"Militant" environmentalist or consumate professional?
It's been known for quite a while that Canada's natural gas reserves are diminishing.
That being said, every commodity is limited in its value. Natural gas is no different.
At the same time, there are some things that are unlimited in value. Rare plants and endangered species can be counted among this.
It's on this note that one has to consider the absurdity of the conflict between Calgary-based EnCana energy and the Canadian Military over the protection of the Suffield National Wildlife Area, a stretch of grassland that is home to endangered species such as the burrowing owl and kangaroo rat.
Yet one has to also consider the absurdity of the position that Lieutenant Colonel Malcom Bruce has found himself in. As the commanding officer of CFB Suffield, a Canadian Forces training base in the area, Malcom has been charged with the protection of the Suffield National Wildlife Area. This despite the fact that it shouldn't be his job.
"I am mandated, if you will, to look after the environment down here," Bruce said. "It's part of our departmental responsibility as assigned by Environment Canada, and therefore I set it as one of the highest priorities in the base."
Apparently Environment Canada has the authority to assign the military to do something that is Environment Canada's job. Only in Canada.
This being said, one has to admire Bruce for a quality that one so seldom finds outside the military. Perhaps protecting the Suffield National Wildlife Area shouldn't be his job. But he does it anyway.
Bruce's commitment stems from the commitment shared by his predecessor, "my predecessor Dan Drew has quite frankly re-established the need for us to get more involved and more proactive. He was very vocal about it and he put us back on the right road."
As it stands, CFB Suffield is noted to have done a fantastic job of training in the area while avoiding any negative environmental impact. "Military activity on the range has minimal impact because we do stringent environmental assessments so we know when is the best time to train on different areas at different climates."
Naturally, as a user of the area, CFB Suffield is responsible for the environmental impact of its own activities, and the onus in on them to ensure they minimize environmental impact.
But Environment Canada should be responsible for the protection of the area the rest of the time, even if that entails coordinating their activities with the military on the live-fire training base.
As for EnCana, they, like any other respectable energy company, are known for the lengths they go to to minimize their environmental impact. However, if the operation of 1,300 new gas wells could be planned around the seasons and the behaviourial habits of the area's wildlife, it could be justified. Because these operations -- the monitoring and servicing of the wells, in particular, can't be planned as such, it simply isn't worth the risk.
There are other -- albeit more expensive -- options available to EnCana, such as directional drilling from outside the protected area. While this would necessitate the drilling of fewer wells, it would at least offer EnCana the opportunity to tap these reserves.
As for Lt-Col Malcom Bruce, his dedication to something that shouldn't be fully his responsibility is admirable, perhaps even -- dare one say it -- heroic.
As such, Lt-Col Bruce should be allowed to take his rightful place among the ranks of the eco-heroes.
Showing posts with label Eco-hero or eco-ego. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eco-hero or eco-ego. Show all posts
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego vol. 5 - Stelmach vs. McGuinty: The Showdown
Stelmach and McGuinty play game of political chicken, both lose
This past week's First Ministers conference became the scene of a political grudgematch, as Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Ed "the Stomper" Stelmach locked up with Ontario Liberal premier Dalton "Flying" McGuinty over the issue of climate change.
The battle pretty much shaped up as such: Stelmach refused to accept any hard caps on industrial emssions, so McGuinty refused to accept California emissions standards for cars produced in Ontario.
"If we were to have in place (cap and trade) by 2020 we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 90 megatonnes," McGuinty insisted. "If all we do is put in place California emissions standards by 2020 we will reduce our ghg's (greenhouse gases ) by eight megatonnes. We can do 10 times more by way of reduction of greenhouse gases if all of us adopt (cap and trade)."
On the other hand, if McGuinty had kept his promise to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants, Ontario would be 70% closer to its share of Canada's Kyoto targets.
One may remember what was said about "he who has no sin..."
In the midst of all this, one may remember that both Dalton and his brother in federal politics, David, have both fallen firmly on the side of the eco-egos, due to their embarrassing exploitation of the climate change issue for political capital. Stelmach, however, has not been evaluated.
To this regard, Stelmach certainly isn't any hero. He also exploits the climate change issue for political capital, to the extent that he can't seem to admit the obvious: that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Alberta's oil industry do have an effect on climate change, and as such, it is only wise to start eliminating them.
This doesn't necessarily have to entail the industry suffering under a crushing regulatory regime. Stelmach would better serve the citizens of his province by negotiating a reasonable time frame, and perhaps a deal in which the other provinces -- particularly those like Ontario and Quebec who are so concerned about climate change -- help out on the funding end by accepting smaller transfer payments from Alberta.
McGuinty actually says is pretty well when he insists, "this is a national challenge. It requires a national response, not an Ontario response alone."
Then again, McGuinty would better serve the citizens of his province by doing something at all about climate change. Not only has he already racked up a litany of broken climate change-related promises, but he's actually re-made the promises in the leadup to the coming provincial election so he can re-break them if he wins.
Canada will be closer to a national response when the provinces and activists who stress the need for action most actually do something, as opposed to talking, then doing nothing.
McGuinty is a would-be environmental visionary who won't pull his weight. Stelmach, on the other hand, is the premier of an oil-rich province that can afford to invest heavily in the green technologies necessary to supplant fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy. While this would, by necessity, also supplant the oil and gas industry that makes Alberta so prosperous, such investment into renewable energy could make Alberta a global industry leader.
Yet such investment could be interpreted as threatening to the oil and gas industry that employ so many of his constituents. Furthermore, transforming Alberta into a green energy hotbed doesn't guarantee the abundance of work available for unskilled labourers and tradespeople that oil and gas provides.
Transforming Alberta into a renewable energy giant would be risky; Stelmach would very much be risking losing face with his political supporters, both within and outside of the Progressive Conservative party.
Stelmach's reluctance could be viewed as out of obligation to his party -- it's his responsibility to keep the party strong. It could, alternatively, be viewed as out of a desire to not be the man who managed to lose Alberta -- Canada's strongest bastion of Conservative support.
