Canada's leadership on the environment: dwindling or non-existent?

Among many of the articles I have read of late, along with hearing from prominent Canadian scientists and environmentalists, the state of Canada's commitment to the environment is eroding very quickly. An article from the Guardian provides some cogent facts:

-Canada's Stephen Harper government is spending more than 60 billion dollars on new military jets and warships while slashing more than 200 million dollars in funding for research and monitoring of the environment

-Some 776 Environment Canada employees have been told their jobs may be terminated. That's 11 percent of the current staff in a government department that has been a favourite target for budget and staff cuts for the past decade, to the point where it was barely functional

-For 34 years, the non-partisan Canadian Environmental Network (RCEN) successfully walked the line between the needs of government and the needs of its more than 650 civil society members. But on Oct. 13, after waiting more than six months for its expected 536,000 dollars in annual funding, the group was informed by letter it would not be coming. Ever.

-If there is a need to reduce the federal budget deficit, why is Canada continuing to give the oil and gas industry 1.4 billion dollars (1.3 billion U.S.) in subsidies every year?

My intention here is not to solely seek out facts that make the federal government look bad; but instead, raise some issues that I feel are quite salient. Making cuts to environmental and climatic research in 2011 sounds absurd to me. Moreover, the continuation of subsidizing an industry -- highly destructive to ecosystems and water supplies to say the least -- will lead Canada to become the world's most heavy GHG emitter. Sounds more backwards than economically productive to me.

Keystone XL Pipeline and its discontents

From the New York Times' Green blog:

"Thousands turned out on Sunday at the White House for a protest against the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry oil from the tar sands of Alberta some 1,700 miles to Texas. Opponents say that oil sands processing contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and that the pipeline itself could threaten a precious aquifer".

More here from the Winnipeg Free Press.

NOx standards on new vehicles in LA

In the summer I listened to an EconTalk podcast with Prof. Robert Frank of Cornell University. The podcast can be listened to here. Consider this statement from Robert Frank:

"In Los Angeles, in order to meet the air quality targets they were shooting for, they had to adopt stringent nitrous oxide (NOx) requirements on new vehicles because they were unwilling to have old vehicles comply with the pollution requirements--mostly low income drivers drive the old vehicles and it was thought to be too onerous to require them to comply. So we ratcheted up the requirements on the new cars to meet the target and it was about $900 a pound to get all the NOx out of new cars--all the low-hanging fruit had already been picked in that domain--so for the inevitable democratic impulse to shield poor people from hardship we ended up spending $900/pound to get NOx out of the air, whereas if we had forced older vehicles to come into compliance we could have gotten that same pound out for $10. Way cheaper over all if we'd taxed wealthy motorists in California a little bit extra and given a voucher to poor motorists, who would turn in their old cars and buy a 5-year old Toyota Corolla or some other compliant vehicle."

The example above relates to the content of a class I am taking called "Environmental Policy Analysis".We talked today about pollution standards and how they could be inherently more inefficient in terms of social and economic costs. If we wanted to improve air quality for everyone (using the LA example), then it would be more sensible to tax the wealthier motorists so that enough money could be re-distributed to lower-income drivers to purchases cars that are less intensive in terms of NOx. This would be a much less expensive way to alleviate pernicious pollutants that cause respiratory illnesses. Standards are helpful but when considering overall economic costs, there are more efficient and equitable ways of doing it. Yes, this is also a political game, but political games such as these ones can make everyone worse off.

More to come on risk management, environmental policy and how to improve decisions that make everyone better off.

U.S. partisan divide over the causes of global warming

Stories in 2011 concering the debate about what causes global warming are always supremely entertaining for me. Check out this story from the Environmental Economics blog:

"37% of Democrats believe global warming is the result primarily of human action, while only 14% of Republicans believe this. Conversely, 43% of Republicans believe global warming is the result of natural causes, up from 35% in 2010. Self-identified Tea Party members display still more certainty (49%) that global warming is caused by natural events".

More here.

Is the G.O.P. Anti-Science?

In a recent Op-Ed in the NY Times', columnist Paul Krugman argues that the Grand Old Party (GOP for short and the nickname for the Republican Party in the U.S.) is becoming anti-science. Paul cites just a few examples of Republican party contender nominees who still question topics such as evolution and climate change:

"Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”

The article proceeds with Paul's worries and sentiments about the prospect of having a U.S. president -- or simply a U.S. party-- that is aggressively anti-science and anti-knowledge. This is concerning to say the least, particularly because of the emerging consensus about human induced climate change and the general importance of scientific research that informs public policy. Dismissing scientific research such as climate change or worse yet, cutting funding to it, is not only backwards but frightening!

