I was listening to Quirks and Quarks yesterday and they had an interesting segment with Dr. Dan Ariely, the author of The Upside of Irrationality. He does some cool experiments that basically show we’re not the rational animals we think we are (Sorry Aristotle).

When faced with a choice that involves short-term pain for long-term gain, we will often forgo the gain to avoid the pain. Why save money for retirement in 30 years when I can buy a TV now? Why do we waste time and energy on revenge when it’s much more productive for us to move on? He also said that mass disasters don’t get the same attention as individuals. When we see a mass disaster, say a genocide, we become emotionally ‘muted’, probably as a coping mechanism; but when we see one person suffering, our heart goes out to them (think The Blind Side).

Anyway, that was just to give you the gist of what he’s about. The point he brought up that I want to talk about is this: ‘If you were trying to design a problem that people would not care about it would look like climate change”.

Eep. It’s true  based on what he was talking about. It’s going to happen years down the the road (well, it’s getting sooner every day I think!), it’s going to happen to other people first (poor countries, island nations), we don’t see individuals suffering, and anything we do personally will be a drop in the bucket.

So how do we get people to care about climate change?

We have to reward them! He used the example of people who drive a Prius. They might think of themselves as being such a good person for driving a Prius. And when they drive around, they see all the people looking at them and thinking ‘what a good person, they’re driving a Prius’ (whether people looking at them are really thinking this is irrelevant, as long as the driver believes it).

EGO! That’s the answer. We have to use people’s ego’s to make them want to help the environment. i.e. If you help the environment you’re a better person! We all look up to you! Way to compost!

Do you part, and pat the next environmentalist you see on the back and tell them good job!

Even though I just posted about the dangers of an oil spill off the BC coast, I’m going to now post about the dangers of an oil spill in the Canadian Arctic. It seems appropriate given the situation in the USA. The dark cloud looms….

BP (everyone’s favourite company) has proposed to do some exploratory drilling in our arctic waters. Global warming is already a major treat to this very sensitive and ecologically unique area. A study done to model the effects of an oil spill in the Beaufort Sea showed that an oil spill in that area could even worsen the effect of climate change. After seeing what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, do we even need further evidence to show how dangerous drilling the the arctic could be? With pack ice shifting around, the dangers are too great.

Here’s the article in the Vancouver Sun that brought this to my attention. I haven’t looked into this issue as much as the Enbridge one, I’m sure there’s lot of more information out there. I was just so stressed about the idea of more drilling I needed to get this post up. Our threatened arctic needs all the help it can get. Do you trust our oil-hungry government to protect it?

I saw Avatar on the weekend. First, it was awesome. Second, it made me think about the tar sands. That’s right, I’m not switching to the more friendly ‘oil sands’. I’m not helping them spiff up their image.

Now, Mr. Military Man is very obviously the bad guy. And he’s pretty bad. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who saw the movie and didn’t describe him as evil.

However, there are many, many of these people in real life. You might even know one. Any oil company exec, and I’d wager a lot of mining company execs, logging company execs and probably a fair chunk of politicians, would fall into the role of Mr. Evil Military Man. They see something in the Earth that they want, and they take it. They leave nothingness in their wake. Barren land.

I’m not saying that these people would knowing kill people and destroy ancient sites like in the movie. But they have seen the reports about the damage occurring to our ecosystems and what that could mean for our planet. They know what we’re facing and they ignore the urgency.

Currently if we just stopped the tar sands, mining and logging, we’d be in a bit of a pinch. However, just because it’s in the ground, doesn’t mean we have to take it out! Oil companies have a lot of lobbying power and can influence government decisions on funding to projects like alternative energy (have you seen Who Killed the Electric Car?). These people need to let progress happen. They need to make an effort to put their own resources into alternatives to the tar sands.

Just think what that could do to their image! They might make a few less billions of dollars for a while, but there’s a lot of economic potential in alternative energy. A progressive thinking oil exec…it could be a revolution.

This morning’s Chronicle Herald renewed my love of Canada, move specifically, Nova Scotia.

Darrell Dexter, premier of Nova Scotia, aims to decrease emissions 10% from 1990 levels by 2020. I do believe that’s 4% greater than Canada’s Kyoto target. Now he’s moved the date a bit farther away, but he has made this commitment regardless of any agreement made in Copenhagen, regardless of the US, China or anyone else. He says he won’t use “the failure of others as an excuse”.

It is comforting among all the buzz of failing climate talks to hear a politician talk about the need for action. He also sees the economic potential for renewable energy, and is currently in Copenhagen talking to investors about tidal power.

The federal Conservatives have set a 20% reduction by 2020 as their target, but they’re using 2003 as a base line, not 1990. Unfortunately our emissions rose quite a bit between those years, and that reduction won’t even get us back to 1990 levels.

Thanks Nova Scotia, for not looking like a shmuck!

Well, with the Copenhagen climate talks about to wrap up, it’s about time I said something.

I am ashamed of the Canadian government. Canada’s international reputation is in tatters. How’s this lovely headline:

Throw Canada out of Commonwealth for climate record – Rising emissions and support for tar oil sands leads prominent figures to call for suspension (Ecologist, 27th November, 2009)

Kicking us out of the Commonwealth? That’s a part of who Canada is!

Now is the time for dramatic action. Some scientist are claiming we’re already gone too far, and even if greenhouse gas emissions stopped altogether tomorrow the planet will still warm to an unacceptable level from what’s already in the atmosphere. Harper can be all concerned about our economy if the tar sands can’t keep pumping out the oil and pumping out the emissions, but when the temperature rise starts killing ocean life, have fun with that economy. Just because their is oil in the ground doesn’t mean we have to take it out. Creating alternative energy sources will also create jobs and create a branch of the economy that isn’t designed to run out and explode in our faces.

So as a result of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives’s lack of action on climate change, Canada is leading the pack in Fossil of the Dayawards. This award is given to counties that are doing their best to impede climate change action. Congrats Canada, you’re now an environmental villain.

**Hilarious Edit**  `Harper not on Obama`s climate guest list`Obama`s having an emergency climate party and Harper isn`t invited. Even Australia got invited! No offence Oz, but we have similar world influence and we even live next door to Obama!