Canada's greenhouse gas emissions dip - but not enough

Some good news for a change. Unlike temporary dips due to economic conditions, reductions due to less coal being used for electricity generation are a hopeful trend.

The larger picture is still grim and the task ahead is challenging:

"Canada is nowhere close to meeting that commitment. In 2009, Canada's emissions were 17 per cent or 100 megatonnes above its 1990 total of 590 megatonnes. Fossil fuel extraction and production, as well as the transportation industry, were responsible for 42 per cent and 45 per cent of that growth respectively.

"When mitigating factors such as land use and forestry are not taken into account, Canada's emissions grew by 24.1 per cent from 1990 to 2008.

"This puts Canadian emission growth first among G8 countries and sixth overall among the OECD members and "economies in transition" (mostly in Eastern Europe) that signed Kyoto.

"By contrast, U.S. emissions grew just 13.3 per cent during the same period and those of the European Union fell 11.3 per cent.

"Under the Copenhagen Accord, the 2009 successor to the Kyoto Protocol, Canada has committed to reducing emissions to 17 per cent below 2005 levels by the year 2020.

"So far, emissions have decreased 41 megatonnes or 5.7 per cent since 2005."

Canada's greenhouse gas emissions dip - Technology & Science - CBC News

[Important Notice]

Baird's Cancun Position: "All Oars in Water -- Except for Canada's"

John Baird, notorious for his anti-Kyoto antics, is at it again. According to the Globe, the

"...Environment Minister says Canada will be pressing for an approach that leaves no one out, that demands all 'oars in the water'...."

But Canada is in no position to lecture anybody about "oars in water". Having promised to reduce carbon emissions in Kyoto and done nothing about it since then (actually increasing emissions significantly), Canada would have very little credibility when trying to convince other countries to "do as we say but not as we do".

Moreover, since the Industrial Revolution, the rich, industrialized countries like Canada have emitted most of the carbon. Much of it is still in the atmosphere, harming the climate. The fact that countries like China and India have become major emitters on an annual basis recently is not nearly as significant as Baird and Co. would have you think. Even setting aside their much lower emissions per capita, it would be many years before China's and India's share of the accumulating carbon in the air equals that of countries that had been at it for centuries. Confusing flows (annual emissions) with stocks (accumulated pollutants) is such a basic, blatant error that it is clearly nothing more than an excuse for further inaction.

Insisting on this unreasonable position is a sure way to sabotage progress at Cancun -- developing nations are already warning that the talks are in danger. Nothing would please the fossil fuel special interest groups than the collapse of negotiations for at least one more year. For the planet, on the other hand it is total accumulated carbon that matters.

Dr. James Hansen states that

"...we must reduce the [accumulated] CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 ppm in order to avoid disaster for coming generations.

"Humans have caused carbon dioxide to increase from 280 ppm in 1750 to 387 ppm in 2009. 387 ppm is already in the dangerous range. Such a reduction is still practical, but just barely [bolding in original]"

He also warns that

"Continued unfettered burning of all fossil fuels and other human-caused climate changes will cause the climate system to pass tipping points, such that we hand our children and grandchildren a dynamic situation that is out of their control.

"If we continue down this path, by the end of this century envision a future where:

• droughts, heat waves, and forest fires of unprecedented ferocity

• 20% of Earth’s species—about two million species—will be extinct or on the way to certain extinction

• a rapidly rising sea level, with more coming out of humanity’s control

• frontal (cyclonic) storms with hurricane-like winds, which, with rising seas and storm surges, will devastate thousands of coastal cities

But that does not have to be our future [bolding in original]."

We must act now. Obstructionism must not carry the day.

[Important Notice]

Canada tagged as "Fossil of the Year" as climate summit "hangs in the balance" - CBC News

Canada is refusing to play its traditional key role as an honest international broker, keeping a low profile instead even though the Copenhagen Climate Summit "hangs in the balance". If the summit fails (in form and/or in substance), we will share part of the blame due to the Conservative Government's inaction. I fact,

"A coalition of environmental groups at the Copenhagen climate change conference gave its 'Fossil of the Year' award to Canada on Friday. "The citation called Canada 'the absolute worst country at the talks.'[...]