Read the full article here.

A Case of Baptists and bootleggers?

From the Environmental Economics blog:

"A major environmental group has teamed up with a conservative think tank and others to urge the congressional supercommittee to slash oil, coal, ethanol and nuclear subsidies — a move the groups say would save $380 billion over the next five years.

Friends of the Earth, the Heartland Institute, Public Citizen and Taxpayers for Common Sense released a report Wednesday, dubbed “Green Scissors 2011,” that casts the cuts as benefiting both the environment and the economy.

“While all four groups have different missions, histories, goals and ideas about the role of government, we all agree that we can begin to overcome our nation’s budgetary and environmental woes by tackling spending that is not only wasteful but environmentally harmful,” the groups said in the report."

An Oil Sands Pipeline and Obama's Decision...

One of North America's largest and most lucrative petroleum pipeline projects is awaiting the decision from the USA's commander-in-chief. As outlined by the Globe & Mail, TransCanada Corp's Keystone XL pipeline would extend from oil sands-rich Alberta to the gulf coast of Texas, a hub of the American oil industry. Opponents charge that the project will only increase GHG emissions, put entire ecosystems and water sources at risk, and put another significant damper on an already struggling yet budding renewable energy industry.

Image: Pipelines International

The developers are ready to go and with little protest coming from governments north of the border, the project is only awaiting the key approvals from various US authorities. The State Department is expected to release its report over the next couple of months, but the growing consensus is that the report will be supportive of the project.

And so, those of the environmentalist ilk will have to hope that their last line of defence will come through in the clutch: Obama. The Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency have grounds to appeal any State Department decision to the president himself, ultimately leaving Obama to approve the proposal, reject it or even slow it down by requiring further study. This has many environmentalists feeling very optimistic. But what they do not know is which Obama will come to the table. Will it be the 2008 campaigning Obama that promised to create a green economy, refuse imports of 'dirty oil' and even considered reopening NAFTA? Or will they get the more centrist Obama that, primarily under political duress, has had to steer many of his policies to the right in order to keep everyone happy?

The environmental impact of right-wing populism...

Incumbents beware. Governments around the world are shaking in their boots as elections, and the prospect of finding new work, loom ever closer. As is common with any recession, incumbent governments take much of the heat. No matter what else is going on in the world, if the economy is performing poorly and unemployment rears its ugly head, people focus on it and only it. And the government is at fault if it isn't fixed soon.

But this recession has been among the worst in recent history. In some places, its impact has been the worst since the Great Depression. The unfortunate reality of a recession is that with less money being made, the government makes less income through taxes. And with less tax income comes a smaller provision of services. Budget gets tight, programs get cut and ties get severed. Any rational thinker knows that if you want to maintain public services -- which are even more important in less prosperous times -- you need to raise taxes. But from a political standpoint, there are few more lethal land mines.

Threats of necessary tax raises have given rise to populism. In the United States, no recent populist movement has been stronger and more influential than the right-wing Tea Party Movement. Among many other things, the Tea Party folks are staunchly opposed to taxes, government regulation and almost all forms of government involvement in the daily lives of people. The November midterms could throw some Tea Party-backed Republicans -- having beaten out other established Republicans in the primaries because they weren't right wing enough -- into Congress.

This could spell disaster for environmental policy in the world's most powerful superpower. The Tea Party Movement -- and I generalize here -- still questions the impact and existence of climate change. Putting cap-and-trade or carbon tax policies into place are a no no, as is banning or reducing the level of offshore drilling, despite the BP disaster earlier this summer. Subsidies for renewable energy or public transit that might cost taxpayers money? Forget it.

Sadly, in order for most environmental programs and projects to be successful, they need to be funded out of the public purse. Privately-funded 'green' projects can be successful, but some tend to be tied to 'greenwashing' or green marketing while delivering very few actual results. Free market proponents argue that if the environment is as important as we claim, the market will reflect it by providing value to it. Well, that isn't quite how it works. And you can be sure it won't happen if Tea Party folks get into Washington.

Even closer to home in Canada, the Toronto mayoral race has given way to populism so strong, many are left dumbfounded. Rob Ford, a controversial City Councillor -- whose colourful history includes rants fuelled by homophobia and racism, drug charges and even getting ejected from a Toronto Maple Leafs game -- has taken everyone by surprise by leading the polls in the October race for leadership of Canada's flagship city. His 'regular guy' approach has attracted those who fear Toronto is becoming the playground of the elite. But if he comes to power, the city's environmentally progressive reputation -- along with much of its progressive reputation -- could fall by the wayside.

