Confusion became synonymous with Copenhagen last week as media tried to keep up with developments in global climate change talks. A deal was signed Friday, Dec. 18.
Ottawa correspondent Barry Wilson wrote a story for our Dec. 24 issue outlining the key points of the deal for Canadian agriculture, which you will see in your mailbox, and online, shortly. In a nutshell, Canada agreed to join 15 other countries to form an alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases and invest up to $27 million in a global research project.
The previously mentioned confusion entered the picture while talks were underway earlier last week. False e-mails, sent as authentic-looking news releases from Environment Canada, claimed Canada had announced a new agenda for climate and world development. These fake news releases came to the Western Producer, and presumably every other media outlet in the free world, though not through the usual press gallery channels.
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?
Astonishing.
That fake was followed by another fake, this time pretending to be a denunciation by Environment Canada of the first fake.
You begin to see the confusion.
Then there was a fake video by the Ugandan delegation, praising Canada for its new plan and criticizing it for taking so long.
The bizarre ruse was apparently designed by the Yes Men, a group known for spoofs that it believes will combat globalization. In this case, the goal was to embarrass Canada and force the country’s representatives into damage control. On one front it had to refute the so-called new plan in case any gullible media reported it as fact. In doing so, of course, it had to explain its climate policies were much less ambitious.
From a media perspective, it proves once again the importance of questioning everything and checking all facts. The job is certainly not getting any easier, with these sorts of hijinks getting into the mix.
The summit is over now, and the methods that participating countries develop to address climate change issues will be revealed in coming months.
The ambiguous result is probably a comfortable outcome for most Canadians. A COMPAS poll released Dec. 10, before the Copenhagen talks began, indicated 73 percent of us favoured postponement of signing. Chief among Canadian worries were questions about the veracity of climate change data, and concerns that a deal could delay recovery from the recession. You can see a summary of that survey’s results at www.fcpp.org/publication.php/3092.
While we’re on the topic, I found myself getting a bit weary of people proclaiming they were “ashamed to be Canadian” because of the country’s environmental stance.
Is there shame in taking the much-vaunted cautious Canadian approach, particularly in light of conflicting climate data? Is there shame in looking carefully at measures that could cripple the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan? I think not.
