On Jan. 24, 1984, the CBC television program The Journal broadcast a full edition documentary called "The Greenhouse Effect and Planet Earth." It was hosted, narrated and written by Peter Kent, who is now Canada's environment minister.
You can find the program here.
And you may want to hurry. Evidence of this sort has a tendency to mysteriously disappear from the web.
In his introduction to the documentary, Kent says that it may seem like science fiction but "the scientific community is virtually unanimous": the planet is getting warmer.
The "greenhouse effect" was a little-known phenomenon at the time of this broadcast, more than 27 years ago. This broadcast may have been one of the first major media reports on the subject.
"The greenhouse effect will wreak total havoc ... there will no Canada and the United States as we know it today..."
"It will be cataclysmic..."
Advertising
"Most important of all the environmental questions..."
"A change of climate that nature herself has not inflicted on the world since man has been in the world..."
Those are, as Kent says in the documentary, "just a sample" of what respected experts had to say at the time about the then little-known greenhouse effect.
Viewed today, the documentary is surprisingly current. It includes maps that show what could happen, over time, to coastal areas such as Florida and New York City. And it talks a lot about the probability of extreme weather to come, especially in the tropics: tornados, storms, droughts.
The program does say that, perhaps, a country such as Canada might actually benefit. The greenhouse effect, the documentary says, could increase Canada's agricultural potential -- just to cite one example.
As for who the biggest and earliest victims will be: the program correctly predicts that will be the poor in underdeveloped, tropical countries that have very little contributed to the greenhouse effect. And the documentary warns against the deforestation of the planet, especially in what Kent refers to in the program as "the Third World."
The program is surprisingly pessimistic about the possibility of human beings, collectively, taking measures to reverse global climate change. Experts from whom we hear say that they do not see how people could be convinced to break their addiction to fossil fuels. And some experts foresee a scenario where there are " winners and losers," with the "winners" (such as Canada?) being "forced" (coerced?) to "pay for" the losers.
Some scientists in Kent's program evoke the probability of massive population shifts, of major social disruption and conflict and even the spectre of war.
It is pretty strong stuff.
These days, we know that Kent's prediction, 27 years ago, that maybe this would all have an impact on "our children and grandchildren" was optimistic. There is significant evidence of global climate change all around us right now.
One would have hoped that an environment minister who was such an "early adopter" of the climate change issue might have tried to use his political influence to enlighten his colleagues, many of whom, not too long ago, actively denied the scientific validity of global warming.
If anybody does, Peter Kent should have political clout in the Conservative cabinet. When he won his seat in Thornhill he was as close as the party then got to downtown Toronto. And he was a star catch, as a candidate, someone with a very distinguished career in broadcasting and journalism.
Don't the Conservatives need Kent more than he needs them? It is unlikely that he needs the cabinet minister's paycheque. And he has a significant personal and professional reputation. Wouldn't that give him the right to challenge the party line, at least behind closed doors, and to stick up for scientists inside and outside the public service, whose findings are much more extensive -- and "nearly unanimous" -- now than they were in 1984?
Twenty-seven years ago, Kent concluded the CBC Journal's "full edition" with these words:
"The greenhouse effect must be considered as the world's greatest environmental concern."
What would he say today?
Ask him and find out. What does he have to say today. no tienne cajones?
Kent's early political career shows signs of predictable and growing Conservatism. As a failed Conservative candidate in Toronto, he sent out flyers that talked about his admiration for a dashing Israeli general by the name of Ariel Sharon. Seems Kent had been an admirer ever since he was a correspondent covering the Middle East. That sort of political gush didn't win him an election in the Toronto area, but it showed he had the right Conservative stuff and got him a riding in the GTA, where the mainstream Jewish voters went gagga over him. He's still very popular there. So moving right, he picked up all the other right wing notions. And that made him cabinet material. Ambition over reason. So what's new?
By the way, tell frothquaffer that there's only one "n" in "tiene."
He would likely say, "hey pal, learn to count."
This article gives us real insight into the abject immorality of this individual. How can he look at himself in the mirror? We now know without question climate change is the biggest challenge facing the human race. Millions of people are already being impacted and things will degenerate exponentially from here. Despite this knowledge, Mr. Kent is playing the role of cheerleader for the Tar Sands which propably represents the point of no return for the human race on this planet. The fact that shills like Kent and Harper are ruling our country and calling the shots regarding our collective survival is stark example of the abject failure of our political system. Hope is certainly fading.
Cogent reminder of what can happen when journalists spend careers and life times at the same table, in the same seductive corridors as the power-elite.
But it's still a headscratcher how keepers of the fourth estate can slip so easily over to the dark side - Duffy, Wallin', Kent et al. not to mention the tribe of former journalsists operating as party or gov't PR flacks espousing regressive and anti-social policies. But hey, it's a free country. I think.
I will leave "frothquaffer's" hostile, angry and aggressive comment up there, although it is quite offensive; but I am not sure what his problem is. I gather he is accusing me of lacking the "true grit" ( to use a more polite term than his - and, for some reason, I assume he is a "he") to get out there and do battle with cabinet ministers. He has no evidence for that accusation. And he uses an offensive, personal, angry and, quite fankly, inappropriate style of discourse to present his view. In addition, of course, he hides behind a pseudonym. In any case, I think what he has to say is entirely a reflection on him and not on me or anyone else. However, I will not delete his comment nor flag it. I will let others be the judges of Mr. "Frothquaffer". I understand he may be a bit busy these days, having enrolled in a course in Spanish orthography.
Karl Nerenberg ( my real name, and I am in the phone book!)