December 3, 2007
Bali Rally
Today is the first day of the Bali United Nations Climate Change Conference, which will continue until December 14. The purpose of the conference, which is being attended by over 20,000 delegates and observers from 180 countries, is to set out the framework of negotiations for the next phase of the Kyoto Protocol when it ends in 2012. There are several events taking place this week in Toronto to mark the occasion. The first is a concert with the Foggy Hometown Boys and Autorickshaw, plus a guest speaker (some guy named Chris Tindal, who promises not to talk for more than ten minutes) taking place this Wednesday, December 5 at 9 p.m. at Lula Lounge (1585 Dundas West, west of Dufferin). Tickets are $15, $10 for students. The second is a rally on Saturday, December 8 at noon in Dundas Square. Both are well worth attending.
The need for success in Bali is great. The concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere has reached levels we previously thought would take much longer to achieve, and the effects of climate change are accelerating more rapidly than even some of our most pessimistic projections. And yet, it's not too late for us to seize the opportunity that crises always present. We can still make the kinds of changes that are needed to ensure our climate and economic security, and to safeguard and even improve our quality of life. For Canada, the choice is between restoring our reputation as an international leader while simultaneously positioning ourselves to take advantage of the new economy, or sabotaging international negotiations and playing a key role in derailing the efforts of the other 179 countries present. The latter would not only be a national embarrassment, it would be an immoral failure on a grand scale.
Early indications are not particularly positive. Last month, our Prime Minister—acting practically single-handedly—was able to cripple negotiations at a Commonwealth summit so effectively that the other 52 countries gave up trying to agree to anything at all. That event marked a significant shift; no longer was Stephen Harper merely blocking progress in his own country, he was now blocking progress internationally as well.
Shifting Language
That can't be allowed to happen in Bali. What will happen, however, is less clear. When in opposition, this Prime Minister referred to Kyoto as a "socialist scheme." As recently as January of this year he used the skeptical phrase "so-called global warming." Then, realizing that public demand for action was not going away, the Conservatives began experimenting with new language. Environment Minister John Baird started calling for "intensity-based targets," a scheme devised by the Bush White House that would give the illusion of reductions while allowing overall emissions to rise. Then, as recently as September, the government traveled to an APEC summit and argued for what they called "aspirational targets," which are a step below "voluntary targets."
Times change, however. Now, with the ouster of anti-Kyoto Australian Prime Minister John Howard a little over a week ago, and with growing pressure at home, Baird and Harper are suddenly calling for "binding, absolute targets" to be imposed. That sounds positive, but many remain skeptical that their new language represents a legitimate conversion, especially considering that, as far as we can tell, the prime minister is yet to receive a scientific briefing on the climate crisis.
Regardless, the key trick to the Conservatives' demand for "binding, absolute targets" is that they be imposed on all countries or none. They argue that, since this is a global problem, all countries need to reduce emissions at the same time. As this CP story put it, "depending on your perspective, the Conservative government is either going into global climate-change talks this week as a deal-buster with unrealistic demands or a strategic bridge-builder bent on bringing various factions together."
Skewed Perspective
Perspective certainly has a lot to do with it. Canadians will often complain that we shouldn't reduce emissions if other countries (China and India, for example) won't do so as well. After all, what's the point if they're just going to move in and fill the gap? From a developing nation's standpoint, however, this is a highly objectionable position. For the past century we've not only been the greatest contributers to the problem of climate change, we've also been the greatest beneficences of economic growth fueled by the fossil fuel era. And now that the developing world is just starting to catch up, we're saying to them, "sorry, too bad, you can't have what we had. You're going to have to do just as much as us, even though we made most of the mess, and you're starting with less."
That's a moral argument, but there are pragmatic ones too. The fact is that the wealthy countries are the ones who can afford to develop the new technologies and techniques that will be required to reduce our emissions by the 80% our scientists tell us is necessary. Asking the world's poorest countries (India pointed out this week that their emissions per capita are still among the world's lowest) to shoulder the burden while we complain about the "cost" of action is a recipe for failure, not to mention insulting.
