Canada's Environment Minister Warns of Danger of Climate Change

Peter Kent in 1984, before he got sucked into the bubble, that facts can't penetrate.

Kyoto Now Officially Dead

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations" - Stephen Harper

From Stephen Harper to Jack Layton, the Kyoto Protocol never really had a chance.

The Canadian taxpayer has spent millions of dollars so that the Harper government could deny that global warming was real.

And Peter Kent's posturing with the tar sands is only because they have not done enough PR to change public opinion.

Finally, at this year's G-8, Canada has officially pulled out.

We were never really in.

Since When Did the Conservatives Have Cap and Trade on the Table?

I just love this headline: Tories take cap-and-trade system ‘off the table’

When did the Conservatives ever have any environmental plan on the table? Not one in five years.

They only suggested they'd do whatever the Americans were going to do. It bought them time and the media sang their glory.

Ignoring Climate Change Will Not Make it Go Away

British environmental activist and author, George Monbiot, gives Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a place of honour in his book Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning

Thanks to the efforts of Mr Harper and your environment minister, Rona Ambrose, Canada's global reputation is now beginning to catch up with its performance. When they say that Canada cannot reach its Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they mean that they do not intend to try. Their surrender within the first few months in office is an astonishing instance of political cowardice. Having presented himself to the Canadian people as a man who can make tough choices, Harper declared himself an irresolute wimp as soon as he was faced with a choice between upsetting a few industrial lobbyists or helping to save the planet. Keeping Canada's promise to cut emissions by 6%, he says, is just too hard. When I first heard that, I couldn't help bursting into bitter laughter. (1)

Stephen Harper didn't try because he doesn't believe in the science of climate change. In fact he doesn't believe in science at all. How else could you explain his appointment of a creationist to the science portfolio?

But denying climate change doesn't mean that it will just correct itself.

The image at the top of the page is from a billboard going into the climate change summit in Copenhagen in 2009. The world was taking notice and the world was not impressed. And in Copenhagen we won not only many Colossal Fossil awards of the day, but ran off with the top prize. The Colossal Fossil of the summit.



And not simply because of our inaction on climate change, but because Harper tried to sabotage the negotiations.

And in an attempt to rescue our reputation, the prime minister ... well ... did nothing. In fact he missed most of the conference, instead arriving with wealthy oil execs to have lunch with the Queen of Denmark.

And when he was reminded that smaller nations were being devastated by global warming, he made one of the most shocking statements ever to come out of a world leader, let alone a Canadian pm:

"This may be a shock," Harper said last month in the House of Commons, "but the negotiators Canada assigns to international negotiations (like Copenhagen) are there to represent the interests of Canada, not the interests of Mali."

With that statement he painted Canadians as cold and heartless.

We are a nation now being defined by the Tar Sands. And it is giving not only Canada but Alberta a black eye.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has often referred to Canada as an emerging "energy superpower" due largely to the development of the Alberta oil sands. But what has been the long-term legacy of fossil fuel development in Alberta -- the epicenter of the Canadian conservative movement and Harper's political powerbase?

Deficits, foolish giveaways to corporations at the expense of taxpayers, and environmental "carnage" without funds to fix it, according to Allan Warrack, a former minister in the Alberta government who nearly 40 years ago helped craft the province's plan for saving and intelligently investing its oil wealth.

And putting his entire focus on the Alberta oil patch has been misguided at best. Goldman Sachs is now warning their clients not to invest in Canada:

A Goldman Sachs strategist has told investors that it is time to dump their Canadian stocks, so they can avoid suffering losses in the short term as oil prices decline.Noah Weisberger told investors Tuesday that Canadian stocks "made new highs last week, even as growth jitters and higher energy prices were constraining equity markets elsewhere."

But he advised Goldman Sachs clients to drop their Canadian holdings as "risks to the forward view of economic growth are more balanced as are the risks to oil prices."

And Harper's pipeline plans will flow all the good jobs South, even though apparently they don't want them.

And his entire environmental platform is a fraud. It's why he appointed fraudster Bruce Carson to write copy for the Tar Sands and their so-called "ethical oil".

