Where are the environmentalists?
For the first time in human history, a carbon dioxide measure of 400.03 parts-per-million (ppm) has been measured at the Mauna Loa atmospheric research station in Hawaii. This level was last seen on Earth three to five million years ago – at a time when sea levels were 20 to 40 meters higher than today and overall temperatures were several degrees warmer.
Since the 1950s, CO2 levels have skyrocketed from 280 ppm to the 400 ppm mark.
The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has repeatedly emphasized that the current level of increase, about 2.0 ppm per-year, is directly causing warming and associated climate uncertainty.
This 400 ppm threshold has been expected for some time, and the WMO states it will become the global average CO2 concentration by 2015 or 2016.
Climate scientists and campaigners are calling for an intensive reduction of emissions and anthropogenic contributions to global warming. In a statement released on May 13, the United Nation’s climate chief Christiana Figueres noted that the world has entered a new “danger zone.”
This news comes at a sensitive time for the Canadian government – only recently resource minister Joe Oliver has been lambasted for his support of the tar sands and also several highly publicized statements expressing disbelief in the severity of climate change.
Oliver has made controversial statements suggesting that environmental groups are trying to “hijack the system,” by protesting current tar sands development and investment.
In an open letter to the resource minister, Elizabeth May criticized Oliver for being manipulated by Stephen Harper’s “spin machine,” and suggested that Harper is equally manipulated by the oil lobby.
Though this news will undoubtedly draw many environmentally conscious Canadians into the throws of vicious Internet rants against the Harper government, what will this accomplish? In this day and age, it seems the Internet can either be an effective forum for social change, or it can be a void that actually serves the status quo by giving dissidents an artificial sense of involvement.
It is well known that the Internet is hub for progressivism and a space to nurture social change. However, environmentalism has been a victim of circumstantial activism. Times of perceived crisis have encouraged Canadians to write letters to Ottawa, set up blogs and websites about “green” living, get up from watching the game and go to a community rally, or vote with their money and buy everyday items that are produced with less CO2.
When trying to determine why environmentalism has remained peripheral, it is difficult to point fingers. However, our political apparatus and electoral system may be to blame. Environmentalism has been repeatedly painted as a “fringe” political activity that only “lefties” engage in. Aside from the harmless PR endeavors of the major parties, real environmentalism and change in “the system” to which Oliver clings still faces entrenched institutional barriers.
In May’s letter to the resource minister she concluded, “… by characterizing this issue as environmental radicals versus Canada’s future prosperity, you have done a grave disservice to the development of sensible public policy.”