The climate activist group, 350.org, released a video on May 18 which starts:
"The Canadian government has announced it will work with provinces, territories, First Nations, and people across the country to develop a national climate strategy by the end of 2016 to determine how Canada will tackle climate change in the upcoming years."
That sounds fine, as long as the "people across Canada" includes experts who actually understand the field, namely, scientists, economists, and engineers, regardless of whether they side with political correctness on the issue or not
350.org continues, "During May and June, the government has asked Members of Parliament to hold public consultations for this climate strategy with the constituents in their ridings."
This is OK as well, as long as the consultations are done in such a way as to encourage a broad range of public input, not just what the government and climate activists find convenient. The recent climate consultation by the Government of Ontario was highly biased and a good example of what the federal government must avoid if their town hall consultations are to be seen as anything other than pep rallies.
"This process will offer a one in a generation opportunity for people to call for an ambitious national climate strategy," continues 350.org.
Well, yes, if people think Canada actually needs a national strategy. Since different regions may be affected by climate change in quite different ways, strategies specific to one region may make no sense in other regions. It is only if one accepts the need for national greenhouse gas emission reductions that a national strategy would seem to make sense, and, of course, such an idea is not shared by many Canadians.
350.org then says that they will be speaking out at the town halls in favour of the "People's Climate Plan," which aims to keep the majority of fossil fuel reserves in the ground and "builds a 21st century economy run 100% on renewable energy by 2050."
Again, in a free society, 350.org is entitled to promote their viewpoints, regardless of whether it makes sense, or as many engineers and scientists maintain, is dangerously irrational. So, it is important that those of us who do not support the climate change plans of 350.org and their fellow climate activists attend and speak out at climate change public consultations.
In asking for public input on the government's plans, Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna said, "The climate challenge cannot be resolved by government alone. That is why we need your help. We need your ideas and solutions. And we need everyone to be engaged in this national effort. Thank you for participating. I look forward to your ideas."
This sounds encouraging. Indeed, even 350.org says in their video, "We'll organize to demand that our MPs hold fair and inclusive consultations in our ridings."
But then 350.org warns, "Next, we'll fill up the room during government consultations with people from our local communities in support of the 'People's Climate Plan.'"
"And then, before the climate strategy is unveiled in the Fall, we'll mobilize en-mass to hold the government accountable for taking bold, and ambitious, climate action."
Many Canadians will find it intimidating to speak out in opposition to such organized and aggressive activism. Yet, the 350.org approach is still acceptable in a free society, provided the government controls the agenda and McKenna's apparently welcoming approach is actually carried out in practice at public consultations.
But there's the rub. Many of town halls appear unlikely to welcome anything aside from the point of view climate activists hold dear.
The list of climate change town halls across Canada shows that they fall into three categories.
Support Canada Free Press
I. Those organized and run by government alone
Provided meeting coordinators respect alternative perspectives and sanction activists who attempt to restrict free speech, these consultations can provide meaningful input to government climate plans.
The town hall to be held on July 5 in North Vancouver by MP John Wilkinson appears to fall into this category. As does the town hall being led by McKenna and MP for Winnipeg South Terry Duguid in Winnipeg tonight. In both cases, prospective attendees are directed to RSVP to government representatives.
II. Those organized and run by eco-activists alone
These should be allowed, of course, but the results of such town halls should not be considered representative of general public opinion since people who disagree with climate activists are unlikely to attend. Eco-activists can be highly abusive at times to anyone who does not agree with them.
The town hall meeting to be held this evening in Ottawa South falls into this category. To RSVP for the meeting, the public are directed to complete a 350.org online form, something few people will do if they do not agree with activists. MP David McGuinty stated in personal communications that his office is not organizing the event; he is simply a guest speaker. McGuinty said he does not foresee holding a public climate change town hall in his riding.
III. Those run by climate activists and government working together
These are inappropriate. MPs are elected to represent all of their constituents, and no group--not industry, not eco-activists and not even groups like ours, the International Climate Science Coalition--should have privileged access or control over public consultations.
The town hall being held tonight in Saskatoon is an example of this apparently unacceptable cooperation between government and eco-activists. On the Facebook page dedicated to the event, it could not be clearer: "The Saskatoon-West riding office in conjunction with Climate Justice Saskatoon has organized this event for the Saskatoon community at large." Saskatoon West MP Sheri Benson should consider withdrawing from, or taking sole control of, the meeting.
Similarly, on the Facebook page for the "Climate Action Town Hall - Nelson," (being held this evening in British Columbia), it is stated, "Conversation will be facilitated by community members representing the West Kootenay EcoSociety, Citizens Climate Lobby and the Nelson Interfaith Climate Action Collaborative." Imagine how receptive these groups will be to public input that does not conform to their views. Again, Kootenay-Columbia MP Wayne Stetski should distance himself from the meeting, or take sole control of it and appoint neutral facilitators.
The goal of public consultations should be to help government determine real public opinion about issues of national importance. This cannot happen as long as parties with such clear agendas are organizers of the hearings. The fox must never be in charge of the henhouse.
