Preston Manning claims the economy is the big issue and urges Canadians to vote for Stephen Harper, the leader Manning feels is the one best able to pilot our “ship of state” during this stormy time. [1] Mr. Manning should take some Gravol. At election time, we’re always told the economy is the issue.
This time around, no matter what happens with the markets, the environment is the big issue. And on this matter, Mr. Harper is the last person we want at the helm. He’ll sink us with his aspirational, intensity based polices. On October 14 there is only one question for Canadians: carbon tax or cap and trade? For me, it’s a carbon tax.
[1] The Globe and Mail, October 6, 2008
October 10, 2008
September 30, 2008
Election Issues
On the subject of the environment, many of the best minds on the issue are calling for a war like response. Mr. Harper on the other hand prefers the misguided approach: decreasing the tax on jet fuel and diesel is his latest offering.
He is obviously playing to the numbers. The environment has fallen to a distant third as an election issue, pushed back most recently by the economy, which has been stumbling of late due to the sub-prime debacle in the United States (“Economy on minds of most voters, not the environment,” The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 22).
As a consequence, Mr. Harper assumes – and with reason – that the average voter would rather put off any meaningful action on the environment. But postponing action on the environment because of the economy is like postponing fundamental repairs to a house because the SUV needs a tune up.
We need to reconsider the environment. This issue, too, threatens to blow up in our face, and if it does it’ll make the sub-prime mess look like an air bubble.
Emission Rates
There’s no denying that Canada’s per annum rate of CO2 emissions as percentage of the world’s seems insignificant, but to use this figure to justify inaction on the environment or as reason to absolve ourselves of responsibility is ludicrous (“We’re powerless to help”, Letters, The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 24).
According to Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions (the amount a nation has emitted over time), not to current emission rates. On this scale the United States ranks number 1.
When examined on a cumulative per capita basis (the amount a nation has emitted per capita over time), of the eight nations with the largest total emissions, the UK ranks first at about 330 tons of carbon per person, the US second at 310 and Germany third at 280. What will surprise many people is that Canada ranks fourth with 210 tons of carbon per person, seven times that of China, which comes in seventh with about 30 tons per person.
Clearly we have a responsibility on this issue, and unless we do our part, we’re in no position to convince anyone else to do theirs.
According to Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions (the amount a nation has emitted over time), not to current emission rates. On this scale the United States ranks number 1.
When examined on a cumulative per capita basis (the amount a nation has emitted per capita over time), of the eight nations with the largest total emissions, the UK ranks first at about 330 tons of carbon per person, the US second at 310 and Germany third at 280. What will surprise many people is that Canada ranks fourth with 210 tons of carbon per person, seven times that of China, which comes in seventh with about 30 tons per person.
Clearly we have a responsibility on this issue, and unless we do our part, we’re in no position to convince anyone else to do theirs.
September 24, 2008
Sounding Alarms
In a recent column Paula Simons sounds the alarm over a U.S. law prohibiting any federal agency from buying synthetic fuel from non-conventional sources (“Alberta blindsided by U.S. fuel law,” The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 16). The alarm should indeed be sounded, but not for this piece of legislation. In a much broader context, a more worrisome notion has started to work its way into the fossil fuel debate.
Anyone who read past the headline of Tuesday’s front page story on the tar sands must have stopped for a moment to ponder the implications of a statement attributed to Paul Monaghan, head of sustainability and social goals at Co-operative Asset Management, a UK investment house specializing in ethical funds: “The worry is that, within five years, [climate change] will be unstoppable.” (Oilsands under fire in U.K., The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 15.)
This statement undoubtedly stems from comments made by Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the scientist who first alerted the general public about global warming in a landmark appearance before the US congress more than 20 years ago.
From a 2006 article in The London Independent: “We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” (1)
From 2006 article posted on his website: “We are near a tipping point, a point of no return, beyond which the built in momentum and feedbacks will carry us to levels of climate change with staggering consequences for humanity and all of the residents of this planet.” (2)
At a climate change conference in California, November 2006: “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most.” (3)
And in June of this year, to mark the 20th anniversary of his testimony to Congress: “The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide . . . to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.” (4)
For our part, this election we’re in could very well be the last opportunity we’ll have to stop runaway climate change, In which case the only real choice is this: a carbon tax, a cap and trade, or both. With all due respect to our Prime Minister, aspirational, intensity-based targets just won’t cut it.
1. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-on-the-edge-466818.html
2. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2006/NewSchool_20060210.pdf
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/
4. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Anyone who read past the headline of Tuesday’s front page story on the tar sands must have stopped for a moment to ponder the implications of a statement attributed to Paul Monaghan, head of sustainability and social goals at Co-operative Asset Management, a UK investment house specializing in ethical funds: “The worry is that, within five years, [climate change] will be unstoppable.” (Oilsands under fire in U.K., The Edmonton Journal, Sept. 15.)
This statement undoubtedly stems from comments made by Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the scientist who first alerted the general public about global warming in a landmark appearance before the US congress more than 20 years ago.
From a 2006 article in The London Independent: “We have to stabilise emissions of carbon dioxide within a decade, or temperatures will warm by more than one degree. That will be warmer than it has been for half a million years, and many things could become unstoppable.” (1)
From 2006 article posted on his website: “We are near a tipping point, a point of no return, beyond which the built in momentum and feedbacks will carry us to levels of climate change with staggering consequences for humanity and all of the residents of this planet.” (2)
At a climate change conference in California, November 2006: “I think we have a very brief window of opportunity to deal with climate change ... no longer than a decade, at the most.” (3)
And in June of this year, to mark the 20th anniversary of his testimony to Congress: “The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation. Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide . . . to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.” (4)
For our part, this election we’re in could very well be the last opportunity we’ll have to stop runaway climate change, In which case the only real choice is this: a carbon tax, a cap and trade, or both. With all due respect to our Prime Minister, aspirational, intensity-based targets just won’t cut it.
1. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-on-the-edge-466818.html
2. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2006/NewSchool_20060210.pdf
3. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/
4. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
July 12, 2008
The Blame Shift
Judging by his comments at the G8 Summit, Prime Minister Harper’s green plan also involves a shift. I would call it the Blame Shift. According to Mr. Harper, in the coming years the developing countries will account for the overwhelming majority of the world’s GHG emissions. In making this statement, Mr. Harper would have us believe that the developing countries would then have to accept the overwhelming responsibility for the problem.
Wrong.
According to Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions (the amount a nation has emitted over time), not to current emission rates. “Despite rapid growth of emissions from China,” says Hansen, “the United States will continue to be the nation most responsible for climate change for at least the next few decades.” (See http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080528_KaineAndPawlenty.pdf.)
When examined on a cumulative per capita basis (the amount a nation has emitted per capita over time) the United States fares a little better. On this scale, of the eight nations with the largest total emissions, the UK ranks first at about 330 tons of carbon per person, the US second at 310 and Germany third at 280. What will surprise many people is that Canada ranks fourth with 210 tons of carbon per person, seven times that of China, which comes in seventh with about 30 tons per person.
Clearly, we have a responsibility to accept. But instead of accepting this responsibility Prime Minister Harper prefers to shift the blame. Mr. Harper should abandon this approach, accept our responsibility and take aggressive action on this climate change.
Wrong.
According to Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the responsibility for global warming is proportional to cumulative CO2 emissions (the amount a nation has emitted over time), not to current emission rates. “Despite rapid growth of emissions from China,” says Hansen, “the United States will continue to be the nation most responsible for climate change for at least the next few decades.” (See http://columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080528_KaineAndPawlenty.pdf.)
When examined on a cumulative per capita basis (the amount a nation has emitted per capita over time) the United States fares a little better. On this scale, of the eight nations with the largest total emissions, the UK ranks first at about 330 tons of carbon per person, the US second at 310 and Germany third at 280. What will surprise many people is that Canada ranks fourth with 210 tons of carbon per person, seven times that of China, which comes in seventh with about 30 tons per person.
Clearly, we have a responsibility to accept. But instead of accepting this responsibility Prime Minister Harper prefers to shift the blame. Mr. Harper should abandon this approach, accept our responsibility and take aggressive action on this climate change.
June 27, 2008
If not a carbon tax . . .
The rise in gas prices may be prompting many consumers to seek out lower-energy alternatives, but this is no reason to claim that the market works when it comes to fighting global warming.
