In watching city council’s budget debates on TV, I was struck by the different stances councillors took on different environmental problems. Council was just about unanimous in its desire to see the Sturgeon River cleaned up, but they were much more divided when it came to reducing the city’s greenhouse gas emissions.
Talk about climate change is everywhere these days, as is the controversy over whether the changes we’re experiencing are caused by pollution or are a natural occurrence. Aside from the pollution related to oil and gas development, climate change also seems to be the only environmental topic we hear about these days. There doesn’t seem to be as much talk about endangered species and poaching or about the potential risks of nuclear power, the ozone layer or the effects on human health of air and water pollution. Even when it comes to the oilsands, a lot of the talk still relates to climate change.
Is it such a good idea to be focusing only on climate change when there are still a lot of other environmental problems out there? In university, I read about other potential environmental problems we face, like the possibility of factory farms polluting our water and the results of sour gas development on the health of nearby farmers and property owners.
The emphasis on climate change risks taking attention away from other environmental matters that are just as important. Whatever the facts are on climate change, greenhouse gasses are still typically poisonous and not the sort of thing we really want to be breathing. Couldn’t a lot of the same concerns related to greenhouse gas emissions be more generally integrated into larger concerns about air pollution? And wouldn’t the environmental movement be better served by making sure other problems such as endangered species and the safe disposal of toxic byproducts don’t fall by the wayside?
Jared Milne, St. Albert
