This is a great article but IMHO is mistaken on two fronts:
1. the CT is getting punitive enough now that it's impossible for the "grocery clerks" to afford it - grocery clerks being grocery clerks AND other groups like farmers, etc
2. the world doesn't give a shit about Canada or its carbon tax, other than to take competitive advantage of it.
If there's a critical flaw in my reasoning, it's whether anything the West says or does can persuade that upwardly-mobile Cambodian peasant not to install air conditioning. The Series 3000 Atmospheric Decarbonizer can't arrive soon enough.
Clarke, that is not simply a critical flaw but it is a disqualifying flaw. In other words, if you go back to your own words, if Canada eliminated all carbon the world would not notice due to the activities of the rest of the world.
So, the idea that we can demonstrate "purity" or "harmony" of "higher intelligence" is purely stupid and is simply an attempt to justify impoverishing Canadians.
As for that Cambodian peasant, get he and all his folks in that part of the world to take the subject seriously and take concrete steps such as you are proposing for Canada and at that point get back to Canadians with your proposals. But not before.
I actually used the word "leadership", not "purity", "harmony", or "higher intelligence", and that word was carefully chosen.
If a lieutenant charges an enemy trench alone, they won't accomplish anything - but somebody has to fix their bayonet and jump into no man's land first, and that somebody sets an example that they hope others will follow.
If you don't want it to be Canada, that's reasonable - but like I said, don't complain when Canada consequently ceases to receive the privileges and respect granted to leaders.
Analogies aren’t arguments. An army is under military discipline. Leadership is at least a little easier when the soldiers are legally obligated to follow you and could be shot or shamed for cowardice in the presence of the enemy. There is no reason — none — for any country in Asia, who makes our stuff for us, to follow Canada into the battle against climate change. “Knock yourself out”, they will say. If we become poorer and can’t afford to buy stuff from them they won’t like it, but being poorer might make us accept a lower price for our exports.
Sorry dude, Canada lost its "privileges" (whatever the heck that means in the global context) and certainly any respect it earned in the 20th century long ago.
Free trade with the USA is an economic arrangement under which both parties believe there is a net benefit to their nation. It certainly is not a privilege earned from any Canadian leadership in world affairs.
The flaws are the assumptions that anthropogenic climate change is real, that it’s bad, and that reducing carbon emissions is more economical than adaptation.
Man, the intellectual lake in which climate change deniers swim has been shrinking for years. You're splashing around in a puddle now, and there aren't any respectable scientists or politicians left in there with you.
Investment bankers and senior military officers are all starting to bake anthropogenic climate change into their planning. The debate's over.
A warm object radiates heat into space, and a warmer object radiates more. So the sun warms the earth until incoming energy = outgoing energy.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces outgoing energy. So then incoming energy > outgoing energy.
Of course there's all sorts of fancy models to describe what happens next, but you don't really need them: because of conservation of energy, it's like filling a bathtub.
I don't think anyone knowledgeable doubts that CO2 warms the earth. We're arguing about whether carbon taxing in Canada will fix any of this for the world given that it's a collective-action problem. That's part of the debate that is supposedly "over."
By the way, your third sentence beginning, "So the sun . . .", makes no sense as written. You want to give that another try?
Maybe try this: Solar insolation averaged over the planet is essentially constant, year over year. All else being equal, more infrared-absorbing gasses in the atmosphere will reduce outgoing heat. The earth will warm until the heat radiated out at the higher temperature equals the solar energy coming in. (Edit: plus residual heat in the core.)
I’m with you Roddy. The blythe assumption that immiserating ourselves by denying ourselves access to fossil fuels will have a significant effect on the way the climate evolves should be looked at carefully before diving into virtue signalling. If we must commit resources let it be to adaptation to inclement weather.
If the debate is over then that’s a loss for civilization. Because adaptation is more realistic. If climate change is real, if it has negative effects, then we should do what we can to mitigate those negative effects.
The earth is getting greener, and that’s a good thing.
Have you read Michael schellenbergers book apocalypse never?
And you realize, I hope, that decarbonizing the atmosphere will need an enormous input of energy (which must itself be non-emitting) to move CO2 up a concentration gradient that starts at 0.04% and ends at 99% or so....forever. It’s hard to see how you could do this without hydrogen fusion. These schemes are subsidy-harvesting pilot projects.
The eruption of a single volcano can measurably lessen the global temperature for years. Global warming is a resolvable problem once we decide to set our mind to it.
It just requires a willingness to accept that the problem exists and a willingness to sacrifice to deal with it.
The point of the fable is that the young mouse’s proposal to put a bell around the cat’s neck collapsed the moment all the other mice realized that none of them were going to volunteer do try to do it. So “I’m not going to do it” equates to “It can’t be done.” No progress with me, alas.
This anti-human ethos of "let's sacrifice the people who are alive today to save hypothetical future humans" needs to die once and for all. Energy IS progress, innovation and in even simpler terms, a guarantor of our survival.
Any policy that aims at reducing energy consumption (aside from technological progress) is essentially telling people who are alive today that they can go rot in hell, as "the planet burns" as one of our finest politicians put it this summer.
And then we ask ourselves why our GDP per capita is so appalling, especially compared to our southern neighbour.
The planet isn't burning and all evidence points to the fact that a warmer climate isn't necessarily as bad as it's made out to be (increased CO2 means a 20% greener planet, more food produced, its deleterious effects are real, but mostly localized, not to mention that humans die more from cold exposure than heat).
Yes, we can improve on a whole lot of fronts, but we are better solving tangible problems (poverty, hunger, etc.) than something as intangible as a supposedly warming climate. Poor people don't care about the environment, so eradicating poverty is one of the quickest way to greening our energy mix globally.
20 years ago, denialists claimed the planet wasn't actually getting hotter. Then they started claiming that yes, it was getting hotter, but it had nothing to do with human activity. Then they conceded that yes, it was getting hotter, and yes, it was due to human activity, but actually it's a net benefit for our species.
Your comment actually combines all of those positions, and I think it suffers as a result.
Well, if you took the time to carefully read what I said, you'll realize that it's not at all what I wrote. None of the points you repeated were part of my comment.
It's a matter of definition. You labeling me as a denier only serves one purpose: to give you the moral high ground. Not taking the bait.
As I said to another commenter recently: I don't deal in logical fallacies. If you were making a good faith argument, you wouldn't have to resort to thinly-veiled insults and you would address any of the points I've made like a grown-up would.
Calling me a denier instead of engaging with my argument is the epitome of bad faith, aka ad hominem fallacy. That automatically disqualifies anyone from further responses on my part.
Why is the term "denialism" and implied connection to holocast denial only applied to climate change? Why aren't those who support government operational deficits "deniers" of math?
"Denialism" isn't just applied to climate change, it's applied to every subject where the truth is extremely well-established, and only cranks and fools are still arguing to the contrary.
