RSSScrew you, Stephen Harper
Jul 03
Harper is heading to the G8 summit with a message of “There’s no point in reaching an agreement on climate change until all the biggest polluters agree”:
The world has learned (as shown by global reaction to his stance last time around) that this is a very weak argument transparently intended to stall action against climate change. He wouldn’t want to cause any trouble for his oil buddies back in Alberta. How blasphemous would it be if his oil lobbyists had to spend perhaps a few percent of their profits to clean up the mess they make?
Further, he, and most other fervent climate change action blockers, are missing the obvious point that the best way to elicit change is to lead by example. This is normally considered a desirable trait, yet severely lacking in seemingly most areas of modern conservative policy.
I’m also a bit baffled by the political reasoning for this position. This positions most powerful side-effect, I believe, is to energize everyone who cares about this issue to work as hard as possible to get rid of him. There isn’t any new climate change agreement on the horizon yet, unfortunately, so I’m not sure why he doesn’t just stay quiet and save his torpedoes for later.
Jul 03, 2008 @ 12:22:50
How blasphemous would it be if his oil lobbyists had to spend perhaps a few percent of their profits to clean up the mess they make?
These “oil lobbyists” (as you call them) are busy providing you with the energy to heat your house and run your car. It’s not their mess, it’s our mess. And it’s going to cost a lot more than a few percent of somebody’s profits.
Jul 03, 2008 @ 12:33:08
I’d be perfectly happy to drive an electric car that would be “refueled” via the renewable energy which I pay extra for. So, the oil lobbyists don’t need to think of themselves as doing me a favour.
However, that’s not a general solution. You obviously don’t think my proposal will work, so what’s yours?
Jul 08, 2008 @ 10:22:57
The problem is that the US is still dragging its feet on any kind of environmental responsibility. If the US isn’t on board, there’s little benefit for other countries. That’s why the new environmental policies are being watered down, from returning to 1990s emission levels to just keeping current levels stable, in the vain hope of enticing the US to take part.
But why is anyone surprised by Harper’s policies? He said when he was running for PM that he admired Bush and wanted to improve relations with the US. Obviously, you don’t improve relations with Bush by telling him he’s wrong about something. He reacts with denial and defensiveness at any suggestions. He’s like a cranky 2 year old stomping his feet and yelling, “no, no, no, no, no!!” The fact that Bush is even at the negotiating table is an astounding turnaround, and I hope noone says anything critical to him that makes him want to take his ball and go home.
Jul 08, 2008 @ 20:08:46
Your point about Harper wanting to keep Bush happy is valid, but not the only factor. If Harper truly did want to make policy improvements to fight climate change, but still keep Bush happy, he could be making those changes at home and just not be vocal about it internationally.