How encouraging it is to discover that members of our government are openly talking about a tax on carbon (“Senators emphasize united energy voice: Problems remain with implementing national energy tax,” The Journal, December 1, 2011).
What we pay to burn fossil fuels does not account for the damage they do to our health, landscape and climate. This is an injustice that must be remedied, and one of the best ways of doing so is with a carbon tax, providing it’s well designed and implemented.
We don’t have such a tax in Alberta.
Alberta’s carbon tax fails on two accounts. First, it’s based on emissions intensity (emissions produced per unit of product), rather than total emissions. Second, it’s applied only to facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of green house gases a year.
Under this tax scheme, all participating facilities could meet their intensity requirement, while total emissions continue rising. This would be the case, were our federal and provincial governments to succeed in their plan to triple oilsands production by 2030.
In short, Alberta’s carbon tax does not meet the fundamental requirement: reduce our green house gas emissions.
A better approach is the "fee and dividend plan" put forward by Dr. James Hansen. Under this plan, "a fee is collected at the mine or port of entry for each fossil fuel." The public doesn’t pay any tax or fee directly. They pay through the increased cost of the fossil fuels they burn.
But here’s the kicker. All the money collected is distributed equally among the citizens. Canadians that burn less fuel receive more money than they pay out for the added costs, while those that burn more receive less than they pay out. As the fee rises, there's an even greater incentive to reduce carbon emissions.
On a national scale, the Hansen plan is the one worth adopting
December 30, 2011
All is fair, without a carbon tax
According to Graham Thomson, “You could argue it's unfair to focus so much on the oilsands when we produce more carbon dioxide through burning coal and collectively driving our cars and trucks.” (See “Ms. Redford goes to Washington,” The Edmonton Journal, Nov. 8.)
You could argue this point, but I wouldn’t. This is not an either-or situation. This year, in addition to the Keystone XL protests, we have seen fracking protests, coal plant protests, tar sands protests, and general, all purpose, action on climate change protests.
As well we should.
What we pay for the fossil fuels we burn does not take into account the damage they do to our health, the environment and the climate, and until we ledger the cost of these externalities we need to protest the escalating use of any and all fossil fuels.
The science demands it.
You could argue this point, but I wouldn’t. This is not an either-or situation. This year, in addition to the Keystone XL protests, we have seen fracking protests, coal plant protests, tar sands protests, and general, all purpose, action on climate change protests.
As well we should.
What we pay for the fossil fuels we burn does not take into account the damage they do to our health, the environment and the climate, and until we ledger the cost of these externalities we need to protest the escalating use of any and all fossil fuels.
The science demands it.
October 14, 2011
On ethical oil
According to Kathryn Marshall, oil from Canada is ethical, because here in Canada we promote peace and social justice and uphold human rights, whereas Middle Eastern oil is unethical, because it fuels misery, repression and bloodshed. (See “Suzuki’s moral relativism on ethics of oil doesn’t stand up,” The Edmonton Journal, October 13, 2011.)
But Marshall is only skimming the surface. Were she to drill a little further, she’d find that we too, by her standards, are fuelling some misery, repression and bloodshed.
Many oil sands producers work in the OPEC nations; for example, Nexen in Yemen, Suncor in Libya, Total in Burma, Shell in Nigeria and China National in the Sudan to cite a few.[1][ 2] That would mean they’re producing unethical oil. So why isn’t Marshall railing against these companies in her “ethical oil cause?” At the very least she should explain how it is that what they produce here in Canada is ethical and what they produce there is unethical.
Bitumen won’t budge in pipelines without diluents, the most common of which is condensate.[3] To meet much of their future requirements, oil sands producers will have to import their condensate from the Middle East.[4] Imagine that! Ethical and unethical oils together in the same pipeline.
