With special thanks to Eric Bogle, for granting me permission to use his song for this video!
Thanks, Eric! You are the greatest! Larry.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Rising sea levels pose threat to homes of 300m people – study
The Guardian
 |
|
Photo by Christian Ferrer
|
Figure based on new analysis of coastlines is more than three times previous estimate. Story here.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
Glacial rivers absorb carbon faster than rainforests, scientists find
The Guardian
 |
| Ellesmere Island, northern Canada. Satellite photo by NASA. ‘Total surprise’ discovery overturns conventional understanding of rivers. Story here. |
Thursday, October 24, 2019
The Real Case for Saving Species: We Don’t Need Them, But They Need Us
YaleEnvironment360
Conservationists argue that humans need to save species in order to save ourselves. The truth is we could survive without wild species — but they can’t survive without us, and the moral argument for protecting them and the beauty they bring to the world is overwhelming. Story here.
 |
| Red-winged blackbird. A PinP photo. |
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Trump’s Justice Dept. Sues California to Stop Climate Initiative From Extending to the Province of Quebec.
The New York Times
The Trump administration took another legal shot at California on Wednesday, suing to block part of the state’s greenhouse gas reduction program and limit its ability to take international leadership in curbing planet warming emissions. Story here.
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Understanding extinction — humanity has destroyed half the life on Earth
CBC Radio
 |
| A PinP photo. There's less life overall, and much of it is domesticated plants and animals instead of wildlife. More here. |
Much of the Earth is still wild, but threatened by fragmentation
PHYS ORG
 |
| Seismic lines dissect northern Alberta, Canada. Photo by Roland Roesler |
Half of the Earth's land surface not covered with ice remains relatively wild—but many of these "low human-impact" areas are broken into small, isolated pieces, threatening their future. Story here.
RELATED:
RELATED:
Ban oil, gas, bottom trawling in CANADA'S marine protected areas, panel urges
THE STAR
 |
| Image by NOAA. |
A
panel that has spent the year studying marine protected areas (MPAs) in Canada
says no oil and gas development, seabed mining, or bottom-trawling fishing
should be allowed within their boundaries.
More here.RELATED:
New research finds that “marine reserves” – tracts of ocean where fishing is banned – are protecting fish, the coral reefs where they live and vast undersea "gardens," a lot more than once thought. By Larry Powell.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Powerful storms may be causing offshore ‘stormquakes’
Strong ocean swells hammer ridges in the seafloor and produce the earthquake-like shaking.
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Amazon Watch: What Happens When the Forest Disappears?
YaleEnvironment360
 | |
|
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Busting more carbon tax myths. A letter-to-the-editor.
by Dan Soprovich.
Conservative politicians lie about the carbon tax. Jason Kenny, Doug Ford, Andrew Scheer … you know who the rest are. And Conservative politicians have been lying about the carbon tax for more than a decade. When the Stephane Dion Liberals proposed a carbon tax in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper lied about it. At the time, my dear departed Uncle Jack, who made millions of dollars from the oil industry, sent me an Internet article indicating that a poor retired couple in New Brunswick would be terribly impacted by the Liberal’s proposed carbon tax. However, that was simply not true. The proposed carbon tax included a rebate so that folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum would not be hurt (very similar to the carbon tax implemented by the Trudeau Liberal government). The Stephane Dion Liberals also provided an online calculator at the time. When I applied the circumstances of the retired couple within the calculator, the inconvenient truth was that the couple actually came out ahead under Dion’s proposed carbon tax, just as the great majority of Canadians come out ahead under the Trudeau government carbon tax. This example demonstrates the critical importance of ‘testing’ information, at all times, to get to the truth of a matter. This is particularly true for information from the Internet, where anyone can write almost anything.
Lying is a strong word and I do not use it lightly. However, in the era of US President Trump, it has become evident that the honest and objective observer must call a lie for what it is. It is more important than ever in today’s environment to speak truth to power, and this is particularly so when politicians lie.
Why do Conservative politicians lie about the carbon tax? In my view, the reason is simple. It is because they believe that many or most people will not check the facts, and because their ‘Taxes bad, no taxes good’ mantra is an easy sell for these cynical politicians. Conservative politicians like Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford never tell Canadians about the carbon tax rebate that is received by the great majority of Canadians, and therefore effectively lie by consciously omitting a fundamental piece of critical information. A serious discussion requires serious people applying information and facts. By distorting the truth and not engaging in an evidence-based discussion, these Conservative politicians, who know that they are spreading misinformation, can pick up votes in an attempt to get themselves elected. As one example of the vulnerability of people to misinformation, some months ago I had a good and lengthy discussion with a local businessman and farmer who, at that time, opposed the impending carbon tax. By the end of the discussion, it was clear that the individual had absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of the carbon tax, or its demonstrated effectiveness in reducing emissions.
