The Shotgun Blog
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Canada could be the bad boy of Copenhagen
Gerry Nicholls at Libertas Post has some suggestions regarding Canada's strategy in Copenhagen:
* Leave a couple of tons of fresh Alberta tar sands on Denmark’s doorstep and ring the doorbell.
* Announce we plan to increase our greenhouse gas emissions, “just because we can”.
* Spice up the environmentalist protests in the streets of Copenhagen by unleashing a dozen or so hungry polar bears.
* During all meetings we should drink out of plastic bottles labelled “Melted Glacier Water.”
* Continually ask the question: “If global warming is such a problem how come it’s so darn cold outside?”
As amusing as these suggestions are there is a serious point to be made about Canadian foreign policy. Mr. Nicholls points out that Canada has traditionally acted, and thought of itself as, the nice guy of global politics. In normal society there are a lot ofbenefits to being a nice guy: people like you, are willing to help you out, and you can get satisfaction from kindness. These benefits don't really apply to the society of leviathans.
A Hobbesian state of nature does not exist nor has it ever existed (and Hobbes never claimed it did), but some evidence of the war of all against all can be seen in international politics. As much as some have tried to create international structures, there is still no law higher than the State. This means that there is no one to enforce the rules. States struggle against each other using game theories of force and manipulation.
In this sort of society the nice guy usually loses out.
Liberals have been bemoaning Canada's lost of standing on the international stage. Most Canadians will scratch their heads at this. At what point have we had a great deal of influence on the world stage? Please don't bore me with a recitation of the Suez Crisis. One moment of actual influence in a century hardly makes Canada a power to contend with. No Canada has no great reputation as a player, but really the only country that we need to have a good opinion of Canada is America.
So I fully endorse Mr. Nicholls' recommendations. They likely won't help anything, but it won't hurt either.
Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on December 16, 2009 | Permalink
FINALLY something to be proud of - standing against the world when they were willing to sign their economies away. This is like Leonidas and his 300 Spartans holding off the Persians. While they did all die in the end, they made history.
The Liebral/NDP/Green Party only bemoans this "loss of standing" because they're not in power. During their tenure under Chretien and Martin, their record on "climate change" was no better than that of Mr. Harper: absolutely nothing because even they realized that it was a scam.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-12-16 5:23:40 AM
Canada makes it on to the first page of The Telegraph web edition as a global warming villian.
Funny though the firms that she refers to as "corporate Canada" aren't Canadian.
Posted by: The Stig | 2009-12-16 6:45:52 AM
Many embraced Fascism; Canada didn't. Many agreed with the NAZIs; Canada didn't. Many worshipped Communism; Canada didn't. Many believe in Cap and Trade; Canada ...?
Posted by: Agha Ali Arkhan | 2009-12-16 8:23:51 AM
Um, I take issue with the "Many worshipped Communism; Canada didn't". I have a family full of communists, living in the GTA area and there are several millions of them living right here in Canada. "We" are just a few more than "they" are and "they" are beating at the gates on this as "our" CINO troupe play footsie at COP-15.
I do like the "unleash the Polar Bears" option, though. Tell the greenies that they are "surplus" bears from the reg'lar herd.
Posted by: po'ed in AB | 2009-12-16 11:17:16 AM
Stig- Very true. Brown people seem to really hate black people.
Posted by: dp | 2009-12-16 5:16:08 PM
Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Pollution
As you know, scientist and science itself has been slandered with misinformation and ridiculed in advance of the talks. (A favored, repeated, and effective, right wing tactic).
Is Global Warming related to human/ industrial pollution? The atmosphere seems to be an arbitrary subject right now because of the propaganda effort to confuse the linkage between burning of fossil fuels and its effect on the atmosphere.
The real question is- are we going to put pandering ahead of science in addressing and acting upon human/industrial pollution now and in the future?
The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be a test model and the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic plastic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast.
That is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence.
No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department? Advancement in SCIENCE would outmode the use of fossil fuels but the U.S has not funded innovative SCIENCE since 2001.
Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so.
We can do nothing until we have a funded DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)
Posted by: Lawrence Baker | 2009-12-16 5:46:45 PM
Or send those 4 provoceteur cops that were 'outed' at the Montbello QC demonstration a few years back.
Shirley, they could bust a few heads, in the name of democracy.
Posted by: jeff franklin | 2009-12-16 6:41:08 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.