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.

Greta Thurnberg #2

It is all rather exhilarating to read about millions of young people getting out on the street and demanding that their governments do something about climate change. As one reads about the protesters marching in the streets and listens or reads about the powerful, impassioned speeches that young people are making, one could easily believe that this time - the world will change. This time someone in a position of power will do something, almost anything to not only stop the seemingly inevitable environmental disaster about to face us but in fact - start to reverse it. However, that could only be true if politicians are listening to and will respond to the protesters, protesters who cannot vote. One could believe that change is imminent except for the fact that none of the protesters has a plan to effect the needed change. None of them has a solution. The truth is that there is not a single plan - there are so many possibilities that politicians can promise to work on, that nothing will change. The changes needed at the political level are so complex that it will take a number of political cycles to effect those changes. No government in the democratic world will stay in power long enough to ensure that something happens.

Unlike the protests that revolved around the Vietnam war or the protests that demanded some sort of voter equality for Afro-Americans - there is not a single solution to climate change. There is not a quick fix. No country can unilaterally declare that they will immediately stop polluting the air. No country can change the amount of carbon in the air - at least not in the short term - by planting a billion trees. No country can quickly cut its dependence on oil. The solutions - and there are some - are all long term. Before we can stop spewing carbon into the air - we need to create the industries that can build the alternative forms of transportation. Before we, at least at a national level, can be carbon neutral we need to invest billions of dollars into creating the infrastructure. For example, getting rid of the internal combustion engine will do much to reduce all of our carbon footprints. But not only do we need to create a network of charging stations, but we also need to create trucks that can carry our goods across the country. It is possible - it just requires the political will, a pile of cash and time.

There are a number of long term solutions that make take a decade or more before they are in place. That is not a reason to do nothing. But it is a reason to be both practical and to take responsibility for our own personal carbon footprint. The inability of national governments to develop some sort of consensus for any sort of action does not mean that we should not protest. Rather it means that people should get out the streets to yell and scream even more often- if for no other reason than it reminds the politicians that we are watching them. But we need to do more on a personal level.

Every time we buy new clothes from offshore we have increased our carbon footprint, every time we buy a green pepper or a head of lettuce we are both increasing our carbon footprint and lowering the water table in some part of the world, every time we buy or use some new technology - we are putting the climate at risk.

It is not the big corporations or the governments who have caused the problem - it is us and our insatiable desire to have the newest thing, different clothes or the newest super vegetable or fruit. We may need the government to do the big global things. But if every protester and all of their families and friends did the small things - I would b a lot more optimistic about the governments of the western world finally getting the message.