Mon 23 Apr 2007
The Nordics are embarassing us again
A lovely counterpoint to last week in Canadian politics on greenhouse gas emission reductions, Kyoto and Minister Baird:
Norway Plans to Go ‘Carbon Neutral’
April 20, 2007 — Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg on Thursday proposed to make Norway the first “carbon neutral” state by 2050 and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 30 percent by 2020.
“We are committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2020,” Stoltenberg said in a speech at his Labor Party’s annual congress.
The pledge by Norway, which is not a member of the European Union, outshines the EU’s proposed plan to cut its emissions by at least 20 percent during the same period.
Stoltenberg urged his party to make environmental history and said: “By 2050 even larger reductions will be necessary. The wealthy countries must become zero emission states.”
“Norway would become the first country in the world to adopt such a concrete measure,” he said.
“This means that for every ton of greenhouse gases that is discharged we will make sure that the equivalent amount has to be reduced somewhere else,” he continued, referring to a compensation mechanism outlined in the Kyoto Protocol.
In the short term, the prime minister said Norway’s emissions would by 2012 be reduced by 10 percent more than what is required by the Kyoto Protocol.
A white book on Norway’s fight against climate change is due to be presented to the Norwegian parliament next month.
Norway — the third largest exporter of oil and natural gas, fossil fuels seen as one of the main causes of global warming — already covers almost all of its electricity needs with “clean energy” from hydropower.
Fri 20 Apr 2007
Another Inconvenient Truth
Al Gore has famously and correctly characterized the scientific consensus about global warming as “An Inconvenient Truth”. In today’s Financial Post, Buzz Hargrove identifies another “inconvenient truth” for Canadian progressives: “it is impossible to achieve Kyoto targets in the time frames spelled out in Kyoto.”
Canada’s Kyoto commitment was relatively modest and achievable. However, after signing it, the Liberal government spent years increasing Canadian emissions faster than George Bush II increased American emissions. Now, our emissions are way above target levels and the target period (2008-2012) is only eight months away.
To the extent that Canada is allowed to meet its commitment through the Clean Development Mechanism, we should do so. We should also make a serious effort to reduce our own emissions. However, as I think most environmentalists have quietly concluded, Canada will inevitably blow our first-round Kyoto target. Since the consequence will be a more stringent second-round target, we should start taking serious action now.
The opposition Liberals have taken the hypocritical, unrealistic position that Canada must now meet its first-round Kyoto targets. Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez introduced a bill to that effect. The other opposition parties understandably felt that they had to support this bill to keep their green credentials intact.
Theoretically, there may be nothing wrong with adopting an unachievable goal in order to prompt action in the direction of achieving it. As Robert Browning wrote, “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”
Practically, the problem with this approach is that it leaves the door wide open for the Conservatives to point out, as they did this week, that severely reducing emissions in an extremely short period of time would entail significant economic dislocation. The hypothesized $195-per-ton carbon tax is far higher than needed to meet Kyoto targets in the medium term, but might be needed to get there immediately.
As long as the debate is framed in terms of meeting Canada’s first-round Kyoto targets, the Conservatives will win the argument. The debate is likely to remain framed in this manner as long as the Liberals succeed in pinning the other opposition parties to the Rodriguez position.
Progressives must reframe the debate as being about the costs of action versus those of inaction in the medium term, which is the more serious argument and one that the Conservatives cannot win. The only way to reframe the debate this way is for progressives to start publicly acknowledging what everyone already knows: that, as a result of Liberal inaction, Canada will inevitably blow its first-round Kyoto targets. We can then move forward with the reasonable, affordable measures needed to meet our second-round targets, such as a carbon tax closer to $25 per ton.
Fri 20 Apr 2007
Buzz on Kyoto
From today’s FP – I’ve dropped the misleading headline – this is a much more reasoned piece than some recently and widely circulated short quotes from Buzz on the implications of Kyoto for workers.
Friday, April 20, 2007
As the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, I often find myself taking controversial positions, usually with a strong opinion on one side of the debate. But on the issue of the environment I find myself actually taking a position in the middle. I’m not used to that.
On the one hand, I have no time for those who deny the science of climate change and who steadfastly resist reductions in greenhouse gases or try to hide them with intensity targets. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that Stephen Harper and his Tory colleagues were climate-change deniers.
