Lies and the lying liars who tell them

Al Gore recently released a film called 'An Inconvenient Truth', in which he states the obvious: man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming. At the very least, they are appreciably accelerating an underlying long-term natural trend. While generally well-disposed towards the film as a piece of PR, Atlas Hugged, in a fit of genuflection at the Altar of the Corporate Teat, tries to cast doubt on the reality of man-made global warming. In particular, he says:

the consensus position is:
a) we need more study;
b) there are about 50 other important variables that we actually know about that have to be factored in and;
c) the central point to which [Al Gore] is referring to is that climate change is happening. The "consensus" does not suggest that humans are contributing to it, nor does it suggest that the alleged greenhouse effect is causing it, or that the alleged greenhouse effect is caused by CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and HFC/PFC and SF6. It is a “choose your own scientific adventure” of “if not NOx then why?”

While I normally enjoy the pithy efferverscence of AH's posts, in this particular case I had no choice but to rain on his parade. I'm all for glib superficiality when it's directed at things I don't care about or hold in disdain, but Kyoto is near and dear to my heart and too oft maligned by facile arguments for me to stand idly by.

The first untruth purveyed by master Atlas is that the scientific community has yet to reach a consensus on whether or not CO2 emissions are having an effect on global temperatures. This is simply not true. It is the opposite of true. In fact, it is a lie.

As Liam Lacy of the Globe pointed out in his review of the selfsame documentary, of the 900 articles published to date in peer-reviewed journals about global warning, NONE of them (i.e. not a SINGLE ONE) expressed any doubt that anthropomorphic emissions of CO2(i.e. man-made emissions) were having an appreciable effect on the global climate. Now, the extent and magnitude of that effect may not be known with a high degree of precision, but the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which compiled all the research of the Framework Convention and the K Protocol) states that the minimum impact over the last century has been to increase average global temperatures by 1 degree C, and it may be as much as 2 degrees c. Moreover, the rate of increase is accelerating; CO2 has a long shelf-life and its effect is being compounded with each passing year.

So--perfect knowledge we may not possess, but sufficient knowledge we certainly have.

The other comment with which I take issue is the claim, oft repeated by business-friendly conservatives, that the Protocal is an unworkeable framework. I would challenge master Atlas to please provide some supporting argumentation for that blind, deaf and dumb assertion. The KP provides a number of flexible mechanisms specifically designed to ensure that emissions reductions are done by those people and in those places where it will be most efficient, by allowing for emissions trading. While the NDP may not like it (nor the Tories, god only knows why), this was the most sensible course for Canada to follow in meeting its commitments. Post-Soviet Europe, whose economy (and consequently CO2 emissions) collapsed in the 1990's has heaps of emissions credits for sale which Canada can cheaply buy while it works out how to optimize its own reduction initiatives.

The only thing about the KP which may be 'unworkeable' is the targets themselves: 6 percent below 1990 levels, in Canada's case. Canada is presently at 35 percent above 1990 levels, so we need to double our efforts. But these targets are inescapable; reducing emissions below, in fact far below those levels is the only way to mitigate the impact of global warming.

Perhaps master Atlas was referring to the fact that the US has not agreed to cooperate, or to the principle of 'differentiated responsbility', under which developing countries (whose contribution to current CO2 levels has been negligible) are not required to make any commitments. True, the absence of the US, China and India is a major problem, but not an insurmountable one, especially if Gore wins the 2008 Presidential. In any case, differentiated reponsibility was dictated by political realities: developing countries would never accept to take steps which might hinder their own growth to deal with a problem we caused unless we ourselves first make a substantial sacrifice. It's called credibility.

Whither Poetry? The Decline and Fall of the Political Class

In 1968, Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minnesota) challenged Lyndon Johnson in the Democratic primaries. McCarthy was opposed to the war in Vietnam, believing it to be illegal and a 'costly exercise in futility'. When asked why he was running, 'Gene' quoted Yeats:

Nor law, nor duty bade me fight,
Nor public men, nor cheering crowds,
A lonely impulse of delight
Drove to this tumult in the clouds;

McCarthy's role-model as a public figure was Thomas More, the brilliant, stubborn Catholic who resigned his post as Lord Chancellor rather than accept Henry VIII's denunciation of the Pope and self-proclamation as head of the English Church. He later went to the headsman rather than accept the King's unlawful divorce from Catherine of Aragon. He also wrote the original Utopia--a word he invented.

