Here’s the video of my appearance on CH News last Tuesday evening with Lorrie Goldstein from the Toronto Sun, debating the role Canada is playing in Bali. (As in, we don’t even seem to agree on the reality of what Canada is doing and saying, let alone if their actions are positive or not.)
You’ll note that Lorrie repeatedly claims that “no one” is saying that all countries should reduce their emissions by the same percentage on the same timeline. I guess he hadn’t seen this news story before we went to air (which is convenient, since otherwise he would have had to admit he disagrees with the government):
A Canadian environmental group says leaked federal document shows Canadian negotiators in Bali are under explicit instruction to undermine a fundamental principle of the Kyoto Protocol.
Climate Action Network Canada, an alliance of environmental groups, says the move is guaranteed to derail momentum as the Bali negotiations enter their critical final week.
“The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations,†the alliance said in an e-mail to The Canadian Press.
You’ll also note that Lorrie agrees with me at the end of the video when I say that the test of success in Bali will be whether or not countries agree to the level of reductions that the science tells us is necessary. Again, it turns out that Lorrie disagrees with the Conservative government on this point. Yesterday, John Baird reiterated that his government will not support a reduction in emissions greater than 20% from today, which doesn’t even come close to our modest Kyoto commitment, let alone the levels the IPCC and others say are necessary to avert massive climate destabilization.
Of course I agree that “every country must be part of the solution.” No one’s arguing against that. But soundbites notwithstanding, that’s very different from the strategy being pursued by the Conservatives. I remain convinced that the prime minister and the minister of the environment have no understanding of the science of climate change or its grave implications (and, conversely, its opportunities). If they did, their actions would be monstrous. And I’d much rather think of my prime minister as an ignoramus than a monster.
Well done!
“I’d much rather think of my prime minister as an ignoramus than a monster.”
It is not about the prime minister but more about the Conservative party. A rogue Elizabeth May would be dumped by the greens in short order. There is no dumping of the prime minister so most Conservatives must be ignoramus’ … or monsters.
You did a good job.
I think the Goldstein spoke at least twice as long as Chris, kept using the same arguments of ‘complexity of the issue’ over and over again with frequent, FREQUENT interruptions to try to debate his way into winning Chris’s arguments, except for the one about the negotiation notes- he is possibly one of the worst commentators I’ve seen in a long time…
Bravo Chris for upholding that constructively till the end
the instructions are coming directly from the top – a pm that does not even believe in climate change, an environment minister that has refused to be briefed on the science of it – its the reform party, not the Conservative party, a govnt that spends more money on polls than any other in history …..
Chris,
You are articulate and a good representative for your cause. However, I would reiterate the point I have been raising on your blog and elsewhere as your first commenter will attest to.
Be very cautious about getting caught up in partisan rhetoric or spin. And check your sources directly – be cautious about accepting and repeating the spin put out by special interest groups. (commonly referred to as “spin and echo chamber”)
Case in point. You quote a G&M article, which quotes a press release from Climate Action Network Canada, which purports to report on a “leaked” federal document.
Here is the actual document, provided by the Climate Action Network Canada on their site (following links in their Dec 13th news letter)
http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/news/2007/post-2012-document.pdf
So, perhaps you might consider reviewing the document and point out where it suggests, as you say “all countries should reduce their emissions by the same percentage on the same timeline” or as the CANC says: “The leaked instructions direct Canadian negotiators to demand that poorer nations accept the same binding absolute emission reduction targets as developed nations,â€
I find the “leaked” document resonable, and certainly does not contain what you or the CANC suggests it contains.
Care to comment? Or are you just a victim of accepting and repeating hearsay spin without question?
Lorrie Goldstein is an ass. He writes for the Toronto Sun for heavensake. Just another angry old white male, stubbornly clinging to his inconsistent conservative ideologies like they were all he has. The saddest part is that he actually considers himself a good journalist.
Lorrie is comparing apple and oranges.
Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases.
