Green: The colour of opportunity?
March 2007

Where do we start?  The litany of environmental issues and headlines has been overwhelming of late.  The sheer volume of environmental buzz and the fact the environment has become a new and high profile pillar of the federal government’s mandate poses a series of interesting questions.  But of most interest to us are two related questions: why has the environment taken on such a life of its own and why haven’t all levels of government – the federal level in particular – become more creative in taking advantage of the shift in public priorities.

First, why now?  What event – or series of events – lead to the current environment hype?  To use some of Malcolm Gladwell’s language, what was the tipping point and why has the environment become so ‘sticky’ in our minds?  Al Gore? El Nino?  A backlash to rising gas prices? Photos of people playing golf in Toronto in December?  Maybe.  There’s another line of thinking, however, that speaks a bit more to humankind’s basic needs.

Before we go on, let’s make one thing clear.  We’ve done absolutely no research – quantitative or qualitative – to support our hypothesis.  It is just a theory.

So here goes.  Perhaps now we’re in a position to actually care about the environment.  That is, most of our worries and cares are largely in check.  The economy is doing well, people have jobs, the war on terror – at least on the home front – seems to be in control, fewer Canadian soldiers are coming home from Afghanistan in body bags, etc.  The point is, with a large number of our most basic needs being covered off – food, shelter, financial security, personal security – we actually have time and the inclination to think about the environmental message and to base some decisions on environmental considerations  (We’d bet a lot of money that if a recession comes our way or a terrorist sleeper cell is uncovered in Regina that the environment will lose priority in the minds of Canadians in a hurry).

So who cares?  Even if we’re correct – or partially correct - about why the environmental buzz is louder than ever, what does that have to do with the second question about why governments are not getting creative about using this to their advantage?  (And no, cabinet shuffles, environment-related announcements and roundtables with ‘environmental’ stakeholders aren’t creative; they’re just band-aid tactics.)

By creative we mean, why aren’t governments taking credit for creating a situation – addressing the population's basic needs - that allowed the environment to become front and centre?  Is there not some value in municipal, provincial and federal politicians saying “it’s because of our efforts to ensure you have jobs and are safe that we can now focus on the environment?” 

Think of it as a two for one deal.  Not only can they take credit for action on environmental issues but they can take credit for building the foundations that allowed for an environmental focus.

The current federal government hasn’t taken credit for creating the situation.  And the former government – who are probably in a more credible position to make such claims given the length of their last tenure – haven’t taken credit either.  In fact, think about the recent Tory ads that show Stephane Dion responding to Ignatieff’s criticism on the environment.  Dion is stammering about how tough it is to make decisions when he could have turned it into a positive and responded to criticisms on the environment by being creative and saying that it was his government that created the situation that has allowed the environment to take centre stage.  Opportunity lost.

Sure, it’s a tough sell.  Certainly tougher for some more than others.  But it’s also creative and a little innovative.  It’s turning a problem into a solution.