So, what are some of the inconvenient truths?
First and foremost, economists almost universally support the view that a carbon tax/price on carbon is the most efficient and cost-effective means to address emissions. The economic basis is simple. Pricing carbon drives businesses and individuals to reduce emissions and innovate, because by doing so they can reduce costs. It is for this reason that fiscal conservatives support carbon pricing, like Reform founder and former leader Preston Manning who strongly supports putting a price on carbon. Similarly, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports carbon pricing, having stated in December of 2018 that “when done right, carbon pricing can equip businesses for the transition to a lower-carbon economy, and reduce the overall regulatory burden.”
Despite assertions to the contrary by Conservative politicians, a carbon tax/price on carbon has been demonstrated to be an effective means to reduce emissions. The Ecofiscal Commission was “formed by a group of experienced, policy-minded economists from across the country”, and conducts objective analyses on carbon pricing. In a recent article (SIXPLACES Where Carbon Pricing is Working), Don Drummond and his co-authors stated that the carbon tax in British Columbia led to “Reduced gasoline use by at least 7% per capita over the first four years.” Don Drummond is hardly a left-wing radical, having earlier in his career served as Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Conservative politicians lie about the impact of a carbon tax/carbon pricing on jobs and the economy, when they tell us that the “economy will tank”. Our common sense can be applied to refute this lie. The Trudeau government carbon tax returns the great majority of the revenue to individuals via the rebate. When money is returned to people, particularly those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, they will generally spend it. And how does that spending of money impact the economy? Of course, it creates jobs. Subject to how a carbon tax is designed, there will be a variable number of lost jobs. But because jobs will also be gained, one must determine the net impact. When one looks at British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax since July of 2008, one finds that BC’s Gross Domestic Product between 2009 and 2018 increased by 29.26%, second only to Alberta’s increase of 29.41%. In the Ecofiscal Commission article “10 MYTHS About Carbon Pricingin Canada”, the authors stated “Analysis of British Columbia’s carbon tax suggests it led to a 2% increase in the total number of jobs in the province between 2007 and 2013—an average of 5,000 jobs per year (Yamazaki, 2017)”
The carbon tax is effective because it rewards good behaviour (reductions in emissions) and penalizes bad behaviour (increases in emissions or a disregard for emissions). In the fall of 2018, while discussing the harvest, a local farmer/professional man told me that a lot of farmers were out on the land practising “recreational tillage." In other words, there was no need to till but they were still out there tilling, perhaps out of habit. This is the kind of bad behaviour that a carbon tax/carbon pricing should attempt to penalize.
I could go on relative to the lies perpetuated by Conservative politicians, but you get the picture.
While Conservative politicians lie about climate change, it is also clear that those who support the Conservative Party of Canada generally do not believe that global warming is real, or believe that it is not caused by humans. This provides further evidence as to why Conservative politicians lie, as they align with the views of their base. A 2018 Angus Reid survey found that only 35% of past Conservative voters believed that climate change was real and caused by humans. 35% of these Conservative voters believed that climate change was happening but was mostly caused by natural changes, and 21% believed that climate change was a still unproven theory.
There are a number of moral aspects to the global warming issue. By any independent analysis, Canada is an extremely rich country and Canadians are generally very well off when compared to people from other countries. We are lucky and blessed in many ways, simply by having had the good fortune to be born in Canada or to have immigrated to Canada. And within Canada, people in some provinces are extremely well off (e.g., in Alberta, where wages continue to be high and taxes low, despite the downturn in the oil and gas industry). Why is it, when we are generally so well off, and particularly so among old ‘white’ men like me, that we are often so greedy? We certainly can’t take it with us. At the same time, many Canadians who are among the wealthiest people in the world ignore the effects of climate change on the young and the Indigenous.
