Donald Trump is Right

Donald Trump is right - that is a statement that I never thought I would make - but he is. There is no doubt that if the USA fully followed/enacted/pursued the Paris Agreement on climate change to the fullest extent possible, that many US businesses would be negatively affected. All of those companies that are involved in the production of carbon based fuel, the owners of oil fields and coal mines, the private hydro generating companies that use dirty coal, the automotive manufacturers, and perhaps even all of those large box stores that rely on the thousands and thousands of trucks that are on our highways to maintain their “just in time” retail model would either lose money or some cases go out of business. Hundreds of the richest people in the USA might end up with less money in their bank accounts. At the other end of the financial spectrum there will be a large number of individuals who may not be able to make the kind of intellectual shift required to working in and using complex technologies. To many of us in the centre, we may want for example, to embrace a lifestyle that produces little or no carbon emissions but will struggle to be able to afford to buy that new electric car. The changes that we all face – will be a challenge and we, in the short term, may find them uncomfortable. So from Mr. Trump’s small, ever elevated ivory tower – as far as he can see , it is understandable that he believes that reducing the USA’s carbon footprint will negatively impact that old economy he has promised to make great again.

 

Of course the man is a fool who clearly cannot see past the end of his nose. By focusing on what is best for his country in the next few years, he ignores what will be best not only for the USA a decade from now, but in fact what is best for the whole world. By limiting his country’s participation in a new and exciting economy where innovation and creativity will be both celebrated and rewarded, he condemns that country to having to play “catch-up” when they finally realize that they have no choice but to adapt.

 

However, what is particularly sad and frightening about Trump’s decision to renege on his country’s commitment towards the Paris Agreement is that it is a classic example of a protectionist state that assumes it has the right to only engage with the rest of the world when it is advantageous to them. Mr. Trump and his like-minded citizens see nothing wrong in taking as much as they can from developing countries, of making obscene profits from the selling of those resources and then turning around and suggesting that the USA owes nothing to those countries. Trump’s business model of taking whatever you can and to maximize profit regardless of anything/anyone else is no longer a particularly effective model for corporations. That model may have worked in a world where countries, companies and people were at best only connected by telegraph wires – but in a world where most of us accept the fact that we are all connected, that what happens in Texas or Kabul does affect us all – sometimes surprisingly quickly, companies can no longer ignore that what they do today will affect the rest of the world. Trump by supporting this narrow view that one county, place or person is more important than any other is condemning his country to become a second rate influence in the world.

 

By refusing to participate in a world wide effort, Trump has re-confirmed an isolationist policy that refuses to take any responsibility for the USA’s contributions to the climate change problem. He has rejected the argument that the USA has any moral responsibility to the rest of the world. What makes this a particularly dangerous approach is that it opens the door for other countries and major international companies to argue that they too do not have a moral responsibility to be good citizens.

The Man Who Would be King (Maker) (part 2)

No one could/should ever say that Canadian politics are boring. While they may be less bombastic than those to the immediate south of us, our politics at both the national and provincial level can be just as complex and at times full of backroom deals. The convoluted dance that the British Columbia Green Party has just had with its two prospective partners is a case in point.  

 

Weaver, along with his party of two other Greens, has within the last 24 hours made clear which of the two partners they will be taking to the national stage. It should surprise no one that in the final analysis, the BC Greens had no choice but to partner with the NDP.  For the Green party to ally themselves with the B.C. Liberals – their provincial adversary in so many battles - for any period of time would have offended far too many of the Green supporters. On the surface, it would appear that the agreement between the NDP and the Greens is, if not a match made in heaven, at least an arrangement that will be not lead them back to that part of hell known as the powerless opposition. But both parties need to be cautious of being seduced by the glamour of it all. While Weaver may see their new “relationship” as an equal partnership – they are in fact hooking up with a partner with a lot of baggage.

 

The Greens have allied themselves with a political party that may “owe” certain interests – i.e. the unions. As noted by the Globe and Mail, the B.C Teacher’s Federation has already indicated that it will be asking for more money for the school system. It is so easy to promise the near impossible when one is on the opposition side of the legislature – it is so much more difficult to deliver on all of those promises. Those who follow Ontario politics know all too well how union supporters can turn against “their” party when they don’t get want they want. I also note via Facebook, that the Union of BC Indian Chiefs has said that it is time to implement all of the various recommendations that have been made to at least try to rectify our rather disastrous relationships with First Nation communities. I suspect that there are other interest groups in the province who are assuming that they will have their needs addressed. It is unlikely that everyone will get all of their issues resolved. Compromises that may satisfy no one will need to be made.  

The NDP need to understand that the Greens have little to lose by being demanding in terms of priorities and solutions. They will try to wave the whip for the next four years or until such time as the NDP get tired of being bossed around by a three person non-party. One has to wonder how stable the agreement to work together will be when the NDP cannot quickly deliver on all of its promises, or how long NDP backbenchers will sit quietly by while their issues are not being addressed.  

I support the concept that that environment must be, if not the first thing that is considered when discussing provincial policy, a critical component in any decision. I think that means that the expansion of the Kinder-Morgan pipe line, the building of the Site C dam and Liquefied Natural Gas projects in North Western B.C. are all back on the table. It is hard to see how any of them can be approved. I am however, most curious as to how the new government will generate sufficient income to support its plans to expand health care and education funding while maintaining a balanced budget. While it is tempting to suggest that (1) there is some waste within the government that could be cut and (2) that some people (the rich) need to pay their share (and more) – is suspect that is not enough. The provincial of government will need to expand its income and clearly it will not be from the expansion of any of the present industries. I cannot help but remember the negative and unsupportive response of “big” business when Ontario voters elected an NDP government.

The Greens are gambling that the next four years will be smooth sailing and that they will get enough of their agenda on the table to please their supporters, and to garner new ones; The NDP party is gambling the same thing. I am not sure if both parties can be winners at the end of this coalition.