But I also oppose those who insist that a full-steam-ahead, immediate, damn-the-consequences approach is the only answer. Instead I find myself in agreement with those environmentalists who propose the twin goals of improving the environment as well as strengthening our economy.
The CAW continues to support the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and the principle of international obligations. While it is impossible to achieve Kyoto targets in the time frames spelled out in Kyoto, Canada needs to work vigorously towards them and be part of a broader community of nations in our efforts to halt and reverse the degradation of our environment. All of which means we need clear targets, achievable timelines, the commitment and the resources to turn these goals into a workable plan.
I’m in a similar position when it comes to cars and the environment. I reject the proposition that reducing our environmental footprint means we must drive small vehicles or get rid of cars altogether. I think that Canadians are eminently practical – the top three selling vehicles in the country are a subcompact, a minivan and a pickup truck. These vehicles speak to the demands of life in Canada. Whether driving a pickup truck or a subcompact, consumers need to know that their choice of vehicles is meeting targets for fuel efficiency improvements.
It doesn’t make any sense that the federal government, in its recent budget, would announce higher incentives for imported 4-cylinder vehicles than for leading-edge, Canadian built products. For the Conservative government to introduce an incentive program that rewards imports while punishing Canadian producers with higher taxes on Canadians products is unconscionable. The government’s incentive program will encourage consumers to buy imports from Asia at the expense of our manufacturers and Canadian jobs.
I am overwhelmingly concerned about the manufacturing job crisis in Canada. This country has lost more than 250,000 manufacturing jobs in less than five years. It is a huge mistake to accelerate the problem through government policies.
The CAW understands the necessity of maintaining a clean environment as one of the most important legacies we can leave future generations. Since the formation of our union in 1985, our constitution has mandated all CAW local unions to have active environment committees.
Over the last few years the CAW has taken an active role in schools and communities throughout Canada, spending over $3-million educating students on the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Centered around Earth Day, each year CAW volunteers reach out to Canadian schools to educate youth on environmental
issues. In 2006 alone, the CAW brought this message to over 82,000 students.
Our union has already adopted a green car strategy and later adopted an Extended Producer Responsibility policy that would ensure all manufacturers must dismantle older vehicles and recycle the materials.
Our union recognizes that any solution will lead to some of our members losing their jobs. What Canada needs is a just transition period that recognizes this. We need government programs to support workers who lose their jobs and a serious retraining commitment that will allow industry to make responsible adjustments to ensure workers and their families don’t pay the price of cleaning up the environment.
Clearly, reducing greenhouse gases means reducing the amount of fossil fuel we consume. In addition to greater fuel efficiency and new technologies, we need a transportation strategy that will increase the use of renewable fuels and reduce the use of vehicles overall. This requires investments in clean and alternative fuels, mass transit, rail, as well as efforts to reduce gridlock.
The CAW supports mandatory fuel efficiency standards in the vehicle industry and believes that setting a clear target across all classes of vehicles, phased in by 2014, is achievable. These targets need to be constructed in a manner that drives improvements while at the same time strengthening, rather than undermining, Canada’s auto industry. There are real challenges to meeting those twin goals, but we can achieve both.
In addition, we need programs that support innovations in developing lighter materials, alternative fuels, green engine technologies, and fuel-efficient components. The federal government should introduce a Green Vehicle Transition (GVT) fee on each manufacturer that sells into our market, based on each company’s total Canadian sales. Companies would earn back the fees through Canadian investments in ‘green’ technologies and green production.
We need to look for opportunities to boost our economy and at the same time protect the environment.
A Ford engine plant in Windsor is closing– why wouldn’t government and industry join together to develop a new facility that produces a ‘green engine’ to replace those jobs? Through projects like these we can make our nation a leader in automotive and other green technologies. We need to find ways to protect the environment through ecologically-sound technology that create jobs.
The federal government has already recognized that incentives are needed to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes. Similarly, we need real incentives to get older vehicles off the road. There are over 1? million vehicles that are over 20 years old on Canada’s streets and highways. Getting them off our roads will do more to solve GHG problems than any other proposal.
If the political parties are genuinely concerned with climate change, they should quit playing politics and work together to ensure that proper strategies and incentives are in place that will boost our economy and at the same time protect our manufacturing jobs. The future for young Canadians could flourish with a sustainable environment, a robust economy and a thriving manufacturing sector. A balanced approach is needed. – Buzz Hargrove is president of the Canadian Auto Workers.
