We have been disturbed by what we perceive to be a lack of attention to the environment during this election campaign. While it’s clear the public accepts that global warming is a threat, it seems people have simply no idea how serious this issue is. Global warming is without a doubt the defining issue of our time, and we cannot let economic turmoil in the USA dissuade us from addressing the problem. Dealing with the environment means dealing with economics in a sustainable way.
Global warming is a problem that must be dealt with now, before it’s too late. Any further delay will only increase the risks of damage and costs of action. The world needs to start down a path of greenhouse gas reduction to avert the most serious consequences of global warming. Many may not realize that even if we immediately stabilized atmospheric greenhouse gases at current levels, the Arctic would still go ice free in the summer, between 10% and 25% of the world’s species would still be committed to extinction, and weather will continue to become more extreme. We have as much warming in store over the next few decades as has already transpired since preindustrial times when the Thames River in England used to periodically freeze over. Why is this so?
Let’s suppose you place a pot of room-temperature water on the stove and then turn the element on. Does the water immediately boil? Of course not; it takes time for it to heat up and eventually boil. Even if you turn the element down a bit, the water continues to warm. The only way to stop the water from boiling is to turn the element way down or off. But even then, the water doesn’t cool to room temperature immediately. It slowly loses its heat to the surrounding air. It’s the same with the climate system. When you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, it takes a while for the oceans to warm up and heat the climate system; even if you stop emitting greenhouse gases completely, it also takes a very long time for the oceans to cool down.
We are at a critical juncture in Canadian history. The 14th United Nations Conference of Parties (COP14) to the Climate Change Convention will be held in December in Poland and COP15 will follow next December in Copenhagen. It is at this latter meeting that a post-Kyoto global warming treaty will be proposed. It is absolutely critical that Canada play a constructive role in negotiations leading up to this event.
In the last two years, Canada has obstructed international efforts designed to develop policies to deal with global warming. At the 2007 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, Canada scuttled attempts aimed at getting consensus on a strongly worded commitment to greenhouse gas reduction. At the United Nations meeting in Bali in December 2007, Canada was an international embarrassment, winning a record total of fourteen not-so-flattering Fossil of the Day awards given by the international organization Avaaz.org to the countries who did the most to block progress. Canada resisted all attempts to include specific reference to reduction targets by 2020 proposed by the European Union and others. Our country also blocked efforts to include language calling for global emissions to peak in ten to fifteen years.
So how do Canada’s current policies look? The current government’s plan focuses on emission-intensity not emissions reductions. Reducing emission-intensity means that you continue to pollute, but do so more efficiently. For example, as part of the plan the oil sands sector will be required to reduce its emissions intensity by 2020. But oil sands production could quadruple by that time. The overall net effect of the federal regulation would be to allow a tripling or more of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands sector by 2017, and possible continued increases after that. Frankly, no matter how you try to spin it, that is not a reduction.
Economists around the world agree. There is only one way to deal with global warming. And that is to put a price on emissions. This can be done through either a carbon tax, a cap and trade system, or both.
The carbon tax provides price certainty, is easier to implement, more transparent, easy to make revenue-neutral and less open to abuse. Cap and trade systems require self-regulation and reporting, cumbersome bureaucracy to administer and take a long time to implement while details, such as credit for early action, process of awarding emissions permits, and reporting requirements get worked out.
In both cases the price is passed on to the consumer through an increase in the price of carbon-intensive products. In the carbon tax case the consumer sees what price is added whereas it is obscured in the cap and trade system.
It is disingenuous to claim on the one hand that the carbon tax will cause an economic disaster and on the other hand advocate for a cap and trade system. They are equivalent economic instruments that have the same effect of pricing emissions. Ordinary Canadians deserve to be told this and not have the issue obscured in political rhetoric.
On the other hand, perhaps Canadians have
decided that we owe nothing to future generations and that we don’t care about
the future of modern civilisation. We, the undersigned, think we do care. In
2008, we urge Canadians to vote strategically for the environment.
Click here for a full list of signatories
