Election #4 - I Should Have Been a Politician

Every once in a while, I think about running for public office. Fortunately for both me and the public, this thought only occasionally invades my consciousness. It usually only happens when there is a provincial or like now, a federal election. The thought almost always pops into my head during or just after attending a candidates' debate. I can't help but wonder as I listen to those courageous people behind the microphone if I couldn't do better.

I attended such a debate last night. It was part of a series of debates that were happening across the country with the same four questions being asked at each meeting. In the case of Duncan, the debate was "televised" via social media to two other sites within the riding so that residents in those towns could also see the debate. The format was simple: four national questions , four local questions and then a few questions from each of the sites. Because the debate was on the environment, the questions were predictable, the answers seemingly predetermined with each of the four candidates almost obliged to sound "green" whether they were or not. It did not quite work out that was as one individual from what could be called a fringe party - suggested quite clearly that climate change was not really a problem. It put an interesting twist into the discussion - It could have been a debate but all of the candidates were far more interested in proving how green either they were, or their party was and therefore the evening was a series of comments generally unrelated to what others had said.

My minor urge to be a candidate was stimulated by what I can only assume to be the wilful ignoring of how complex the issues are. The candidates were generally in favour of solar power, electric cars, organic farming, our salmon rivers being restored, a reduction in tree cutting, fewer plastics used, access to safe and affordable housing and preventing the pollution of our waterways. Each of the questions asked was proceeded by a lengthy preamble as to the problem, a preamble that clearly suggested that there was a right answer and a wrong answer. The format allowed the candidates to answer the question in a very narrow way that enabled them to avoid complex issues. For example there were (of course) a few questions that dealt with our dependence on carbon fuels. While the candidates all enthused of the possibilities of electric cars, including one candidate who said his next car would be an electric one, no one mentioned the carbon costs and the social costs of producing the batteries required to operate the cars. 50% of the cobalt used in lithium batteries comes from Democratic Republic of Congo - a country that has a horrendous human rights record that includes various warring factions using both rape as a weapon and child soldiers. In many cases the profits from mining in the Congo go to fund the purchase of even more guns etc. The fact that solar cells require various rare earth minerals and it is not clear whether or not we can access sufficient quantities (https://www.vice.com/en_us /article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy). It is not that we should stop developing these technologies but rather that politicians need to articulate that there are consequences to our desire to go green.

Similarly, while it is hard to argue against the theory that organic gardening is better for the environment, no one talked about the cost of those fruits and vegetable - costs that for some people are just too much. People talked about the fact that our water sources appear to be drying up, but no one talked about our desire to eat foods that need to be irrigated. Everyone agreed that we need more housing, but no one talked about the fact that building new houses will require wood or plastic (which comes from oil). No one talked about that as we build new single family dwellings - we are covering land that could be and in many cases was used to grow food.

However, the question that really made me want to be a politician was the one that asked how could we make airplane travel more carbon neutral. It was, of course, an impossible question. But all of the candidates tried. However, if I had been at the front of the room, I would have suggested that it was the wrong question. I would have asked - why in Canada do we need to fly from city to city. The answer is that our passenger rail service is so pathetic that no one now has the almost four days required to go from Vancouver to Toronto.

Debates are part of the democratic process, but surely we need to find a way that allows for the candidates to demonstrate that they understand that nothing is a simple as it sounds in a 90-second answer.