Per capita emissions is a fair way of measuring emission levels. More population leads to more pollution.
To not compare emissions on a per capita basis is hypocritical at best.
Stick to the sports section Lorrie. You obviously don’t know your science… or your math. That kind of ignorance is putting the ability of my generation to live on this planet on the line.
Lorrie is comparing apple and oranges.
Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases.
It would be helpful in this debate if Julien Lamarche and other like minded individuals knew what they were talking about without mindlessly repeating activist spin they have been fed for so long.
Look, if the average Canadian emits 20 tonnes/yr of CO2 and the goal is to reduce it by 50% to 10 tonnes/yr, THAT IS AN INTENSITY TARGET.
If the average Ontario resident consumes 1,000 kw-hr/month, and the goal is to reduce it 40% to be more in line with what the average Californian consumes THAT IS AN INTENSITY TARGET.
If you pay $300/month to heat your house, and you want to reduce that 50% to $150/month through insulation, retrofitting windows etc. THAT IS AN INTENSITY TARGET.
Geez you guys. Understand what the hell you are talking about before making such uninformed comments!
Dot, there is NO one-size-fits-all to climate change, we need all three aspects of:
– conservation,
– increased efficiency
– technology
Just like a mixed market over a pure ‘capitalist’ market works best, too bad our dear PM does not recognize that, intensity targets WILL NOT and HAS NOT EVER cut total emissions
I highly do not regard: “comparing apple and oranges” or “Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases” as ‘activist spin’ — it sounds more like your political spin, it may hit you with cold reality that these activists are voters, they’re workers and they’re taxpayers
the rest of the world must have it wrong when they use the 1990 baseline and hard caps instead of intensity targets
sometimes “a cigar is just a cigar”
so “Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases” means just that. Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases.
Kar3n
You know not of what you speak.
Here’s an example – let’s be honest and take the oilsands which is where this “intensity targets don’t reduce emissions ” rhetoric originated in Canada.
If the production in barrels/day goes up by 50%, but the intensity of CO2 consumed/barrel goes down by 60%, then the total CO2 produced DOES GO DOWN.
You can’t make such sweeping general statements as you and others do.
If the current CAFE standards for automobiles is 25 mpg, and you advocate increasing this to 35 mpg through regulation, that is also AN INTENSITY TARGET. Now, if this 40% increase in efficiency occurs with less than 40% increase in total miles driven, this is also a net cut in emissions!
The ABSOLUTE statements you and others make confirm to me you don’t really understand what you are talking about.
“The greenhouse emissions requirements aren’t hard caps, as environmentalists have been demanding, but are dubbed “intensity-based” targets, meaning they are based on units of production.
Intensity targets mean companies must reduce the amount of emissions used to produce their individual products, but they don’t have to reduce emissions overall. If a company ramps up its production, its total emissions can rise.”
— http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/04/26/emissions-targets.html
…. yes Dot, understand what you are talking about.
Julien,
An intensity target of 15% reduction in GHG emissions while forecasting a 15% increase in production is exactly the same thing as a hard cap.
You can legitimately claim that the intensity targets chosen by a particular plan does lead to increasing overall GHG production, if the targets are not sufficiently robust.
But you cannot make a general statement that intensity targets do not result in overall reduction. It depends upon the target and the future rate of production.
You guys will not be able to reach a concensus or move the goal posts in the direction you want to unless you speak the same language. You are getting caught up in semantics, taking what appears to be diametrically opposite positions, while it appears to me you are saying the same thing – just a difference in rate or degree.
Get beyond it.
intensity targets don’t reduce TOTAL emissions, past studies have empirically proven that intensity targets (which are basically efficiency targets) have caused consumption to increase because it has decreased costs
it is a general statement because it is true.
you can twist the facts and make up examples that can suit your interest just like anyone else can, I have studied intensity targets, so don’t throw generalized comments about other people’s intelligence around either
so the rest of the civilized world must have it wrong
Ok Kar3n,
Here’s what you earlier wrote was required:
– conservation,
– increased efficiency
– technology
Now, those can all be re-written as intensity targets. Give me an example of a program that you suggest is req’d and I’ll rewrite it as an intensity target. Since you’ve studied them, and I’ve actually worked in related fields at a professional level, this may prove interesting.
