Letter to G & M in response to a spineless editorial on climate change
August 27, 2007
David J. Parker. P.Eng
Dear editor,
It is sad to read that Canada’s major daily appears to endorse the go-slow approach to the climate change crisis that our irresponsible Federal government is pushing.
It isn’t called “the climate crisis” for nothing and every poll that is done shows the same, extremely high levels of public support for solid action. The public seems to “get it”, as do all the opposition parties. Scientist are totally unanimous, if only peer reviewed literature is taken into account and the few, industry sponsored, former tobacco apologists, are ignored.
When so many eminent people are telling us the situation is critical and action must be taken immediately if we are to avert CO2 doubling, isn’t it prudent to risk a small drop in our overheated economy? The word “risk” is appropriate since there are just as many economists saying action will be beneficial as there are pleading imminent recession.
This is true in spades here in Oilberta where the massive sell off of our natural resources is causing major social and environmental disruption. A little cooling off of the tar-sands rush would be heaven sent for most of us. Instead we give ridiculously generous resource royalty rates and demand virtually no ecological concessions from corporate oil giants who are making record profits.
Imagine how different history would have been if the wise counsel of then British prime minister, Winston Churchill, had been ignored. Saying that the climate crisis is somehow different, is tantamount to burying one’s head in the sand. The only difference is that the full impact of our action, or lack thereof, to the climate crisis, will not be felt by us but by those not yet born. That fact does not make our reticence to act any more defensible.
Sincerely, DJP
- David Parker's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
G in P (ie G & M)
DJP,
While expressing concurrence with the general tenor of your piece, I should mildly take you to task for the misplaced Churchillian reference, of recourse to which I'd hope by now others around here have been disabused (see many prior blog comments re inappropriateness of wartime analogies, &, I'd add, Churchill in particular). Not for nothing has the diminishingly venerable national protector of entrenched & problematic interests been amusingly referred to on another website as, The Gob in Pail. Good letter otherwise.
Yours,
DJV(ernon)
Disabused of using wartime analogies? I think not!
Gareth Davies
Nanaimo-Alberni EDA
Parksville, BC
Daryl, I can see you don't like Churchill. Many people didn't like him, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, Kennedy (the President's father) and many others. So what? I never voted for him, but I would not bad mouth him anymore than I would bad mouth those hundreds of thousands of good people who gave up their lives fighting evil.
As it happens, Churchill didn't save the UK single handed, rather he was a focal point for many frightened people during a time of crisis like no other in my lifetime. He was a leader, who led by example and gave people the courage and will to stand firm in the face of horror.
It is not always possible to stand by peacefully as evil approaches. As much as I fervently wish for all violence to stop, I would do something to protect my own if ever it came to that.
As far as I am concerned, David can quote or refer to war time analogies, Churchill in particular, 'till the cows come home.
Many fine people fought for what they believed in to prevent destruction of homeland by evil invaders. Go ask the Dutch, the Poles, the Norwegians, the British, the French and not the least, the Canadians. I mention only a few, of course. That's why I visit the cenotaph whenever possible each 11/11 for a moment's silence, to honour people who died that we might enjoy life and our precious freedoms.
Think! Don't "think not!"
"Daryl, I can see you don't like Churchill."
"Like"? He's an interesting figure of great historical moment, a great deal of which is too awful to have recourse to him specifically for Green purposes.
"Many people didn't like him,[...] So what?"
Just so, so what?
"[...] I would not bad mouth him anymore than [...]"
Who's badmouthing?
"[...] Churchill didn't save the UK single handed, rather he was a focal point [...]"
What if you scratched just a wee bit below the surface & found out that your courageous inspiration was a very large part of the culturally sick run-up to the mid-century disaster, so it all comes out in enough senses to "greenly" disturb so much that this figure in particular should be greenly avoided? (Another GPC blogger has already expressed being very much taken by, eg, the writing of Engdahl --- try some yourself, & be led further abroad for your own good, for some perspective, re Europe, militarism, finance, oil, even Churchill's special place...very ungreen places those, ones you'd see from which Greens should strive to be dissociative.)
