After a few months of thinking, I came to the conclusion that there is no choice but to oppose the construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline. There are many worthy arguments on either side of this issue, from the economy to First Nations rights, and from the preservation of the BC coastline to the reality of oil consumption here and abroad. My argument, presented in the Mark, is entirely about climate:
If the Harper government were not so consistently obstinate on federal climate policy, people like me (a climate scientist who has long been wary of the NIMBYism of environmental groups) might not become vociferous opponents of projects like Northern Gateway. We are forced to oppose individual carbon-intensive projects because the government refuses to listen to scientific or economic reason on climate change.
My compromise solution is a federal carbon pricing system.
A carbon-pricing system, like those of British Columbia and Australia, would not necessarily prevent pipeline construction. Rather, it could allow the market to decide whether the costs of a new pipeline outweigh the benefits, and ensure that any emissions from such new projects are more than compensated for by cuts elsewhere. This would also help Canada slowly transition towards a 21st-century economy, based on innovation and our plentiful renewable resources, without ignoring extractive industries of our past.
I encourage people to read, consider and comment on this argument. It is not based on concern about the direct effect of an individual pipeline like Northern Gateway on the physics and chemistry of the climate system. The approval of an individual project, and for that matter, the overall expansion of oil extraction in Alberta, would not specifically be - physically or chemically speaking - "game over" for the climate, as some have claimed. They could, however, lead us down the wrong path.
Absent a federal effort to manage carbon emissions, there will be a pitched battle over every new pipeline and every new coal-burning power plant. Many of those seeming slam dunks, like Keystone XL, will clang off the rim. We could keep fighting like this forever. Or we could work together on a federal climate policy.
Sunday, February 05, 2012
Why I am opposed to Northern Gateway
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Coverage of today's congressional hearing on climate science
The U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing about climate science this morning, as a part of the deliberations on a bill that would challenge the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. These congressional hearings can seem like a circus, with a set of climate scientists countered by people with nice sounding credentials making arguments by analogy or just wholly baseless claims about climate science (case in point: just read or watch Donald Roberts' testimony).
This time the real circus may have been the coverage. After my morning class, I clicked on Science Magazine's (by then complete) live blog of the hearing with Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate in hopes of getting a feel for what had come to pass in the halls of Congress. Unfortunately, this legimate attempt at science coverage by a news organization with the aide of an expert from the field became more of a circus than most congressional hearings thanks to the commenters. I think commenter Roger Pielke Jr. posted more than Schmidt and blog host Eli Kintisch combined.
But that's the whole challenge, isn't it? Climate communication, like climate change, is a signal to noise problem.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Obama and Chu on piecemeal climate policy
This is from US President Obama's interview in Rolling Stone:
When I ask him [Stephen Chu] how we are going to solve this problem internationally, what he'll tell you is that we can get about a third of this done through efficiencies and existing technologies, we can get an additional chunk through some sort of pricing in carbon, but ultimately we're going to need some technological breakthroughs
It is an interesting and rather pragmatic characterization of the solution. The pricing could, of course, drive efficiencies, use of efficient technologies and the development of new breakthrough technologies. But we're seeing how a comprehensive pricing scheme is a practical and political nightmare. Implementing a national or international pricing scheme that touches on a limited set of carbon-generating activities, let one alone taxes carbon across the board, has been hard enough (in the case of Waxman-Markey, you end up with a complicated bill that alienates even the supporters of action).
Maybe people are finally coming to the realization that a piecemeal solution might actually work the best. If we can use adopt "wedges" thinking, rather than one grand solution, to reducing emissions, why not do the same for the policy that encourages the emissions reductions?
In Obama's words:
We may end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive omnibus legislation. But we're going to stay on this because it is good for our economy, it's good for our national security, and, ultimately, it's good for our environment.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Really, what does the Republicans "climate zombies" accomplish?
A colleague mentioned this list (also see Joe Romm) of statements about climate change by Republican candidates for Senate. With one exception, they all doubt that human activity is responsible for climate change.
Sure I agree with all the commentators that the stance of all these candidates is depressing. The similarity of their statements suggests that it has less to do with what the individual's actually think about climate change, than the fact that climate change has become so politicized in the U.S. that Republicans need to express doubt in order to win their party's nomination. From their vantage point, denial and doubt is the only viable option.
As such, what's far more depressing to me than the statements themselves is what those statements imply about the utter failure to communicate the science of climate change and the rationale for climate change solutions in a non-partisan way. Maybe this should serve as a lesson that years of doing things like calling people who question climate change "brain-dead zombies" hasn't accomplished anything but maybe "fire up the base" (which in itself, didn't accomplish much in the past two years!)