And where is Marshall’s denunciation of Eastern Canada? Surely she’s aware that most of their oil is unethical in that it comes from Algeria, Venezuela, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. [5] [6]
Clearly Marshall doesn’t give a hoot about ethics in the oil industry. For her this is simply an argument of convenience, one that she spouts only to push more oil for those she is beholden to. Says Marshall, “… the fact of the matter is that we’re going to be stuck with fossil fuels for some time yet.” That may be the case, but the reality is that we should be doing everything in our power to move away from them.
In a recent report entitled America’s Climate Choices, the National Academy of Sciences—think of them as the U.S. Supreme Court of Science—put forward as its number one recommendation that the U.S. “should reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the coming decades.” In their 135 page report, they do mention ethics: ethical impediments, challenges, obligations, issues and judgements.
But they say nothing about ethical oil.
[1] The bulk of my argument comes from an option piece in The Tyee, http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/
[2] China National is noted as a major offender at Investors against Genocide, http://investorsagainstgenocide.net/problemcompanies
[3] http://www.cstc.bc.ca/downloads/Condensate%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
[4] http://www.northerngateway.ca/files/application/Master_Vol%202_Final_11May10.pdf
[5] http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/
[6] http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/energy_strategy/Canadian_oil.html
[7] http://americasclimatechoices.org/
But Marshall is only skimming the surface. Were she to drill a little further, she’d find that we too, by her standards, are fuelling some misery, repression and bloodshed.
Many oil sands producers work in the OPEC nations; for example, Nexen in Yemen, Suncor in Libya, Total in Burma, Shell in Nigeria and China National in the Sudan to cite a few.[1][ 2] That would mean they’re producing unethical oil. So why isn’t Marshall railing against these companies in her “ethical oil cause?” At the very least she should explain how it is that what they produce here in Canada is ethical and what they produce there is unethical.
Bitumen won’t budge in pipelines without diluents, the most common of which is condensate.[3] To meet much of their future requirements, oil sands producers will have to import their condensate from the Middle East.[4] Imagine that! Ethical and unethical oils together in the same pipeline.
And where is Marshall’s denunciation of Eastern Canada? Surely she’s aware that most of their oil is unethical in that it comes from Algeria, Venezuela, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. [5] [6]
Clearly Marshall doesn’t give a hoot about ethics in the oil industry. For her this is simply an argument of convenience, one that she spouts only to push more oil for those she is beholden to. Says Marshall, “… the fact of the matter is that we’re going to be stuck with fossil fuels for some time yet.” That may be the case, but the reality is that we should be doing everything in our power to move away from them.
In a recent report entitled America’s Climate Choices, the National Academy of Sciences—think of them as the U.S. Supreme Court of Science—put forward as its number one recommendation that the U.S. “should reduce greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the coming decades.” In their 135 page report, they do mention ethics: ethical impediments, challenges, obligations, issues and judgements.
But they say nothing about ethical oil.
[1] The bulk of my argument comes from an option piece in The Tyee, http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/
[2] China National is noted as a major offender at Investors against Genocide, http://investorsagainstgenocide.net/problemcompanies
[3] http://www.cstc.bc.ca/downloads/Condensate%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
[4] http://www.northerngateway.ca/files/application/Master_Vol%202_Final_11May10.pdf
[5] http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/09/29/Ethical-Oil-Falsehoods/
[6] http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/energy_strategy/Canadian_oil.html
[7] http://americasclimatechoices.org/
October 13, 2011
A Wild Rose Unfriends me over Global Warming
I lost a Facebook friend today. That’s the first time that’s happened (that I’m aware of), but I’m sure it won’t be the last. And all because of what I said about global warming.
It all began when Edmonton businessman Don Martin, who is seeking the nomination for the Wild Rose Party in Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, posted something on Facebook saying, as I remember it, that the Wild Rose Party stands for sound science.
I say “as I remember it,” because after a number of exchanges, Don pulled the plug on our friendship, and all I get now when I click on the “See comment thread” links of our one and only Facebook conversation is “This content is currently unavailable.”