George Monbiot wrote a piece for the UK Guardian: Canada's image lies in tatters. It is now to climate what Japan is to whaling. In it he says of Canada:

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Kate Heartfield wrote last week for the Ottawa Citizen: John Baird rewrites history In it she calls out Baird for his flip-flop on cap-and-trade.

In her closing statement she says: "Granted, the Liberals have changed their carbon-pricing policy too since the last election (from the tax shift in 2008 to cap and trade now) but at least they're being honest about it."

The Liberals were left with no alternative. Stephen Harper, with the help of Jack Layton, made "carbon tax" akin to poison. Which is sad because a carbon tax is a much better initiative.

It is open, transparent and can be made revenue neutral, which is exactly what the Green Shift was. But sadly, in 2008, both the Conservatives and NDP campaigned against it, as a "tax on everything".

It helped them politically but greatly damaged our chance at reversing the trend.

Now the media is giving the Conservatives a free pass on the environment, simply because they are claiming they will do what Obama does, knowing full well that the Tea Party/Republicans are severely tying his hands.

One of the budget measures they insisted on was the gutting of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, mimicking our own government's gutting of environmental protection, under the guise of removing red tape.

It's fitting that Monbiot referred to the Harper government as "a chimpanzee's tea party". The Canadian version of the Koch Brothers Tea Party.

You do the math.

And when you're done make sure you vote on May 2, and vote wisely. Our reputation depends on it.

Sources:

1. Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, By George Monbiot, 2006, Random House, ISBN: 13-978-0-385-66221-5

Stephen Harper's New Environmental Plan is to Keep Canadians in Stitches

The Globe ran a story today under the headline 'Lower Churchill Project a 'Big Chance' to make climate gains, Harper says.' The comments make better reading than the story, which is difficult to read with tears in your eyes from laughing at the notion of Harper caring about the environment. Too hypocritical for words.

They've since change the heading but you can still see it in the address. It's now Harper wooing Newfoundland ‘with Quebeckers’ money’.

You can read the article if you want, but the best reading is in the comments.

Pierrio: "So climate exists in Newfoundland where hydroelectricity is produced, but not so in the Alberta tar sands. Ain't that convenient."

Sunnyfish: "So Harper believes in Climate Change now? What is going on? Next I am expecting him to concede that the world isn't 6000 years old. Nah, his head would probably spin around and that makes for a poor image."

Merkin: "Harper and climate change! hahahahahahahahahaha. I'm convinced he's listening to the voices in his head now."

Thay_T: "Well we know a promise from The Right Honourable Prime Minister is as good as his word. Oh.... about those Income Trusts........ Before he takes on climate change, I think it's up to Canadians to deal with changing the climate in Ottawa".

BCFORME: "Listening to Harper preach about climate change is like listening to Joseph Stalin lecture about human rights.".

Toronto Elite: "Harper's legacy. Another day another lie.".

Free Me: "Harper talking about Climate Gains. I giggled. A lot."

Gs5: "Harper's Policy Platform: coalition,.... Coalition,..... Coalition,.......Coalition..........."

King Buzzo the First: "For the past 30 months, the Harper Gov. met 1100 times (!) with big oil lobbyists. Yes he cares about the environment, don't worry."

We win two colossal fossil awards for sabotaging climate change negotiations and now he's concerned about the environment. What a joke. The new heading only flames Western-Quebec rivalries. Good job Globe and Mail.

Stephen Harper is Cutting Environmental Spending by 60%

I suppose given that the Harper government continues to spend money on environmental issues, while doing absolutely nothing to address global warming, they might as well just close the department down.

Taxpayers are funding their travel and social events, and getting nothing in exchange.

Clearly Peter Kent was brought on board to simply dismantle the ministry of the environment. They have removed all environmental protection, allowed mining companies to dump toxic sludge into our lakes and rivers, and are still giving the oil sands $1.4 billion a year to create an environmental disaster.