Either way, Stelmach has to be seeded right alongside Dalton McGuinty, with the eco-egos.
Then again, with McGuinty facing an election and clearly emulating Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert by campaigning against a seemingly more vulnerable proxy than their provincial opponent, McGuinty comes off as just plain disengenuous.
Climate change may not be the inevitable catastrophic threat that many of the activists insist it is, and the impact of human activity on it may not be as pronounced. That being said, eliminating the impact of human activity on climate change is only the wise and prudent thing to do.
It's to this end that when the eco-egos refuse to make any meaningful attempt at reaching a compromise, it doesn't really matter which of them wins. In the end, it's the rest of us who stand to lose most.
This past week's First Ministers conference became the scene of a political grudgematch, as Alberta Progressive Conservative premier Ed "the Stomper" Stelmach locked up with Ontario Liberal premier Dalton "Flying" McGuinty over the issue of climate change.
The battle pretty much shaped up as such: Stelmach refused to accept any hard caps on industrial emssions, so McGuinty refused to accept California emissions standards for cars produced in Ontario.
"If we were to have in place (cap and trade) by 2020 we will reduce our greenhouse gases by 90 megatonnes," McGuinty insisted. "If all we do is put in place California emissions standards by 2020 we will reduce our ghg's (greenhouse gases ) by eight megatonnes. We can do 10 times more by way of reduction of greenhouse gases if all of us adopt (cap and trade)."
On the other hand, if McGuinty had kept his promise to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants, Ontario would be 70% closer to its share of Canada's Kyoto targets.
One may remember what was said about "he who has no sin..."
In the midst of all this, one may remember that both Dalton and his brother in federal politics, David, have both fallen firmly on the side of the eco-egos, due to their embarrassing exploitation of the climate change issue for political capital. Stelmach, however, has not been evaluated.
To this regard, Stelmach certainly isn't any hero. He also exploits the climate change issue for political capital, to the extent that he can't seem to admit the obvious: that the greenhouse gas emissions generated by Alberta's oil industry do have an effect on climate change, and as such, it is only wise to start eliminating them.
This doesn't necessarily have to entail the industry suffering under a crushing regulatory regime. Stelmach would better serve the citizens of his province by negotiating a reasonable time frame, and perhaps a deal in which the other provinces -- particularly those like Ontario and Quebec who are so concerned about climate change -- help out on the funding end by accepting smaller transfer payments from Alberta.
McGuinty actually says is pretty well when he insists, "this is a national challenge. It requires a national response, not an Ontario response alone."
Then again, McGuinty would better serve the citizens of his province by doing something at all about climate change. Not only has he already racked up a litany of broken climate change-related promises, but he's actually re-made the promises in the leadup to the coming provincial election so he can re-break them if he wins.
Canada will be closer to a national response when the provinces and activists who stress the need for action most actually do something, as opposed to talking, then doing nothing.
McGuinty is a would-be environmental visionary who won't pull his weight. Stelmach, on the other hand, is the premier of an oil-rich province that can afford to invest heavily in the green technologies necessary to supplant fossil fuels as the world's primary source of energy. While this would, by necessity, also supplant the oil and gas industry that makes Alberta so prosperous, such investment into renewable energy could make Alberta a global industry leader.
Yet such investment could be interpreted as threatening to the oil and gas industry that employ so many of his constituents. Furthermore, transforming Alberta into a green energy hotbed doesn't guarantee the abundance of work available for unskilled labourers and tradespeople that oil and gas provides.
Transforming Alberta into a renewable energy giant would be risky; Stelmach would very much be risking losing face with his political supporters, both within and outside of the Progressive Conservative party.
Stelmach's reluctance could be viewed as out of obligation to his party -- it's his responsibility to keep the party strong. It could, alternatively, be viewed as out of a desire to not be the man who managed to lose Alberta -- Canada's strongest bastion of Conservative support.
Either way, Stelmach has to be seeded right alongside Dalton McGuinty, with the eco-egos.
Then again, with McGuinty facing an election and clearly emulating Saskatchewan premier Lorne Calvert by campaigning against a seemingly more vulnerable proxy than their provincial opponent, McGuinty comes off as just plain disengenuous.
Climate change may not be the inevitable catastrophic threat that many of the activists insist it is, and the impact of human activity on it may not be as pronounced. That being said, eliminating the impact of human activity on climate change is only the wise and prudent thing to do.
It's to this end that when the eco-egos refuse to make any meaningful attempt at reaching a compromise, it doesn't really matter which of them wins. In the end, it's the rest of us who stand to lose most.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego? Vol.4 - Live Earth
Today, to commemorate the "Live Earth" concert series, the Nexus of Assholery offers a special double-shot of Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego.
Al Gore: environmental messiah or flat-out hypocrite?
Today, people the world over are partaking in the Live Earth concert series, as nine festival-style concerts, on all seven continents (including the first-ever live performance in Antarctica) seek to raise awareness about global warming.
At the center of all this -- at times, in holographic form -- is Al Gore, the ultimate mastermind of the Live Earth concerts (a blatant rip-off of the Live 8 concert series in 2005), and the star of An Inconvenient Truth, the recently-christened favourite film of environmentalists and general left-wingers the world over (Michael Moore -- who recently thought Apple should postpone the release of the I-Phone so it wouldn'd draw attention away form his most recent film -- must be feeling absolutely abandoned).
With Al Gore so solidly in the world's climate change-related spotlight, an exploration of his history and his true commitment to averting climate change warrants exploration.
Al Gore was actually addressing climate change -- vis a vis global warming -- in the 1970s, when global cooling, a theory that entailed that Canada would eventually be covered entirely in ice -- was still en vogue amongst climate alarmists.
Throughout the '70s and '80s, Gore co-sponsored various congressional hearings regarding global warming, among other things (including toxic waste). Unsurprisingly, Gore became an advocate of the Kyoto Protocol, which he signed "symbolically" on 12 November 1998, after the US Senate essentially vetoed participation due to a lack of binding targets for developing nations. Bill Clinton's administration never submitted the bill to the senate for ratification.
