Canada, Harper need a 'reality check' on global warming: report


mentalfloss
#1
Canada, Harper need a 'reality check' on global warming: report

OTTAWA — Members of a federal advisory panel, who recently learned their organization was on the chopping block, are sending Prime Minister Stephen Harper a "reality check" on the economic dangers of his global warming policies.

In a new report released Wednesday, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy said Canada's provinces were doing the heavy-lifting toward the country's efforts to fight global warming while the federal government would pay a "high-cost" to meet Harper's targets.

"Because 2020 is only eight years away, many of the emission reductions required to meet the target are high-cost reductions," said the report. "Delays to a co-ordinated approach with abatement coming from all provinces and all sectors, will only increase the final costs of achieving Canadian climate goals and targets."

The report, entitled Reality Check: The state of climate progress in Canada, was actually requested last year by Environment Minister Peter Kent, who recently decided to eliminate the round table and its annual budget of $5 million.

The panel, with a staff of about 30 people, was created in 1988 by the government of former prime minister Brian Mulroney to bring together advice on conservation and business policies.

The "Reality Check" report was the first of its kind to collectively examine climate change policies and billions of dollars in spending at different levels of government and estimate who was on track to meet their targets.

The prime minister has pledged, under an international climate change agreement reached in 2009 in Copenhagen, to reduce Canada's annual greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, but the report suggested Canada would be less than halfway there, based on existing federal and provincial policies that are failing to stop overall pollution growth.

David McLaughlin, the president and chief executive officer of the round table, said he chose to call the report a "reality check" because he believed it "rang true" to what the country really needs to deal with climate change.

"There's been a lot of (people saying) 'you do this' and 'you do that,' (but) they're not (divided in the atmosphere into) federal or provincial emissions," said McLaughlin, appointed to the panel after serving as Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's chief of staff in 2006 and 2007.

"They're Canadian emissions, and if it's Canada's target, you have to figure out how we move Canada down the path (and) with that fragmented, uneven approach, it's probably not surprising, therefore, that we're not on track. So we needed a reality check."

The round table, which did the first comprehensive analysis of economic impacts of climate change on Canada, concluded last year changing weather patterns could cost the Canadian economy up to $43 billion per year by 2050.

An analysis of provincial policies led by Beth Hardy, a research associate at the panel, suggested the provinces of Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan were the only ones in Canada with adequate government policies to meet their own targets for greenhouse gas emissions levels in 2020.

It also demonstrated provincial climate change policies were estimated to be responsible for 75 per cent of anticipated emissions reductions in the coming years, but the provinces and the federal government would need to introduce many new policies to meet their own targets.

Overall, the report estimated existing government policies would result in reductions equivalent to 104 million annual tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, with provincial policies accounting for 73 million tonnes of this total.

It also noted a significant portion of emissions reductions could be achieved in the oil-and-gas sector at low or medium costs if governments introduce policies as soon as possible.

"The analysis clearly suggests the oil-and-gas sector and Alberta in particular have a significant role to play," said the report. "Yet the results also suggest that no one sector, region, or action is a silver bullet for achieving targets."

Kent has suggested the government needed to free up federal funding previously given to the panel for other policies to protect the economy and the environment.

He also suggested the government could replace its advice through the Internet and other sources of information. His predecessor, John Baird, who is now foreign affairs minister, suggested the government didn't need to pay for the panel since it didn't approve of its recommendations.

Analysis by province

- British Columbia: Fifth highest total emissions in Canada and fourth lowest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies expected to close 35 per cent of gap toward 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 33 per cent below 2007 levels.

- Alberta: Highest total emissions in Canada and second highest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies expected to close 41 per cent of gap toward 2020 target of 50 million tonnes below annual business as usual emissions.

- Saskatchewan: Fourth highest total emissions in Canada and highest per capita emissions. Existing and proposed policies are expected to achieve the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels.

- Manitoba: Fourth lowest total emissions in Canada and fifth lowest emissions per capita. 2020 target is still under development, but existing and proposed policies are expected to close 62 per cent of gap toward an assumed target of reducing annual emissions by 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020.

