Freedom Flyer 16

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

May 1990

"I advocate private property, independant initiative and profit incentives as the only ways we're going to solve our environmental concerns."
--Robert Metz, Freedom Party of Ontario

LONDON (October 23, 1989) Freedom Party president and leader Robert Metz was invited to appear at a round-table discussion on the environment sponsored by the London Free Press. Its objective: "to look at the economic realities of how we can or should change our lifestyles and business practices to save the environment."

The following electronically reproduced article was the somewhat disappointing consequence of a discussion that spanned over two and a half hours. Most disappointing was the amount of material missing from the original discussion, material that was taped, transcribed and edited for publication in the paper's Saturday Encounter section in January 1990. Many of the published quotes by all participants appear much more cut and dry (and often completely out of order) than when originally expressed, and many of the topics dealt with during the discussion were not published at all, placing some comments completely out of context.

Fortunately, the published debate has kept intact the contrast between Metz's views and those of the other panel members. Most striking is the almost dogmatic resistance to any real discussion of finding a solution --- particularly by assigning direct responsibility to polluters for their actions: "I don't agree that it must be an individual responsibility..." (Sweitzer); "The basis of this problem is that we think, erroneously, that there are definite right ways and wrong ways..." (Simpson); "Individuals must participate by sacrificing and by voting..." (Bryant); The big impact will come from more people like us supporting regulations and approaches for massive conservation..." (Bryant).

But criticisms of government policy abound; each of the panel members had something negative to say about government policy on the environment, but only Metz was opposed to more government intervention and regulation, citing this approach as a major cause of environmental deterioration.

We encourage you to review their arguments for yourself. Your comments, questions, observations, criticisms and compliments are welcome at e-mail. We publish letters, and all reasonable submissions will be published, with editorial responses where applicable.

Article electronically reproduced from:

January 9, 1990

Focus on the Environment

Individual, government and corporate responsibility for the environment are discussed by five local people in this round-table forum chaired by freelance writer Mary Malone.

Malone: There are probably several reasons why we haven't recognized the value of the environment until now. One theory is that, from a business point of view, natural resources have been considered as economic externalities or free goods.

Simpson: The guts of that attitude is a dynamic philosophy of how we feel about our own history. For example, we're proud of the pioneers that came here and opened up Southwestern Ontario. And what did they do? They cut down the forest.

We're horrified at a new generation of pioneers in Brazil burning the Amazon, while we still hold up our own pioneers as heros.

Another example: I grew up in the Nickel Belt and I sucked in those sulphur fumes proudly because they kept my father working. When that smoke stopped, it meant there was a strike on or the mines were closed and our fathers were out of work. Now, of course, I'm horrified with what goes into the air.

So we're all experiencing a kind of emerging understanding, along with a sense that there are alternatives.

I'm starting to come 'round to a more holistic way of thinking. Our problem in our society is that our basic philosophy has been reductionist: cause and effect. We keep breaking things into the smallest bottom-line points. But a business person can no longer think of air, oil, water or trees as free goods. They have to be understood as part of the circle. We are now slowly starting to realize is that almost everything is related to everything else.

Ogilvie: I don't believe that just looking at the economic issues will help us to understand the implications of something like the greenhouse effect. We need to understand the environmental science that's involved.

Metz: But how do you expect to get past the very simple questions that most people ask: "Why should I pay for this? It's not my problem? I'm only willing to pay so much." Whether vou like it or not, that is the simplistic way that people look at things.

Ogilvie: I think it's clear that people are willing to pay for introducing environmentally sound products and policies. Some of the polls indicate consumers would not object to having a few extra dollars tacked onto their hydro bill if that would result in a cleaner environment.

Sweitzer: The holistic approach is logical; it's an example that nature has given us. There is no clear start or finish, no simple cause and effect. Everything in nature is done cyclically. Everything returns to something else.

Environment and economics have to become interrelated. For example, in a more local economy, you wouldn't have to transport goods over wide distances. You'd cut down sulphur dioxide and decrease the greenhouse effect.

I've found that the best education is multidisciplinary, where you can understand how economics, history and the environment all interrelate. And you must start this education at a very young age.

Malone: The problem is that everybody wants to participate in the profit end of a cycle and to stay out of the losing part of the cycle.

Metz: I'm going to state outright that it's a hopeless cause to try to impress upon the masses a new awareness or a major attitude change. You have to direct your efforts to the economic svstem.

If you'll notice, wherever pollution and environmental deterioration take place on this planet, it's always under the direct jurisdiction of a public body - usually a government. Our waterways are polluted because they are publicly owned; we have tremendous pollution on our highways because they are publicly built and financed. I think we should have a total licensing system for using the roads. It would cover the cost of construction and pollution, and include paying tolls.

You have to tie benefit to cost to get the response that you want. I don't think, if you add a tax here or there, the citizen is going to connect that to his responsibility for the particular product he may be using. The economic connection should be much more immediate.

Ogilvie: We have too damned many cars in downtown London. How about a system where anybody who wants to enter the core during rush hour would have to pay a special fee?

