Climate Response: Blog
-
Featured Blog Post
Another Exchange with Senator Patterson - in Defense of Bill C-311
Dear Senator Patterson, In your message to me you spell out what the Conservatives have been arguing all along. The bill’s targets are unrealistic because we’d have to shut everything...
Published Date: November 25, 2010, 12 am
| Topics: |  Share & Contact |
Dear Senator Patterson,
In your message to me you spell out what the Conservatives have been arguing all along. The bill’s targets are unrealistic because we’d have to shut everything down.
We have a problem, don’t we? The carbon emission reduction targets set in Bill C-311 were recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the body that collects the findings of more than 2,000 scientists from approximately 130 countries who study the climate. The findings from 2007 IPCC report are determined at 90 percent probability, which we know must be taken very seriously. The truly scary thing is that it appears that with new findings, the 2007 report is already out dated.
When the IPCC issued its 2007 report, it stated that the world must prevent a global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius to avoid runaway global warming. We have since learned that this target should be below 2 degrees. The arctic ice is melting much much faster than previous predicted, releasing methane in the process, and we’re only at 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. That is a big warning right there.
So what do we do? We’re at the negotiating table with Mother Nature. Explain to her that meeting her target is impossible. Do you believe she’ll say: “that’s alright dear. Let me know your target and I’ll do my best to accommodate you.”
The government is negotiating with 3 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The scientists say it has to be 20-40 percent – as of three years ago. It’s likely higher now.
Imagine a city by the sea. Scientists warn that the likelihood of a Category 5 Hurricane striking is high. The only way to prevent the sea from flooding the city is to build a wall 20 feet high. No no, the government says. Completely unrealistic and impossible! We’ll build a three foot wall instead. The investment of a twenty foot wall would have been high, but nothing compared to the cost of the flood and lives lost.
What do we do? You and the government seem to imply that if we continue business as usual, spend billions on crazy schemes like sequestering carbon (even though the oil and coal will inevitably be burned), and do a bit of investing in renewable energy, we’re going to be just fine. Well. Whew.
In your heart of hearts do you feel a little uneasy? If you don’t, you don’t understand the magnitude of our problem.
As I’m sure you know, the issue of climate change, and peak oil (that’s coming too), is the biggest challenge the global community has ever faced. Keep in mind that civilizations have crashed and burned because of what they did to their environment. The Mayan and Easter Island come to mind there. Unfortunately their hubris and ignorance could not save them when they cut down their trees.
In order for us to successfully rise to the challenge and survive reasonably intact as a civilization we need to make significant changes. This presents enormous challenges considering the complexities of western societies. What this great challenge requires is great leadership ranging from global players to those working at the community level. It requires innovative thinking, new ideas and the will of countries and communities to take them on. It requires understanding the magnitude of the challenge and rising to meet it. It takes passion and commitment to make a difference for our immediate and subsequent descendents. It requires a lot of love, and a great deal of courage.
You tell me the only way to meet Mother Nature’s deadline is to stop everything. I ask – is that the extent of your imagination? We need to decarbonize our economy. What does that look like? What are the opportunities? What are the benefits?
As it stands if there is a major supply problem in oil (and that is likely starting to happen), how will the world cope? How resilient and adaptive are our communities? They’re not very resilient are they? A meltdown in the US affects the entire world.
What do we need to do to become adaptive and resilient? Weaning ourselves off of fossil fuel, what does that look like? Our 20th century way of thinking tells us that centralized power is the only option, that it’s ok to waste energy because it’s so cheap and that the party will never end. It tells us that the carbon economy is the only economy, the only way of being.
Welcome to the 21st century. World oil is peaking (which is why the expensive tar sands are all the rage) and the world is warming because we’ve been burning highly concentrated carbon that has been sequestered for millions of years.
Centralized power doesn’t make much sense anymore. The global economy is about to crash and burn. Oh, it did already. Oil prices will continue to rise and hit the economy hard because the current economy is completely carbon based. How can the federal government help facilitate the development of local and carbon neutral economies?
Impossible you say? Let’s examine your alternative, that 3 percent below 1990 levels which really means doing precious little.
