Environment – Conservatism – and a ‘Tree-Hugger’

In recent weeks I have been encouraging both Conservatives … as well as residents of the region who are interested in exploring new ways to improve how we are governed in this province … to send in their ideas.

There have been many well thought out ideas presented, including a number of people who spoke with passion and concern for the environment ... solar energy ... and the negative impact of the Carbon Tax on people who live outside the greater Vancouver area.

Want to know what they’ve had to say?  Well read on …

·         My concern is government taking on a mantel of being green because it is popular rather than scientifically sound.  The issue of carbon taxes is front and center in my mind.  The rational for them is unfounded in science and faulty.  Included are the alternate energy sources that are subsidized by the rate payer.  If they are a good idea let them stand on their own economic merits.  Let’s reduce government and reduce taxes--our children will be better off.

·         The Carbon tax is a big issue for the folks who live in all the outlining areas of the province – it penalizes us unfairly because of our postal code.  The intent of the Carbon Tax was to lower the demand for fuel by making it increasingly expensive.  Outside the lower mainland, B.C. has winter for at least six months each year, and there are long distances to travel. Both homeowners and businesses depend on fossil fuels for warmth and transportation.  Heating and transportation are not choices, they are necessities.  The lower mainland, with its more clement climate and varieties of readily available transport, has not been affected by the carbon tax to the same degree as the rest of the Province.

·         Explore the pro’s and con’s of installing solar panels (where possible) on every school and provincial government building.

·         The carbon tax has been felt more by residents of B.C. beyond Hope. It has added to costs of heating schools and operating school buses, heating hospitals, paying increased charges for food and other items, since the trucks carrying them must pay more for fuel in British Columbia.  

·         Banning incandescent light bulbs in favour of CFLs on the theory that incandescents contribute to 'global warming' is ridiculous.  Incandescent lights give reliable light with no untoward effects.  The same cannot be said of CFLs which contain mercury, one of the most toxic substances known.  Because of their mercury content, they are banned from landfills.  There is no way of enforcing that ban and CF's will end up in landfills, where the mercury will eventually find its way into the water table.  

·         People have reported migraines and seizures triggered by the flickering lights, as well as flu-like symptoms which disappeared when the CFs were replaced with incandescent bulbs.  The reason given for forcing people to replace perfectly good incandescent lights with dangerous CFs was to lessen our 'carbon footprint'.  How can manufacturing CFs in China, probably under dangerous conditions for the factory workers, then shipping them to Canada where they will undermine our health achieve that? The choice of which light bulbs to use ought to be a matter for consumers to decide.

• The Carbon Tax, undertaken, perhaps with good intentions, has made BC a less welcoming place to live or locate a business.  It is particularly burdensome to small business, the average worker, and especially people with lower income, who, because of increased taxation will have less discretionary income to spend in their communities.  It is very doubtful that the avowed intent, cutting down on carbon dioxide, will make one iota of difference to the global situation.

• Explore the pro’s and con’s of providing rebates for purchasing electric vehicles, and more mandatory installation of recharging outlets in new buildings.

Saying that conservative minded people are not interested and concerned about the environment is obviously an unsupportable myth, and in fact small ‘c’ conservatives have been quite clear that the quality of the environment is vital to the well-being of all of us. 

Indeed, have a look at what Mark Milke, Director of the Alberta office of the Fraser Institute, had to say earlier this week (click HERE to read the full Province newspaper article) …

The conventional narrative is that concern for continued prosperity is necessarily anti-environment; the opposite narrative also exists, where self-identified greens want the human race to live in medieval hovels. However, the real debates on the environment, and our responsibility for it, are far more nuanced.

They involve useful deliberation about the role of more or less regulation, "carrots" and "sticks" in environmental governance, the role of entrepreneurs and technology in solving problems, and what it takes to make countries prosper so they have the extra wealth to properly care for the natural world. (Dirt-poor Haiti, for example, won't get serious about green issues until it conquers rampant poverty first.)

So, full confession: I'm a closet tree hugger.  As an undergraduate, I spent three summers tree planting. And even now, when I spot beer cans in the woods, I'll haul them out and fume at the irresponsible miscreants who brought and tossed them.

Anyone who buys into the easy stereotypes misreads the reality that plenty of "conservative" people are also conservationists.

No one party can claim exclusivity to the best interests and protection of the environment.  This is an issue that crosses all ages, all genders … and all political beliefs.

I’m Alan Forseth in Kamloops, with the thoughts of “several” conservatives.