It is immoral for well off Canadians to ignore how climate change will impact on our Nation’s children and grandchildren. No wonder we observe a disconnect between older generations and the young on this matter. It is immoral for well off Canadians to ignore the effects of climate change on the culture, health, and welfare of the Indigenous. While the wealth of Canada and other rich Nations is due in very large part to the extraction and use of fossil fuels, it is often the poorest of Nations that will suffer the consequences of our contribution to climate change, despite their often insignificant contributions to the problem. For example, Island Nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu are expected to be severely damaged by the rising ocean levels and altered storms that result from climate change. Indeed, islands have already been lost, including one in Kiribati where a village once thrived. Canadians can just say ‘bad luck' as Conservative politicians demonstrate by their words and actions (e.g., some of the cutbacks in Scheer’s election platform), or we can take responsibility for our actions. As it is rich Nations like Canada that are primarily responsible for the problem, it is immoral for Canadians to not address climate change so as to minimize its effects on these Nations, and to not support the adaptation measures that can help them continue to exist.
There is a fundamental religious element to the response of Canadians to global warming. Religions across the spectrum, including those of Christians, incorporate a responsibility for stewardship of the earth. This stewardship focus and the social justice aspects are why many religions and religious leaders strongly endorse the need to combat global warming. For example, see Interfaith Power & Light.
Climate has changed in the past. But it has never changed at the extremely fast rate that we are observing today. Biological scientists are so concerned respecting the impact of climate change on the extinction rate of species because, among other reasons, mammals, birds, and other species will have relatively little time to adapt. The extinction rate will increase and species distribution will change. For example, a recent study predicted that blueberries, sweetgrass, and Labrador tea will be almost eliminated from southern Manitoba by 2071-2100, and that the core distribution of white birch will be considerably changed.
A recent issue of the scientific journal Nature noted that, while Canada contributes some 2% of the global greenhouse gases, most importantly Canada is the tenth largest contributor among countries. And Canadians, at an average of 15.3 tonnes CO2 per capita, are the third highest contributors of greenhouse gases in the world, after Saudi Arabia and the United States. It is not debatable that our great wealth and very high standard of living are due to the very high per capita past and current levels of greenhouse gas emissions by Canadian families and businesses. If Canadians, who are among the very wealthiest in the world, cannot do their share to address their contribution to climate change, who can? Should we make the poor pay for a problem largely created by wealthy countries like Canada?
How do the federal parties stack up in terms of their platforms on addressing climate change? The Conservative Party of Canada Climate Plan was evasive in that it did not provide how much less CO2 would result from the Plan, or what the cost would be. Consequently, in their examination of the Conservative Plan,EnviroEconomics and Clean Prosperity had to make a number of assumptions. The assessment found that the Conservative Plan “would increase emissions by 9.1 Mt in 2022, relative to the current and announced measures being planned by the federal and provincial governments, as described in the most recent “additional measures” scenario from Environment and Climate Change Canada. The Plan would have a net cost of $3.8 billion by 2022 accounting for savings from removing existing measures including the carbon tax in benchmark provinces (regulatory charge) and the Clean Fuel Standard. This translates into a cost of $295 per household in Canadian provinces and territories that currently have the federal carbon tax.”. The main carbon-reducing component of the Plan, by far, is to use tax credits to fund energy conservation measures like energy efficient windows and more insulation. The assessment estimated that this would cost $439 per tonne of CO2. Compare this to the $46 per tonne of CO2 for the Liberal carbon tax. So we observe, for this measure, that the Conservative Plan would cost about 10 times as much per tonne of CO2 as the carbon tax that Scheer and other Conservative politicians rail against. And where will the money for this inefficient Conservative measure come from? … you guessed it … your tax dollars. Again, this is part of the Scheer/Conservative Party of Canada lie on carbon pricing, in that the Conservative Plan did not include carbon emission effects and costing, because doing so would have demonstrated that the Plan was not cost-effective. Under the Conservative Plan, industry would be allowed to emit more CO2, with emissions increasing by 0.83 Mt (megatonnes) for industries that emit 10 kt (kilotonnes) or more per year.