Add to this the fact that just as the poor black population of New Orleans suffered the most from Katrina, so too will the world's poor endure the brunt of climate change. A CBC radio news report this morning drew attention to the irony of holding this conference in Indonesia, a country made up of thousands of islands that will disappear as world ocean levels rise.
While Harper's knowledge of climate science may be lacking, his mastery of political strategy is well known. From a tactical perspective, he understands how these negotiations are likely to play out depending on his actions. That's why it's hard not to believe that his "all or nothing" demands are designed to ensure the negotiations in Bali fail to come up with the kinds of commitments needed. He's likely to team up with a lame-duck American president to ensure that the world commits to as little action as possible. Its the difference between being an international leader or an international pariah.
Model for Success
The good news is that we have a model for success. When the world confronted the challenge presented by acid rain, an international protocol was formed that saw the wealthy nations take the lead, with developing nations to follow. It worked, and led to both environmental and economic benefits. That's what the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (of which Kyoto is a part) was designed to do. Contrary to the rhetoric coming out of Ottawa, countries like China and India actually are a part of the agreement. While they were exempt from reductions in the first round due to their status as developing nations (as well as economic predictions that did not foresee the level of growth those countries now boast), everyone has always understood that binding emission reductions will eventually be required for all countries.
Speaking of perspective, the Kyoto plan is working almost everywhere but Canada, where politicians make defeatist proclamations that become self-fulfilling. For example, the European Union has reduced emissions by nearly 5% below 1990 levels (Canada's target was 6%), and Germany has reduced theirs by an impressive 17%, all while creating new "green-collar" jobs. Our emissions, on the other hand, have risen by 27% while we experience an emerging economic crisis. When Harper calls Kyoto a "mistake," therefore, he's doing so in opposition to the facts. If we want a positive international reputation and a competitive economy (not to mention a livable world), we must continue to work with the established framework (while allowing for corrections and adjustments—after all, no agreement is perfect).
And if we want our government to do that, then we'd best show up in numbers to the rally this Saturday in Dundas Square (and elsewhere across the country). If we don't, then our political leaders will get the idea that we don't care. And if we don't, then why should they?
India photo by kartoffelbcn. Wind farm photo by michaelchrisman from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
|
As a side note, this particular spot is an unusual choice for this conference.
The meeting is centered on the Bali International Conference Centre, which is next to the Westin resort on the Nusa Dua pennisula of the island. This is a purpose-built zone of western megaresorts in an area that was otherwise completely unpopulated. It is completely and utterly disconnected from the rest of Bali except for a 4-lane separated highway running to the Kuta / Denpasar / airport area, the only such highway on the tropical island. Not exactly the real Bali.
However, they are not missing much. Through its artificiality, Nusa Dua provides a better pedestrian environment than the rest of the island. Bali should in theory be a pedestrian wonderland where there is little need for motorized transport for most day-to-day affairs. The island is densely populated and the religious and commercial connections within the hundreds of villages is very strong. However, the island never adopted the concept of blocks and streets very well, so every village is strung out along a single long road, making distances longer than they should be. Transport is universally by scooter, with small buses and autos challenging them for space on the narrow roadways. These are so overrun that there is no room for walking. Sidewalks in Bali do not exceed 2 feet in width, which makes for some harrowing pedestrian experiences.
You could not pick a locale with more stark contrast between the potential for climate-friendly non-polluting lifestyle and the dangerous, scooter-dependent, poorly-planned, exhaust-choked reality. It should make for an interesting backdrop to the conference.
It's interesting to note how far some of the European countries have already gone while Canada has spent the last decade arguing and doing nothing. Harper likes to blame the Liberals, but clearly both parties are to blame. Of course, in acting as a one-man international roadblock on the issue, Harper has proven himself far worse than the Liberals ever were.
The "absolute" aspect of the Harper/Baird plan is nothing but a stalling tactic designed to promote continued inaction. The Tories know developing nations would never agree to being put on an equal footing with developed nations on the climate change file. It's obvious that Harper's not looking for an agreement - well, nothing specific or binding anyway.
