Reply letter to Perrin Beatty and Scott Campbell
| Topics: |  Share & Contact |
Dear Mr. Beatty and Mr. Campbell,
Thank you for your prompt responses to my email dated July 15th regarding support for Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Bill.
I took time to read through the documents that you provided me. Thank you for the opportunity to learn more about the Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s position on climate change and the development of clean energy technology. I am encouraged by the Chamber of Commerce’s work in lobbying the federal government to adopt a national energy program, and to foster an investment environment where a clean tech industry may thrive in Canada. This is important work.
While you recognize that climate change is a threat that government and industry must address, you are concerned that legislating greenhouse gas emissions targets at 25 percent below 1990 levels in 10 years time will discourage investment in Canada, cost jobs, and reduce prosperity as well as our ability to adapt to the effects of climate change.
There is no question that this target is steep and poses tremendous challenges. However, as your document Powering Canadian Prosperity points out twice, it is important to respect the science:
- “The regulatory framework must be based on firm scientific principles and its economic and environmental impacts must be understood.”
- “It is imperative that regulations be based on fact and scientific principles rather than political goals.”
I must remind you that the targets that Bill C-311 sets are based on the findings from thousands of scientists from approximately 130 countries. As you know, the IPCC gathers these findings and issues reports for policy makers. The findings from the latest IPCC report are determined at 90 percent probability, which we know must be taken very seriously. Given the nature of carbon dioxide, the fact that it lingers in the atmosphere for more than 100 years, it is critically important to limit emissions quickly. In fact, according to Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, emissions must peak by 2015 and decline thereafter.
Despite the scientific targets, the Chamber of Commerce and Government of Canada are instructing a much softer target. You argue that the softer target is more realistic if we are to maintain our competitive edge and prosperity. Maintain our prosperity until when? Until water dries up in the prairies, affecting fresh water supply and agriculture? Until the pine beetle wipes out the Boreal Forest, affecting thousands of more jobs, not to mention destroying one of the planet’s last remaining ‘lung’? Until violent weather destroys property and infrastructure? Until our coastal cities start to flood? Until insect borne diseases become the norm? Until refugees pour into our country en masse? How can we adequately adapt to the affects of climate change when so much will be thrown at us?
Believing that the biosphere can adapt to our ideal timeline is magical thinking. I too would love to see a slow transition to a low carbon economy, but we need to face reality. The planet is nearing a tipping point, and when it reaches it any action to curb emissions will be fruitless. Even top economists are weighing in. In the Stern Review: Summary of ConclusionsSir 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.”
In other words, the targets you support will spell economic catastrophe on a global scale. The targets set in Bill C-311 might just give us a chance. It will be tough and perhaps painful, but I’m banking on human ingenuity to get us through.
How can industrial nations meet the emission reduction targets that the scientific community supports, while increasing economic resiliency and improving quality of life? Do you believe this is possible?
In reading your reports, I get the sense that as much as you recognize the urgency to transition to cleaner power through innovative approaches, your overall view appears to be business-as-usual. In other words, continue with the same paradigm that seems to have gotten us in trouble in the first place: centralized power, reliance on and exploitation of fossil fuel, continual growth and expansion forever and ever, as if the planet’s resources can continue to supply an ever growing human population.
The push for renewable energy is not just about clean power, but a revolution in the way we draw on power and use resources. Indeed the only way to truly optimize renewable energy is to reduce the need for energy through conservation, transition to a decentralized approach and develop a smart grid.
Any serious discussion on tackling anthropogenic global warming must begin with a plan to reduce the need for energy in the first place. The reports that you sent me do not mention energy conservation. Why? I took part in the government’s now defunct EcoEnergy program to tighten up my drafty 90-year old house. I employed 16 individuals to install energy efficient windows and doors, insulate the walls and attic, install two vents, as well as a high efficiency furnace, tankless water unit and solar hot water heater. Companies that provide the windows, doors, paint, etc., benefited. Imagine my house times as many old stock houses and buildings across the country, and I think you begin to understand the potential for local economies.
You many argue that you do understand the potential. Why don’t you mention it in your reports? Are you lobbying the federal government to bring back the EcoEnergy program to encourage homeowners to continue to retrofit their homes? If not, why? Do you consider this an “excessive subsidy”, despite the fact that it stimulates retrofits throughout the country, providing work, benefiting businesses and generating federal and provincial tax revenue.