"Canada has been under pressure at the conference over its intention to cut greenhouse gas emissions by just 20 per cent from 2006 levels by 2020, when environmentalists had been calling for much steeper cuts. "The Conservative government has also not ruled out giving special breaks to oilsands companies when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions."

CBC News - World - Canada tagged as 'Fossil of the Year'

Shame! Shame!

Update: Link to Fossil of the Day Award web site explaining the reasons for the Fossil of the Year Award to Canada.

[Important Notice]

Blog Action Day is Nice, Now We Need Government Action on Climate Change, in Copenhagen And Beyond

Blog Action Day this year takes place on October 15, 2009. It deals with the core topic of this blog, climate change. It's great that thousands of bloggers as well as some companies, NGOs and Governments are blogging and Twittering about climate change. But it would mean nothing without concrete, binding targets to reduce overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and fast. To their credit, the Blog Action Day folks have collected some great links to organizations and campaigns that are trying to prod the world in this direction. Check out the "Take Action" tab on their site.

The Copenhagen Conference (December 7-18, 2009) may be our last, best chance.
But a wise person (Aesop? Lou Holtz?) once quipped,

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".

In fact, UN Climate Chief Yvo De Boer has recently warned against a "half-baked climate deal":

"'The time for speeches is over' before final negotiations in December, he said. 'Our planet is being plundered and pillaged on an unprecedented scale.'

"De Boer said the EU, China and Japan are taking needed steps to prevent climate change, but other countries must do better."

I bet he's looking at you, Canada!

"Canadian position prompts walk-out by developing countries at climate talks"

(Story: CP, via Buckdog)

Our country better smarten up, and quickly. There is too much at stake, and no time to lose.

[Important Notice]

The sad saga of climate change inaction

This commentary by Peter Gorrie in the Star just about sums it up:

"...in early December, at the annual United Nations conference, this time in Copenhagen. The goal is to reach agreement on greenhouse-gas emission cuts beyond those promised in the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol, which expires at the end of 2012 and has been a bust.

"About 99 per cent of the world's climate scientists say total global emissions must be reduced to at least 25 per cent below 1990 levels – and preferably lower – by 2020 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. A regular stream of reports warns of disaster if we don't achieve the target.

"There was more evidence this week that we won't get close at the pace now being set.

[...]

"Canada is responsible for only 2 per cent of global greenhouse emissions, but we're with the Americans among the top sources per person. We need to act to bring China, India and others along. If we're unwilling, we might as well cancel the Copenhagen meeting and prepare for all that climate change has to offer."

The rest of the sorry tale is here: TheStar.com | Insight | The sad saga of climate-change inaction [bolding added]

[Important Notice]

Message to Ignatieff - Please Reject Harper Budget - Need Green Economic Recovery

Here is a copy of the message that I sent to Michael Ignatieff via his web site at http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/get-involved/feedback :

"Please reject this budget because it does not meet the planet's -- and Canada's -- need for a Green Economic Recovery. Any stimulus package must focus on making our economy sustainable and reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. Obama gets this -- Harper does not. Global climate talks on a post-Kyoto accord are under way. Four years from now may be too late for Canada to show leadership -- we need it today! Thanks for considering my views. (These are my personal opinions as an individual citizen.)"

(The web form on the above page does not allow for longer messages, so I had no room for more details. But then, I doubt that anybody would have the time to read long messages in the next few hours :-)

[Important Notice]

Financial Crisis Distracting Leaders from Dealing with Climate Crisis

There are headlines about weather extremes in Canada and around the world. There are signs of climate change happening faster than predicted, most dramatically in the Arctic. Additional warming is predicted for 2009 and even more for subsequent years, probably leading to a larger number of severe storms. Now is the time to start acting, before it's too late. But politicians may be too busy worrying about a recession that could last a few years to act on a bigger problem like climate change whose effects may last for millenia. Here's a recent example of political pessimism:

"The global financial crisis has made efforts to agree on a new global treaty on climate change more challenging, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in an interview published Sunday. 'A lot of the political energy that existed a few years ago has disappeared,' Reinfeldt told the Stockholm daily Svenska Dagbladet.

"The financial crisis means that 'there are fewer shoulders to push the process. Many use estimates that aim to make their own country do less,' Reinfeldt said."

And the departing Bush administration in the U.S. is still actively sabotaging positive change. This time, it is trying to tie the hands of the incoming Obama administration to prevent regulation of carbon emissions from power plants.