In the same year as Gene McCarthy's first and bravest stand, Robert Kennedy also ran for the Democratic leadership. On April 4th, mere moments before he was to give a speech to an African-American crowd gathered in Indianapolis, Kennedy received the news that Martin Luther King was gone, shot dead in Memphis, Tennessee. No one in the crowd yet knew that this had happened, and Bobby Kennedy, without police or Secret service protection of any kind, stepped forth to tell them. His speech was very short. After telling them of King's assassination, and saying a few words in tribute to the fallen leader of the civil rights movement, Kennedy closed his speech by quoting Aeschylus:

"My favorite poem, my favorite poet was Aeschylus. He once wrote, 'Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart. Until ... in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."

These were thoughtful men, men of ideals and wisdom who believed in the power of words to conjure up those finer aspects of the human spirit--those that make us more than bestial, selfish hominids and lend us the desire to reach beyond what is easy to achieve what is possible but hard. They wanted to reach out and move their listeners to a more noble sentiment, not pander passively to the status quo. Just as poetry is magical in that it frees us from prosaic utility and suggests a way of thinking not constrained by linearity, the statesman-orator must be a mage who breaks the masses from the mould of their own expectations about the way things have to be. They must make it possible for men to dream.

McCarthy and Kennedy were noble men of a nearly vanished sort, who thought that public service, that devoting one's life to considering and struggling for the common good, was a sacred thing, worthy of awe from served and servant alike. They treated their charge as leaders with reverence, believing that to rise above the comforting and the familiar in both their words and deeds was an obligation.

I reflect on these things as I consider the state of leadership in Canada today. Precious few of our leaders are capable of shaping a true vision for this country. Their concerns are more prosaic: jobs, exhange rates, health care, transfer payments, territorial squabbles between the Feds and the provinces. Not that such things aren't important, quite the contrary; the Devil is in the details, as More would have said. But leadership requires more than tactical proficiency at dealing with problems in a punctual fashion. Leadership is the marriage of vision and communication.

A visionary must have three things: the intellect necessary to understand the state and society and administer both, the courage and confidence to pursue necessary change in the face of even violent disagreement, and that intangible quality, an almost mystical instinct for possibility, the ability to disentangle oneself from the immediate and obvious, to see the forest not the trees. A great leader must take these traits of the visionary and couple them with the ability to communicate, cajole, exhort, enrage and exite others into following his vision.

Stephen Harper may have some of these qualities, but certainly not all. He is an able man, good at setting concrete goals, identifying what is necessary to achieve them and has the discipline to follow through and get the job done. But I don't think he has a vision for this country, no sense of what it should be. His approach is casuistic and scattershot. A policy here, an initiative there, motivated by a reactionary sense of dissatisfaction rather than an overarching sense of order. He has a litany of things he thinks the government should *not* do, but little sense of what it should do. And if he does, he's failed to effectively explain to us what that is.

Paul Martin was far too busy giving people what they wanted to ever step back and see what was needed. And even if he had, he wouldn't have had the cajunas to tell anyone they couldn't have everything they wanted. He was too concerned with being liked, not enough with being respected.

Jean Chrétien was an able manager, a very pragmatic mind. Countries need leaders like him from time to time, a rest from the exertions to which they're led by their frenetic visionaries. But his vision of the country, a stale borrowing of Trudeau's and consequently more uncompromising, was static and outdated.

Michael Ignatieff has intellect and charm, and speaks French and English well enough to understand both solitudes and bring them together, but I doubt he has the strength of character. A man who came to public service so very late in his life doesn't seem to me to be driven deeply enough by the needs of his country. Leadership demands a certain sense of martyrdom, and he's been absent from our struggles for 35 years. A stint as Prime Minister would be a welcome end to his admittedly illustrious career, but I'm afraid that makes him little more than a very learned trophy hunter.

Greetings all,

I don't have time to fully spell out my vision for this blog right now. I can tell you that it will consist of bilingual commentary on political, social and cultural issues, both Canadian and international. I see it as a way to develop my thoughts in a more structured way, lest the swift passage of time be hastened by the daily grind of gainful employment.