Cathartic Release: A baffling approach to the environmental crisis

How on Earth is reactive better than proactive?

So much of what is occurring south of the border lately resembles a farce that one could be forgiven for thinking the sentiments in a recent Toronto Star column were a playful antic. In Alex Ballingall’s article, Kenneth Green (yes, that’s actually his name), the Fraser Institute’s director of natural resources studies, shares his concerns regarding a “green” Canadian economy running parallel to a coal-loving United States.

“He’d rather see the country invest in ways to deal with the consequences of climate change than try to stop it,” writes Ballingall about Green. Astonishingly, Green considers it more worthy to invest in addressing the consequences of climate change as they come than to invest in the prevention of climate change.

Imagine for a second that someone took this approach to their health: “It’s better to undergo chemotherapy as cancer develops than to avoid asbestos in construction.”“It’s better to have liposuction every 300 pounds than to eat a balanced diet.”

“It’s better to treat polio cases as they come than to vaccinate as a preventative measure.”

You get the gist. This “logic” can be applied to any concept—health, safety, finances, and more—and still be utterly ridiculous. But I suppose that money is a powerful thing as it tends to be the motivator of backwards thinking exhibited by the likes of Green. Where there is cash to be made, all else be damned.

Green’s broad understanding (sarcasm alert) of the global climate situation doesn’t stop there. He also excuses Canada from participating in climate change reduction for three reasons.

Firstly, Green says there’s not much Canada can do anyway when it comes to our low percentage of global emissions.

Secondly, Green excuses Canada due to the lack of leadership coming from the White House.

And lastly, due to decreased economic activity, Green thinks “it would be kind of crazy-blind” not to “synchronize with the United States,” even if the reason we’re out of sync is carbon and methane emission regulations.

Well, Mr. Green, I think you are “kind of crazy-blind” if you think it wise to ignore the growing climate crisis in favour of the economy.I’m unsure what type of economy you think can be sustained on a drought-ridden, food-scarce, oxygen-deprived planet, but I can assure you it isn’t the thriving kind you imagine it to be.

When we were kids, the end of the day was always “clean-up time.” Everybody was responsible for going around the room to remove garbage and tidy the area, regardless of whether the mess was theirs. Those protesting participation because, “That one wasn’t mine,” or “I didn’t have it last,” were scolded and taught the importance of maintaining the premises for the enjoyment of everyone. Surely it wasn’t fair, and some of us ended up doing more of the work than others, but respecting the shared space ultimately benefited us all.

Perhaps Mr. Green never experienced “clean-up time” during his childhood; if he had, he should have grasped the concept that there is always another group (read: generation) coming to use the shared space after you leave.

Green says Canada is only responsible for two per cent of global emissions. That doesn’t sound like much, until you realize that’s four times our contribution to the world’s population. Yet regardless of whose mess is the biggest, we are all facing the consequences. No one country or generation is responsible for the environmental destruction that has been committed, but with each subsequent generation, the effects are getting stronger, larger, and harder to resolve.

We millennials are already in great debt with useless degrees, living a precarious present with uncertain futures, and an untouchable housing market. My generation can’t even afford our own places to live; the least Green’s generation can do is leave us a little greenery to sleep under at night.

Photo courtesy of Digifly840 via CC0 Public Domain.