Home
Hot Air: Meeting Canada’s Climate Change Challenge
Mainly written from B.C., Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge (M&S $29.99) looks at the political hurdles that have prevented Canada from meeting its planetary obligations regarding global warming. Hot Air also examines possible solutions-that include the CIMS policy modeling tool, developed by SFU's Mark Jaccard and implemented around the world-and reveals the failed poker playing of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien at the Kyoto summit.
Despite having pledged to reduce Canada's green-
house gas emissions by 6 percent below 1990 levels under the Kyoto Protocol, our emissions have since gone up by nearly 30 percent, making Canada the worst performer of all Kyoto signatories.
We are not only failing to move forward on one of the most pressing issues of our time, we are actually going backwards.
The proof is available from Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge, co-written by Globe & Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, economist Mark Jaccard and SFU researcher Nic Rivers.
This power trio has detailed the poor planning, ill-advised policies and political posturing that have plagued Canada's climate change policies since the Mulroney years-the Kyoto Protocol on climate change only being the most visible manifestation of such failings.
From Hot Air, we learn Canada's negotiations at the Kyoto conference were never quite grounded in reality. When Jean Chrétien first sent delegates to Japan, his instructions were to "stay slightly ahead of whatever commitment the Americans might make."; Whether that target was actually attainable was immaterial, Canada's image within the international community-and, by association, the legacy of Jean Chrétien-were foremost.
At Kyoto, it was imperative that Canada appear more virtuous than the United States.
At first, everything went as planned. Having previously spoken with US President Bill Clinton, Chrétien anticipated a modest American commitment somewhere between zero and two percent-prompting Canada to announce a slightly higher target commitment of three percent.
But the entire negotiating process was turned on its head when Vice-President Al Gore arrived and stunned delegates by announcing the US would commit to a seven percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Canadian negotiators were sent scrambling. In an attempt to save face, Canada's target was arbitrarily upped to six percent. No serious studies regarding the economic impacts of the commitment or even how such reductions could possibly be achieved were ever considered.
When the United States later withdrew from the Kyoto talks under George W. Bush, Canada was left out to dry with a highly ambitious target, and no roadmap to get there.
According to the authors of Hot Air, the reasons for Canada's failure to meet its overly ambitious Kyoto target, or make any progress on the climate change front, are varied. Our population and economy are growing much faster than most of Europe, we have more urban sprawl, a greater reliance on cars, a cold climate, and, perhaps most significantly, a booming oil and gas sector.
Even with the best of intentions, fully realizing a six percent reduction would have been an enormous feat.
Making matters worse, genuine political will was, and continues to be, sorely lacking in Canada. The decision to ratify Kyoto was made almost unilaterally by Chrétien. In doing so, he not only infuriated provincial leadership and his federal opposition, but also alienated his own political cabinet. He committed Canada to an agreement that few politicians after him felt truly obliged to fulfill.
The most crucial problem, however, is described at the core of Hot Air: Every Canadian administration, from Mulroney through to Harper, has relied solely upon voluntary measures-opting for the carrot over the stick-an approach that consists throwing lots of money around and politely asking businesses and individuals to stop polluting.
Who remembers the 1-tonne Challenge? At a cost of 17 million dollars, ads featuring Rick Mercer appeared on televisions across the country, urging Canadians to reduce their carbon footprint by driving less and turning off more lights.
Polls later revealed that the ads were almost wholly ineffective, yet the 1-tonne Challenge continued to remain in place. For decades there has been much talk and billions of dollars spent through subsidies and similar public awareness programs, but Canada has very little to show for it.
The only solution, argue the authors of Hot Air, is to stop relying on the carrot and start wielding the stick. "Polluting behaviour must have a price, not in moral opprobrium but in financial terms.";
Whether it is strict regulations, carbon taxes, a cap and trade system, or some combination of all three, the approach must be compulsory and it must contain penalties stringent enough to bring about changes in behaviour. We can either accept that fact or continue to do nothing-the choice is ours. 978-0-7710-8096-8
--article by Martin Twigg, freelance environmental journalist.
