A global episode of Survivor — which no one escapes

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 25/09/2024 (346 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Following politics these days is like watching a bad reality TV show called “How Low Can You Go?”

The answer, of course, is always “lower.” Worse, it is like a twisted version of Survivor, where the ones who should be voted off the island never are.

Not only are you stuck watching the show, you don’t have a vote — and those who do have a vote, don’t bother.

You might think I am referring to American politics, and whether racialized groups in Springfield, Ohio (and elsewhere) intend to eat your pets for lunch. Sadly, though we shake our heads at the serial idiocies of American political news, the Canadian version is going lower by the week, too.

So, with some frustration, I am writing yet another op-ed on politics. There are much more important things to talk about in our world today than politicians — finding solutions, instead of focusing on the players who seem to create new problems every day.

We had two byelections, the results of which we were told spelled potential disaster for the leadership of the three main parties, until (yawn) they were over and the pundits moved on to yammer about something else.

Unfortunately, however, it was a preview of the upcoming federal election. The Conservatives apparently have decided to double down on their “Axe the Tax” B.S. (bumper sticker), calling for a “carbon tax election” instead of dealing with anything resembling reality.

Someone needs to explain to the Conservative brain trust (in words with fewer syllables?) that while the current carbon tax is effectively useless at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is not some nefarious plot to ruin our lives.

Simply put, businesses incur a rising cost for fossil fuel use; they pass the extra cost onto consumers in the form of higher prices; and the federal government gives individuals a rebate to cover that increase. Apart from the inevitable government inefficiencies in collecting taxes and dispensing refunds, nothing much changes at all — which, on a planet in climate crisis, is precisely the problem.

We need governments instead to reduce fossil fuel use dramatically by making more cost-effective, greener alternatives available. If the carbon tax was used to provide some of those alternatives, and if it actually cost both business and consumers real money to continue as usual, then there would be pressure for change in the right direction — towards survival.

But, alas, that obviously makes too much sense for any of our political parties, and especially for Pierre Poilievre and his ironically-misnamed “Common Sense Conservatives.”

So, how low can they go? Well, a byelection campaign that started with slurring NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as “Sellout Singh,” accusing him of propping up the Liberal government in order to qualify for his pension, is not destined for higher ground when the main event begins. Nor, like the Trumpites to the south, are Canadian conservatives bothered by facts — Poilievre’s pension will at least be three times as large as Singh’s, but so far no one has accused him of only being in politics for the money.

So, barring some further bizarre twist, we are headed for a winter of political discontent on both sides of the border, where wrangling over inanities will generate more heat than light — and nothing green at all for future generations.

Of all the indignities of political (as opposed to climate) realities, it is the utter disregard — should I say contempt? — for future generations that bothers me the most. In the U.S. presidential debate 2.0, apart from his “Make More Babies” stance on reproductive rights, Donald Trump ignored future generations entirely. His frequent B.S. (bumper sticker) about fossil fuels remains “Drill, baby, drill!”

Near the end, Kamala Harris did make a throwaway reference to the mediocre climate bill passed on Joe Biden’s watch, observing that young people are concerned about climate change. But throughout the debate, she said three times as much about continuing to frack away in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

Yet, if that oil and gas is not left in the ground, it will burn — and so will we.

So, perhaps looking at the political situation as a twisted plot for Survivor is not far from the mark — except there is no way off Earth Island. To survive, we need to find ways to live together, as the temperatures climb, the water levels rise and more people are competing for fewer resources.

No level of government is making a serious effort to change our trajectory to ecological disaster, however, nor to adapt our infrastructure to the challenges ahead. Why would a young person — or any of us — support any particular candidate or party when all roads lead to the same nightmare?

Are Canadians merely hereditary voters, supporting the same party regardless of who is nominated or whatever pointless B.S. (bumper stickers) they bleat? Or not?

Tune in for the next episode and find out.

Peter Denton writes from his home in rural Manitoba.