The UN Commission on Trade and Development and the UN Economic Commission for Europe recently circulated a study on climate change (the ECE study) that in its opening paragraphs makes this emphatic statement:

“Compelling scientific evidence and a better understanding of the potential economic impacts of climate change have moved the issue to the forefront of the international agenda as one of the ‘greatest challenges of our time’.”

This statement relies on the expertise of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC).  Climate change “deniers” object to the words “compelling scientific evidence”, and have questioned the IPCC‘s conclusions.  In an editorial (August 31, 2010) the Toronto Globe & Mail noted that criticisms of the evidence as to climate change by a “small group of dissenters” have influenced public opinion and

“[s]ome shabby half truths, passed off as climate science, have tested the public’s confidence.”

The Globe & Mail editorial considers that changes to IPCC procedures and organization are necessary to insure a rigourous basis for any scientific conclusions concerning climate change.   The editorial observed that:

“The IPCC is still a valuable tool to evaluate the state of the world’s climate.  But more reform is needed: the stakes are too high to get the narrative wrong.” 

The ECE study recognizes that current scientific evidence is not conclusive, and acknowledges that: 

“. . . a better understanding of climate change impacts, risks and vulnerabilities is a precondition for well-designed and effective adaptation response that enhances the resilience of systems, structures and processes and minimizes the adverse effects of climatic changes.”

Still, there is a reasonable case for not letting the debate as to the state of the evidence delay action. Not responding to the challenge until climate change is incontrovertible is not a practical alternative for most governments and businesses. One aspect of the challenge is the time frame in which measures must be taken by affected parties to avoid or adapt to climate change. The maritime transport industry is a case in point. 

The physical assets of ports generally have a life span of over a century.  So what ports invest in now must anticipate circumstances well into the future.  They can’t wait to see how things turn out: that would be abdicating a practical responsibility to the world trading community.   So a lot of hard headed business men and administrators will be meeting in the near future to make the best projections of climate change and make recommendations accordingly. 

The ECE study refers to an urgent need to reach agreement on a regulatory regime for GHG emissions from international shipping.  Currently these emissions, which are not governed by the KYOTO Accord, are approximately 3% of total GHG emissions. But in addition to the level of GHG emissions, there is concern over the potential impacts and implications of climate change for transportation systems, and in particular for ports, which are key nodes in the supply chain and vital for global trade.

According to the ECE study, the top 10 cities threatened by climate change in terms of exposed population are Mumbai (India), Guangzhou and Shanghai (China), Miami (United States of America), Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam), Kolkata (India), New York (United States of America), Osaka-Kobe (Japan), Alexandria (Egypt) and New Orleans (United States of America). In terms of asset exposure, the most vulnerable cities are Miami, New Orleans (United States of America), Osaka-Kobe, Tokyo (Japan), Amsterdam, Rotterdam (Netherlands), Nagoya (Japan), Tampa–St. Petersburg and Virginia Beach (United States of America). Another recent study commissioned by Allianz Insurance and World Wide Fund for Nature has estimated that assuming a sea level rise of 0.5 m by 2050, the value of exposed assets in the 136 port megacities will be as high as US$ 28 trillion.

With what is at stake further debate about compelling scientific evidence should not frustrate planning to avoid this risk.

Peter Jones

Some years ago we visited the Argentine Province of Salta, which borders Chile.  We took a tour from the capital, Salta, into the foothills of the Andes, guided by an agricultural economist. He commented that the principal industry was sheep farming that previously had supported the population at an acceptable level. As the poulation increased, the new generations turned to sheep farming, with the result that in time the slopes were over-grazed. Overgrazing led to erosion, further reducing the land that was suitable for farming. Yet the number of individuals dependent on sheep farming continued to increase.  The result was a decline in the standard of living to a subsistence level in which the inhabitants had been trapped for some years. The Government was unwilling to step in and regulate the use of land, as the sheep farmers were aboriginals, and this action would have created civil unrest. Our guide was of the opinion that the situation had progressed to the point of no return.

A recent book on Global Warming, “The Long Thaw” by David Archer, a Professor of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, reminded us of our Salta experience. 