Luckily, I still had the Facebook e-mail notifications of Don’s remarks, and drafts of most of what I had written to him. Most but not all. However, a third party to our conversation, one whom Don also unfriended, agreed to forward the Facebook notifications he received of my remarks to Don.
So here we begin. Remember now, Don’s opening salvo, for me anyway, was his remark that the Wild Rose Party stands for sound science.
..........................
Peter wrote: WRP stands for sound science? I don't think so. All you have to do is read what Danielle Smith [leader of the Wild Rose Party] has to say about global warming.
Don wrote: All she has ever said is that the abscense of scientific consensus is problematic in respects to global warming. As someone who has reviewed the evidence so far, I, and many other people believe that there is a serious lack of causal data and an over-reliance on correlational evidence with minimal controls or even modeling to account for confounding variables.
Peter wrote: "The scientific debate on climate change is far from settled. There is no scientific consensus on the extent to which man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting the climate, on what the ultimate effects of warming will be, on how quickly warming will occur, and on what policy-makers should do to address it. With so much left unsettled, we need an honest and comprehensive discussion on what reasonable options we as a nation, will pursue."
Smith, Danielle. Edmonton Journal [Edmonton, Alta] 12 May 2010
Peter wrote [again): To which I would say to Ms Smith, read "America's Climate Choices," published by the National Academies of Science. Think of them as the Supreme Court of Science in the United Sates.
Don wrote: @ Peter - there are many examples of highly accalimed peer-reviewed journals and coalitions of scientists who claim that global warming is occuring and that CO2 emissions are correlated, however you have the issue of causal data not being fairly pinpointed at the expense of other potentially confounding/contributing variables. The fact that this is the case is the reason that there is still ongoing research and study in the field. If it were "settled" not that anything ever really is, people would not still be trying to tease out what these variables are. All anyone is really saying, in respects to CO2 is that it is possible that, in a model where total reductions of C02 were achieved that global temperature fluctuations could still occur and a global warming trend could still continue. Furthermore, we are not conclusively outside past trends in warming - only 500 years ago it was possible to sail directly through the Northwest Passage without icebreakers and there is some evidence that this was in fact done. The WRP is commited to ongoing debate and science and research in this area, however, policy-driven science, and research scare-tactics and alarmism to secure research funding and academic tenure is dubious. A lot more than increase in temp is correlated to CO2 will have to be observed. There is a correlation in chocolate production and increased temprature over the last 100 years. There is an increase in anything humans have done in the last 100 years and temperature. Correlational data is suprious at best and until we see fair and reliable statistical models, there is only speculation, irrespective of whatever journal or acadamy the data is collected from.
Peter wrote: Don, you need to seek out higher scientific authorities on this issue, and a good place to start would be the National Academies of Sciences. They were put together by the US Congress in 1863 with a mandate requiring the Academies to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. (Whether the US government acts on their advice is another matter.) In their latest report they say:
“The preponderance of the scientific evidence [with regards to global warming] points to human activities—especially the release of CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years or so.”
They support this finding with “numerous lines of evidence, including:”
• “The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly over the past 150 years and is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
• “The long-term rise in CO2 concentrations can be attributed primarily to the growth in human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, with deforestation and other land use and land cover changes also contributing.
• “Concentrations of other GHGs, including methane, nitrous oxide, and certain halogenated gases, have also increased as a result of human activities.
• “Both basic physical principles and sophisticated models of the Earth’s climate system definitively show that when the GHG concentrations increase, warming will occur.
• “Careful analyses of observations and model results indicate that natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun cannot explain the long-term global warming trend.”
Don, I challenge you to find a scientific group as authoritative as the NAS that refutes the evidence.
