Skewed perspectives could make for bad policy in 2017

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute claims it exists “to make poor public policy unacceptable in Ottawa.” I'd bet people along the entire political spectrum in Canada would suggest the've had a rather poor success rate at that over the years — but that at least does bolster its second claim of being non-partisan.

Managing director Brian Lee Crowley wrote an essay in the Globe and Mail this past week debunking what he called popular myths that could lead to poor public policy for 2017.

The problem here is that if policy-makers in Ottawa accepted his arguments, the result would be an outpouring of poor public policy in the coming year. Because his so-called “myths” are described from the perspective of someone who can't see the forest for the trees.

First, Crowley seeks to dispel the thought “endlessly repeated that we must get off fossil fuels or we are all doomed.”

From his perspective, fossil fuels are so cheap, storable and transportable, so energy-dense that chasing after alternatives is foolish. Fossil fuels are actually an irreplaceable protection against the climate's ravages, he writes.

To lend a whiff of scientific credence to this, Crowley claims that the rate of climate-related deaths has fallen recently. Unfortunately, there's less connection between that, and the incidence of extreme weather events than he believes. Maybe, with all our practice, we're just getting better at saving people during storms.

What he does not mention is that Arctic temperatures have been measured at more than 20 degrees Celsius above long-term averages, and that the ice sheets that control weather patterns in our hemisphere (also just under 2 degrees warmer than normal) are smaller and thinner than they've ever been.

Likewise, he does not mention that technology is making fossil fuels less irreplaceable for many purposes. This year, in many countries, unsubsidized renewable energy reached a production cost to match or beat carbon-based alternatives.

When Bloomberg analysts suggest oil prices could drop as low as $10 a barrel in coming decades (a supply/demand prediction), when energy giants are turning off fossil fuel plays and investing in wind and solar, when Saudi princes want to sell off parts of family-owned Aramco, I'd say the writing is on the wall.

We'll be drilling and mining fossil fuels for a good while yet, but we'll just be doing less and less of it. Which has a public policy impact, when considering multi-billion-dollar investments in things like pipelines.

Another myth Crowley seeks to debunk is the assumed control over global government policy held by giant corporations. In this, I agree with him — to a point.

History shows us over and over how large empires, both political and economic, are not eternal. They always create niches for disruptive ideas and technologies that bring them down and create new ones.

For instance, public acceptance of the dangers of climate change will lead to policies to account for widespread changes in the way we lead our lives.

In the same way, public policy must eventually address the dangers inherent in the growing income gap between the vastly wealthy and everyone else, both nationally and internationally.

On this topic, Crowley suggests that poor people and poor nations merely haven't learned the lessons about the forces that cause economic growth. In other words, they're poor because they're stupid.

That is about as blatant a basis for poor public policy as you'll ever find.

A final comment: Crowley invokes Old Testament prophet Jeremiah, the great lamenter who in ancient days predicted doom if God's Chosen People didn't return to pious right-living.

These days, you'll find a Jeremiah in every crackpot blog or fringe political party, he says.

Trouble was, in his time, Jeremiah was right. Israel was in fact doomed to being conquered and its people enslaved, but they would later return to their homeland.

Crowley might also have referenced Greek legend Cassandra. But he'd have been wrong on that as well. Her prophecies were also spot-on, but her doom was that nobody would pay attention to her.

Not paying attention to the narrow perspective of groups like the Macdonald-Laurier Institute would be a good first step in creating better public policy.

Their business-as-usual, everything's-fine conclusion will not see us into a better future.

Follow Greg Neiman's blog at Readersadvocate.blogspot.ca