PiÃ³ro » environment

Duck and coverup

Matthew Pioro — Fri, 02 May 2008 22:30:36 +0000

When 500 ducks landed in a tailings pond near Fort McMurray, Ed Stelmach was on a tour of the United States.

The Stelmach government—which was selling itself in Washington as environmentally responsible when the incident occurred—is facing accusations of a coverup for refusing to release photos of the ducks.
The provincial government is also being skewered for summarizing its U.S. junket as “Mission Accomplished.”

I can’t imagine why Stelmach and friends are catching flak for hyping their tour as “Mission Accomplished.” The dead ducks in the oilsands wastewater show that the premier and his crew appreciate the phrase in a way similar to George W. Bush, as the president spoke on an aircraft carrier in 2003.

Ambrose harried by hair comments

Matthew Pioro — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 14:25:55 +0000

It seems I’ve set a dangerous precedent on my blog: mixing sarcasm and environmental issues. Some Canadian environmental activists in Nairobi tried to use sarcasm to critique Rona Ambrose’s horrible performance as Environment Minister, but they’ve been accused of being “sexist and gratuitous.” The offensive comment—a dig involving Ms. Ambrose’s hair—came out of a newsletter circulated amongst delegates in Nairobi. The anonymous writers of the letter should have shown more modesty. To propose that someone has better hair than skill as an environment minister is too great of a taboo in our culture. They should have simply said Ms. Ambrose eats children.

Globe and Mail Columnists are not environmentally friendly

Matthew Pioro — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 03:45:20 +0000

Globe and Mail columnists seem as receptive to environmental concerns as Republicans (Arnold Schwarzenegger excluded). A few weeks back, Margaret Wente wrote a feature about how her week-long use of the TTC had reaffirmed her love for her SUV, which she holds dear not only because her vehicle gets her around town, but because it functions as a four-wheeled purse. Last Saturday, Rex Murphy explored his suspicions surrounding the rhetoric of Sir Nicholas Stern’s report, which predicted that unchecked climate change could carry a $7 trillion price tag for the world’s economy. Murphy found similarities between Stern shocking figure and Joey Smallwood’s penchant for wowing his listeners with big numbers: “This new road (school, industry) is going to cost NOT 10 million dollars, NOT 20 million dollars, but FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS!” The Globe columnist sees Stern’s figure as simply a rhetorical flourish.

Now, I have no problem with cutting through rhetoric that is used to cloud or mask poor arguments, but I don’t understand why Murphy is singling out Stern. The knighted economist isn’t your run-of-the-mill dirty hippy beseeching you to give Momma Earth some TLC. Stern has been to Cambridge, Oxford and the London School of Economics. His report is based on many estimates, but that’s what economists do, isn’t it? Why is it that an economist’s estimates are seen a rhetoric when he’s dealing with the environment? What’s up Mr. Murphy? What’s with your hate on for the environment? What, you find it too hard to sort your waste into biodegradables, recyclables and garbage?

OK, those questions weren’t just rhetorical. They had some ad hominem mixed with hasty generalization.

Climate pocketing change

Matthew Pioro — Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:04:19 +0000

Sir Nicholas Stern’s stern warning about climate change will probably have a greater effect than over thirty years of campaigning by various environmental groups. Stern says pollution will hurt our pocket books, which is much less abstract—and probably more frightening—than our grandchildren living on a toxic planet. Fine. Whatever works.