The market is only doing what the market always does: respond to supply and demand. What the market never takes into account are the indirect costs of gas and oil consumption. In Plan B 3.0 Lester Brown says that the prices of gas ignores the costs of climate change, the tax subsidies the oil industry receives, the health care costs for treating oil related illnesses and the cost of protecting our access to oil (think fifth fleet in the Arabian Gulf and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Citing a study by the International Center for Technology Brown says that these costs now total $12 US dollars per gallon ($3.17 per litre) of gasoline burned in the United States.
If not a carbon tax then let’s at least see the true cost reflected in the price of gas and oil.
The market is only doing what the market always does: respond to supply and demand. What the market never takes into account are the indirect costs of gas and oil consumption. In Plan B 3.0 Lester Brown says that the prices of gas ignores the costs of climate change, the tax subsidies the oil industry receives, the health care costs for treating oil related illnesses and the cost of protecting our access to oil (think fifth fleet in the Arabian Gulf and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Citing a study by the International Center for Technology Brown says that these costs now total $12 US dollars per gallon ($3.17 per litre) of gasoline burned in the United States.
If not a carbon tax then let’s at least see the true cost reflected in the price of gas and oil.
June 9, 2008
Global warming hotly debated?
Recently the Edmonton Journal ran a number of letters under the banner “Global warming still hotly debated” (The Journal, May 29). Two of the letter writers dismissed the assessment reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Allan Lariviere from Fox Creek claimed that the panel “has been debunked by high profile climatologists around the world,” but failed to name any. And Peter Milot from Edmonton citing no one in particular claimed that the reports are one sided and that many former IPCC lead authors are now in the denier camp.
To brush the IPCC off as dismissively as Lariviere and Milot have done takes a lot of temerity. In my estimation what the IPCC says about global warming and climate change commands lot of weight in the scientific community. Science, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is perhaps the most respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in the world. In February 2007 the AAAS board of directors issued a statement on climate change: “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” In their concluding statement the AAAS says “the conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change...” (1)
On matters of science it would be very difficult to find an organization more authoritative than the AAAS. If Lariviere and Milot -- and for that matter Lorne Gunter and Don Martin, the two Canwest columnists that triggered this discussion -- believe that the question of whether global warming is occurring or not is still being debated then I challenge them to support their claim by citing a scientific organization as authoritative as the AAAS.
In support of his claim that the debate about global warming is still raging, another writer to The Journal, Robert Sakovich of Whitecourt, cited the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change. Readers interested in finding out more about the this conference should take a look at “What if you held a conference, and no (real ) scientists came?” posted 30 January 2008 at realclimate.org. There they’ll discover that the conference, sponsored by the Heartland Institute (a “front group for the fossil fuel industry sponsoring the conference,” according to RealClimate) was intended, as they said in their invitation letter, “to generate media attention to the fact that many scientists believe [global warming is] not supported by sound science.” In other words the emphasis at the conference was about media and not science. (2)
To further support his claim Sakovich cited the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine Petition Project “. . . 31,000 signatories so far. That is 31,000 scientists – 9,000 of them with doctorates,” says Sakovich. But some people don’t share Sakovich’s enthusiasm. “‘Perry S. Mason’ (the fictitious lawyer?), ‘Michael J. Fox’ (the actor?), ‘Robert C. Byrd’ (the senator?), ‘John C. Grisham’ (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed ‘Dr. Geri Halliwell’ and ‘Dr. Halliwell.’” (3) Real Climate had something to say about the Petition Project as well, and the title of their posting sums it up quite nicely. “The Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey.” (4)
Who’s RealClimate? One of the top 10 environment web sites according to the Guardian. (5) At Time.com Eric Roston writes, “An assembly of climate researchers gives readers what’s lacking virtually everywhere else – straightforward presentation of the physical evidence for global warming, discussed with patience, precision and rigor.” (6)
In closing, global warming may be hotly debated in the Opinion and Letters pages of The Edmonton Journal, but in the scientific community the debate has as much life as a duck that’s landed on a tar sands tailings pond.
References
1. AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change. http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
2. Realclimate.org, January 30, 2008. What if you held a conference , and no (real) scientists came?http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/
3. H. Joseph Hebert, May 1, 1998. Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition. The Seattle Times. http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug=2748308
4. Realclimate.org, October 10, 2007. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/
5. Hillary Osborne, August 9, 2007. Top 10 green websites. Guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/aug/09/environment
6. Eric Roston. Green Websites. Time.com. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731034_1732032,00.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)