Imagine solar panels on every home and building in this country capable of effectively capturing the sun’s energy and feeding it to the grid. Imagine wind turbines on high rises and other buildings supplying the grid too. Imagine geothermal or district heating regulating home temperatures. Imagine all of this reducing the number of centralized power sources. Imagine a smart grid that is tapped into the temperature controls and appliances of every home and building that can reduce energy use (and cost) without undermining comfort or service. That’s a smart grid. It’s much more than cross country transmission, and its already being tested in some communities.
Imagine the demand for such things employing an army of workers to manufacture, install and maintain them. Imagine Canada as a global leader in renewable energy and smart grid technology. Imagine Canadians working closer to home, in communities close to reliable transit, parks and shops, spending quality time with their families rather than gridlocked in traffic.
You see the potential of waste as a resource. This awareness can be seen as a move away from linear input and output to engaging in a circular process. What if we looked to nature as a guide, rather than an externality or something separate from us? In nature, waste is food. You seem to understand this. As you write in Powering Canadian Prosperity: “Integrating the entire value chain into a strategy for sustainable growth will lead to broader economic diversification.” As in nature, integration and diversification are keys to resiliency.
By decentralizing power supply, we will diversify not only energy sources but energy providers. Rather than just from a few centralized generators, the supply will come from millions of mini generators on the homes and buildings of Canadians. The system will have conservation built right into it. Renewable energy will dominate the supply, and be serviced locally. We will be less prone to brownouts. There will be less waste from long distance transmission, and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
The potential is enormous, but we are running out of time. We need serious commitment from government and industry to fast track this vision.
We certainly don’t have time to invest billions into new nuclear generators that will come into play decades from now. We don’t have time to invest billions in uncertain enterprises like carbon sequestration and so called ‘clean coal’. We don’t have the time to play chicken with the water supply of Canadian and US landowners through hydraulic fracturing to release shale gas. Fracturing the earth to get at the gas is contaminating the water supply of homes and farms in New England, the American mid west and Southern Alberta, and god only knows where else. This is well documented in recent news articles, the film Gasland and William Mardsen’s book, Stupid to the Last Drop. I find it deeply disturbing that gas companies and even some governments are denying the compelling evidence of contaminated water, which happens after fracking begins.
Companies have barely scratched the surface of shale gas extraction. The potential for this resource is enormous. So is the potential for widespread contamination of precious water systems. You are aware that the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. I’m unsure about the rules and regulations governing Alberta’s water supply. The government seems to be disregarding evidence of contaminated water in the province due to fracking. You mention the importance of environmental oversight. Governments and industry must take a hard look at shale gas extraction, and the tar sands as well (where animals in the region have high doses of arsenic in their bodies, humans are suffering higher than normal rates of cancer, heavy quantities of water and natural gas are used, etc). Ignoring significant concerns pits the health and well being of citizens against corporate interest. This hardly contributes to the prosperity and well being of Canadians. It’s certainly not sustainable.
We need to tackle the climate problem at new angles and we need to act fast. Time is not on our side. We cannot afford to take a slow approach to a carbon low future.
Mr Beatty, in your speech to the Alberta Chamber of Resources this past February you state: “While I agree that, with our economies so deeply integrated, we must work very closely with the United States, we don’t have the luxury of simply deferring drawing up our strategies. We will either be in the room as negotiators when the rules are set, or we will learn about them when the others come out and tell us what has been decided. And we should not think for a moment that other countries will not attempt to write the rules to their own advantage or to be the first ones to benefit from any benefits that may be created.”
Well stated. Canada cannot afford to wait for the US to set a course of action on climate change. Mulroney led the way in biodiversity and acid rain, sparking change in the US. It’s time for Canada to do the same with climate change. Our elected MPs offer leadership through Bill C-311. Please support it. Encourage Prime Minister Harper to lead on this issue. Work with industry to find innovative solutions to meet the emissions targets while building resiliency in our economy.
Climate change is the toughest challenge our species has ever had to collectively face. We must call upon our best minds to rise to meet this challenge. Will Canada be at the table leading the way? Or will others write the rules for us? Will we avoid climate catastrophe? Or will we be subject to the whims of a rapidly changing climate? You both have the power to help steer us toward a sustainable path. Keep in mind that the planet calls the shots. Not us. What a terrific opportunity for innovation and greater economic resiliency.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto, ON
p.s. I find that the following provide throught provoking solutions to the problems we face.