When Gore's film was released, he instantly became a left-wing media darling. Yet, it didn't take long for scientists to point out that many points in the film were either exaggerated or outright misrepresented.
Particularly damning is Gore's assertion that there is no significant disagreement on climate change, and that all the peer-reviewed scientific work insists that human activity is responsible for climate change. Yet, deeper investigations of much of the "peer-reviewed" work that suggests this reveals that such review can be politicized, wherein advocates of a certain structure of scientific belief ensure their work will be supported by submitting it to peers who are already pre-disposed to agree wth them. In order to insist that the process of peer-review overwhelmingly supports them, all these individuals need to do is ignore competing peer-review networks (which can also be politicized in the same way, although not all may necessarily be).
Of course, peer-review doesn't work well in terms of isolated networks. This is a tactic used by individuals on either side of the issue to avoid having to engage in any form of debate, and it's fundamentally unscientific.
Back to Gore. Gore has often defended his exaggerations -- including immediately refutable claims about the impact of climate change on hurricane patterns -- as either "necessary" (to get the message out), or as posed in "layman's language".
More recently, Gore has suffered from controversy regarding the usage of electricity in his home. Earlier this year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research released a report on energy usage in Gore's home, noting that Gore's home consumes 22,619 Kilowatt-hours of electricity in a month -- more than twice what the average family uses in a year.
To be fair, the Nashville Electric Service did not confirm any requests for information on Gore's energy usage. However, one Gore's assistants noted that Gore was in the process of installing solar panels on his home, and Nashville's WKRN-TV noted that Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green electricity" (generated by solar, wind, and methane gas) from the Nashville Electric Service's renewable energy initiative.
However, it should be noted that "green" electricity used wastefully is still wasted, and is thus unavailable for use by other sources. This, by necessity, increases demand for electricity generated from non-renewable sources.
Perhaps the most telling moment in An Inconvenient Truth is the portion of the film when he addresses his 2000 presidential defeat. This is a man who is still moping over his loss -- as wrongful as it obviously was -- to George W Bush. However, it should be remembered that, as the speaker of the senate, Gore shut down complaints from various African-American members of congress and effectively annointed Bush president himself.
And as Gore's holographic appearance in Tokyo demonstrates, Gore has proven himself to be more than a bit of a glory-hound.
Al Gore has engaged in more than his fair share of loud-mouthery north of the border, as he as at times has accused the governing Conservative party's green plan -- demonstrably superior to Kyoto -- of "fraud", and has accused them of being funded by "big oil".
Yet Gore's own performance tells an entirely different story. Despite his early attempts to draw attention to what he seems to believe is a pivotal world issue -- which he deserves credit for -- the example that he himself sets for the world is less than admirable. Furthermore (and finally) his tendency to insist that the splotlight shine so brightly upon himself, his tendency to pout over past defeats (even when they are largely self-inflicted) and attempt to garner political capital by attacking foreign leaders who are making greater contributions toward alleviating climate change than he is are very illuminating to say the least.
Al Gore so desperately wants to be seen as an eco-hero. That is what makes him an eco-ego.
The artists: how much do they really care?
Things aren't quite so black an white among the artists supporting the Live Earth concerts with their talent. Among them, there are some who legitimately claim to care bout the issue of climate change. Others simply can't.
Like many rappers, Ludacris and Snoop Doggs are known for their love of vehicles -- from SUVs to big pickup trucks to fuel-economy-challenged sports cars. Snoop Dogg's fleet of cars was featured in an issue of Lowrider magazine. Fellow participant Xzibit may be best known for hosting MTV's Pimp My Ride, wherein various cars are made even harder on the environment by upgrading them with various unnecessary luxuries, such as flat-screen TVs (bad idea in a car, any day of the week).
Metallica, a recent addition to the London concert, are renowned for the size of their stadium stage -- actually two stages connected by a walkway. The accompanying lighting and sound rigs have ensured that Metallica is one of the heaviest big-rig users in the history of the business. In the excellent documentary flick Some Kind of Monster, lead singer James Hetfield is even seen ripping around in a gas guzzling open-cab roadster. To make matters worse, he's also shown recieving a speeding ticket. That can't be helpful for his already-massive carbon footprint. In the companion book, This Monster Lives, filmmaker Joe Berlinger describes the band's absolutely astonishing reliance on private jets to constantly fly back-and-forth across the country.
Frankly, Metallica's participation, like that of Ludacris, Xzibit and Snoop Dogg, is disingenuous.
And in all honesty, how much are we supposed to believe The Pussycat Dolls could possibly care about climate change? In their annoying reality-TV show The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll, the would-be Dolls spend more time backstabbing one another and fawning over expensive watches than doing or saying anything that suggests they know -- or care -- anything about what's going on in the world. It's much more likely that The Pussycat Dolls are only on board because it's become so fashionable to care about global warming.
Likewise for Rhianna. Her "ah-ah, ah-ah, yeah, yeah... Uhm-BRELL-ah" wouldn't much good to her under conditions of a climate-change induced drought. Fortunately, she likely doesn't really believe in it.
On the other side of the coin, however, are acts like The Beastie Boys and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, who have always cared about political causes. The Chilli Peppers, for one, have their earthchild-rocker cred intact, having contributed to a variety of environmental benefit CDs, including the third volume of Music For Our Ocean Mother. The Beastie Boys have defined political activism through their music, especially their support for Chinese-occupied Tibet. Live Earth is certainly nothing new to either one of these acts.
Garth Brooks has also addressed environmental issues before -- well, okay, fair enough. In his video for "We Shall Be Free", which he and his wife Trisha Yearwood sang together at the Washington DC concert. Brooks has always been known for his willingness to address social issues, from domestic abuse to terrorism.
