As you may or may not know the Canadian political system is made up of many different parties. The main power brokers in Canada end up being the Liberal party (LP - see fiscal conservatives and social centrists), the Conservative party (CP - see fiscal and social conservatives), the Bloc Quebecois (BQ - see fiscal and social liberals who seek to leave Canada) and in fourth place the New Democratic party (NDP - see fiscal and social liberals).
In our last election the Liberal party and incumbant government won a minority parliament. What this means is that they got the most votes of any of the parties but were not given a majority and as such need to work with the other parties in parliament to ensure that things move forward. If for instance their budget or major policy bills are defeated there is a no-confidence vote taken and the government will fall resulting in another election.
Canadian's don't want another election. They want this collection of ass kissers and crybaby's to work together for once (actually this would not be the first time as there was a minority parliament during the 1960's) and get something done for Canada. Well it seems that this may all be over. According to the CBC the CP, NDP and BQ are all planning on voting against the upcoming budget to be tabled by the LP. The apparent 'straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back' issue seems to be the environment.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/03/24/budget-kyoto050324.html
Yes the environment. It seems that the CP thinks that the LP is going to far with its budget in trying to list green-house gasses as a controlled substance and would therefore be tracked by the government. In the end the government could then fine companies that produce too much green-house gas. This is done in order to help Canada meet its Kyoto Protocol requirements. The CP think that this is going to far and therefore will not support the budget. The BQ plan on voting the budget down because the budget doesn't go far enough concerning Kyoto. The NDP apparently plan on voting it down but the CBC doesn't think that the NDP matter enough to tell us why.
So in the end if these political parties follow through with their plans the budget will be defeated, the government will fall and an election will be called. Canada will go back to the polls to elect in a new government with this one (here is the official prediction) being a slim Liberal majority. Now not to delve too far into Canadian politics for my plethora (so far one) of international readers but this might not be the best thing in the world for Canada. Consider the fact that during the last period of minority government under then Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson much of what we consider to be Canadian came into being.
"Pearson became Prime Minister as a result of the 1963 general election as leader of a minority government. [...] [H]e introduced important social programs (including universal health care, the Canada Pension Plan, and Canada Student Loans), the Maple Leaf Flag, and new initiatives in French-English relations. Pearson's government instituted much of the modern welfare state in Canada, due in part to support for his minority government in the Canadian House of Commons from the New Democratic Party, led by Tommy Douglas." (thanks Wikipedia)
Now again not too venture too far off into the realm of Canadian politics because what I wanted to talk about was the environment. Its seems that in Canada there is some division concerning how far we should go in keeping our promises and meeting our Kyoto responsibilities. Well to that end I will quote a famous Canadian, David Suzuki, who in this weeks syndicated column had the following to say. (Please note that I truly hope to not get in trouble for the following as I am quoting David Suzuki and his column Science Matters (March 24, 2005) in its entirety. I get this info from my local newspaper)
CLIMATE CHANGE 'ALERT'
Watching television news today it seems our attention spans have dipped to near zero and the networks are more than happy to give us our fix.
In the past month alone, the media's roving eye has swung from such earth-shattering events as Martha Stewart's jail release to the Michael Jackson trial. In between, we learned of celebrity scandals and breakups, television ratings and opening weekend grosses for movies.
Recently, in the midst of all this, came two new studies on the effects of climate change. They barely made a blip on the media radar, but their implications are quite profound. According to these new studies, even if we stopped burning oil, coal and other fossil fuels immediately, the built up emissions in the atmosphere from our activities will continue to cause temperatures to climb, and sea levels to rise, for at least the next 100 years.
The studies, conducted by the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, looked at a problem that had never before been quantified - the delayed response of the oceans to climate change. Water heats up more slowly than land and also cools down more slowly.
This "thermal inertia" means that warming oceans will keep putting out heat long after we've reduced or even stopped pumping heat-trapping emissions into the atmosphere.
A second concern with the oceans is "thermal expansion." When water is heated, it expands. Researchers estimate that thermal expansion alone will reesult in a global sea-level rise of about 10 centimetres this century. Again, that's even if we stopped putting out heat-trapping emissions today. This increase does not include any additional water resulting from melting glaciers and polar ice caps. Had these factors been included, the researchers say, sea level increases would likely double.
So, climate change is happening now and it will continue to happen for at least 100 years no matter what we do. Those opposed to reducing the heat-trapping emission that cause the problem will undoubtedly pounce on these studies as "proof" that plans like the Kyoto Protocol, designed to reduce emission, are useless because the planet will keep heating up anyway.
Sucn an attitude is dangerous and misguided.
The Kyoto Protocol alone was never meant to stop global warming - just to get us started on the right path that will enable us to shift to a clean-energy economy that will prevent dangerous climate change.
Choosing to do nothing will put us on a path of continued rising emissions, which will make the problem much, much worse.
Climate change, and big environmental problems in general, don't fit into our short-term flavour of the week (or day) mindsets. Environmental problems often occur gradually over time, building up like slow-moving catastrophes.
A changing climate, the gradual loss of ancient forests, and the constant creep of species extinction have little shock value in the short term.
Certainly, long-term projections for these issues, and even some medium-term projections, are quite shocking, but we seem unable to look ahead and plan for the future.
Planning ahead pays off. When scientists told us we were damaging the atmosphere's protective ozone layer with harmful chemicals, the international community worked together to ban them. That was over 15 yars ago, and the ozone layer still has not fully healed.
In fact, it's taking longer than expected to recover - but it's recovering.
Solving our environmental problems will take time. It will take patience and foresight. The longer we put off taking action, the worse these problems will become.
Celebrity scandals and pop culture may be distracting and fun in the short term, but the really important things in life take a while.
For the sake of our future, we need to get started on them now.
No comments:
Post a Comment