Hot, Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman
The Age of the Unthinkable, by Josua Ramo
From: Perrin Beatty <pbeatty@chamber.ca>
To: Cheryl McNamara <cherylmcnamara@rogers.com>
Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 12:19:40 PM
Subject: RE: Canadian Chamber of Commerce Stance on Bill C-311
Thank you for writing regarding Bill C-311, The Climate Change Accountability Act. The Canadian Chamber continues to support actions to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. Our main concern with Bill C-311 as it now stands is with the commitment to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next ten years by 25% from 1990 levels (which in fact represents a reduction of approximately 40% from current figures). This commitment, which is considerably out of step with Canada’s main economic partners, would create serious harm to the Canadian economy and more importantly to Canadian workers and their families, causing economic activity and jobs to move from Canada to other countries without achieving the global emission reductions that are needed.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce’s position on Bill C-311 is outlined below in our response to a letter that we received from John Bennett, Executive Director of Sierra Club Canada.
Honourable | L'honorable Perrin Beatty
President and Chief Executive Officer | Président et chef de la direction
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce | La Chambre de commerce du Canada
420 – 360 rue Albert Street | Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7
Tel.: 613.238.4000 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 613.238.4000 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
President and Chief Executive Officer | Président et chef de la direction
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce | La Chambre de commerce du Canada
420 – 360 rue Albert Street | Ottawa, ON K1R 7X7
Tel.: 613.238.4000 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 613.238.4000 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Fax: 613.238.7643
www.chamber.ca
___________________________________
July 14, 2010
Mr. John Bennett
Executive Director
Sierra Club Canada
412-1 Nicholas St.
Ottawa, ON
K1N 7B7
Dear Mr. Bennett,
Thank you for your letter of July 5, 2010 to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce regarding our position on Bill C-311, The Climate Change Accountability Act.
We are disappointed that the Sierra Club would misrepresent our position on this Bill, indicating that we believe “developing the fossil fuel industry is the best way to fight climate change” and that the “Canadian Chamber of Commerce does not welcome real action on reducing emissions”. This is not true. Since 2005, the Canadian Chamber has called for a sustainable energy strategy for Canada that will respect the environment, provide secure and affordable energy and support the standard of living of Canadian families. This includes meeting our energy demand through the sustainable development of all energy sources, including non-fossil renewable energy and fuels. Our discussion paper in this regard, released last October, is available here: http://www.chamber.ca/index.php/en/policy-and-advocacy/C214/
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce has long supported actions to reduce the growth in Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Continued uncertainty regarding future climate change policy brings significant environmental and economic risks for business. It is important that the federal and provincial governments act decisively and in a coordinated manner to produce a Canadian solution that addresses these concerns. In particular, the government must continue to work on the development of a Canada-wide carbon pricing system as well as focusing on targeted actions where there are opportunities to achieve significant emission reductions. Our formal position on climate change, approved by our membership at our 2009 Annual General Meeting, can be found here: http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads/Resolutions/2009/E-Climate_Change.pdf
In order to properly and responsibly address this global issue, it is also important that Canada move forward in cooperation with our major trading partners, and in particular, the United States. The Canadian government has set a medium-term reduction target of 17 per cent below 2005 emission levels by 2020 – the same goal as the United States. Setting targets that are unachievable, unrealistic and out of line with our trading partners will endanger Canadian jobs and prosperity and would result in jobs being transferred abroad, with serious effects on our economy while having no net benefit to the environment.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce will continue to welcome partnerships with any interested stakeholders to help to develop the path forward on climate change. An important part of this path forward will be the development of a national strategy for energy production and use.
Yours sincerely,
Scott Campbell
Director, Energy and Environment Policy
From: Scott Campbell <scampbell@chamber.ca>
To: cherylmcnamara@rogers.com
Cc: Perrin Beatty <pbeatty@chamber.ca>
Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 10:46:33 AM
Subject: RE: Canadian Chamber of Commerce Stance on Bill C-311
To: Cheryl McNamara
Thank you for writing.
We agree that Canada must move forward with a credible and achievable plan to combat climate change. Dealing with the issue will be one of the most massive undertakings ever made, and it will require tens of billions of dollars of new investments by Canadian businesses. They will not make those investments unless they know what the rules will be and understand that those rules will allow them to receive a return on those investments. This is why we have asked the Government to move more quickly.
