Anything BUT "hot air"

Ever since the issue of climate change burst onto the scene in recent years, there have been a deluge of books tackling the subject, from various perspectives, often with overheated rhetoric about the plight of what our actions towards the planet (and its subsequent effects on our daily lives) (See Heat by George Monbiot, or Tim Flannery's "The Weather Makers") or the almost-complete denial of the issue being a big deal (*cough* Bjorn Lomborg, *cough).

Since climate change is a global phenomenon, these books take a global perspective. There wasn't really a book that analyzed it from a Canadian perspective.

Until now. I've just finished reading Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Daccard and Nic Rivers' "Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge" and I rarely say this, but this book should be required reading for everyone who acknowledges that climate change is a major issue in Canada. Here's why.

If you're a climate change denier, this book's won't convince you otherwise. It assumes climate change is happening and briefly summarizes the issue and science in one or two brief chapters so it wouldn't be too convincing. Its focus isn't the science, but the complete failure by our successive governments to be serious and committed to dealing with this problem, starting with the Mulroney government and ending right up to the Harper government.

It's saved its most scathing critique for the Chretien/Martin era, when they committed Canada (through Kyoto) to a difficult target, and then only set up voluntary measures, subsidies and as he said it on this morning's CBC show, "exhortations" as means to get Canadian involved. We all know how well THAT turned out. Instead of getting us 6% below 1990 levels, we were ABOVE by 25-26%.

And while they're less mean on Harper, they show how he and his government were completely blindsided the first time around (when Rona Ambrose, then Environment minister, became the sacrificial lamb) because throughout the 90s, they never believed in climate change anyhow. Smelling the political air changing, they quickly cobbled together a plan that was only slightly better than Dion's plan, with one major difference: The implementation of a mandatory emissions cap.

Their book is therefore bi-partisan in its critique, at the Liberals for failing to do ANYTHING, and at the conservatives for failing to believe in the issue. They also take swipes at the environmental movement, who've dogmatically regarded the Kyoto Protocol as the planet's sole saviour, and the Canadian business community, for being so antagonistic about dealing with this issue.

And this is where environmentalists might disagree with them but I agree wholeheartedly. KYOTO'S DEAD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE THE TARGETS IF OUR LIVES DEPENDED ON IT. MOVE ON.

While this doesn't mean that Harper should join that ludicrous "Asia-Pacific Partnership" (which by the way, has no compulsory components whatsoever, so voluntary targets will work SO WELL in Canada, as we've seen...), it does mean that our government (on both sides of the House) need to be adults and acknowledge that they've failed the public and the world community on this issue and that amends need to be made.

Their solutions are straightforward: Carbon tax, emissions cap, tradeable certificates, and carbon sequestration. Most of these would be compulsory, market-driven mechanisms aimed mainly at heavy emitters and energy producers. This does not mean they'll target Alberta (as Albertans are SO scared about that), as they show how different components can alleviate concerns but also reflect the fact that the Oil and Gas's newfound wealth has a cost that should be fairly paid. The carbon tax and the tradeable certificates would be the two that would really affect the individual.

None of these mechanisms will be very palatable, if only because the Canadian public hasn't completely accepted that our current lifestyle has a emissions cost that has yet to be paid. Their solutions are the first steps towards everyone accepting this cost.

While many people may not like using policy to change behaviour, we've seen that we won't do it voluntarily. We're all a part of this problem. It's time we be forced to do something about it.


P.S. Amazon customers are SO OFF BASE in that those who've bought "Hot Air" are buying books that pretty much deny the existence of climate change. Boy are they going to be disapointed. If anyone ACTUALLY wants to read a good book on the science of climate change, read Elizabeth Kolbert's "Field Notes From a Catastrophe".

Thinking

It's been one of those weeks where I've been nicely distracted from the thought of my thesis defense by some big ideas being discussed. Like my moniker suggests, I've been absorbing tons of information but very little's been trickling out. Still, I've quite enjoyed being absorbed in my thinking through its implications.