The reason your mind turns to Holocaust denialism is because the reality of global warming is now about as firmly an established fact. There's no "oops, actually it's really cooling" moment coming out of the scientific community.
Lots of things are firmly established as fact. Are climate activists focused on geolocated emissions "deniers"? Only cranks and fools would fail to realize that disincentivizing emissions (ex. Alberta) in one location only incentivizes them elsewhere (ex. Texas, Middle East).
The language of climate activists is intentionally provacative: "deniers" are akin to Holocaust Deniers while "denialists" are nihilists.
That's a very good question Doug. It hadn't even dawned on me to make the connection of "Denier" to the holocaust, but that makes these kinds of empty accusations even more batshit crazy.
I am not really sure how I am supposed to fee after this piece. In a way it feels like this piece is saying “the carbon tax hurts people, that’s the point, if the rich hurt themselves more that would be better for everyone.” That makes no sense. Why does anyone have to fee the pain? Canada’s emissions are a rounding error. This garbage comparing our per capita population to our national emissions is also bunk. There are many factors, many known and unknown, that contribute to that reality. Canadians naturally emit more CO2 than the US for example because geographically we sit further north than they do.
This article makes no mention of China and the fact that whatever reductions we make year over year is almost literally erased on a daily basis by China. Leadership is also about being realistic and not driving the people who follow you off of the cliff for the sake of it.
I am one of those “grocery store clerks” who is being asked to pay more. Here’s the thing, I think it’s stupid for everyone. I’m not about to look to the rich with rage and envy and demand they do their fair share just because I am getting a bad shake. I’d rather a government that just got out of the way of both of our lives.
This piece is saying that we're part of a giant collective action problem. You could well be right that there's no point in Canada making any sacrifice whatsoever, because nobody's following the West's leadership. My point is simply that if Canada is going to attempt to lead on this issue, Canada's managerial class should similarly be leading within Canada, not dumping that burden on more vulnerable Canadians.
Étienne Leblanc, an environment journalist from Radio-Canada, has said that China is currently investing massively in solar and windmills now, and it is even forecasting to be carbon neutral in less than ten years.
I bought weed from hippies 15 years ago who would claim the exact same thing. How many coal plants ago was that? When non-Western countries (who happen to be the world's largest polluters) preach something they're *going* to do, it seems certain people on this side of the ocean can't help but fall into utopian dream mode, while ignoring the present reality.
Carbon is the center of all life on this planet. Get it through your heads that CO2 is absolutely essential for green stuff to grow and produce O2. Canada is green from Coast to Coast and is CO2 positive. A Carbon Tax is the most ridiculous tax ever imposed on us. Look around where ever you are sitting. Nearly everything, including us has a relationship with Carbon.
An oxygen-rich environment is central to human life on this planet, but try lighting a match in a room containing too much oxygen. *Balance* of key molecules is essential, and we have a growing imbalance of CO2.
All of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels was originally sequestered through biological action. That indisputable fact is proof that increasing CO2 does not pose a threat to life on this planet as long as the source of that CO2 is organic. It may or may not have other effects on the organization of life.
“Get it through your heads” is a tell that the speaker/writer is trying to intimidate but has no facts. “Most ridiculous” is another. There’s an old lawyer saying: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law support you, then pound on the table.
Enjoyed reading this. The argument it makes -- that Canadians can and should be more responsible with our carbon emissions (and that better policy tools could be deployed to help us do so) -- is sound and, in fact, wholly in keeping with how Canadians saw ourselves not all that long ago: as people who could be counted on, more or less, to conserve resources and to do the right / best / most sensible / morally good thing even if it took effort.
The carbon tax is, like any other consumption-based tax, absolutely a regressive tax. Not all regressive taxes are inherently bad, and there are at least valid arguments in favour of a climate tax, and some valid international evidence supporting its use -- but as deployed in Canada the carbon tax seems, at best, a lazy and window-dressing way to appear to make progress on the climate file without changing anything.
I have plenty of off-topic ideas about what I'd like to see our federal government do (including, among other things, commit to onshoring manufacturing in ways that reduce our dependence on imported consumer goods -- strengthening the domestic economy while reducing net energy waste and cutting carbon gases generated by the export-import cycle) but, for now, I'd settle for a slightly more responsible public policy and fewer F-150s idling on my urban street.
Well-written! I think you're right that not all regressive taxes are bad, and in this case I can accept the logic of the carbon tax on an economic basis. But I think to be politically palatable, it has to be accompanied by enough lifestyle sacrifice from well-off Canadians that the median Canadian feels comfortable that we're all in this together.
Leadership starts at the top, and if the people at the top are conspicuously disinterested in personally doing what they claim to others is the right/best/sensible/moral thing, they're still leading - just in the wrong direction.
Agreed. As a partisan issue it has come to seem like a 'let them eat cake' sentiment. Certainly it's been effectively appropriated in this way as a wedge issue in the possibly upcoming federal election ...
>" . . .people who could be counted on, more or less, to conserve resources and to do the right / best / most sensible / morally good thing even if it took effort."
The other optics issue is an elite that insists on population growth, while pointing fingers at the people already here consuming too much. (Whatever the global optics, Canada's obligations under the Paris agreement are not per capita.)
This is big with housing: you see all kinds of policy documents hand-wringing about how to reduce the carbon footprints that millions of new homes entail, while being mysteriously silent on the fact that you're effectively asking a whole generation to accept lower-quality housing to minimize the footprint of growth that was completely optional.
“Obligations” under Paris are entirely self-defined undertakings that each country makes individually are are not binding. They are more aspirations than obligations and can be tossed aside if no longer achievable or desirable.
Very entertaining read. I do believe that you, not unlike a certain prime minister, hugely overestimate the value of Canada’s preaching, preening and forever trying to be the Boy Scouts of the planet. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to fix our overindulgences due to Canada’s relative wealth but politicians preaching while being the worst offenders in the consumption categories is doomed to fail. Our collective intelligence is at least a few points higher than politicians give us credit for. Perhaps the carbon tax is (soon to be was?) a good thing but the GST was likewise promoted and led to the annihilation of that government.
Thank you! I think there is genuine value in actually modelling good behaviour - it's a critical component of leadership. But to your point, I think Canada spends a lot of time *preaching* good behaviour and not much time actually leading the way on issues of international concern, and the rest of the world is now treating us accordingly.
I think there are some much bigger issues. Our climate data is largely unreliable, so faulty decisions are being made. (I’ll remind everyone of the panic in the Times magazine in the 70’s that we were headed into the ice age). Beyond that when you look at how temperatures are measured - the actual stations, there have been profound changes that influence the data with no crossover years being kept when stations were moved.
Geothermal venting from the earths core that occurs in the ocean and solar activity account for huge portions of variations in the actual climate and are completely ignored from the climate change narratives that are most discussed in the media.