However, we disagree that setting unachievable and impractical short-term targets for GHG reductions (which this Bill does) helps to move the discussion forward. Setting targets that are significantly more onerous that our trading partners would cause economy activity to move from Canada to other countries, with a loss of jobs for Canadian families without achieving the global emission reductions that are needed. As well, a reduction in prosperity would reduce the resources that Canada has to respond to the effects of climate change.
Last fall, the Canadian Chamber released a report, “Powering up Canadian Prosperity” which calls for all stakeholders to come together to develop a Canadian Sustainable Energy Strategy, which looked at how we can ensure that all of Canada’s energy resources, including non-fossil resources such as nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, etc, responsibly and economically.
You may be also be interested in a speech that Perrin Beatty did earlier this year: http://www.chamber.ca/images/uploads/Media/op-eds-and-speeches/2010/Perrin_Alberta_Resources_Speech_05-02-10_.pdf
Finally, here is a link to our climate change policy, passed by the delegates to our Annual Meeting in 2009. You will see that the Canadian Chamber does take this issue very seriously.
Sincerely,
Scott Campbell
Director, Energy and Environment Policy
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce
55 University Avenue, Suite 901
Toronto, ON M5J2H7
Direct Tel: 416-352-8530
FAX: 416-868-0443
From: Cheryl McNamara [mailto:cherylmcnamara@rogers.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:06 PM
To: Perrin Beatty
Cc: andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca; anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca; bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca; gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca; boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca; brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca; brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca; callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca; campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca; carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca; carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca; champa@sen.parl.gc.ca; chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca; cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca; comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca; coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca; cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca; cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca; dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca; dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca; dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca; debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca; tessil@sen.parl.gc.ca; dininc@sen.parl.gc.ca; pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca; mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca; dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca; eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca; egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca; fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca; finled@sen.parl.gc.ca; fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca; foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca; frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca; fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca; fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca; greens@sen.parl.gc.ca; harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca; hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca; lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca; hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca; jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca; johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca; joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca; kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca; kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca; kochhv@sen.parl.gc.ca; langd@sen.parl.gc.ca; charrf@sen.parl.gc.ca; lavigr@sen.parl.gc.ca; lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca; losier@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca; mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca; mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca; marshe@sen.parl.gc.ca; martin@sen.parl.gc.ca; massip@sen.parl.gc.ca; mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca; meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca; mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca; merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca; mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca; mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca; moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca; munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca; murral@sen.parl.gc.ca; mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca; neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca; nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca; ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca; olived@sen.parl.gc.ca; patted@sen.parl.gc.ca; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca; russem@sen.parl.gc.ca; lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca; plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca; poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca; poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca; poyv@sen.parl.gc.ca; rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca; ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca; rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca; jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca; rompkw@sen.parl.gc.ca; runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca; kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca; seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca; stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca; stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca; stollp@sen.parl.gc.ca; stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca; tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca; wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca; wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca; wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca; zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca
Subject: Canadian Chamber of Commerce Stance on Bill C-311
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:06 PM
To: Perrin Beatty
Cc: andrer@sen.parl.gc.ca; anguswd@sen.parl.gc.ca; bakerg@sen.parl.gc.ca; gautht@sen.parl.gc.ca; boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca; brazep@sen.parl.gc.ca; brownb@sen.parl.gc.ca; callbc@sen.parl.gc.ca; campbel@sen.parl.gc.ca; carigc@sen.parl.gc.ca; carsts@sen.parl.gc.ca; champa@sen.parl.gc.ca; chapum@sen.parl.gc.ca; cochre@sen.parl.gc.ca; comeag@sen.parl.gc.ca; coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca; cordyj@sen.parl.gc.ca; cowanj@sen.parl.gc.ca; dallar@sen.parl.gc.ca; dawsod@sen.parl.gc.ca; dayja@sen.parl.gc.ca; debanp@sen.parl.gc.ca; tessil@sen.parl.gc.ca; dininc@sen.parl.gc.ca; pdowne@sen.parl.gc.ca; mikeduffy@sen.parl.gc.ca; dyckli@sen.parl.gc.ca; eatonn@sen.parl.gc.ca; egglea@sen.parl.gc.ca; fairbj@sen.parl.gc.ca; finled@sen.parl.gc.ca; fortis@sen.parl.gc.ca; foxf@sen.parl.gc.ca; frasej@sen.parl.gc.ca; fruml@sen.parl.gc.ca; fureyg@sen.parl.gc.ca; greens@sen.parl.gc.ca; harbm@sen.parl.gc.ca; hervic@sen.parl.gc.ca; lacomd@sen.parl.gc.ca; hublee@sen.parl.gc.ca; jaffem@sen.parl.gc.ca; johnsj@sen.parl.gc.ca; joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca; kennyco@sen.parl.gc.ca; kinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca; kochhv@sen.parl.gc.ca; langd@sen.parl.gc.ca; charrf@sen.parl.gc.ca; lavigr@sen.parl.gc.ca; lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca; losier@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithc@sen.parl.gc.ca; mahovf@sen.parl.gc.ca; mannif@sen.parl.gc.ca; marshe@sen.parl.gc.ca; martin@sen.parl.gc.ca; massip@sen.parl.gc.ca; mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca; meighen@sen.parl.gc.ca; mercet@sen.parl.gc.ca; merchp@sen.parl.gc.ca; mitchg@sen.parl.gc.ca; mocklp@sen.parl.gc.ca; moorew@sen.parl.gc.ca; munsoj@sen.parl.gc.ca; murral@sen.parl.gc.ca; mcgeed@sen.parl.gc.ca; neufer@sen.parl.gc.ca; nolinp@sen.parl.gc.ca; ogilvk@sen.parl.gc.ca; olived@sen.parl.gc.ca; patted@sen.parl.gc.ca; pepinl@sen.parl.gc.ca; russem@sen.parl.gc.ca; lachah@sen.parl.gc.ca; plettd@sen.parl.gc.ca; poirir@sen.parl.gc.ca; poulim@sen.parl.gc.ca; poyv@sen.parl.gc.ca; rainen@sen.parl.gc.ca; ringup@sen.parl.gc.ca; rivarm@sen.parl.gc.ca; jcrivest@sen.parl.gc.ca; rompkw@sen.parl.gc.ca; runcib@sen.parl.gc.ca; kfl@sen.parl.gc.ca; seidmj@sen.parl.gc.ca; sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca; smithd@sen.parl.gc.ca; stgerg@sen.parl.gc.ca; stewac@sen.parl.gc.ca; stollp@sen.parl.gc.ca; stratt@sen.parl.gc.ca; tardic@sen.parl.gc.ca; wallaj@sen.parl.gc.ca; wallinp@sen.parl.gc.ca; wattc@sen.parl.gc.ca; zimmer@sen.parl.gc.ca
Subject: Canadian Chamber of Commerce Stance on Bill C-311
The Honourable Perrin Beatty
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce
President and Chief Executive Officer
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce
Dear Mr. Beatty,
Through an article in the Montreal Gazette I have learned that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is urging its members to sign a letter to Senators stating that Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, is a threat to Canada's economic competitiveness.
According to the article, you believe that the science-based targets that the bill supports will impose "great costs on the Canadian economy.” The reasons you cite are: the targets do not correspond to the targets set by the United States; the 2020 target is too steep; and the targets will eliminate consumption.
You also acknowledge that “responding to climate change will take the biggest single investment in the history of humankind.” This implies that you acknowledge that anthropogenic climate change is real and requires a significant response. The challenge is: how do we effectively transition to a low carbon economy, quickly, while safeguarding economic well-being during the process?
As you know, the challenge faced by the global human community is Herculean. Based on the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the average global temperature must not exceed two degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels if we are to avoid dangerous runaway global warming. The Minister of the Environment himself joined the chorus of global leaders acknowledging that warming must not exceed an additional two degrees.
The consequences of limited action will be staggering. As Sir Nicolas Stern outlined in his Economics of Climate Change, ecological fallout will lead to economic fallout. According to Sir Stern 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.” The costs of inaction, he warns, could rise to a crippling 20% of GDP or more. In other words, the measures required to stave off runaway global warming are akin to a rain shower, compared to a hurricane if we do not act.
What are the targets required to prevent a two degree increase in global temperature?