Madonna is well-known for her support of various political causes. She has also been accused of kidnapping babies from impoverished countries, but those criticisms turned out to be less than fair. Melissa Etheridge may have wrote a corny and, frankly, painful-to-listen-to song in support of Al Gore's film ("I'm throwing off the carelessness of youth/to listen to An Inconvenient Truth -- yech), but it's unlikely she knows any better.
Yet, at the heart of the matter, one very fair criticism can be directed at the Live Earth concerts: they don't do much of anything.
Sure, they make it fashionable to care about climate change. Then again, the Live 8 concert series made it very fashionable to care about poverty in the developing world -- a much more demonstrable problem, which actually outranks climate change in the Copenhagen Consensus. Yet, two years later Bob Geldof and Bono are complaining about the lack of aid actually delivered.
Furthermore, more questions could be raised about the artists themselves. In 2005, many questioned how much of their own money multi-millionaire celebrities would donate to wipe out developing-world poverty. Today, questions are being asked about the lavish lifestyles enjoyed by the artists playing Live Earth. What are they doing to fight climate change? The Foo Fighters admit, "not enough."
Then there's the matter of the concerts themselves. Rock concerts use a lot of electricity, most of which is generated from non-renewable resources, and involves the emission of a lot of greenhouse gases. The Live Earth concerts -- like the Live 8 concerts before them -- are using up a lot of resources -- in terms of money and energy -- that could otherwise be invested in alleviating climate change (most notably in the development of green technologies).
The artists themselves have to settle for an even split. Those using the Live Earth concert to promote their own careers or simply make themselves look environmentally conscious (especially when it can be demonstrated otherwise) can count themselves amongst the eco-egos.
There are, however, some legitimate eco-heroes in the bunch -- one just has to look a little harder to find them.
Al Gore: environmental messiah or flat-out hypocrite?
Today, people the world over are partaking in the Live Earth concert series, as nine festival-style concerts, on all seven continents (including the first-ever live performance in Antarctica) seek to raise awareness about global warming.
At the center of all this -- at times, in holographic form -- is Al Gore, the ultimate mastermind of the Live Earth concerts (a blatant rip-off of the Live 8 concert series in 2005), and the star of An Inconvenient Truth, the recently-christened favourite film of environmentalists and general left-wingers the world over (Michael Moore -- who recently thought Apple should postpone the release of the I-Phone so it wouldn'd draw attention away form his most recent film -- must be feeling absolutely abandoned).
With Al Gore so solidly in the world's climate change-related spotlight, an exploration of his history and his true commitment to averting climate change warrants exploration.
Al Gore was actually addressing climate change -- vis a vis global warming -- in the 1970s, when global cooling, a theory that entailed that Canada would eventually be covered entirely in ice -- was still en vogue amongst climate alarmists.
Throughout the '70s and '80s, Gore co-sponsored various congressional hearings regarding global warming, among other things (including toxic waste). Unsurprisingly, Gore became an advocate of the Kyoto Protocol, which he signed "symbolically" on 12 November 1998, after the US Senate essentially vetoed participation due to a lack of binding targets for developing nations. Bill Clinton's administration never submitted the bill to the senate for ratification.
When Gore's film was released, he instantly became a left-wing media darling. Yet, it didn't take long for scientists to point out that many points in the film were either exaggerated or outright misrepresented.
Particularly damning is Gore's assertion that there is no significant disagreement on climate change, and that all the peer-reviewed scientific work insists that human activity is responsible for climate change. Yet, deeper investigations of much of the "peer-reviewed" work that suggests this reveals that such review can be politicized, wherein advocates of a certain structure of scientific belief ensure their work will be supported by submitting it to peers who are already pre-disposed to agree wth them. In order to insist that the process of peer-review overwhelmingly supports them, all these individuals need to do is ignore competing peer-review networks (which can also be politicized in the same way, although not all may necessarily be).
Of course, peer-review doesn't work well in terms of isolated networks. This is a tactic used by individuals on either side of the issue to avoid having to engage in any form of debate, and it's fundamentally unscientific.
Back to Gore. Gore has often defended his exaggerations -- including immediately refutable claims about the impact of climate change on hurricane patterns -- as either "necessary" (to get the message out), or as posed in "layman's language".
More recently, Gore has suffered from controversy regarding the usage of electricity in his home. Earlier this year, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research released a report on energy usage in Gore's home, noting that Gore's home consumes 22,619 Kilowatt-hours of electricity in a month -- more than twice what the average family uses in a year.
To be fair, the Nashville Electric Service did not confirm any requests for information on Gore's energy usage. However, one Gore's assistants noted that Gore was in the process of installing solar panels on his home, and Nashville's WKRN-TV noted that Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green electricity" (generated by solar, wind, and methane gas) from the Nashville Electric Service's renewable energy initiative.
However, it should be noted that "green" electricity used wastefully is still wasted, and is thus unavailable for use by other sources. This, by necessity, increases demand for electricity generated from non-renewable sources.
Perhaps the most telling moment in An Inconvenient Truth is the portion of the film when he addresses his 2000 presidential defeat. This is a man who is still moping over his loss -- as wrongful as it obviously was -- to George W Bush. However, it should be remembered that, as the speaker of the senate, Gore shut down complaints from various African-American members of congress and effectively annointed Bush president himself.
And as Gore's holographic appearance in Tokyo demonstrates, Gore has proven himself to be more than a bit of a glory-hound.
Al Gore has engaged in more than his fair share of loud-mouthery north of the border, as he as at times has accused the governing Conservative party's green plan -- demonstrably superior to Kyoto -- of "fraud", and has accused them of being funded by "big oil".
Yet Gore's own performance tells an entirely different story. Despite his early attempts to draw attention to what he seems to believe is a pivotal world issue -- which he deserves credit for -- the example that he himself sets for the world is less than admirable. Furthermore (and finally) his tendency to insist that the splotlight shine so brightly upon himself, his tendency to pout over past defeats (even when they are largely self-inflicted) and attempt to garner political capital by attacking foreign leaders who are making greater contributions toward alleviating climate change than he is are very illuminating to say the least.
