All posts in Climate Change

  • 600_ICLR_IMAGE1.2_long_
    Peter Jones - August 21, 2014

    Living in an Age of Unpredictability

    Lester Brown, President of the Earth Policy Institute, described one of the disturbing aspects of climate change in these words:

    “Climate instability is becoming the new norm.  The time when we could use climate trends of the recent past as a guide to future climate conditions is now history.  We are moving into an age of unpredictability.  (“World on the Edge”, p. 47).

    The world’s re-insurance industry is in the front line of the battle to reduce atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG). Why? Because re-insurers have long recognized that continued emissions of GHG will inevitably cause an increase in the severity and frequency of extreme weather events.

    The facts are that insurers in almost every country have seen payments for insured damage resulting from these events spike drastically.  Insurers are warning that the necessary increases in premiums will be well  beyond the amounts to which the public have been paying.

    So how will the insurance industry assess future losses in an age of unpredictability?   That uncertainty erodes its ability to provide insurance at a fair price.  Still there can be no practical certainty that even large sums raised by significantly higher premiums will be sufficient to cover actual losses as they occur.

    Yet there is suspicion that insurers are using climate change as an excuse to increase profits.  See our blog “Climate Conversations with Club Members”.   The individuals who believe this are much influenced by the ranting of Denialists.

    Inevitably the insurance industry has been forced to take public issue with Denialists, who continue to grasp at straws to dispute the inevitable.  Glenn McGillivray, the Executive Director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction has written a hard hitting blog.    In our opinion his conclusion is indisputable:

    “We are long past the point where we need to direct our time and resources at arguing with deniers. We must now move rapidly toward strategies to mitigate greenhouse gases (which do not fall within the scope of ICLR’s work) and toward strategies for adaptation (or building resilience against extreme weather that is worsening due to climate change, something that is well within our strategic purview).”

    For further comments on public reaction to unpredictability see
    What is normal in a time of climate change?In the more prosaic language of the National Climate Assessment (US):

    “Because of the growing influence of human activities, the climate of the past is not a good basis for future planning.”



  • australian flag
    Peter Jones - August 18, 2014

    Climate Change Policies “down under”

    So – has Australia progressed in reducing GHG emissions to meet its 2020 targets?  And, if not, what steps will it take to do so?

    Australia is the source for about 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  On a per capita basis these emissions are nearly twice the OECD average and more than four times the world average. Only a few countries in the world rank higher in per capita emissions — Bahrain, Bolivia, Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar.

    To reduce emissions the previous Labour Government proposed an emissions trading scheme and introduced a carbon tax.  In the 2013 election the Coalition Party successfully campaigned against these measures, defeating the Labour Government.  Since taking office, the Coalition Party has promised to repeal the carbon tax and dismantle the infrastructure required for effective emissions trading.

    Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott still acknowledges that climate change is a serious problem.  His solution to GHG emissions is a policy of direct action, which includes a government-financed Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) will promote the lowest-cost carbon abatement schemes to reduce emissions and encourage “practical ways of reducing emissions where every dollar is spent on actually purchasing real means of decreasing Australia’s overall emissions”.

    The Direct Action plan appears to include future regulation of industries that burn carbon.  If they are to have any effect, these regulations will negatively impact Australian coal exports, a big contributor to the Australian economy.

    Abbott proposes other policies he claims will help meet Australia’s emission targets. For example, Abbot proposed planting more trees noting the loss of natural forests results in an increase of carbon in the atmosphere, .  He was challenged by scientists who concluded that a crash program of tree planting could not significantly offset Australia’s emissions at their present and anticipated levels.

    Abbott also believes that energy efficiency measures will be another way of reducing Australia’s emissions. These measures will help, but the devil is in the details, which are still lacking.

    There is also the reality that Australia has to make up for lost time. In 2010 in International Energy Agency conducted a review of public spending on energy efficiency measures by Australia and 17 other countries: Australia came in last.

    Abbot considers solar energy as a large contributor to reducing emissions. The Labour government did provide financing for solar energy projects, but continued support of this financing is uncertain.

    A group of Coalition MP’s, wish to reduce renewable energy targets.  So does Australia’s coal and gas industry who would benefit by increased profits that a greater share of the energy market would bring.

    Three years ago we wrote a commentary “Climate Change Leadership Australian Style”.   In the interval this leadership has almost disappeared although the impact of climate change on Australia (droughts, heat waves, and wildfires) has not.

  • Peter Jones - August 3, 2014

    “International Coalition of Grandparents Appeal for Climate Sanity”

    Statement to national and international political leaders from Concerned Grandparents – united for our grandchildrens’ sustainable future.

    International Grandparents call for a new moral leadership, giving priority to the safety of all our grandchildren and their right to a sustainable planet. Putting their best interest at the top of national and international political agendas will demonstrate solidarity between generations.

