I went to Copenhagen as a proud Canadian, probably a little too idealistic and hopeful. Maybe, I'd bought into the whole Coca Cola corporately funded HOPENHAGEN idea, or maybe I had simply wished for governments, politicians, and NGOs to effectively come together based on their individual capacities and devise a fair, ambitious, and legally-binding treaty. This didn't happen. Unfortunately whether the topic is climate change or fish farms, the urgency of the environment often seems irrelevant to policy makers. As the environmental movement became unified with social justice ones in the streets of Copenhagen and amongst civil society around the world, the passion and understanding of the stakes on environmental protection existed in abundance; however, they rarely ever made it into the Bella Center.
People tend to ask me why I think COP 15 failed, and what it was like being a Canadian amongst international antagonism on the topic of our tarsands and Kyoto. Well, it certainly was interesting. Today, I call the negotiations at Copenhagen the "Erosion of the Canadian Legacy.‟ I can even remember staring at my webcam at midnight explaining to Mark Kelley of CBC News how the lack of political willpower on behalf of Canada was contributing to this. “We're known as leaders internationally through peacekeeping, and human rights, however our reputation is really being damaged by the lack of action our government is taking.”
What would it take to have my country initiate some environmental leadership? What would be needed to urge my government to acquiesce some value on the important natural resources of the country for its health and sustainability? Based on some analysis, I came up with two reasons why Canada didn‟t get anywhere in Copenhagen, and for the sake of simplicity, I've left out a determination of political willpower and corporate lobbyism.
The first comes from my recollection while sitting in the plenary hall that the actual solutions that were necessary weren't even being discussed. At the end of it all, they agreed that a global temperature rise under 2 degrees is acceptable. Really? Author Naomi Klein hit the nail on the head when she said that, “The deal we really need is not even on the table.” How bizarre it seemed to see countries passionately crying for a change in global policy so that based on the expected effects of climate change, they could still exist in the coming years. Discussions in Copenhagen seem ill-described with any other words than simply: crazy. Unfortunately, the craziness of it all seems to parallel politics here in BC, where there is progress on one agenda, however, another crusade of government reduces all the good of that one forward step(Perhaps the carbon tax followed by the Gateway Project for example).
The second issue has to do distinctly with apathy. This is the most unfortunate of them all, however, it is the most exciting as Canadians have their own individual capacity to change it. Whether the issue at hand is climate change, public transportation, agriculture, or development, it all comes down to tuning in. While COP 15 was a failure, community causes and grassroots campaigns don't have to be. I'm quite hopeful that I'll never buy into another HOPENHAGEN type concept, nor is it likely that I will ever be a full idealist once again. Instead, I'm happy to be a realist, on the lookout for more people ready to Plug Out and Tune In, (link to Alex's blog of the same name) reversing the great Canadian case of apathy.