Simpson: That's a last resort, but Singapore already does it. Everyone there realizes that the only way they can survive is to make such decisions.

In London, you would have been laughed at five years ago if you suggested it. But now? People might be willing to debate it. Londoners may be getting ready to consider such drastic measures.

Bryant: I don't think that attitudes, economics and the environment are all separate issues. Take the pulp-and-paper industry, which is probably responsible for a tremendous percentage of our gross national product. In the 1960s, they were among the worst polluters in Ontario: destroying rivers, using them as sewage treatment. And I prosecuted such mills in northern Ontario. But no one up there particularly liked someone coming from Toronto to prosecute their mill because it meant loss of jobs.

The questions now are do we have the technology to do better and what will it cost?

There is sometimes a gap - depending on the company, there is sometimes a very big gap - between the best available technology and what they're prepared to spend the money for.

Malone: Are you saying that the technology is not available or that the business decision has not been made to use it?

Bryant: The business decision has not yet been made. Consider this. If it becomes more economical to recycle and de-ink newspapers, what's going to happen to some of the pulp-and-paper mills? I know what's going to happen. There will be fewer mills. It will be environmentally sound, but there will be a price to pay. I won't have to pay it, but the guy living in Kapuskasing will pay because he or she won't have a job any more.

Sweitzer: We have to make the newspaper companies accountable for their own recycling programs.

As for people losing their jobs, as we start utilizing a lot of this recycled paper, we're going to create new jobs. Employment has to be redirected into the new alternatives.

Bryant: Fine. But what do you say to the member of Parliament from Kapuskasing where all those jobs are lost? Environmentally sound management may create as many jobs as it loses. We don't know. But it is going to cause tremendous dislocation.

Simpson: Let's put this jobs issue in another perspective. All around the world, because of scientific advancements and business incentives, everyone is now making products that use a smaller percentage of materials than ever before.

When I was growing up, we Canadians used to say that we didn't want to remain hewers of wood and drawers of water. But, in the backs of our minds, we knew we could do that and be rich. We won't have that to fall back on much longer. If we don't become more intelligent about our economic and development decisions, by the year 2020, we could have the problems that Argentina has today.

We are getting to a crunch. Our future successes on the world stage will depend upon having the courage to take a gamble, to bet the company.

Sweitzer: Obviously, the more global you can go, the more money you are going to make with more people purchasing your products.

However, from an environmental perspective, it's better to grow and manufacture products in your own country, utilizing the resources of your own land base, which saves energy and transportation.

Metz: I don't think there's any such thing as a local economy. The only thing that makes an economy local is some artificial barrier put there by governments.

I believe that going for a more local economy is tremendously harmful to the environment because you're encouraging diversification at the cost of our environment.

If I can get a product cheaper and more efficiently built from overseas, then it is not environmentally concientious to reproduce that product here - and likely at a higher price, too. The higher price tells you right away that it's a waste.

Simpson: I half agree with you, Bob, but what if, on the other side of the world, the reason it's made more cheaply is because they're not concerned about the environment.

Metz: Well, it's a tough world. The rest of the world is poor because they have backward governments: socialist, fascists, right-wing dictatorship. These are all totally antithetical to environmental concems. It has to come back to individual responsibility. And the only way you can exercise that is in an economy with an absence of tariff barriers and a free flow of goods, services and information.

Sweitzer: I don't agree that it must be an individual responsiblity, a one-by-one choice, one-boardroom-one- choice, one-household-one-choice.

Metz: You can't force it on people.

Simpson: Well, actually, we can - with political decision.

What business is trying to decide is how serious is the public and political will on this issue. Business people want to know: "if I comply with the regulations, will everyone else also do so? Or will I be the sucker leading with my chin? Does the government intend to enforce this?"

Bryant: In global markets, you can't really export your pollution because, whether they pump it up into the air from Indonesia or Sudbury, it has the same effect in terms of the global warming. We've got to change the mentality that you can just dump in another jurisdiction where they can't or won't enforce environmental regulations. In my mind, that is just unacceptable.

Malone: Are you saying it's morally unacceptable or unwise from a business point of view?

Bryant: Both. We just can't continue going to some of these countries and experiment with faulty medical products or use environmentally unsound practices.

Sweitzer: I agree. Everything we do locally does affect global issues. To exploit Third World countries where they have lower environmental standards, to dump wastes there for the sake of stimulating their economy is wrong.

We've got to change attitudes by educating people from the time they are born. That's the only way to have corporate leaders and politicians that are responsible.

Malone: Let's get to some of the changes we might see in our community. What changes are Londoners willing to make in their own lifestyles? Probably most people wouldn't mind less packaging. But what about fewer cars per household? Or banning central air-conditioning?

Ogilvie: It depends on whether you give the consumer viable alternatives. For example, the president of Cascade says he can make unbleached brown toilet paper, but that nobody would buy it.

I don't believe that. There are consumers who would be willing to buy it. We recently bought a package of unbleached coffee filters that was made in Sweden. Why wasn't it made in Canada? It's obvious that there are profits to be made from controlling pollution.