Posted 7.10.19
FRED RYAN
SHAWVILLE, QC | Real-media news seems focused on climate change, with a recent report of polling firm Abacus showing climate change as the number one concern in voters' minds across Canada. Climate change polled high even among committed Conservative voters.

We face two questions: how will the issue play out in the federal election coming within a few months? Will any winning government actually carry out its promises (as in voting reform, last election)?

Four parties with seats in Parliament have unveiled their climate change programs. Most of us wouldn't know this for sure, since Big Media has decided again to pretend there are only two parties running. Let's call them Party Tweedly-Dee and Party Tweedly-Dum, to avoid contentious feelings. So there's another problem in judging the climate change possibilities from our next government. (Rabble news has covered the four.)

Another kink is that the problem isn't climate change at all. It's climate catastrophe. Few political leaders admit this; perhaps they don't believe it, but then they've spent much of their careers not dealing with problems as much as spinning them in the interests of their parties.

Solar panel manufacturers or hydro producers don't have the resources to convince these parties of the real possibility of a climate catastrophe up ahead — not the resources of Big Oil and the auto industry.

Most of us, certainly me, don't have the resources to figure out for ourselves which climate proposals are the most likely to really help, and not merely help the friends of Tweedly-Dee and Tweedly-Dum. However, we each do have the capacity, eyesight and time to research out the climate proposals of each party. Finding expert and unbiased advice on specific proposals is a greater challenge, but advice does exist.

And for anyone who doesn't have the time for this website reviewing and fact-checking, there's a short cut. It is to consider who is backing each party – who do these parties traditionally favour with regulatory lenience, subsidies, and tax cuts? That will tell us the strength of any party's commitment on climate change/catastrophe in general terms.

Who has been favoured by each party: who has benefited from the cannabis legalization, from cutting various budgets and regulatory regimes (like those protecting endangered species or waterways)? Pick several, ask who has benefitted, and there's a strong hint of what we'll get from each party. Each has a constellation of supporting interests, but there are always a few industrial and social sectors which hold sway in each party.

There's the answer, perhaps enough for a vote, even without studying the details of each party's climate proposals. This'll suggest which party(s) are free, and brave enough, to grapple with climate catastrophe.

It would be wise to study the whole platform – not merely the ‘green’ section. The whole platform is where interests show (or hide) themselves. And, reality-check, remember those voting reform promises.