The Intransigent Faction
8th May 2016, 19:51
So, for those who may not be aware, the Alberta city of Fort McMurray, home to the infamous tar sands, continues to battle a massive wildfire after more than a week.
About 80,000 people have fled their homes under a mandatory evacuation.
Firefighters are pushing back hard, but they haven't really been able to contain the blaze.
Experts say an increase in greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in dryer forests more susceptible to longer, more severe forest fires.¹
Further, due to lack of lightning as an explanation, one expert suggested a human caused the fire.²
Meanwhile...
Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said, at first, a rise in extreme weather events is, "of course," linked to climate change, yet she later "clarified" by saying she wasn't directly tying the Fort McMurray wildfire to climate change. So, the specific event is not a direct result of climate change, but dryer forests due to an unusually-warm and dry winter were more susceptible to more intense fires. Naturally, the other party leaders pounced on this soon after, stating that now is not the time for that discussion, and the focus should be on providing support to the community and on the situation at large as the fire spreads.
So, as per usual in a major catastrophe, we're dealing with two camps: one trying to connect the singular incident to a larger phenomenon, and another expressing outrage at those seen as politicizing the tragedy while saying the focus should be on immediate support for victims (something which, generally, plenty of climate activists support anyway).
There are some who are being far less tactful, or even sensible, in their approach, however. One-time NDP candidate Tom Moffatt has been scolded, criticized and condemned for calling the Fort McMurray fire "Karmic climate change"³, and of course other random tweets from nondescript climate activists are picked up by the outrage machine.
All this leads me to ask, "How should the left approach this discussion?" Obviously, we should reject any insinuations that workers deserve to have their homes burn down due to the damaging impact of the tar sands. Of course, the actions of firefighters in particular, who risk their lives for their community, are laudable. Surely, though, it doesn't make sense to say "Now's not the time to discuss climate change."
So, how do we discuss it? The problem summed up by Upton Sinclair remains: it's difficult to get people to understand something when their paychecks depend on them not understanding it. How do we connect action against the oil industry to action in support of Albertan workers, in their minds, given that they have been inundated with oil industry apologist propaganda? That seems like a better alternative to lumping them in with oil company executives and declaring karma, or otherwise shying away from the discussion altogether, which the radical left obviously doesn't share politicians' reasons for doing.
Perhaps there are some who literally need their feet held to the fire, though, and with that in mind I've once again picked up "Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care)" by William Marsden.
¹ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-fort-mcmurray-climate-change-1.3566126
² http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/lack-of-lightning-suggests-a-human-caused-fort-mcmurray-fire-professor-1.2887946
³ http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2016/05/05/22630386.html
About 80,000 people have fled their homes under a mandatory evacuation.
Firefighters are pushing back hard, but they haven't really been able to contain the blaze.
Experts say an increase in greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in dryer forests more susceptible to longer, more severe forest fires.¹
Further, due to lack of lightning as an explanation, one expert suggested a human caused the fire.²
Meanwhile...
Federal Green Party leader Elizabeth May said, at first, a rise in extreme weather events is, "of course," linked to climate change, yet she later "clarified" by saying she wasn't directly tying the Fort McMurray wildfire to climate change. So, the specific event is not a direct result of climate change, but dryer forests due to an unusually-warm and dry winter were more susceptible to more intense fires. Naturally, the other party leaders pounced on this soon after, stating that now is not the time for that discussion, and the focus should be on providing support to the community and on the situation at large as the fire spreads.
So, as per usual in a major catastrophe, we're dealing with two camps: one trying to connect the singular incident to a larger phenomenon, and another expressing outrage at those seen as politicizing the tragedy while saying the focus should be on immediate support for victims (something which, generally, plenty of climate activists support anyway).
There are some who are being far less tactful, or even sensible, in their approach, however. One-time NDP candidate Tom Moffatt has been scolded, criticized and condemned for calling the Fort McMurray fire "Karmic climate change"³, and of course other random tweets from nondescript climate activists are picked up by the outrage machine.
All this leads me to ask, "How should the left approach this discussion?" Obviously, we should reject any insinuations that workers deserve to have their homes burn down due to the damaging impact of the tar sands. Of course, the actions of firefighters in particular, who risk their lives for their community, are laudable. Surely, though, it doesn't make sense to say "Now's not the time to discuss climate change."
So, how do we discuss it? The problem summed up by Upton Sinclair remains: it's difficult to get people to understand something when their paychecks depend on them not understanding it. How do we connect action against the oil industry to action in support of Albertan workers, in their minds, given that they have been inundated with oil industry apologist propaganda? That seems like a better alternative to lumping them in with oil company executives and declaring karma, or otherwise shying away from the discussion altogether, which the radical left obviously doesn't share politicians' reasons for doing.
Perhaps there are some who literally need their feet held to the fire, though, and with that in mind I've once again picked up "Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta Is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care)" by William Marsden.
¹ http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/elizabeth-may-fort-mcmurray-climate-change-1.3566126
² http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/lack-of-lightning-suggests-a-human-caused-fort-mcmurray-fire-professor-1.2887946
³ http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2016/05/05/22630386.html