked severely. They had become way to used to being in power. They remained in office for those three consecutive majority terms not because Chretien was such a great leader, but because the opposition kept imploding before their eyes.

Therefore, in the winter election of 2006 I voted for the Green Party for the first time. This choice came out of my emerging environmental concerns. They began to appeal to me as a party of principal. A party that presented their platform not to seek power, but to convince the electorate of the value of their ideas. I expect this will change moving forward, but for now, they want other parties to incorporate their policies. They don’t seem as concerned with who enacts them as with the need for action.

I am convinced that the environmental file is one we cannot get wrong. At this time I believe the Green Party is the best place for me to learn and put energy into shaping public opinion. We are now witnessing all of the other parties painting themselves green in one way or another. However, they will compromise because they seek power.

The New Democrats will have to compromise their green principals to incorporate big labor who, amongst other things, wants to protect the automobile industry. To me, automobiles drive, literally and figuratively, much of the environmental problems we face. If everyone used public transport instead of individual automobiles, there would be no fighting for oil, no congestion. We would have more dense, livable cities.

The Conservatives and Liberals will both be seeking power and are driven by the need to keep the corporate world happy. They are very reluctant to express controversial ideas that would alienate big business. I happen to believe that we need to move toward a SteadyState economy, one that moves away from praying at the altar of growth. I expect it will be a long time before either of those parties embrace such a concept.

Climate Change and the Skeptics

I do not have a background in science nor do I understand all of the complexities of the research regarding climate change. However, neither did I understand the science when a medical doctor recommended that I needed to have my appendix removed. I am, however, glad I followed his advice.

Of course, he could have been wrong. The pain may have been a bad case of indigestion. My family and I could have sought alternate opinions, and fully discussed and debated the issue of whether or not surgery really was necessary. Did I really want to be scarred for life? Didn’t we realize that complications can arise from surgery?

Perhaps I am making a somewhat facetious analogy. But, I don’t believe I am that far off. In this instance the patient, planet earth, may survive for generations to come. Then again, its entire ecosystem could be on the brink of collapse. The question is, what irreparable harm are we risking by failing to act?

The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada ??? together with the national academies of fifteen other nations ??? also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: “The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change.”Suzuki

The case has been made that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. This is not the rantings of a few fringe scientists. Forgive the rhetoric, but how many opinions on this do we have to seek before we accept the evidence? There will always be the contrarians amongst us. There are those who continue to deny the holocaust, and others who insist the earth is flat. However, the fate of our planet is at stake and we need to act.

I am encouraged to see a groundswell of public opinion on this issue. I encourage you to read the declaration of a coalition of 48 Canadian youth groups. Another group of young Canadians, working under the banner of The Otesha Project, is teaching us how to be the change.

I have been convinced by the evidence presented by more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries that my consumption focused lifestyle, combined with that of everyone else, is devastating our planet. We are fouling our nest. We buy food and clothing from distant lands, with no thought to the energy resources expended to create and bring these products to us. We similarly think nothing of jetting off to anyplace on the planet simply because we have the money. We send our garbage to distant lands to minimize our costs.(BBC) We treat the world as our oyster, with no regard for the trail of debris we leave behind us.

Perhaps it is difficult to imagine how driving to a favourite big box store or indulging in an annual winter flight to warmer climes will harm the environment. First, multiply your trip by the millions of others done every day around the world. Then, add the hundreds, if not thousands of kilometres those various products you purchased travelled to get to your store. Finally, consider how the number of these “vacation” flights have increased dramatically during our lifetimes. The energy and resources consumed quickly adds up. All so we can have “cheap” fresh produce from Mexico, a ten dollar shirt from Sri Lanka or a week in the sun. It is only “cheap” because we are not capturing the external costs of environmental degradation caused by the energy and other resource consumption required to provide these products to us. Capitalism can be ruthlessly efficient, but so far, it has failed to capture and properly assign these environmental costs. It is time to pay up.

Excess consumerism is often commented on in mass media, yet every Christmas we are urged to “shop til we drop”, with a primary goal of supporting the economy. I believe we need to change this mindset. One group that has been showing us how is Buy Nothing Christmas a national initiative started by Canadian Mennonites. As they suggest, “Rise Above It!”

A group known as The Christmas Resistance Movement uses even stronger language as it urges us to “boycott Christmas Shopping, Christmas decorations, Christmas cards, and every variety of Christmas Crap.”

An organization known as the New American Dream provides a wealth of information and guidance. Although it is based in the U.S., Canadians can learn much from this group. Any group founded on the motto of “More Fun Less Stuff!” gets my vote! I urge each of you to consider the concept of Voluntary Simplicity.

This is not a call to simpler times. We will need all that our scientific research has to offer. But we will need to re-direct it toward a sustainable use of our resources. Our lifestyle is currently based on having a never ending supply of an unrenewable resource: oil. As individuals and collectively through changes in government policy we need to prepare ourselves for the consequences of the inevitable decline in oil production, otherwise known as Peak Oil.

It will require our most creative energies and talents. We will need to bring together all that we have learned to re-shape collectively how we stop the unsustainable consumption of the earth’s precious resources. We must begin to move away from being focused on what we can consume, and learn how to appreciate what we already have.

I believe a significant number of us actually grasp many of the concepts discussed above. The one thing that most of us do not do, unfortunately, is “connect the dots” between our individual consumption patterns and the collective consequence of millions of such decisions. We are not seeing that change must start from our own individual choices. It is one thing to see the problem. It is another to see that the sum of all these individual acts is the ultimate Tragedy of the Commons. I urge each of you to embrace the concept that consuming less can mean having more. Consider developing your own personal commitment so that you also can be the change!