I never cease to be amazed by the hysterical nature of the voices of climate change deniers.  Despite the logic and overwhelming evidence of catastrophic climate change right under their noses, kicking and screaming, they refuse to allow the facts and the figures to drag them into consciousness, awareness and the 21st Century. 

In the January 2010 issue of Senior Living, an editorial entitled “The Copenhagen Fiasco” and written by a Gerhard Stercl, criticizes our Leader, Larissa Shasko, for advocating the reduction of carbon emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.  Never mind that the vast majority of independent scientific study shows that such a reduction is actually a minimum of what we need to do in order to ensure that our grandchildren can continue to live on this planet. 

Gerhard’s diatribe is supported with invective such as:

-Gore and Suzuki are just using climate change “to suit their own political agenda”,

-The goal of Gore, Suzuki and Elizabeth May is “to bring the rich and developed nations down to the level of third world nations”;

-The changing climate is “not because of anything man has done”;

-Harper “protected Canada’s interests at Copenhagen”;

-That reduction levels Larissa advocated would send us “back to the 1800’s and still be expected to give billions to Hugo Chavez”;

-“I am not prepared to give up my lifestyle to fatten the pockets of people like Gore, Suzuki or Chavez.”

Clearly this is nothing but a raving rant contained in a zine owned by Gerhard Stercl and distributed for free at senior citizen’s homes.  When people infer that the environmental movement only benefits terrorists and heads of state who are conveniently designated as dictators, it is futile to debate or try to reason with such individuals. 

What a lot of committed Greens may be wondering, though, is how do we understand the fact that, when we are trying to bring a positive message of hope and change, a certain segment of the population will respond with vitriol such as quoted above.  Two things: assumptions and lifestyle.  First of all, Gerhard started his harangue with the assumption that “there are two sides to the Climate Warming…” Really!  Isn’t that like saying that there are two sides to the subject of whether the earth revolves around the sun, whether the Earth is round, or whether gravity really exists?!

But what is it that brings about faulty assumptions such as this and those of other climate change deniers?  Gerhard said it best: “I am not prepared to give up my lifestyle…”  I am convinced that the self-centered lifestyle dominated by convenience and luxury so common in mainstream society is the key factor.  We have turned humanity on its head, upside down.  Instead of using our heads and our hearts to develop a set of principles or ethics to influence the way we live, we bury our heads in the sand and allow the status quo, or the way things are, to dictate our lifestyles.  And then, after the fact (or better, without any facts), we come up with a justification to defend that lifestyle.  Backasswards, as some would say. 

The Green Party of Saskatchewan, of course, exists to get members elected so that we can influence our Province to ensure that all people (including climate change deniers) have a future.  The best way to do this is by the way we as Greens live – our lifestyle.  Forget about debating the Flat Earth Society or trying to reason with people who think the moon landing was a hoax. 

As Greens, we have the best set of principles any party could ever come up with: sustainability, ecological wisdom, non-violence, respect for diversity, participatory democracy and social justice.  Living that way will count for far more than just words.  I, for one, wish to continue changing my lifestyle to demonstrate those principles and the vision that lies behind it.  Walking the talk is far more influential than talking the walk.