Sigh.

(Edited to enhance text and add more links.)

[Important Notice]

Coalition Gave Hope to Global Climate Change Negotiators: Elizabeth May

Green Party of Canada Leader, Elizabeth May, writes in an email:

"I write you from Poznan, Poland where I am attending the United Nations climate talks. The mood here is grim. Canada has been blocking agreements and trying to obtain special exemptions from future agreements – claiming we need special consideration because the tar sands are so polluting. The delegates here make no secret that there was great hope for Canada when they heard we might have a change of government to a coalition."

From the blog post to which she links above:

"We are in a race against time and it has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with atmospheric chemistry. If we fail to reduce emissions quite sharply and soon, we could trigger a runaway global warming disaster. The atmosphere is not the last bit interested in negotiating with humanity."

Here's hoping that Ignatieff looks at more than just short-term budget numbers when deciding on whether to vote no confidence in January 2009. The Earth needs the Coalition's help at least as much as the Canadian economy -- probably more.

[Important Notice]

Manufacturing LCD Screens - Worse than Coal?

A recent study says that nitrogen trifluoride, a chemical that is used in manufacturing LCD screens and semiconductors, is a very powerful greenhouse gas, which "... could cause more global warming than coal-fired power plants...." This years' emissions of nitrogen trifluoride would equal all the global-warming emissions of Australia, for example. But

"...nitrogen trifluoride and some dozen other gases [were not included in the Kyoto Protocol], in part because they weren't produced at a scale large enough to cause significant harm."
[...]
"However, LCD televisions are often painted as eco-friendly because they consume less power than plasma and older rear-projection sets."

(Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9983744-54.html?tag=cd.blog. Accessed: 2008-07-05. Archived by WebCite^® at http://www.webcitation.org/5Z4wBRlHT)

It would be interesting to find out how much net global warming is caused by making LCD screens, when you take the global savings from burning less coal for electricity into account.

Also, as some of the comments to the cnet story suggest, it might be easier to control industrial emissions of a gas (e.g. nitrogen trifluoride) that is used in a well-defined number of factories than emissions at millions of point sources that are owned by millions of people and companies (as in CO2).

I'd love to dig deeper into this (starting with finding the original study) when I have the time.

In any event, perhaps it's time to review the list of gases under Kyoto or at least the next international agreement after Kyoto.

[Disclosure: This blog is written using an LCD screen. I also use a couple of LCD screens for work (I telecommute full-time). Our TV is a modest-sized CRT (relatively recent model, Energy Star compliant). All of these devices are bulfrogpowered with renewable electricity as mentioned in the sidebar on the right.]

[Important Notice]

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click here for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!

Climate Worsening Faster Than Predicted - But Canada "Voting for Apocalypse" at UN Talks

BlogThis!

Sounds nice -- until you think about it:

• Record high temperatures in the 30 C range in Eastern Canada -- in Early October -- Rest Of Month Warmer Than Average Throughout Canada
  

"... Enjoy it while it lasts, because you 'know what's ahead.'" --Environment Canada's David Phillips

Sure, there's some cold weather ahead this winter -- but what about a few years from now? Could we have more of this:

"'We've got an invisible disaster going on [in Toronto and area],' Mr. Phillips said, adding that the ground in some parts of the region has become so dry that it isn't able to absorb water any more, and that young trees may not make it to spring.'"

Source: Gandhi, U. (Sept 26, 2007). Weather continues to set records. Globe & Mail, p. A15, via Gale Group or Globe & Mail (subscription/payment required for either one - public library may provide free access to Gale).

The global headlines are grim:

• Arctic thaw may be at "tipping point"

"OSLO, Sept 28 (Reuters) - A record melt of Arctic summer sea ice this month may be a sign that global warming is reaching a critical trigger point that could accelerate the northern thaw, some scientists say.

"'The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years,' James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told Reuters.

The Arctic summer sea ice shrank by more than 20 percent below the previous 2005 record low in mid-September to 4.13 million sq km (1.6 million sq miles), according to a 30-year satellite record. It has now frozen out to 4.2 million sq km."

• "Pollution 'beyond worst-case scenario': Global economic growth boosts greenhouse-gas levels faster than predicted, expert says"
  

'"...the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is already above the threshold that can potentially cause dangerous climate change,' Flannery told the broadcaster yesterday. 'We are already at great risk of dangerous climate change, that's what these figures say. It's not next year or next decade, it's now.'