Don wrote: Appealing only to the authoritative nature of a scientific group is scientifically flawed. Top journals such as the Lancet (biomedical) come under fire all the time for stupid things that they have published, or allowed to be published, often due to the political leanings of those involved in their peer review process. Scientists look at methodology involved. Unless you are prepared to actually debate the precise details of specific studies, how they were conducted, you will find yourself outside of what scientists call 'scientific debate' and unable to debate me. There is not one suggestion or group above that you have noted that I am not aware of, the fact is, on the methods, I do not find the claims convincing, and the science more elementary and exploratory than decisive. Science, by its nature, is skeptical of "authorities" on subject matter. He with the best math and method ultimately wins. The math and methods of most climate alarmists is, frankly, rather primitive.
Peter wrote: Here’s the opening paragraph to a statement entitled “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.”
“Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.”
The signatories include:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil; Royal Society of Canada, Canada; Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; Academié des Sciences, France; Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany; Indian National Science Academy, India; Accademia dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan, Japan; Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Royal Society, United Kingdom; National Academies of Sciences, United States of America
Peter wrote (again): "Am I to understand by your reasoning that the methodology of these scientific organisations is rather "frankly, rather primitive.”
[COMMENT: This is where things went sour. My feeling is that Don failed to notice that I was quoting his remark and thought instead that I was calling him primitive. - Peter]
Don wrote: As I understand it, your retort is primitive. Cite a study, outline a method and have a debate. All you have done is appeal to the regurgitation of some authorities you've read (first or second or third or fourth hand) and are unable to discuss how a single one of your assertions was put forward. Then you call other people primitive. You haven't put anything on the table except a childish tantrum and name calling. Scientists themselves are not authorities - only their methods are. The whole purpose of the scientific method is data verification, replication, and refinement metholodolgy for further verification."
Don wrote: "Also of note, each of the above received public monies to continue to operate - are you to assume neutrality in results finding?"
......................................
And that's it. I wrote one last note to Don pointing out that it was me taking exception with him for suggesting that the NAS was a primitive alarmist organisation, but it seems he shut me down before my comment ever reached the Facebook servers.
So there you have it. My global warming discussion that cost me a Facebook friendship.
It all began when Edmonton businessman Don Martin, who is seeking the nomination for the Wild Rose Party in Edmonton-Beverly-Clareview, posted something on Facebook saying, as I remember it, that the Wild Rose Party stands for sound science.
I say “as I remember it,” because after a number of exchanges, Don pulled the plug on our friendship, and all I get now when I click on the “See comment thread” links of our one and only Facebook conversation is “This content is currently unavailable.”
Luckily, I still had the Facebook e-mail notifications of Don’s remarks, and drafts of most of what I had written to him. Most but not all. However, a third party to our conversation, one whom Don also unfriended, agreed to forward the Facebook notifications he received of my remarks to Don.
So here we begin. Remember now, Don’s opening salvo, for me anyway, was his remark that the Wild Rose Party stands for sound science.
..........................
Peter wrote: WRP stands for sound science? I don't think so. All you have to do is read what Danielle Smith [leader of the Wild Rose Party] has to say about global warming.
Don wrote: All she has ever said is that the abscense of scientific consensus is problematic in respects to global warming. As someone who has reviewed the evidence so far, I, and many other people believe that there is a serious lack of causal data and an over-reliance on correlational evidence with minimal controls or even modeling to account for confounding variables.
Peter wrote: "The scientific debate on climate change is far from settled. There is no scientific consensus on the extent to which man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are affecting the climate, on what the ultimate effects of warming will be, on how quickly warming will occur, and on what policy-makers should do to address it. With so much left unsettled, we need an honest and comprehensive discussion on what reasonable options we as a nation, will pursue."
Smith, Danielle. Edmonton Journal [Edmonton, Alta] 12 May 2010
Peter wrote [again): To which I would say to Ms Smith, read "America's Climate Choices," published by the National Academies of Science. Think of them as the Supreme Court of Science in the United Sates.