I recently read an article that dated a tree stump that was found when a glacier had receded to be over 2000 years old - so we can definitively say that the planet is not the warmest it’s ever been. (And if we were indeed in a mini ice age, and are coming out of it now, it’s not necessarily panic worthy.)
I’m familiar with the economic theory that carbon tax is based off of. The whole internalizing an externality and some old research that showed people drove less when the price of gas went up. I question how accurate that research is now. When gas went over $1/litre there was a much different feeling than how gas fluctuates now. So I’m not convinced that research will stand the test of time.
In short, I disagree with the carbon tax, but I also feel like there are significant pieces of the data puzzle missing before anyone should be asked to make sacrifices. I completely believe we should be good stewards to the earth we live on - but being a good steward doesn’t necessarily mean focusing on one aspect (and co2 is part of photosynthesis so it’s not an all bad gas). I worry much more about the pesticides that pollute our water sources and the litter and trash that line the streets and roads and many many other things. I might even go so far as to say that focusing on carbon emissions through a carbon tax is a luxury thing that our current circumstances don’t allow. (Yes I’m sure this is a controversial statement, but maybe we need to say some of these things publicly)
You're correct that the climate has naturally warmed and cooled during our time on this planet, and you're correct that by all appearances the industrial revolution headed off another ice age, and we're certainly better off not having an ice age.
But the *rate* of the current warming cycle is extreme, as is its trajectory. It's not where we are now that concerns scientists, it's where this goes in 100 years if it's not controlled.
I would suspect the link you point to uses RCP 8.5 to come up with that current path and is actually a worst case path, the optimistic senaro is probably closer to our current path. Suggest looking at some of Roger Pielke Jr. Substack for a more balanced take on climate change.
One thing that has concerned me with doing our part and Carbon Tax. If government and other unions demand pay increases to maintain their standard of living they will continue their habits of carbon emissions and only non-union and fixed income pay the bill/suffer.
That could well be true with respect to which route is more accurate, and I will check out Pielke Jr.
Worth noting, though, that the "optimistic scenario" still puts us well outside long-term temperature norms for our species within a century.
You're thinking along the same lines I am when you observe that putting emissions-reduction pressure on those with stagnant salaries seems completely backward from how it should be.
Don't forget IS that one of the biggest proponents of global cooling was David Suzuki, he of the popular idea of the moment, whether or not it is correct.
It's an amusing read, and I understand the sentiment. Regardless, we're destroying the planet in the name of shareholder value. Yes, it needs to be a global effort, but doing nothing because we're a small player isn't the answer.
I'd love to see a big tax added to the private jets, the yachts, and even something related to house size. It won't happen because that would require leadership which the world doesn't have.
I also suspect that clean water will be a much bigger issue than heat in the near-term, although they are related.
No matter what, out grandkids are so screwed. Get your ski vacations in now, while you still can.
I completely agree that "we have no responsibility because we're a small player" is unacceptable reasoning. I just want to see that reasoning consistently applied *within* Canada, too.
That's perfectly reasonable! The thesis of my article is essentially "especially do not expect some Canadians to impoverish themselves while the wealthiest in our society carry on their usual carbon-intensive lifestyle."
It's the Al Gore electricity bill all over again. If this is a consumption crisis, how can you lead us out of it while personally consuming so much?
I'd sooner the electric vehicle credit for people wealthy enough to buy a Tesla (essentially, taxpayer-paid perks for the rich) go instead to purchasing new fridges for low-income people who can barely afford their hydro bills as it is. The rich guy is still going to buy that Tesla, but the 5-8 fridges purchased will reduce the need for electricity generation while also helping the poor. THAT is the kind of policy I want to see. A policy that recognizes that when I start work in a rural area at 2 in the morning, there's no form of public transit to take me there. At the moment, the carbon tax is simply a punishment for working the wrong job or having the wrong lifestyle.
If I was an upper-middle-class consultant availing myself to Ottawa's white-collar welfare, I'd be showered with cash and praise for doing my part. The PSW in her 2008 Corolla would be the object of my scorn.
Once you agree it’s a collective-action problem than we really do have no responsibility because we’re a small player. Big powerful cheaters will increase their economic activity to fill the space we vacated through reducing emissions. This makes us in Canada worse off without making the rest of the world better off. Indeed, if Asia burns more coal and we burn less gas and liquid petroleum, global emissions actually increase.
One should never participate in a collective-action game where there is no penalty for non-compliance. It’s not a case of showing moral leadership. It’s just the nature of collective-action problems: they are intractable. The best policy is to do nothing, other than letting internal markets, not subsidies or regulation, decide if electric cars should prosper or if wind + (expensive) storage should displace gas for electricity.
Collective action problems are often defined by how difficult it is to assign responsibility.
If there's a water shortage, how much responsibility to solve the problem does an individual homeowner have whose water consumption is triple the average?
"Listen, I may personally use quite a bit of water, but I'm only responsible for a tiny fraction of the city's overall use. Nothing I do will have any impact compared to the actions of entire neighbourhoods" is a true statement that I suspect you would find deeply unpersuasive. I expect you would insist that they stop maintaining their swimming pool and irrigating their football-field front lawn as a first step to solving the city's water crisis - and would only then start talking to the average citizen about cutting back on how many showers they take.
Your approach to solving a collective-action problem only holds if a sovereign can impose water restrictions on the whole community, which it can, should, and does: the municipality lays down the law and doesn’t allow any actors to flout the rules or buy exemptions. A sovereign can preserve a fishing ground within its economic zone by imposing catch limits on all boats foreign and domestic that fish there, arresting rule-breakers. But it can’t arrest boats on the high seas in peacetime.
There is no sovereign that can impose and enforce limits on CO2 emissions on all world players. The only thing that comes close is a Treaty, as with fluorocarbons for the ozone layer which was a simpler problem. The reason there isn’t a CO2 Treaty is because no country wants to bind itself to economic folly, even under the much looser strictures of international law. So they participate in “accords” which allow them to make undertakings which they have no intention of honouring. They all hope that foolish countries like Canada and the U.K. will take actions that hobble themselves and allow advantage to be taken at their expense.
You are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of a collective-action problem. It is not at all down to minor players knowing that their actions make little difference. Rather, it is big dominating players knowing that they can flout the rules —take all the fish they want even to the ruin of the fishery— and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. CAPs can be solved only when the dictators who run dominating countries, as in Asia, perceive a threat to *themselves* from fishery collapse or climate change or whatever. Then they will take action and will compel (through trade sanctions and military threats) the smaller players like Canada to follow suit. But it will only take this unilateral action when it can actually make those threats stick.
I disagree with most of this, but I'll focus on your glib framing of collective-action problems as matters only resolvable through coercion. They are also resolvable through coalition-building, which is a process that requires reciprocating gestures of investment and sacrifice by members of the coalition in pursuit of a common goal.
