Well it seems like the old climate change issue is at our forefront again, no less just in time for Cancun 2010. What's happening up here in Canada? Not much, other than just an unelected body of government denied a bill that had support in the elected portion of our Federal Government. It's supposed to be rare event but it feels oddly familiar.
Basically the House of Commons voted for a climate change bill that would reduce Canada's c02 output by 40% in ten years. That's a lot of percent. 290 million tonnes to be exact. If eliminating 290 million tonnes of c02 from the economy in ten years seems hard to picture imagine “eliminating all the cars, trucks, bulldozers, railways and airlines in the country.... wouldn't get even halfway to meeting the requirements in the bill”
Bummer. Yet, this is what's expected of Canada when we come to Cancun. Remember the last big climate meeting in Copenhagen? Protestors were bashing Canada over our low carbon targets. As if their respected countries were well on their way to meeting theirs.
Not that any of this is important. Whether or not the world likes Canada doesn't really matter. The world doesn't like the USA but generally most people will agree the individuals of the country are okay. The same goes for up here, the Canadian establishment sucks, but Canadians are cool. Maybe a little left-wing, but well intentioned nevertheless.
The real issue isn't political either. In 2008 the Grits, the Bloc and the Socialists threatened a coalition if Harper didn't 'stimulate' the economy by deficit spending. But less than two months earlier Canadians had just elected Harper's government on the platform of precisely no spending at all. We voted for balanced budgets but we were forced deficits. Now a loose coalition of MPs (who together represent the majority) voted for, what is effectively, massive de-industrialization. Being the elected government, Harper and his Party's Senate acted in what they believed to be in the best interest of country by sending it back to the House.
The Senate acted the way it was supposed too. It's our sober second thought.
But none of this deals with the real issue. My main cause for concern is the idea that we need government to regulate our carbon output. If going 'green' really is the future trend in markets – regardless of the scientific merits of anthropogenic global warming – then why does the government feel it needs to induce coercive force to direct it?
Environmentalist rally organizer Don McLean : “Governments are not going to solve this, people will have to solve this through mass movement because the change that is required is a fundamental one.”
Exactly! No real need for government directorship is needed at all. Why stop at “environmentally friendly” sectors of the economy and release all restrictions on all sectors, freeing for the first time in centuries the entire market of voluntary exchange. That'd be fundamental change.
Seriously -- no real need for government directorship is needed at all. Voluntary exchange, when left alone to thrive is remarkable; in the age of instant communication the possibilities are endless. We really do have the ability for global change.
Unless government force dismantles our civilization in the name of cutting greenhouse gases.
No comments:
Post a Comment