Don wrote: @ Peter - there are many examples of highly accalimed peer-reviewed journals and coalitions of scientists who claim that global warming is occuring and that CO2 emissions are correlated, however you have the issue of causal data not being fairly pinpointed at the expense of other potentially confounding/contributing variables. The fact that this is the case is the reason that there is still ongoing research and study in the field. If it were "settled" not that anything ever really is, people would not still be trying to tease out what these variables are. All anyone is really saying, in respects to CO2 is that it is possible that, in a model where total reductions of C02 were achieved that global temperature fluctuations could still occur and a global warming trend could still continue. Furthermore, we are not conclusively outside past trends in warming - only 500 years ago it was possible to sail directly through the Northwest Passage without icebreakers and there is some evidence that this was in fact done. The WRP is commited to ongoing debate and science and research in this area, however, policy-driven science, and research scare-tactics and alarmism to secure research funding and academic tenure is dubious. A lot more than increase in temp is correlated to CO2 will have to be observed. There is a correlation in chocolate production and increased temprature over the last 100 years. There is an increase in anything humans have done in the last 100 years and temperature. Correlational data is suprious at best and until we see fair and reliable statistical models, there is only speculation, irrespective of whatever journal or acadamy the data is collected from.
Peter wrote: Don, you need to seek out higher scientific authorities on this issue, and a good place to start would be the National Academies of Sciences. They were put together by the US Congress in 1863 with a mandate requiring the Academies to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. (Whether the US government acts on their advice is another matter.) In their latest report they say:
“The preponderance of the scientific evidence [with regards to global warming] points to human activities—especially the release of CO2 and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases (GHGs) into the atmosphere as the most likely cause for most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 years or so.”
They support this finding with “numerous lines of evidence, including:”
• “The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased markedly over the past 150 years and is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years.
• “The long-term rise in CO2 concentrations can be attributed primarily to the growth in human CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning, with deforestation and other land use and land cover changes also contributing.
• “Concentrations of other GHGs, including methane, nitrous oxide, and certain halogenated gases, have also increased as a result of human activities.
• “Both basic physical principles and sophisticated models of the Earth’s climate system definitively show that when the GHG concentrations increase, warming will occur.
• “Careful analyses of observations and model results indicate that natural factors such as internal climate variability or changes in incoming energy from the sun cannot explain the long-term global warming trend.”
Don, I challenge you to find a scientific group as authoritative as the NAS that refutes the evidence.
Don wrote: Appealing only to the authoritative nature of a scientific group is scientifically flawed. Top journals such as the Lancet (biomedical) come under fire all the time for stupid things that they have published, or allowed to be published, often due to the political leanings of those involved in their peer review process. Scientists look at methodology involved. Unless you are prepared to actually debate the precise details of specific studies, how they were conducted, you will find yourself outside of what scientists call 'scientific debate' and unable to debate me. There is not one suggestion or group above that you have noted that I am not aware of, the fact is, on the methods, I do not find the claims convincing, and the science more elementary and exploratory than decisive. Science, by its nature, is skeptical of "authorities" on subject matter. He with the best math and method ultimately wins. The math and methods of most climate alarmists is, frankly, rather primitive.
Peter wrote: Here’s the opening paragraph to a statement entitled “Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change.”
“Climate change is real
There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001). This warming has already led to changes in the Earth's climate.”
The signatories include:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil; Royal Society of Canada, Canada; Chinese Academy of Sciences, China; Academié des Sciences, France; Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Germany; Indian National Science Academy, India; Accademia dei Lincei, Italy; Science Council of Japan, Japan; Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia; Royal Society, United Kingdom; National Academies of Sciences, United States of America
Peter wrote (again): "Am I to understand by your reasoning that the methodology of these scientific organisations is rather "frankly, rather primitive.”
