Analyst

I am always thankful that industrial analysts do not become medical doctors when I hear them talk about environmental issues. Case in point is an oil and gas analyst I saw on TV dismissing environmental control measures by saying that they do nothing to curb the fast growing pollution issue in Asia. What he said is certainly true. In a few years, China and India will overtake North America as the most polluting region in the world and no matter what Canada does domestically is not going to change that. Despite this reality, his dismissal of environmental measures is ridiculous as can be. If he were a doctor, he would be saying: “why treat the migraine when you have a fast advancing diabetes.” The diabetes may really be a problem but what does it has to do with the migraine? What make the matter worse is that what he is really implying is that we should have not limits on the oil sand production so that we can profit from supplying the growing polluters of Asia. This is the equivalence of not only not treating the migraine but to eat a lot more sugar to speed up the damage of both diseases. That is why I am glad that this analyst, at least, did not become a doctor, otherwise he would refuse to treat my bronchitis because I, as a human being, will die sooner or later anyways.

Bang Bang Bang

Every time there is a big shooting, particularly a school shooting, there would be a lot of talks about gun control: “if everybody were armed, the crazy gunman would have been dead before too much damage is done” or “if there were no guns, this would not have happened.” The justification for this 'debate', at least the announced one, is to honour the memories of the dead. Nothing is further from the truth. In this debate, the dead are reduced to be tokens, numbers, excuses for something else; they become weapons in a ideological war. That is no honouring at all. And indeed how can we, those who have memory or knowledge of those who died, have anything about them that we can honour? What is the memory to be honoured? To use them in this kind of 'debate' is not only not honouring but degrading. It may mean something, this degradation, if it contribute to a important debate. Unfortunately, even that is asking too much. A great debate and the making of important laws and social policies should not be influenced by single incidents, regardless the horror of those incidents. Laws and policies should be about the general, the almost universal and not the specific. Murder, for example, may in some incidents be good and justified, but that is no reason to legalize murder. One crazy man guns down a few dozen people is horrifying but it should not have any impact on the debate on gun control. It is but one incident; and all would agree it is a very unusual occurrence. Gun control is not about stopping the rare crazy murderous people. It is about human value, political philosophy, law enforcement in general, the social contract, practical needs, ethics, etc. It should not be about emotion or opportunism. This 'debate' right now serve neither the memory of the deceased or the real debate on gun control.

Sky is Falling

Environment Minister John Baird presented a study on the horrors of the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate with catastrophic predictions—massive job loss, huge rise on fuel cost and a long and deep recession. Predictably all opposition parties started calling Baird a fear monger. The report certainly seems to bear out this charge. Fear mongering is however about changing opinions. If this were fear mongering, it would be trying to turn people against Kyoto. I have not even heard of a person changing his or her mind after a study is presented in the Senate. How many people out there, well, even in there, understand what the study says? Carbon tax? Job loss and higher gas price, how? Recession? These things just make people scratch their heads. Particularly now that everybody seems to have a position on the matter, heads may be scratched but hardly changed. The government and its advisers may be incompetent but not entirely stupid, especially on public opinions. What then is this “misfiring” of the fear monger really aiming at if not to change public opinions on Kyoto? The most pressing issue in front of the government regarding Kyoto is the private member's bill sponsored by Pablo Rodriguez that requires the government to present a plan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. The bill has passed in the Commons and it looks certain to pass in the Senate. With all three opposition parties united in support of the bill, there is no way the minority government can stop it. For the government, to try to stop the bill in the Senate is a hopeless cause. The only thing left to do is to justify the defeat. To come up with a plan may be the right thing to do, but that would be admitting defeat. To throw Kyoto out of the window had been proved to be politically too damaging to the Conservative Party. This study serves the purpose of giving the defeat a reason, a justification, not for those whose mind need changing but to those who are in agreement with the government. The targets then of this “fear mongering” are not those who disagree with the fear mongers but the fear mongers themselves. It serves to reinforce the fears in the fear mongers and gives fears a present in public discourse. So, technically it is not fear mongering at all but a manifestation of fear. And for that, Baird seems to be looking for sympathy rather than fright.