.jpg;w=960)
As Cathy Orlando penned her, “Keep calm and carry on everyone. We are on the path to net-zero and Sudburians are leading the way,” (“Letter: There is a path to a resilient climate future,” published Oct. 6) she was leaving to widen her circles and attend meetings with the G7 and the UN.
The letter neglects to reference some truly alarming issues facing efforts to combat climate change.
There is no mention of the climate refugees that are already taxing host nations, and we know the numbers will grow exponentially with the unfolding climate disasters that are pending. The mention of reparations excludes reference to the insurance industry that is struggling to meet its obligations with the outcome of creating exorbitant fees that will deny future victims of assistance with climate damages.
Relying on private-sector solutions with technological advances will be limited by the profit motive that drives all efforts to find and create technological innovation. In other words, if corporations cannot detect profit, no action will result. And it is hoped that government regulation will shift humanity to a more equitable world. Well, good luck with that. People have been trying to do this for centuries. What solution is being offered now?
The article in Nature referenced in the letter makes promises that are without operational solutions as it talks about carbon fees, a.k.a. carbon taxes, without realizing that Canada is still trying to implement carbon taxes uniformly with the provinces.
Moreover, it neglects the need to curtail all the other greenhouse gases – it’s not just carbon. Carbon border adjustments would be a great thing to achieve global solutions, but how this will be accomplished remains a mystery. Solving world hunger. poverty and wars have needed solutions of this nature, but remain non-existent. Bill S-243 is a sweet piece of legislation, but it remains imperfect and without the full scrutiny of the Senate or a first reading by the House. Tying banks to human rights and climate friendly plans is another sweet thought, unattached to concrete plans for delivery. Nor is there any suggestion as to how to eliminate nature destroying subsidies. Some still disagree that this should be done and there is no agreement on how it should be done.
Regrettably the factors and solutions offered by the letter lack in severe substance and they are not sufficient to tell us to “keep calm and carry on…” as if we had nothing to worry about. I’m afraid we do. The climate crisis is immediate. Let’s not forget that.
André Clement
Greater Sudbury