What I find astounding in all of this, however, is that Harper's environmental stance hasn't really affected his poll numbers all that much - at a time when Canadians say the environment is the issue that matters most to them. Are most Canadians buying his government's rhetoric, are they just not paying attention, or do they simply not care as much as they say they do?
uptownguy - anyone that drives regularly but believes in acting strongly to reverse anthropogenic warming is a hypocrite and doesn't care as much as they say they do. I think that would cover most of the voting population.
As for this article, it STILL doesn't address the question of why we should sign agreements requiring us to reduce emissions when other signing nations won't. If you believe in anthropogenic warming, and if you believe it will be catastrophic, the catastrophe won't care about economic "unfairness". It's easy to see why it would be called a "socialist scheme".
Truly, an inspirational leader is someone who says "If you're not gonna, then I ain't either! Harumph."
Stephen Harper doesn't care about Earth people.
Can't tell if spacejack's final point is a parody or not...
In the event that it isn't, or for people who might wonder, it's pretty simple. The developed world is responsible for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse gases. It doesn't make much sense to a Sri Lankan subsisting on $3/day (or any other sentient being, for that matter), that he has to reduce his carbon footprint in the same ratio as a Canadian - who's ecological footprint is 20-30X as great.
The thing about Kyoto is that it anticipated, and allowed for, growth in the GHG emissions of developing nations - because there would be corresponding cuts by the developed world. But the world's 2 biggest sources of GHG - Canada and the US, have not only failed to cut GHGs, but have allowed them to soar; so the failure since Kyoto lies not so much in reining in the GHGs of the third world, but those of North America.
You could not pick a locale with more stark contrast between the potential for climate-friendly non-polluting lifestyle and the dangerous, scooter-dependent, poorly-planned, exhaust-choked reality.
It could be in Houston (where instead of scooters, everyone would drive a Suburban).
Seriously, I'm a bit perplexed as to why the location is getting so much attention. It's no worse for the delegates in North America to fly there as it is for the Asian delegates to fly here.
And I would guess that despite the point made about travel within Bali, the GHGs created are a fraction of what they are in the developed world. Almost nobody owns a car, and virtually the only time a car is solely occupied is when it's a cab without a fare. Sure everyone gets around on scooters, but they aren't smog-inducing 2 stroke engines - and almost all scooters have not only passengers, but *multiple* passengers; the Balinese effectively carpool on scooter *far* better than Canadians.
Canada is no where near the world's top source of GHG. China is, or will be very soon. And very soon after that they will be by a wide margin.
So, again, why would we sign a deal that doesn't require them to reduce emissions? We'll end up giving Chinese bureaucrats money that could've been invested into developing our own green technologies.
Do you honestly think Harper's about to push a green technology/energy alternative investment strategy worth a damn? Not while there's oil in his buddies' back yards he won't.
I'm with McKingford in that I don't know if spacejack's playing devil's advocate or what, but I'll respond to it.
Of course I don't believe a global climate catastrophe will have discerning taste, but I do know that any preventative solution will only come about through consensus. Are you going to roll into Shanghai and Mumbai with tanks and make them close down their factories? Or do think they'll crumble under your clearly more well thought out 'I do nothing you do everything' mentality?
Reaching consensus obviously requires some fair play on both sides. It's a tired fact that it would take multiple planet Earths to support a North American lifestyle on a 6-billion person scale so why even try to argue that the Western world doesn't need to drastically change the way we live. The only other way out involves a nuclear winter. Moving on, everyone can agree that India and China (or any other developing nation for that matter) have a ways to go before anyone would call them ideal in the way of infrastructure. Even with good planning these improvements will inevitably have some harmful environmental impacts.
Having run up 100-year long tab on GHG emissions, I don't know if any Western country has a leg to stand on when it comes to moral high ground.
And to end on an unrelated note, Harper seems to have this notion that 'green' technology is a plague upon the Canadian economy. Unless he just doesn't believe in global warming (not out of the question), we're all going to have to adopting them sooner or later. Why not take advantage of Canada's prime position and take on a leadership role in the field? When China and India go green it'll be a goldmine for whoever comes prepared with the technology and expertise. Massive oil revenues and green tech aren't mutually exclusive, we'll probably be using oil right up until the last drop anyhow.