In the Stern Review: Summary of Conclusions, Sir Stern warns that if we don’t reduce our emissions, based on scientific targets, the loss to global GDP is estimated at 5% per year, and as high as 20% if the wider range of risk and impacts are taken into account. According to Stern: “In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.”
If we take the road you suggest, we’re all going to land in quicksand.
Any other bright ideas? Time is a’ tick’n.
The targets are the targets. Call them unrealistic, but they are what we have. Now what?
Leaders confronted with real challenges do not deny them. They articulate the problem and bring together the best minds to try to solve it. That’s a leader. What is the Conservative government doing? Because I must remind you, Mother Nature is the boss. She is about to whip our asses. She’s already begun. The heat wave, drought, fires and deaths in Russia (the subsequent loss of Russian wheat); the colossal flooding in Pakistan affecting 20 million people (!); the decimation of 25 percent of BC’s forest because of the pine beetle; the drought in the prairies; the melting of the arctic ice; and on and on and on – Mother Nature’s just warming up. Literally.
According to Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, emissions must peak by 2015 and decline thereafter. Time is ticking away, and the unelected Senate killed a bill that was attempting to address this great problem.
My sense is the government either doesn’t fully understand the danger we face (and opportunities), or – surely it must care if it did. This government seems stuck in the 20th century in its vision and understanding. It seems to me that the word ‘transition’ is not in the Conservative vocabulary. I suggest you start working it into sentences. Ask your colleagues to do the same. It’s an important word for the 21st century.
You urge me to consider the practical implications of this bill before condemning you for voting against it. Oh, I’ve considered them alright.
I urge you to consider the dangers that await us by killing this bill. But you didn’t wait to consider them or know them or even try to understand them. Would you have listened even if we tried?
What have you done?
Cheryl McNamara
PIs it really necessary to print this e-mail? Think green…
From: Patterson, Dennis [mailto:patted@SEN.PARL.GC.CA]
Sent: November 20, 2010 12:37 PM
To: 'cherylmcnamara@rogers.com'
Subject: Re: What happened to Bill C-311?
Sent: November 20, 2010 12:37 PM
To: 'cherylmcnamara@rogers.com'
Subject: Re: What happened to Bill C-311?
Dear Madam,
Putting aside the procedural mismanagement of this bill...
Why did I vote against this bill?
The targets set in this bill were completely unrealistic. If we were to shut down every vehicle in Canada, including cars, trucks, heavy equipment plus railways and airplanes as well as every coal or fossil fuel - sourced power generation facility in Canada, we would only then barely meet the target set in this bill.
Shutting down all the heating sources for every home and building in Canada - and we are a mostly cold country - would only take us less than 25% of the way to meeting that target.
Shutting down the oil sands completely would take us to about one seventh of the targets in the bill.
Completely unrealistic and impossible.
I wish passing a law could simply make these reductions happen, but we have to have a realistic actionable plan before we set targets.
I am as concerned about climate change as anyone, being from Nunavut, but could not support a bill that had no chance of being implemented.
The implications of the bill were obviously not considered by the authors.
Our government has set realistic targets which will not disrupt our daily lives in this vast country nor cripple our economy as we recover from the recession.
I urge you to consider the practical implications of this bill before condemning us for voting against it.
Thanks again for your concern.
Sincerely,
Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut
Putting aside the procedural mismanagement of this bill...
Why did I vote against this bill?
The targets set in this bill were completely unrealistic. If we were to shut down every vehicle in Canada, including cars, trucks, heavy equipment plus railways and airplanes as well as every coal or fossil fuel - sourced power generation facility in Canada, we would only then barely meet the target set in this bill.
Shutting down all the heating sources for every home and building in Canada - and we are a mostly cold country - would only take us less than 25% of the way to meeting that target.
Shutting down the oil sands completely would take us to about one seventh of the targets in the bill.
Completely unrealistic and impossible.
I wish passing a law could simply make these reductions happen, but we have to have a realistic actionable plan before we set targets.
I am as concerned about climate change as anyone, being from Nunavut, but could not support a bill that had no chance of being implemented.