Professor Archer comments in his book:

“The free market has a blind spot, called the tragedy of the commons.  . . . the situation arises when many people share the benefits of a common resource.  The classical example is a common field for grazing livestock, but the chemistry of the atmosphere is another example of a shared commons.  Benefits can be extracted from the commons by individuals, either for feeding sheep or for dumping CO2, but the costs of using the commons are paid by everyone.  Economists call the degradation of the commons an external cost, because it is external to the budgets of the individual decision-makers.  The end result is that the common resource gets over-exploited, because it is in the interest of each individual to grab as much as he or she can.”

Archer goes on to make two observations about global warming caused by use of fossil fuel.

First, the costs and benefits of fossil fuel use are not shared fairly. 

“At the present day, the benefits of the fossil fuel economy accrue mostly to the industrialized nations in the temperate latitudes . . . [while] the costs of climate change will be paid most dearly in the tropics . . . . “

Secondly,  individuals living today enjoy material benefits that flow from the production of CO2, but their grand children must deal with problems of climate change that this unchecked consumption of fossil fuels will leave.

“There is also a divide in time between the winners and the losers.  The benefits to using fossil fuels accrue now and into the coming century until the fuel runs out, while the costs will last millennia.  Most of the people impacted by global warming, numerically, are people in the future.  Earthlings a century from now do not even have an economic vote in how we conduct our affairs: their right to vote has been discounted to nothing by the economic interest rate.“

Professor Archer concludes:

“Ethics and fairness are a lot to ask of the political process, especially when most of the people affected by the decision, people of the distant future, do not have a voice in the decision.“

So how do we develop a conservation ethic on the scale necessary?  Or do we continue to grab as much as we can?

On June 25^th next Torontonians may as well stay home and watch the World Soccer Championships (which they might well have watched at work!)  On that day the central Toronto financial district is shuttered and barred as a security measure protecting delegates to the G8/20 Summits from environmental protesters, amongst others.

A coalition of North American environmental groups had a significant part in generating pressure on Prime Minister Harper to put climate change on the Agenda of the G8 and G20 summits.  Now the Canadian Government has stated that it will be “on the table”, slang for “on the agenda”. This success of environmental groups to a degree reflects the wish of the Canadian public that its government give priority to the issue in its dealings with other national governments.

The coalition’s efforts were assisted by statements by world leaders from the European Union, Mexico and the United Nations. The final push may well have been a telephone conversation between Harper and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, on the very day a spokesperson for the Canadian Government confirmed that climate change was on the agenda. 

Why was it not on the agenda of the G8 and G20 summits in the first place?  Admittedly the prime concern that all G8/20 governments wished to discuss was the uncertain nature of the economic recovery, and the need to wean national economies away from government stimulus packages that produce large fiscal deficits. It could well be argued that the investment needed to make progress towards reduction of carbon emissions is a legitimate topic in any international thinking about the economy. Considering that Canada is behind other G8 countries in investing in green innovation and infrastructure, the summit could have created an international strategy for encouraging and sharing in the benefits of this type of investment.

In explaining why climate change was not initially on the summit agendas, Prime Minister Harper referred to the existing UN mandated meetings and process that deals with the issue.  Really none of these initiatives has proved capable of forcing UN members to recognize the need for immediate action to fight combat climate change.

 UN initiatives really date from the Earth Summit of 1992, which led to a UN international environment treaty, known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since 1992 the UN agency charged with the implementation of this Convention has sponsored many meetings, involving both representatives of national governments and environmental experts.

Although it will probably be eclipsed by future developments, the Kyoto Protocol is the present international instrument that sets out the responsibility of nations to fight climate change. The problem is that some of the largest polluting countries, such as the United States, have not ratified the Kyoto Convention, and, amongst the countries that have, including Canada, few will achieve the reduction targets of Kyoto.

 The most important initiative is the Copenhagen Accord on Climate Change that resulted from the 2009 Copenhagen Conference. The countries participating in this Conference agreed that a further Conference will take place in December in Mexico City, a meeting that may result in substantial progress. 

