Environmental activists are again swaying opinion by force of terminology. If something’s an emergency, it’s harder to object or point out untruths
Great angst has been expressed by some of Canada’s more serious-minded journalists over the Liberals’ creation of a slush fund to help the newspaper industry over its financial troubles.
Their concern is that a pot of dough being handed over by the government will undermine public faith in the industry’s independence and objectivity. That would be quite a feat, given that we currently rank right up there with manufacturers of opioids and purveyors of Chinese telecom equipment in terms of public admiration.
It might also be a bit unnecessary. Canada’s media already shows a disconcerting willingness to parrot politicians blessed with access to a microphone. As Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna recently observed, in a video clip she uploaded herself, “We’ve learned in the House of Commons, if you repeat it, if you say it louder, if that is your talking point, people will totally believe it.”
A current example is an effort by environmental activists to once again influence opinion by force of terminology. Some years back, when American conservatives succeeded in turning “liberal” into a dirty word, liberals and left-wingers successfully rechristened themselves “progressives,” a term now almost universally adopted in whatever publication you care to read. It was an astonishingly rapid and effective move — like one of those bird flocks that magically and collectively shift direction in unison as they course across the sky. Any view now in vogue on the left becomes the “progressive” view, simultaneously patting themselves on the back while labelling the rest of the world as opponents of progress. A better term for non-progressives might be “realists,” but the right has never been as good at mass hypnosis as the left.
Having declared themselves superior to others, progressives now want to alter the debate on carbon emissions by changing the language in use. “Climate change” is falling into disrepute. The new and approved term is “climate emergency.” If you search that phrase you will find a steady stream on local councils debating whether to declare their own particular geographic location a victim of the “emergency.”
Wolfville, N.S. — population 4,195 — agreed it was “time to put their foot down” and acknowledge an emergency, hiring a “climate change mitigation co-ordinator” in the process. Council members in Sudbury, Ont., passed an emergency motion to the same effect, ordering up a report that “describes an approach for creating a Climate Change Adaptation & Mitigation Plan.” Why this couldn’t be done without it being an officially approved emergency isn’t clear, but maybe they thought it would be easier to sell to the local population if they made things sound bad enough.
Kelly McParland