Article content continued

The Toronto Star, of course, is already marching loyally in line, reporting breathlessly that “an intense sense of emergency” is behind a plan “to shift Canada’s entire economy to battle climate change,” launched by no less an evangelist than David Suzuki, who presumably hopes his attempt will fare better than former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion’s failed crusade to do likewise. Even Maclean’s, usually a bit more skeptical than the pack, advised that tasks remaining before Parliament goes home for the summer include “efforts to tackle the climate emergency and to address the ongoing colonial relationship between the state and Indigenous peoples,” thereby killing two terminological buzzards with one stone.

The motive for the change is obvious: if something’s an emergency, it’s easier to argue for a big disruption in how people live their lives and how much money the government devotes to it. It’s also harder to raise objections or point out flaws, discrepancies or untruths. The issue becomes “settled,” and only ignoramuses are deemed to raise it any more. It’s a ploy long known to despots, dictators and autocrats: declare a national emergency and you can get away with almost anything in response. Just ask Donald Trump about the “emergency” on the Mexican border.

This isn’t the first time the climate camp has used this trick. “Global warming” was jettisoned for “climate change” when the warming trend appeared to be slowing. Rather than try to explain the anomaly, it was easier to just change the phrase. And eco warriors from McKenna on down now commonly refer to emissions as “pollution,” which they categorically are not. Carbon dioxide is a gas people exhale and plants need to live. Deliberate distortion may pollute arguments, but breathing doesn’t.

Expect to hear more about the “emergency” as the fall election approaches. As McKenna noted, if they say it often enough and loud enough, people start to believe it.

• Twitter: KellyMcParland