Thu 19 Apr 2007
The Great Kyoto Job Scare
Some good points in this piece. I just love Baird’s argument that “275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural gas prices would double.” Sounds like just what has happened over the past couple of years as the result of the oil boom. Did 250,000 manufacturing workers lose their jobs because of Kyoto -or because of a surge in the dollar caused by an environmentally unsustainable resource boom? (No prizes for the correct answer.)
For me the key Conservative deception here is that there is only one way to meet our Kyoto obligations. In fact, we have the Clean Development Mechanism, and the option to take on greater carbon reduction obligations in the next phase. If we get started, and get serious, – which is absolutely the key reason to keep our feet to the fire -there’s no reason to believe that other countries won’t cut us a bit of slack, especially if we are prepared to finance cheap, legitimate carbon reduction efforts in developing countries.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=2dbd587d-e88b-447e-8f2f-936d6a1623dc&k=12457
Critics mock Ottawa’s apocalyptic scenario of Kyoto compliance
Environment Minister John Baird presented an apocalyptic scenario of what it would take to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. (CP PHOTO/Fred Chartrand)
Dennis Bueckert, Canadian Press
Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007
OTTAWA (CP) – Environment Minister John Baird has gone on the offensive against advocates of the Kyoto Protocol, presenting a federal study which suggests the treaty’s emissions-cutting targets could be met only at a massive economic cost.
But opposition critics and environmentalists say the study is flawed because it excludes the benefits of cutting emissions, such as avoiding dangerous climate change and creating new jobs in green technology.
The confrontation comes as a Senate committee ponders a Liberal bill which would require the government to meet its commitment under the Kyoto treaty – a six per cent emissions cut from 1990 levels by 2012. All three opposition parties united to pass the bill in the Commons and it if passes the Senate, the government will have a law on the books that contradicts its policy.
“There is only one way to make it happen, to manufacture a recession,” Baird told the Senate environment committee Thursday.
He said 275,000 Canadians would lose their jobs, gasoline prices would jump 60 per cent and natural gas prices would double. The study says meeting the Kyoto targets would require a carbon tax of $195 per tonne.
Baird said the study has been reviewed and approved by a number of leading economists including Don Drummond, chief economist of Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group and Carl Sonnen, president of Informetrica.
“The cost to maintain a home or business would skyrocket,” Baird told the committee.
Liberal environment critic David McGuinty said the study is skewed because it artificially restricts the use of international emissions trading and ignores the job creation that would come with a new focus on green technologies.
“Of course it’s hard to get the job done without tools. That’s like saying it would take years to build a subway line with teaspoons.”
New Democrat Paul Dewar said the study amounts to “deception” intended to back the government’s inaction. “Putting scare and fear into the hearts of Canadians doesn’t work. People know there will be costs but what the hell is the government doing now?”
Dewar quoted Sir Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, whose study in October estimated it would take two per cent of gross domestic product in advanced countries to reduce emissions to an acceptable level. Dewar said he believes Canadians would accept such a cost.
The government analysis itself admits that the costs would be much lower with different assumptions. A section titled “alternate scenarios” says unrestricted access to international emissions credits would cut the cost to about $25 a tonne, rather than $195 a tonne.
The study assumes that Canada can get only 25 per cent of its reductions through international credits, even though the Kyoto treaty imposes no such restriction.
Stewart Elgie, a professor at the University of Ottawa who focuses on carbon markets, says that single assumption inflates the cost of compliance by 700 per cent. He also criticized the study for ignoring the benefits of curbing emissions.
“It only looks at the cost of meeting Kyoto and ignores the benefits of avoiding dangerous climate change, and it will have huge benefits in Canada.”
Baird denied that the government is scare-mongering: “I’m just giving the information.” He said the benefits of cutting emissions were not included because they would develop only in the longer term.
Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez says the study is intended to scare Canadians and called its conclusions ridiculous. Similar scare campaigns crop up whenever environmental reforms are proposed, he said, citing past efforts to curb acid rain or phase out chemicals that attack the ozone layer.
© The Canadian Press 2007
Thu 19 Apr 2007
From socialist conspiracy to economic apocalypse
The framing of the Kyoto Accord by the Harper government, that is. I suppose this is progress for Harper, who had essentially dismissed climate change a year ago, but as the polls moved he has had to follow.
