What are my three key take-homes from Copenhagen?
1) Let's begin with the positive: this event has mobilized Canadians and world citizens around climate change like never before, and that mobilization will now ramp up to find the political pathways that work. Beware the politician that stands in the way of the green economy.
2) While we ended up with a vague statement rather than the needed binding commitments, at least the terms of the debate have now been clarified, which shows a certain seriousness of nations at the table. It will be hard for countries to walk away from this new understanding, since the stakes have now been accepted as incredibly high. Countries must return to the table to work through their differences as soon as possible. We have little time.
3) Canada is a mess. Our Prime Minister hasn't been paying attention and it showed. Our country's reputation lies in tatters. Canadians are embarrassed and many are mad as hell. There is something rotten in Ottawa and it is up to the citizens of Canada to fix it. Watch for action in 2010.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Deconstructing the Canada speech
Even though Prime Minster Harper was in Copenhagen, he gave the "privilege" of giving Canada's speech to the climate summit to his Minister Jim Prentice.
It's not hard to see why since the speech was so so so lame - another embarrassment heaped onto the others for Canada these past 2 weeks.
So, let's deconstruct IN CAPS the Canada speech:
"We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement.
WE WERE FORCED TO SHOW UP IN COPENHAGEN BECAUSE OBAMA CAME.
We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth.
AND BY "US" WE MEAN "YOU" SINCE WE'LL BE RAMPING UP THE TAR SANDS.
An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.
AND BY "SHARED" AGAIN, WE MEAN "YOU ALL" RATHER THAN US, SINCE WE'RE GOOD, THANKS.
Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.
TOO BAD WE DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE INTERESTED WILL VOTE FOR OUR PARTY.
A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.
WE'D LIKE A NEW AGREEMENT SINCE WE WERE THE ONLY RICH COUNTRY TO WALK AWAY FROM OUR COMMITMENTS IN THE OLD ONE AND WE'D REALLY LIKE NOT TO HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.
AND AS THE CBC POINTED OUT WITH ITS LEAKED DOCUMENTS, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE LOWERING OUR AMBITION.
It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.
LIKE MORE SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES MAKING MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS IN THE TAR SANDS TO PURSUE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE - A TECHNOLOGY THAT AT ITS BEST WON'T STOP THE TAR SANDS FROM TAKING UP ALL OF CANADA'S CARBON BUDGET.
And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
JUST NOT ACTION FROM US.
Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.
AND, SINCE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OTHER COUNTRIES IN SAYING HOW MUCH OR HOW, PLEASE DON'T THINK WE DON'T MEAN THAT.
Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.
MAN, POND HOCKEY IS SCREWED.
Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.
SEE HOW WE THREW OBAMA IN THERE? THE ONLY THING WE FEAR IS THAT THE AMERICANS WILL REALIZE WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEIR CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM, SO WE HAVE TO COZY UP TO THEM AND SPIN BABY SPIN!"
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
It's not hard to see why since the speech was so so so lame - another embarrassment heaped onto the others for Canada these past 2 weeks.
So, let's deconstruct IN CAPS the Canada speech:
"We have come to Copenhagen to secure a fair, effective and comprehensive climate change agreement.
WE WERE FORCED TO SHOW UP IN COPENHAGEN BECAUSE OBAMA CAME.
We need an agreement that will put us on a path toward ambitious reductions in greenhouse gases and sustainable, low-carbon economic growth.
AND BY "US" WE MEAN "YOU" SINCE WE'LL BE RAMPING UP THE TAR SANDS.
An agreement that will ensure a growing supply of clean, affordable energy for all countries. An agreement that brings countries together to address our shared global economic and environmental challenges.
AND BY "SHARED" AGAIN, WE MEAN "YOU ALL" RATHER THAN US, SINCE WE'RE GOOD, THANKS.
Canadians of all ages and in all regions share a profound interest in contributing to effective global action on climate change.
TOO BAD WE DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE INTERESTED WILL VOTE FOR OUR PARTY.
