Let's Play the Environmental Blame Game!

Because it's so much easier and more fun than working toward climate solutions.

The UN climate conference in Durban is going about as well as international conferences aimed at curbing crises usually do. By that, we mean a lot of finger-pointing, blaming and activist hijinks and so far, little more. The blame game this year is particularly virulent, as there is certainly no lack of targets to harangue over why we do or do not need a new Kyoto-type accord.

First off is the National Post's Kelly McParland, who huffs and puffs over China's two-faced behaviour at international climate conferences. "China gets three-quarters of its power from heavily-polluting coal plants, but argues it shouldn’t be held to the same standards of cleanliness as other countries, because it’s still a 'developing' country," notes McParland. "On the other hand, when it feels like lecturing the U.S. or Europe on their economic policies, it morphs into the world’s emerging powerhouse and reminds everyone that it holds $3.2 trillion in foreign reserves, about 70 per cent of it in U.S. dollars." China, as the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, quite simply has to be a part of any international climate treaty if it's expected to be taken seriously; China's exclusion from the Kyoto accord was probably its biggest undoing, as it gave countries like Canada and the U.S. cover to hide behind for not living up to their end of the bargain. McParland recommends the delegations at Durban pass a motion to "implement strict limits on the bombast and international posturing" if they want to achieve anything of note. Would that they could, Kelly, would that they could.

In the Toronto Sun, Lorrie Goldstein rails against Europe and the totality of the developing world for using Canada as their environmental bete noir when the U.S., and China would make for far better targets. "Diplomats from other countries are afraid of offending the two biggest economies in the world because of the potential diplomatic and economic fallout on other issues, so they use Canada as a whipping boy for the U.S.," says Goldstein. The U.S. and Canada also have "virtually identical" stances at Durban – both are against a climate pact that doesn't include China, both have the same domestic emissions targets, and both aren't so sure about a fund to help developing countries prepare for climate change. Goldstein conveniently overlooks the fact that the U.S. isn't hellbent on expanding development of one of the most energy-intensive, emissions-heavy oil fields on the planet, and then lobbying seemingly every developed country in the world to invest in that expansion. We're not saying that the U.S. and China aren't worthy targets for environmentalists. But to shriek that other delegations are "not only disingenuous, but dishonest, cowardly and craven" for devoting so much of their energy to Canada sounds, well, a bit disingenuous itself. (We won't even bother dealing with Margaret Wente's column in the Globe today, other than to say its curious how quickly she can shift from harassing academics to heralding them when their work fits her worldview.)

Across the pond in The Guardian, Simon Zadek encourages ecologically minded CEOs to start putting more pressure on their big polluter counterparts to take their emissions seriously. "Those working on the nexus of business and sustainability need to wake up to the fact that we have to deal with the 'bad guys'," writes Zadek. "They are not persuaded by the fine examples of sustainability leaders, and shrug off the pleadings of the great and the good. They will do practically anything, and that covers a lot of territory, to avoid their assets becoming stranded – that is, less valuable if externalities are properly counted." (As to how they actually derail climate talks, look no further than here.) As it's unlikely that these corporations – namely, energy companies – are about to embrace carbon taxes or cap-and-trade on their own accord (or even due to government prodding), Zadek says it falls to "good, indeed great, businesses and their respective leaders who embrace tomorrow's sustainable markets ... to move out of their comfort zone in outing and addressing this problem."

Shifting the paradigm of what "business interests" mean so as to not just reflect heavy polluters but the entire breadth of the global economy is essential to confronting our growing emissions. It's a cause that tech companies, from Apple to Microsoft to Google, are ideally situated to pursue, but we're not about to blame them for not doing their part – yet.