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.]
March 8, 2011
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.
December 22, 2010
At wit's end
In a recent letter to the Edmonton Journal, George Witt made a number of claims about NASA’s global temperature data program. Many were incorrect, some were insulting and all were unsubstantiated. They warrant a response.
1) Witt finds it interesting that NASA released its 2010 report before year end, suggesting they did so because of the UN Climate conference taking place in Cancun.
There is no conspiracy here. Since about the late 1700s meteorologist have been defining the seasons in groups of three whole months with winter, in the northern hemisphere, beginning on December 1, spring on March 1, and so on, making November 30 the meteorological year end.
2) Citing The Journal, Witt says that NASA used “only 30 odd sites to determine Canada’s 2009 temperature.”
In an e-mail to me about Witt’s letter, Dr. Reto Ruedy, the person in charge of analyzing monthly mean data at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies [GISS] says, “We never determined Canada’s temperature. We only combine monthly mean temperature anomalies which indicate how much warmer or colder a particular month is than normal.”
3) Witt is dismayed that there are only 3,000 world surface temperature monitoring sites in use today, when prior to the ‘60s there were over 7,000. He feels this makes it very difficult to compare results. “
Dr. Ruedy disagrees. “The number of additional station data in the Sputnik era did not significantly impact the margin of error of our estimates. Using only the 2 to 3,000 stations that are still reporting today, we get estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from our current estimates….”
In a Q&A article on an NASA website, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a GISS climate researcher, says much the same: “Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly temperature changes over the United States, for example, you’d need just a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.”
4) Witt says that the GISS scientists, by “massaging” the data and selecting “preferred sites,” have corrupted the original “raw data.”
Ruedy dismisses this statement. “Since I have no idea what the author means by ‘raw data’ the rest of his article is meaningless. We download the monthly mean data from public access sites on the web, and that is exactly how close we get to the ‘raw data.’
When asked about manipulating data, Dr. Schmidt said, “That's completely inaccurate. We do an analysis of the publicly available data that’s collected by other groups. “
5) According to Witt says NASA refuses to release its raw data.
“All of the data is available to the public for download,” says Dr. Schmidt, “as are the computer programs used to analyze it. One of the reasons the GISS numbers are used and quoted so widely by scientists is that the process is completely open to outside scrutiny.”
Says Dr. Ruedy, “The claim that we refuse to release data – data we ourselves obtained from the public domain – is absurd, or more likely pure slander.”
NASA surface temperture data and the related programs are availabe at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.
1) Witt finds it interesting that NASA released its 2010 report before year end, suggesting they did so because of the UN Climate conference taking place in Cancun.
There is no conspiracy here. Since about the late 1700s meteorologist have been defining the seasons in groups of three whole months with winter, in the northern hemisphere, beginning on December 1, spring on March 1, and so on, making November 30 the meteorological year end.
2) Citing The Journal, Witt says that NASA used “only 30 odd sites to determine Canada’s 2009 temperature.”
In an e-mail to me about Witt’s letter, Dr. Reto Ruedy, the person in charge of analyzing monthly mean data at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies [GISS] says, “We never determined Canada’s temperature. We only combine monthly mean temperature anomalies which indicate how much warmer or colder a particular month is than normal.”
3) Witt is dismayed that there are only 3,000 world surface temperature monitoring sites in use today, when prior to the ‘60s there were over 7,000. He feels this makes it very difficult to compare results. “
Dr. Ruedy disagrees. “The number of additional station data in the Sputnik era did not significantly impact the margin of error of our estimates. Using only the 2 to 3,000 stations that are still reporting today, we get estimates that are statistically indistinguishable from our current estimates….”
In a Q&A article on an NASA website, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a GISS climate researcher, says much the same: “Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly temperature changes over the United States, for example, you’d need just a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.”
4) Witt says that the GISS scientists, by “massaging” the data and selecting “preferred sites,” have corrupted the original “raw data.”
Ruedy dismisses this statement. “Since I have no idea what the author means by ‘raw data’ the rest of his article is meaningless. We download the monthly mean data from public access sites on the web, and that is exactly how close we get to the ‘raw data.’
When asked about manipulating data, Dr. Schmidt said, “That's completely inaccurate. We do an analysis of the publicly available data that’s collected by other groups. “
5) According to Witt says NASA refuses to release its raw data.
“All of the data is available to the public for download,” says Dr. Schmidt, “as are the computer programs used to analyze it. One of the reasons the GISS numbers are used and quoted so widely by scientists is that the process is completely open to outside scrutiny.”
Says Dr. Ruedy, “The claim that we refuse to release data – data we ourselves obtained from the public domain – is absurd, or more likely pure slander.”
NASA surface temperture data and the related programs are availabe at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/.
November 16, 2010
Whose Watch Was It?
In the November 6 edition of Doonesbury the George W. Bush character, represented as a battered helmet, lists TARP, the subprime mortgage fix he signed into law, as one of the most difficult decisions of his presidency. Not because he agreed to bail out the banks but because people might remember the bailout as his idea and as a result not blame the democrats.
“But hey, worked out,” says the helmet.