Al Gore so desperately wants to be seen as an eco-hero. That is what makes him an eco-ego.
The artists: how much do they really care?
Things aren't quite so black an white among the artists supporting the Live Earth concerts with their talent. Among them, there are some who legitimately claim to care bout the issue of climate change. Others simply can't.
Like many rappers, Ludacris and Snoop Doggs are known for their love of vehicles -- from SUVs to big pickup trucks to fuel-economy-challenged sports cars. Snoop Dogg's fleet of cars was featured in an issue of Lowrider magazine. Fellow participant Xzibit may be best known for hosting MTV's Pimp My Ride, wherein various cars are made even harder on the environment by upgrading them with various unnecessary luxuries, such as flat-screen TVs (bad idea in a car, any day of the week).
Metallica, a recent addition to the London concert, are renowned for the size of their stadium stage -- actually two stages connected by a walkway. The accompanying lighting and sound rigs have ensured that Metallica is one of the heaviest big-rig users in the history of the business. In the excellent documentary flick Some Kind of Monster, lead singer James Hetfield is even seen ripping around in a gas guzzling open-cab roadster. To make matters worse, he's also shown recieving a speeding ticket. That can't be helpful for his already-massive carbon footprint. In the companion book, This Monster Lives, filmmaker Joe Berlinger describes the band's absolutely astonishing reliance on private jets to constantly fly back-and-forth across the country.
Frankly, Metallica's participation, like that of Ludacris, Xzibit and Snoop Dogg, is disingenuous.
And in all honesty, how much are we supposed to believe The Pussycat Dolls could possibly care about climate change? In their annoying reality-TV show The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll, the would-be Dolls spend more time backstabbing one another and fawning over expensive watches than doing or saying anything that suggests they know -- or care -- anything about what's going on in the world. It's much more likely that The Pussycat Dolls are only on board because it's become so fashionable to care about global warming.
Likewise for Rhianna. Her "ah-ah, ah-ah, yeah, yeah... Uhm-BRELL-ah" wouldn't much good to her under conditions of a climate-change induced drought. Fortunately, she likely doesn't really believe in it.
On the other side of the coin, however, are acts like The Beastie Boys and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, who have always cared about political causes. The Chilli Peppers, for one, have their earthchild-rocker cred intact, having contributed to a variety of environmental benefit CDs, including the third volume of Music For Our Ocean Mother. The Beastie Boys have defined political activism through their music, especially their support for Chinese-occupied Tibet. Live Earth is certainly nothing new to either one of these acts.
Garth Brooks has also addressed environmental issues before -- well, okay, fair enough. In his video for "We Shall Be Free", which he and his wife Trisha Yearwood sang together at the Washington DC concert. Brooks has always been known for his willingness to address social issues, from domestic abuse to terrorism.
Madonna is well-known for her support of various political causes. She has also been accused of kidnapping babies from impoverished countries, but those criticisms turned out to be less than fair. Melissa Etheridge may have wrote a corny and, frankly, painful-to-listen-to song in support of Al Gore's film ("I'm throwing off the carelessness of youth/to listen to An Inconvenient Truth -- yech), but it's unlikely she knows any better.
Yet, at the heart of the matter, one very fair criticism can be directed at the Live Earth concerts: they don't do much of anything.
Sure, they make it fashionable to care about climate change. Then again, the Live 8 concert series made it very fashionable to care about poverty in the developing world -- a much more demonstrable problem, which actually outranks climate change in the Copenhagen Consensus. Yet, two years later Bob Geldof and Bono are complaining about the lack of aid actually delivered.
Furthermore, more questions could be raised about the artists themselves. In 2005, many questioned how much of their own money multi-millionaire celebrities would donate to wipe out developing-world poverty. Today, questions are being asked about the lavish lifestyles enjoyed by the artists playing Live Earth. What are they doing to fight climate change? The Foo Fighters admit, "not enough."
Then there's the matter of the concerts themselves. Rock concerts use a lot of electricity, most of which is generated from non-renewable resources, and involves the emission of a lot of greenhouse gases. The Live Earth concerts -- like the Live 8 concerts before them -- are using up a lot of resources -- in terms of money and energy -- that could otherwise be invested in alleviating climate change (most notably in the development of green technologies).
The artists themselves have to settle for an even split. Those using the Live Earth concert to promote their own careers or simply make themselves look environmentally conscious (especially when it can be demonstrated otherwise) can count themselves amongst the eco-egos.
There are, however, some legitimate eco-heroes in the bunch -- one just has to look a little harder to find them.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego? Vol. 3 - The Flying McGuinty Brothers
The McGuintys: Avid environmentalists or disingenuine demagogues?
Recently, some of Canada's most outspoken politicians on the environmental portfolio -- particularly the climate change portfolio -- are the Flying McGuinty Brothers, (federal environment critic) David, and (Ontario premier) Dalton.
Recently, Dalton convened a first minister's conference on the topic of climate change. More recently, David categorized Prime Minster Stephen Harper's accurate insistence that Canada is a special case in terms of greenhouse gas reductions -- on the basis of both climate and an inactive prior government -- as "theatre of the absurd."
"I've being doing this for 20 years and I have never heard anything as absurd -- on the international diplomatic level, on this internation environmental issue -- as this," McGuinty insisted. "Ever."
Perhaps mr McGuinty would be surprised then, to be reminded of his brother's Dalton's promise to shut down all of Ontario's coal-fired power plants, a broken promise that, along with Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance described as "a broken-promise hat trick".
"[Other countries] tell us they're paying the price and biting the bullet," David entoned, "working feverishly hard to meet their Kyoto targets. But they're not going out the world and saying, 'we're special! We're soooooo special!"
Unfortunately for David, his brother, as Ontario's premier, hasn't "bit the bullet", or worked "feverishly hard" to keep his promise, one which would have achieved 70% of Ontario's share of Canada's Kyoto commitments. One would wonder whether or not David would argue that Ontario is special.