Although a necessary and valuable contribution, initiatives at the level of United Nations bureaucracy, cannot tackle the issue with the urgency that is necessary. No quick resolution will come from the numerous and complex diplomatic and technical meetings. Decisions and actions at the top are required. Hence the necessity of the item being on the G8/20 Agendas.

Forourgrandchildren welcomes the inclusion of climate change on the G8/20 agenda.  Now our concern is that the leaders at these summits will conclude that climate change is a complex political, technical and scientific issue, and give only lip service to the need to address its potential risks.

There is no shortage of scientific evidence to suggest that the transition to a post-fossil fuel society is imminent, either through foresight or necessity.  Clearly, the latter – committing to decisive and meaningful collective change before the remaining critical climate tipping points are breached – is what we ought to be striving for.  This, however, requires taking action and making sacrifice when, in most of our day-to-day lives, the need to do so is not apparent.

Our consumerist society wasn’t built in a day; it is underpinned by an unassailable commitment to the eternal quest for ‘more’ which, by definition, has no end-point.  This is the driving force behind not only our economic and political system, but our values and lifestyles as well.  As a result, as much as we pay lip-service to how our out-of-whack values must give way to a commitment to sustainability, not many people are actually prepared to give up what this would entail unless they absolutely have to.

Foresight, however, requires taking action before the point when you absolutely have to.  It is about the precautionary principle, and committing to difficult decisions in the face of uncertainty, because the risks if we do not are too dire.  Climate change deniers, and the powerful interest groups propelling them, have done a very effective job of using the public’s underlying fear of making meaningful sacrifices to their lifestyles as leverage to wedge open that crack of uncertainty into a chasm of convenient doubt.

Increasingly, the public is buying any propaganda veiled as scientific evidence that discounts the occurrence and severity of the climate change issue hook, line, and sinker.  From a cynical point of view, these counter-arguments have given the majority of people a ‘way out’: they provide what can be construed as a rational basis to stop caring about an issue that was taking too much time and energy to continue caring about.  The public was, in a sense, itching for a Climategate scandal, which would allow us to dismiss all other frightening reports we have heard – and continue to hear – about the climate crisis.  Post-Climategate, guilt, fear, and urgency evaporated and life with heads in the sand resumed.

The reality now is that alarmism, despite the ever-increasing body of alarming and largely ignored facts that deal with the state of our planet, no longer works.  The majority of people have become desensitized to it.  And with it has gone the momentum and the palpable sense of urgency that seems required for foresight to translate into action.  As protectors of our grandchildren, what now are our options?  Do we have little choice but to sit and wait helplessly until the future becomes so undeniably bleak that necessity replaces foresight?

By Sandeep Kembhavi

To say the least, the US Chamber of Commerce has not been sympathetic to the US government’s response to climate change. At one stage the Chamber proposed that the science that supports concerns over climate change be “put on trial”. The Chamber later explained that this proposal was not directed to the climate science generally but the science on which the US Environmental Protection Agency based its policies.

Supporters of government intervention on climate issues have singled out the Chamber for criticism. As a way of dramatizing this criticism, the Yes Men, a group of US activists, staged a press conference at which members of the group, posing as representatives of the Chamber, announced a major change in Chamber policy: the Chamber was dropping its opposition to US legislation directed at climate change. A representative of the Chamber attended this “press conference” thirteen minutes after it started and informed all in attendance that the conference was a hoax.

The media followed the story, presumably on the Web, where the Yes Men had created a pseudo Chamber site that announced the new policy. So the “change of policy” got significant coverage before the Chamber was able to set the record straight. Not surprisingly, the media then made the hoax itself a news item.

To maintain that the change in policy was genuine, the Yes Men made liberal use of the trademarks of the Chamber in the announcement calling the Press Conference, in the written materials and presentation at the Conference, and on the pseudo Chamber Website.

The Chamber then sued the Yes Men, claiming that use of the Chamber’s Trade Marks was fraudulent and a civil wrong. Click here for full details.

The Yes Men are certainly not apologetic.  Click here to go to their site, and see what they have to say.  Their defence to the claim submits that:
The Court should recognize the Chamber’s lawsuit for what it is – an attempt to use intellectual property and related law to punish a political parody that the Chamber found humorless, and which cast unwanted light on its controversial position on climate change precisely when members of the organization were rethinking whether they wanted to be associated with it.

