Canada's new environment minister is one Rona Ambrose. Minister Ambrose is labouring under the impression that there is such a thing as a "realistic" emissions target for climate change mitigation - ie. we're not prepared to put our money where our mouth is to meet the commitments we agreed to under Kyoto (but hey! that was a Liberal government! wich Ms. Ambrose has no affiliation with! The prospect of Kyoto dying at the Conservatives hands is only too real), and expecting us to make any sorts of compromises in that direction is unrealistic. Thus, we just scale back our expectations! Isn't this how mediocrity is bred in the first place, by lowering the bar until we all make it because none of us will even fit under it?
Unfortunately, the rhetoric of the nay-sayers is getting rather silly. Consider, if you will, this gem of a quote from the British Telegraph (online):
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote."'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.
"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."
Well. Ok then. "60 leading scientists" say that, among them five Brits. Too bad the story doesn't tell me who these "leading" scientists are. See, I do know a little bit about the climate change community. I know for instance, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is comprised of a whole lot more than 60 leading scientists, and that they've done substantially more than write a letter. Working Group I (of three) is all about the science of climate change. Have a look at the list of co-ordinating lead authors, lead authors and review editors associated with WG I (and each chapter has a range of contributing authors, and is committed to reviewing all the relevant, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that applies). They're currently very busy putting together a draft of the Fourth Assessment Report. And guess what?
There's pretty strong consensus among these scientists that anthropogenic climate change is an issue. Consider, for example, Schneider and Lane's quick summary of the issue, including this point:
In the past few centuries, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30 percent. The reality of this increase is undeniable, and virtually all climatologists agree that the cause is human activity, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
(Schneider and Lane, by the way, cite their sources).
So.
Me, I don't like to get hung up on the mitigation issue. It's incredibly important, it's not the only strategy available to us, it's not either/or. "I will be vigorously defending the taxpayers of Canada and Canada's position about approaching climate change with a realistic and effective plan," Ms. Ambrose tells us. That's nice. I'd rather you defended the environment, Madam Minister of the Environment.
I'll give you a much more realistic quote:
"We can't ignore mounting scientific evidence on important issues such as climate change. The science may be provisional. All science is provisional. But if you see a risk you have to take precautionary action just as you would in any other aspect of business." -- Sir John Browne
Sir Browne is the Chairman of British Petroleum. A company that even the Conservatives of the world must acknowedge has done well: as his CNN (now there's conservative) Profile states, John Browne "has taken BP from near obscurity to the world's No. 3 oil company, buying competitors like Amoco and inspiring other execs to copy his formula for blending environmentalism and strong earnings".
That's it, isn't it. It's not business vs. the environment, taxpayers vs. meeting commitments. Flipside of the same coin, no? How will it not lead to economic impact if climate changes. You could consult some of the IPCC Working Group II documents to get at some impacts, adaptations and vulnerabilities.
The US media was pretty quick to say increased tropical storm frequency has nothing to do with global climate change last August as New Orleans was flooding, oh no. Even though, you know, ocean surface temperature. These so-called "freak" climatic events are part and parcel of this. Wake up and smell the greenhouse gases.
And yet, our happy taxpayer representing government is treating the world like a choose your own adventure novel.
"We're very depressed," said John Bennett, senior policy adviser to the Sierra Club of Canada, a prominent environmental group.
What he said.
Posted by Johanna at April 12, 2006 04:54 PM