    The latest IPCC reports leave no doubt – the health of our planet is in grave jeopardy.

    Our grandchildren must cope with the risk of uncontrollable global warming in a world ridden by famine, sickness, displacement and despair.   This risk has greatly increased, yet international climate negotiations are stalled.

    The search for new sources of fossil fuel grows. More fertile land is being stripped, precious water contaminated, and more habitats for animals and humans disrupted.

    We know that most fossil reserves must remain in the ground if global warming of more than 2 °C is to be avoided. Consequently, coal must be phased out faster. Environmentally costly fossil fuel sources such as tar sands, coal seam gas and shale gas cannot be exploited. In the fragile High Arctic, where unique habitat and precious marine life must be protected and prioritized, oil exploitation must stop.

    “Turning down the heat” for the sake of our grandchildren will require changed attitudes and sincere efforts to slow down consumerism in affluent societies. We need to recognize and adjust to the limits of the Earth’s resources.  We must regard saving, caution and moderation as positive values – economically beneficial to both today’s and future societies.

    As elders we acknowledge our time-honoured role as caretakers of the inheritance of future generations. We owe grandchildren everywhere sustainable living conditions, clean air and water, fertile and uncontaminated land, and a contained global climate.

    In short, we owe them a planet Earth as wonderful as the one we have enjoyed.

    Therefore we call upon concerned grandparents of the world to join us in efforts to force political leaders – national and international –to protect the rights and safety of children and all future generations.

    Halfdan Wiik, chair, Grandparents Climate Campaign, Norway
    Peter Jones, chair, For Our Grandchildren (4RG), Canada

  • web-simpson-logo
    Peter Jones - July 27, 2014

    A must read!

    In 2012 an enterprising Website ranked Canadian columnists who commented on climate change. Jeffrey Simpson walked away with the Project Beaver Award as the best!.

    4RG has commented on numerous Simpson columns.  In our view he has continued to be the most balanced, most insightful and most persistent commentator on the subject.

    Read his recent column in Saturday’s edition of the Globe and Mail. He successfully integrates many themes in this column:

    • Canada’s experience with extreme weather conditions,
    • our need to adapt to global warming,
    • the winners and losers from climate change, and
    • the measures taken by the Federal Government to minimize public appreciation of the issue.

    We had addressed up the last theme – the “suppression” of publicity about climate change – in our blog of July 1 Ohhhhhhhh Canada!  We should have mentioned that Leona Aglukkaq, the Federal Minister of the Environment since May 2013, has managed to avoid any public statement on climate change for close to a year.

    Saying nothing about climate change is an effective way for our Federal Government to keep the issue out of the public eye.

    Climate Change is not a concern of this Government.  And certainly not of this Minister of the Environment!

  • Canada Coat of Arms
    Peter Jones - July 1, 2014

    Ohhhhhhhhhh! Canada

    Our Government minimizes the circulation of climate change information that exposes shortfalls in Canadian Federal Policy.  If it has to be disclosed, such information is quietly placed onto a Departmental Website without Ministerial comment.    This is what happened with a report, Canada in a Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, which appeared on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) site June 24th last.

    The report was Canada’s climate change Score Card.  Yes, climate change is occurring, yes the effects are being felt in Canada, and yes, we have done little in response.  The Score Card identified barriers to action, such as “limited resources, limited motivation and issues related to governance.”

    4RG receives electronic Government of Canada Media Releases from the DNR. Most of these Releases relate only to routine activities and expenditures.   To give the content of the Release more substance, government communications officers include prior policy statements about climate change.  One might conclude from this frequent repetition that the Canadian Government is at a world class level in the fight against climate change.

    Read more

  • Peter Jones - June 26, 2014

    Fossil Fuels Promotion = Horse Manure

    So, Canada’s federal government has finally approved construction of the proposed Enbridge pipeline that is intended to carry bitumen from Alberta’s tar sands to Kitimat, and thence by ocean to China.

    If we do not go ahead, the Prime Minister warns us, Canada’s economy will be in grave danger. “No country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country,” he declared a week ago, in a joint statement with the openly climate denying Prime Minister of Australia, Tony Abbott.  Read more at “Prime Minister Harper ups the ante!”

    But what if none of this is true? What if there were two possible directions that Canada’s future economy could take, not just one? What if there was another future built on clean technology, renewable energy, sustainable transportation and zero-carbon buildings, in which Canada could prosper without the tar sands and the unwanted pipelines, and without all the fracking, the oil-polluted waters, the exploding trains, the waves of public opposition and the legal challenges from First Nations?

    To Stephen Harper and his supporters, such a future is unthinkable. He would far rather we dwelled on the danger of not supporting fossil fuel expansion than the far graver danger of a world that is four, five or even six degrees warmer due to the carbon released by the fossil fuels. Read more at  “A Half Truth or a Suppressed Truth”.

    Read more

    Pages: 1 2