The Harper government is projecting some major cuts over the next year to several of its environmental initiatives, including climate change and clean air, according to newly released federal estimates. The numbers, released Tuesday by the Treasury Board Secretariat, show a 59 per cent cut in global-warming and air-pollution spending as part of more than $1.6 billion in annual, government wide reductions to environmental services across the different federal departments.

Horrible. Absolutely horrible.

Canada's Environmental Policies and Saving the Planet

Exxon, the world's richest and mightiest corporation, was the leading force behind a massive ten-year campaign to block the Kyoto accord and ensure the world remained hooked on the product that Exxon has made its fortune selling. This was no easy battle, even for Exxon.

Lined up against it was virtually the entire scientific world—and, for that matter, most of the world community. In the end, not even Exxon was able to block the signing of the historic Kyoto Protocol, as the world came together in 1997 in a far-reaching bid to shake our planet-endangering oil addiction.

But Exxon did score one huge victory in March 2001, when the newly elected administration of George W Bush and Dick Cheney, close Exxon allies, withdrew U.S. support for Kyoto. The withdrawal of the United States, which emits roughly one quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, was a devastating blow. Still, the world community has pressed on with Kyoto.

Into this titanic, ongoing struggle between the world community and the Bush-Cheney-Exxon axis of oil, Canada has now definitively entered—on the side of the oil interests.

With the release of the Harper government's so-called Clean Air Act in October 2006, Ottawa signalled its abandonment of Kyoto. This amounted to a repudiation of the only serious effort under way to tackle global warming. (HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 22)

So there you have it. The world will never reach an agreement on global warming, when the oil companies hold all the power and the purse strings.

It's no secret that Stephen Harper's float to power was down a stream of crude, or that he has significant links to Exxon himself. His father was an executive at Imperial Oil, a subsidiary of Exxon; and it was at his father's company that Harper held his only real job, before entering the political arena. (the National Citizens Coalition is a right-wing political lobby group, so that's not a real job either)

It's also no secret that our current dictator does not believe in the science of global warming, calling it a theory; and in fact has referred to the Kyoto Accord as a 'socialist plot'.

Now don't get me wrong. The Liberals before him, though helping to create the Kyoto Protocol, allowed greenhouse gases to rise under their watch. But as former environment minister Stephane Dion told the San Francisco Chronicle in May 2005, "There is no minister of the environment on earth who can stop this [oil sands development] from going forward because there is too much money in it."

It presents a problem for Canada, but should not sway our opinion of the tar sands. Unless we can legitimately clean them up, and and I don't see how we can, we have to start moving toward a green economy, and losing our dependency on oil. It's that simple.

In an attempt to organize my archived and future posts, I'm using this page to link to environmental stories, by categories. Further links will be available as you navigate the pages. Just be patient ... I'm working as quickly as I can.

Climate Change

Climate Change Denial

Copenhagen

Reformers Environmental Disaster

Climategate Exposed! What is the Real Problem Here?

The hacked email story has taken on a life of it's own and you know when brilliant minds like James Inhofe and Glen Beck get involved, there has to be something to it, right?

Conspiracy theories abound and deniers are saying "I told you so". But who is right?

Global warming is definitely a threat. We've seen the hard evidence. But the debate now seems to be whether or not it is man made or a natural phenomenon. Many are demanding that no tax dollars go into fighting something that can't be fought. But what if they're wrong?

The video shown on this post presents the matter very well and is worth revisiting, but maybe I can put this another way.

I personally believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have nothing to do with fighting terrorism. As deniers are now suggesting that we look at who is benefiting from the money going into the 'climate change industry', it's not too difficult to determine who is benefiting from these wars. (Ironically many of the same people who benefit from denying the effects of carbon on the planet).

My theory is substantiated by former CIA agents and others, including the diplomat Matthew Hoh, who resigned after realizing that there was no rebuilding going on in Afghanistan, and that the whole thing was a farce. There also seems to be some very compelling evidence that Bin Laden has been dead for seven years, and that the Taliban are a very small group of dissidents, who have actually been empowered since the invasion.