Rob Ford believes bike lanes are stupid. Roads are for cars and cars only. Other 'green' programs could see a similar fate.

Dalton McGuinty, the Premier of Ontario, is facing some heat, too. While trying to manage an unprecedentedly large fiscal deficit and wrestling with Ontario's move to a 'have-not' province, his Liberal government has introduced a variety of progressive yet controversial programs, including full day Kindergarten and more relevant to this blog, the omnibus Green Energy Act. The GEA has put Ontario at the forefront of renewable energy policy, but not without a cost. Ratepayers will see higher electric bills and rural communities are protesting the unwelcome introduction of major wind and solar projects in their regions. This rural uprising is contributing to a resurgence of the province's Progressive Conservative Party, which has vowed to do its best to repeal many aspects of the GEA.

Populism is not always a danger for the environment. Indeed, environmental problems -- like other progressive social movements -- have the potential to contribute to a populist cause. But this time around it's not Martin Luther King Jr. or Rachel Carson leading a cause, it's Glenn Beck. This populism doesn't want the next JFK in the White House; it wants Sarah Palin.

Canada's national climate change policy takes another hit...

Just over a week ago, the momentous climate change bill sitting in the United States Senate was dropped. As The Economist put it, "the idea of a cap on America's emissions died with barely the bathos of a wimper." The already diluted bill had been sitting in the Senate for a few months but wasn't getting all that far. And the Democrats, already looking to be thumped during this November's midterm elections, aren't willing to spend whatever political capital they have left on another controversial bill.

So for now the Americans wait. Again. Will a national climate plan, as envisioned by Barack Obama or otherwise, ever come to fruition?

Sadly, with the news from our neighbours to the south, Canadians are left to ask themselves the same question.

Canada's national climate change policy up to this point has largely -- though not formally -- been tied to the United States. Whatever they do, we'll follow suit. When cap-and-trade was in vogue, it was cool here, too. But since little ever formalized in the US, next to nothing has progressed in Canada.

At least some action is being taken by subnational governments. A few weeks ago three provinces -- Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia -- and seven states -- California, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, Oregon, Utah and Montana -- released an international emissions trading plan set to begin in 2012. It is part of the Western Climate Initiative and although the plan is not outrageously ambitious -- 15% cut in emissions by 2020 at 2005 levels -- it is better than nothing. Other provinces and states are choosing to do their own thing and hopefully this will demonstrate that a coordinated, national effort is not necessary.

The Economist believes that there is some room for a carbon tax to join the fray in the US. The Environmental Protection Agency now has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, so it could, theoretically, impose a carbon tax, regardless of whether congress likes it or not. But that would be a bold move and one the Obama administration would have to tread carefully.

But say a national carbon tax is introduced in the United States. Would Canada follow in stride? If the current Conservative government is still in power, it is highly unlikely. After all, they defeated Stephane Dion's Liberals handily after lambasting the idea of a national carbon tax. With another government? Perhaps. Or maybe the federal government will be happy with the handful of provincial schemes.

In any case, the standstill in the United States won't help Canada battle climate change one bit. 

Keep a wary eye on 'Industry-Led' initiatives...

An environmental controversy is brewing in Manitoba. A new Eco-Fee is likely to be introduced on consumer products, specifically electronics. When you go to Best Buy to purchase your new flatscreen TV, you will be hit by an additional fee that could be upwards of $25.00. The fee will appear on your receipt below the subtotal, similarly to a tax.

But here's the thing. It isn't a tax. At least, not a government-issued tax. It is a fee imposed by industry.

Presently, much the recycling and disposal costs in Manitoba are covered by the provincial and municipal governments, funded through provincial and property taxes. But new rules will soon have industry footing their share of the bill, which happens to be most of it. And since companies can't grab from your property tax bill, they will be funding many of the costs by charging consumers a separate fee.

Having industry incur the costs of recycling and disposing of products it creates is a step in the right direction, but the Eco-Fee issue sparking in Manitoba is illustrative of a wrong turn that is all too frequent in environmental policymaking. Two parties hate regulation: industry and the government. Industry, of course, doesn't like the hassle and added costs of government interfering with its business. Government, commonly misperceived as control freaks, generally don't want the hassle and costs of policy creation, enforcement and monitoring. So when something needs to happen -- say, industry paying for disposal of their products -- a common policy takes form: the 'industry-led initiative'.

Such an initiative is generally brought about by a "Stewardship" association, which is basically a group of companies. They see the writing on the wall, and instead of accepting government regulations, they come up with their own plan; "we'll do it, just in our own way". It is usually less strict than regulations would be and are typically voluntary in nature. Both government and industry win out. The environment loses.

