As much as the climate change imposed reality can do so, I did 'enjoy' this week's "Green" issue of "The Coast" and its focus on "How 'green' are we, or can be, in the current political climate (no change!). We, the spectrum of the microcosmic people, from pessimist to optimist, are doing our level best, whether it's the three Rs  or the three Ds (Denial; Despair or Dionysian Disregard) to address the un-apocryphal Anthropocene era. Psychologists tell us we are on awareness overload and issue fatigue. Climate change is not sexy; pleasurable or mind altering.  

 

But, back to reality:  what of the political macrocosm in Canada (if we acknowledge that authority does affect the outcome) ? Renowned climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, routinely reiterates that a revenue-neutral carbon fee and rebate to the people is the most efficient way to affect the rate of global warming at the macrocosmic level. Along with establishing the rights of nature and subsidizing clean technology to the extent the government does so for fossil fuels, pricing carbon upstream at the pit; the well and the mine and distributing all revenues back to the people on an equitable basis, increasing the fee and the rebate annually, (supporting China and India to do the same) is the formula that could keep us within two per cent rise in temperature. The statistically accurate quintiles of this plan show that the lowest two economic strata would come out ahead (up to150%); the middle would not suffer markedly (95-100%) and the upper two fat cats would lose (approx. 87%), which would undoubtedly spur them on to reduce their consumption more rapidly than all the articles on boosting their conservation habits put together.  Some of the oil barons and billionaires (and certainly the insurers) are asking for this.  We want it.  What's the hold up?        

 

The grassroots is where the action to inundate the need for this change in political will starts because politicians would rather douse problems with self and eco medicating chemicals than look at the source  and, naturally, act naturally on it. As we've seen by their  girths and huger expense accounts, some p.t.b.  like to wear the "luxury under crust lad and ladette" label.  It's on our tiny, bony shoulders to pull that adhesive off where it hurts most: losing the vote. Polite threats, in the form of hand written letters and visits to their offices, are good. LeadNow provides a structure to act on this leading up to the 2015 election. PowerShift and Greenpeace have great strategies for getting the message to the powers that be quickly. The EAC is our local think tank and activism centre for all things climate change, though don't tell Harper. Pressuring for legislated "Rights of Nature" will help. Joining an organization that presses for the anti-poverty carbon pricing above has an efficient lobbying plan with which to connect. 

 

We can do a lot on our own but we need to show those in power that we must have major legislation now; tell them in no uncertain terms that their adherence to this trajectory of acknowledging we must move to low carbon and clean technology will determine the vote outcome (despite the PMO's overt and covert efforts. )All the above will drag politicians to the feet of peoples' demands and convince them that the way we deal with fossil fuel emissions must be altered drastically so that we can move to a low carbon economy less painfully than if we do nothing, which will surely kill the oceans; massive numbers of species; our descendants and some of us.  And, if we don't "Harp (on)'er" we're "Putin" all-talk'-crass-he "Barack" in.