And lets not forget the growing mountain of "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job. Or that Al Quaeda is a fictional army, named after a computer from the 60's. I'll bet there are many emails floating around in cyberspace from the Pentagon and US state department that pose many questions about the 'proof'.

Now I might have a heated argument with someone, where I lay out my claims, at the end of which, I might be asked 'but what if you're wrong'? What if we did nothing and there was a terrorist attack on the US or Canada that made 9/11 seem like a dry run?

Now let's look at this from an another angle. What is the worst that could happen if we move away from fossil fuels toward a green economy? We can't deny that exhaust from vehicles is affecting the environment. Childhood asthma is on the rise. So are birth defects.

We can't deny that the tar sands are destroying our Boreal forest and the waterway downstream is more toxic than originally believed.

The late Dennis Weaver once stated that there would not be peace in the Middle East until the western world gave up their addiction to oil. So this could also be a first move toward world peace.

I'm not seeing a down side.

I am not a scientist and frankly when I hear the debates about the emails my brain shuts down. One of the most damning words seems to be 'trick'. Now I know what a 'trick' is in some professions, but apparently in scientific lingo it means something else. Who knows?

I can certainly appreciate the immense pressure on climate scientists to speed up the process, since it has become such an urgent political movement. That does not mean that their research is seriously flawed, or that every climate scientist's research is flawed. I suspect we will learn a great deal more about this in the coming weeks.

But in the meantime, we have to move forward with a serious environmental agreement, that will provide necessary funds to smaller countries already impacted by the rise in temperature.

We also have to question why Stephen Harper is telling us one thing and then telling foreign reporters something completely different. And why he is putting so much of our money into climate denial instead of making a binding commitment to the environment.

However, environmental activist Richard Graves, brings up another important aspect of this scandal. Espionage and criminal activity.

Climate-Gate Is Watergate Redux
The Huffington Post
December 8, 2009

Some environmental leaders have been working to minimize the scandal of ClimateGate, by focusing on the fact the hacked email archive of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit has nothing, besides a few cherry-picked quotes taken out of context, that casts a shadow of a doubt upon validity of modern climate science. They are wrong. ClimateGate is a huge scandal, probably bigger than they even imagine.

The real scandal is not the email archive, or even how it was acquired, sorted, and uploaded to a Russian server, but rather the emerging evidence of a coordinated international campaign to target and harass climate scientists, break and enter into government climate labs, and misrepresent climate science through a sophisticated media infrastructure on the eve of the international climate talks.

One leaked archive could have been the result of an aggrieved staff member or rogue hacker, out to grind a political axe or wreak revenge upon a colleague. However, the University of Victoria was targeted in a similar attack, when two people disguised as network computer technicians attempted to penetrate the security of the facility and access the data servers of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis. When challenged by an employee, the two individuals fled the scene.

The network penetration effort was confirmed by University spokespeople in the National Post and was reported by Kevin Grandia of DeSmogBlog.

"This is disturbing news and it shows that there is an organized criminal campaign that is going to great lengths to infiltrate secure facilities and steal private data," said Jim Hoggan, author of the new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. "We don't know who is behind these criminal acts, but we hope they will eventually be unmasked by police."

This campaign has been proved to be international in scope, with criminal acts of breaking and entering probable in both the UK and Canada, as well as coordinated with the sophisticated communications infrastructure founded and built by former tobacco lobbyists that were hired by fossil fuel interests, such as ExxonMobil, to cast doubt on the links between the sale and use of fossil fuels and the changing of the world's climate. This infrastructure was detailed by within Hoggan's book, as well as documented in extensive detail by projects like Exxonsecrets.org.

One major mistake these groups, including ClimateDepot and Newsbusters, made was in labeling this manufactured crisis as ClimateGate. Perhaps a little history is in order, as almost no news reports even referenced the fact that the Watergate scandal centered around the breaking and entering of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate hotel, by a group of right-wing shadow operatives that a subsequent investigation by the FBI connected to the 1972 Committee to Re-elect the President, CREEP.

President Nixon was exposed as having commissioned the break-in, to uncover the state of the Democratic party, as he had given into fears of electoral defeat and resorted to desperate and criminal measures. Pioneering reporters Woodward and Bernstein made history for exposing the criminal conspiracy at the heart of the White House.