I’m not as pessimistic about the economic fall-out if we are creative in developing just transition strategies for affected workers and are aggressive in using public policy to shift behaviour. We do need a transition period, and Kyoto’s 2012 target is a mere five years away. But we can do a lot in five years, and we should press to meet the target – even if we miss by a bit we will be on the right track. We should think of this as a war we need to win, and that means some shared sacrifices, lots of creative solutions, and government-led direction through fiscal measures and regulatory approaches that lead us forward – that type of effort would be good for the economy.
This latest salvo from the Canada’s New Harperment seems like pure electioneering: the Tories framing themselves as a sensible and responsible alternative who will save the planet without destroying the economy. Probably smart politics, too, if they can convince voters that they are sincere about climate change and that the plan being worked up by other parties is going to be the Big Hurt. It reminds me of another big debate we had back in in the late 1980s, but back then it was the Tories and big business who were pushing for a major structural change to the Canadian economy, and the Liberals and the NDP who were pressing the doom-and-gloom button. The issue: Canada-US free trade.
Kyoto would ‘manufacture a recession’: Baird
TENILLE BONOGUORE
Globe and Mail Update and Canadian Press
OTTAWA — Environment Minister John Baird has delivered a drastic vision of economic breakdown if Canada were forced to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.
Speaking after appearing before the Senate environment committee – where he said the only way to meet Kyoto’s carbon limits was to “manufacture a recession” – he said the government would soon bring forward a plan that can be accomplished. (more…)
Tue 17 Apr 2007
Government Plans on Kyoto – Response from Climate Action Network
OTTAWA — Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution will continue rising for several more years and remain well above Kyoto targets beyond 2020 if government plans leaked to Canadian Press and reviewed by the Climate Action Network Canada/Réseau action climat Canada (CAN-RAC) are implemented.
The organization expects the federal government’s proposal for a new national GHG target to be defended based on dire cost predictions for meeting Canada’s Kyoto obligations. Not only is the Government not listening to Canadians, these projections are not based on real world experience or an accurate method of predicting costs. Investment needed to meet the Kyoto target is relatively small in the context of the Canadian economy.
“Canadians want Canada to meet our legal obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. This latest document is just complicated double speak designed to hide the fact that the government is turning its back on the environment. We demand a Kyoto Plan, nothing else will do,” said John Bennett, spokesperson for ClimateForChange.
The leaked plan would allow Canada’s GHG pollution to continue rising until 2012 and then fall by 2020 to 20% below the current (2006) level – but this is still more than 10% above Canada’s Kyoto target, supposed to be met during 2008-12. The plan also fails to provide a convincing explanation of why the measures it contains would actually ensure that these extremely weak objectives are met. The government still intends to set “intensity” targets for industrial emissions – despite the fact that intensity targets allow actual emissions to continue increasing. In addition, the draft outlines large loopholes that would allow industry to claim targets were being met without actually reducing emissions in the target period.
There are well-documented examples of industry and government cost projections being hugely over-estimated when compared to real world experiences. These include:
-
Reducing acid rain causing emissions proved to be a profitable investment for companies like INCO.
-
The Montreal Protocol to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the international treaty that is the model for Kyoto Protocol, was greeted with predictions of economic catastrophe in 1987. Dupont eliminated the production of CFCs, found profitable alternatives and is now one of the companies leading the way in greenhouse gas reductions.
-
The National Resources Defense Council did a comparison of industry-estimated costs of reducing car emissions over the past forty years and the actual costs and found that:
“Industry estimate were 2 to 10 times higher then actual costs,” said Emilie Moorhouse of the Sierra Club of Canada.
The Canadian economy is expected to grow at 2.4% a year to 2020. Extending that to 2030 implies an economy about 40% larger today’s $1.4 trillion economy, (almost $2 trillion). Projected GDP losses from these models based on overestimated costs and underestimating technological potential are less than 0.05% of GDP.
“The Government wants Canadians to believe only its approach is affordable. But that is not true. If we can afford to forego between $40 to 80 billion (i.e. one percent GST cut over six years is $39.6B) then they can afford to deal with climate change,” said Dale Marshall, Climate Change Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation.
Backgrounder follows (more…)
Tue 17 Apr 2007
Stern, Sachs, and Stiglitz on the Economics of Climate Change
A report by Felix Salmon from the front lines of Columbia University on some issues arising out of the Stern review. I’d love to see a transcript of this session.