Although the Court was to hear both parties January 19 last, nothing happened and the law suit appears to be in legal limbo.
The Chamber’s response to this guerrilla theatre generated press comment critical of its tactics. My suspicion is that the Chamber realizes that proceeding with the lawsuit will only lead to more press, probably unfavourable.

The Yes Men has also made Canada a target of their pranks. In December they created two websites, “enviro-canada.ca” and “ec-gc.ca” (both have since been removed), hosted on a German server, that informed surfers that Canada would adopt science-based emission targets – reducing emissions by 40% over 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% by 2050 – and would pay countries most impacted by climate change a proportional amount of the $600 billion total recommended by the United Nations to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Of course the Canadian Government had never given such undertakings, and requested the host of the Websites to remove the two sites, which has been done.

Are you for or against these tactics employed against Governments and the critics of climate change? Let us have your views using the whitespace following the title “Comment” below.

The explosion on Transocean Ltd’s drilling rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico has made politicians, oil executives and environmentalists sit up and take notice that safety measures employed by maritime platforms extracting oil from the ocean floor could be wholly inadequate in the case of a serious accident.

The Deepwater Horizon was equipped with a “blowout preventer,” a house-sized metal device that was supposed to seal the pipeline that brings the oil to the surface shut. The President of BP America testified to the House of Representatives committee that this device was “fail-safe”. But, at the critical moment it did not work. Next a large cement “dome” chamber lowered over the well failed to contain the oil flow.

The fallout from this environmental disaster has been immediate. Now the US will not permit drilling in new undersea areas until the findings of the investigation into the Deepwater Horizon accident are known. In Canada there is a renewed concerned over the safety of drilling for oil and gas in the Arctic Beaufort Sea. No exploratory wells have yet been authorized, but oil companies have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lease large areas of the seabed for exploration.

The response of Canada’s Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, to questions asked in the House of Commons about Beaufort Sea drilling following the Deepwater Horizon accident was low-key but confident. He stated that Canada protects this area by the most robust offshore drilling policies anywhere in the world.

Oversight of off-shore drilling is controlled by the National Energy Board, an independent federal agency that regulates parts of Canada’s energy sector. Oil and gas companies that want to drill in the Arctic must first get regulatory approvals from the Board. To do that, they must show they will drill relief wells in case of an accident or provide an alternative safety plan.

Oil companies have argued relief wells in the North are not practical, since it would take too long to drill them if there is an accident. It is hard to disagree, considering that to drill a relief well just offshore in the Gulf of Mexico could take two- three months. In the meantime the Deepwater Horizon well is spewing oil at the rate of 5,000 barrels a day.

The oil and gas companies continue to place their faith in blowout preventers, claiming that they have developed similar but newer technology that would shut down an Arctic well after a similar accident before it got out of control. Toronto Globe & Mail writer Eric Reguly bets on more exploration: his article (Business B2 May 13, 2010) is headlined “Is this the end of off-shore drilling? Not a chance”.  Click here to read the article.

Faith in newer technology is a characteristic response of businesses with economic interests to protect. But nature can prove to be too much for human artifice, and the consequences of a large scale oil spill in the Arctic could last for decades, if not centuries.

The stakes are high: please use the blog feature to tell us what you think!

Canada Earth Day is our participation in events all over the world. Using Google, search for the Earth Day Canada site, click on your province in the representation map of Canada, and your browser will bring up the many activities during the month that all relate to Earth Day. There are clean-ups, speakers, tree plantings, celebrations both secular and sacred, film screenings, Earth Day Walks, and other local initiatives. For Toronto residents with a flair for the different, our suggestion is that you attend the Environmental Networking Event commencing 7.30 pm, April 22 at the CN Tower. This event Celebrates 20 Years of Earth Day in Canada. Environmental professional and green Torontonians will rally at the CN Tower for an Earth Day celebration like no other – 1,100´ up in the air. The CN Tower will be lit with green LED lighting. For $25, ticket holders will enjoy sensational views of Toronto from the CN Tower Horizons Lounge (normally $33 to access), and some Earth Day Birthday cake. Thanks to the sponsors Earth Day Canada and Green Drinks. Another suggestion that will keep you networked is to subscribe to the Community Animator monthly newsletter, send an email to whitney@ecospark.ca. Whitney Crooks would welcome your suggestion of an event or local green story which can then be broadcast by email to this community.