It is also important to consider whether we can trust Scheer and the Conservative’s on this. I suggest that we cannot, because I remember that Prime Minister Harper promised to regulate the oil and gas sector in 2007 (under a minority government) and then went back on his commitment in 2014 (when he had a majority). The Conservative Plan also proposes to decrease emissions by funding the development of new technology, where the private sector would be expected to provide more than double the contribution by Canada. While certainly of value, there is nothing new here, as this is the type of policy that climate change ditherers always trot out … to some extent, it is the “no worries, be happy” approach that assumes we will invent our way out of the problem. The technological solution has been proposed for decades, and we find ourselves in a much worse condition today. Although today’s technology can be applied to address climate change, the assessment attributed a decrease of 2.48 Mt to the measure, while stating “we give the Plan the benefit of the doubt”. The assessment noted that this type of measure has been demonstrated to be a poor means to reduce emissions, in terms of cost-effectiveness. The report stated “This abatement cost is high relative to other policies; a recent comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various policy levers designed to incent innovation and technology diffusion ranks R&D subsidies low”. The assessment estimated the cost of this measure at $272 per tonne CO2. The final component of the Conservative Plan that might measurably reduce greenhouse gases is its Green Construction Options component. The assessment estimated that this measure would reduce emissions by 1 Mt of CO2 via an increase in the use of low-carbon cement; however, the authors also stated “the Plan is not clear on the policy approach to incent usage of low emitting cement”. In other words, the Conservative Plan indicates that it will reduce emissions without demonstrating how it will do so. That is not a plan, rather it is simply a goal and just more Conservative ‘smoke and mirrors’. Other elements of the Conservative Plan are very questionable, and are addressed within the assessment. The Conservative Plan is very costly (e.g., $439 and $272 per tonne of CO2 for the two measures that would result in 11.50 Mt, or 92%, of the reduction in emissions). Compare this to two already existing and in the works measures of the Liberal government that the Conservatives would eliminate (i.e., $46 per tonne of CO2 for the carbon tax and $142 per tonne of CO2 for the Clean Fuel Standard, which collectively would reduce emissions by 20.81 Mt). The Conservative Plan would eliminate cost-effective measures and replace them with high cost measures. The bottom line is that the Conservative’s Plan will cost the average Canadian household far more to achieve far less (e.g., for 2022, a cost of an extra $295 per household excepting for Quebec, BC, and Newfoundland where it would be an extra $187 per household).
Climate atmospheric scientist Katherine Hayhoe (Texas Tech University) and energy and environmental economist Andrew Leach (University of Alberta) recently evaluated the plans of four federal parties.The Conservative Plan was assessed as “What’s missing: Policies likely to lead to actual emission reductions” and “Grade: D for ambition, F for feasibility.” These two experts wrote “its actual substance is vague. Very vague. There are some bold promises about how this plan gives Canada the “best chance” at meeting the Paris targets, but there’s not much evidence to back that up. In fact, they’ve been so shy to make commitments that they’re not included on the graph above.”, “You might think you know what Scheer’s plan is: cut the carbon tax. But that’s not quite true. His plan has one, it’s just hidden. For large emitters, the plan sets emissions limits and forces them to invest a certain amount (How much? No one knows!) for any emissions above that (also unknown) limit. Other aspects of the plan come directly from the Harper government, such as credits for transit passes and home renovations. But both of these policies are relatively expensive per tonne of carbon reduced“, and “Economist Marc Jaccard concluded that, by getting rid of the current carbon pricing system and replacing it with largely optional incentives, the CPC plan is more likely to increase Canada’s carbon emissions than decrease them.” By any objective evaluation, it is clear that the Conservative Plan and rhetoric on the Plan continues the Conservative politician’s practice of misinformation, deception, and lies. For their evaluation of the plans of the other parties, Hayhoe and Leach graded ambition at B to A+, and feasibility at D to A.
Our choice on the environment and climate change is a critical consideration in our federal election. For those who care about the environment that we leave to our children and grandchildren, it is clearly anyone but Conservative.
Dan Soprovich, Swan River
Conservative politicians lie about the carbon tax. Jason Kenny, Doug Ford, Andrew Scheer … you know who the rest are. And Conservative politicians have been lying about the carbon tax for more than a decade. When the Stephane Dion Liberals proposed a carbon tax in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper lied about it. At the time, my dear departed Uncle Jack, who made millions of dollars from the oil industry, sent me an Internet article indicating that a poor retired couple in New Brunswick would be terribly impacted by the Liberal’s proposed carbon tax. However, that was simply not true. The proposed carbon tax included a rebate so that folks at the lower end of the economic spectrum would not be hurt (very similar to the carbon tax implemented by the Trudeau Liberal government). The Stephane Dion Liberals also provided an online calculator at the time. When I applied the circumstances of the retired couple within the calculator, the inconvenient truth was that the couple actually came out ahead under Dion’s proposed carbon tax, just as the great majority of Canadians come out ahead under the Trudeau government carbon tax. This example demonstrates the critical importance of ‘testing’ information, at all times, to get to the truth of a matter. This is particularly true for information from the Internet, where anyone can write almost anything.