[COMMENT: This is where things went sour. My feeling is that Don failed to notice that I was quoting his remark and thought instead that I was calling him primitive. - Peter]
Don wrote: As I understand it, your retort is primitive. Cite a study, outline a method and have a debate. All you have done is appeal to the regurgitation of some authorities you've read (first or second or third or fourth hand) and are unable to discuss how a single one of your assertions was put forward. Then you call other people primitive. You haven't put anything on the table except a childish tantrum and name calling. Scientists themselves are not authorities - only their methods are. The whole purpose of the scientific method is data verification, replication, and refinement metholodolgy for further verification."
Don wrote: "Also of note, each of the above received public monies to continue to operate - are you to assume neutrality in results finding?"
......................................
And that's it. I wrote one last note to Don pointing out that it was me taking exception with him for suggesting that the NAS was a primitive alarmist organisation, but it seems he shut me down before my comment ever reached the Facebook servers.
So there you have it. My global warming discussion that cost me a Facebook friendship.
June 19, 2011
Connecting the dots
The increasing severity and number of floods, tornadoes, droughts and wildfires around the world are no coincidence. They are the result of our planet getting warmer. People are causing the increased warming, and if we continue pumping more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the warming will escalate, causing even more floods, tornadoes, droughts and wildfires.1
It’s been said that fighting global warming will require a wartime effort. You could say the Way We Green, Edmonton’s environmental strategic plan, defines the city’s wartime effort, but once everyone has their way with it, will this plan be strong enough to handle a skirmish?
In its critique of the plan, The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce says that the economic reality of our future lies in the development of our energy resources. That’s the reality we should be preparing for, says the Chamber, “not the reality of a hypothetical city focused only on reducing energy consumption.”2
Those are hardly the words for rallying the troops in a fight against global warming.
In his critique of the plan, Robert Noce, council to a group of developers, expressed concern that the City, by adopting aggressive environmental targets, “will end up being out of synch with the provincial and federal regulatory schemes.”3
He’s right, but when it comes to action on the environmental front, it takes next to nothing to be out synch with our provincial and federal governments.
Just days after the first draft of the Way We Green was discussed at City Council, a huge wildfire tore through the town of Slave Lake and forced hundreds of residents to flee to Edmonton. Did the destructiveness of the fire or the presence of so many climate refugees in our city intensify our resolve to do something about global warming?
Not if Councillor Tony Caterina speaks for the majority. In a recent report about transportation Caterina suggested a moratorium on Light Rail Transit, the expansion of which is one of the fundamental components of Edmonton's Way We Green strategy.
1) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
2) http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=559&doctype=MINUTES about 04:34:40
3) http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=559&doctype=MINUTES about 06:04:00
It’s been said that fighting global warming will require a wartime effort. You could say the Way We Green, Edmonton’s environmental strategic plan, defines the city’s wartime effort, but once everyone has their way with it, will this plan be strong enough to handle a skirmish?
In its critique of the plan, The Edmonton Chamber of Commerce says that the economic reality of our future lies in the development of our energy resources. That’s the reality we should be preparing for, says the Chamber, “not the reality of a hypothetical city focused only on reducing energy consumption.”2
Those are hardly the words for rallying the troops in a fight against global warming.
In his critique of the plan, Robert Noce, council to a group of developers, expressed concern that the City, by adopting aggressive environmental targets, “will end up being out of synch with the provincial and federal regulatory schemes.”3
He’s right, but when it comes to action on the environmental front, it takes next to nothing to be out synch with our provincial and federal governments.
Just days after the first draft of the Way We Green was discussed at City Council, a huge wildfire tore through the town of Slave Lake and forced hundreds of residents to flee to Edmonton. Did the destructiveness of the fire or the presence of so many climate refugees in our city intensify our resolve to do something about global warming?
Not if Councillor Tony Caterina speaks for the majority. In a recent report about transportation Caterina suggested a moratorium on Light Rail Transit, the expansion of which is one of the fundamental components of Edmonton's Way We Green strategy.
