Conservatives: Taking Action to Prevent Climate Change is "Irresponsible". I Wonder What They Consider Inaction to Be?
So, Environment Minister Jim Prentice says that the recently released Report by authored by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation, and bankrolled by T.D. Bank, presents an "irresponsible" analysis to Canadians.
This kind of nonsense is really ticking me off. For the first time, a comprehensive analysis has been produced to assess the costs associated with reaching both the Conservative’s weak-weak-weak goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from a 2005 baseline by the year 2020, and compared it to a more robust (but still lacking, in my opinion) target whereby global temperatures are estimated to rise by only 2 degrees Celsius.
Yes, I guess it is irresponsible to report that if we are to reduce our emissions, it’s not going to be "business as usual". The Conservatives believe that Canadians don’t want to hear that, and will never accept that. And instead they shouldn’t except anything less than...
Well, than what? What do the Conservatives want us to accept? Clearly, striving to hold emissions to a level where only a 2 degree increase in global temperature is already beyond the realm of acceptance to Canadians. Harpers 20% by 2020 "plan", likely accompanied by permission to tar sands oil men to continue to emit whatever they damn well feel that they need to emit will lead us...where?
Beyond the tipping point which climate change scientists around the world insist that we can not go beyond if we are to have a hope in hell of avoiding environmental catastrophe. That’s where the Conservatives want to lead Canada. But don’t expect Prentice or Harper to tell you this.
Yet by not taking action, and by insisting that action is too expensive and not palatable to Canadians, that’s right where we’re headed. Make no mistake: the issues are that serious. It is in the interest of this generation of Canadians to start reducing our emissions right bloody now. It’s not just your children’s future which is at stake here. If you’re under 60 years old, you can bet that you yourself will experience the impacts of runaway climate change in your lifetime.
By doing nothing, we commit ourselves to the catastrophe. If Prentice thinks reducing our carbon emissions is "irresponsible" to Canadians, what does he think not reducing those emissions is? If cutting emissions negatively impacts the long-term growth of GDP, what happens to GDP if we don’t cut emissions?
It’s time to start asking that question to our elected officials, and it’s time that the mainstream media, who knows better, starts discussing the negative-option outcome:
WHAT IS THE COST OF INACTION?
The answer to that question, I have no doubt, will be a lot less palatable than the conclusions reached in the Pembina/Suzuki Report.
- Steve May's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Theodore Tadeson |
- Rick Shea |
- Bram Kivenko |
- Rick Shea |
- David Barclay |
- 1 of 2171
- ››
Comments
Well said Steve
Look, provinces west of
Look, provinces west of Manitoba will lose jobs according that report. Provinces east of Manitoba will effectively be unchanged. The CPC gets its support west of Manitoba. How do you think they are going to react?
How about we tax every person east of Manitoba $1000/yr and then gave that money to the western provinces? We should also return carbon taxes to the province of origin. That would alleviate their criticism.
Local rebate yes; job loss no
I like the idea of carbon tax rebates being targeted, either partly or fully, to the provinces where they are levied.
But the report doesn't actually say anyone would lose jobs under these measures. Rather, the job growth west of Manitoba would be slightly slower under this projection than under business-as-usual. But the difference is vanishingly small - around 1%. At the same time, job growth in the East would be slightly higher than otherwise.
So what we end up with is job growth right across Canada, but with a bit stronger push in the East (the areas currently with the worst unemployment) and a bit weaker (but still growing) in the West - the area with better current employment.
That sounds like a rather good policy objective to me, and if the West wants to complain that job growth would be targeted slightly more to the areas with more unemployment, they need to go back to church or take a good look in the mirror and think about what they're actually saying, because it's pretty mean and selfish. Right now I don't hear much about the West worrying that high energy prices and a high dollar create more jobs in the oil patch while destroying jobs in Ontario. The big concern seems to be that this situation might someday end - Heaven forbid!
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Climate Change: The Public Relations Nightmare
The Mainstream Media reaction to the Report so far has almost universally been to condemn it. Some media is going so far as to proclaim that Environmentalists have shot themselves in the feet by calling for such massive cuts to economic activity and jobs. If you believe the mainstream media, environmentalists have just nailed their own coffins shut with this report.
