We Canadians

 Make no mistake. The fight against global warming is a full-fledged war, with strong armies poised for battle on either side. There are minor skirmishes and engagements, attacks and counter-attacks, strategies and counter-strategies, deceptions, victories and defeats. But above all, there is the fog of war - the cloud of disinformation that makes real success difficult for anyone.

On one side of the battle, there are large numbers of environmentalists, mainstream scientists, engineers and climatologists. They are supported by most of the media, many celebrities, some politicians, laypersons and, surprisingly, quite a few civil servants.

Opposing them are the oil producers, automakers, processing industries, and other big businesses that want to preserve the status quo for as long as they can, to maintain their profitability. This group can, rightly, be called the global warmers. They have the money and the power, and they can easily buy into the political system-or, at least they could until Mr Obama became president. But right now, the global warmers are on the run, facing a major onslaught from the environmental groups, and their tactics are getting increasingly defensive.

Their first line of defense is to deny the very fact of global warming. Generously funded “think tanks” produce reports that question the very accuracy of the statistical data that supports the notion of global warming. However, this position is getting less defensible as signs of global warming are now unmistakeable- the break-up of the polar ice caps, the melting of glaciers and the drying up of lakes and rivers throughout the world.

The second line of defense is to deny that human beings are responsible for global warming. This again is done in reports that question the science behind the climate change models. They point out that different computer models produce different results and there is no absolute proof that human activity causes global warming. But this argument, too, is wearing thin, as more people realize that environmental pollution cannot possibly be good for the planet – it will definitely have harmful effects, most probably in the form of global warming.

The next defense -indeed a very successful one - is to steal the thunder from the opposition, by using their terminology. This gives the appearance of action when there is none, or very little. Thus every business uses words like energy efficiency, or sustainability. Any new product or service that comes out is “green”. We have green power, green politics, green communities, and green meetings.

Another strategy is to provide a number of small benefits that create the illusion of meaningful action. Very often, this is done with public money, with some gentle prodding by lobby groups. Thus there are scores of incentive programs for energy savings, both for individuals and for companies, but they have very little effect. The one-time tax break for buying energy efficient cars is an example. It is limited to new cars, and the amount is so small that it is unlikely to influence people to buy a hybrid vehicle – which, in any case, are much more expensive than non-hybrids.

Yet another tactic is simple diversion- moving the focus away from the issues that matter to others that have a lesser impact. Most of the environmental damage today is caused by air and water pollution from industrial sources, industrial wastes, emissions from commercial vehicles, burning of fossil fuels, depletion of natural resources, and energy consumption in large buildings. But public attention is, instead, directed towards voluntary energy savings, mostly at the individual level. We are encouraged to re-cycle more, use energy efficient lightbulbs, and reduce our environmental footprint on the planet. All these things are, no doubt, important but I wonder how much impact they will really have in the absence of any enforcement. We need to do much more than this.

What we really need to do is  to go curb global warming at its source, by tightening up the environmental regulations with better enforcement. We need to tax buildings according to their energy consumption, to force owners to conserve energy. All new buildings must be energy efficient by law. Public transit systems should be expanded in all major cities, with growing emphasis on commuter trains. Existing bus fleets should switch to biofuels, or compressed natural gas, to get rid of the pollution caused by diesel exhausts. Substantial tax breaks should be offered on a recurring basis to induce people to switch to smaller, energy efficient cars.

In the long run, the global warmers cannot be allowed to win the battle – they have to look for environmentally friendly ways of doing business in the future. Because, if they win, everybody else loses and the stakes are far too high – perhaps the very survival of our species on this earth.