In the wake of the 75th anniversary of D Day, some are drawing analogies between the climate crisis and the Second World War. Certainly, Elizabeth May sees a connection. Susan Delacourt writes:
Here in Canada, Elizabeth May and the Green party have put this comparison at the heart of the plan recently unveiled as “Mission Possible.”
One of the more intriguing components of the plan is to form a “survival cabinet” made up of members from all parties, a suggestion inspired by the wartime cabinets of Winston Churchill and William Lyon Mackenzie King.
May has been making the link between climate change and war for some time now, going back at least to last fall, when she spoke in the House during the emergency debate on the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change — that’s the panel that warned the world it just had 12 years to get its act together to avoid global catastrophe.
It was Dunkirk, not D-Day, that May was talking about during that speech. She said she had been thinking about that mass evacuation of more than 300,000 trapped soldiers during the Second World War — an audacious act of leadership by Churchill that called upon civilians to help rescue troops trapped by the German forces at Dunkirk.
“Churchill of course, surrounded by naysayers, thought up a miracle, one that is clearly undoable. He asked, ‘How many civilian boats are there in Dover? We could get those civilians to cross the English channel and rescue over 300,000 men.’ Really? It was hardly plausible,” May said. “In this time and age we need to face the facts just as squarely. We need to tell Canadians that we have hope, to not despair or think it is too late.”
In many ways, these are dark days. But it's worth remembering that we're not the first generation to face dark days. What matters is how we respond to the darkness.
Image: Pinterest
6 comments:
The following excerpt from the article suggests there is no one with Churchillian ambitions in the Trudeau cabinet, Owen:
My colleague here in the Star’s Ottawa bureau, Alex Ballingall, asked Environment Minister Catherine McKenna this week about whether wartime examples could inspire more collective public action on climate change.
“Look, I mean, I am very supportive of more ambition on climate change. I hear good ideas every single day. I mean I think the idea that you need to link climate action with people and making sure that you are focused on how do you improve lives is critical,” McKenna told Ballingall. But the minister also said that any ambition has to be tempered with, yes, affordability. “People want action on climate change but they want life to be affordable and at the same time creating good jobs.”
.. floundering in the miasma of Astonishing Revelations - comes MP Lisa Raitt - essentially proclaiming that Climate Change has nothing to do with the weather !!! Certainly nothing to do with extreme weather.. She really should clarify if she speaks for Andrew Scheer and the rest of the 'Conservative Party' of Canada.. which presumably she does. After all, if she is willing to make a complete ass of herself.. she may as well declare its unanimous.. a closely held belief of the entire caucus and political party.. and if elected would ensure Canadian schools of all levels adhere to the new dogma and curriculum. Certainly, Canadians need to hear this confirmed by Prime Minister In Waiting (or 'shadow PM) Andrew Scheer
There is nothing Churchillian about McKenna's statement, Lorne. Nothing like, "We shall never surrender."
Certainly, Doug Ford's pledge to stay out of the federal election -- which is a good thing -- nonetheless confirms the entire party's cowardice, sal.
Dame Cathy never fails to disappoint, Owen. The UK, following Scotland's lead, has declared a state of climate emergency. That sounds impressive but it's meaningless without action on a Herculean scale. Instead we invest billions that could otherwise be put to good use on adaptation and mitigation into purchasing and expanding bitumen pipelines.
We've become such a petro-state that our main parties all prescribe hesitant climate policy that seems schizophrenic, positively Trumpian.
In this era when people get into politics for the sake of being in politics, that is to say for themselves and their personal advancement, rather than to serve the nation and the public interest we're not likely to meet great challenges.
How many times have 'dire predictions' been overtaken by events that show what critics denounced as alarmist were, in fact, understated. To this day, when I read a report that forecasts thus and so by this year or that I wonder when it too will be shown as well-intentioned but too optimistic.
Perhaps the snag is that we treat climate change as a standalone threat instead of recognizing it as just one symptom of a greater danger - mankind's refusal to live in harmony with our environment. We live beyond the finite limits of the environment now by a factor of 1.75 and yet we still quest for perpetual exponential growth. How in that mindset can we implement effective measures to deal with existential challenges?
We still live with the delusion, Mound, that our task is to dominate Nature. We believe that it is our right to exercise Might. That lie continues to live on -- despite all evidence to the contrary.
Post a Comment