The verdict, two days after the Report issued, is in: It will be too costly to take on the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions.
Now, the media story might start to change over the weekend, as more mainstream media commentators provide a little more comprehensive analysis in the weekend papers, after considering the Report for a few more days. Let’s hope so. If the mainstream media continues in the direction that they’ve been heading in on this one, it will continue to turn into a public relations nightmare for those of us concerned about climate change.
"Sudbury" Steve May
The Cost of Sustainability
I think that you guys are all missing a very important point. The reason why so many people like the Harper government are fighting against climate change is because they know that the only real way to develop a sustainable society is through ending economic growth. And they know that that would mean that all our pension plans would shrink or disappear entirely as the "miracle of compound interest" stops working. It would also mean a drastic curtailment in the role of government as our tax base stalls and begins to shrink.
I don't think that even most Greens understand this point, let alone the vast majority of the voting public. Any government that actually followed a policy aimed at really dealing with climate change would end up putting a brake on growth that would put their economy into a tailspin, which would result in voters dragging them out of Parliament to lynch them.
The only way we are going to have any significant acceptance of real change is if a major organization makes the effort to educate the public about this fact and gets people to accept it. It had hoped that the Green Party would be the institution to do this, but once people joined that got the insane idea that we should be electing people any chance to do this went out the window.
If you really don't like the stuff the Prentice is saying, then I would suggest to the people on the list that you should stop trying to pander to the dangerous illusions of ordinary Canadians and start telling them the "awful truth" of what a truly sustainable society would look like.
Slowing and transforming, not ending
I don't agree that we must end economic growth in order to reach sustainability. That's a politically harmful oversimplification.
In fact, the "unpopular" report which started this conversation doesn't say that, either. Instead, it says that we need to slightly slow growth, but most of all change the direction of our economic "growth" or progression. It's about transformation more than about "size". They address only GHG emissions, of course, but similar analysis can be applied to a number of other footprint measures, and GHG is generally a good proxy (right now) for overall ecological impact.
We have too much material throughput (resources mined, energy wasted, waste and pollution produced) already, so "ending" that growth won't save us. But economic "growth" and "size" of the economy measure both material throughput and non-material products or services. I believe it is possible that, with the proper incentives leading to the right transformations, we may see non-material growth value which matches or exceeds the necessary shrinkage of material throughput. Or we may not - but there's no need to pre-judge the situation, since it will be the outcome of an economic and market and regulatory system we've never tried before on a global or even national scale.
This report from sources I trust only strengthens my belief. If their calculations show that we can continue to "grow" the economy (that is, add more employment and value) while reducing GHG emissions by a whopping 20% in only 10 years (with the concommitant reductions in energy and resource use) then I believe we can do the same under other constraints (like ending sprawl, restoring forests, etc.) as well.
It would be best if both Prentice and Greens properly represented the findings of this report. Exaggeration by either side ("these actions are too expensive!" "we have to end economic growth or die") won't help us reach a position which has sufficiently widespread buy-in. No government will be able to impose solutions the public does not accept.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
More errant nonsense---
Erich:
This report deals with the very limited CO2 targets that the Tories set. Everyone I've read says that these are far too limited to stop runaway climate change.
No it isn't an "oversimplification" to talk about ending economic growth. It is being honest with voters. As long as people like you keep dominating public debate ordinary citizens will be allowed to wallow in the illusion that our society can continue as it is now (perhaps with electric cars and a few windmills) instead of dramatically retooling.
Stop trying to fudge, spin and think about the math.
Economic Growth.
Much of this discussion is moot. If you go to the voters and say you want to stall economic growth, you won't get elected.
That is exactly my point.
That is exactly the point I am trying to make. If we need to end economic growth in order to really deal with climate change, and it is political suicide to end economic growth, then we are doomed to never deal with climate change. That is why notwithstanding Kyoto, etc, no real progress has been made towards dealing with it.
The real value of a Green Party is that we can work within society to explain this sort of thing to voters so it will eventually no longer be political suicide to talk about ending economic growth. But if we instead labour under the delusion that we can elect people and as a result fudge, dodge and weave around this issue, all we are going to end up doing is getting ourselves stuck on the same flypaper with all the other parties. At that point we cease being a force for good.