Many industry-led initiatives are great and get the job done. But in the case of eco-fees, it isn't the best method. We need only look at the debacle in Ontario. Huge consumer backlash occurred when similar eco-fees were introduced by Stewardship Ontario. Thanks to a very poor information campaign by the industry association, lots of people thought it was a new tax by the government and became known as a secret tax. This was even more problematic given the new and unwelcome Harmonized Sales Tax the province was implementing. Stewardship Ontario and the province threw tantrums each other's way, more consumers got pissed and the fee has since been pulled.

What should have happened is a full blown extended producer responsibility program whereby industry would simply incorporate the added costs of disposal into the cost of the product, rather than a deceiving fee. For industry, the formula would be simple. Make your products easier to safely dispose of and it can be cheaper, attracting more customers.

Climate Change Politics: United States

Matt Kahn, who blogs at Environmental and Urban Economics, provides a fascinating story about the partisan bickering and continuous politicization of climate change in the U.S. Debates over fuel efficiency standards, cap & trade and energy policy more generally, have required lots of time and effort and have ultimately impeded progress on policy formulation. It is hard to find consensus or unity on these issues unless there is a "salient shock" to the nation (BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, anyone?). Won't these environmental policies/programs cost a lot of money? Perhaps not as much as you think, at least in the long-term.

Check out Professor Kahn's post here.

The wacky world of wind energy opposition...

 So what do you hate about wind turbines?

Are they too imposing? Too loud? Do they kill too many birds and bats? Maybe you're worried that the low-frequency vibrations will cause headaches, faint or even cancers? Or maybe you're pissed off that the Ontario government is happy to give wind developers extra revenue directly from your wallet?

I bet it's because a list of bird mortalities from Ontario's Wolfe Island reads strikingly similar to a list of the dead at Auschwitz.

Sadly, this is an actual -- and outrageously distasteful -- comparison I have come across this summer from the representative of a major anti-wind community group. The development of wind energy in Ontario has generated a lot of opposition to wind. Unfortunately, passionate opposition brings out the worst in people. Or, as the case may be, brings out the worst people.

Ridiculous claims are not uncommon in the growing world of wind opposition. I have personally come across a story from a woman who claimed that her friend, who lives next to an industrial wind turbine, had to shovel up hundreds of dead birds every few mornings from her yard. Sure. Others I have spoken to have come across people who compare the impact of new wind turbines with the rape and murder of community members. Some of the members of these groups even suspect that the OPP and RCMP have tapped their phones and track their emails. Something tells me that they're a little too busy with real life. Oh, and the G20.

Unfortunately, these quacks are giving wind opposition a bad name. If a project is proposed, the looney tunes will headline the opposition, stirring up all sorts of anger, but ultimately eroding credibility and limiting the role of healthy, rational conversation and debate. The right wing Tea Party Movement in the United States is comparable.

You see, not all wind development is good. There is a good way and a bad way. Right now, lots of developers are doing it the bad way. Half-hearted public meetings; total ignorance of the local community; scoffs at concerned local governments and a purely economic focus. They, however, can not be entirely blamed for this. The provincial government, through the Green Energy Act, has made it perfectly legal to hold marginal public meetings and ignore municipal governments. In fact, it's almost encouraged, in the name of streamlined approvals and preventing any more climate change.

The major pro-wind groups, like the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CanWEA), immediately associate every bit of opposition with the wild claims held by the quacks I talked about earlier. Moreover, both CanWEA and the government have created an atmosphere of extremes: either you support wind power with us or you're against it along with the Holocaust comparison folks.

This isn't fair. Just because wind energy represents all sorts of good like 'green energy', energy independence and renewability, does not mean we can simply throw opposing arguments to the ground. There needs to be a reasonable conversation and the burden for such a transition falls on both sides. The government needs to stop being so antagonistic or it's going to find itself deeper in what is already a deep hole of political turmoil, and the crazy anti-wind people need to shut up and stay out of it. Do you really think anyone is going to listen to you if you compare wind turbine development with the Holocaust?

A professor at Trent once told me -- in a rather accusational way, I might add -- that I am pro-wind. I corrected her and told her that I am actually only pro-wind if it is done right. That means effective public consultation and even participation, designing the projects appropriately and making sure the risks and benefits of the project are distributed equally with both developers and the surrounding community. I'm not a gung-ho, wind at all costs kind of guy and I don't believe she is a crazy anti-wind whacko.

There is a right way to do it and a wrong way. Let's try to figure out the right way.

Image Credit: Soul Online

A take on Harper's fake lake...

What would you do with $2 million dollars?

