Canada is off to an impressive start at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, if what you're measuring is climate inaction and environmental embarrassment.
Today, at the first set of the Fossil of the Day awards, Canada took home not one, or two, but all three of the awards. The dubious 'honour' is voted on by an international coalition of than 400 leading international environmental organizations, including Greenpeace, who vote on the countries that performed the worst during the past day’s negotiations. Turns out if you are really committed to climate inaction, fail to have any plan to meet already weak targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, defeat a climate change bill that was already passed in your House of Commons by holding a snap vote by an unelected Senate after no debate, and are complicit in trying to weaken climate policy outside of your own national borders, you can win all three of the humiliating prizes.
The gentleman accepting the shameful awards on behalf of Canada hopped from podium step to podium step, barely able to juggle his armful of awards. Looks like Canada can clean up humiliating awards, but can't clean up its act.
In the next two weeks, we'll see if Canada will take home the Fossil of the Year for the forth year in a row. From the look of things now, we might as well preemptively cue the Jurassic Park theme music.
Watch this hilarious video to see Canada's flagrant lack of commitment to climate change policy given its due recognition. We can only hope that history does not repeat itself once more. Prove us wrong, will you Mr. Baird?
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
