ManoWhisper
Home
Shows
About
Search
Juno News
- September 14, 2021
There's too much discussion about climate change this election
Episode Stats
Length
4 minutes
Words per Minute
207.11902
Word Count
931
Sentence Count
49
Summary
Summaries are generated with
gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ
.
Transcript
Transcript is generated with
Whisper
(
turbo
).
00:00:00.000
Canadian political discourse puts just a little bit too much time into discussions of climate
00:00:10.620
change. And I think it's to the peril of other important discussions that we are not putting
00:00:15.580
enough time into. And it's time to just step back just a little bit and reallocate that time and
00:00:21.480
step away from the climate change conversation just a little bit. I'll give you a case in point.
00:00:26.280
So we just had the first English language leaders debate in the Canadian federal election,
00:00:30.880
actually the only English language leaders debate. And there was a whole section devoted to climate
00:00:36.040
change. And it took a whole lot of time in that debate. It took up a large chunk of time, almost
00:00:40.780
half an hour. I mean, I'm watching and I'm like, oh my God, they're just going in circles on this.
00:00:44.360
They're going on and on and on. Now I had previously complained that it was unfortunate that there was
00:00:49.100
going to be no discussion of foreign affairs in the leaders debate. Now I will credit the moderators
00:00:54.280
and the people involved in the debate that yes, they did make time to discuss Afghanistan
00:00:59.020
and other important foreign affairs issues, but it didn't get anywhere near as much time as the
00:01:04.480
climate change conversation did. And it certainly didn't get its whole own section. I mean, why is
00:01:09.920
that? We got to reallocate things. We got to refocus here. And I would humbly propose one sort of shift in
00:01:16.720
our thinking that we need to do that will help us with this reallocation. So a lot of the time in the
00:01:21.760
leaders debate was spent talking about, we're not meeting our Paris goals. And this guy's plan meets our
00:01:27.680
Paris goals this way. And that guy's plan doesn't meet it this way. And Justin Trudeau has failed to meet the
00:01:32.380
Paris deal and et cetera, et cetera, so forth. I think we need to kind of rethink how we conceptualize the
00:01:40.160
Paris deal. I think people, even people who are, who are major advocates of dealing with climate change and so forth,
00:01:45.920
and think it's one of the top issues the country faces, they need to acknowledge that the Paris deal
00:01:51.720
is an aspirational stretch goal. That it is not, in fact, this hard and fast target that we must set
00:02:01.820
by this specific time, or we must punish ourselves and others and bring in more and more elaborate carbon
00:02:07.660
taxes and so forth. And that's not what it should be. And it never should have been like that. A lot of
00:02:11.960
people don't realize that Canada's actual targets are, are what they call nationally determined
00:02:16.800
contributions. It's not even, you know, we just, we made it up ourselves, the contribution and the,
00:02:22.360
the sort of target and the pledge that we make to the Paris deals. I'll give you a comparable example
00:02:27.220
of what an aspirational target is. Every now and then I've seen various municipalities have a press
00:02:32.300
conference where they say, we are coming up with this plan to end homelessness in five years or in
00:02:39.000
10 years or what have you. And who can complain about that? I mean, that's an admirable goal and
00:02:43.160
you should wish them well and all of that. And they're coming up with various programs and projects
00:02:47.280
and so forth. They get people off the streets and get them into homes and so forth. But let's be honest,
00:02:51.960
we also know that they're not going to end homelessness in five years or 10 years. They're
00:02:56.980
just shooting for the stars and they're giving a big target. It's an aspirational goal. It's something
00:03:01.700
for them to aim towards, even though they know, unfortunately, they're not going to hit it. And the Paris deal
00:03:07.540
is kind of the same thing. I mean, when Jean Chrétien signed the Kyoto Accord,
00:03:11.580
previous people who worked around him, they've admitted that they're like, yeah, we didn't
00:03:15.020
actually think we'd hit these targets. That wasn't the point of it. You just sort of meet on the global
00:03:19.200
cocktail circuit and at the UN events and you all sort of say, yeah, we're going to go ahead with
00:03:23.360
these goals and so forth. And you're just kind of seeing it as a gesture, a sort of long-term vague
00:03:30.220
objective, a bit of a feel-good project, because clearly people care about the issue and they would like
00:03:34.620
to, you know, do good things for the environment and the climate and reduce emissions and so on and
00:03:39.680
so forth. But the way we think of the Paris deal, it's become this obsession of hitting these exact
00:03:46.860
targets at these exact times, such that we're willing to bring in any sort of government measure
00:03:51.560
and punitive measure to any individual or business to get there. And you kind of lose sight of why we're
00:03:57.240
actually doing this in the first place. So by all means, lots of people are very passionate about the
00:04:01.280
climate change issue in Canada. And well, I think there's a lot to be said for all this R&D by
00:04:05.840
companies put into green technology and green industries. And they're making a lot of progress
00:04:10.740
there. And I can guarantee you, once these various products are available at a price point, the middle
00:04:15.340
class consumer will buy, they will start buying it. But this idea that we have to just obsess over the
00:04:21.800
Paris targets like they did at the leaders debate. I mean, come on, guys, let's just reassess,
00:04:26.640
reallocate, reconceptualize how we talk about this issue.
Link copied!