Conspiracy theory has recently become mainstream within the conservative movement in the United States, with both media figures and politicians implying that President Obama falsified his birth records, is setting up death panels to euthanize seniors, or impose communism upon the people of the United States.

The two policy issues that have aroused the most conspiracy theory have been Healthcare reform and Clean Energy Reform, with hugely profitable insurance and fossil fuel companies funding massive lobbying and disinformation campaigns. The Center for Public Integrity recently detailed the massive expansion in lobbying by polluting energy interests, leading to over 1,150 lobbying groups buying influence as the U.S. Congress sought to pass the Waxman-Markey climate bill.

The actual dollar amount spent is unknown, as disclosure laws require few details and have huge loopholes, but the Center calculated that an extremely conservative estimate would give you a minimum figure of more than $27 million dollars spent in direct lobbying from April to June of this year. In a major and still unfolding scandal, Bonner and Associates, an astroturf lobbying organization contracted to the coal industry's trade association, falsified letters to lawmakers from local civil rights, veterans, and other groups opposing federal climate legislation. This comes on top of the documented campaign of industrial espionage against environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, that was exposed last year by Mother Jones magazine.

The picture painted by these facts lead to the open question to if, as huge amounts of corporate money started being spent in unregulated funds, including to ethically compromised contractors and security firms, to defeat federal and international climate regulations, some of that money was diverted to fund a criminal conspiracy?

Could there be a criminal campaign to break into the climate research centers of foreign governments, review their archives for damaging snippets of text, and then elevate a fringe conspiracy theory that climate change is a hoax by the world's scientists, civil society organizations, and governments to impose socialism upon the people of the world? If so, this story would be an eerie and ironic echo of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" that was embraced by many of the same groups currently promoting the ClimateGate talking points.

However, most journalists seem content to play into the false balance trap that has served the opponents of climate action so well over the years, by looking only at cherry-picked quotes and disinformation turned out by the climate denial industry. While the surface parallels between Watergate and ClimateGate may be strong, to uncover the truth will require a serious investigation by media, law enforcement, or even international security organizations.

An investigation into who is coordinating, funding, and leading a last-ditch effort to stall climate legislation through the use of criminal tactics and a well-funded and coordinated disinformation campaign seems to be beyond the capacity of the field of journalism. An industry so critically wounded by budget and staffing cuts that it is perhaps unable or unwilling to spend the resources or staff time to tackle serious investigative issues, even if the direction of a policy critical to the future development of the global economy depends on the outcome.

If so, the question remains, who will get to the bottom of ClimateGate? This could be a scandal bigger than anybody has imagined.

Canadians Want the 'Yes' Side and Say 'No' to Harper's Inaction on Climate Change

I'm currently reading Climate Cover-Up: the Crusade to Deny Global Warming, and it has made me even more aware of the well crafted campaign to steer us away from our concern for the planet, to think only of the economy.

However, I was pleased that a recent poll concluded that we haven't been dragged completely to the dark side yet and in true Canadian spirit, we have chosen "yes" to action.

Who knows what they're going to hit us with next, but simply ignoring this is not going to make it go away, despite Stephen Harper and his Reformers.

Tories trail public on climate change: poll
By Bruce Cheadle
THE CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — Rich countries such as Canada need to commit to aggressive new targets to curb global warming, regardless of what less-developed nations do, say a majority of respondents to a new poll.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests voters may be out in front of the Conservative government when it comes to negotiating a new global treaty on climate change.

By a two-to-one margin (62-27), respondents said they believed Canada and the United States have a responsibility “to set higher and harder targets” for greenhouse-gas reductions than “fast-growing” countries such as China and India.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his ministers have consistently argued that the Kyoto Protocol was seriously flawed and that the next global agreement must include all developing nations if it is to be effective.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice was quoted this week saying he’s not optimistic that such a deal can be completed in December at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen.

“I have to take a realistic view that, given the amount of work that remains to be done, we’re running out of time,” Prentice told the Globe and Mail.