Nobody wants to be the fool taken advantage of at the expense of an apathetic crowd, and the process of coalition building is one that proves to all concerned that they can rely on everyone else to do their part, too.
Collective action problems are therefore often "first mover" problems, and the courage and risk required to move first is honourable. Canadians, being per-capita extremely wealthy and possessed of superior quality of life to the median Chinese citizen, have an honourable obligation here that is not nullified by the political might that the Chinese enjoy due to the sheer number of them.
I think we are not acknowledging what Canada has done in the last 10 years or so. Canada's emissions from Coal are now at a fraction of that they were 10 years ago. We have however paid dearly for this. Ontario, Albertas and BC have had huge increases in electricity power rates in those 10 years. It is therefore not a symbolic sacrifice by any stretch of the imagination. Some of this was accomplished by renewables but the majority of the change was simply a switch to natural gas of nuclear refurbishing.
On the other hand, GHG emissions from heavy oil extraction and processing have increased, but have been less intensive over a decade. The oil and gas sector produces about 20% of Canada's exports and contributes more to our balance of trade than any other sector. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan have the majority of their exports represented by the petroleum sector. Self evidently curtailing this income stream is an existential threat to Canada. Canada has also embraced methane reduction measure long before the US even thought about them.
Although carbon taxes are the economists theoretical solution, we certainly don't live in a theoretical world. OPEC manipulates the price of oil ( one might argue to the benefit of climate change enthusiasts ), the US is now exporting LNG, and meanwhile they haven't even got rid of coal generation ( although it has been reduced a lot ).
Canada has therefore demonstrated a commitment to the goal but without an aligned policy from the US, this is likely the best we can do. On the other hand, the Democrats in the US have shown us that they can ignore what is sensible policy to pander to the voting public. We may be far behind the EU on climate change but we are way ahead of the US.
To stop the carbon tax for a bit and wait for everyone to catch up may be the best policy.
The US had the low hanging fruit of replacing coal fired generation with gas, entirely due to technological advancements that unlocked massive shale reserves. Too bad that can't be replicated elsewhere in the world through North American LNG exports.
The best point is that we as Canadians consume goods made in China (or anywhere else) and the emissions created in producing those goods is logged against China not the consumer national. It is as wrong as Canada producing natural gas to reduce coal emissions in China but being dinged with the emissions even though it reduces world emissions. The emission targets are too restricted to national silos rather than to the point of consumption.
Ah .... yet another essay telling we, the great unwashed, that we need to make sacrifices in order to "lead" / "to demonstrate moral superiority" / "blah, blah, blah" to the rest of the world. The difference in this case is that we "should" cut down on the hypocritical use by our worsers (definitely not our betters).
Bunk.
Call me when the rest of the world, particularly China, India, Russia start on those sacrifices.
I am not saying that we shouldn't change but, as Clarke so well pointed out, our little drop in the bucket is a great big fat nothing. So, as I say, call me when China et al have gotten religion. And not before.
I think "call me when the rest of the world has taken serious action on this issue" is a perfectly reasonable position, as long as you're also comfortable with Canada definitionally not being in a leadership role internationally, and not receiving the privileges and respect that come with a leadership role.
Clarke, Canada has demonstrated endlessly it's inability to lead domestically never mind internationally. The Face Painter has done nothing but generate derision internationally from his hectoring, lecturing, costume wearing and holier than thou attitude. It will take decades for Canada to be taken seriously again and some real humility in the interim is important.
Our recent history is one of being led by ignorant, performative buffoons who don't care at all about the damned populace of Canada but only in their own vanity and appearance.
Therefore, why in the hell should I trust any politician or pseudo leader when s/he spouts off on this topic? Their record shows that they have earned no trust and much scorn.
Allowing other countries to experiment and then we selecting the methods that seem appropriate to our circumstances seems to me much better. We have already done the experimenting and have shown much that doesn't work - almost everything, at least the way that our worsers have arranged things.
But what’s in it for Canada to be in a leadership role globally when it comes to emissions? Are you trying to say that self-sacrifice while China laughs at us will somehow compensate for our free-riding on the United States and other military allies?
Do you think there's an inherent virtue to be found in taking a leadership role on a serious problem? If not, I think it's a perfectly rational position for you to hold that we should be part of the problem until forced by better human beings to act, or until they solve our problems for us.
I don't personally want that reputation, or the consequences that typically go with it.
Canada's capability to lead diminishes by the day with its shrinking per capita GDP and protected economy that produces little innovation. Righteousness is not leadership.
A different comment: interesting points occasionally well rebutted in the comments section but, for God’s sake, remember “KISS” (Keep it simple stupid) when writing. Your writing is too cute. I prefer good writing over this trying-to-impress-with-your-wit writing.
Good article, thank you. To be honest, I thought immediately of the climate crisis conferences held. The huge numbers of private jets to ferry all those wealthy individuals who claim to worry about the climate, truly is hypocrisy at its best
Have they never heard of passenger jets? And if they don’t all have a first class section, surely sitting with the peasants it a laudable sacrifice, right? And of course, don’t get me started on DAVOS…
Given that climate adaptation is more certain to produce intended results, the costs will be born through user pay: higher housing prices to cover more stringent building codes, higher fuel taxes for more resiliant roads, higher transit fares, higher utility rates etc.
Even if so-called "climate action" were to actually be effective, adaptation is inevitable. The full effects of increased atmospheric CO2 from historical emissions have yet to be realized. Nature would take thousands of years if not longer to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels. Most important, the technologies to support "climate action" do not exist.
I agree that adaptation is going to play a major role in how we handle global warming. I think it's a legitimate concern that if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere at a breakneck rate, we might not be able to adapt sufficiently to establish a comfortable equilibrium.
Some belt-tightening is, I think, probably part of the solution, but it can't be the entire solution.
This is a great article but IMHO is mistaken on two fronts:
1. the CT is getting punitive enough now that it's impossible for the "grocery clerks" to afford it - grocery clerks being grocery clerks AND other groups like farmers, etc
2. the world doesn't give a shit about Canada or its carbon tax, other than to take competitive advantage of it.
If there's a critical flaw in my reasoning, it's whether anything the West says or does can persuade that upwardly-mobile Cambodian peasant not to install air conditioning. The Series 3000 Atmospheric Decarbonizer can't arrive soon enough.
Clarke, that is not simply a critical flaw but it is a disqualifying flaw. In other words, if you go back to your own words, if Canada eliminated all carbon the world would not notice due to the activities of the rest of the world.
So, the idea that we can demonstrate "purity" or "harmony" of "higher intelligence" is purely stupid and is simply an attempt to justify impoverishing Canadians.
As for that Cambodian peasant, get he and all his folks in that part of the world to take the subject seriously and take concrete steps such as you are proposing for Canada and at that point get back to Canadians with your proposals. But not before.