Some would buy a fake lake. But not a real fake lake. That's cruel.

As part of its extravagant spending spree on the G8/G20 summits later this month, the Conservative government is now on the defensive for a $2 million indoor lake being built in downtown Toronto, complete with a dock, Adirondack Chairs and walls of canoes. According to the government, it is a necessary expense to showcase and market what Canada has to offer.

I'm not the first, and certainly won't be the last, to say that this is absolutely idiotic. The billion dollar security bill is outrageous and the rest of the spending is ridiculous. The fake lake epitomizes everything that is wrong with the G8/G20 summits.

Apart from the fact that the government is throwing vast sums of money at the summits while operating at a record deficit and while lots of Canadian people & programs could use that cash, we need to remember exactly what all this spending is for. It's for a three day conference that will, let's be realistic, come to nothing more than a consensus to meet again and discuss further. At best. And lots of issues aren't even on the table, like the embarrassing abortion and environmental policies the head-in-the-sand government stomps around with.

The "marketing what Canada has to offer" argument is fair until you look beyond the words in quotation marks. Lots of countries that host these international conferences like to market different aspects of the country to increase tourism or just boast. So what are we marketing? The bloody Muskokas.

Listen, I love the Muskokas. It is a beautiful area with some of the greatest lakes and cottage country in the world. But let's get realistic for a second. Anyone living in southern Ontario knows that much of the Muskokas is now an exclusive playground for the elite. What was once a relatively remote and affordable escape for Ontarians has been turned into a cottage country club, where century-old cottages are being torn down daily to make way for McMansions. You might be on the water, but don't kid yourself, those behemoths aren't cottages. And good luck affording one unless you work in the highest offices of Bay Street. This is not representative of Canada

And the canoes? Yes, we love canoeing in Canada. But the Conservative government doesn't. Last year, the government sneakily passed an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act that basically changed the definition of what navigable waters are, making it much easier to develop on popular canoeing and kayaking routes. Canoeing and kayaking groups were far from impressed. And more recently, they're using a loophole in the Fisheries Act to legally classify some Canadian lakes as toxic mining waste sites. Please, come enjoy our waste-filled lakes!

The last thing I'll touch on is how Harper is increasingly eroding Canada's international reputation. He touts our stable financial system, which he is not entirely responsible for. Apart from that, we look like fools on the international stage. Our environmental record is dismal and we seem to be competing with China in the race to best stymie climate change negotiations. Everywhere you look these days, Canada seems to be the sore thumb sticking out in the world. And not in a good way, whether it be on a global bank tax, international abortion funding or on the fishing of endangered tuna. For the G8 and G20 leaders, attending Canada's summits must be like going to your classmate's party only because your mom told you you had to.  

I remember many years ago feeling very proud to be Canadian when my father told me how many Americans attach a Canadian flag patch to their gear when travelling abroad because being Canadian was enviable. My bank likely won't collapse and I get a GST cheque in the mail every three months, but I fear that I won't be able to give my children the same message.

Green Cities: Peterborough looks to ban the sale of bottled water...

It's about to get more difficult to find bottled water in Peterborough.

The Peterborough City Council voted unanimously on Monday evening to begin the transition towards a ban on the sale of bottled water in municipally owned facilities. The ban, however, will not take full and complete effect for a few years as contracts with service providers at some of the larger buildings, such as the city's main arena, still allow them to sell bottled water. 

This is big. Although there has been quite a bit of talk all over Ontario about municipal bans, only a few have actually been carried out. And what is perhaps more impressive is the unanimity with which the decision was passed. Decisions of such magnitude tend to inspire debate and disagreement within councils, especially when sharing a similar context to Peterborough:

Like any Ontario municipality, Peterborough is solely responsible for carrying out its waste management services and does not rely on the province to help out. Since these services are not cheap and municipal governments -- like any government -- are not particularly fond of raising taxes, they can use all the help they can get, which is what a major bottled water company offered Peterborough. Nestle, after outlining the risks of obesity and preaching the health benefits of bottled water over other beverages, offered to contribute to Peterborough's recycling program if it didn't go ahead with the ban.

Turning down such an incentive is hard to do. You would expect at least some members of city council to vote against the ban, but instead there was an overwhelming level of support for the ban from council. Indeed, councillors cited the environmental impact of bottled water, the negative move towards privatization and the need to encourage the use of municipal tap water.

Unfortunately, I'm out of the city and unable to gauge the reaction to the decision, but I'm certainly happy to see the city take such leadership. You can imagine that Nestle isn't too happy, but I'm sure they can see the writing on the wall. 