His brother certainly does. While signing a landmark agreement with California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, McGuinty argued that an international, North America-wide standard should be set for vehicle emissions. Then he insisted that Ontario will stop short of California's standards, claiming they will hurt Ontario's auto industry.
Apparently, Ontario is special. It's sooooooooo special!
Naturally, Dalton is keen on scoring some political capital by being seen arm-in-arm with the man who may well be North America's most effective politician on the environmental portfolio. Given, however, that Dalton himself has one of the unabashedly worst records in North America -- along with his national-party counterpart, Stephane Dion -- it all reeks of an absurd brand of hypocrisy.
His brother, by failing to recongize and criticize the catastrophic and humiliating failures of his brother, shares in this hypocrisy.
The Flying McGuinty brothers are certainly not eco-heroes. In fact, David may well be one of the most obnoxious of the eco-egos. What is really absurd is that either would pretend to hold an ounce of credibility on the environmental portfolio.
Recently, some of Canada's most outspoken politicians on the environmental portfolio -- particularly the climate change portfolio -- are the Flying McGuinty Brothers, (federal environment critic) David, and (Ontario premier) Dalton.
Recently, Dalton convened a first minister's conference on the topic of climate change. More recently, David categorized Prime Minster Stephen Harper's accurate insistence that Canada is a special case in terms of greenhouse gas reductions -- on the basis of both climate and an inactive prior government -- as "theatre of the absurd."
"I've being doing this for 20 years and I have never heard anything as absurd -- on the international diplomatic level, on this internation environmental issue -- as this," McGuinty insisted. "Ever."
Perhaps mr McGuinty would be surprised then, to be reminded of his brother's Dalton's promise to shut down all of Ontario's coal-fired power plants, a broken promise that, along with Ontario NDP leader Howard Hampton, the Ontario Clean Air Alliance described as "a broken-promise hat trick".
"[Other countries] tell us they're paying the price and biting the bullet," David entoned, "working feverishly hard to meet their Kyoto targets. But they're not going out the world and saying, 'we're special! We're soooooo special!"
Unfortunately for David, his brother, as Ontario's premier, hasn't "bit the bullet", or worked "feverishly hard" to keep his promise, one which would have achieved 70% of Ontario's share of Canada's Kyoto commitments. One would wonder whether or not David would argue that Ontario is special.
His brother certainly does. While signing a landmark agreement with California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, McGuinty argued that an international, North America-wide standard should be set for vehicle emissions. Then he insisted that Ontario will stop short of California's standards, claiming they will hurt Ontario's auto industry.
Apparently, Ontario is special. It's sooooooooo special!
Naturally, Dalton is keen on scoring some political capital by being seen arm-in-arm with the man who may well be North America's most effective politician on the environmental portfolio. Given, however, that Dalton himself has one of the unabashedly worst records in North America -- along with his national-party counterpart, Stephane Dion -- it all reeks of an absurd brand of hypocrisy.
His brother, by failing to recongize and criticize the catastrophic and humiliating failures of his brother, shares in this hypocrisy.
The Flying McGuinty brothers are certainly not eco-heroes. In fact, David may well be one of the most obnoxious of the eco-egos. What is really absurd is that either would pretend to hold an ounce of credibility on the environmental portfolio.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco Ego? Vol. 2 - David Suzuki
Our recent "Jeffrey Monaghan: Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" article has inspired a new feature here at the Nexus, one aimed at facilitating some clarity in the ongoing climate change debate.
This new ongoing feature will be called the "Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" series, and will feature profiles on environmental activists.
Certainly, there are some eco-heroes out there -- good people, fighting for positive change that protects our natural environment. God bless them. After all, the human race won't survive very long without a healthy planet to sustain it. Eco-heroes deserve our respect. It should also be noted that like any true hero, eco-heroes usually aren't terribly likely to describe themselves as such.
Ego-egos, on other hand, very much do think of themselves as heroes. Yet their motivations are typically very, very different. These people aren't really motivated by visions of environmental security. They have various different interests -- political, social, and personal. These people are among the rogue's gallery of the environmental battle.
In order to best explore the true intentions of environmental activist, particularly in regards to climate change, it's very important that I myself explain my views on climate change.
Climate change activists insist that climate change is caused by human activity. They're partially correct.
It's well known that the combustion of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, which produce the greenhouse effect. Given the level of human fossil fuel consumption, there is no question that human activity has an impact on climate change. There is a question regarding how much of an impact human activity has.
The other portion of the science on climate change -- the portion that insists that climate change is due to natural variations -- clearly makes a solid point as well. The variation of the climate throughout history has been solidly demonstrated. According to scientists who support this position, there are various natural processes that cause an increase in climate temperature.
As such, it's entirely plausible that there's nothing we can do to stop climate change. We can certianly slow the process by reducing the amount of impact human activity has on this phenomenon, but to believe we can stop the planet's demonstrated natural cycles is nothing more than a delusion.
Each side of the debate -- and yes, there is a debate, like it or not -- has its merits. Strict dogmatic adherence to either side will not do the debate any good. This is why it's so important to expose the eco-egos for what they are. It's important that the amount of influence these would-be demagogues can exert is lessened so that a real scientific discourse -- free from political manipulation -- can unfold.
The environmentalist villains of the drama -- the eco-egos -- don't want this debate to ever happen. They claim that it's "over". It isn't. Meanwhile, the heroes amongst the environentalists -- the eco-heroes -- are helping to facilitate this debate in their own way (although they clearly have their own beliefs to support).
Hopefully, this new feature here at The Nexus can help people separate the two.
David Suzuki: Icon of Canadian scientific community, or junk science demagogue?
David Suzuki is, without a doubt Canada's best-known scientific mind. CBC viewers named Suzuki the ninth greatest Canadian in history. He has hosted CBC's The Nature of Things for more than 30 years. He is also widely recognized on the international stage.
