… they’ll publish something like the National Post did today with their Climate Change Power List (of course, Green as a Thistle was originally listed at #7 because John Baird is at best a pale shade of pistachio, but you know, conflict of interest, what with me working for the paper and all… oh wait, Terence Corcoran made #20. That must be a glaring typo).
As much as the term “eco-evangelist” really grinds my gears, if you can get past that first paragraph, the list itself is worth a look-see. Despite our environmentally friendly appearances and the fact that our political leaders are all in a veritable green race — Stéphane Dion even named his dog Kyoto — the reality is that Canada still has a prime minister who once referred to the Protocol as a “socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” Any fellow Canucks got suggestions for who should and shouldn’t be on this list? Maybe I can hack into the system and make some changes.
The Climate Change Power List … c’mon!
It’s these ‘Top … whatever’ lists that grinds my gears (good saying). Top cities; top universities; top this; top that. They’re an easy sell. I suppose they serve a purpose … ? How about a Top Ten ‘Top Lists’ … there’s an article you can write up, Vanessa: you can turn it into your own franchise. The American version. European.
Anyway, ‘Steve’ is #1? Yeah, right. He’s done a lot, hasn’t he?! Even Suzuki … gettin’ tired of ‘im. He had his time with The Nature of Things (excellent). We need real solutions, though, not more preaching to the choir. The energy executives? How do the benefits of their initiatives stand up according to the massive subsidies which finance their actions?
Sorry for sounding bitter.
It’s these labels or ‘titles’ … ‘Power List’ … or when we hear of ‘Toronto’s business elite’. Elite? Whatever. It just gets to me.
It seems to me, that the more ‘power’ or resources/assets/etc. that one has at his/her disposal, the more responsibility that person has: and, the greater the expectation. Particularly, they should ‘respond ably’ in their day-to-day lifestyles. These people have enormous potential yet what truly great result have they achieved? It is we, all of us, who should be more discerning and demanding. Think of the incomes these people are receiving (notice I didn’t say ‘earning’): What are they doing with it? Maybe better/more than I give credit for, but I wonder.
Elizabeth May, I’d say, is the one notable for living a responsible lifestyle since long before these issues have made it to the media.
As the Post article claimed, it was a list of who they thought was most ‘inflencial’, so I suppose the people mentioned are fair choices. But I believe it’s the ‘nobody’s’ that are living the lifestyle that deserve the recognition.
Anyway, Vanessa … that was my little rant.