Category: Environment

Kent on Durban Platform: "fair and balanced framework"

Peter Kent at Durban
Australia’s Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet (left) speaks with Canada’s Environment Minister Peter Kent during a break in plenary session at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP17) in Durban December 10, 2011. REUTERS/Rogan Ward

The international conference on climate change in Durban, South Africa was supposed to wrap up on Friday but without a deal, all countries kept going and, early Sunday morning, came up with what they’re calling the Durban Platform. Here, for the record, is Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent’s statement on Durban Platform:

Continue reading Kent on Durban Platform: "fair and balanced framework"

Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on

Earlier this week, MPs in the House of Commons voted on the motion you’ll see in the poll question below. I’m not going to tell you right now who tabled the motion,  what party the MP belongs to, or what the results were (and if you already know, don’t play the spoiler!)  but, in a post I hope to put up later today, I’ll touch on all of that in some notes I hope to make about about free votes in the House of Commons.

In the meantime, here is the exact wording of the House of Commons motion. As the Speaker, says, all those in favour? Opposed?:

Continue reading Poll: Canada, Kyoto, climate change, Durban, jobs and so on

Transcript: Harper in Churchill on climate change, Afghanistan, Arctic weather and those hostages

Here's my transcript of the English-language portions of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's press conference in Churchill, Man. earlier today:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper: The weather today here in Churchill has held us back a bit. This is the reality of Canada’s north. This is actually the second time this has happened. A couple of years ago we had a trip up to the high north delayed because of high winds and storms. So these things do happen. It’s a reality in Canada’s north and a reality in all of the country.

We live in a magnificent country with a challenging climate. It might hold us back at the airport but it doesn’t hold us back in building this great country. In fact, if Canada’s history is anything to go by, it makes us all the more determined.

Today traditional activites like hunting and fishing co-exist alongside cutting edge scientific research. In many ways, the vibrant community of Cambridge Bay represents a fulfillment of John Diefenbaker’s vision of a Canada of the north. And following in the Chief’s footsteps, this government has a four-point northern strategy. We are exercising Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, promoting social and economic development, protecting the north’s environmental heritage and improving and devolving northern governance so that northerners have a leading role in charting their own destiny.

The ongoing partnership between the Government of Canada and the citizens of this hardy land is aimed at building a strong and prosperous future for all of our true north. For instance, investments in scientific research here provide benefits for local communities but in a much broader sense. When we strengthen these communities we strengthen our country.

That’s why in Canada’s Economic Action Plan, we set aside substantial funding to maintain and upgrade key Arctic research facilities. Investments in Arctic science strengthen Canada’s sovereignty, fostering more sustainable environment and contribute to a growing economy. That’s why this government made a commitment to establishing a world-class station that can be a hub for research in the high Arctic.

And we are taking the next steps to deliver on that commitment. After careful review, including a comprehensive feasibility study, it has become clear which community would be the best home for this investment. Today, I’m pleased to announce that Cambridge Bay will be the site of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. This will be a world-class centre for science. This will be a tangible expression of this government’s determination to develop and protect all of our true north. And it will serve as an important stepping stone for the continue progress of Cambridge Bay.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station will be a meeting place for Canada’s top scientists and, indeed, for leading scientists from around the world. The station will stimulate not only local economic activity and leading-edge research. It will also inspire the imaginations and the ambitions of young Canadians in Cambridge Bay and across the north.

I want to take a few moments … to talk about the bigger picture. In the recent global recession, Canada has done better, far better, than its peers among advanced countries. And while the strength of our economy is encouraging, nothing can be taken for granted. That’s why we continue to be focused on the economy and jobs and why we are continuing to follow a plan, Canada’s economic action plan, a plan that has witnessed the creation of nearly four hundred thousand net new jobs over the past year.

We are investing in things that have a lasting value for our communities and for our country. If we stay on course and we continue to make strategic investments like the high Arctic research station in Cambridge Bay, I’m confident future prosperity awaits us all.

Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News: [The research station] is being located in a part of the Arctic where they are increasingly seeing winters that don’t last as long so I’m wondering to what extent will this centre teach us all about the impact of global warming, how will that assure the sceptics that, indeed, global warming is a reality and how will it impact your reputation as a government that is actually getting serious about research on the issue?