You can be right without being arrogant. I've said it before: rather than demonize people who question climate change, it's worth thinking about their motivation and their reasoning, faulty as though it may be. Otherwise, the water will be flooding the front steps here in Vancouver, and we'll still be having the same inane arguments.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
World Leaders Agree to Delay Climate Change Deal
This news comes from the APEC summit in Singapore. NY Times:
SINGAPORE — President Obama and other world leaders have decided to put off the difficult task of reaching climate change agreement at a global climate conference scheduled for next month, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen conference to reach a less specific “politically binding” agreement that would punt the most difficult issues into the future.
The announcement is a simple dose of reality: there simply was not enough time left to reach a deal at Copenhagen. It'll be universally reported as "bad" news for the climate. Maybe yes. The flip side is that perhaps now that the artificial December deadline is removed, the key countries can engage in intelligent policy conversations. The "Copenhagen" or bust mentality was not helping anyone.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Canada: Five years, three elections, and still no climate policy
With the distinct possibility of yet another Canadian election this fall and news the Conservative government, after several years in power, is just now working on a climate policy, and a policy that would "favour" the oil sands (more on this tomorrow), it's interesting a look at a column I wrote five years and three elections ago. Or was it four elections? I'm losing count.
The following is the opening of my June 2, 2004 op-ed in the Globe and Mail:
The real issues at election time are often the ones our political leaders work hardest to hide. There is no greater skeleton in the electoral closet than climate change and the Kyoto Protocol.
The Martin government seems to wish climate change would just go away. Facing a disgruntled electorate, the government fears even mentioning climate change could turn some voters toward the anti-Kyoto Conservatives. At the same time, the Conservatives also wish to avoid the issue for fear of alienating any pro-environment Liberals angry with the Martin government. As a result, only the NDP and the Green Party have dared utter the word "Kyoto."
The disappearance of prominent environmental issues at election time is hardly a new phenomenon. In the battle for votes, everyone longs to appear green, but will not advocate any policy that might be perceived, correctly or not, as damaging to the voter's wallet.
This election in particular has fallen prey to the opportunistic notion that scoring a favourable headline in the morning paper on the issue of the day is more important than presenting an integrated vision for the country. The result is fragmented political platforms in which environmental issues are the big losers.
The high price of gasoline provides a perfect opportunity to promote the need for higher automotive fuel efficiency, more funding for public transit, and reduced smog in our cities. These are issues of interest to all Canadians; dealing with them would help reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the debate focuses entirely on which party can deliver lower gas prices.
The problem for the Liberals and the Conservatives is that climate change is one environmental issue that will not go away.
Still true after all these years? This was the conclusion:
Canada is responsible for a small fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and cannot stop climate change alone. But a serious Canadian effort to meet the Kyoto commitment and promote future climate policy could provide much-needed international leadership and restore this country's green reputation - which has been sullied by the passivity of the previous decade.
Will Canada become a leader in preventing dangerous climate change, in promoting new energy technologies, higher fuel efficiency, improved urban infrastructure and sustainable international development? Those are the issues that should inspire an election.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
RIP theGreen Shift
Of all the political obituaries written last night, the most troubling is not that of a person, but that of a concept.
The Liberal Green Shift, specific inadequacies aside, would have done exactly what economists have been recommending for years. Shift taxes from income to carbon.
The Conservative victory, particularly here in BC where a provincial version of the income-to-carbon tax shift has met public resistance, is likely to convince a generation of politicians in Canada and abroad that an income to carbon tax shift is good policy, but bad politics. It make take years to overcome that judgment.
For now, one can hope that the opposition parties at least push the Conservative minority to install a more politically viable cap-and-trade system.
It would be ironic. Under cap-and-trade, companies are likely to pass some or all of the cost of emissions reduction on to the consumer. Despite the NDP's protestations about making the big polluters not the consumers pay, the net effect on a cap-and-trade system everyday activity will be quite similar to the carbon tax.
The biggest difference? The large bureaucracy and regulatory structure required for reporting, monitoring and management under cap-and-trade. That increase in government bureaucracy is exactly the sort of thing that no Canadian political party wants to support.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Truth and complications: The Green Shift
Read any story, online or in print, about the Liberal Party’s “Green Shift” and you will learn two things. First, that the Green Shift is a “carbon tax”. Second, that it is complicated.
The first is inaccurate. The second is just false.
We could discuss how these memes have spread, who is to blame, and the general warping of reality in modern politician campaigns (say something, anything, enough times and it might become true). I’ll leave that to the political bloggers. Here, let's cover the truth about the Green Shift.
First, the Green Shift is an economic plan. The main feature of the plan is a small shift in taxation from income to carbon-based fuels. Yes, the plan features a carbon tax. It also features income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, tax credits for green investments, tax credits for rural and northern communities, and tax credits for middle class families. Labeling the Green Shift a carbon tax is defining an economic plan based on one incomplete component; you could just as soon call the Green Shift an income tax cut.
Second, it is not complicated. Here’s how it works. The tax on carbon-based fuels begins at $10 per tonne of carbon, and will increase by $10 a ton until reaching $40 in the fourth year. At the same time, income and corporate tax cuts will return the revenue from the carbon-based fuel tax to consumers and the marketplace. Government revenue will not change.