1) http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/
2) http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=559&doctype=MINUTES about 04:34:40
3) http://sirepub.edmonton.ca/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=559&doctype=MINUTES about 06:04:00
April 29, 2011
Disparaging remarks
Premier Stelmach says that Michael Ignatieff and Jack Layton disparage Alberta with their talk of carbon pricing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (See “Stelmach throws down gauntlet to Liberals, NDP; Premier invites leaders to defend cap-and-trade proposals to oil industry,” The Edmonton Journal, April 21, 2011).
If this is disparagement, I welcome it.
Not a day goes by that the media doesn’t report on at least one climate catastrophe around the world. In the same issue the Stelmach story appeared, The Journal published an article on the extent of the ice loss in the Arctic (“Six years of glacial melt nearly enough to fill Lake Erie,”).
Is the Premier not aware that our escalating use of fossil fuels is the main contributor to many of these events?
Evidently not. His advice to Ignatieff and Layton is that they forget any talk about reducing GHGs and focus instead on the economic benefits of the oilsands, and his advice to the electorate is that we vote for the Harper Party whose work on the environment earned them an F in the Sierra Club’s recent Environmental Report Card (the Liberals and the NDP got Cs, the Greens an A).
With all due respect to the Premier, we can do without this advice. How many more Lake Eries do we need to fill before politicians like Stelmach come to their senses and understand that we need aggressive action on climate change and we need it now?
If this is disparagement, I welcome it.
Not a day goes by that the media doesn’t report on at least one climate catastrophe around the world. In the same issue the Stelmach story appeared, The Journal published an article on the extent of the ice loss in the Arctic (“Six years of glacial melt nearly enough to fill Lake Erie,”).
Is the Premier not aware that our escalating use of fossil fuels is the main contributor to many of these events?
Evidently not. His advice to Ignatieff and Layton is that they forget any talk about reducing GHGs and focus instead on the economic benefits of the oilsands, and his advice to the electorate is that we vote for the Harper Party whose work on the environment earned them an F in the Sierra Club’s recent Environmental Report Card (the Liberals and the NDP got Cs, the Greens an A).
With all due respect to the Premier, we can do without this advice. How many more Lake Eries do we need to fill before politicians like Stelmach come to their senses and understand that we need aggressive action on climate change and we need it now?
April 14, 2011
Knox on the Green Party
Jack Knox says that if the Green Party doesn’t win a seat in the next election then their supporters should join another party and “work for change within” (see the Edmonton Journal, April 10, 2011).
I’ve been trying to work for change within the Liberal party since 2006 when I signed on as a Dion delegate and went to the party convention in Montreal.
I was pleased when Dion won and even more pleased when he introduced as part of his 2008 election platform a carbon tax—for me an essential requirement of any serious plan to combat the greatest issue facing the world.
Today, to my disappointment, the Liberals have abandoned the tax, opting instead for a vaguely defined cap-and-trade and “cleaner oil sands development.”
So when I read Mr. Knox suggesting that the greens should join another party and work for change within, if May loses, I say good luck. Five years of working within the Liberal Party on climate change has made me feel like I’m going backwards on the issue.
I suggest a different strategy.
To those who are currently working within the big three for an effective policy on climate change, I say vote green. It will propel the issue forward, dramatically. Elizabeth May and one or two other green candidates winning a seat in the next election would cause a seismic shift in how the other parties approach climate change. It would make all your working within worthwhile.
I’ve been trying to work for change within the Liberal party since 2006 when I signed on as a Dion delegate and went to the party convention in Montreal.
I was pleased when Dion won and even more pleased when he introduced as part of his 2008 election platform a carbon tax—for me an essential requirement of any serious plan to combat the greatest issue facing the world.
Today, to my disappointment, the Liberals have abandoned the tax, opting instead for a vaguely defined cap-and-trade and “cleaner oil sands development.”
So when I read Mr. Knox suggesting that the greens should join another party and work for change within, if May loses, I say good luck. Five years of working within the Liberal Party on climate change has made me feel like I’m going backwards on the issue.
