I save my outrage for what really matters

I know the big news of the day is the confirmation, thanks to very expensive Freedom of Information requests, that BC government finance department officials were carrying on email discussions with their federal counterparts about the HST as early as March, 2009. In addition, the finance department had prepared two briefings for Finance Minister Colin Hansen, one in January in preparation for a finance ministers’ conference and one in mid-March. Within the briefing notes was an indication that the “benefits” of the HST would not be realized for at least five years and maybe longer.

Like most British Columbians, I suspected all along that HST didn’t suddenly arrive on the Liberal agenda in late May 2009. While I think that the BC Liberals may be technically correct in stating that they did not start contemplating implementing the HST until two weeks after the election, as a matter of public interest and to fully inform voters about intentions, the Liberals should have indicated that adopting the HST was a consideration that they would explore.

We all know that is not the way that politics is played in BC. No real policy discussions take place during election campaigns. And truth telling is not politically expedient. Election campaigns are about fear mongering, personalities, and most of all about money.

So I won’t be using this space to express the outrage I feel about the lack of democracy in BC. Nor will I spend my time condemning the BC Liberals. What I have said so far is as much as I want to say about HST for awhile.

I want to talk about is climate change

In Tuesday’s Globe and Mail (August 30, 2010) there was an editorial on the changes that the UN is planning to implement regarding the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Globe stated that the IPCC reports had “some shabby half-truths, passed off as climate science.” I know this is a popular conclusion driven in large part by the denial industry but it is certainly unfair to the 2500 scientists who collaborate on the scientific work of the IPCC. In fact, in thousands of pages of documents, there are two relatively minor errors. The first relatse to the amount of land in the Netherlands which is below sea level but whether it’s half or two-thirds as the IPCC report said, the Netherlands has lots of challenges in protecting its people, economy and land base against the negative consequences of climate change.

The more controversial statement, and one on which there was lots of scientific disagreement and concern prior to its inclusion, was the statement that Himalayan glaciers would likely vanish by 2035. It seems to me that two errors in what the Globe editorial acknowledges is “a monumental task” is pretty darn good work. The Globe approves of the recommendations that will help the IPCC avoid these kinds of errors in future, in part by presenting the variety of scientific perspectives on a subject.

But the really astonishing and offensive part of the Globe editorial is the following opinion:

But the task force shied away from bolder moves that would boost public confidence. The IPCC consists of three working groups – dealing with physical climate science; the ecological and social effects of climate; and ways to mitigate or reduce climate change and its impacts. While these groups should communicate, the latter two have more to do with social than physical sciences. Because they deal with policy questions, they should not be part of the IPCC.

Forgive me for being disgusted. I get so angry with the corporate press when they feel they can prescribe, and in this instance, narrow the discussion of climate change to the point that it is meaningless. The physical science is irrefutable and the likely ecological and social impacts are pretty clear but the Globe doesn’t want scientists to highlight these? And they don’t want scientists to address the mitigation of climate change impacts? Give me a fricking break!

In addition, with this warped opinion, the Globe has judged social scientists and others whose research might benefit the full understanding of climate change as somehow inferior or unimportant in the debate. They would likely exclude medical researchers too to say nothing about the contributions to the debate that could come from the traditional knowledge of the indigenous people of the world.

Last year, the BC Green Party adopted policy to do with mitigating the psychological impacts of climate change. While the Globe would likely concede that policy formulations are legitimate activities for a political party, what they would deny us is IPCC evidence based research to back up the policy.

While the Globe editorial states that “the stakes are too high to get the narrative wrong,” by recommending narrowing the IPCC discussion to only physical science and only to that which is irrefutable, they are colluding with the deniers who claim facts and scientific evidence as controversial. And, if the Globe stance were to be adopted, it guarantees that lack of real action and good public policy informed by evidence will continue. Until that is, some major, irrefutable cascading ecological event or series of events finally shows us that in a game of chicken with mother nature, she holds all the cards.

To this end, at my Rotary meeting on Wednesday, one of my fellow Rotarians commented on what is happening in Switzerland. The Matterhorn is free of snow and the Rhone glacier has receded to such an extent that it is no longer considered by locals to be a glacier. Temperatures in Switzerland were five to 10 degrees above normal. The Swiss government is taking climate change seriously. They have reinstalled tracks in all their cities and switched from buses back to electric trams for public transportation. Switzerland doesn’t need the IPCC to know what will be the social and ecological effects of climate change and they don’t need to be told about mitigation. But, I’ll bet their public policy was informed by the IPCC data.

For laggards like Canada, and here I include BC, we need the IPCC information, conclusions and recommendations from all three working groups more than ever. We don’t seem to pay attention to the ice pack melting in the Arctic ocean or the fires burning BC or the droughts or the floods that accompany weird storms or the fact that this summer, we had the hottest June and the second hottest July on record and 2010 will likely be the hottest year on record.

This is way more important to me than the lack of truthfulness by the BC Liberals. One is about the very life giving resilience of the planet and the other is simply a confirmation that what passes for democracy in BC, isn’t.