You are getting caught up in semantics,
… oh, and policy and law is not about semantics?
intensity targets can only amount to total cut if the total production does not increase, but the Harper govnt knows full well that, that will not happen – especially in consideration to the tar sands oil production
Conservation can and cannot amount to an intensity target, it isn’t when the conservation of energy is the same for an intensive-energy user and a non-intensive user. It is when the amount you conserve is measured to a specific unit of energy you use.
“you can twist the facts and make up examples that can suit your interest just like anyone else can”
your request is one of insult to Chris’s blog, to me and possibly to your own dubious assumption that I will accept it.
This will be my last comment on your off topic remark.
I find this whole argument rather absurd and misleading. Rather than argue about intensity (and for the record, most people referring to intensity are referring to emissions per unit of economic output, not per capita) let’s take a look at the hard numbers.
Canada’s GHG’s in 1990 amounted to 600 Megatonees.
Scientists agree that we need a global target of 50% by 2050.
In any sense of fairness, in terms of per capita emissions worldwide, Canada would have to achieve about 80% by 2050.
Therefore, use whatever words you like so long as our actual emissions in 2050 is targeted to be at or below 120 Megatonnes.
Production may rise or fall. Population may grow or not. We may have war, peace, recession or booming economic times. None of it matters to the fact that our cap is 120 Megatonnes in 2050.
Intensity? It’s just a word.
Yes, China is building a whole bunch of coal plants. Remember why? They have a manufacturing sector with exponential growth, primarily to serve G8 markets.
This is why the Kyoto Protocol has a Clean Development Mechanism. If the G8 nations provided the expertise and financing to build renewable energy capacity in China (no, not Three Gorges), we can count those emission reductions towards our own targets. It’s only fair.
Rather than argue about intensity (and for the record, most people referring to intensity are referring to emissions per unit of economic output, not per capita) let’s take a look at the hard numbers.
Glenn, within Canada, intensity targets are generally NOT per unit of economic output. (such as CO2 emissions/GDP) This is another misunderstanding, that economists like Jeff Rubin of CIBC and others incorrectly repeat.
Take the oilsands as an example to illustrate the difference.
You could have CO2/barrel produced, or you could have CO2/$GDP of production. In the second case, if the price of oil went up, the ratio would drop, and therefore it would appear that progress is being made, when in fact it is not.
As I understand, proposals within Canada deal with CO2/unit of production or activity, not CO2 /GDP which I believe the Bush administration had earlier used to snooker the American people.
“Intensity? It’s just a word.” is exactly the point I am trying to make. “Intensity targets” can achieve the desired outome, and should not be rejected outright simply because someone uses the term.
The devil is in the details.
Dot, I get your point about the difference in definitions for intensity targets. This is similar to using a different base year to confuse voters, but I digress.
My point is that regardless of which definition you use (CO2/$GDP or CO2/barrel or CO2/widget) it is still possible to have increasing CO2 emissions despite decreasing intensity if production increases quickly.
We need to get beyond this and understand that only absolute emissions matter. Intensity targets MAY result in decreasing emissions, but not necessarily.
As an example, let’s look at the tar sands.
We are currently mining 1 million barrels per day with a CO2 emission intensity of 0.12 tonnes per barrel. Total = 120,000 tonnes per day.
If we set an intensity reduction of 25% by 2020 (ie a target if 0.09 tonnes per barrel) and production is allowed to double in that time to 2 million barrels per day, we will have a total emission output of 180,000 tonnes per day.
Not acceptable.
If we go forward with intensity targets, and we know what our ABSOLUTE targets are, then we also need to cap production growth over that time frame to account for the other variable.
