SUN COLUMN: Celebs like Vettel deserve more climate pushback

Sebastian Vettel

 

Celebrities say the dumbest things, particularly about climate change.

So why don’t they face more pushback?

The most recent example of climate ignorance, hypocrisy, whatever you want to call it comes from Sebastian Vettel, a German F1 driver (backed by billionaire Montreal businessman Lawrence Stroll) who recently came to Montreal for an F1 race. Vettel caused a stir when he showed up wearing a “Stop Mining Tar Sands … Canada’s Climate Crime” t-shirt – a reference to Alberta’s oil sands.

But hold on just a moment.

Vettel is from Germany and currently lives in a mansion in Switzerland. Both countries rely heavily on Russia for oil and natural gas. The people of Ukraine know all too well what Russia does with the money it receives from Germany and Switzerland.

Then there’s Vettel’s profession – he drives a gas guzzling race car for a living. His whole life is built around burning oil and gas for fun.

According to Formula 1, the sport contributes 256,000 tonnes of CO2 each racing season. F1 has committed to become “net zero” but so have Canadian oil sands companies. In fact, emissions per barrel from Alberta’s oil sands are already down 20 per cent over the past decade. So, why does Vettel think it’s ok for his employer to work towards reducing emissions, but other companies shouldn’t have that same opportunity?

If you plug in this year’s Formula 1 racing schedule into carbonfootprint.com, you’ll find Vettel’s work flights alone are about 69 tons of CO2. For perspective, that’s about 17 times what Statistics Canada calculated the average Canadian emitted in 2018.

Vettel’s emissions go well beyond his race car and flights. According to HotCars.com, Vettel also owns a “Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG, Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG, a Mini Countryman, Infiniti FX, Renault Megane RS RB8, Fiat 500 and a BMW Z8 Roadster” – plus five motorcycles.

Finally, his race team is sponsored by Saudi Aramco – Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil company. Yes, in Vettel’s head Saudi oil is somehow ok, yet Canadian oil is a “crime.” Let’s not forget, Saudi Arabia only recently allowed women to drive. It’s also the same country where homosexuality can be punished by death. Gulf News reported in 2014 that a Saudi man was sentenced to 450 lashes for trying to use Twitter to meet up with another man. The country even seizes products with rainbows on them. If Vettel wants to make a statement, he should tear up his Saudi Aramco sponsorship and wear his rainbow shirt during his next race in Saudi Arabia.

But Vettel is hardly alone in making ignorant comments.

Actor Mark Ruffalo, best known for his role as the Incredible Hulk, recently made headlines for opposing a natural gas pipeline project in B.C. The pipeline is supported by all 20 aboriginal communities along its route and while Ruffalo and others criticized it for environmental reasons, it is actually a positive development for the planet. Once completed, the Coastal GasLink Pipeline will transport natural gas to global markets, helping to replace coal power (which has much higher emissions).

Actor Leonardo DiCaprio is another frequent offender. The UN climate change ambassador has criticized Canada’s oil and gas sector multiple times, yet he’s often seen partying on enormous gas guzzling super yachts. On one occasion he reportedly even flew with a private jet from France to the United States to pick-up a climate change award.

Canadians should know our country is a leader when it comes to environmental protection and human rights. Writing for the Financial Post, Eric Nuttall recently noted:

“In recent months, while expanding the Trans Mountain Pipeline, Canadian taxpayers funded the moving of 100 ant hills, 150,000 frogs and other amphibians, and even “rare moss” out of harm’s way.”

Our nation is not perfect, but we’re more ethical and conscientious than most. That’s more than what can be said about foolish celebrities and the emissions they spew.

Colin Craig is the President of SecondStreet.org, a Canadian think tank. You can reach him at colin@secondstreet.org or follow him on Twitter (@colincraig1)

This column was published in Sun newspapers (Toronto, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton) on June 21, 2022.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.