Hopefully this move will add to the movement to ban bottled water in other Canadian regions and even other areas of Peterborough. There is a growing movement at Trent University to have the sale of bottled water banned on campus. The movement has gathered some opposition, particularly from Aramark -- the food service provider on campus -- and a student group in support of bottled water. Aramark's opposition is unsurprising, but opposition from a student group? At granola-munching Trent?

The group's main argument is that a ban on bottled water eliminates consumer choice. Interesting that it has taken side with Aramark, which has a monopoly on food distribution at Trent. After all, nothing says consumer choice like a monopoly. Oh wait...          

Is Ontario quietly walking away from its renewable energy targets?

Ontario is driving the country's most ambitious renewable energy incentive program; its Feed-In Tariff that came as part of the landmark Green Energy Act. As with any ambitious government policy, equally ambitious targets accompany the program itself.

Several months ago I came across Ontario's new renewable energy targets under its FIT program and found them to be well beyond anything I had seen before. Ontario had committed to 15,000 MW of new renewable energy by 2025 and even hoped to exceed the targets. To put that in context, its current generating capacity is roughly 35,000 MW, primarily made up of nuclear, gas, coal and hydro.

Because solar projects are not usually very large and relatively few biogas projects are developed, most of the 15,000 MW would come from wind and hydro projects. Now, to be clear, 15,000 MW of hydro projects would produce a lot more electricity than 15,000 MW of wind projects because the wind doesn't blow all the time. But if even a third of that target is met by wind, it would mean a minimum of 2,500 new wind turbines scattered throughout the province. Regardless of whether or not you think that's a good thing, that is an immense number of turbines. It's actually more than you'd find all over Canada, Ontario currently included.

But I came across something very curious the other day. While looking to confirm those targets for my Honours Thesis, they were nowhere to be found. The government website I had used before was no longer available and a thorough review of the government's different department/agency websites (the Ministry of Energy, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ontario Power Authority) brought up nothing.

Instead, the only solid numbers I could find were estimates of job creation and what Ontario has already done since October. In thinking I was perhaps going a little crazy, I went in search of these targets elsewhere. Luckily, I was able to find a few sites (here, here and here) that made reference to the government announcement of the targets.

Why these targets aren't available is quite a mystery. It is, of course, possible that I am simply too daft to find them, but I find it unlikely. At this point I won't begin to speculate further, but I feel that it might be appropriate to follow up on it.

I'll try to keep people updated...

Climate change skeptics are hanging around with the wrong crowd...

Climate change skeptics, please meet your new best friends, extreme creationists. Consequently, this chance meeting might turn out to be your downfall.

An article in the New York Times identified this budding relationship and how it is proving advantageous to both movements in the southern United States. School systems throughout the US have come under fire for several years from the far-right for teaching evolutionary theory and never making reference to alternative views, most notably creationism and intelligent design. Proponents of this exclusion have long argued that they must preserve the separation of church and state. But that hasn't stopped some states from passing laws ordering schools to include both sides in their curriculum.

But most of the time, the creationist movement hits big snags with the government, largely because it focuses purely on a religious topic. But by teaming up with the climate change skepticism movement, it hopes that the government will look at it in a much broader sense. Climate change skeptics have been fighting a similar battle as curriculums tend to focus only on the "pro-climate change" science, while ignoring the views of skeptics. Together, they might be able to use the legal system to get at least something through.

But if you're an environmentalist, you should be licking your lips the same way Democrats are at the thought of Sarah Palin running for president in 2012 -- please run, Sarah, please. And if you're a semi-legitimate skeptic -- not a garden variety looney -- you're kicking yourself. The skeptics and creationists might be winning small battles in a few schools in the southern United States, but the war over climate science could very well tip to the side of environmentalists.

Creationists, at least those of the extreme variety, are largely viewed by the rest of the United States as radical and out of touch. Strong beliefs that dinosaurs are a myth and the Earth is only a few thousand years old are taken seriously by a diminishing minority largely situated in a few specific regions of the US. The majority of the population simply doesn't take them seriously. 

The climate change skepticism movement, on the other hand, has some momentum and a lot of potential support. The leaked emails from East Anglia, overblown claims about glaciers melting and a realization that lifestyles might have to change considerably have fueled a growing movement towards skepticism, in the United States and throughout much of the developed world. Quite simply, the skepticism movement is serious and serious people are paying attention.

But as soon as it links itself to extreme creationists, it will lose considerable credibility. The short term benefits might be nice, but in the long run, it could sink you. Having friends can be nice, but sometimes picking the wrong friends can make things worse. Want some free advice from the other side? Start hanging out with another crowd.    

