Let the climate change spin begin!

            I’m sure our newly minted prime minister is thanking his lucky stars there’s an NDP government in Alberta.  The biggest energy producer and per-capita emitter of greenhouse gases just did his dirty work without him having to lift a finger. 

            Alberta has committed to a broad-based carbon tax and placing a limit on oil sands emissions.  The reaction from the oil sector has been positive, but I’m not surprised.

            If anyone realizes they need a better environmental reputation, it’s the sector itself, which just saw its Keystone pipeline rejected because of its “dirty oil.”  This negative perception is starting to hurt.

            Whether it will be enough to change that perception remains to be seen.  Whether it’s enough to stop climate change is a definite no.  It’s surely a step in the right direction, but it won’t save the world from rising temperatures.

            In one of my classes at university, I had the opportunity to complete a paper on this very topic.  What should Canada do to address climate change?  I suggested a cap and trade system where carbon is priced at $10 per tonne.  (Alberta has plans to price carbon at $20 per tonne, raising it to $30 by 2018.)  The reason for this, however, is not to save the planet.  It’s to show the rest of the world that we’re at least trying.

While the new federal government may really want to do something about climate change, it’s always a question of how much the public will let them do. 

Sure, Canadians have recently said in a survey that they’re concerned about Canada’s reputation when it comes to climate change.  Of those surveyed, 78% want stronger leadership on climate change at the federal level, and 55% would support cost increases to combat climate change.  While that is something, I wonder how much they would be willing to pay.  How about a 100% carbon tax on gasoline to really start addressing the issue?

Telling is the fact that 77% of those surveyed said they would support greater resource development if the Canadian government had a more environmentally pro-active climate change policy.  To me, this sounds a lot like carbon capture and storage technologies, where carbon dioxide is pumped into the ground to extract more oil.  In this light, carbon capture sounds great – a win-win.  It’s like running once a week so you don’t feel so bad when you smoke those cigarettes.

I get the feeling that Canadians want a government that make us feel good about our role in battling climate change, but not one that forces us to make any sacrifices.  Because of course, it will cost us, especially in the short term.

An economic depression would likely result if Canada were to reduce emissions to levels required to prevent a two degree increase in world temperatures.  The economic decline would be all the more pointless if the big emitters, China and the U.S., did virtually nothing. 

Like the Kyoto Protocol, which Canada eagerly signed on to in the 1990s but never adhered to, any future treaty will not go far if Canada still wants to export oil.

That’s not to say that technologies and energy efficiencies won’t allow for considerable emission reductions in the years ahead.  It just won’t happen at the pace necessary to avoid future impacts.

To ensure we don’t exceed the two degree warming tipping point would require a 5.5% reduction in worldwide emissions every year until 2050; this when emissions have been rising 2% annually.

A reduction of this magnitude would be economically disastrous for many developing countries.  Russia reduced emissions in the 1990s by having its economy collapse.  In one decade, the average life expectancy of Russians was reduced by four years. And while it's true that developed countries like France have reduced emissions by converting to nuclear power, these reductions are usually one-time events.

It may require the same shock value as the terrorist attack in Paris to galvanize the world to address climate change to the extent required.  Instead, the world will likely reach the proverbial tipping point mid-century, and then get serious about addressing the problem when the devastation is too much to bear or when new technologies make it economically feasible.

The new federal government will come up with a plan to address climate change, I’m sure.  It will be necessary for our world reputation and an essential first step. 

But in the grand scheme of things, it will still be window dressing.