Fallout from Maxime Bernier's Rationale for a Go-Slow Approach on Climate Change

Home / Blogs / Steve May's blog /
By Steve May on 25 February 2010 - 1:30pm

Well, I was going to try to write a little post about Maxime Bernier's recent letter to La Presse, which advocates a go-slow approach on climate change due to the fact that there is no scientific consensus which suggests that it's a problem, only over-reaction.  My lunch hour today, though, is somewhat limited, and luckily I stumbled upon the following excellent blog post from Matt Price, Policy Director for Environmental Defence Canada, which captures the issue much better than I could have hoped (and certainly more succinctly...and with more links for background!). 

Mr. Price's blogpost can be found here: http://environmentaldefencecanada.blogspot.com/2010/02/bernier-tip-of-iceberg.html

An interesting editorial from Sun Media's best-known climate-change denier, Lorrie Goldstein, appeared in my local newspaper today, much to my continuing dismay.  It just ticks me off that this guy gets a platform to spew his nonsense and shape public opinion in Sun newspapers in communities like my own, where there really is no other alternative newspaper available.  While the Sudbury Star does publish, somewhat regularly, dissenting views on climate change in the Letters to the Editor section, the editorial stance of the paper, like all of Sun Media's papers, is that climate change isn't happening, and even if it was, it would be too expensive to do anything about it.  Goldstein's column can be found here: http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2466096

What irritates me even more is the fact that Goldstein will, every now and then, come out with something I agree with, usually when he goes off on the perils of Cap and Trade.  That just ends up lending him credibility in the eyes of the public.  It's possible to be right about something for the wrong reasons, though, but it's much more complicated to get the message out. 

And that's all that I have the time to say about that.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bernier's Opinion Likely a Minority One in Quebec

Submitted by Steve May on 25 February 2010 - 2:05pm.

And hot on the heels of Bernier's head-scratching comments, it looks like a majority of Quebec's population have a problem with his Party's direction on climate change.  Read the poll here: http://environmentaldefence.ca/reports/Environmental%20Defence%20Report%20Poll%20Feb%2012.pdf

Which is good.  Maybe they'll turf this guy out soon enough.

"Sudbury" Steve May

Direction taken by 'there is no AGW' people

Submitted by John Northey on 26 February 2010 - 10:42am.

Another Golstein column today on global warming (4 of his last 5 have been on it, the vast majority of his columns on his page at the Sun are on it too, at least 4 of his 6 oldest columns on the site are too and who knows how many inbetween).  I will give him credit for never giving up.

He seems to be focusing now on "reduce pollution, but don't give cash to other countries" rather than "it isn't happening" as he acknowledges that the last 10 years are the hottest ever recorded (with a shot about how the warmest year on record isn't in that window).  I feel this is the direction we need to focus on as well.  

Paying a "hot air tax" to other countries (as people like Goldstein like to put it) is a very, very hard sell and something that many will doubt is effective.  Far better to focus on improving our nation's act, putting money into research and development on alternatives (such as the 'Bloom Box', Wind Simplicity [better wind turbine made in Canada], etc.) which we could sell to the world and improve things far faster than via simple cash transfers or even targeted cash transfers.

Also note: the Goldstein's of the world learned from Bush that you always attack the strongest point of your opponent and make it a weakness - in this case the science behind it, calling it religion instead.  We need to learn from this.  What is their greatest strength and how do we point out that it actually isn't? I'd say the dollars and sense (yes, that was intentional).  

The tar sands are costing us money.  We are spending millions on new roads to nowhere that will be useless once the oil is out of the ground.  We are spending millions pumping water to them, millions on providing electricity, millions on clean up after the multinationals leave an area.  The tar sands are a DRAIN on the economy, not a boon.  

That is how you will get the general public onside.  It is the truth, it sounds logical to Joe Average, and hits on the areas that annoy them the most (our money going to help big business, big government spending on useless stuff).  Once the economic argument is gone the tar sands (and other "global warming doesn't exist" things) die off quickly as they have nothing else to use as an argument.

John Northey
Wellington-Halton Hills