- Ontario: Second highest total emissions in Canada and second lowest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies are expected to close 77 per cent of the gap toward the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 15 per cent below 1990 levels.

- Quebec: Third highest total emissions and lowest emissions per capita in Canada. Existing and proposed policies are expected to close 46 per cent of gap toward 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 20 per cent below 1990 levels.

- New Brunswick: Third lowest total emissions in Canada and third highest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies are expected to close 56 per cent of the gap toward the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 10 per cent below 1990 levels.

- Nova Scotia: Fifth lowest total emissions and fourth highest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies are expected to achieve the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 10 per cent below 1990 levels.

- Prince Edward Island: Lowest total emissions in Canada and third lowest emissions per capita. Existing and proposed policies are expected to close 30 per cent of gap toward the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 10 per cent below 1990 levels.

- Newfoundland and Labrador: Second lowest total emissions and fifth highest emissions per capita in Canada. Existing and proposed policies are expected to close 35 per cent of gap toward the province's 2020 target of reducing annual emissions by 10 per cent below 1990 levels.

Canada, Harper need a 'reality check' on global warming: report
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+7
#2  Top Rated Post
Members of a federal advisory panel, who recently learned their organization was on the chopping block

This says it all
 
mentalfloss
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Members of a federal advisory panel, who recently learned their organization was on the chopping block

This says it all

How so?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+4
#4
It appears to me that the 'advisory panel' is now scrambling to save face and their jobs. They had their chance to make a compelling argument and apparently, it looks like the failed in their previous efforts.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+5
#5
So what happens if we don't meet the political goal? Will the rest of the world quit buying our products?
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

It appears to me that the 'advisory panel' is now scrambling to save face and their jobs. They had their chance to make a compelling argument and apparently, it looks like the failed in their previous efforts.

I don't see how you've proven this report lacks any credibility.
 
Kakato
+4 / -1
#7
These GW threads remind me of the 9/11 truther threads,just keep posting as many topics as you can and spam as many forums as possible with the same bs and misinformation.

Gotta wonder if some of these folks arent working for the liberal or ndp party as they all have the same hate the cons flavour to them
 
mentalfloss
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

These GW threads remind me of the 9/11 truther threads,just keep posting as many topics as you can and spam as many forums as possible with the same bs and misinformation.

What misinformation?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

What misinformation?

Global warming.
 
mentalfloss
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Global warming.

Global warming is misinformation?
 
Kakato
-1
#11
Info that geologists all laugh about.
 
mentalfloss
#12
So you've got nothing.

I see.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I don't see how you've proven this report lacks any credibility.

With respect, I can just as easily turn that comment around and suggest that you have not proven that the document/activities of the panel have (or have ever had) any merit that would justify its ongoing existence.
 
mentalfloss
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

With respect, I can just as easily turn that comment around and suggest that you have not proven that the document/activities of the panel have (or have ever had) any merit that would justify its ongoing existence.

The credibility of the report is not directly correlated with the group's ongoing existence.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

So what happens if we don't meet the political goal? Will the rest of the world quit buying our products?


They already lobby against a number of our cultural practices and use the resource/commodities as the political lever.... I see no real threat anymore from the EU trading block as they are in a perpetual state of crying 'wolf'... That and they are s*cking hind teat due to their poor fiscal policies.
 
Kakato
-1
#16
Carry on,you only hurt your agenda even further,good environmentalism often gets ignored because the fearmongering from you guys makes every one with real ideas and solutions also get ignored,you keep crying wolf and soon no one will listen to you.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

The credibility of the report is not directly correlated with the group's ongoing existence.


I disagree.

The report is a direct expression of the utility of the advisory panel itself. If they fail to provide any tangible benefit, then why keep funding them to produce no results?
 
mentalfloss
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

Carry on,you only hurt your agenda even further,good environmentalism often gets ignored because the fearmongering from you guys makes every one with real ideas and solutions also get ignored,you keep crying wolf and soon no one will listen to you.

