Don’t make The Terminator a reality show: Global warming is not a problem that will go away – we have to do something about it, now

The Gazette (Montreal): Editorial / Op-ed: September 4, 2006

“We’re not gonna’ make it, are we? People, I mean.”

The quote is the disturbing question a boy asks the Terminator, a machine from the future played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the famous sci-fi film trilogy. In the Terminator movies, humans face a bleak future, brought on by their own mistakes, unless they are able to change their direction.

“It’s in your nature to destroy yourselves,” the Terminator answers thoughtfully.

“Yeah. Major drag, huh?” replies the boy.

I am reminded of this scene from Judgment Day, the second of the trilogy, when I watch the lackadaisical response of our country’s leaders to the urgent  problem of climate change.

Our prime minister, for instance, touts a “made-in-Canada plan” that originates in Washington’s rejection of the international Kyoto Protocol, while his environment minister suggests a timeline of “50, 100 years” to address the obvious danger. Climate change caused by humans is, of course, nothing like the cataclysmic destruction that humans faced in Terminator, but it, too, has devastating consequences for humanity.

In the typical disaster drama, leaders – political, military, media, business, and captains of titanic ships – ignore the warning signs of danger because they have a big stake in the status quo, because they have other shortsighted priorities, or because they are simply dense.

The moviegoer, on the other hand, is allowed to see with frustrating clarity the gravity of the approaching danger and the futility of the protagonist’s efforts to warn those in charge. When the leaders finally acknowledge the danger – Skynet, the iceberg, or some other catastrophe – the enemy is already wreaking havoc.

Ignoring the warning of scientists – like a child who touches the hot stove despite a parent’s warning – and waiting for the lesson of the experience to trigger action is the usual order for humans. Unfortunately, this order is not suited to climate change because much of the greenhouse gases we emit remain in the atmosphere for a century or more, like accumulating garbage in a waste dump, with ever graver consequences.

We are not likely to see a machine come back from our future to tell about the destruction climate change will bring. We do, however, have an army of scientists who have clearly sketched out our grim prospects. We also have been getting disturbing glimpses of that future with droughts, heat waves, and increasingly violent storms.
Now heat this mixture generic viagra from canada and boil it for 15 minutes. During sexual stimulation discount viagra online nitric oxide is released in the online market. Sexual dysfunction is a condition tadalafil cheapest price deeprootsmag.org that affects people all over the world. This particular herbal supplement is ideal to increase their performance abilities? Yes that is correct cialis discount generic is being used by many people and have shown effective results in treating the problem of erectile dysfunction.

The transportation, oil and gas, and electricity-generating (mainly coal-fired power) sectors are the main Canadian contributors to climate change. All three of these sectors caused dramatic increases in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990. Our common atmosphere is eagerly used as a dump for these emissions because there is no gatekeeper to charge a fee. Not surprisingly, executives in these industries and their political underlings are the main proponents of do-nothing strategies to deal with the problem.

The transportation sector – mainly cars and trucks – is responsible for about 25 per cent of Canada’s emissions. The increase from this sector since 1990 is largely due to the greater use of big trucks and military-sized machines called Sport Utility Vehicles. SUVs and pickups caused most of the 100-per-cent increase in light-duty truck emissions since 1990. The contribution of many auto executives and consumers to the mounting evidence of climate change has been to promote or buy ever bigger or more powerful vehicles, like SUVs, as if climate change were just another topographical problem.

The oil-and-gas industry contributes 20 per cent to nation-wide greenhouse gas emissions from extracting, refining and transporting oil and gas. Since 1990, the increase in emissions from this sector was 50 per cent. Tar sands exploitation is today the biggest single source of increasing Canadian emissions. To mine and refine one barrel of oil from the tar sands requires enough natural gas to heat a Canadian home for four days and up to five barrels of water. Many Canadian oil executives question the value of action on climate change, presumably because it interferes with other values like billions in federal tax breaks, soft provincial royalty schemes and record profits.

Coal-fired power plants cause about 15 per cent of Canadian emissions. Along with greenhouse gas emissions, power plants poison our air with smog, cause learning disabilities in our children with mercury emissions, and kill our lakes and rivers with acid rain. The mounting body count and the toll on our climate caused by coal-fired power and motor vehicles emissions has forced provincial political leaders to become more adept at explaining why a sophisticated society has to rely on toxic power.

Fortunately, unlike the scripts of old Schwarzenegger movies, we can still choose the outcome of our story – choose between the ugly future sketched by scientists and an alternative one where humans take collective, rational action to slow and stop the oncoming danger to create a brighter future.

Clean, renewable power harnessed from the wind, sun, tides and the Earth would supply our power needs. Aggressive programs to improve energy conservation and efficiency would create thousands of sustainable jobs. Natural resources would be removed from the Earth in an efficient and judicious manner that respects current and future generations. Rapid mass transit would be the norm in cities, private vehicles would be small and clean, cities would be planned with people in mind, and rail and cycling would be promoted. We would provide a positive model to China and India that promotes our own survival. We would be able to breathe clean air in our cities again.

In this alternative future, our ingenuity would be expended on finding solutions instead of thinking up clever slogans.

The real tragedy of our inaction on climate change is not that we cling to an outdated path despite the evidence and the obvious peril. The tragedy is that we should be willing to give up so much for so little: the abundant harvests of our farmlands, treasured wildlife from our vast forests and coastlines, the well-being of citizens in our great cities, and the very future of our children; all this for the extra profit we can squeeze out of finite resources today, the frivolous or inefficient use of electric power, the drive to the mall …

It might indeed simply be in our nature to destroy ourselves despite the solutions and the bright and exciting alternative world available to us.

But that would be a major drag.