Grounding of the Chinese vessel, the Shen Neng 1, a large bulk carrier, 38 kms East of Great Keppel Island, (The vessel was reportedly 9 kilmetres off course.)

The Australian Marine Environment Protection Association (AUSMEPA) has released the following commentary on the grounding of the 65,000 tonne coal carrier Shen Neng 1in the pristine waters in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef and the potential for environmental harm from the grounding, including the possible break up of the vessel and the release of 950 tonnes of bunker oil.

A spill of this magnitude of bunker oil is often far more serious in terms of the harm it can cause the environment than the loss of many thousands of tonnes of light crude oil, carried as cargo in tankers.

While Australia’s National Plan to combat pollution of the sea was quickly brought into action including aerial chemical dispersant spraying, we are still to hear of the Salvage Master’s plan to refloat the vessel and if necessary the possible transfer of the bunker oil to another vessel. This will clearly take some time to evaluate.

While a number of uninformed people are jumping to demand extending further south the current mandatory pilotage scheme which operates from Cairns to Torres Strait. Firstly such a requirement would need to be justified and secondly it would take many years to implement, including obtaining international approval. At this stage based on many previous studies this is not warranted in this region of the Great Barrier Reef where navigation is not sufficiently complex to require a pilot.

However, a much quicker solution and one which would help prevent a grounding such as the Shen Neng 1 and one which serious consideration should be given, is to extend the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service, jointly operated by the Federal and Queensland governments. This traffic service monitors ships movements through the Barrier Reef and has the capacity to warn ships if they get off course. This service was enhanced following other groundings off Cairns several years ago. At the present, this scheme does not cover the location where the Shen Neng grounded.

Source: Michael Julian the Executive Director of (AUSMEPA).
(Further reports will be posted as the Shen Neng drama unfolds)

The problem extends beyond oil and other fossil fuels, and even beyond climate change: the world’s fresh water resources are strained to the point that billions of people may soon find themselves with only precarious access to water for drinking and irrigation. Biodiversity is declining rapidly. We are losing 24 billion tons of topsoil each year to erosion. And many economically significant minerals—from antimony to zinc—are depleting quickly, requiring the mining of ever lower-grade ores in ever more remote locations. Thus the peak oil crisis is really just the leading edge of a broader Peak Everything dilemma.

In essence, humanity faces an entirely predictable peril: our population has been growing dramatically for the past 200 years (expanding from under one billion to nearly seven billion), while our per-capita consumption of resources has also grown. For a species, this is virtually the definition of biological success. And yet all of this has taken place in the context of a finite planet with fixed stores of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels and minerals), a limited ability to regenerate renewable resources (forests, fish, fresh water, and topsoil), and a limited ability to absorb industrial waste products, including carbon dioxide. If we step back and look at the industrial period from a broad historical perspective that is informed by an appreciation of ecological limits, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we are today living at the end of a relatively brief pulse—a 200-year rapid expansionary phase enabled by a temporary energy subsidy (in the form of cheap fossil fuels) that will inevitably be followed by an even more rapid and dramatic contraction as those fuels deplete.

The winding down of this historic growth-contraction pulse doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world, but it does mean the end of a certain kind of economy. One way or another, humanity must return to a more normal pattern of existence characterized by reliance on immediate solar income (via crops, wind, or the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity) rather than stored ancient sunlight.

This is not to say that the remainder of the 21st century must consist of a collapse of industrialism, a die-off of most of the human population, and a return by the survivors to a way of life identical to that of 16th century peasants or indigenous hunter-gatherers. It is possible instead to imagine various acceptable and even inviting ways in which humanity could adapt to ecological limits while further developing cultural richness, scientific understanding, and quality of life (more on this below).

But however it is negotiated, the transition will spell an end to economic growth in the conventional sense. And that transition appears to have begun.