Worked out indeed. And now to the long list of those that have forgotten that George W. was in charge during the bailout we can add Gary Lamphier, business columnist of the Edmonton Journal.
“The crooks … got away with murder on Obama’s watch,” says Lamphier in a recent column about the 2008 financial crisis. (See “Documentary explores how Wall St. ruined economy,” The Journal, Nov.9.)
Obama's watch?
Check the record, Mr. Lamphier. On September 18, 2008, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke approach senior House and Senate representatives and with big hats in hand ask for $700 billion dollars. Congress and the Senate comply and on October 3 President George W. Bush signs off on the deal. The first $350 billion arrived October 3, 2008, the second on January 15, 2009. President Barack Obama was elected on November 4, 2008, and inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
Any column that tries to pin the responsibility of the 2008 financial crisis onto President Obama without saying a word about Preseident Bush's involvement isn’t worth the price of a share in a collapsed investment bank.
What a sorry state when the comics section gives us a better read on the financial crisis than the business section.
“But hey, worked out,” says the helmet.
Worked out indeed. And now to the long list of those that have forgotten that George W. was in charge during the bailout we can add Gary Lamphier, business columnist of the Edmonton Journal.
“The crooks … got away with murder on Obama’s watch,” says Lamphier in a recent column about the 2008 financial crisis. (See “Documentary explores how Wall St. ruined economy,” The Journal, Nov.9.)
Obama's watch?
Check the record, Mr. Lamphier. On September 18, 2008, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson and Chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke approach senior House and Senate representatives and with big hats in hand ask for $700 billion dollars. Congress and the Senate comply and on October 3 President George W. Bush signs off on the deal. The first $350 billion arrived October 3, 2008, the second on January 15, 2009. President Barack Obama was elected on November 4, 2008, and inaugurated on January 20, 2009.
Any column that tries to pin the responsibility of the 2008 financial crisis onto President Obama without saying a word about Preseident Bush's involvement isn’t worth the price of a share in a collapsed investment bank.
What a sorry state when the comics section gives us a better read on the financial crisis than the business section.
November 10, 2010
Pricing and Subsidizing Fossil Fuels
What we as consumers pay for coal, gas and oil fails to take into account the damage burning these fuels does to our health, our environment, and our climate. None of these costs are factored into the price of these fuels, and rather than remedy that with a price on carbon, the Harper government chooses instead to unload these costs onto future generations. That in itself is reprehensible
But apparently, when it comes to fossil fuels, unfair pricing is not enough for this government. They have to subsidize these industries. In effect pay them to do their dirty work. Encourage them to diminish our health, to foul our environment, to disrupt our climate.
According to International Institute for Sustainable Development (see Fossil Fuels - At What Cost) federal government subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry are well over a billion dollars a year. And while the rest of the G20 is attemting to reduce their subsides, Mr. Harper stands firm.
According to International Institute for Sustainable Development (see Fossil Fuels - At What Cost) federal government subsidies and tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry are well over a billion dollars a year. And while the rest of the G20 is attemting to reduce their subsides, Mr. Harper stands firm.
So this is what we get from a government that yammers on about the free market and cutting taxes: unfair pricing and enormous subsidies.
If the Harper government feels so strongly about the free market, then they should ensure that the price for fossil fuels takes into account all the costs. And if they feel so strongly about cutting taxes, then they should eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies.
October 10, 2010
One Simple Act
The Government of Alberta is currently running a campaign telling us that simple acts added up together can have a big impact on the environment. Don't believe it.
Simple acts like installing energy-efficient lights, planting trees, taking shorter showers, repairing leaky taps, and such are all worth doing, but simple acts like these will not overcome the damage we are doing to the environment. No matter how many of us adopt these practices.
To bring about any kind of improvement, we have to put a price on carbon—a carbon tax, a cap and trade or some combination of the two. This is absolutely essential, if only to pay for what burning fossil fuels is doing to our health, the environment and the climate. This cost is not factored into the price we pay for these fuels, and that is an injustice that the “free” market and governments around the world continue to ignore.
So here’s my suggestion. Log on to onesimpleact.alberta.ca and follow the links to the One Simple Act page. Go directly to section 2 and write in your pledge to demonstrate support for a price on carbon.
If enough of us made this our simple act, then we'd see an impact on environment.
Simple acts like installing energy-efficient lights, planting trees, taking shorter showers, repairing leaky taps, and such are all worth doing, but simple acts like these will not overcome the damage we are doing to the environment. No matter how many of us adopt these practices.
To bring about any kind of improvement, we have to put a price on carbon—a carbon tax, a cap and trade or some combination of the two. This is absolutely essential, if only to pay for what burning fossil fuels is doing to our health, the environment and the climate. This cost is not factored into the price we pay for these fuels, and that is an injustice that the “free” market and governments around the world continue to ignore.
So here’s my suggestion. Log on to onesimpleact.alberta.ca and follow the links to the One Simple Act page. Go directly to section 2 and write in your pledge to demonstrate support for a price on carbon.
If enough of us made this our simple act, then we'd see an impact on environment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)