Lying is a strong word and I do not use it lightly. However, in the era of US President Trump, it has become evident that the honest and objective observer must call a lie for what it is. It is more important than ever in today’s environment to speak truth to power, and this is particularly so when politicians lie.
Why do Conservative politicians lie about the carbon tax? In my view, the reason is simple. It is because they believe that many or most people will not check the facts, and because their ‘Taxes bad, no taxes good’ mantra is an easy sell for these cynical politicians. Conservative politicians like Andrew Scheer and Doug Ford never tell Canadians about the carbon tax rebate that is received by the great majority of Canadians, and therefore effectively lie by consciously omitting a fundamental piece of critical information. A serious discussion requires serious people applying information and facts. By distorting the truth and not engaging in an evidence-based discussion, these Conservative politicians, who know that they are spreading misinformation, can pick up votes in an attempt to get themselves elected. As one example of the vulnerability of people to misinformation, some months ago I had a good and lengthy discussion with a local businessman and farmer who, at that time, opposed the impending carbon tax. By the end of the discussion, it was clear that the individual had absolutely no understanding of the mechanics of the carbon tax, or its demonstrated effectiveness in reducing emissions.
So, what are some of the inconvenient truths?
First and foremost, economists almost universally support the view that a carbon tax/price on carbon is the most efficient and cost-effective means to address emissions. The economic basis is simple. Pricing carbon drives businesses and individuals to reduce emissions and innovate, because by doing so they can reduce costs. It is for this reason that fiscal conservatives support carbon pricing, like Reform founder and former leader Preston Manning who strongly supports putting a price on carbon. Similarly, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce supports carbon pricing, having stated in December of 2018 that “when done right, carbon pricing can equip businesses for the transition to a lower-carbon economy, and reduce the overall regulatory burden.”
Despite assertions to the contrary by Conservative politicians, a carbon tax/price on carbon has been demonstrated to be an effective means to reduce emissions. The Ecofiscal Commission was “formed by a group of experienced, policy-minded economists from across the country”, and conducts objective analyses on carbon pricing. In a recent article (SIXPLACES Where Carbon Pricing is Working), Don Drummond and his co-authors stated that the carbon tax in British Columbia led to “Reduced gasoline use by at least 7% per capita over the first four years.” Don Drummond is hardly a left-wing radical, having earlier in his career served as Chief Economist and Senior Vice President of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.
Conservative politicians lie about the impact of a carbon tax/carbon pricing on jobs and the economy, when they tell us that the “economy will tank”. Our common sense can be applied to refute this lie. The Trudeau government carbon tax returns the great majority of the revenue to individuals via the rebate. When money is returned to people, particularly those on the lower end of the economic spectrum, they will generally spend it. And how does that spending of money impact the economy? Of course, it creates jobs. Subject to how a carbon tax is designed, there will be a variable number of lost jobs. But because jobs will also be gained, one must determine the net impact. When one looks at British Columbia, which has had a carbon tax since July of 2008, one finds that BC’s Gross Domestic Product between 2009 and 2018 increased by 29.26%, second only to Alberta’s increase of 29.41%. In the Ecofiscal Commission article “10 MYTHS About Carbon Pricingin Canada”, the authors stated “Analysis of British Columbia’s carbon tax suggests it led to a 2% increase in the total number of jobs in the province between 2007 and 2013—an average of 5,000 jobs per year (Yamazaki, 2017)”
The carbon tax is effective because it rewards good behaviour (reductions in emissions) and penalizes bad behaviour (increases in emissions or a disregard for emissions). In the fall of 2018, while discussing the harvest, a local farmer/professional man told me that a lot of farmers were out on the land practising “recreational tillage." In other words, there was no need to till but they were still out there tilling, perhaps out of habit. This is the kind of bad behaviour that a carbon tax/carbon pricing should attempt to penalize.
I could go on relative to the lies perpetuated by Conservative politicians, but you get the picture.
While Conservative politicians lie about climate change, it is also clear that those who support the Conservative Party of Canada generally do not believe that global warming is real, or believe that it is not caused by humans. This provides further evidence as to why Conservative politicians lie, as they align with the views of their base. A 2018 Angus Reid survey found that only 35% of past Conservative voters believed that climate change was real and caused by humans. 35% of these Conservative voters believed that climate change was happening but was mostly caused by natural changes, and 21% believed that climate change was a still unproven theory.
