“The conclusions [the report] draws are irresponsible,” said Mr. Prentice in an interview with The Globe and Mail from Kingston, where he was meeting with provincial and territorial environment ministers. Specifically, he said Canadians will not accept the report’s advocacy of emission targets for 2020 that would reduce Canada’s gross domestic product by 3 per cent nationally and 12 per cent in Alberta from business-as-usual estimates.
Climate change report ‘irresponsible,’ Prentice says – The Globe and Mail.
Canada cannot take its national unity for granted and must not, in the service of international obligations, allow itself to be immolated by a government policy of such wrenching dislocation.
Globe and Mail Editorial
Wow, “irresponsible”, “Threat to Canada’s National Unity?” What could we talking about? Surely, not a report that addresses the cost of meeting Canada’s commitments to greenhouse gas reductions by 2020?. A bit of hyperbole from this nation’s great flagship newspaper and the Environment Minister?
The study (English summary) looked at two different scenarios, first the weak sauce 20% reduction from 2006 levels by 2020 proposed by the Canadian government. The reason the Canadian government deliberately shifted the baseline from 1990 (the accepted consensus baseline so comparison can be made easily) to 2006 is that if you calculate what the change from 1990 levels is for the Canadian government proposal, it is actually a small increase, not the 20-25% decrease that is needed to put the world on a stabilization path for <2°C rise in temperature. This is unethical and dishonest, like telling the world that the average Canadian is 4 feet tall (head to knee only). The authors of the report know this is an unacceptably weak proposal and therefore looked at what was actually needed, a 20-25% reduction from 1990 levels. BTW, remember that if someone ever shoots a percentage off for you, ask for the baseline, check if this is standard.
Incidentally, the editorial pages of the G&M has not read its own report, or wilfully ignores all the good news while selectively playing up the bad news, geez, it’s like they have an agenda or something! The good news:
- Canada CAN meet its climate goals
- The effect on Canadian GDP growth is modest. Under the required goal of 25% reduction from 1990, GDP growth is about 3% below “business as usual” standards. Note that this year, GDP growth was negative, what percent is that?
- Alberta, which would “suffer” the greatest reduction from “business as usual” scenarios still leads the country in growth. This is the scenario which the G&M concern trolls as a threat to National Unity
- Jobs still grow, very few changes from business as usual scenarios
- Significant Increases in energy costs. But money flows from carbon revenue to defray some of these costs, so actual costs to consumers are modest
- Massive increases in the efficiency of cars, houses, heating, etc., means lower prices in the long run
Of course, the environmental, social and geopolitical costs of “doing nothing” are not enumerated. Are we prepared to face a world with melting polar ice caps, climate refugees, water wars and anger? Are we willing to take those Canadian flags off our backpacks and put Swedish flags on them? There is also a very good chance of incremental breakthroughs in electric vehicle technologies squeezing the demand out of oil and completely collapsing Alberta’s economy, making this entire decision moot. Things can change quickly, just ask anyone involved in the BC timber industry! My point is that unless you factor in the costs of doing business as usual, any change proposed will not compare favourably. The report alludes to the cost of doing business as usual, a 5-20% LOSS in global GDP over the century. But does not include this into the calculation of the business as usual scenario. Note that none of the changes envisaged here propose anything but “growth”.
The changes required are quite significant.
- Capture and storage of carbon dioxide from the oil and gas industry and power plants (Ha!)
- Reduction of “fugitive” emissions from the oil and gas industry and from landfills
- Increased energy efficiency throughout the economy (e.g., in vehicles and buildings)
- Increased production of renewable energy (e.g., wind power accounts for 18 per cent of electricity generated in 2020 when meeting the 2°C target)
- Replacement of fossil fuels by cleaner electricity (e.g., for heating buildings).
When you are near the bottom of the pack when it comes to efficiency and per capita emissions, you do necessarily have to work a little harder. Most of these goals (except the first one which needs a major technological advance) are easily achievable and would put Canada more in line with European countries as far as energy efficiency goes.
What do the words of the mainstream media and the government mean? We are screwed. Canada has NO leadership or commitment to steer away from the cliff. We do not have a powerful enough constituency for climate change. We have a government and polity completely captured by oil interests. We will be dragged kicking, screaming and unprepared into a new, efficient and carbon constrained world. We may still turn out okay because we are a VERY rich country with very few people. But, be prepared for the backlash.
Note, more from the excellent blog greenpolicyprof ‘which makes some of the same points I made, but expands to include coverage of West vs. the Rest issues.
Although there seems to be such a great deal of debate over this issue of BPA safety, this issue is not so fuzzy. Every independent body that has reviewed all of the research on BPA has come to the same conclusion, BPA is safe as a food contact material. Why would this be the case when all you hear is so many bad effect associated with BPA? These independent agencies give studies a score on relevancy to human health. So when you see in the press that BPA is associated with certain effects, that makes for great press, but what you may also miss, because it is not printed, is that most of these effects were seen in animals that are not like humans, with dosing methods not like human oral exposure (often subcutaneous injections, not sure how many humans inject BPA into their bloodstream), and at levels far above what humans are exposed. Now to top it off you need to also know that this issue has become the new item for many environmental groups. They want to push their agenda on this issue. It is also important to remember that not every environmental group is the same. A good example of this is the Environmental Working Group, they recently published a report on BPA in canned foods (which by the way shows that every sample was at least 10x below the lowest regulated amount). But what is the EWG’s true motivation? Well, as their main funding on this issue comes from trial lawyers I think we now see what their real agenda is. As was highlighted several months ago by the woman who dies from drinking too much water for a radio show contest, every chemical is dangerous when taken in high enough doses. Does this mean we should ban the use of water?
I know it may be hard to believe, but it may just be that the FDA, European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese Ministry of Health are right on this one. BPA is safe as a food contact material. But that is just not convenient for the trial lawyers!!
So, I am to believe that a cabal of environmental groups and trial lawyers have hatched a conspiracy to destroy this poor chemical and the manufacturers that make it?? Please!!
I don’t think BPA is near a point where it warrants a complete ban. However, the research into BPA is very interesting to me because it highlights the flaws in our model of setting exposure levels. We test in animals at high doses and look for acute effects. We apply a safety factor and call that the acceptable dose. With BPA, scientists are finding that at very low, ambient exposure levels, there are very subtle hormonal effects that result in significant endocrine disruption over generations. This research points to the fact that the dose-response relationships for BPA are likely non-linear. That is, a response at a low level cannot be extrapolated from a dose at a high level. What’s worse, the mechanism of response seems to be different, and more powerful at low levels rather than high levels.
Your comment about water is an obvious strawman and not worth responding to.
Am I to understand that you think it is impossible for the trial lawyers to have taken on this issue to milk it for everything it is worth. Look what they did with asbestos. They ran so many companies bankrupt by signing up anyone who ever stepped foot into a plant that may have had some asbestos in it that there is little money left to pay people who are really injured, oh but they are all rich.
The research on BPA is very interesting, but why does every “independent” government body who reviews the full research, not that which is spun by groups like EWG, do they come to the same conclusion. A good example is recently hatched idea that BPA causes obesity, well if that were true would not every other study on BPA where the 1st thing you do is weigh the animal have found that. But obesity is another hot topic so why not attach that claim to BPA too, even if there is no data to support it. Usually that is a sign that science is lost and other agendas have taken over when they start throwing the kitchen sink at it (like obesity).