In short, it’s the combination of intensity and production growth that count, since the absolute results are all that matters.
Therefore, my point stands. Use whatever language and definitions you want, but our target is to be under 120 megatonnes in 2050. No new math you throw at this changes the final number.
Glenn,
You are saying exactly the same thing I have said earlier before you started commenting.
I wrote:
You can legitimately claim that the intensity targets chosen by a particular plan does [not] lead to increasing overall GHG production, if the targets are not sufficiently robust.
But you cannot make a general statement that intensity targets do not result in overall reduction. It depends upon the target and the future rate of production.
You end with: “No new math you throw at this changes the final number.”
I have not thrown new math at this, nor have I defended or criticised any specific plan. What I have done, however, is criticize individuals, like an earlier one, who made a far reaching claim that: “Intensity based targets don’t reduce green house gases.”
Putting hard caps on specific industry segments is one approach. So are intensity targets. They are not the only. Similar results could be achieved by putting in a robust enough carbon tax that would either slow down growth or result in some companies purchasing offsets, or investing in technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration.
The ends justify the means. And there is more than one way to achieve the ends.
I will give you a qualified agreement, so long as intensity targets are (as you say) sufficiently robust AND accompanied by limits to production, so that the final results are on target.
My concern is that certain people (like John Baird, for example) who talk about intensity targets do so without any discussion on corresponding limits on production, so that any plan along these lines will not guarantee decreasing emissions.
In fact, our government continues to promote growth in this industry with subsidies.
If our target for emissions is fixed, as I contend that it is, then any intensity based plan that does not also specify a corresponding production limit is simply not acceptable.
If Minister Baird came out with a plan that says our production is slated to double (1M to 2M bpd) over 20 years, while we want a 25% emissions cut, so therefore we need a 45% intensity reduction, then I might be able to give some support to that plan. (The qualifiers to my support are that we limit growth to 2Mbpd and that and that the 45% is for the whole amount, not just marginal.)
If the ends justify the means, I’m still waiting for our current government to present the means to achieve the ends we need. So far they’re not even close.
My concern is that certain people (like John Baird, for example) who talk about intensity targets do so without any discussion on corresponding limits on production, so that any plan along these lines will not guarantee decreasing emissions.
The problem is one of jurisdiction. As the owner of the resource, Alberta determines the rate of development of the oilsands through selling land leases and issuing permits. The Feds, for all intents and purposes, does not set production levels.
There is some truth to that, though the Feds can have a major impact regardless.
But even so, you’ve made my point. If the Feds cannot control production, how can they promote a policy based on intensity? They would be missing half the equation.
My opinion? Any policy to address GHG reducton in Canada has to be in concert with Albertans. Currently, Alberta represents 40% of GHG production in Canada. And with the projected growth in oilsands production, the percentage could indeed increase. You can’t simply impose it from Ottawa.
The leverage, in my opinion, will come from the U.S. customers of oilsands crude. States like California are enacting policies where the carbon content used in production of the energy delivered is taken into consideration through taxes/penalties etc. So, crude from the oilsands delivered to California’s refineries will be penalized relative to say conventional crude from Texas.
This policy is being rolled out to other states, following California’s lead, as they have in so many other areas. If “security” of energy supply to the US is driving the rate of oilsands development, then conceivably there is room to pay a premium for such security through carbon taxes, forced sequestration etc.
The US customers will have far more impact on Alberta’s efforts to curtail GHG emissions, second to the provincial gov’ts efforts (and there is promising movement on the latter). The Feds? They could have some impact, but I have my doubts about how effective without getting the Alberta prov gov’t on board.
NGOs like the D.C. based NRDC have been working with state gov’ts on this issue (oilsands production) with some success, California being the prime example.
If the Feds cannot control production, how can they promote a policy based on intensity? They would be missing half the equation.
Same could be said about GP policies on a moratorium on oilsands development. Provincial matter – it’s far more complex that these simple solutions.