If the physical scientists who warn about limits to growth are right, confronting the global economic meltdown implies far more than merely getting the banks and mortgage lenders back on their feet. Indeed, we face a fundamental change in our economy as significant as the advent of the industrial revolution. We are at a historic inflection point—the ending of decades of expansion and the beginning of an inevitable period of contraction that will continue until humanity is once again living within the limits of Earth’s regenerative systems.

A case can be made that after all this is done, the end result will be a more satisfying way of life for the vast majority of citizens—offering more of a sense of community, more intergenerational solidarity, more of a connection with the natural world, more satisfying work, and a healthier environment. Indeed, it is essential at a challenging time like this to emphasize solutions and benefits rather than dwelling only on the enormity of the crisis confronting us. But those in charge need to understand that looking on the bright side doesn’t mean promising what can’t be delivered—such as a return to the days of growth and thoughtless consumption.

We have entered a new economic era in which the former “rules” no longer apply. Low interest rates and government spending no longer translate to incentives for borrowing and job production. Cheap energy won’t appear just because there is demand for it. Substitutes for essential resources will in most cases not be found. Over all, the economy will continue to shrink in fits and starts until it can be maintained by the energy and material resources that Earth can supply on an ongoing basis.

Is it too late to begin a managed transition to a post-fossil fuel society? Perhaps. But we will not know unless we try. And if we are to make that effort, we must begin by acknowledging one simple, stark reality: growth as we have known it can no longer be our goal.

By  Richard Heinberg

The Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) was established in 1974, with a mandate to promote “sustainable energy policies that spur economic growth and environmental protection in a global context – particularly in terms of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” One of the IEA’s proposals for reducing GHG emissions appears to have influenced the commitments of the major developed and developing nations following Copenhagen. These proposals are contained in a late 2009 report of the IEA entitled “How the Energy Sector Can Deliver on a Climate Agreement in Copenhagen”.

The 2009 IEA report presented three key points. First, that both developed and developing nations had to participate in the GHG reduction process in a meaningful way, while respecting their “common but differentiated responsibilities”. Second, although creating a market price for carbon is important, an immediate and substantial investment in new energy technology is also critical. Third, stabilizing the level of emissions is a long-term objective, with targets for the year 2030 as important as targets for the year 2020, and both less important than targets for the year 2050.

Public opinion has focused on 2020 targets.  This opinion of a respected NGO that 2020 is less important than 2050 may cause a change in public opinion towards the importance of 2020 as a target year.  For those who believe that global warming is worsening, this de-emphasis is discouraging, as it may lead to complacency at the government level. However, the IEA is not downplaying the importance of 2020 targets, which are significant both in themselves and as a marker of the advance towards longer term progress.

The IEA projects that developed nations could achieve by 2030 the outcome that environmental activists desire in 2020, without compromising the long-term 2050 objective. By the implementation of mitigation measures, the IEA believes developed nations can generate a reduction from pre-recession (2007) emission levels by 2020 in the range of 17% (effectively the current North American target). If nations do undertake an immediate and substantial investment in clean technologies and clean energy supply, more reductions can occur during the 2020’s, With such investment 2030 GHG levels could be 40% less than 2007 levels (comparable to the pathway in the proposed US climate change legislation).

The IEA also calls on the major emitters in the developing world to commence immediately a complementary set of policies. Although many of these major emitters, e.g. China, India, Brazil, and Russia, are not members of the IEA, they were not against the IEA recommendations.  Given their different circumstances, the IEA envisaged they will initially adopt carbon intensity – not absolute reduction – targets until 2020, when they would then join the nations of the developed world in a cap and trade system driving absolute reductions. The result would be emissions growth in these countries that would peak in 2020, with annual emissions declining throughout the 2020’s.

It can be seen that the January commitments of the major developed and developing countries essentially follow the IEA pathway. Developed nations will scrutinize the actions planned by China to reduce the carbon intensity of the Chinese economy to see if its dedication to reduction is more than lip service. For its part the Chinese Government has maintained that there will be progress, but at this stage of the evolution of China’s economy and infrastructure the targets must be voluntary.