"Flannery, whose recent book The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What It Means for Life on Earth made best-seller lists, said the data showed the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions had reached about 455 parts per million by mid-2005, well ahead of scientists' previous calculations.

"'We thought we'd be at that threshold within about a decade, that we had that much time,' Flannery said. 'I mean, that's beyond the limits of projection, beyond the worst-case scenario as we thought of it in 2001,' when the last major IPCC report was issued."

• See also Climate change happening faster, scientist says
  

• 10-year forecast a grim one: scientists - Half of next decade will be warmest on record

"Global warming will slow briefly in the next year or two, but then charge ahead, making at least half of the years after 2009 warmer than at any other time in recorded history, British scientists claim [...] [in a study published] in Science, a major journal scientists rely on to judge and announce top discoveries."

• Humid enough for you? Blame global warming, scientists say

Apparently, it's the heat -- and the humidity!

• Drought catastrophe stalks Australia's food bowl

Meanwhile,

• Nations backing off on greenhouse cuts

"The European Union and many developing nations such as China and India want industrial states to use the stringent 25-40 percent range to guide future talks to force a shift away from fossil fuels, blamed by U.N. reports for stoking global warming.

"But Russia, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Switzerland objected to setting the stringent range in negotiations about extending the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol, the main plan for fighting global warming that runs to 2012, delegates said.

"'The lower the stabilization level (of greenhouse gases) achieved, the lower the consequent damages,' the draft said. It mentions the option of 25-40 percent cuts but drops a previous reference to them as an indicative guide for future work.

"'This is voting for the apocalypse,' said Stephanie Tunmore of environmental group Greenpeace. 'The 25-40 percent range is needed to help avert dangerous climate change' such as more powerful storms, rising seas and melting glaciers, she said.

"'Japan is willing to let the typhoons roll in and the water flow onto its coastal land. Switzerland is committed to melt all its remaining glaciers,' environmentalists said in a newsletter" [bolding added].

Apparently, "Canada's New Government" is willing to let much of the Maritime Provinces be washed away, Arctic ice to melt even faster, and the rest of us to suffer from drought!

[Important Notice]

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click here for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!

C.D. Howe Institute Calls Baird's Bluff

"In 'Estimating the Effect of the Canadian Government’s 2006-2007 Greenhouse Gas Policies,' authors Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers say Ottawa’s current policy proposals will fall short of its reduction target for 2020 by almost 200 megatonnes. Further, because of this gap, which the authors estimated using an energy-economy simulation model, it is unlikely that a future government would be able to meet the ambitious 2050 target."

Source (likely to be later archived here); see also the more detailed "ebrief" (in PDF); and the even more detailed Working Paper (in PDF).

Click on image to enlarge.

Image source: Working Paper (in PDF, screen page 21 of 24).

As noted earlier in this blog, Mark Jaccard is one of the economists who had questioned the effectiveness of Baird's scheme. Backing up his criticism with research is great. Having it published in a peer-reviewed journal would be even better. Still, this is already much more than Baird's Ministry has done:

"We asked Environment Canada for information on the energy-economy modeling tools it used and the major assumptions it applied in concluding that its policies would reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2020, as well as in concluding that its policies would set the country on the trajectory needed to achieve its 2050 target of a 65 percent reduction. While the government provided aggregate results for individual policies, we are still unclear about the key assumptions the government used in estimating how businesses and consumers would respond to its 2006-2007 policy initiatives and also unclear about how the government ensured that the effects of overlapping policies were not double counted."

Source: Working Paper (in PDF, screen pages 8 and 9 of 24)

[Important Notice]

What's Wrong with Baird's Anti-Kyoto "Economics"?

"The purpose of studying economics is... to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists." --Joan Robinson

John Baird claims that complying with Kyoto would cause a recession (Press Release, Full Report). Baird and the economists supporting him ignore the costs of inaction (which could further undermine post-Kyoto talks). They forget that emissions trading creates incentives to cut emissions. Finally, they ignore mitigating economic strategies -- and the many benefits of action. Other economists disagree with Baird, which he has failed to mention. Meanwhile, Germany is already reaping a bonanza of jobs and exports from renewable energy. Why can't we?

