Commentator Ethics & Environmental Protection - A Response to Radio Commentator K.K. Wan Gabriel Yiu Global Chinese Press column 2.5.2007 Politicians must adhere to high moral standards and ethics. They should not deceive, make things up or play dirty tricks. Once the ethical baseline of a politician is compromised, what would stop him or her from acting in violation of morals, ethics and even the law? US President George Bush could be cited as an example right in front of our eyes. President Bush launched an invasion into a country that possessed no weapons of mass destruction, didn't collaborate in the 911 attack, and posed no threat to the U.S. The war in Iraq has taken away a great many lives, but it has profited the weapons manufacturing industry. The Iraqi people don't feel liberated and their lives are in dire straits. Citizens and media in a democratic society must insist that their politicians maintain high ethical standards. We shouldn't tolerate unethical practice; otherwise, if the ethical baseline disappears or becomes blurred, political corruption would result and it might be too late to remedy it then. To our pundits who monitor our politicians, we must also set up stringent expectations. We shouldn't accept pseudonyms, and commentaries should be based on facts and discussions should be objective. I recently heard the radio commentary of a well-known commentator. His criticism of people who advocate environmental protection is simply unfair and unreasonable. K.K. Wan is unhappy that environmentalists (which include politicians) continuously pressure the federal government, and he thought that the economic price for complying with the Kyoto Accord is too high. He thought that even if the increase of greenhouse gas raises the sea-level, that might not be a bad thing for Canada since we would have more farm land. Our coastal area would be alright if we build dikes as the Dutch do. He then criticized the film An Inconvenient Truth. He thought Al Gore misled the public by appearing and acting like a university professor. Wan stated that the biggest problem of this film was that it treated environmental protection in terms of the dogma of a religion. He said the word "truth" in the film's title is something like "religious truth." He then criticized today's environmentalists as fundamentalists; their religion is environmental protection. In Hong Kong, the Chinese name of An Inconvenient Truth is translated as "The Desperate Facts." A look at an English-Chinese dictionary on the meaning of "truth" shows that the word can mean reality, fact or statement that is generally believed to be true. Wan could disagree with the content, scientific facts and conclusion of the film, but he should rebut it in an objective way, not picking on one very narrow interpretation of its title. I would also like to raise my concern about Wan's way of labeling people who hold different opinions from his because it's neither fair nor rational. Earlier, when he commented on the proposal of raising the minimum wage, he said those who supported raising were adopting a "communistic doctrine." The fact is, most of the western free and democratic countries have instituted minimum wage protection. Even the US, which has often been referred to as the leader of the anti-Communist coalition, has raised its minimum wage in recent years. Likewise, forcing on environmental activists a hat with a negative label is a violation of the fairness and objectivity of news commentary. I don't think today's environmentalists are acting any more aggressively than their predecessors in the Greenpeace era. Environmentalists care about the health of our planet, and they care about the devastation caused by natural disasters. It is a reflection of their conscience and morality. The reports released earlier by the United Nations and the UK have clearly stated that it's the man-made greenhouse gas that is warming our temperature and causing ecological changes. It will bring about severe natural disasters that will cause great causalities and economic loss. These reports were researched and written by the world's leading scientists, scholars and economists and have been widely reported in the media. Also, I cannot agree with Wan's view that Canada won't be affected adversely. We have already seen the destruction caused by the pine beetle epidemic and the damage done by the severe storms last fall. Even if Canada is in the enviable position of not having to suffer from devastation, does it mean that we can ignore the suffering of other countries? Finally, are we asking for the moon to get Canada to meet its Kyoto obligation? Let's put aside for a moment the Conservative government's point of view and take a look at how other countries are doing. The energy minister of Denmark recently visited Canada to speak at Carleton University. Denmark is an oil exporting country; it has set a target so that 30% of its energy consumption will be generated by renewable energy by 2025 (Canada's figure for that source of energy currently stands at 17%). Denmark's energy consumption has been reduced to the 1975 level even as its economy has continued to grow. It has taken drastic measures over the last decade and the Danes believe they will exceed the Kyoto target by around 3%. France and Japan both expect they will meet their Kyoto greenhouse gas reduction target. The U.K. has promised to surpass the Kyoto target by 8% by 2010. Norway is projecting it will overshoot Kyoto by 22% in 2010. Although Australia hasn't signed the Kyoto treaty, it will be just slightly over the Kyoto target by 2010. It's unfortunate that in Canada, both the Liberal and Conservative governments are keener on words than action.