I actually used the word "leadership", not "purity", "harmony", or "higher intelligence", and that word was carefully chosen.
If a lieutenant charges an enemy trench alone, they won't accomplish anything - but somebody has to fix their bayonet and jump into no man's land first, and that somebody sets an example that they hope others will follow.
If you don't want it to be Canada, that's reasonable - but like I said, don't complain when Canada consequently ceases to receive the privileges and respect granted to leaders.
Analogies aren’t arguments. An army is under military discipline. Leadership is at least a little easier when the soldiers are legally obligated to follow you and could be shot or shamed for cowardice in the presence of the enemy. There is no reason — none — for any country in Asia, who makes our stuff for us, to follow Canada into the battle against climate change. “Knock yourself out”, they will say. If we become poorer and can’t afford to buy stuff from them they won’t like it, but being poorer might make us accept a lower price for our exports.
Sorry dude, Canada lost its "privileges" (whatever the heck that means in the global context) and certainly any respect it earned in the 20th century long ago.
Oh, you'll find we have plenty yet remaining: free trade with the United States, for one.
Free trade with the USA is an economic arrangement under which both parties believe there is a net benefit to their nation. It certainly is not a privilege earned from any Canadian leadership in world affairs.
The flaws are the assumptions that anthropogenic climate change is real, that it’s bad, and that reducing carbon emissions is more economical than adaptation.
Man, the intellectual lake in which climate change deniers swim has been shrinking for years. You're splashing around in a puddle now, and there aren't any respectable scientists or politicians left in there with you.
Investment bankers and senior military officers are all starting to bake anthropogenic climate change into their planning. The debate's over.
When in doubt, impose closure. The dictator speaks.
It's just conservation of energy.
A warm object radiates heat into space, and a warmer object radiates more. So the sun warms the earth until incoming energy = outgoing energy.
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere reduces outgoing energy. So then incoming energy > outgoing energy.
Of course there's all sorts of fancy models to describe what happens next, but you don't really need them: because of conservation of energy, it's like filling a bathtub.
I don't think anyone knowledgeable doubts that CO2 warms the earth. We're arguing about whether carbon taxing in Canada will fix any of this for the world given that it's a collective-action problem. That's part of the debate that is supposedly "over."
By the way, your third sentence beginning, "So the sun . . .", makes no sense as written. You want to give that another try?
Maybe try this: Solar insolation averaged over the planet is essentially constant, year over year. All else being equal, more infrared-absorbing gasses in the atmosphere will reduce outgoing heat. The earth will warm until the heat radiated out at the higher temperature equals the solar energy coming in. (Edit: plus residual heat in the core.)
I’m with you Roddy. The blythe assumption that immiserating ourselves by denying ourselves access to fossil fuels will have a significant effect on the way the climate evolves should be looked at carefully before diving into virtue signalling. If we must commit resources let it be to adaptation to inclement weather.
If the debate is over then that’s a loss for civilization. Because adaptation is more realistic. If climate change is real, if it has negative effects, then we should do what we can to mitigate those negative effects.
The earth is getting greener, and that’s a good thing.
Have you read Michael schellenbergers book apocalypse never?
And you realize, I hope, that decarbonizing the atmosphere will need an enormous input of energy (which must itself be non-emitting) to move CO2 up a concentration gradient that starts at 0.04% and ends at 99% or so....forever. It’s hard to see how you could do this without hydrogen fusion. These schemes are subsidy-harvesting pilot projects.
The eruption of a single volcano can measurably lessen the global temperature for years. Global warming is a resolvable problem once we decide to set our mind to it.
It just requires a willingness to accept that the problem exists and a willingness to sacrifice to deal with it.
Remember the Aesop’s fable about wise words but who will bell the cat?
If I've taken you from "it can't be done" to "why should I be the one to do it", I think that's progress!
The point of the fable is that the young mouse’s proposal to put a bell around the cat’s neck collapsed the moment all the other mice realized that none of them were going to volunteer do try to do it. So “I’m not going to do it” equates to “It can’t be done.” No progress with me, alas.
Everyone, except the EU. Because apparently, carbon tariffs are a thing now.
This anti-human ethos of "let's sacrifice the people who are alive today to save hypothetical future humans" needs to die once and for all. Energy IS progress, innovation and in even simpler terms, a guarantor of our survival.
Any policy that aims at reducing energy consumption (aside from technological progress) is essentially telling people who are alive today that they can go rot in hell, as "the planet burns" as one of our finest politicians put it this summer.
And then we ask ourselves why our GDP per capita is so appalling, especially compared to our southern neighbour.
The planet isn't burning and all evidence points to the fact that a warmer climate isn't necessarily as bad as it's made out to be (increased CO2 means a 20% greener planet, more food produced, its deleterious effects are real, but mostly localized, not to mention that humans die more from cold exposure than heat).
Yes, we can improve on a whole lot of fronts, but we are better solving tangible problems (poverty, hunger, etc.) than something as intangible as a supposedly warming climate. Poor people don't care about the environment, so eradicating poverty is one of the quickest way to greening our energy mix globally.
20 years ago, denialists claimed the planet wasn't actually getting hotter. Then they started claiming that yes, it was getting hotter, but it had nothing to do with human activity. Then they conceded that yes, it was getting hotter, and yes, it was due to human activity, but actually it's a net benefit for our species.
Your comment actually combines all of those positions, and I think it suffers as a result.
Well, if you took the time to carefully read what I said, you'll realize that it's not at all what I wrote. None of the points you repeated were part of my comment.
"Supposedly warming climate" is old-school denialism, "a warmer climate isn't as bad as it's made out to be" is new-school denialism.
I'll ask you directly: do you think the global climate is getting warmer?
It's a matter of definition. You labeling me as a denier only serves one purpose: to give you the moral high ground. Not taking the bait.
As I said to another commenter recently: I don't deal in logical fallacies. If you were making a good faith argument, you wouldn't have to resort to thinly-veiled insults and you would address any of the points I've made like a grown-up would.
So...instead of answering his question, you liken him to a child and then imply that it's him refusing to engage in good faith?
I'm not implying anything, just stating a fact.
Calling me a denier instead of engaging with my argument is the epitome of bad faith, aka ad hominem fallacy. That automatically disqualifies anyone from further responses on my part.
Why is the term "denialism" and implied connection to holocast denial only applied to climate change? Why aren't those who support government operational deficits "deniers" of math?
"Denialism" isn't just applied to climate change, it's applied to every subject where the truth is extremely well-established, and only cranks and fools are still arguing to the contrary.
The reason your mind turns to Holocaust denialism is because the reality of global warming is now about as firmly an established fact. There's no "oops, actually it's really cooling" moment coming out of the scientific community.