Harper: This government has been generously funding research on that issue and – yes – I would anticipate that the high Arctic research station will become a hub for research on climate change as well as a wide range of other issues. It will be a large-scale world-class centre that will be looking at all aspects of northern science and northern environment. But rest assured – research on that is proceeding already. For instance, I was in Alert, in the very far north – the farthest north you can go – not long after I became prime minister. I visited the weather station there where they were, in fact, tracking the effects of climate change. So this is something our government does contribute to.

Bruce Campion-Smith, Toronto Star: This research station has been three years in the making. It’s going to be potentially another five years (until design is complete). We have icebreakers, which are long-term. Patrol vessels. What do you say to critics who say that some of the signature projects of your Arctic initiative — there doesn’t seem to be an urgency to them. When do you think scientists might take up station in Cambridge Bay?

Harper: I would say to you: These are big-scale, long-term projects. They’re not done in an instant. Major Coast Guard procurements, for example, are the same as major military procurements. They take place over a long period of time. Obviously, they’re co-ordinated with the wearing-out of existing vessels and the replacement of those vessels. In the case of the research station, yes, it is also a long-term project in terms of development. There’s a lot of design work to be done on this. In the meantime, we have been putting additional money into northern research and into existing northern research facilities to expand programs and to lay the groundwork for the eventual and final establishment of the research station. So just to be clear: They’re long-term projects but we’re not standing still. Things are happening to prepare the ground and to expand the scientific research programs in the north in the meantime.

Terry Milewski, CBC Television: A question on another topic, if I may: You’ve been clear for some time that Canada’s continuing mission in Afghanistan is going to purely civilian. Parliament has been clear. It’s also clear that without armed security no civilian mission is really possible and [Afghanistan] President [Hamid] Karzai doesn’t want private contractors anymore. Doesn’t it follow that Canadian civilians working in Aghanistan will either have to be protected by the military of some other nation or by Canadian military? What is your preference?

Harper: Well, these are difficult questions. I see there’s a report today on some proposals for our future involvements. I should just be clear that while officials are examining various proposals we have not taken decisions and there are difficult questions along those lines to answer and I will certainly concede that President Karzai’s decision will certainly complicate some of those choices in the future. But I’m not in a position today, Terry, to answer those questions but we are working on.

Daniel Thibeault, Radio-Canada: [Asks, in French, about Harper’s reaction to the hostage taking in the Philippines and whether or not he’s had a chance to speak to the families of the Canadian victims]

Harper: No I haven’t had a chance to speak to anyone involved. Officials, obviously are following this very closely and I’m not in a position to give any details but we do know there are deaths involved in this incident. It is a terrible and a tragic incident and obviously I just want to take this opportunity to express my condolences on my behalf and obviously on behalf of the entire government to the families who have lost loved ones in this particular tragedy.

James Cudmore, CBC Radio: A couple of weeks ago you were asked about seismic testing in Lancaster Sound and, at the time, you said it had nothing to do with oil and gas exploration but the government of Canada’s role in that testing program is funded under the geo-mapping for energy and minerals program whose goal is to provide high-quality data on the location and exploitation of energy and mineral resources. I wonder if you can explain that discrepancy and, more broadly, if you could speak to what extent aiding in the exploitation of Arctic energy and mineral resources is a priority for your government.

Harper: Well, first of all, let me be clear. My understanding of this particular testing – it’s principal purpose – was in the development of the protected marine area we’re developing there. But obviously the government has made a commitment to do enhanced scientific mapping throughout this region. And obviously potential uses of that knowledge are multifold in the long-term. But this is, we have felt, good scientific work that is of great value to Canada and provides a potential employment in this part of the country and I should mention that the particular project in question was something we agree to with the government of Nunavut. So we’re obviously disappointed with the court decision and have not yet taken a position on how we will respond to that decision.

Cudmore: And more broadly on the extent that your government feels it necessary to aid in the exploitation …

Harper: I say that this kind of data is useful for all kinds of potential purposes but obviously any kind of economic development, [or] specific resource development that we pursue, we want to make sure we do in concert with people in this region of the country and that they will benefit significantly should that occur.

Green groups give Avatar Oscar for "exposing the Tar Sands"

AVATARSANDS_Variety_Final_PRINT.jpg Canadian and world environmental groups have taken out a full-page ad (left) in Variety, the Hollywood trade magazine, to endorse the movie Avatar for the best picture Oscar. The green groups say the ad is part of a campaign, largely being mounted in the United States, to halt expansion of Alberta's oil sands.

