Heald is a freelance agricultural journalist based in Ottawa.
One of the arguments that emerge as people get drawn into the turmoil of the climate change debate is whether people should be coerced into fighting greenhouse gas emissions or whether they can be enticed into doing it voluntarily.
The skeptics argue that only some agency with a big stick can force corporations and individuals to comply with compulsory regulations and goals.
Optimists contend that compulsion won’t work and only the enticement of a generous carrot will convince people to change their lifestyles.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Is there anyone with enough authority to wield the size of stick that will force compliance with the strict and extensive rules necessary to bring about the degree of change needed?
If the regulations are too draconian, the impact on the economy and the social life of the country will force people to resist. Corporations will move off shore, individuals will ignore them and take their chances at being caught, and voters will take the next opportunity to elect a government that offers some relief.
On the other hand, how generous a carrot will have to be extended to entice people to make the massive changes in their lifestyle needed to solve the problem?
In a Canadian winter there are only several degrees one can lower the thermostat before the indoor temperature becomes unacceptable.
Middle aged people can’t be expected to ride bicycles to work through five centimetres of snow at -15C.
Probably a judicious mixture of the carrot and the stick is what is best, with the stick only in evidence to encourage people to accept the carrot.
Which is better, a carbon tax so the government will have more money to fund greenhouse-gas reduction policies or a tax break for industry and individuals so we can fund our own greenhouse-gas reduction activities?
The government’s rebate on fuel efficient automobiles needs to be increased significantly. I don’t have any official statistics on the program, but it doesn’t appear that the number of smaller cars on the road is increasing dramatically. Hybrid cars are still a novelty.
In cities, public transportation services need to be improved and fares reduced so the gap between the cost of using the bus and driving a car and paying for parking is so wide that people will opt for public transit.
It is not just in transportation that people don’t seem to be using common sense.
We are building ever bigger and more expensive houses – three storey, 3,000 to 4,000 sq. foot, five-bedroom houses with two furnaces and air conditioning for families of two or three people.
The waste in building materials and servicing costs is enormous when we consider that a two or three bedroom bungalow would provide more than enough space for the average family.
And with the aging population, more people will soon find stairs a problem and will either have to install expensive, energy-consuming elevators in those mansions or move to condominium apartments.
One can point to other examples where people fly in the face of what we already know about wasteful use of non-renewable resources: household appliances; home entertainment sets; boats; cottages; cruises and other exotic vacations.
It isn’t a case of learning to live like hermits. It is learning to live comfortably with nature and with our human community.
Is sitting around a Caribbean resort playing bridge any more fun than having guests into your own home to play cards?
However, when all is said and done, the only satisfactory solution is for everyone to adjust to a more environmentally friendly, non-materialistic lifestyle.
If we don’t, no amount of sticks and carrots will reduce our wasteful use of non-renewable resources and our production of greenhouse gases to a sustainable level.
We have wasted a decade of time and billions of dollars arguing over whether we will abide by the Kyoto Accord, when we have all known since long before Kyoto what we have to do.
We can’t expect the developing countries to take costly measures to reduce greenhouse gases while we continue on our environmentally destructive way.
The survival of human life on the planet is at risk primarily because of the materialistic, status-driven lifestyle of we who live in what we call the “developed” world.
That lifestyles has to change. Sticks and carrots may help, but in the final analysis, change is up to you and me.