• Failure to properly account for all the costs of inaction.
  

• This goes beyond the direct effect of Canada's emissions over a few years on the global climate:
  

• By officially giving up on Kyoto for fear of a supposed recession, we would also undermine post-Kyoto negotiations (even more than we already have under this Government). Other countries could use Canada's example as an excuse to delay their own emission reductions for years. The effect on the global climate would be compounded.

• Failure to understand the economic incentives of emissions trading.
  

• The fear that we would need a carbon tax of $195 per tonne is based on a rejection of unlimited international trading in carbon credits.
  

• If unlimited trading is allowed, the Baird Report itself admits that we would only need to pay the international price of $25 per tonne.
  

• So why are they rejecting unlimited international trade in carbon credits? The main argument is this:
  

"Assuming that 80% or so of Canada's Kyoto target would be met through international credits, somewhere in the range of $6 billion annually would be required for these purchases, while at the same time there would be little incentive for domestic investment in energy efficiency and GHG [Greenhouse Gas] reduction technologies" [emphasis added].

• Let's see: businesses would pay $6 billion per year for carbon emissions -- but they would have "little incentive" to reduce this cost?! Ignoring a $6 billion/year incentive for energy efficiency and GHG reduction might pass for "economic analysis" around the Harper Cabinet table. But how did it not get red-lined by the (formerly) level-headed economists endorsing the report?

• Failure to account for the benefits of action, and mitigating economic strategies:

• "...the report he [Baird] presented also states that its calculations do not take into account the benefits of green technology infrastructure, or the jobs created by new investments in that technology. Neither does it consider the impact of monetary policies the government could implement to diminish losses." (Source: Globe & Mail, emphasis added.

• Failure to disclose that other economists reviewing the draft Report had refused to endorse it:
  

"Baird did not mention that other economists who were asked to review the study came to different conclusions.

"'While Canada cannot plausibly meet its Kyoto commitments by domestic action, I think the report overstates the difficulty of implementing policies in the short term,' said David Keith, Canada Research Chair in Energy and the Environment at the University of Calgary.

"'The difficulty of meeting Kyoto is not an excuse for inaction.'"

(Source: Canadian Press, via Yahoo!)

• Meanwhile, Germany is already making Stephane Dion's famous "megatonnes of money" on green energy.
  

• Here are the details from United Press International. They are worth quoting at length:
  

"Great export numbers and thousands of new jobs -- Germany is expecting a 'green' economic boom sparked by its renewable energy sector.

"As early as 2020, sales from wind and solar energy companies will surpass those of automobile and machinery companies, right now among the largest industry sectors in Germany, according to a study from international consulting firm Roland Berger.

'The 'green' sector is turning into a leading sector in Germany,' Torsten Henzelmann, a senior official at Roland Berger, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung weekly. 'It really is a job motor. In 2020, the renewable energy and environment technology sector will employ more people than the machinery or car sector. Today already, companies complain that they can't find enough qualified personnel.'

"The study, commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, polled officials at 1,500 German renewable energy and environment technology firms. [...]

"The world market for environmentally friendly products has a volume of roughly $1.3 billion, and that will double by 2020, the study said. The main drivers of this growth will be renewable energy generation and energy-efficiency technologies, thus handing Germany great chances for additional economic development.

"Already, the country's renewable energy sector is among the most innovative and successful worldwide. Nordex, Repower, Enercon (all wind energy), SolarWorld and Conenergy (solar energy) -- renewable companies based in Germany -- dominate the world market. Every third solar panel and every second wind rotor is made in Germany, and German turbines and generators used in hydro energy generation are among the most popular worldwide.

"Most companies in German told Roland Berger they want to hire more staff because they expect even more growth.

"Nearly 800,000 people work in the German environment technology sector; an estimated 214,000 people work with renewables in Germany, up from 157,000 in 2004, an increase of 36 percent.

'Last year alone, the number of people employed in the German renewable energy sector grew by 24,000,' German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last month in Berlin. 'This is a real success story.'"

The author of this study has no doubt that setting clear GHG emissions targets would help solidify Germany's lead:

"Berlin should formulate 'clear goals' for carbon dioxide emissions, support innovative research projects and fund "green" education programs at universities." (Emphasis added throughout.)

So the Germans get it. What are we waiting for?

[Important Notice]