In fact, the Liberals are so vigilant about the tax shift being revenue neutral that the plan will require the Auditor General to evaluate the revenue every year. If there is a net increase in government revenue, it will be returned to taxpayers.
There you go. That’s essentially the plan. Not complicated.
Now, working out the exact impact on your taxes and your fuel, heat and electricity expenditures requires a bit of math. Of course it does. That is true every time there is a change in the tax code or a change in government.
It is an insult to Canadians to keep calling this too complicated. If anything, the Green Shift is actually simpler than the tax plans put forth by the other parties. The Green Shift integrates all the major tax changes into one plan, one document. It is easy to read and evaluate. The other parties are announcing tax changes one by one, making it difficult to assess the aggregate impact on personal, or federal, finances.
I am not advocating for the Liberal Party or the specifics of the Green Shift. I am advocating for a real, intelligent, honest discussion about reducing Canada's greenhouse gas emissions.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain and Obama positions on climate change
Science Debate 2008 - the proposed televised presidential debate on science and science policy - will not actually happen this election season. The candidates have now both responded to the organizers list of 14 questions about science and science policy.
This written Q&A lacks the unscripted exchange that could, although often does not, occur during an actual live debate. It does at least provide voters with an outline on each campaign`s position on range of important issues related to science, something not happening in the Canadian election. It also spares us the possible spectacle of interviewers testing the candidates knowledge of science; the Palin interview on ABC was like watching a stern high school teacher conduct an oral exam and the student repeat everything memorized during a recent cram session (that should not be necessary, nor is it terribly useful for anyone involved).
The NY Time`s DotEarth suggests we can at least cheer the responses to the question about climate change. Both McCain and Obama both support cuts in steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change.
I was struck by the difference between the opening sentences. The McCain line is particularly disappointing.
McCain:
We know that greenhouse gas emissions, by retaining heat within the atmosphere, threaten disastrous changes in the climate.
What is striking here is the choice to open with threaten disastrous changes in the climate. Why not open with what the science states: that greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate, and the changes could become disastrous if left unchecked? The omission of the first clause is very curious. McCain`s opening line fails to recognize that the climate is currently changing, only that it might some day. That is a big difference.
Obsessive nitpicking? Possibly. However, we should keep in mind the words in these prepared statements are chosen very carefully.
For comparison, Obama:
There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively.
This statement is far more direct. Influencing is a bit more subtle than the preferred word changing but not unusual for statements about climate change (perhaps Obama is worried about the issue stealing the change mantle?)
The differences in wording are small, and appear unimportant. But they matter when it comes to federal and international climate policy. Look at the mess made by the Bush Administration`s continued use of aspirational goals rather than targets.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Elections, elections oh my
For the second time in eight years, both Canada and the US are headed for elections at roughly the same time. Climate change should have been a central issue back in 2000: there was climate change expert Al Gore running against a largely unaware George Bush in the US, and Jean Chretien and the Kyoto-trumpeting Liberals angling for re-election in Canada. But it barely cracked the agenda.
This time around, climate change is much more front and central. But not in the way we, or the planet, needs.
Three examples:
1. On August 29th - four DAYS ago - the following question was posed to Sarah Palin, John McCain's running mate: "What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?". The answer?
A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
Either McCain's team truly did fail to talk to Palin in depth before offering her the job, or her selection is about religious politics, and nothing else. The news organizations and blog are attacking Palin's qualifications for Vice-President, musing about foreign policy experience, governing experience, etc. In 2008, after four IPCC reports and countless summaries of the science by the National Academies of different nations have definitively concluded that human activity is changing the climate, and after leaders of countless nations have stated that climate change is one of, if not the, greatest threat of the 21st century, not "believing" climate change is manmade should alone be a disqualification. And in 2008, this belief, in general, also raise concerns about trusting and evaluating expert judgment, one of the most important jobs of a political leader.
[don't even get me started on teaching creationism in school]
2. Barack Obama is not innocent either. In his acceptance speech, Obama threw a bone to the coal industry by citin "clean coal" as a solution to oil and climate crises. Clean coal, a term promoted by the coal companies, refers to coal-burning plants which emit lower concentrations of air pollutants like sulfur. It has nothing whatsoever to do with greenhouse gas emissions. Experts or regular readers on climate and energy know this. Does the average voter?
3. The Canadian election promises to be equally petty. The Harper Government has attacked revenue-neutral Dion's Green Shift plan as a tax hike and grab. Revenue-neutral. That is not a tax hike. The Liberals, fearing these attacks, are already weakening the plan by providing subsidies for fishers, farmers and truckers. Changes like this are not unreasonable. But they show that the public discourse will be dominated by juvenile and distracting "tax grab"-like arguments rather than the very necessary discussion of how Canada can implement a price on carbon.
How do we change this? We've got only around six weeks in Canada, and only eight weeks in the US, to elevate the discussion.