1) At my friend's birthday dinner, there was a brief discussion about the wonders of Canada and the myth (in the grand story sense, not the inaccuracy that it's come to mean) of our national healthcare. This dovetailed into Andrew's post about the long wait for treatment for his friend's ACL,how unfortunate the current circumstances have dictated the long wait and what is to be done. Are we forever burdened with 'equal access to crap' as some claimed in the comments, or is it better than we think it is?

It seems like private delivery of some medical services seem not completely unreasonable, as long as those parameters are strictly defined. If however, some feel that private delivery shouldn't be based on 'medical necessity', then what exactly? Surely, a compromise can be achieved that doesn't completely undermine the public system. This also assumes that those resources freed by private delivery could be redirected elsewhere to other parts of the public system, instead of just having it shrivel away. Part of the problem is the fact that small-scale trials are nearly impossible. You can't create an industry only to destroy it completely if it doesn't meet your political objectives. So what are our options for testing private delivery? Thought exercises just aren't that convincing.

2) At the same time, I've been reading Reed Scowen's "Time to Say Goodbye", whose thesis is that Quebec and Canada should separate (for reasons explained in the book) and Canada can be the better for it. I'm only 2/3 of the way through, but I was struck by this line,

"Canada is a country of minorities"

and what he defines Canada to be:

"...we are in a state of mutual allegiance with everyone who lives within Canada's borders, not with the objective of achieving a common substantive purpose, but through loyalty to the structure that provide us with our freedom and its corresponding responsibilities, to 'the authority of certain conditions in acting'."

"A deeply felt commitment of mutual allegiance with all Canadians; a commitment to parliamentary rule; the search for fairness in our respect for basic human rights and freedoms; respect for local and regional values and priorities; above all, a respect for the Constitution itself - that's what you get from being Canadian. This is our common culture, our civil association. It may not satisfy my definition of what it is to be Canadian. Nor yours. It does not make us unique in this world. But that's all that we all agree on. And it's enough."

My first thought was, "is that enough to bind us all together"? My second thought, of course, was, "let's see Molson try to sell that.

3) The 'country of minorities' made me think of the Ontario's citizen's assembly's referendum to the Ontario public on whether to change our electoral system from a first-past-the-post to a mixed-member proportional representation (PR) system. As a symbolic thing, it seems appropriate to have a country of minorities governed by minority-based coalitions. There are much better arguments for and against switching to any type of PR, of course. I just wasn't thinking about them at the time. I have no idea how it'll turn out, and while I know what the pundits like, I'm eager to see what Ontarians' views are.

4) Finally, The provincial Liberal government has decided to follow New Jersey, Australia and others to ban 'inefficient' light bulbs by 2010. Some think this is a good idea; others, not so much. While it seems quite heavy-handed to me, I'm wondering whether energy consumption (among other things) can be decreased without such government intervention or drastic environmental degradation?

First (substantive) snowfall!

Hopefully it will last, but I doubt it with the weather we've been having.

Apparently, third place is where you want to be.

On a strange saturday night, two candidates came from third place to win their respective leaderships.

First, Ed Stelmach came from behind to defeat Jim Dinning and Ted Morton to become the premier-designate of Alberta and the leader of the provincial Progressive Conservatives.

I've read very little of Stelmach, so I'll have to start learning more into Alberta politics if I end up working in Calgary. I probably won't agree with many of his positions, but if I can respect his principles and he's less reactionary than Ralph Klein, then I can live with that.

Second, Stephane Dion came from behind to beat the two frontrunners of the Federal Liberal Party, Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, respectively, and become the Leader of the Opposition.

As for Dion, he's pledged his platform around the concept of Sustainable Development, except he actually seems to know what he's talking about when he uses the three pillars: economic, social and environmental sustainability. If he can actually form a coherent platform from this, using help from the likes of Gerard Kennedy and Martha Hall Findlay, it might actually make me consider voting for the Liberals in future elections.

He has two weaknesses that I care about: his failure to do accomplish anything with Kyoto when he was in government. And his lack of a sound foreign policy strategy. I hope he can correct these two flaws (well, the former really requires an admittance of failure while the latter will be a bit tougher...)

Either way, the surge in support for the Green Party in the London by-election and the election of Dion has sparked a small flame of optimism in me about the possible future direction in Canadian politics.