“We want Hollywood, and the powerful thought leaders there, to know Avatar does a great job of exposing the Tar Sands,” said Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, one of 55 groups that signed the ad. “It's the world's most destructive project – Pandora's unobtanium is Canada's Tar Sands.”

One of the images in the ad is a 797B Heavy Hauler, one of the first trucks used to mine the oil sands, which the green groups say is identical to some of the trucks used in Avatar. The ad “also shows the vast open pit mines and tailings ponds that cut across what was once pristine Boreal forest – the same forest that stretched across [Canadian-born Avatar director James] Cameron's hometown in Ontario.”

In the world's slums, a vision of the green city of the future

A billion people live in the slums of the world's biggest cities. In 25 years, 2 billion people will be slum-dwellers. Stewart Brand looks at the slum and sees a hopeful future of compact urbanization that ought to be encouraged. It's a fascinating read. Here's some excerpts:

Vast numbers of people will begin climbing the energy ladder from smoky firewood and dung cooking fires to diesel-driven generators for charging batteries, then to 24/7 grid electricity. They are also climbing the food ladder, from subsistence farms to cash crops of staples like rice, corn, wheat and soy to meat—and doing so in a global marketplace. Environmentalists who try to talk people out of it will find the effort works about as well as trying to convince them to stay in their villages. Peasant life is over, unless catastrophic climate change drives us back to it. For humanity, the green city is our future.

The point is clear: environmentalists have yet to seize the opportunity offered by urbanisation. Two major campaigns should be mounted: one to protect the newly-emptied countryside, the other to green the hell out of the growing cities.
The reversal of opinion about fast-growing cities, previously considered bad news, began with The Challenge of Slums, a 2003 UN-Habitat report. The book’s optimism derived from its groundbreaking fieldwork: 37 case studies in slums worldwide. Instead of just compiling numbers and filtering them through theory, researchers hung out in the slums and talked to people. They came back with an unexpected observation: “Cities are so much more successful in promoting new forms of income generation, and it is so much cheaper to provide services in urban areas, that some experts have actually suggested that the only realistic poverty reduction strategy is to get as many people as possible to move to the city.” The magic of squatter cities is that they are improved steadily and gradually by their residents.

Urban roofs offer no end of opportunities for energy saving and “reconciliation ecology.” Planting a green roof with its own ecological community is well-established. For food, add an “ultraefficient greenhouse”; for extra power, add solar collectors. And the most dramatic gains can come from simply making everything white. According to a 2008 study from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, if the world’s 100 largest cities replaced their dark roofs in this way, it could offset 44 metric gigatonnes of greenhouse gases.

[If slums are considered] overall a net good for those who move there, it is because cities offer more than just jobs. They are transformative: in the slums, as well as the office towers and leafy suburbs, the progress is from hick to metropolitan to cosmopolitan, and with it everything the dictionary says that cosmopolitan means: multicultural, multiracial, global, worldly-wise, well travelled, experienced, unprovincial, cultivated, cultured, sophisticated, suave, urbane.

Feds name Canada's most fuel-efficient cars and light trucks

The federal government today announced its winners of the ecoEnergy Awards for Vehicles, an annual event in which Ottawa takes a look at the all the cars and light trucks sold in the Canadian market and tells consumers which ones get the best mileage (kilometrage?). This year's group looks a lot like last year's group:

  • Two-Seater: smart fortwo
  • Subcompact: Toyota Yaris
  • Compact: Honda Civic Hybrid
  • Mid-Size: Toyota Prius
  • Full-Size: Hyundai Sonata
  • Station Wagon: Audi A3 TDI and Volkswagen Golf Wagon TDI Clean Diesel (co-winners)
  • Pickup Truck: Ford Ranger and Mazda B2300 (co-winners)
  • Special Purpose: Ford Escape Hybrid
  • Minivan: Mazda5
  • Large Van: Chevrolet Express Cargo / GMC Savana Cargo
, ,

The worst political move of 2009? How about Harper's environmental no-show?

On CTV's Question Period this afternoon, a journalist panel was asked what they thought was the “worst political move” of 2009. CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife makes what I think is a convincing argument that the worst political move last year was the Harper government's inability to craft a national environmental/climate change plan. The leaders of the country's three biggest provinces — Ontario, B.C. and Quebec — are now heading their own way when it comes to environmental policy and their way is likely at odds with some of the choices that energy-rich provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan might favour.

That sets the stage for more regional factionalism in the country and another potential unity crisis, argues Fife. I think he's on to something.