WAC - "Afghanistan: Rebuilding a Fractured Society"

For anyone interested, there is a special world affairs colloquium (WAC) at Trent today titled "Afghanistan: Rebuilding a Fractured Society". Nipa Banerjee will provide a critical perspective on Canada's involvement in Afghanistan i.e. should we even be there? And if we should be, how can we be more constructive and effective with our efforts?

It will be held in the Lady Eaton College Pit and will start at 3pm. The talk will run for about 1 hour, with 30 minutes for questions.

Nipa Banerjee is the former head of Canada's aid program in Afghanistan (2003-'06). She currently teaches at the School of International Development and Global Studies at the University of Ottawa.

"The World Affairs Colloquium is produced by-weekly by the Trent International Program and Trent International Students Association. As a committee we bring in speakers to discuss interesting topics and international issues.The World Affairs Colloquium is all about producing an insightful and informative dialogue between students, faculty and the community. The colloquium creates a forum for global citizenship allowing a dynamic conversation to take place within our university." Colloquium"

Canada's government tries to green up its Olympic climate impact...

Stop the presses! Canada's Conservative federal government is taking moderate steps to do something about climate change. Ok, ok, I'll remove my tongue from my cheek.

According to the Globe and Mail, Canada's Environment Minister, Jim Prentice, announced that the federal government is looking to offset the carbon emissions of federal bureaucrats working on the Olympics. Using the same carbon footprint method utilized by the Vancouver Organizing Committee to measure its own footprint, the feds estimate that the bureaucrats will create a total of 7,600 tonnes, largely from air travel, accommodation and the 45,000 km Torch Relay.

The price? $150,000, which it hopes (through a competitive bidding process) to be put towards some form of renewable energy generation or building envelope conservation in Canada.

I find several things very interesting with this move by the feds. First, I suppose some (but not too much) praise should be given to the federal government. After all, no one is forcing them to do this and it is certainly better than nothing. But let's not go too far. As I have said before and will say again -- to some dismay from a certain unprofessional representative of a company with a vested interest in it -- carbon offsets are stupid. They allow people to continue to engage in climate changing activities and simply buy their way out. Moreover, its voluntary, so you don't actually have to do it. But this is old news and I suggest reading the above hyperlink if you want a more detailed assessment of carbon offsets.

The two other things I notice are a little more political. Considering it is going to be delivered under a "competitive bidding process", expect to hear very little about it actually being completed any time soon. These processes can be exceptionally lengthy, especially with a government that is far from quick to move with its climate policies. What is important for them is that they can say that they have committed to it, which is a particularly valuable political tool.

The second political implication of such a move may not be as useful for the Conservatives. Let's do some quick math. $150,000 will buy 7,600 tonnes of carbon. That suggests a carbon price of $19.74/tonne. Not even the Liberals thought that price was politically acceptable when they introduced their Green Shift carbon tax platform. Now, a one time, $150,000 carbon offset is a little different than a national tax, but if I were any of the opposition parties, I would hold the Conservatives to that price anytime they talk about any carbon pricing policies in the future.

A cap-and-trade system -- likely coming within the next few years -- will limit the government's control over carbon pricing, but setting the cap level and issuing permits gives the government some influence.

The Conservatives will likely not associate this carbon offset manoeuvre with any broader climate policies, but they could be held accountable by opposition parties and political onlookers.

Lastly, 7600 tonnes?!?! As one commentator on the Globe and Mail put it, that's a lot of hot air. That's equivalent to the emissions generated from the total electricity used by 1000 homes in the US for one year, according to the EPA. I wonder how far the government explored reducing its initial carbon footprint, rather than simply buying its way out later (with taxpayers dollars, nonetheless).      

Getting businesses on board with the environment...

This morning Tim and I had the pleasure of speaking with one of Canada's most influential and political businessmen in our environmental policy course. Speaking to us all the way from Switzerland after a day of skiing, the Hon. Hugh Faulkner spoke to our class about the role of the private sector in global environmental policy.

Mr. Faulkner served as an MP for many years and the Secretary of State under Pierre Trudeau, was a senior executive at Alcan, a major aluminum refining company and was the co-founder of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development(WBCSD), a group of some of the world's largest corporations dedicated to sustainable business practices.

He offered several important insights into the world of business and the environment.

When asked how you form a group of businesses like the WBCSD, he said you must find the right businesses. According to Mr. Faulkner, there are three types of businesses you'll find when an issue like the environment is brought forward: leaders, followers and naysayers. Leaders, which make up 10% of all businesses, are those that are willing to take serious steps forward to deal with environmental issues. Followers (40%) are those that are willing to do something, just as long as someone else will lead. And naysayers (50%) are the group that won't budge and claim that the environment isn't their problem and they have to be accountable to their shareholders.