Stern, Sachs, and Stiglitz on the Economics of Climate Change
… I managed to ask Stern the question I’ve been wanting to ask him for a couple months now … If you look at Stern’s worst-case scenarios, most of them put the population of the future on a much higher standard of living than the population of the present. So the $400 billion we’re (hypothetically) spending today on reducing carbon emissions is being spent so that future generations can be even richer still – the whole thing feels a bit like taking from the poor (us, now) and giving to the rich (our great-grandchildren).Stern replied first by noting that the $400 billion / 1% of GDP cost is only an estimate. It’s entirely possible that the cost could actually be negative, he said: “a Schumpeterian tech-driven burst of growth is possible and even likely from zero-carbon sources of electricity”. On the other hand, Sachs noted that the 1% of GDP cost is predicated on our developing a workable and scalable method of capturing and sequestering the carbon output from the coal-fired power stations which are certainly going to be built in huge numbers in India and China. If we don’t get the CCS (carbon capture and sequestration) right, then the cost of reducing carbon emissions could easily double, or more. So let’s split the difference and say that the 1% of GDP cost is realistic, to be borne mainly but not entirely in the form of higher energy prices.
Stern then said that it’s also entirely possible that if we do nothing at all, and carbon emissions continue to rise, then in the next century “we could end up a lot poorer than we are now”. His models show a 50% chance of global temperatures rising by more than 5 degrees Celsius in the business-as-usual case; when global temperatures were 5 degrees lower than they are now, we were in the last Ice Age and most of Europe was under a mile of ice. That sort of temperature change would be catastrophic on many levels and would transform the planet in very, very negative ways. But Stern did agree that under his models, “most of the time we’re better off”. So, he says, “you discount for that”. An expenditure today is only worthwhile, under his model, if it causes a disproportionate increase in future wealth.
And then came the barrage of very good reasons why it makes sense to spend money today for the benefit of future generations. (more…)
Thu 12 Apr 2007
Bill C-30 – Climate Change Policy and Impacts on Workers
Bill C-30 – the Clean Air Act – is a strange beast – a government bill which was fundamentally re-written by the three opposition parties to finally move Canada towards a real national action plan to prevent catastrophic climate change.The media are so focused on the politics of climate change that little attention seems to have been paid to the content of Bill C-30 itself .
Most environmental organizations have responded very positively to the key elements – clear targets for greenhouse gas reduction to meet and move beyond the Kyoto commitment; hard caps on large industrial emitters set at Kyoto consistent levels; and a greenhouse gas emissions trading system.
While supporting these key elements, the CLC said that we need to deal with climate change while also protecting workers. Accordingly, we said that the plan had to include support for green job creation, Just Transition for affected workers, and room for labour input.Thanks in large measure to the efforts of NDP MP Nathan Cullen, Bill C-30 does just this.
The Bill calls for a Green Investment Bank. The Bank would collect fines from large industrial polluters who exceed emissions limits, but use all of the funds to finance job-creating investments in new green technologies and processes, and in funds to retrofit buildings for greater energy efficiency. We have here a potential key building block for a green industrial strategy.
The Bill mandates the government to develop a Just Transition plan for workers affected by greenhouse gas emission reductions. Just Transition means that affected workers and communities should be compensated for any losses.
Last, but not least, the Bill provides for the involvement of labour in turning the plan into regulations. For example, unions must be involved in the setting of new vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
We can expect the Conservatives and industry to mount a fierce campaign in favour of their cosmetic “intensity reduction” targets over the next little while, and to argue that sticking to the Kyoto targets will cost jobs.
These arguments were addressed in the CLC brief to the Committee, and responded to by the opposition parties.
http://www.canadianlabour.ca/index.php/Briefs_to_Parliament/1096
Labour’s concerns were taken into account, and Bill C-30 deserves our support.
The re-printed version of the Bill is now available on the Parliamentary website:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2826031&Language=e&Mode=1
Thanks to NDP staff economist Matt de Vlieger for the following notes and extracts from the Bill.
(more…)
Wed 11 Apr 2007
Behind the scenes at IPCC: science, skeptics and politics
George Monbiot takes us behind the curtain of the IPCC report-making process, and who is really pressuring whom to censor what:
Posted April 10, 2007
It’s happening, it’s systematic, and it is precisely the opposite story to the one the papers are telling.