There are a number of moral aspects to the global warming issue. By any independent analysis, Canada is an extremely rich country and Canadians are generally very well off when compared to people from other countries. We are lucky and blessed in many ways, simply by having had the good fortune to be born in Canada or to have immigrated to Canada. And within Canada, people in some provinces are extremely well off (e.g., in Alberta, where wages continue to be high and taxes low, despite the downturn in the oil and gas industry). Why is it, when we are generally so well off, and particularly so among old ‘white’ men like me, that we are often so greedy? We certainly can’t take it with us. At the same time, many Canadians who are among the wealthiest people in the world ignore the effects of climate change on the young and the Indigenous.
It is immoral for well off Canadians to ignore how climate change will impact on our Nation’s children and grandchildren. No wonder we observe a disconnect between older generations and the young on this matter. It is immoral for well off Canadians to ignore the effects of climate change on the culture, health, and welfare of the Indigenous. While the wealth of Canada and other rich Nations is due in very large part to the extraction and use of fossil fuels, it is often the poorest of Nations that will suffer the consequences of our contribution to climate change, despite their often insignificant contributions to the problem. For example, Island Nations like Kiribati and Tuvalu are expected to be severely damaged by the rising ocean levels and altered storms that result from climate change. Indeed, islands have already been lost, including one in Kiribati where a village once thrived. Canadians can just say ‘bad luck' as Conservative politicians demonstrate by their words and actions (e.g., some of the cutbacks in Scheer’s election platform), or we can take responsibility for our actions. As it is rich Nations like Canada that are primarily responsible for the problem, it is immoral for Canadians to not address climate change so as to minimize its effects on these Nations, and to not support the adaptation measures that can help them continue to exist.
There is a fundamental religious element to the response of Canadians to global warming. Religions across the spectrum, including those of Christians, incorporate a responsibility for stewardship of the earth. This stewardship focus and the social justice aspects are why many religions and religious leaders strongly endorse the need to combat global warming. For example, see Interfaith Power & Light.
Climate has changed in the past. But it has never changed at the extremely fast rate that we are observing today. Biological scientists are so concerned respecting the impact of climate change on the extinction rate of species because, among other reasons, mammals, birds, and other species will have relatively little time to adapt. The extinction rate will increase and species distribution will change. For example, a recent study predicted that blueberries, sweetgrass, and Labrador tea will be almost eliminated from southern Manitoba by 2071-2100, and that the core distribution of white birch will be considerably changed.
A recent issue of the scientific journal Nature noted that, while Canada contributes some 2% of the global greenhouse gases, most importantly Canada is the tenth largest contributor among countries. And Canadians, at an average of 15.3 tonnes CO2 per capita, are the third highest contributors of greenhouse gases in the world, after Saudi Arabia and the United States. It is not debatable that our great wealth and very high standard of living are due to the very high per capita past and current levels of greenhouse gas emissions by Canadian families and businesses. If Canadians, who are among the very wealthiest in the world, cannot do their share to address their contribution to climate change, who can? Should we make the poor pay for a problem largely created by wealthy countries like Canada?
How do the federal parties stack up in terms of their platforms on addressing climate change? The Conservative Party of Canada Climate Plan was evasive in that it did not provide how much less CO2 would result from the Plan, or what the cost would be. Consequently, in their examination of the Conservative Plan,EnviroEconomics and Clean Prosperity had to make a number of assumptions. The assessment found that the Conservative Plan “would increase emissions by 9.1 Mt in 2022, relative to the current and announced measures being planned by the federal and provincial governments, as described in the most recent “additional measures” scenario from Environment and Climate Change Canada. The Plan would have a net cost of $3.8 billion by 2022 accounting for savings from removing existing measures including the carbon tax in benchmark provinces (regulatory charge) and the Clean Fuel Standard. This translates into a cost of $295 per household in Canadian provinces and territories that currently have the federal carbon tax.”. The main carbon-reducing component of the Plan, by far, is to use tax credits to fund energy conservation measures like energy efficient windows and more insulation. The assessment estimated that this would cost $439 per tonne of CO2. Compare this to the $46 per tonne of CO2 for the Liberal carbon tax. So we observe, for this measure, that the Conservative Plan would cost about 10 times as much per tonne of CO2 as the carbon tax that Scheer and other Conservative politicians rail against. And where will the money for this inefficient Conservative measure come from? … you guessed it … your tax dollars. Again, this is part of the Scheer/Conservative Party of Canada lie on carbon pricing, in that the Conservative Plan did not include carbon emission effects and costing, because doing so would have demonstrated that the Plan was not cost-effective. Under the Conservative Plan, industry would be allowed to emit more CO2, with emissions increasing by 0.83 Mt (megatonnes) for industries that emit 10 kt (kilotonnes) or more per year.