I suggest a different strategy.
To those who are currently working within the big three for an effective policy on climate change, I say vote green. It will propel the issue forward, dramatically. Elizabeth May and one or two other green candidates winning a seat in the next election would cause a seismic shift in how the other parties approach climate change. It would make all your working within worthwhile.
March 8, 2011
Intensity targets send no signals
In an op-ed piece recently published in the Edmonton Journal, Professor Andrew Leach, of the University of Alberta, suggests five changes to Alberta’s GHG regulations and says that these changes if implemented will send strong signals that we’re doing something significant about climate change.
I disagree.
Professor Leach’s plan will resonate no more than the government’s current plan has, because his plan, like the government’s plan, is built on intensity targets.
An intensity target is a performance measure that defines the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of product produced. As a way of improving production efficiencies, intensity targets are great. But as a way of reducing overall GHG emissions, intensity targets are a sham.
Curently, Alberta produces a million plus barrels of oil per day, but the intention is to increase that fourfold by 2020. At that rate, even if all producers meet their intensity targets, overall GHG emissions will rise considerably, but at a marginally slower rate.
If we really want to signal that were doing something serious about climate change, then we should abandon intensity targets in favour of actual GHG emission reduction targets.
[Update: Professor Leach responds here.]
I disagree.
Professor Leach’s plan will resonate no more than the government’s current plan has, because his plan, like the government’s plan, is built on intensity targets.
An intensity target is a performance measure that defines the amount of GHGs emitted per unit of product produced. As a way of improving production efficiencies, intensity targets are great. But as a way of reducing overall GHG emissions, intensity targets are a sham.
Curently, Alberta produces a million plus barrels of oil per day, but the intention is to increase that fourfold by 2020. At that rate, even if all producers meet their intensity targets, overall GHG emissions will rise considerably, but at a marginally slower rate.
If we really want to signal that were doing something serious about climate change, then we should abandon intensity targets in favour of actual GHG emission reduction targets.
[Update: Professor Leach responds here.]
February 8, 2011
What matters most
It doesn’t matter that human are responsible for the increasing level of green house gases s in the atmosphere.
It doesn’t matter that Albertans emit 71 tonnes of GHGs per person.
It doesn’t matter that the rising concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
It doesn’t matter that global warming will have a catastrophic effect on the climate.
No, what matters most is that we accelerate the development of the oilsands even though the development of this unconventional fossil fuel is extremely destructive to the environment and to the climate because of GHG emissions.
It doesn’t matter that Albertans emit 71 tonnes of GHGs per person.
It doesn’t matter that the rising concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere contributes to global warming.
It doesn’t matter that global warming will have a catastrophic effect on the climate.
No, what matters most is that we accelerate the development of the oilsands even though the development of this unconventional fossil fuel is extremely destructive to the environment and to the climate because of GHG emissions.
January 14, 2011
Ethical oil!
The logic put forward by Environment Minister Peter Kent and defended by Prime Minister Harper is puzzling. It goes like this: Canada is an ethical society, oil sands producers are Canadian; therefore, oil sands oil is “ethical oil.” The gaps in this argument could accommodate a bucket-wheel excavator. Would they then say that British Columbians produce ethical marijuana?
What we have with the oil sands—as with all unconventional oil resources, tar shale and coal-fired power plants—is a Faustian bargain: Economic growth in the short term, but climatic and environmental disaster over the long term.
With this ploy Harper and Kent have cast themselves as a couple of Mephistophelean shills. We must ignore their message and instead demand from them an environment plan that shifts us towards alternative energy sources.
What we have with the oil sands—as with all unconventional oil resources, tar shale and coal-fired power plants—is a Faustian bargain: Economic growth in the short term, but climatic and environmental disaster over the long term.
With this ploy Harper and Kent have cast themselves as a couple of Mephistophelean shills. We must ignore their message and instead demand from them an environment plan that shifts us towards alternative energy sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)