Re: That is exactly my point
Blaming economic growth is misguided. Technological advancement is driven by economic growth, and I'm glad I live now instead of any time in the past. I'm also pretty sure that this sentiment will remain true in the future.
What you are talking about is not amenible to education. I don't believe Canadians share the world view of stalled growth. Perhaps how economic growth is achieved is what you have the problem with.
tail wagging the dog
Absolutely right. Making CO2 and climate change the GPC’s central driving policy is well-intentioned, but it is picking up the wrong end, of the right stick. Pollution and resultant climate change are the consequences of an economic/industrial policy, not an economic program in itself.
With or without trying to curtail carbon emissions, our economy based on fossil fuels has already maxed-out. The global demand for energy, especially auto gasoline in the emerging nations, coupled with dwindling cheap oil reserves is pushing oil prices to over US$150./barrel. Pumping billions of dollars into the old industries cannot overcome the stagnating effect of this ‘ceiling to growth’ based on our current economic structure.
A party policy should not begin with the end of a tail-pipe, but should lead first and foremost with a ‘Growth Policy’ based on investment in industries which are not vulnerable to oil prices. Not widening roads, but creating limited access express lanes for mass transit vehicles and doubling rail tracks. Not building too many automobiles for a saturated market, but building mass transit trains and high efficiency buses. Not subsidizing electricity, heating oil and natural gas, but subsidizing solar panels, geo-thermal and roof-top mini wind turbines. The additional benefits of transforming our industrial structure will of course be the abatement of pollutants including CO2.
The public wants to hear about, Jobs, Job security, and Sustainable development. Not another scary doom-and-gloom story, however true. That’s politics.
Happy Halloween. Better explained here:
http://www.tvo.org/TVO/WebObjects/TVO.woa?video?AG_Int_20091009_907857_NStern
http://www.randomhouse.com/author/results.pperl?authorid=95186
Source, not end-of-pipe
The Green Party's approach is, in fact, to target at source rather then end-of-pipe. The focus on GHG is merely our way of measuring success.
But as shown in the Canadian book Hot Air, if we go at things only from the subsidy end (what your investment/green growth policy sounds like) we will achieve too little and it will cost too much. The only practical approach is the carrot-and-stick. We have to put a real cost on GHG and other pollutants to help drive business decisions. And, in fact, pricing carbon is one of the best ways to spur growth in clean energy. Without that carbon price, there will be no incentive to stop burning coal (still very cheap even when oil goes up) no matter how many windmills or solar panels are installed.
Government simply cannot afford to invest enough to solve the problem - we must leverage the vastly larger pool of private capital in that direction, too. The way to do this is through tax shifting, which tilts the costs and rewards away from dirty industry and towards clean. Once that foundation is set, we can address areas that might not be amenable to quick enough market adjustments with extra regulations or subsidies.
This is very similar to what the TD / Pembina / Suzuki / report suggests, and their economic modelling shows that it will work. Unless you know of a flaw in their method, I'm quite happy with how close it comes to what we already have in Vision Green.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Agree in principle
1. It’s the communication focus I’m concerned about: Perception is reality. You can tell me the GPC is targeting the source, and using both a carrot and a stick; and I understand, but the public perception is simplistic. Green Party = Carbon Tax = slowing of economic growth = no jobs for me or my children. Rightly or wrongly. ‘Its not what you say, its how you say it.’
Climate change was the issue of the year, a couple of years ago. That was then, this is now. Communication of our policy should lead with the jobs it will create in the new Green Economy. Look at the GPC home page. It’s a huge improvement putting the first box as economy - congratulations. Now click on it, green jobs is at the bottom.
2. “Government simply cannot afford to invest enough to solve the problem”, I only partially agree. Neither can private business wait 10 years to be paid-back for some investments. Our governments have poured hundreds of millions into manufacturing GM cars for an auto market already over-saturated with cars. They have lent billions to banks at zero percent interest. For an industrial transformation of this magnitude both Government and Business have to participate fully.
Along this line, a carbon tax can work, but only where consumers have a realistic ‘choice’ an alternative. And for some areas, that can only happen when the infra-structure is in-place. For example, France has an extensive subway, above ground rail (RER) and the TGV (très grande vitesse) a high speed train (200 km/hr) that can take you anywhere, with small buses at the station to take you into the town. It wasn’t put there by private business alone. But a carbon tax would work, because reasonable alternatives to automobile travel exist.
