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?
April 29, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)