Suzuki is Canada's foremost climate change activist. He has managed to turn his celebrity and the admiration that he has earned by revealling the wonders of science to generations of young Canadians into a strong base of political capital from which he can address the issue.
As the founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, Suzuki has encouraged activism on numerous environmental issues, while keeping himself out of the political arena.
Unfortunately, Suzuki has indulged himself in some rather partisan loud-mouthery. In a clip used to promote CBC's The Hour, Suzuki tells host George Stroumbouloupolis "he [Australian Minister John Howard] is so far up mr Bush's backside that he can't back out."
Interestingly, the CBC's ad spots don't make any note that the comment is about Howard, not Harper.
Here in Canada, Suzuki has often complained that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't met with him in person -- further demonstrating the sense among many celebrities that they should be entitled to meet with heads of state at their leisure. In a more public event, Suzuki approached Environement Minister John Baird at a Green Living Show in April, following the release of the Conservative party Green Plan and told him, "it's a disappointment, John. Please come see us."
Despite a number of outbursts, Suzuki has favoured cooperation over confrontation.
Suzuki differs from many activists by turning down the terror alert level and providing people with an astonishing variety of things they can do to reduce their carbon footprint.
Yet, there is one element of his approach that Suzuki needs to ammend, and that is his insistence that the debate is settled. In February, Suzuki walked out of a radio interview after the host suggested that the debate wasn't settled. Suzuki would have done better for himself by admitting that the debate is not settled, or at least defend his belief that it is. On this occasion, he refused to do either, electing instead to retreat.
There is one other weakness to Suzuki's activism -- Suzuki is not a climatologist, nor does he study a related field. He's a geneticist by trade. If criticisms of credentials apply to scientists who dissent from the climate change dogma, then certainly they must apply to Suzuki as well.
However, as a spokesperson, Suzuki is superb. And even if his personal grasp of the issue can be questioned based on his credentials, the fact remains that Suzuki is only so outspoken because he genuinely cares.
While hardly a paragon of virtue on the subject, Suzuki certainly qualifies as an eco-hero.
This new ongoing feature will be called the "Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" series, and will feature profiles on environmental activists.
Certainly, there are some eco-heroes out there -- good people, fighting for positive change that protects our natural environment. God bless them. After all, the human race won't survive very long without a healthy planet to sustain it. Eco-heroes deserve our respect. It should also be noted that like any true hero, eco-heroes usually aren't terribly likely to describe themselves as such.
Ego-egos, on other hand, very much do think of themselves as heroes. Yet their motivations are typically very, very different. These people aren't really motivated by visions of environmental security. They have various different interests -- political, social, and personal. These people are among the rogue's gallery of the environmental battle.
In order to best explore the true intentions of environmental activist, particularly in regards to climate change, it's very important that I myself explain my views on climate change.
Climate change activists insist that climate change is caused by human activity. They're partially correct.
It's well known that the combustion of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, which produce the greenhouse effect. Given the level of human fossil fuel consumption, there is no question that human activity has an impact on climate change. There is a question regarding how much of an impact human activity has.
The other portion of the science on climate change -- the portion that insists that climate change is due to natural variations -- clearly makes a solid point as well. The variation of the climate throughout history has been solidly demonstrated. According to scientists who support this position, there are various natural processes that cause an increase in climate temperature.
As such, it's entirely plausible that there's nothing we can do to stop climate change. We can certianly slow the process by reducing the amount of impact human activity has on this phenomenon, but to believe we can stop the planet's demonstrated natural cycles is nothing more than a delusion.
Each side of the debate -- and yes, there is a debate, like it or not -- has its merits. Strict dogmatic adherence to either side will not do the debate any good. This is why it's so important to expose the eco-egos for what they are. It's important that the amount of influence these would-be demagogues can exert is lessened so that a real scientific discourse -- free from political manipulation -- can unfold.
The environmentalist villains of the drama -- the eco-egos -- don't want this debate to ever happen. They claim that it's "over". It isn't. Meanwhile, the heroes amongst the environentalists -- the eco-heroes -- are helping to facilitate this debate in their own way (although they clearly have their own beliefs to support).
Hopefully, this new feature here at The Nexus can help people separate the two.
David Suzuki: Icon of Canadian scientific community, or junk science demagogue?
David Suzuki is, without a doubt Canada's best-known scientific mind. CBC viewers named Suzuki the ninth greatest Canadian in history. He has hosted CBC's The Nature of Things for more than 30 years. He is also widely recognized on the international stage.
Suzuki is Canada's foremost climate change activist. He has managed to turn his celebrity and the admiration that he has earned by revealling the wonders of science to generations of young Canadians into a strong base of political capital from which he can address the issue.
As the founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, Suzuki has encouraged activism on numerous environmental issues, while keeping himself out of the political arena.
Unfortunately, Suzuki has indulged himself in some rather partisan loud-mouthery. In a clip used to promote CBC's The Hour, Suzuki tells host George Stroumbouloupolis "he [Australian Minister John Howard] is so far up mr Bush's backside that he can't back out."
Interestingly, the CBC's ad spots don't make any note that the comment is about Howard, not Harper.
Here in Canada, Suzuki has often complained that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't met with him in person -- further demonstrating the sense among many celebrities that they should be entitled to meet with heads of state at their leisure. In a more public event, Suzuki approached Environement Minister John Baird at a Green Living Show in April, following the release of the Conservative party Green Plan and told him, "it's a disappointment, John. Please come see us."
Despite a number of outbursts, Suzuki has favoured cooperation over confrontation.
Suzuki differs from many activists by turning down the terror alert level and providing people with an astonishing variety of things they can do to reduce their carbon footprint.
Yet, there is one element of his approach that Suzuki needs to ammend, and that is his insistence that the debate is settled. In February, Suzuki walked out of a radio interview after the host suggested that the debate wasn't settled. Suzuki would have done better for himself by admitting that the debate is not settled, or at least defend his belief that it is. On this occasion, he refused to do either, electing instead to retreat.
