‘CLIMATE EMERGENCY’ CAN NO LONGER BE IGNORED

Over the past two weeks, tens of thousands of citizens have taken to the streets to urge their governments, corporations and the media to take action on the climate crisis.

Ground zero is London, England, where over 1,000 protesters have been arrested. But similar protests have occurred, and continue, all over the world. The demonstrations are peaceful, nonviolent and include citizens of all ages and backgrounds.

Complaints about the protests generally take two forms: “Why can’t they get their message out through normal channels?” and “They’re disrupting business as usual, and costing people money.”

The first objection ignores the fact that climate activists have been trying to persuade us to reduce our fossil fuel emissions for decades. Global warming has been established, and its human influences proven, since at least the 1990s when even the first President Bush pushed for stronger environmental restrictions on greenhouse gases.

But the oil industry struck back. Their deep pockets promote a counter-narrative of climate skepticism and economic uncertainty. So, yes, environmentalists have tried to get their increasingly urgent message to the masses using normal channels, but they’ve been smokescreened. Now they’ve changed tactics, and they are harder to ignore.

And as for the second complaint, about inconvenience and cost, the indignant cries of shopkeepers and stockbrokers fades into background static when compared with the cries for help coming from Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick. Climate collapse is real, and it’s happening in real time.

Economists speculate the damages caused by flooding, wildfires, hurricanes and rising tides will cost anywhere from $24 trillion to $70 trillion dollars, and that’s merely money. The human costs are incalculable.

Cities around the world (and as close as Halifax and Charlottetown) have already declared a state of climate emergency. The United Kingdom is now considering making it nationwide. The Cape Breton Regional Municipality, Nova Scotia and Canada must do the same. If not, our standards of “inconvenience” will shift catastrophically, and soon.

Scott Sharplin Sydney