Canada is no where near the world's top source of GHG. China is, or will be very soon. And very soon after that they will be by a wide margin.
Interesting that you didn't mention the US, which *is* the world's top source of GHGs.
China has about 1/5 of the fucking people on the planet, so, intuitively, it makes a little more sense that China would emit more GHGs than anyone else. You are being entirely disingenuous to use absolute rates rather than per-capita rates. Otherwise, according to your knuckle-dragging logic, India, which has about 40 times the people, and emits about 4% of the world's GHGs should be working harder than Canada, which emits about 3% of the world's GHGs.
And, of course, the reason we are in this mess is that the developed world is responsible for the vast majority of the anthropogenic GHGs, historically.
At the end of the day, we should all be doing are part to reduce GHGs. It's a bit much, however, to ask the Chinese, who are largely not responsible for the historic buildup of human-caused GHGs, and who average less than $5 per person per day, to sacrifice as much as those in the developed world whose wealth is largely attributable to our use of the very GHGs that have landed us in this mess.
To allow non-action by some nations in the developing world to excuse non-action by the developed world, even though we are exponentially better positioned to cut emissions, is to embrace a suicide pact where we and our planet become victims of our intransigence.
[Having re-read the original spacejack post, I see the genesis of his/her wish that we do nothing: anyone who uses the terms "if you believe in anthropogenic warming" doesn't, which is at the level of denial of the flat earth society]
Re: "Harper seems to have this notion that 'green' technology is a plague upon the Canadian economy. "
This is really more of the same from those who are wilfully blind to anything this government does and will slander it regardless of the truth. From the Sustainable Development Technology website:
SDTC Portfolio Reaches $1 Billion in Cleantech Funding - $30.3 million in new funding approved for 14 companies
Toronto, October 25, 2007 – Canada’s clean tech economy reached a major milestone today with Sustainable Development Technology Canada (SDTC) announcing that its SD Tech FundTM investment portfolio has surpassed $1 billion.
This milestone was reached through the approval by SDTC’s Board of Directors of $30.3 million in new funding for the development and demonstration of 14 clean technology solutions that benefit both the environment and the economy. The total value of these projects is $93.5 million, bringing the SD Tech Fund investment portfolio to $1.03 billion.
"Our partnership with SDTC is providing Canadians with clean technology options that will improve their health now and in the future," said the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources. "Combined with our ecoACTION initiatives, this is another example of our Government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution while ensuring economic growth."
"By investing in green technology, our government is taking action in the fight against climate change," said John Baird, Minister of the Environment. "Today's announcement will ensure future generations of Canadians will continue to enjoy clean air, high-quality water and clean soil, while helping make this country a world leader on the environment."
“This is a great day for the cleantech economy in Canada,” said SDTC Chairman Stephen Probyn. “Since our first funding round in 2002, we have seen a twenty fold increase in financial support for clean technologies. The public and private sectors have seen the importance of clean technologies, embraced our model and have invested their time and money into this important area.”
$30 million and some mugging for the camera won't switch Canada's cars to hydrogen fuel cells or erect wind farms along the Escarpment.
Now, now, Rek. Thirty million dollars is five times as much as the government used to spend on social programs run by Status of Women Canada, and as we all know, those programs eradicated sexism and all the problems of women everywhere forever.
Kyoto is based on cap & trade. Even if we could agree on targets for GHGs, the Kyoto mechanisms don’t get us there. The delegates at Bali are pushing for more of the same.
Regulated caps with a carbon tax are needed.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1203/p09s02-coop.html
“And like climate change itself, this sobering truth is best faced sooner rather than later”.
What to Do About Climate Change.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85308/ruth-greenspan-bell/what-to-do-about-climate-change.html
McKingly -
The reason I didn't mention the US is because they didn't join Kyoto. Duh.
Second, I'm afraid it was you who was using absolute values incorrectly.