The implications of the bill were obviously not considered by the authors.
Our government has set realistic targets which will not disrupt our daily lives in this vast country nor cripple our economy as we recover from the recession.
I urge you to consider the practical implications of this bill before condemning us for voting against it.
Thanks again for your concern.
Sincerely,
Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut
0 CommentsPublished Date: November 18, 2010, 05 am
| Topics: | Share & Contact |
Dear Senator Patterson,
With all due respect, I have been following this bill very closely. For months we have been waiting for Senator Neufeld to pick up debate on this bill and despite inquiries from the Liberal Senate he has failed to do so. You claim that it was not the Conservative Senate’s intention to “avoid the usual thoughtful process.” I am sorry, but Neufeld’s actions suggest otherwise.
I understand that Senator Mitchell was suggesting that the bill move to committee when the government in the Senate called for its vote. A great deal of confusion followed. It is up to the Government in the Senate to call for a vote, yes? If the Government in the Senate was truly interested in the usual thoughtful process, would it not make sense to pick up debate on the bill or move it along to committee?
Prime Minister Harper’s comments in the House of Commons yesterday also give me pause. He claims the bill was not worth pursuing anyway, which runs completely counter to respect for the usual thoughtful process, not to mention respect for the will of the majority of our elected representatives.
This business of blaming the Liberals over this is matter is quite frankly shameful. It comes across as childish and opportunistic. I’m not buying, and I know a lot of Canadians aren’t buying either.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
PIs it really necessary to print this e-mail? Think green…
From: Patterson, Dennis [mailto:patted@SEN.PARL.GC.CA]
Sent: November 18, 2010 7:59 AM
To: 'cherylmcnamara@rogers.com'
Subject: Re: What happened to Bill C-311?
Sent: November 18, 2010 7:59 AM
To: 'cherylmcnamara@rogers.com'
Subject: Re: What happened to Bill C-311?
Dear Madam,
It was Liberal Senators who precipitated the vote on Bill C 311. We were prepared to have the bill referred to Committee for careful consideration of all its implications.
By forcing a vote on second reading, Senator Mitchell and his colleagues forced us to take a stand on the Bill without the usual study and review. It was surprising and reckless behaviour on their part.
Yes, we had reservations about whether the bill was realistic and practical, but it was not our intention to avoid the usual thoughtful process.
Thanks for your concern.
Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut
It was Liberal Senators who precipitated the vote on Bill C 311. We were prepared to have the bill referred to Committee for careful consideration of all its implications.
By forcing a vote on second reading, Senator Mitchell and his colleagues forced us to take a stand on the Bill without the usual study and review. It was surprising and reckless behaviour on their part.
Yes, we had reservations about whether the bill was realistic and practical, but it was not our intention to avoid the usual thoughtful process.
Thanks for your concern.
Dennis Patterson
Senator for Nunavut
From: Cheryl McNamara <cherylmcnamara@rogers.com>
To: Cheryl McNamara <cherylmcnamara@rogers.com>
Sent: Wed Nov 17 21:48:47 2010
Subject: What happened to Bill C-311?
Dear Senators,
I am still in shock over the surprise vote on Bill C-311 and its demise. This bill was passed by the elected House of Commons and deserved debate and committee review in the Senate. My understanding is that only the Government in the Senate can call for a vote on a bill. Why did Conservative Senators delay debate on this bill and why was it put to a vote before due process?
This action casts a negative light on Canada’s democratic process, and leadership on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
As a citizen, I am appalled by the Senate’s disregard for the will of our elected representatives. I have also lost faith in this government’s ability to rise to the challenge of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
86 Doncaster Avenue
Toronto, ON
PIs it really necessary to print this e-mail? Think green…
Published Date: November 18, 2010, 05 am
| Topics: | Share & Contact |
I sent the following to Harper, all leaders of the opposition parties and my MP. The letter was also sent to all Senators.
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
I am still in shock over the surprise vote on Bill C-311 and its demise. This bill was passed by the elected House of Commons and deserved debate and committee review in the Senate. My understanding is that only the Government in the Senate can call for a vote on a bill. Why did Conservative Senators delay debate on this bill and why was it put to a vote before due process? It does not matter what the Government thought of it. The majority of MPs voted for it and it deserved debate and review in the Senate.
