Your dictionary is out of date. But fear not. I will help you sort out the new meanings of common English words and phrases.
For one: “Pollution” does not mean toxic waste anymore. The CO2 and moisture that you exhale are deadly heat-trapping gases. (OK, some people’s breath IS toxic, but not everyone’s.)
Here’s another one: “Canada will ratify the Kyoto Protocol.”
This deceptively simple statement does not always have the meaning that people assume today. When you hear the words “Kyoto Protocol”, it sometimes does not refer to the greenhouse gas reduction treaty that was conceived in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 and to which Canada is a signatory.
No, when Prime Minister Jean Chretien refers to the “Kyoto Protocol”, he may be referring to the agreement he dreamed up in his head in which Canada gets credit for natural gas and hydro power shipped to the United States.
When Chretien came to Alberta and announced that the “Kyoto Protocol” will not exact undue hardship on any sector or region of the country, the meaning of the words “sector” or “region” were also cloudy.
Keep in mind Chretien’s previous assurances, such as the promise he made of scrapping the GST. You see, the word “scrap” does not necessarily mean “do away with.” It can, in fact, entail combining the GST with other sales taxes. In the new dictionary of English usage, “alter” and “scrap” appear to be synonyms. By calling the GST an HST (harmonized sales tax) we “scrap” the GST, you see.
So when Chretien assures us that no sector or region of Canada will be singled out, we have to clarify the words before we can grasp the thrust of his promises.
The sectors that Chretien consoled when speaking in Calgary last week might not include all fossil-fuel producers, because such producers do not technically make up a “sector.” After all, energy is a sector that includes wind, hydro, etc.
Oil and gas, of course, IS a sector. But oil is bad, and gas is good, emissions-wise. Oil and gas, therefore, is not a “sector” that will be targeted under Kyoto. It’s only the oil producers who should really worry.
Consumers, Chretien said, would bear their “fair share” of the burden of meeting the Kyoto targets.
But whether those consumers include important Liberal voting blocks, such as manufacturing-intensive Ontario, has not been delineated. I cannot imagine the Liberals compromising their Ontario power base.
I read recently that a female golfer, Suzy Whaley, had qualified for a Professional Golf Association tournament, the 2003 Greater Hartford Open, and I was elated. She was the first woman ever to qualify on an even playing field with men.
But then I read more closely, and I realized that the phrase “even playing field” had changed its definition from “field that was the same for everybody” to “a field that favours those people who have less skill.” She had played a course that was 10 per cent shorter than the one for the men.
This may be the kind of “even” distribution of burden that Chretien was referring to, of course.
That’s why we have a right to be skeptical when Chretien uses the same word.
Chretien’s liberties with language are not unique.
There is a global trend towards such political Newspeak, as George Orwell called it.
U.S. President George W. Bush thinks that “free-market” means “free money” for large industries such as steel, softwood and agriculture.
His predecessor, Bill Clinton, even argued under oath that the meanings of the word “is” are unclear.
For the last decade, Saddam Hussein has been redefining the word “unconditional.” When he granted “unconditional” arms inspections to the UN last week, he, of course, made it clear that the inspectors could not enter his many palaces, together comprising an area greater than the City of Edmonton. (I wonder where the stash might be?)
Examples of Newspeak are global and ancient. The oldest reference I can find is the biblical tale about the Tower of Babel, a story set in what is now Iraq (Babylon). It’s fitting that Saddam has carried his country’s linguistic-confusion tradition onwards and upwards.
Unfortunately for business, this worldwide inclination to redefine words to suit political ends is deeply troubling.
How can business investment go where it’s needed when we don’t know what regulations to expect? How can we elect wise, responsible leaders when we have no idea what their promises actually mean?
This uncertainty is leading to an understandable restraint in the oilpatch and manufacturing industries, especially.
A neighbour of mine, let’s call her Terri the Treehugger, was part of a focus group that one of our governments (federal, she thought) held in preparing its position on Kyoto many months ago.
Terri was asked how far she was personally prepared to go to ensure reductions in greenhouse gases. She said: “Make me. I will not do anything on my own.” (And she calls herself an environmentalist.)
But in a democracy, the electorate rules. And if people who believe in environmentalism will not do the right thing, who else is there, except an autocratic government, to simply tell people what to do and think? This scenario, unfortunately, is the logical endgame of Terri’s hypocrisy – dictatorial rule.
If that’s what “supporters” of “Kyoto” intend to “implement,” then we are in sad shape indeed, and any business that banks on Kyoto’s current popularity persisting through the necessary austerity measures, such as tax hikes and utility increases, is going to be sorely disappointed.
The “Kyoto” accord “is” in the “hands” of “democrats” questionably “committed” to their “cause.”