By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian, 10th April 2007.
The drafting of reports by the world’s pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For many months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel’s reports are extremely conservative – even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.
Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything which threatens their interests. While the US government has traditionally been the scientists’ chief opponent, this time the assault was led by Saudi Arabia, supported by China and Russia(1,2).
The scientists fight back, but they always have to make some concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that “North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events”(3). David Wasdell, an accredited reviewer for the panel, claims that the summary of the science the IPCC published in February was purged of most of its references to “positive feedbacks”: climate change accelerating itself(4). (more…)
Tue 10 Apr 2007
Climate change and the poor
More on the unequal burden of costs posed by climate change:
How the worst effects of climate change will be felt by the poorest
By Michael McCarthy and Stephen Castle
Humanity will be divided as never before by climate change, with the world’s poor its disproportionate victims, the latest United Nations report on the coming effects of global warming made clear yesterday.
Existing divisions between rich and poor countries will be sharply exacerbated by the pattern of climate-change impacts in the coming years, predicted in the study from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Increased drought, crop failure, disease, extreme weather events and sea level rise are all likely to fall much more heavily on struggling populations in Africa, Asia and South America than on the rich industrial societies of Europe, North America and Australia – who have done most to cause global warming through greenhouse gas emissions in the past, and who are best able to afford counter-measures to limit its consequences.
This picture of great inequity and a great climate divide was seized on by aid agencies and environmental pressure groups. “Governments must act now to stop a catastrophe for the world’s poor,” said Benedict Southworth, director of the anti-poverty charity the World Development Movement. “Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue, it is a looming humanitarian catastrophe,” said Friends of the Earth International’s climate campaigner, Catherine Pearce. (more…)
Thu 5 Apr 2007
Climate change winners and losers
The New York Times reports on the inequities generated by global warming below. The April edition of The Atlantic also featured a story on the same theme, but it was really poorly done. While the article makes a few interesting observations of what might happen in different parts of the world, Gregg Easterbrook, from Brookings, was more inclined to treat global warming as an investment prospectus (where to buy and sell land to take advantage of global warming). His tone reaks of a skeptic grudgingly convinced by the overwhelming evidence on climate change (he repeatedly used the term “artificial climate change” insinuating that much of what is happening is actually just the Earth doing her thing). He closes with a rallying cry for capitalism to save our collective bacon. And he made some plain old factual errors, including most of his commentary on Canada, that a decent fact-checker should have caught. All in all, a disappointing read, though I did find the cover picture quite humorous.
Here’s the Times’ contribution:
The Climate Divide: Reports From Four Fronts in the War on Warming
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Over the last few decades, as scientists have intensified their study of the human effects on climate and of the effects of climate change on humans, a common theme has emerged: in both respects, the world is a very unequal place.
In almost every instance, the people most at risk from climate change live in countries that have contributed the least to the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to the recent warming of the planet.
Those most vulnerable countries also tend to be the poorest. And the countries that face the least harm — and that are best equipped to deal with the harm they do face — tend to be the richest. (more…)
Wed 4 Apr 2007
Another IPCC preview
The Economist previews Friday’s release of the next IPCC report. A short article but one that is quite good for a publication that is often wagging its ideological finger about abstractions like free trade. It will be interesting to see in years to come whether The Economist can reconcile its free market fetish with what the Stern Review has called “the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.”
All washed up: As the evidence of global warming proliferates, so do the nasty consequences
WE WERE right, all along. That is the likely thrust of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body set up to pronounce authoritatively on the science of global warming. In 2001 it predicted that global warming would lead to many ills, including greater numbers of extinctions, growing shortages of water, higher incidence of tropical diseases, and lower yields from agriculture, fishing and forestry in some places. Now the scientists who write the reports say they have much stronger evidence that such calamities are indeed occurring—faster, in many cases, than they originally thought.
The previous IPCC report, in February, examined the evidence that the globe was actually warming. It called the trend “unequivocal”, and expressed “very high confidence” that it was largely man-made. The new report assesses the likely impact of global warming. It is due to be released on April 6th, after scientists and governments have finished haggling over the wording.