The IPCC, which has gathered data from thousands of climatologists from approximately 130 countries, has advised that in order to avoid this dangerous tipping point, global emission targets must be 20-40 percent below 1992 levels by 2020 and 80-90 percent below 1992 levels by 2050. There is now mounting evidence that even this target will not be enough to avoid the tipping point we’re all struggling to avoid.
The IPCC did not pick these targets out of a hat during the time of its latest report. They are not based on targets acceptable to current business-as-usual practices. They are based on the findings of thousands of climatologists from around the world. If these are the targets to avoid a greater than two degree Celsius increase in global temperature, why is the Canadian Chamber of Commerce insisting that we set the targets well below the mark? Does industry believe that it can negotiate with our planet’s climate system and biosphere?
As to your point that the science-based targets to which Bill C-311 are more stringent than US targets (and will therefore compromise the Canadian economy), please consider the following:
During his tenure as Prime Minister, Brian Mulroney did not wait for the US to lead on issues concerning the environment. He stepped in and actually affected change in the United States. He was instrumental during the ratification of the biodiversity convention and the climate change conventions in the early 1990s. He states: “Under Jean Charest's inspired leadership, at the Rio Conference in 1992, we helped bring the United States on board in support of the Convention on Climate Change, and we were the first industrialized nation to sign on to the Bio-Diversity Accord.”
Mulroney instructs, base on his own experiences: “So there are three elements to Canada playing an important role on the environment: First, leading by example, claiming the high ground. Second, engaging the Americans, and at the highest level of government. Third, involving industry in solutions.”
Our elected representatives are prepared to lead on this issue and set the bar for the United States to follow. Given that President Obama once embraced these targets, Canada, and Europe, will help Obama send a strong message to Congress and the Senate to take meaningful action to address greenhouse gas emissions. Canada, however, must be the first to act, as Mulroney wisely advises.
Finally, regarding your concern that these targets will undermine our economy, why are you so sure about that? Limitation can lead to great innovation and economic diversification if managed well. We need to understand and respect the science-based targets and bring our best minds together to find ways to make Canada a world leader in clean tech development. As you may know Canada trails woefully behind Europe, the US and Asia in this area. This is not a good situation. Clean tech is the industry of the 21st century. Canada cannot afford to trail behind everyone else. We are losing our talent to other countries, potential jobs and the opportunity to diversify our markets.
You claim that the targets will eliminate consumption. How so? Why are you so sure? There is an exciting market opening up. The fastest growing industry is green tech and other green products. Programs are opening up at universities to teach and train students for these industries.
There is no doubt that we face great challenges in transitioning to another economy, quickly. Countries such as Spain have suffered by moving too quickly. Others, like Germany, are enjoying success. We can learn from these experiences.
Perhaps the greatest challenge in shifting from a carbon-based economy to low carbon involves the shift in the way we think of ourselves in our world. Consider the following:
· Is the economy a static system or is it best described as a highly complex ecosystem whose very survival depends on how it can adapt to a changing climate?
· What does economic well-being look like on a planet with finite resources?
· Does economy come before ecology, or is it the other way around?
· Does resiliency come from a top down approach, or bottom up?
· Do the current Canadian government and industrial leaders truly understand the constantly changing socio-economic environment? Why did the economic meltdown come as such a surprise to so-called economic experts?
· Must consumption be linear, or can it thrive in a circular system where waste is a valuable input?
· Are our current measures of economic well-being limited? Do they take into account true human wealth, well-being and output?
· What will our grandchildren ask us in ten or 20 years? Were we the generation that faced a Herculean challenge and saved the day? Or were we the ones who blew it, paving the way to unimaginable suffering.
When it comes to climate change, we need to get moving immediately. Killing Bill C-311 will only stall legislative action and continue to waste precious time.
I have a niece and nephew, ages six and four. They and those of their generation will live with the consequences of government policy on climate change, and the course it sets at this time. We still have time. I implore you and your colleagues to seriously consider the fall out of weak emissions targets and the missed opportunity to lead on transitioning to a low carbon economy. This is a moral issue. It’s also a strategic one. We don’t want to miss out on the clean tech revolution. And we don’t want to miss Mother Nature’s deadline. We have a short window to get this right. Emissions must peak and then fall by 2015. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. We just need leadership.
The House of Commons has offered that leadership. Please do not deny it. In the spirit of democracy and in the spirit of our greenest Prime Minister, please endorse Bill C-311.
Sincerely,
Cheryl McNamara
Toronto, ON
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
Comments
There are no comments.