It is also important to consider whether we can trust Scheer and the Conservative’s on this. I suggest that we cannot, because I remember that Prime Minister Harper promised to regulate the oil and gas sector in 2007 (under a minority government) and then went back on his commitment in 2014 (when he had a majority). The Conservative Plan also proposes to decrease emissions by funding the development of new technology, where the private sector would be expected to provide more than double the contribution by Canada. While certainly of value, there is nothing new here, as this is the type of policy that climate change ditherers always trot out … to some extent, it is the “no worries, be happy” approach that assumes we will invent our way out of the problem. The technological solution has been proposed for decades, and we find ourselves in a much worse condition today. Although today’s technology can be applied to address climate change, the assessment attributed a decrease of 2.48 Mt to the measure, while stating “we give the Plan the benefit of the doubt”. The assessment noted that this type of measure has been demonstrated to be a poor means to reduce emissions, in terms of cost-effectiveness. The report stated “This abatement cost is high relative to other policies; a recent comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various policy levers designed to incent innovation and technology diffusion ranks R&D subsidies low”. The assessment estimated the cost of this measure at $272 per tonne CO2. The final component of the Conservative Plan that might measurably reduce greenhouse gases is its Green Construction Options component. The assessment estimated that this measure would reduce emissions by 1 Mt of CO2 via an increase in the use of low-carbon cement; however, the authors also stated “the Plan is not clear on the policy approach to incent usage of low emitting cement”. In other words, the Conservative Plan indicates that it will reduce emissions without demonstrating how it will do so. That is not a plan, rather it is simply a goal and just more Conservative ‘smoke and mirrors’. Other elements of the Conservative Plan are very questionable, and are addressed within the assessment. The Conservative Plan is very costly (e.g., $439 and $272 per tonne of CO2 for the two measures that would result in 11.50 Mt, or 92%, of the reduction in emissions). Compare this to two already existing and in the works measures of the Liberal government that the Conservatives would eliminate (i.e., $46 per tonne of CO2 for the carbon tax and $142 per tonne of CO2 for the Clean Fuel Standard, which collectively would reduce emissions by 20.81 Mt). The Conservative Plan would eliminate cost-effective measures and replace them with high cost measures. The bottom line is that the Conservative’s Plan will cost the average Canadian household far more to achieve far less (e.g., for 2022, a cost of an extra $295 per household excepting for Quebec, BC, and Newfoundland where it would be an extra $187 per household).
Climate atmospheric scientist Katherine Hayhoe (Texas Tech University) and energy and environmental economist Andrew Leach (University of Alberta) recently evaluated the plans of four federal parties.The Conservative Plan was assessed as “What’s missing: Policies likely to lead to actual emission reductions” and “Grade: D for ambition, F for feasibility.” These two experts wrote “its actual substance is vague. Very vague. There are some bold promises about how this plan gives Canada the “best chance” at meeting the Paris targets, but there’s not much evidence to back that up. In fact, they’ve been so shy to make commitments that they’re not included on the graph above.”, “You might think you know what Scheer’s plan is: cut the carbon tax. But that’s not quite true. His plan has one, it’s just hidden. For large emitters, the plan sets emissions limits and forces them to invest a certain amount (How much? No one knows!) for any emissions above that (also unknown) limit. Other aspects of the plan come directly from the Harper government, such as credits for transit passes and home renovations. But both of these policies are relatively expensive per tonne of carbon reduced“, and “Economist Marc Jaccard concluded that, by getting rid of the current carbon pricing system and replacing it with largely optional incentives, the CPC plan is more likely to increase Canada’s carbon emissions than decrease them.” By any objective evaluation, it is clear that the Conservative Plan and rhetoric on the Plan continues the Conservative politician’s practice of misinformation, deception, and lies. For their evaluation of the plans of the other parties, Hayhoe and Leach graded ambition at B to A+, and feasibility at D to A.
Our choice on the environment and climate change is a critical consideration in our federal election. For those who care about the environment that we leave to our children and grandchildren, it is clearly anyone but Conservative.