Fifty-six per cent of the more than 1,000 Canadians surveyed by Harris-Decima didn’t believe Canada’s approach to climate change is ambitious enough or aggressive enough, with 34 per cent saying it was about right and seven per cent saying it was too ambitious.

Pollster Doug Anderson suggested Friday the Conservative climate-change argument has been heard by Canadians, and rejected.

“I think (the poll) is Canadians trying to send a message themselves,” Anderson said in an interview.

Almost three-quarters of respondents said the current focus on the environment is not going far enough.

Environmental polls have been influenced by strong emotions for years now, said Anderson: “One of the emotions we hear from people is that this is such a serious issue that we really want to see action.”

That emotion, added the pollster, can drive opinion responses that “aren’t totally rational.”

Canada, the United States and Australia are among developed nations who want to ensure the next climate-change treaty leverages global buy-in — and a global effort is broadly endorsed by Canadians, Anderson argues.

But the poll found that a strong majority of respondents in every region except Alberta endorsed the notion of developed countries doing more, rather than waiting to commit “until fast-growing countries like India and China do the same.”

Albertans were evenly split on the question, while self-identified Conservative supporters only marginally favoured early Canadian action.

In terms of influencing government support, Anderson said the environment remains high on Canadians’ priority list but has been superseded by economic concerns.

“Right now I don’t think environment is the issue that necessarily makes (voters) say ‘that’s why I think these people should be running the place.”’

He doesn’t see the Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen summit as a make-or-break time for the Harper government. “I think Copenhagen is probably going to refocus attention,” said the pollster.

The telephone survey, conducted Oct. 15-19, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times in 20.

We Need to Listen to Our Youth. It is Their Planet We're Destroying

This video should be a wake-up call for the adults in this country. It is not our planet we're destroying, it's theirs, and to suggest we postpone action on climate change until we are in a better economic position, is a horrible way to look at this. We can always get more money. We can't get another planet.

Earlier in the week, we saw 'flash mob' protests when Parliament was sitting, and the news of the day was whether or not Jack Layton and the NDP were behind them, since the leader of the group is a known NDP activist.

I myself posted on this, but my anger was not at the protesters, but the hypocrisy, if indeed he was. The NDP bill designed to hold the government's feet to fire on global warming, is a step in the right direction. However, a better step would have been for Mr. Layton to support the Green Shift, or at least not campaign against the Carbon Tax for political gain.

He has since admitted that it was wrong for him to have done that, but the Reformers have made the 'Carbon Tax' out to be public enemy number one, so there's no going back now.

Liberal MP Glen Pearson summed up the situation very well:

"What transpired yesterday is something of an indicator as to what Parliament and the country itself has come to. Protesters felt the need to invade a sacred place; parliamentarians looked uncomfortable and somewhat unmoved; and the media raced out into the halls to grab their pictures and stories of young people being muscled out of the Parliament buildings.

"We’re better than this – all of us. The bill itself was asking us to treat climate change seriously. We haven’t and we’ll pay for it in world opinion at Copenhagen, not to mention global devastation. The difficult things we will face in our future – environmental degradation, terrorism, starvation, poverty – demand outrage, attention and a sense of urgency. Parliament can’t muster up that kind of anger, except to lob our partisan attacks.

So, these young people brought it into our own ballpark, trying to give us a wake-up call."

I'm not so sure that the bill being passed will make much of a difference. In Harper's world, global warming is a 'theory', so he'll probably just do what he wants anyway. I agree with Mr. Pearson. Something is better than nothing and we need to listen to our youth.

As a blogger I received an advance copy of a new book Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming, by James Hoggan. It's not really based on the science, but the PR campaigns to discredit the science, and the money behind them.

I started reading it yesterday, and while I was well aware of the 'climate change denier' movement, I had no idea just how organized and brutal they were.

I will be sharing revelations from the book in several posts. We need to pay attention and not get sucked into these false claims, because when you follow the money, it becomes clear that they are being funded by those who stand the most to lose by action.

However, we stand the most to lose by inaction.