This is extremely important to realize. For most environmentalists -- especially left-leaners at Trent -- all corporations seem to get clumped into the naysayer category. My experience in several seminars at Trent has been that most if not all corporations are met with strong cynicism. But it is good to know -- especially from a reputable source -- that there companies out there willing to make a positive difference. The leaders, Faulkner said, are the ones you have to identify if you want to get anything done with the private sector. Moreover, it is especially important to have business leaders participate, as getting other businesses to listen seriously to politicians or NGOs is very difficult.

The second main theme he talked about is something that I have been advocating for several years, and that is to place an economic cost on environmental factors. Without this, companies just won't get it. As much as moral and ethical responsibilities are important to business -- and found within the problematic voluntary codes of conduct -- they usually come second to the company's balance sheet. By incorporating the cost of environmentally-impacting actions into the balance sheet, such as carbon emissions, solid waste generation or water pollution, a company can't help but notice and do something about it. This is difficult because coming up with a firm and accurate price level is next to impossible, but giving it some value is extremely important.

According to Mr. Faulkner, it should be governments that put in place firm regulations requiring companies to measure these impacts, rather than companies doing it voluntarily.

The third piece of advice he offered is that when dealing with a business, under no circumstance should one ever lose sight of the fact that it is a business. Businesses are founded on economic growth and financial generation. Trying to tell them that they shouldn't follow that initial goal is a non-starter. Furthermore, one has to remember that when dealing with a business, they might not be as familiar with the environmental issues as you might be. For example, when Mr. Faulkner formed the WBCSD, none of the business leaders were aware of what sustainable business meant. Expecting the CEO of a multibillion dollar company and likely trained in management to know everything about environmental issues is unreasonable.

But he did stress that businesses want to learn more about it. At least the 50% made up of leaders and followers are interested. So for people in the environmental field or being trained in it at a post-secondary level, as we are, the private sector is a relatively untapped and attractive market for people looking for work. It was especially refreshing to hear him say that they genuinely want to do more. Such genuinity in the private sector is often questioned by onlookers, including myself, as I have written about before.

The role of the private sector in shaping global environmental policy is one of the most important yet controversial topics. Many don't want to include it in talks, citing the 'naysayers' and feeling it would only stifle progress. You can't ignore it. But bringing businesses onboard could be one of the most effective and influential moves policymakers could pull off in environmental decision-making.      

An unlikely player weighs in on the climate debate...

Amidst all the controversy revolving around climate change policy and the science backing it, the world's most renowned and sought-after terrorist is weighing in on the debate. Osama Bin Laden, in his most recent audiotape, accused the United States and other industrialized nations of causing climate change. For once, I think I might agree with him.

He later goes on to say the solution is to destroy the United States economy, wean the world off the US dollar and stop buying American goods. I'm not quite sure I can find myself in agreement with him on those points, especially since I can only imagine what methods he might use. However, the fact that Bin Laden is weighing into the climate debate is very interesting and is worth a second look. After all, it might end up doing more harm than good with regards to climate change policy.

It is good that someone with such a strong following is bringing light to an issue that perhaps doesn't get as much attention in that part of the world. But blaming it entirely on the US while coming from a prominent and very rich Saudi family -- Saudi Arabia being among some of the world's biggest emitters of GHG emissions -- strikes a hypocritical chord. And unsurprisingly, his solutions to dealing with the crisis are not the most proactive or peaceful.

The greater concern is what might happen in the United States. The right-wing media has been jumping on this, as they can attack two things they hate at once: terrorism and climate change policy. Considering how outlandish some people in the industrialized world can get with regards to climate change, associations between Bin Laden and other advocates of climate action is dangerous. It might seem preposterous that such associations would be made, let alone carry any weight, but people who are fighting against climate change legislation in the developed world are prone to make such connections.

It's a pretty simple line: "You want to do what to stop climate change? You know who else wants to stop climate change? Osama Bin Laden. Are you saying you agree with a terrorist?"

It sounds ridiculous, but if Sarah Palin can get that close to becoming Vice-President, stuff like this is taken seriously by some.

But what we must remember is that Bin Laden's goal here is not to save the planet from climate change. He really just wants to go after the United States and the rest of the industrialized world. Climate change just happens to be one of the many subjects that make these countries look really bad, especially since the rest of the world will likely face harsh environmental consequences.

I suspect it won't even be a blip on the radar screen in a few days, if it even is today. Proponents of climate change action certainly aren't lining up to grab Bin Laden as an ally.