The only people whining and not listening are you three stooges, lol

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The report is a direct expression of the utility of the advisory panel itself. If they fail to provide any tangible benefit, then why keep funding them to produce no results?

You haven't proven they fail to provide any tangible benefit.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

good environmentalism often gets ignored because the fearmongering from you guys makes every one with real ideas and solutions also get ignored,you keep crying wolf and soon no one will listen to you.

Ain't that the truth.
 
mentalfloss
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Ain't that the truth.

If the only people ignoring it are people like you, taxslave and Kakato, I don't think it would make much difference anyway.

By the way, shouldn't you guys be creating some legitimate environmental threads?
 
Kakato
-1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

The only people whining and not listening are you three stooges, lol



You haven't proven they fail to provide any tangible benefit.

I have an award for environmental reclamation,thats doing something,how about you flossy? You got anything except a myriad of posts on the internets?
 
mentalfloss
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

I have an award for environmental reclamation,thats doing something,how about you flossy? You got anything except a myriad of posts on the internets?

Good for you.

You've just proven that "my myriad of posts on the internets" had no adverse effect on your "proper environmental recognition."

Congrats!

 
Kakato
+1 / -1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Good for you.

You've just proven that "my myriad of posts on the internets" had no adverse effect on your "proper environmental recognition."

Congrats!

So you just got posts? Thats your effort to help the environment? priceless!
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

If the only people ignoring it are people like you, taxslave and Kakato, I don't think it would make much difference anyway.


I am already aware of the significant and successful achievements made by enviro industry. And these successes have been financed by industry to the benefit of all.

If only greenpeace, WWF, suzuki, et al would apply a smidgen of effort and resources to the cause, we would be far further ahead.
 
mentalfloss
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato View Post

So you just got posts? Thats your effort to help the environment? priceless!

I expect you to reply with this logic to everyone else in this thread to remain consistent.

Thank you once again, for such an easy thrashing.

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I am already aware of the significant and successful achievements made by enviro industry. And these successes have been financed by industry to the benefit of all.

If only greenpeace, WWF, suzuki, et al would apply a smidgen of effort and resources to the cause, we would be far further ahead.

This has nothing to do with the reality that global warming exists.

Hence - Reality Check.
 
Kakato
+2 / -1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

I expect you to reply with this logic to everyone else in this thread to remain consistent.

Thank you once again, for such an easy thrashing.



This has nothing to do with the reality that global warming exists.

Hence - Reality Check.

The only thing getting thrashed here is any credibility you might have had at some time.

Oh well,some whine about things and some of us go out and do something about things,lifes funny like that. You got the whiners and the get er done guys.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

This has nothing to do with the reality that global warming exists.

Hence - Reality Check.

Here's a reality check.

Other than blowing a lot of hot air (ironic, I know), what exactly are greenpeace, WWF and suzuki (et al) doing about it? (other than driving big diesel buses that is)
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
#28
I personally think that the whole carbon thing in relation to climate change is a smoke screen to divert people's attention away from the fact that our activities are poisoning our life support system. But I notice that the deniers and the mockers are the ones with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the poisoners. As they say, "Thou protesteth too much."
 
mentalfloss
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Here's a reality check.

Other than blowing a lot of hot air (ironic, I know), what exactly are greenpeace, WWF and suzuki (et al) doing about it? (other than driving big diesel buses that is)

I don't know why you think I care about what greenpeace, WWF or Suzuki think.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

I personally think that the whole carbon thing in relation to climate change is a smoke screen to divert people's attention away from the fact that our activities are poisoning our life support system. But I notice that the deniers and the mockers are the ones with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of the poisoners. As they say, "Thou protesteth too much."

Of course they do, there is economic benefit for the short term that they would like to squeeze before the shift.
 
Kakato
-1
#30
We could all go back to living in caves but life expectancy back then was about half of what it is now so i'll take our new and improved but poisened life support system for now.