"refer to war time analogies [...] 'till the cows come home."
They're home now, and waiting for the Western-led civilization that got 'em into danger to help get 'em out, & not via the same means they got into that danger, via warlike nor militaristic behaviour & reference.
"That's why I visit the cenotaph whenever possible[...]"
Just a few weeks ago I made a point of having my youngest cycle with me at dusk over to Toronto's largely neglected lakefront Coronation Park, memorializing WWI regiments. The sum of my complex emotions felt there must be very different from yours.
Our world must become better despite our differences
Daryl, I confess, I just don't get your point. Sorry. However, it is clear that we profoundly disagree on this particular topic.
You say: "The sum of my complex emotions felt there must be very different from yours." I am not so sure, but until you give some indication of what they are, these complex emotions, I, and others, shall never know.
: )
I don't doubt for a minute that you are a very decent person, Daryl. That is something we all strive to be, but that does not make our beliefs superior to those held by others. I concede this also and do not claim that my views are superior to yours, but we each follow our own path through life according to our own life experiences.
I read this morning that 90 out of 100 people in the States own firearms and 30 out of 100 in Canada. There is 1 firearm for every 7 people world wide, 1 in 10 if you discount the US. The poorer nations of the world associated with violence were surprisingly much lower. The Article, by Laura MacInnis of "Reuters Life!" entitled "US is the most armed society in world" then cites Nigeria as having just 1 firearm per 100 people. I pondered this for a while and realized that the dictators and tyrants who rule in many countries as despots do so because the populace is powerless in the face of armed conflict. It is also true that guns on the scale found in the US make that society more violent than it would otherwise be. We must control firearms or they will control us.
You and I both abhor violence, Daryl, be clear on that. I said it earlier and say it again, I fervently wish for violence to end, but we have an enigma. In the face of impending violence and cruelty visiting our little ones and loved ones, not to mention our neighbours, do we do nothing or do we do something? There is more than one answer to that I know. I have my answer, do something, you have your answer, of which I am not sure. It is for you, obviously, to articulate.
In the late thirties in Germany, this precise problem arose and six million civilian and unarmed people perished, one million of whom were children. Were it not for the Allies, I have no doubt the figure would have been higher. I definitely do not advocate more guns for anyone, quite the opposite, but we must always be on guard to prevent another Holocaust, another 9/11, another Korea and sometimes it takes a Churchillian type person to stand up to the tyrants of this world.
These are my views and I do not urge them on anyone. It always comes down to conscience and in Canada, that is what freedom is about. Of my two grandfathers, one was a Regimental Sergeant Major, decorated with the DSO, MM and MC. One can only wonder what his life experiences were. My other grandfather was a conscientious objector and an undecorated stretcher bearer and paramedic in the front line trenches of WWI for 4 years. How he survived I do not know. Some of those close to me suffered enormously from both WWI and WWII. These are things I ponder also.
Nothing is black and white and often our choices are confounded by shades of grey. All I can say is that I hope and pray that our world will be better for your little one and my grand-kids and all the rest of their generation, despite our differences.
[Somehow, I think we have got off David's string!]
Don't be revisionist, now.
It would seem to me that Daryl is objecting to two things. First, the glorification of a political leader who did and advocated a number of reprehensible things. From advocating the usage of gas on the Western Front as First Lord of the Admiralty during the First World War, to speaking out against Gandhi as a troublemaker, and reaffirming the need for Britain to rule over its holdings in India and Africa because of the superior intellect and and moral fibre of the 'white race' - Winston Churchill was not a misunderstood voice of rational action and compassion at home or abroad, but, rather, was an imperialist hold-out from a different age. His opinions and his actions are not all glamorous or suitable for a Hollywood movie, and I do not believe (personally, that is) that such historical revisionism or white washing of the realities of the man that is Churchill is a good thing at all. Especially when invoking his name in your rhetoric is not strictly necessary to get the general point across - that being the danger of global warming and the climate change that could result from our complacency.