There is one other weakness to Suzuki's activism -- Suzuki is not a climatologist, nor does he study a related field. He's a geneticist by trade. If criticisms of credentials apply to scientists who dissent from the climate change dogma, then certainly they must apply to Suzuki as well.
However, as a spokesperson, Suzuki is superb. And even if his personal grasp of the issue can be questioned based on his credentials, the fact remains that Suzuki is only so outspoken because he genuinely cares.
While hardly a paragon of virtue on the subject, Suzuki certainly qualifies as an eco-hero.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Jeffrey Monaghan: Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?
Monaghan first target of Witchhunter John?
The story of an Environment Canada contractor arrested yesterday became a good deal more interesting today as the contracter, Jeff Monaghan held a press conference on Parliament Hill.
While decrying his arrest as part of a "witchhunt", Monaghan failed to confirm or deny that he leaked the draft copy of the Conservative Party Green Plan. Monaghan was arrested in the office he worked for Environment Canada in, as a "clipper" -- someone paid to monitor newspapers for mention of the department, and catalogue information about how the department is being portrayed in the media.
Monaghan, in his press conference, noted that he was hired as a contractor in order to "skirt government hiring policies". Listed as a temporary employee, he worked at Environment Canada for four years. Interestingly, he was hired under the Liberal government.
While Monaghan wasn't forthcoming regarding his potential guilt (he left the press conference without answering any questions from reporters), he did take the opportunity to vent his criticisms at the government. "The leak under investigation is the first explicit document of the government of Canada that states clearly that it has no intention to follow its legal responsibilities."
"That document cynically reframes our country's legal commitments within a 2006 evaluation framework, which is essentially abandoning the 1990 standard," he said.
In a note attached to the leaked document, the leaker wrote, "Your source objects strongly to the secrecy of the Harper government, its continuous PR campaign and the abandonment of international standards for [greenhouse gas] emissions."
In his press conference, Monaghan "coincidentally" complained about the secrecy of the government. It's not quite a smoking gun, but it's awfully close.
Perhaps the most ironic thing about the entire issue is that Monaghan worked for two years under a Liberal government, seemingly holding the same PR-related job, and never complained. Until the Conservatives came to power. Now he's complaining.
Many public servants and opposition politicians are complaining that Monaghan's arrest may have been planned as a deliberate act to intimidate a public service that the Conservative party still feels is partisan.
Perhaps one of the more interesting facts of this story is that Monaghan worked for the government at all. A member of an anarchist collective, one might have expected that Monaghan would be disqualified from government employment if it were known that he holds anti-government views.
Earlier in May, Monaghan was even involved in the organizing and opening of an anarchist book store.
While it could be argued that Monaghan could have been dealt with in a different manner, the fact of the matter is very simple: Monaghan broke the law. As an employee of the government, he leaked confidental government information. The government was not breaking any laws. In fact, the information that Monaghan "allegedly" released would have been released no more than a day later.
Monaghan was not acting as a concerned employee blowing the whistle on illegal or unethical government activities. He leaked government information as an activist.
If Monaghan wants to be an activist, he'll likely have a lot of time on his hands now. Which is fine. It's his right to express his opinion as a private citizen. But as a government employee, he had no right to leak such confidental information to the news media.
Monaghan is not quite the eco-hero he would like to believe himself to be. Eco-ego? Perhaps.
The story of an Environment Canada contractor arrested yesterday became a good deal more interesting today as the contracter, Jeff Monaghan held a press conference on Parliament Hill.
While decrying his arrest as part of a "witchhunt", Monaghan failed to confirm or deny that he leaked the draft copy of the Conservative Party Green Plan. Monaghan was arrested in the office he worked for Environment Canada in, as a "clipper" -- someone paid to monitor newspapers for mention of the department, and catalogue information about how the department is being portrayed in the media.
Monaghan, in his press conference, noted that he was hired as a contractor in order to "skirt government hiring policies". Listed as a temporary employee, he worked at Environment Canada for four years. Interestingly, he was hired under the Liberal government.
While Monaghan wasn't forthcoming regarding his potential guilt (he left the press conference without answering any questions from reporters), he did take the opportunity to vent his criticisms at the government. "The leak under investigation is the first explicit document of the government of Canada that states clearly that it has no intention to follow its legal responsibilities."
"That document cynically reframes our country's legal commitments within a 2006 evaluation framework, which is essentially abandoning the 1990 standard," he said.
In a note attached to the leaked document, the leaker wrote, "Your source objects strongly to the secrecy of the Harper government, its continuous PR campaign and the abandonment of international standards for [greenhouse gas] emissions."
In his press conference, Monaghan "coincidentally" complained about the secrecy of the government. It's not quite a smoking gun, but it's awfully close.
Perhaps the most ironic thing about the entire issue is that Monaghan worked for two years under a Liberal government, seemingly holding the same PR-related job, and never complained. Until the Conservatives came to power. Now he's complaining.
Many public servants and opposition politicians are complaining that Monaghan's arrest may have been planned as a deliberate act to intimidate a public service that the Conservative party still feels is partisan.
Perhaps one of the more interesting facts of this story is that Monaghan worked for the government at all. A member of an anarchist collective, one might have expected that Monaghan would be disqualified from government employment if it were known that he holds anti-government views.
Earlier in May, Monaghan was even involved in the organizing and opening of an anarchist book store.
While it could be argued that Monaghan could have been dealt with in a different manner, the fact of the matter is very simple: Monaghan broke the law. As an employee of the government, he leaked confidental government information. The government was not breaking any laws. In fact, the information that Monaghan "allegedly" released would have been released no more than a day later.
Monaghan was not acting as a concerned employee blowing the whistle on illegal or unethical government activities. He leaked government information as an activist.
If Monaghan wants to be an activist, he'll likely have a lot of time on his hands now. Which is fine. It's his right to express his opinion as a private citizen. But as a government employee, he had no right to leak such confidental information to the news media.
Monaghan is not quite the eco-hero he would like to believe himself to be. Eco-ego? Perhaps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)