But the underlying research will not change, says Camille Parmesan, a professor at the University of Texas who has vetted part of the report. The findings of the chapter on current impacts alone rests on a review of over 1,000 academic studies, most of them already published—compared with about 100 last time around. (more…)
Air travel is a beast for the climate change file, one that is going to be difficult to tackle as we move ahead. For consumers, it is deeply entrenched as a means of getting around the globe, and may be particularly hard to reduce because it would require strong international collaboration. In Monbiot’s book Heat, he argues we need to reduce air travel by 90%, soon, in order for us to have a fighting chance. But governments looking at the problem tend to focus on domestic emissions and leave international flights off the table (even though they have to land somewhere).
I’m somewhat of a hypocrite on this, having just spent my recent tax cuts in Mexico. But I look at it this way: either we all pull together or we are doomed. It’s a classic prisoner’s dilemma. You are going to have a tough time convincing some people to make sacrifices if others merrily go along as usual. The problem is that there is some lumpiness to air travel: even if I skip a flight and the plane goes one seat empty, not an ounce of carbon has been saved; alternatively, my “sacrifice” just opens up a spot for someone else. This is about shared sacrifice, not individual choices on the margin, and it is going to be a tough sell to get Western consumers to stop.
From The Independent, we learn why we may be doomed:
Open skies pact ‘will worsen climate change’
Plans to open up transatlantic aviation and generate an extra 26 million air passengers over five years will undermine Europe’s push to combat climate change, campaigners warned yesterday.
An “open skies” agreement, due to be agreed by EU transport ministers today, is being hailed as a revolution by officials who say it will deliver more competition and lower fares.
But environmental groups say the increased air traffic generated by the measure will write off all the benefits expected from separate plans to “green” aviation by bringing airlines into the EU’s carbon emissions trading scheme.
Coming just days after EU leaders announced ambitious plans to combat global warming, the row over “open skies” has prompted questions about the EU’s commitment to the environment. Under the deal, any EU airline will be able to fly to the US from any part of Europe ushering in a dramatic change in the structure of transatlantic aviation. (more…)
Mon 2 Apr 2007
Canada’s Climate Forecast
The “uh oh” file is growing, as the next IPCC report comes out this Friday. In it are more graphic descriptions about what warming could mean for the planet and by region. Scary stuff that will hopefully take our governments to the next level beyond recognition and half-measures to something more meaningful. Below are some previews from the Toronto Star and the Vancouver Sun.
In an otherwise decent article, the lead-in from the Vancouver Sun, known for its anti-tax stance, is rather humorous for its relative ordering of impacts: “The looming “destabilization” of Earth’s atmosphere means British Columbia faces higher municipal taxes and a reordering of basic government priorities to cope with an accelerating regime of droughts, floods and other weather-related civil emergencies.” Somehow I doubt the actual IPCC report comments on municipal taxation.
First the Star:
Climate forecast grim for Canada: heStar.com – News – Climate forecast grim for CanadaReport from world scientific body says country is ill-prepared to handle impacts of change, leaving citizens vulnerable
By the end of this century, fires will consume twice as much forest annually in Canada, a fifth of the currently snowy Arctic will be greened by tundra and Great Lakes water levels will have plunged still lower, international scientists are going to warn this week in an authoritative climate change report.
Economic damage from severe weather, such as hurricanes, is almost certain to continue rising in North America and city-dwellers face heightened health risks, the scientists conclude. Yet Canada and the U.S. are ill-prepared to adapt to such almost-certain impacts from climate change, leaving their citizens vulnerable. This grim regional picture is contained in the second report this year from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to be published Friday. (more…)
Tue 27 Mar 2007
George Monbiot on Bio Fuels
Of more than passing interest given Harper’s ramped up subsidies to ethanol – more of a farm support program than a genuine climate change solution it would seem (though perhaps we should be more supportive of the newer biotechnologies which can convert wood and agricultural wastes to ethanol.)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2043724,00.html
If we want to save the planet, we need a five-year freeze on biofuels
Oil produced from plants sets up competition for food between cars and people. People – and the environment – will lose
George Monbiot
Tuesday March 27, 2007
The Guardian
It used to be a matter of good intentions gone awry. Now it is plain fraud. The governments using biofuel to tackle global warming know that it causes more harm than good. But they plough on regardless. In theory, fuels made from plants can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by cars and trucks. Plants absorb carbon as they grow – it is released again when the fuel is burned. By encouraging oil companies to switch from fossil plants to living ones, governments on both sides of the Atlantic claim to be “decarbonising” our transport networks.
