THE W.O.R.D.

Global Warming is an issue that pervades the front pages of newspapers on a daily basis. The issue of climate change (caused by CO2) seems to be victorious as many non-traditional actors have joined the “green” crusade. From a former vice-president (Al Gore), to corporate alliances with various green sounding names promoting alternative energies, the environmentalist movement has hit mainstream culture. Even a former die-hard denier such as our Prime Minister is hopping on board, and promoting ‘green plans’ under massive popular pressure and public opinion.

But is it really grass roots education and the truth of science that has motivated the population to passionately force politicians and the mass media to act? Or has something else happened that has pushed Global Warming to the forefront? Some might argue that global warming has been broadly accepted as truth, in the presence of murkily bogged down and uncertain scientific details.

This being said, have all scientists suddenly become convinced that atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the most dangerous and pressing issue facing mankind? Or has dumbed down science allowed for dumbed down solutions, that later get proposed by policy makers ( e.g. carbon sequestration, carbon trading, bio-fuels, nuclear energy, etc.)?

Two Canadian professors have grappled with some of these questions from an empirical and social science perspective. In a new theory spearheaded by Denis Rancourt (specializes in Environmental Physics at the University of Ottawa) and David Noble (a Historian from York University), both professors argue that Global Warming is a corporate led campaign based on inconclusive science. This mainstream campaign is meant to create profit, distract from real social justice issues, and co-opt the environmentalist movement into selling a problem easily solvable through technical and economic solutions that do not threaten power.

Interestingly, Rancourt and Noble’s theory has invoked a backlash not from those tied to power, but from fellow activists associated with the environmental movement. These critics disagree with Rancourt & Noble’s critique of the science as well as their approach. The most extensive critique so far is an essay by activist Justin Podur (ZNet Commentator-online news forum) in which he argues that “people need sensible green proposals that are also in accordance with values of justice, equality and solidarity,” instead of dismissing the elite strategy all together. He argues that it is wrong to reject the science and dismiss the solutions like Kyoto or Co2 markets, not because they are inadequate (which to him they are) or because they serve elite agendas (which to him they do), but because they conclude that there is no problem to solve in the first place. To Pondur, Rancourt and Noble are trying to open up the wrong debate. No matter which side of the debate you are on, here are some questions to get you thinking:

Questions:

1. Why has the global warming movement won over mainstream popular opinion?
2. Will the solutions being proposed to stop or mitigate Global Warming solve the problems attributed to Global Warming?
3. Does it matter whether or not the science supports Global Warming? Is social justice the key to addressing the problems regardless of ones view on the science?

Suggested Background Reading:

1. Dominion Interview with Denis Rancourt: http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1110
2. Justin Podurs Essay Critiquing Rancourt/Noble’s theory: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=57&ItemID=12796
3. David Nobles detailing how Climate Change became mass marketed: http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2007/05/01/1090/
4. How to Talk to A Global Warming Skeptic FAQ: http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.ht
5. Taking CO2 Seriously – Denis Rancourt’s blog- http://climateguy.blogspot.com/

When: 5:30pm, Monday, May 28^th, 2007

Who: Hosted By Dave Mandelzys and RSVP with An via email: thewordottawa@gmail.com