[BCBW 2008] "Environment"
Despite having pledged to reduce Canada's green-
house gas emissions by 6 percent below 1990 levels under the Kyoto Protocol, our emissions have since gone up by nearly 30 percent, making Canada the worst performer of all Kyoto signatories.
We are not only failing to move forward on one of the most pressing issues of our time, we are actually going backwards.
The proof is available from Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge, co-written by Globe & Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson, economist Mark Jaccard and SFU researcher Nic Rivers.
This power trio has detailed the poor planning, ill-advised policies and political posturing that have plagued Canada's climate change policies since the Mulroney years-the Kyoto Protocol on climate change only being the most visible manifestation of such failings.
From Hot Air, we learn Canada's negotiations at the Kyoto conference were never quite grounded in reality. When Jean Chrétien first sent delegates to Japan, his instructions were to "stay slightly ahead of whatever commitment the Americans might make."; Whether that target was actually attainable was immaterial, Canada's image within the international community-and, by association, the legacy of Jean Chrétien-were foremost.
At Kyoto, it was imperative that Canada appear more virtuous than the United States.
At first, everything went as planned. Having previously spoken with US President Bill Clinton, Chrétien anticipated a modest American commitment somewhere between zero and two percent-prompting Canada to announce a slightly higher target commitment of three percent.
But the entire negotiating process was turned on its head when Vice-President Al Gore arrived and stunned delegates by announcing the US would commit to a seven percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Canadian negotiators were sent scrambling. In an attempt to save face, Canada's target was arbitrarily upped to six percent. No serious studies regarding the economic impacts of the commitment or even how such reductions could possibly be achieved were ever considered.
When the United States later withdrew from the Kyoto talks under George W. Bush, Canada was left out to dry with a highly ambitious target, and no roadmap to get there.
According to the authors of Hot Air, the reasons for Canada's failure to meet its overly ambitious Kyoto target, or make any progress on the climate change front, are varied. Our population and economy are growing much faster than most of Europe, we have more urban sprawl, a greater reliance on cars, a cold climate, and, perhaps most significantly, a booming oil and gas sector.
Even with the best of intentions, fully realizing a six percent reduction would have been an enormous feat.
Making matters worse, genuine political will was, and continues to be, sorely lacking in Canada. The decision to ratify Kyoto was made almost unilaterally by Chrétien. In doing so, he not only infuriated provincial leadership and his federal opposition, but also alienated his own political cabinet. He committed Canada to an agreement that few politicians after him felt truly obliged to fulfill.
The most crucial problem, however, is described at the core of Hot Air: Every Canadian administration, from Mulroney through to Harper, has relied solely upon voluntary measures-opting for the carrot over the stick-an approach that consists throwing lots of money around and politely asking businesses and individuals to stop polluting.
Who remembers the 1-tonne Challenge? At a cost of 17 million dollars, ads featuring Rick Mercer appeared on televisions across the country, urging Canadians to reduce their carbon footprint by driving less and turning off more lights.
Polls later revealed that the ads were almost wholly ineffective, yet the 1-tonne Challenge continued to remain in place. For decades there has been much talk and billions of dollars spent through subsidies and similar public awareness programs, but Canada has very little to show for it.
The only solution, argue the authors of Hot Air, is to stop relying on the carrot and start wielding the stick. "Polluting behaviour must have a price, not in moral opprobrium but in financial terms.";
Whether it is strict regulations, carbon taxes, a cap and trade system, or some combination of all three, the approach must be compulsory and it must contain penalties stringent enough to bring about changes in behaviour. We can either accept that fact or continue to do nothing-the choice is ours. 978-0-7710-8096-8
--article by Martin Twigg, freelance environmental journalist.
[BCBW 2008] "Environment"
Submitted on September 5, 2008 in By David.