This action casts a negative light on Canada’s democratic process, and leadership on one of the most pressing issues of our time.
As a citizen, I am appalled by the Senate’s disregard for the will of our elected representatives. I am also losing faith in this government’s ability to rise to the great challenge of transitioning to a low carbon economy.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
Address
Published Date: October 22, 2010, 06 am
| Topics: | Share & Contact |
The following was sent to the editors of the Financial Post regarding their printing of Vaclav Klaus' op-ed piece, http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/20/vaclav-klaus-an-anti-human-ideology/:
I was rather surprised to learn that the Financial Post printed Vaclav Klaus’ op-ed piece claiming that environmentalists support an anti-human ideology, and that his opinion on climate change is right despite the overwhelming evidence that does not support his view.
I have up until now been impressed with the Financial Post’s coverage of the transition to a low carbon economy. Your coverage of clean energy development and innovation has been very informative.
I understand that you feel it’s important to provide coverage on both sides of an issue. In certain cases this balancing act is not applicable. You wouldn’t include an op-ed piece from a racist, for example, or someone who believes that capitalism is the root of all evil and that we must all embrace communism. You certainly wouldn’t include the ravings of a conspiracy theorist who believes that 9/11 was engineered by the Pentagon or the CEOs of multinational corporations. We know that such opinions are either damaging or quite simply idiotic. They are not grounded in reality and evidence. They make up their own evidence and stick to it no matter what.
The same can be said about Vaclav Klaus. Despite the fact that thousands of climatologists contribute to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, and that the majority of environmentalists call for commitments to green energy investments and green-collar jobs, Klaus has another view all together.
Klaus’ op-ed piece is not worthy of the Financial Post. Your venerable paper is much better than this.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto, ON
Published Date: August 31, 2010, 05 am
| Topics: | Share & Contact |
Response to Globe and Mail's Pour more cold water on the IPCC - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/pour-more-cold-water-on-the-ipcc/article1690681/
No matter how bullet proof the IPCC becomes it will not stop people who deny global warming from picking it apart. They don't like what it has to say. Period. But it constitutes the findings of more than 2500 scientists from around the world. And these scientists and those who want to prevent runaway global warming are up against multi-billion dollar industries, such as fossil fuel, eager to brake any action to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. This means spending a lot of money on PR firms and think tanks to find ways to constantly question the science. The Koch Industries are big spenders in this area - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer
Keep in mind that there were a few mistakes in the latest IPCC report in a 3000 page document, and those mistakes were quickly amended when they were discovered. If the report was riddled with mistakes, then I'd seriously question it. But just a few? I'd love not to believe in global warming too, but the evidence that it is happening is too compelling.
Published Date: August 9, 2010, 05 am
| Topics: | Share & Contact |
Response to Hot enough for you? Do what we always do: adapt. - Globe and Mail - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/hot-enough-for-you-do-what-we-always-do-adapt/article1664529/
Wow - this is a rather silly article. Human beings can adapt no problem to a little heat. We Canadians just love to hop in a plane during the dead of winter and enjoy summer conditions in Cuba, Mexico, Hawaii, etc. The question is, can other species adapt to sudden changes in their climate? Right now the pine beetle is devastating the pine forest in BC because it hasn't been cold enough for decades to control their population. This affects the livelihoods of tens of thousands of British Columbians. A sudden quick and major change in climate (within 100 to 200 years) usually leads to a major die-off of species.
And let’s face it, one heat wave in the dirty thirties cannot compare to the effects of runaway global warming. If the IPCC reports are correct (based on findings from 2500+ climatologists), once we pass the tipping point on greenhouse gas emissions, positive feedback loops will heat the planet by at least 6 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. Not only will species that we rely on for our own survival die, melting glaciers and polar ice will flood out coastal communities. The mid west is slated to dry out, as will important water ways. I don't believe air conditioners are going to be the answer to the crisis that awaits us.
BLOG ARCHIVE (click headings to sort — select list size below)
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