Third, climate change doesn't care about "fairly adjusted per-capita values." If it is affected by our CO2 emmissions, only absolute values matter. You seem to be pleased that 1/5th of the population is going to double its carbon output very soon.
Fourth, carbon trading has been riddled with problems, not the least of which being how it encourages developing nations to move from existing carbon neutral solutions to cheap & dirty power, to make a quick buck on the carbon market.
Kyoto was designed to fail. It is very easily seen as a socialist scheme, as it'll do very little to combat GHG, but will, like so many socialist schemes in the past, move money into the pockets of greedy beaurocrats and profiteers in nations struggling with government corruption.
So, all of those words, yet you still didn't address the question.
And what's with all the hostility and snide comments? You're starting to hurt my feelings.
Argh, McKingford not McKingly. I apologise for that.
Spacejack,
I can see how, in looking back at the one post, it might be unclear that I was referring to per-capita, not absolute, emissions. I trust that has been cleared up.
Having said that, I don't think you can fairly say that I'm happy that China's GHGs are growing. Is it optimal if all countries reduce GHGs? Of course. Is it rational, or even possible? No.
The principles behind cutting GHGs is a little like progressive taxation. If Canada suddenly found itself in a huge unexpected defict, it wouldn't make much sense to impose an across-the-board surtax of, say $10,000 per person - but that's the equivalent of what you would have us do with the developing world.
If we are serious about climate change, we have to accept that the developed world is largely responsible for the problem, since the historic buildup of anthropogenic GHG is largely our (ie. the West) doing. That's why our standard of living is about 20 times that of China's. It is infinitely easier for us to reduce GHGs than it is for those in the developing world. So, we have to take the lead. Is is "socialist"? Maybe so. Who cares?
And, incidentally, the idea that we have to start living in communes and eating dirt in order to achieve sufficient reductions in GHGs is nonsense; we can solve this problem with mild cutbacks in our growth rate: not even a cutback in our standard of living, but simply the *growth* rate of our standard of living.
Holding out for all countries to cut back equally is not a viable solution, and is an excuse for the status quo. And only two types of people can rationally accept the status quo:
1. Those who deny anthropogenic climate change.
2. Those who don't care about the devastation to the earth and the human (and other) species from climate change - which demonstrates a certain level of psychopathy.
I earlier suggested that you don't actually believe in anthropogenic climate change, and you haven't addressed the point. If you are a climate change denier, then I no more wish to continue the discussion than I would wish to debate a Flat Earth society member or a creationist.
When I first heard that Harper was going with “unit intensity” vs hard cap on the country, I thought that this will amount to a sell-out to the tar sands operators. But what matters is where the “unit intensity” limit gets set. Imposing a hard cap on a country makes little sense. You have to consider climate, geography, demographics, resources and industry. It's Dec 5. There's a foot of snow. I’ll trade my parka for a loin cloth and a tropical island and promise to leave a small carbon footprint.
How do we meet world population growth? If we have resources in Canada and supplies of renewable energy, should we be shipping the raw materials to China who then burn carbon fuels to process and manufacture goods (with lack environmental and labour laws) to ship back across the ocean and continent to us? Sure, their poor need a hand up, but don’t dump the blame for the state of these nations on all of us here. They have mismanaged their economies. They don’t all practice family planning. What about corruption and wealth distribution? Trickle-down economics is great if you are not the one relying on the crumbs. They have more millionaires and billionaires than we do. They gouge their own. Do we expect our working poor to pick up the tab for their millionaires and billionaires? Regardless of country, tax excessive consumption and use the proceeds to help the poor and the environment.
Increased demand with absolute caps & trade on industry would drive up costs of carbon based
uses. Do we let industries in some countries off the hook and not others? Developed countries are building natural gas power plants and high efficient coal plants. Other than driving up the cost of energy and goods and fuelling inflation, what do we achieve by capping emissions from these relatively clean sources of power generation that everyone needs? Sure the paper shufflers, traders and get rich quick artists want us to buy into cap & trade. The money that goes into their pockets could be put to better use.
Also more people should be practicing instead of procreating.