It is Impossible to Meet Kyoto Targets - Buzz Hargrove

Toro

Senate Member
Friday, April 20, 2007

As the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union, I often find myself taking controversial positions, usually with a strong opinion on one side of the debate. But on the issue of the environment I find myself actually taking a position in the middle. I’m not used to that.

On the one hand, I have no time for those who deny the science of climate change and who steadfastly resist reductions in greenhouse gases or try to hide them with intensity targets. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago that Stephen Harper and his Tory colleagues were climate-change deniers.

But I also oppose those who insist that a full-steam-ahead, immediate, damn-the-consequences approach is the only answer. Instead I find myself in agreement with those environmentalists who propose the twin goals of improving the environment as well as strengthening our economy.

The CAW continues to support the objectives of the Kyoto protocol and the principle of international obligations. While it is impossible to achieve Kyoto targets in the time frames spelled out in Kyoto, Canada needs to work vigorously towards them and be part of a broader community of nations in our efforts to halt and reverse the degradation of our environment. All of which means we need clear targets, achievable timelines, the commitment and the resources to turn these goals into a workable plan.

I’m in a similar position when it comes to cars and the environment. I reject the proposition that reducing our environmental footprint means we must drive small vehicles or get rid of cars altogether. I think that Canadians are eminently practical - the top three selling vehicles in the country are a subcompact, a minivan and a pickup truck. These vehicles speak to the demands of life in Canada. Whether driving a pickup truck or a subcompact, consumers need to know that their choice of vehicles is meeting targets for fuel efficiency improvements.

It doesn’t make any sense that the federal government, in its recent budget, would announce higher incentives for imported 4-cylinder vehicles than for leading-edge, Canadian built products. For the Conservative government to introduce an incentive program that rewards imports while punishing Canadian producers with higher taxes on Canadians products is unconscionable. The government’s incentive program will encourage consumers to buy imports from Asia at the expense of our manufacturers and Canadian jobs.

I am overwhelmingly concerned about the manufacturing job crisis in Canada. This country has lost more than 250,000 manufacturing jobs in less than five years. It is a huge mistake to accelerate the problem through government policies.

The CAW understands the necessity of maintaining a clean environment as one of the most important legacies we can leave future generations. Since the formation of our union in 1985, our constitution has mandated all CAW local unions to have active environment committees.

Over the last few years the CAW has taken an active role in schools and communities throughout Canada, spending over $3-million educating students on the importance of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. Centered around Earth Day, each year CAW volunteers reach out to Canadian schools to educate youth on environmental

issues. In 2006 alone, the CAW brought this message to over 82,000 students.

Our union has already adopted a green car strategy and later adopted an Extended Producer Responsibility policy that would ensure all manufacturers must dismantle older vehicles and recycle the materials.

Our union recognizes that any solution will lead to some of our members losing their jobs. What Canada needs is a just transition period that recognizes this. We need government programs to support workers who lose their jobs and a serious retraining commitment that will allow industry to make responsible adjustments to ensure workers and their families don’t pay the price of cleaning up the environment.

Clearly, reducing greenhouse gases means reducing the amount of fossil fuel we consume. In addition to greater fuel efficiency and new technologies, we need a transportation strategy that will increase the use of renewable fuels and reduce the use of vehicles overall. This requires investments in clean and alternative fuels, mass transit, rail, as well as efforts to reduce gridlock.

The CAW supports mandatory fuel efficiency standards in the vehicle industry and believes that setting a clear target across all classes of vehicles, phased in by 2014, is achievable. These targets need to be constructed in a manner that drives improvements while at the same time strengthening, rather than undermining, Canada’s auto industry. There are real challenges to meeting those twin goals, but we can achieve both.

In addition, we need programs that support innovations in developing lighter materials, alternative fuels, green engine technologies, and fuel-efficient components. The federal government should introduce a Green Vehicle Transition (GVT) fee on each manufacturer that sells into our market, based on each company’s total Canadian sales. Companies would earn back the fees through Canadian investments in ‘green’ technologies and green production.

We need to look for opportunities to boost our economy and at the same time protect the environment.

A Ford engine plant in Windsor is closing– why wouldn’t government and industry join together to develop a new facility that produces a ‘green engine’ to replace those jobs? Through projects like these we can make our nation a leader in automotive and other green technologies. We need to find ways to protect the environment through ecologically-sound technology that create jobs.

The federal government has already recognized that incentives are needed to encourage homeowners to retrofit their homes. Similarly, we need real incentives to get older vehicles off the road. There are over 1? million vehicles that are over 20 years old on Canada’s streets and highways. Getting them off our roads will do more to solve GHG problems than any other proposal.