If I am interpreting the statements posted by Daryl, it would seem that the second point that he finds most disagreeable is the invocation and subsequent (perhaps implicit) glorification of militarism. To the best of my knowledge (which remains incredibly limited), the GPC stands for and remains dedicated to non-violence - by appealing to such a base, nationalistic-inspired flavour of militarism, one not only undermines the intellectual foundation of our policies and philosophy, but discredits the speaker. It is an error, I think, that is all too easy to commit - afterall, getting a reaction from the public is quite easy when you invoke the sacrifices (brave they remain) of our armed forces. It rings rather false, and cheapens both our point, and the legitimate uses and respect that should be given to the armed services.
As for my part, I agree whole heartily with Daryl; if anything, the GPC is certainly not a militaristic organization, and I think it is both intellectually lazy and unnecessary to invoke imageries of either war or deeply flawed political leaders just to help get our point across. One of the main distinguishing features of global warming and the associated problems is that it is, quite literally, unlike anything we have faced before. It's not like a famine, although it has similarities to it; it's not like a war, but perhaps mass mobilization is necessary to reverse it fully. But even if you are advocating such a mass mobilization - such as on a scale of a total war - invoking a great war time leader, as I said, is both unnecessary and unwise.
I do understand how hard it can be to escape the long shadow that Churchill throws. For english speakers everywhere, Churchill remains *the* leader in a crisis, and it is very easy to invoke his name and image when people feel it is necessary to mobilize the population. Just because it is easy, however, does not mean we, as advocates for a political change (when it comes to climate change...) need to fall into such a trap.
----
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us" -- Sir Francis Bacon
not bad, Jack, but...
...(I've only a brief moment for a reply; perhaps (much) more later...) "militarism" itself is not the primary focus, but is of a piece with the, how i shall i put it, cultural criticism intended; actually, "militaristic" was the term applied by the British to the Germans (I think aptly), Germans using "warlike" for the British (also aptly I think); but you see, that is an axis (!) in itself for Greens to avoid; most interesting is Churchill's, our poor whipping-fellow for now, central role in urging the Royal Navy's transition to...oil!; that British poison gas in Iraq (as well) a century ago was for...oil!; see where I'm going with this? learn, everybody, a bit about currency & control & oil & killing &...you'll easily see why Churchill, Chamberlain, WWx, &c references are diametrically opposite to that to which Greens must appeal
One more reason.
I had no idea that Churchill was behind the push for a transition from coal to oil. I suppose that is just another reason (although, when the choice is between coal and oil...) to distance ourselves from the image of Churchill.
----
"If we do not maintain justice, justice will not maintain us" -- Sir Francis Bacon
Churchillian and wartimes analogies have their use
I just finished reading a biography of Winston Churchill, and while far from a perfect person - who among us is - he did a lot of good for this world. He tried his damndest to prevent WWII by trying to persuade the lily-livered "leaders" of the day such as Neville Chamberlain to join the League of Nations, or form other alliances, to contain the rising force of Nazi Germany. In fact, there are many unfortunate parallels between the political bosses of that day with our own time, including a focus on "the economy" and an adherence to a clearly senseless and failing ideology (appeasement then, global capitalism now).
Some columnists today are openly wishing for a "Climate Churchill," and it is certainly true that we need something and someone to rally around, someone who touches an emotional chord. That is what the neocons have done so well - appeal to the emotions, while the rest of us appeal to reason. At his best, Churchill managed to combine both, appealing to the best in humanity and also pointing out why it simply made sense.
Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada
Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth
People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy
Which bio, Brian?
"[...] Winston Churchill, [...] far from a perfect person - who among us is - he did a lot of good for this world."
I repeat, the issue is whether in a Green effort to "remake" things, recourse to vocabulary, imagery, thought patterns of the age we should be trying to remake are appropriate. Are you as little interested in the substantive as Gareth seems to be (who admits not understanding my points)? You're both leaving my main remarks, necessarily but allusive here, unaddressed.