Here's what Fife said on QP this afternoon (transcript provided by CTV):

… what I think is the worst political move, and it's not one that has really been on the radar screen that much, has been the failure of this government develop a national environmental plan that involves all the provinces and all the industries. We're now seeing that the provinces are leading the way on environmental … and you're now seeing Ontario and Quebec pitted against Alberta. And I think the failure of the Harper government to deal seriously with environmental policy is going to potentially fracture the unity of this country.

What you cannot have are the central Canada, the two biggest provinces where so much of the industrial base is fighting with the engine of the economy right now, which is Alberta, and its oil. But we are seeing those divisions, and they're very serious divisions, and if this is not addressed we may be back in the kind of unity crises that we saw back in the 1990's…

Kick Canada out of the Commonwealth for climate change inaction, greenies urge

This just in:

Global coalition demands Canada's suspension from the Commonwealth on climate grounds

26 November 2009 – A coalition of prominent figures from the developing world have joined a former UK development minister, a UN scientist and British environment and development groups to demand the suspension of Canada from the commonwealth for its record on climate change.

The groups claim that Canada's lack of action on climate change is contributing to droughts, floods and sea level rises in small island states and vulnerable commonwealth countries such as Bangladesh, The Maldives and Mozambique. Canada's emissions have risen by 26.2% between 1990 and 2007. A recent report puts Canada at the bottom of the G8 league table for action to tackle climate change.

The Commonwealth allows for member countries to be suspended for Human Rights abuses, but ignores the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on some of the poorest countries in the world. This week, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Kamalesh Sharma said: "I would like to think that our definition of serious violations could embrace much more than it does now."

The organisation has acted before against members. It was a prominent opponent of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and suspended Nigeria for three years after the 1995 hanging of the activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 and withdrew altogether a year later.

Canada's government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, continues to support for the extraction of oil from tar sands in northern Alberta, a process which scientists say is three times as damaging to the climate than extracting conventional oil (3).  

Reacting to the news, Greenpeace UK Executive Director John Sauven said:

"Individual countries are rightly suspended from the Commonwealth for human rights abuses, but the Canadian government is contributing to what is arguably the greatest human rights scandal of all time. Extracting millions of barrels of dirty oil from tar sands and abandoning the Kyoto treaty is not the behaviour of a responsible commonwealth member, and Canada should be suspended immediately."

Saleemul Huq, Senior Fellow on Climate Change and a lead author of the IPCC fourth assessment report said:
"My country, Bangladesh, is already suffering the effects of climate change. Canada's complete failure to cut its emissions is making the global situation worse. If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately." 

Former UK International Development Secretary Clare Short said:
"It is important that the Commonwealth works to reduce global warming, which will devastate many of its members. Countries that fail to help should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights. A process should now begin to consider suspending Canada."

Tony Clarke, Director of the Polaris institute in Canada said:
"The Canadian government's ongoing support for the Alberta tar sands is giving Canada a black eye on the international stage," "Unless our Government is willing to stop blocking international climate negotiations through its continued support for the tar sands, Canada should get out of the way and stop sitting at the Commonwealth table".

 Deborah Doane, director of the World Development Movement, who is Canadian, said:
"I am deeply ashamed of the Canadian government's appalling record on climate change. Canada consumes far more than its fair share of carbon, and, like all rich nations, owes a debt to developing nations for the impact of its emissions on the climate. Canada's policy on tar sands extraction means than Canada's reputation as a leading global citizen promoting social and environmental justice is now completely tarnished.
"People in developing countries of the Commonwealth, like Bangladesh, are right to be angry that Canada is getting away with climate crimes that are destroying their homes and livelihoods. The Commonwealth should hold Canada to a higher standard, and not accept their stance from the sidelines. Just because they're not using arms, doesn't mean they're not causing harm on a grand scale."

Experts say: Wake up Canada – you're about to lose control of over Canada's waterways

Or at least that's what several recreation and boating groups told the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance tonight.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, CanoeKayak Canada, academic experts and others are exercised about this paragraph, on page 144 of Budget 2009:

Efficiencies will be introduced through legislative amendments to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which has not been substantially amended since 1886. The proposed amendments reflect the recommendations that were made in June 2008 by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities after an exhaustive review of the Act.

Almost all the witnesses said there was hardly “an exhaustive review” for many had no chance to speak to the committee last spring and then, lo and behold, we were into an election in the fall.

Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, a charity devoted to the health of the water in the Great Lakes Basin, told MPs the proposed changes are terrible news for Canadian. They say:

1. The new Navigable Waters Protection Act (NWPA) eliminates environmental assessments for development projects on Canadian waterways, with very few exceptions.

2. The new NWPA means decisions about Canada’s waterways will be based on politics and financial clout rather than science or long-term socio-economic needs.

3. The new NWPA divides Canada’s rivers into those worth protecting and those not worth protecting.

4. The “class” lists may be drafted by the Cabinet in secrecy, with no public consultation, scientific basis, or opportunity for appeal.

Krystyn Tully, vice-president of Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, told MPs on the committee that, “To date no Western democracy has taken this right away from its people.”
Transport Canada official, though, says changes are not taking away anyone's rights and that environmental assessments will still be done on major projects. More on this in a bit …

,

CEOs, economists say carbon tax is fine; Harper, Layton say it ain't

Stephen Harper spent a fair amount of time today saying that, if the Liberals get in power and institute a carbon tax, the country could be thrown into recession and, as a bonus, national unity would be threatened.

Jack Layton, too, had not very nice things to say about Stephane Dion’s carbon tax and income tax cut.

Here though, are some non-partisan types, that actually think Dion’s approach is best.

First, here’s an excerpt from e-mail exchange I had before the writ was dropped with Mark Jaccard, a professor at Simon Fraser University, who specializes in the economics of climate change policy:

Conservatives have intensity cap on industry (with a huge 100% offset loophole), and no price or regulation on the 50% of emissions coming from non-industry (vehicles and buildings). These policies will not reach the emission reduction targets for 2020 that Harper and Baird say they will.

[The] NDP want [an] absolute cap on industry. All permits will be auctioned and the money used to subsidize offsets among non-industry. This won’t work. Industry will shut down from the cost hit. And offset subsidies do not reduce emissions.

I am not pro-Dion (see my 2006 CD Howe attack on his policies when he was environment minister) but the Liberals (and Greens) have the only policies that are realistic in that they apply an economy-wide cost on emissions to industry and non-industry. That or an economy-wide absolute cap (which Dion promises within 2 years) is the only way to reduce emissions without destroying the economy.

And here’s the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, a lobby group which represents CEOs at Canada’s biggest companies:

There is no question that taxation can be effective in changing business and consumer decisions and behaviour. Environmental levies such as a carbon tax are transparent, making the price of emissions clear and consistent. They can encourage long-term investments in research and in capital equipment by establishing a known rate of return.

But Canadians must recognize that significant levels of taxation likely would be required to drive significant changes in behaviour.

We are not proposing a new tax. However, if any new environmental tax were to be proposed, it must be a substitute for existing forms of taxation, not a revenue grab. Any new tax in Canada must not discriminate against any particular sector or region, and should be implemented only as part of broader tax reform that aims to enhance our country’s economic as well as environmental performance.

This is especially important with respect to environmental taxation, since the burden of such taxes in most cases flows through to the individuals who ultimately use the energy or consume its resulting products. Simply adding to Canada’s tax burden under the guise of environmental responsibility is a recipe for both damaging the country’s economy and undermining public support for environmental goals.

And here’s what Matthew Bramley, director of the climate change program with the Pembina Institute, an advocacy group which has often been at odds with both Liberals and Conservatives, has to say about today’s claims:

Mr Harper and Mr Layton’s opposition to carbon taxes is contradicted by leading economics and business organizations who say taxing pollution is a good way to harness market forces to fight global warming. There is no evidence to support Mr Harper’s claim that a modest carbon tax would cause a recession. In fact, Mr Dion’s proposed tax would need to be further increased to enable Canada to meet science-based targets for greenhouse gas reductions.

Unchecked global warming will cause immense economic costs. Canadians expect a fact-based debate about not just the costs of acting but also the costs of failing to act and failing to repair Canada’s damaged reputation on this issue.”

One of the problems for Canadians, reporters, and experts like Jaccard and Bramley when it comes this debate about costs is that, so far, only the Liberals (much to the dismay of some of those very same Liberals) have actually spelled out how much more coal, diesel fuel and natural gas will cost. The Conservatives and the NDP admit that their regulatory approach to getting rid of greenhouse gas emissions involves some costs but, so far, we haven’t had a clear accounting from either party about what they might be.

Technorati Tags: ,