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!

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!

Exxon Mobil pleaded guilty to the deaths of 85 migratory birds. The birds died after landing in natural gas well reserves and waste water. Somehow I find 85 to seem like a fairly small number, considering the deaths took place in several states over five years (2004-2009). But at least it’s something.

Exxon Mobil is giving $600 000 for the preservation of wetlands as a result of the guilty plea and promising to improve facilities to prevent this from happening in the future. $600 000 is pocket change for a corporation this large.

While it is very refreshing to see a company actually admit it did something wrong to the environment, I find these days that I have such a high degree of skepticism about anything that happens that in anyway involves a corporation. They so often seem above the law and social norms.

I recommend watching The Corporation. It was very eye-opening for me. Happy watching!

So this seems to have become a passionate issue for me recently.

The European Union has recently voted to ban the sale of seal products. Article here. This has caused joy and elation among animal rights groups. So much so that it seems everywhere I turn I see the lines “ban the cruel seal hunt”. I’m tried of it!

What, exactly, is cruel about the seal hunt? Sealers and northern natives go out and hunt seals. The majority (~90% is the quote from Danny Williams) are killed with a gun, not a club. Imagine that. Also, you cannot kill a baby seal. If I hear the phrase “clubbing baby seals” one more time I will lose it. I do believe the seals must be a minimum age before being killed, judged by the colour of their coat. The “club” is also a traditional weapon called a hakapik that has been judged to be a humane way to kill seals.

How is this such a major animal rights issue? There are many, many more issues that I feel do not receive the press they deserve. The slaughter of tonnes upon tonnes of cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, etc. happens everyday. These animals are herded, crammed, stuffed into slaughterhouses and killed.

I feel animal rights groups have picked the seal hunt as an issue because seals are cute and have large eyes and it is easy to win over the hearts of the people. They have picked the easy battle and I feel their efforts could be much more helpful in other areas of animal slaughter.

In Danny Williams’ interview on Larry King he claims the WWF has observed the seal hunt and finds nothing inhumane about the process.

In conclusion, please redirect animal rights efforts to a cause that needs it.