" He tried his damndest to prevent WWII by trying to persuade the lily-livered "leaders" of the day such as Neville Chamberlain to join the League of Nations, or form other alliances, to contain the rising force of Nazi Germany."
Did you miss the Chamberlain kerfuffle of a few months ago (best let alone, but do reread)? Can you not see that Churchill did his "damnedest" as part of what led to the entire disaster in the first place? He's but political clothing, to which were even tagged worthwhile causes, but still thus a cover for the whole general culture of violence & exploitation that still dominates our world today, yesterday's offspring.
" In fact, there are many unfortunate parallels between the political bosses of that day with our own time, including a focus on "the economy" and an adherence to a clearly senseless and failing ideology (appeasement then, global capitalism now)."
A very big conflation here. Read Engdahl (since he's already been mentioned) some for a better understanding. Try A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. See where Churchill himself fits in rather early...
"Some columnists today are openly wishing for a "Climate Churchill," and it is certainly true that we need something and someone to rally around, someone who touches an emotional chord. That is what the neocons have done so well - appeal to the emotions, while the rest of us appeal to reason. At his best, Churchill managed to combine both, appealing to the best in humanity and also pointing out why it simply made sense."
The propagandistic irony of all ironies to have "a Churchill" as purported saviour. "Neocons" & emotions vs. reason? You also misuse these words as well. If anything, "neocons" are as rationally coherent as can be, with their dangerously lop-sided assumptions. Let go of Chamberlain, let go of Churchill, let go of most of the 20th century for inspiration. Compare my not unrelated strong objection at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/1873 , also for approval of other alas unlikelier terms.
Push for change from oil to better energy sources
Gareth Davies
Nanaimo-Alberni EDA
Parksville, BC
Daryl, why are you trying to tell everyone how to speak?
This particular blog, in case anyone has forgotten, deals with climate change.
As for the "push from coal to oil" by Churchill, so what? Anyway, he was not alone in that and was just one of many. Both coal and oil are pretty bad polluters, but remember this, the whole world went from coal to oil in everything, pretty well, and is responsible for much of the affluence you enjoy now as a Westerner. The people in the 19th and 20th centuries literally didn't know any better, so what is with all this sneering at them?
Here we are in the 21st century worrying about climate change and at the same time engaged in a developing brouhaha of major proportions with the USA, Russia, Denmark and others over oil and gas in the Arctic!
Use your energy to push from oil and gas to alternative and better forms of energy and keep the Arctic free from development like the Antarctic.
cultural climate change
Gareth,
Very simply put, without cultural (thus essentially linguistic - "how to speak") criticism, to help effect culture change, there is unlikely to be real addressing of your climate change.
Leading Veg I never intended
Leading Veg
I never intended to laud Mr. Churchill in any way, shape or form. I too recognize that he advocated, and indeed implemented, some highly questionable activities.
The analogy was between the current state of climate change action and the situation prevailing in 1939 Europe. Not about any virtue that Winston Spencer Churchill may have had, only about his decisiveness in the face of a crisis of epic proportion.
Just as Al Gore is obviously an ordinary,faulty human being in many ways, so was Churchill. However, they both came to greatness because they told powerful truths to powerful people, in spite of the potentially deleterious affects that advice may have had on their own stature.
Also, the name of the game is changing the public mind and spectacular comparisons work much more effectively than the virtuous unspectacular efforts.
unvirtuous spectacle
If you read my criticisms, you will see that the actual person is not the issue at all. It is about imagery, rhetoric, symbolism, language. If current torment has directly to do with certain principals involved in seminally furthering the torment, looking to such for inspiration is something like looking to an abuser for real help, like going along with a protection racket when you have a choice, however "unspectacular". Learn more about the antecedents to WWII, take a cultural-critical approach, and you will readily dissociate yourself from sullying, ultimately counterproductive appeal to such people. They might have some better causes tagged on to them, but it's too close to their being steeped in cultures we must veer from, now.