Lots of things are firmly established as fact. Are climate activists focused on geolocated emissions "deniers"? Only cranks and fools would fail to realize that disincentivizing emissions (ex. Alberta) in one location only incentivizes them elsewhere (ex. Texas, Middle East).
The language of climate activists is intentionally provacative: "deniers" are akin to Holocaust Deniers while "denialists" are nihilists.
That's a very good question Doug. It hadn't even dawned on me to make the connection of "Denier" to the holocaust, but that makes these kinds of empty accusations even more batshit crazy.
I am not really sure how I am supposed to fee after this piece. In a way it feels like this piece is saying “the carbon tax hurts people, that’s the point, if the rich hurt themselves more that would be better for everyone.” That makes no sense. Why does anyone have to fee the pain? Canada’s emissions are a rounding error. This garbage comparing our per capita population to our national emissions is also bunk. There are many factors, many known and unknown, that contribute to that reality. Canadians naturally emit more CO2 than the US for example because geographically we sit further north than they do.
This article makes no mention of China and the fact that whatever reductions we make year over year is almost literally erased on a daily basis by China. Leadership is also about being realistic and not driving the people who follow you off of the cliff for the sake of it.
I am one of those “grocery store clerks” who is being asked to pay more. Here’s the thing, I think it’s stupid for everyone. I’m not about to look to the rich with rage and envy and demand they do their fair share just because I am getting a bad shake. I’d rather a government that just got out of the way of both of our lives.
This piece is saying that we're part of a giant collective action problem. You could well be right that there's no point in Canada making any sacrifice whatsoever, because nobody's following the West's leadership. My point is simply that if Canada is going to attempt to lead on this issue, Canada's managerial class should similarly be leading within Canada, not dumping that burden on more vulnerable Canadians.
I don't look at the rich with envy. I look at the preachy with disgust.
And so you should, and so you should.
Étienne Leblanc, an environment journalist from Radio-Canada, has said that China is currently investing massively in solar and windmills now, and it is even forecasting to be carbon neutral in less than ten years.
I bought weed from hippies 15 years ago who would claim the exact same thing. How many coal plants ago was that? When non-Western countries (who happen to be the world's largest polluters) preach something they're *going* to do, it seems certain people on this side of the ocean can't help but fall into utopian dream mode, while ignoring the present reality.
Carbon is the center of all life on this planet. Get it through your heads that CO2 is absolutely essential for green stuff to grow and produce O2. Canada is green from Coast to Coast and is CO2 positive. A Carbon Tax is the most ridiculous tax ever imposed on us. Look around where ever you are sitting. Nearly everything, including us has a relationship with Carbon.
And , like vodka, you can have too much of a good thing.
An oxygen-rich environment is central to human life on this planet, but try lighting a match in a room containing too much oxygen. *Balance* of key molecules is essential, and we have a growing imbalance of CO2.
All of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels was originally sequestered through biological action. That indisputable fact is proof that increasing CO2 does not pose a threat to life on this planet as long as the source of that CO2 is organic. It may or may not have other effects on the organization of life.
“Get it through your heads” is a tell that the speaker/writer is trying to intimidate but has no facts. “Most ridiculous” is another. There’s an old lawyer saying: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law support you, then pound on the table.
Enjoyed reading this. The argument it makes -- that Canadians can and should be more responsible with our carbon emissions (and that better policy tools could be deployed to help us do so) -- is sound and, in fact, wholly in keeping with how Canadians saw ourselves not all that long ago: as people who could be counted on, more or less, to conserve resources and to do the right / best / most sensible / morally good thing even if it took effort.
The carbon tax is, like any other consumption-based tax, absolutely a regressive tax. Not all regressive taxes are inherently bad, and there are at least valid arguments in favour of a climate tax, and some valid international evidence supporting its use -- but as deployed in Canada the carbon tax seems, at best, a lazy and window-dressing way to appear to make progress on the climate file without changing anything.
I have plenty of off-topic ideas about what I'd like to see our federal government do (including, among other things, commit to onshoring manufacturing in ways that reduce our dependence on imported consumer goods -- strengthening the domestic economy while reducing net energy waste and cutting carbon gases generated by the export-import cycle) but, for now, I'd settle for a slightly more responsible public policy and fewer F-150s idling on my urban street.
Well-written! I think you're right that not all regressive taxes are bad, and in this case I can accept the logic of the carbon tax on an economic basis. But I think to be politically palatable, it has to be accompanied by enough lifestyle sacrifice from well-off Canadians that the median Canadian feels comfortable that we're all in this together.
Leadership starts at the top, and if the people at the top are conspicuously disinterested in personally doing what they claim to others is the right/best/sensible/moral thing, they're still leading - just in the wrong direction.
Agreed. As a partisan issue it has come to seem like a 'let them eat cake' sentiment. Certainly it's been effectively appropriated in this way as a wedge issue in the possibly upcoming federal election ...
>" . . .people who could be counted on, more or less, to conserve resources and to do the right / best / most sensible / morally good thing even if it took effort."
When were Canadians ever like that?
My grandparents were, they were born from 1897 to 1902 and lived through two WW and one big depression.
The other optics issue is an elite that insists on population growth, while pointing fingers at the people already here consuming too much. (Whatever the global optics, Canada's obligations under the Paris agreement are not per capita.)
This is big with housing: you see all kinds of policy documents hand-wringing about how to reduce the carbon footprints that millions of new homes entail, while being mysteriously silent on the fact that you're effectively asking a whole generation to accept lower-quality housing to minimize the footprint of growth that was completely optional.
“Obligations” under Paris are entirely self-defined undertakings that each country makes individually are are not binding. They are more aspirations than obligations and can be tossed aside if no longer achievable or desirable.
Very entertaining read. I do believe that you, not unlike a certain prime minister, hugely overestimate the value of Canada’s preaching, preening and forever trying to be the Boy Scouts of the planet. I don’t pretend to have all the answers to fix our overindulgences due to Canada’s relative wealth but politicians preaching while being the worst offenders in the consumption categories is doomed to fail. Our collective intelligence is at least a few points higher than politicians give us credit for. Perhaps the carbon tax is (soon to be was?) a good thing but the GST was likewise promoted and led to the annihilation of that government.
Thank you! I think there is genuine value in actually modelling good behaviour - it's a critical component of leadership. But to your point, I think Canada spends a lot of time *preaching* good behaviour and not much time actually leading the way on issues of international concern, and the rest of the world is now treating us accordingly.
I think there are some much bigger issues. Our climate data is largely unreliable, so faulty decisions are being made. (I’ll remind everyone of the panic in the Times magazine in the 70’s that we were headed into the ice age). Beyond that when you look at how temperatures are measured - the actual stations, there have been profound changes that influence the data with no crossover years being kept when stations were moved.
Geothermal venting from the earths core that occurs in the ocean and solar activity account for huge portions of variations in the actual climate and are completely ignored from the climate change narratives that are most discussed in the media.