Dan Soprovich, Swan River
Monday, October 14, 2019
Lakes worldwide are experiencing more severe algal blooms
PHYS ORG
 |
| Lake Winnipeg. Satellite photo by European Space Agency. |
The intensity of summer algal blooms has increased over the past three decades, according to a first-ever global survey of dozens of large, freshwater lakes. Story here.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Parched peatlands fuel Indonesia's blazes
Fires set
illegally to clear forests and peatlands for agricultural use in Indonesia are
once again generating an acrid haze that has spread across that country and its
neighbors. But a number of scientists say the haze emergency—which sent scores
to hospitals with respiratory problems and led to school closures and flight
cancellations—could have been worse. In the years since the last major haze
event in 2015, Indonesia has moved to restore peatlands, making them more
fire-resistant; enhanced restrictions on converting primary forests to
agricultural lands; and stepped up enforcement of bans on fires. Experts praise
the progress but say even more needs to be done, particularly in area of
enforcement of laws holding plantation operators liable for fires on their
lands even if they don't deliberately start them.
Saturday, October 12, 2019
Thursday, October 10, 2019
Rural Manitobans need to stop electing Tories if we hope to make progress on climate mitigation. (Opinion)
by Larry Powell
Despite the fact the tax applies to fossil fuels only, is refundable and exempts many farm fuels like the ones Mazier burns on his own farm, he amazingly concludes, it will “increase the cost of almost everything!”
In my mind, one cannot be a true supporter of climate action while opposing a price on carbon.
Here's why.
A carbon tax in BC in the early 2000s, worked. It actually reduced emissions without damaging the economy in the least. It has also been endorsed by leading climatologists, a Nobel prize-winning economists and the respected think-tank, the Pembina Institute, to name a few.
Here's the proof.
Here's the proof.
- THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
- CARBON TAX CENTER
- SUZUKI FOUNDATION
- PAUL ROMER - NOBEL PRIZE-WINNER
- CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL
- PEMBINA INSTITUTE
- JAMES HANSEN - WORLD'S FOREMOST CLIMATOLOGIST
- BELOW 2 DEGREES C
 |
| Vast acreages like this remain in Manitoba fields due to storm conditions some have described as "historic." A PinP photo. |
The irony of Mazier’s position is striking. He's a conventional farmer who uses lots of fuel in his big machines and synthetic fertilizers on his crops. And he's almost certainly facing economic losses himself from a wacky growing season which bears all the hallmarks of manmade climate change. Drought, torrential rains, hail and snow have left vast amounts of crop in the fields (see above) and many livestock producers on the verge of ruin. And the irony only deepens when you consider the deeply-flawed way Trudeau imposed the tax on Manitoba. It exempts producers like Mazier from paying it at all on much of the fuel he burns on his farm.
For years, Conservative has been the party of choice for most rural Manitobans. The outgoing MP for this area, Conservative Robert Sopuck, criticized organic production and strongly opposed action on climate change. He was a strong supporter of the status quo in regard to conventional farming and livestock production.
I'm not convinced that I fully believe Conservatives who say they accept that manmade climate change is happening. They take that position because the science is now so compelling, it would make them look ridiculous in the public eye to say otherwise. So their condemnation of a carbon tax is their "fallback position," where they can deny the science in private but publicly still appear to be disagreeing only on solutions.
For years, Conservative has been the party of choice for most rural Manitobans. The outgoing MP for this area, Conservative Robert Sopuck, criticized organic production and strongly opposed action on climate change. He was a strong supporter of the status quo in regard to conventional farming and livestock production.
I'm not convinced that I fully believe Conservatives who say they accept that manmade climate change is happening. They take that position because the science is now so compelling, it would make them look ridiculous in the public eye to say otherwise. So their condemnation of a carbon tax is their "fallback position," where they can deny the science in private but publicly still appear to be disagreeing only on solutions.
Sunday, October 6, 2019
We’re Just Starting to Learn How Fracking Harms Wildlife
EcoWatch
 |
| A PinP photo. |
| Spills highlight the dangers that come with unconventional fossil-fuel extraction techniques that go after hard-to-reach pockets of oil and gas using practices like horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing (otherwise known as fracking). Details here. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Are hungry kids a priority for the Harper government? by Larry Powell The forum (for the riding of Dauphin - Swan River - Neepawa) w...
-
by Larry Powell Planet In Peril has sorted through some of the confusion surrounding the absence of Robert Sopuck, the Conservative M...
-
Larry Powell Powell is a veteran, award-winning journalist based in Shoal Lake, Manitoba, Canada. He specialize in stories about agriculture...