(more…)
Wed 21 Mar 2007
The Vehicle Efficiency Incentive
I’ve posted below an interesting commentary from Dennis DesRosier in favour of gas tax increases as an alternative to the proposed incentive increases. His chart shows a near perfect correlation between monthly gas prices and % monthly auto sales going to entry level ( fuel efficient) vehicles. It strikes me that – to reduce the emissions intensity of motor vehicles – the way to go is to raise gas prices and then use the proceeds to subsidise the most efficient vehicle choices and development of new technologies, bio fuels etc. Our domestic auto industry will be hit by an incentive to purchase overwhelmingly non Big 3 vehicles, and could and should have been cushioned through support for the development of new greener vehicles. I note that the incentives are not to fuel efficiency per se, but to relative fuel efficiency within vehicle classes.
The entire premise of the Vehicle Efficiency Incentive (VEI) is wrong. VEI’s cannot take Canada to the next level of fuel efficiency because it pushes OEMs to build vehicles that many Canadians do not want. The only approach is a gas tax like the one that has been so successful in Europe and other overseas markets. These same domestic OEMs that everyone blasts for gas guzzlers sell high mileage fleets in Europe because CUSTOMERS want to buy efficient vehicles because they pay high gas taxes that pushes gas over $1.50/litre. (more…)
Sun 11 Mar 2007
How much do we care about our distant descendants?
Mathematically, we are all related through our common ancestors. This is because of the power of 2 – that we each have two parents, four grandparents, and so forth back as far as you can go. Assuming no in-breeding, and an average of 20 years per generation, this works out like this: by 20 generations past (approx. 400 years ago), we each have over one million great-great-…-great-grandparents, and by 30 generations (600 years ago) over one billion, a number that is certainly greater than the human population at the time.
If we go back 100 generations (about 2000 years ago), we each have 1,267,650,600,228,230,000,000,000,000,000 unique ancestors. This would clearly imply some in-breeding. It is possible to tweak the math, but the point is that since the time of Jesus (or the Roman empire) we are all the common descendants of people of those times.
Looking forward, then, we are all the common ancestors of future generations. We obviously care about our children, and grandchildren, even great-grandchildren (if we are so lucky). But 200 years from now, within the ream of projections being made for global climate change, every child would have 1,024 of us today as its great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandparents. But by 33 generations from now, or around 660 years (stardate 2667), every child could claim the entire population of the world today as a great-…-great-grandparent, at least in some statistical sense. (This analysis is not my own, but is based on some long-ago thing I read.)
So the question, when it comes to long-run decisions around global warming action, is: how much do we care about our common, distant descendants (and all the other living stuff)? With that in mind, here is some of what is to be expected, based on draft versions of the next major IPCC report:
Climate Report Warns of Drought, Disease
By SETH BORENSTEIN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won’t have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.
At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press. (more…)
Sat 3 Mar 2007
Red Ken’s Green Plan
The Guardian on Livingstone’s latest for the city of London:
Cleaning up the Big Smoke: Livingstone plans to cut carbon emissions by 60%
· Londoners given 20-year target to go green
· Flights could drastically affect success of campaign
David Adam and Hugh Muir
Tuesday February 27, 2007
The Guardian
A detailed plan to slash London’s carbon emissions by 60% within 20 years and place the city at the forefront of the battle against climate change will be announced today by Ken Livingstone.The mayor will appeal to Londoners to stop using energy wastefully and will urge businesses to embrace green technology to heat and light offices and workplaces.
Mr Livingstone wants a quarter of London’s electricity supply to be shifted from the national grid to local combined heat-and-power systems by 2025. The city will offer “green gurus” to help families make their lifestyles more environmentally friendly, and will subsidise supplies of cavity wall and loft insulation. (more…)
http://www.canadianlabour.ca/index.php/briefs_to_parliament/1096
The Canadian Labour Congress today submitted to the Parliamentary Committee looking at Bill C-30, the Clean Air Act which deals with greenhouse gas emissions. Our brief sets out a broad labour perspective on climate change issues – focusing on the need for a planned transition to a more environmentally sustainable economy. Labour supports sticking with Kyoto, deeper emissions reduction targets moving forward, a cap and trade system for large industrial emitters, investment in green industrial strategies, and Just Transition for affected workers.