I recently read an article that dated a tree stump that was found when a glacier had receded to be over 2000 years old - so we can definitively say that the planet is not the warmest it’s ever been. (And if we were indeed in a mini ice age, and are coming out of it now, it’s not necessarily panic worthy.)
I’m familiar with the economic theory that carbon tax is based off of. The whole internalizing an externality and some old research that showed people drove less when the price of gas went up. I question how accurate that research is now. When gas went over $1/litre there was a much different feeling than how gas fluctuates now. So I’m not convinced that research will stand the test of time.
In short, I disagree with the carbon tax, but I also feel like there are significant pieces of the data puzzle missing before anyone should be asked to make sacrifices. I completely believe we should be good stewards to the earth we live on - but being a good steward doesn’t necessarily mean focusing on one aspect (and co2 is part of photosynthesis so it’s not an all bad gas). I worry much more about the pesticides that pollute our water sources and the litter and trash that line the streets and roads and many many other things. I might even go so far as to say that focusing on carbon emissions through a carbon tax is a luxury thing that our current circumstances don’t allow. (Yes I’m sure this is a controversial statement, but maybe we need to say some of these things publicly)
You're correct that the climate has naturally warmed and cooled during our time on this planet, and you're correct that by all appearances the industrial revolution headed off another ice age, and we're certainly better off not having an ice age.
But the *rate* of the current warming cycle is extreme, as is its trajectory. It's not where we are now that concerns scientists, it's where this goes in 100 years if it's not controlled.
https://xkcd.com/1732/
I would suspect the link you point to uses RCP 8.5 to come up with that current path and is actually a worst case path, the optimistic senaro is probably closer to our current path. Suggest looking at some of Roger Pielke Jr. Substack for a more balanced take on climate change.
One thing that has concerned me with doing our part and Carbon Tax. If government and other unions demand pay increases to maintain their standard of living they will continue their habits of carbon emissions and only non-union and fixed income pay the bill/suffer.
That could well be true with respect to which route is more accurate, and I will check out Pielke Jr.
Worth noting, though, that the "optimistic scenario" still puts us well outside long-term temperature norms for our species within a century.
You're thinking along the same lines I am when you observe that putting emissions-reduction pressure on those with stagnant salaries seems completely backward from how it should be.
Don't forget IS that one of the biggest proponents of global cooling was David Suzuki, he of the popular idea of the moment, whether or not it is correct.
"On a good day we’re playing the front half of the donkey two stalls down from the business end of Joseph’s divine cuckolding"
Actually, as long as JT clings to power it is more like the rear half of the donkey.
Perhaps more like the donkey's droppings?
It's an amusing read, and I understand the sentiment. Regardless, we're destroying the planet in the name of shareholder value. Yes, it needs to be a global effort, but doing nothing because we're a small player isn't the answer.
I'd love to see a big tax added to the private jets, the yachts, and even something related to house size. It won't happen because that would require leadership which the world doesn't have.
I also suspect that clean water will be a much bigger issue than heat in the near-term, although they are related.
No matter what, out grandkids are so screwed. Get your ski vacations in now, while you still can.
I completely agree that "we have no responsibility because we're a small player" is unacceptable reasoning. I just want to see that reasoning consistently applied *within* Canada, too.
We DO have a responsibility but do not, repeat do not, expect us to impoverish ourselves while the rest of the world is ignoring the issue.
That's perfectly reasonable! The thesis of my article is essentially "especially do not expect some Canadians to impoverish themselves while the wealthiest in our society carry on their usual carbon-intensive lifestyle."
It's the Al Gore electricity bill all over again. If this is a consumption crisis, how can you lead us out of it while personally consuming so much?
I'd sooner the electric vehicle credit for people wealthy enough to buy a Tesla (essentially, taxpayer-paid perks for the rich) go instead to purchasing new fridges for low-income people who can barely afford their hydro bills as it is. The rich guy is still going to buy that Tesla, but the 5-8 fridges purchased will reduce the need for electricity generation while also helping the poor. THAT is the kind of policy I want to see. A policy that recognizes that when I start work in a rural area at 2 in the morning, there's no form of public transit to take me there. At the moment, the carbon tax is simply a punishment for working the wrong job or having the wrong lifestyle.
If I was an upper-middle-class consultant availing myself to Ottawa's white-collar welfare, I'd be showered with cash and praise for doing my part. The PSW in her 2008 Corolla would be the object of my scorn.
Very insightful. I'm kicking myself for not including a couple of these points in the column.
Once you agree it’s a collective-action problem than we really do have no responsibility because we’re a small player. Big powerful cheaters will increase their economic activity to fill the space we vacated through reducing emissions. This makes us in Canada worse off without making the rest of the world better off. Indeed, if Asia burns more coal and we burn less gas and liquid petroleum, global emissions actually increase.
One should never participate in a collective-action game where there is no penalty for non-compliance. It’s not a case of showing moral leadership. It’s just the nature of collective-action problems: they are intractable. The best policy is to do nothing, other than letting internal markets, not subsidies or regulation, decide if electric cars should prosper or if wind + (expensive) storage should displace gas for electricity.
Collective action problems are often defined by how difficult it is to assign responsibility.
If there's a water shortage, how much responsibility to solve the problem does an individual homeowner have whose water consumption is triple the average?
"Listen, I may personally use quite a bit of water, but I'm only responsible for a tiny fraction of the city's overall use. Nothing I do will have any impact compared to the actions of entire neighbourhoods" is a true statement that I suspect you would find deeply unpersuasive. I expect you would insist that they stop maintaining their swimming pool and irrigating their football-field front lawn as a first step to solving the city's water crisis - and would only then start talking to the average citizen about cutting back on how many showers they take.
Your approach to solving a collective-action problem only holds if a sovereign can impose water restrictions on the whole community, which it can, should, and does: the municipality lays down the law and doesn’t allow any actors to flout the rules or buy exemptions. A sovereign can preserve a fishing ground within its economic zone by imposing catch limits on all boats foreign and domestic that fish there, arresting rule-breakers. But it can’t arrest boats on the high seas in peacetime.
There is no sovereign that can impose and enforce limits on CO2 emissions on all world players. The only thing that comes close is a Treaty, as with fluorocarbons for the ozone layer which was a simpler problem. The reason there isn’t a CO2 Treaty is because no country wants to bind itself to economic folly, even under the much looser strictures of international law. So they participate in “accords” which allow them to make undertakings which they have no intention of honouring. They all hope that foolish countries like Canada and the U.K. will take actions that hobble themselves and allow advantage to be taken at their expense.