No such infra-structure exists in Canada. 70% of the population lives in a corridor between Windsor and Québec city. But the train and bus service is miserable unless you live in the city cores. If we wanted a Space Program, putting a tax on travel that is non-inter-planetary will not spur a mission to Mars. Our National Railway was not created uniquely by private investors; it required determined government leadership.
The investments required to transform our economy and obstacles put by grey industries in collusion with government are just too overwhelming for business alone. North American businesses don’t work on 7 and 10 year pay-back periods.
Similarly with Solar. The apparent pay-back period for paneling your home with solar cells is 30 years. I will likely be dead by then. The average family moves every 7 years. Currently, the utilities are stone-walling people who have made the $60K investment and not even paying them the credits for producing green electricity. Again, without leadership by Government to ensure there are fair and realistic alternatives, (leasing solar panels at zero percent interest, for example, like student loans) a carbon tax by itself will have limited effect.
In summary, Business can’t do everything. Neither can Government. The philosophy of just creating the right tax environment and letting private capital do the rest is great, but still only half the equation.
Thanks for responding,
VG = Gov't PLUS Mkt
GPC policy as expressed in Vision Green is exactly what you describe here - leveraging both public and private investment rather than just one or the other. In fact, we even specifically propose a new major federal program to modernize our railways, including high speed rail.
Our carbon tax to engage the market makes us different from the NDP; our direct public investment priorities make us different from the Conservatives. Neither approach alone would work, as you note, but we propose the two-pronged strategy.
Communication is a challenge and we need to improve on that, but the perception that carbon tax = slowing economy or no jobs is false. Repeated studies in Canada show we would still have economic & job growth under a carbon tax shift, and the real-world experience of other countries shows the same. We aren't well-equipped, however, to overcome the Big Lie that a carbon tax shift is anti-economy or anti-job.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
No spin - I read the report!
Bill: I'm not fudging or spinning in the least. I've actually looked at the report, while you've apparently dismissed it without reading it. If you had looked at the source (rather than just the media coverage) you woudn't have made the basic error of stating "This report deals with the very limited CO2 targets that the Tories set" which isn't true.
This report looks at 3 cases: business-as-usual, the very minor and clearly insufficient Tory targets, and the science-based targets required to keep below 2 degrees warming. It is this third case which still shows significant economic growth while meeting the targets that the IPCC and other authorities recommend. It does somewhat slow the projected growth in AB and SK, which is what is causing the kerfuffle.
The writers have done the math - you haven't. Their math clearly says we can have a form of economic growth, although in a different direction than business-as-usual, and meet our environmental goals and needs.
That you aren't willing to accept the numbers means that you are coming at this from a position of ideology rather than looking at the facts on hand. If we're going to be honest, we have to work from actual studies and projections rather than just a sense that we must freeze or shrink the economy.
You are also doing this discussion a disservice by characterizing my position as "society can continue as it is now (perhaps with electric cars and a few windmills)". What I propose is in fact the dramatic re-tooling you would like to see - but I don't agree that such retooling must mean ending economic growth. Proving that it does rests on you.
Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, Barrie ON - although I'm on Cabinet (Nat'l Rev. and Ecol. Fiscal Reform), views here are my own and may not reflect official GPC positions. Please visit www.ErichtheGreen.ca
Ecosocialism
Would it look like Ecosocialism?
Probably not
As a general rule I do not like ideological thinking and all-encompasing labels like "capitalism" and "socialism". My experience with most people who call themselves "left greens" has been that they have a tendency to blame everything on corporations and their solution to most environmental and social problems boils down to "make the rich pay".
I do have friends with a lot of experience in worker co-ops and NGOs, and their experience tells me that these sorts of groups are just as likely to treat their employees like crap as the private sector. (Actually, NGOs lose more unlawful dismissal suits per capita than the private sector.) I also don't see how we can have a modern industrial society without large corporations to organize complex manufacturing and distribution systems. Whether they are owned by stock holders, the government, or the people who work there I doubt that there is going to be a lot of difference in how they treat the environment.