If the political parties are genuinely concerned with climate change, they should quit playing politics and work together to ensure that proper strategies and incentives are in place that will boost our economy and at the same time protect our manufacturing jobs. The future for young Canadians could flourish with a sustainable environment, a robust economy and a thriving manufacturing sector. A balanced approach is needed. - Buzz Hargrove is president of the Canadian Auto Workers.

http://progecon.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/buzz-on-kyoto/
 

Toro

Senate Member
Al Gore has famously and correctly characterized the scientific consensus about global warming as “An Inconvenient Truth”. In today’s Financial Post, Buzz Hargrove identifies another “inconvenient truth” for Canadian progressives: “it is impossible to achieve Kyoto targets in the time frames spelled out in Kyoto.”

Canada’s Kyoto commitment was relatively modest and achievable. However, after signing it, the Liberal government spent years increasing Canadian emissions faster than George Bush II increased American emissions. Now, our emissions are way above target levels and the target period (2008-2012) is only eight months away.

To the extent that Canada is allowed to meet its commitment through the Clean Development Mechanism, we should do so. We should also make a serious effort to reduce our own emissions. However, as I think most environmentalists have quietly concluded, Canada will inevitably blow our first-round Kyoto target. Since the consequence will be a more stringent second-round target, we should start taking serious action now.

The opposition Liberals have taken the hypocritical, unrealistic position that Canada must now meet its first-round Kyoto targets. Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez introduced a bill to that effect. The other opposition parties understandably felt that they had to support this bill to keep their green credentials intact.

Theoretically, there may be nothing wrong with adopting an unachievable goal in order to prompt action in the direction of achieving it. As Robert Browning wrote, “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

Practically, the problem with this approach is that it leaves the door wide open for the Conservatives to point out, as they did this week, that severely reducing emissions in an extremely short period of time would entail significant economic dislocation. The hypothesized $195-per-ton carbon tax is far higher than needed to meet Kyoto targets in the medium term, but might be needed to get there immediately.

As long as the debate is framed in terms of meeting Canada’s first-round Kyoto targets, the Conservatives will win the argument. The debate is likely to remain framed in this manner as long as the Liberals succeed in pinning the other opposition parties to the Rodriguez position.

Progressives must reframe the debate as being about the costs of action versus those of inaction in the medium term, which is the more serious argument and one that the Conservatives cannot win. The only way to reframe the debate this way is for progressives to start publicly acknowledging what everyone already knows: that, as a result of Liberal inaction, Canada will inevitably blow its first-round Kyoto targets. We can then move forward with the reasonable, affordable measures needed to meet our second-round targets, such as a carbon tax closer to $25 per ton.

http://progecon.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/inconvenient-truth/
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
Science poobahs David S and Dennis D were in the Globe recently stating it's time to jolt Canadians into reality. They said a minimum 15 cent per litre surcharge is needed on gasoline to put drivers on notice. Once gas gets closer to $1.50 per litre we should see some behavioural changes. Hmmm...
Given agri-business is a larger greenhouse polluter than transportation why don't we go that route? Put a dollar per kg surcharge on all meats. I'd prefer that.
 

SVMc

Nominee Member
Apr 16, 2007
86
7
8
Toronto
Somehow I have trouble taking the word of the auto industry lobbyist on our ability to make environmental changes.
 

s243a

Council Member
Mar 9, 2007
1,352
15
38
Calgary
Science poobahs David S and Dennis D were in the Globe recently stating it's time to jolt Canadians into reality. They said a minimum 15 cent per litre surcharge is needed on gasoline to put drivers on notice. Once gas gets closer to $1.50 per litre we should see some behavioural changes. Hmmm...
Given agri-business is a larger greenhouse polluter than transportation why don't we go that route? Put a dollar per kg surcharge on all meats. I'd prefer that.


Suzuki know their is a very real cost to implementing Koyoto. He has used the figure of 1% of the GDP. I don't know if this is the right figure or not but I am glad he admits the cost is real. Unfortunately he goes from that to a scare tactic that not meeting it will come at a much greater cost.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
everything in moderation?

the problm is humanity has been using a "growth is good" model, which fails to allow for a balancing or proper cycling.

finite resources + constant growth = brick wall.
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
only if:

1 - technological innovation produces an equalibrium state (at a min) between resource replenishment and usage.

2 - population controls are put in place
 

the caracal kid

the clan of the claw
Nov 28, 2005
1,947
2
38
www.kdm.ca
why is 2 not correct, toro?

if population growth continues (i.e. no natural waning) how will finite resources keep up with need?

we can advance how much food per hectare we produce, but there are only so many hectares.

as # of people serviced per hectare (for all needs: water, fuel, clothing, etc) increases, we see a decrease in the amount available to each human. Eventually, we would reach a point where the supply per person would be insufficient to sustain a person. A resource shortage induced war can be viewed as a natural population control, but I am attempting to look for proactive rather than reactive solutions.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
finite resources + constant growth + technological innovation = smooth sailing

At first glance that seems resonable, if you're drinking and very automystic.
Let me translate from modern neo- liberal economic gibberish to common sense, see below

Rapidly twindling resources+constant consumption+science fiction=no oars in the water:lol:
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Well we can only rely on our ingenuity for so long. Every population will crash when resources become strained, regardless of how efficiently those resources are consumed. When or if that happens, who knows.