You are fundamentally mistaken about the nature of a collective-action problem. It is not at all down to minor players knowing that their actions make little difference. Rather, it is big dominating players knowing that they can flout the rules —take all the fish they want even to the ruin of the fishery— and there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. CAPs can be solved only when the dictators who run dominating countries, as in Asia, perceive a threat to *themselves* from fishery collapse or climate change or whatever. Then they will take action and will compel (through trade sanctions and military threats) the smaller players like Canada to follow suit. But it will only take this unilateral action when it can actually make those threats stick.
You are a glib writer but thin on the facts.
I disagree with most of this, but I'll focus on your glib framing of collective-action problems as matters only resolvable through coercion. They are also resolvable through coalition-building, which is a process that requires reciprocating gestures of investment and sacrifice by members of the coalition in pursuit of a common goal.
Nobody wants to be the fool taken advantage of at the expense of an apathetic crowd, and the process of coalition building is one that proves to all concerned that they can rely on everyone else to do their part, too.
Collective action problems are therefore often "first mover" problems, and the courage and risk required to move first is honourable. Canadians, being per-capita extremely wealthy and possessed of superior quality of life to the median Chinese citizen, have an honourable obligation here that is not nullified by the political might that the Chinese enjoy due to the sheer number of them.
...in your opinion.
I think we are not acknowledging what Canada has done in the last 10 years or so. Canada's emissions from Coal are now at a fraction of that they were 10 years ago. We have however paid dearly for this. Ontario, Albertas and BC have had huge increases in electricity power rates in those 10 years. It is therefore not a symbolic sacrifice by any stretch of the imagination. Some of this was accomplished by renewables but the majority of the change was simply a switch to natural gas of nuclear refurbishing.
On the other hand, GHG emissions from heavy oil extraction and processing have increased, but have been less intensive over a decade. The oil and gas sector produces about 20% of Canada's exports and contributes more to our balance of trade than any other sector. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan have the majority of their exports represented by the petroleum sector. Self evidently curtailing this income stream is an existential threat to Canada. Canada has also embraced methane reduction measure long before the US even thought about them.
Although carbon taxes are the economists theoretical solution, we certainly don't live in a theoretical world. OPEC manipulates the price of oil ( one might argue to the benefit of climate change enthusiasts ), the US is now exporting LNG, and meanwhile they haven't even got rid of coal generation ( although it has been reduced a lot ).
Canada has therefore demonstrated a commitment to the goal but without an aligned policy from the US, this is likely the best we can do. On the other hand, the Democrats in the US have shown us that they can ignore what is sensible policy to pander to the voting public. We may be far behind the EU on climate change but we are way ahead of the US.
To stop the carbon tax for a bit and wait for everyone to catch up may be the best policy.
Great comment. In fairness to the US, their total carbon output is actually down significantly:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/
Carbon emissions are still a runaway train globally, though, because the rest of the world is industrializing faster than the West is economizing.
The US had the low hanging fruit of replacing coal fired generation with gas, entirely due to technological advancements that unlocked massive shale reserves. Too bad that can't be replicated elsewhere in the world through North American LNG exports.
The best point is that we as Canadians consume goods made in China (or anywhere else) and the emissions created in producing those goods is logged against China not the consumer national. It is as wrong as Canada producing natural gas to reduce coal emissions in China but being dinged with the emissions even though it reduces world emissions. The emission targets are too restricted to national silos rather than to the point of consumption.
Ah .... yet another essay telling we, the great unwashed, that we need to make sacrifices in order to "lead" / "to demonstrate moral superiority" / "blah, blah, blah" to the rest of the world. The difference in this case is that we "should" cut down on the hypocritical use by our worsers (definitely not our betters).
Bunk.
Call me when the rest of the world, particularly China, India, Russia start on those sacrifices.
I am not saying that we shouldn't change but, as Clarke so well pointed out, our little drop in the bucket is a great big fat nothing. So, as I say, call me when China et al have gotten religion. And not before.
I think "call me when the rest of the world has taken serious action on this issue" is a perfectly reasonable position, as long as you're also comfortable with Canada definitionally not being in a leadership role internationally, and not receiving the privileges and respect that come with a leadership role.
Clarke, Canada has demonstrated endlessly it's inability to lead domestically never mind internationally. The Face Painter has done nothing but generate derision internationally from his hectoring, lecturing, costume wearing and holier than thou attitude. It will take decades for Canada to be taken seriously again and some real humility in the interim is important.
Would you like Canada to try? Because your comments in this thread suggest you're more comfortable being led than leading.
Nossir!
Our recent history is one of being led by ignorant, performative buffoons who don't care at all about the damned populace of Canada but only in their own vanity and appearance.
Therefore, why in the hell should I trust any politician or pseudo leader when s/he spouts off on this topic? Their record shows that they have earned no trust and much scorn.
Allowing other countries to experiment and then we selecting the methods that seem appropriate to our circumstances seems to me much better. We have already done the experimenting and have shown much that doesn't work - almost everything, at least the way that our worsers have arranged things.
But what’s in it for Canada to be in a leadership role globally when it comes to emissions? Are you trying to say that self-sacrifice while China laughs at us will somehow compensate for our free-riding on the United States and other military allies?
Do you think there's an inherent virtue to be found in taking a leadership role on a serious problem? If not, I think it's a perfectly rational position for you to hold that we should be part of the problem until forced by better human beings to act, or until they solve our problems for us.
I don't personally want that reputation, or the consequences that typically go with it.
Canada's capability to lead diminishes by the day with its shrinking per capita GDP and protected economy that produces little innovation. Righteousness is not leadership.
A different comment: interesting points occasionally well rebutted in the comments section but, for God’s sake, remember “KISS” (Keep it simple stupid) when writing. Your writing is too cute. I prefer good writing over this trying-to-impress-with-your-wit writing.
I will never stop trying to impress you with my wit, Richard. That's a house guarantee.
Good article, thank you. To be honest, I thought immediately of the climate crisis conferences held. The huge numbers of private jets to ferry all those wealthy individuals who claim to worry about the climate, truly is hypocrisy at its best
Have they never heard of passenger jets? And if they don’t all have a first class section, surely sitting with the peasants it a laudable sacrifice, right? And of course, don’t get me started on DAVOS…
Given that climate adaptation is more certain to produce intended results, the costs will be born through user pay: higher housing prices to cover more stringent building codes, higher fuel taxes for more resiliant roads, higher transit fares, higher utility rates etc.
Even if so-called "climate action" were to actually be effective, adaptation is inevitable. The full effects of increased atmospheric CO2 from historical emissions have yet to be realized. Nature would take thousands of years if not longer to return atmospheric CO2 to pre-industrial levels. Most important, the technologies to support "climate action" do not exist.
I agree that adaptation is going to play a major role in how we handle global warming. I think it's a legitimate concern that if we keep dumping carbon into the atmosphere at a breakneck rate, we might not be able to adapt sufficiently to establish a comfortable equilibrium.
Some belt-tightening is, I think, probably part of the solution, but it can't be the entire solution.