A new global agreement should consist of a single, comprehensive undertaking that includes measurable, reportable and verifiable commitments and actions covering the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions in developed and developing countries.
WE'D LIKE A NEW AGREEMENT SINCE WE WERE THE ONLY RICH COUNTRY TO WALK AWAY FROM OUR COMMITMENTS IN THE OLD ONE AND WE'D REALLY LIKE NOT TO HAVE ANY CONSEQUENCES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
To be as fair and effective as possible, a new global agreement should support mutual confidence, and encourage countries to assume increased ambition over time.
AND AS THE CBC POINTED OUT WITH ITS LEAKED DOCUMENTS, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE LOWERING OUR AMBITION.
It needs to speed the development and deployment of clean, low-emitting technology.
LIKE MORE SUBSIDIES TO OIL COMPANIES MAKING MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR PROFITS IN THE TAR SANDS TO PURSUE CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE - A TECHNOLOGY THAT AT ITS BEST WON'T STOP THE TAR SANDS FROM TAKING UP ALL OF CANADA'S CARBON BUDGET.
And it needs to support enhanced global action to help the poorest and most vulnerable countries.
JUST NOT ACTION FROM US.
Canada is ready to contribute its fair share, as part of a comprehensive global agreement, including fast-start funding.
AND, SINCE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW OTHER COUNTRIES IN SAYING HOW MUCH OR HOW, PLEASE DON'T THINK WE DON'T MEAN THAT.
Achieving such an agreement will require a renewed commitment to work together, a renewed partnership among all nations and governments. It is only through the efforts of all of us that we can protect the most vulnerable among us, including those communities and ecosystems that depend on ice and snow.
MAN, POND HOCKEY IS SCREWED.
Let me conclude by recognizing the United Nations and the Government of Denmark for their tireless efforts and leadership on climate change. Canada will continue to act at home, to align its policies and commitments with those of the Obama Administration, and to work in partnership with all countries, developed and developing, who are committed to effective global action on climate change.
SEE HOW WE THREW OBAMA IN THERE? THE ONLY THING WE FEAR IS THAT THE AMERICANS WILL REALIZE WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO THEIR CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM, SO WE HAVE TO COZY UP TO THEM AND SPIN BABY SPIN!"
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Cuts and Money
After all the acronyms and details are stripped away, the international negotiations at Copenhagen come down to two things: cuts and money.
Cuts are reductions in global warming pollution. Money is needed for poorer countries to both reduce their emissions and to adapt to the climate change already happening.
The rich countries arrived at Copenhagen largely set in their proposed cuts. There were varying degrees of ambition - with Canada pretty much the weakest - and they did not add up to what scientists say is needed to stop runaway climate change.
The poorer or developing countries showed up more willing than in the past to make some cuts of their own, but still largely arguing that most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, since they dissipate only over many decades, were put up there by the rich countries. The poorer or developing countries therefore believe the burden of cuts belongs to others.
On the money front, now the richer countries are rallying around a proposal to up the fund for poorer and developing countries to $100 billion a year. It's unclear whether the developed countries will go for it, or go for the conditions that come attached - including "meaningful" pollution reductions and transparency in reporting.
One can't escape the feeling that Copenhagen hasn't been so much a negotiation as a forum where the richer countries have put their cards on the table and said "take it or leave it." You don't get the sense there has been any meaningful back and forth, nor a spirit of compromise. There is also little trust.
Canada has played its own part in undermining that trust through revelations that it cannot meet even the weak cuts it put on the table due to its obsession with dirty oil growth in the tar sands. It will therefore join the $100 billion push and hope it can buy off those who would call foul.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Cuts are reductions in global warming pollution. Money is needed for poorer countries to both reduce their emissions and to adapt to the climate change already happening.
The rich countries arrived at Copenhagen largely set in their proposed cuts. There were varying degrees of ambition - with Canada pretty much the weakest - and they did not add up to what scientists say is needed to stop runaway climate change.
The poorer or developing countries showed up more willing than in the past to make some cuts of their own, but still largely arguing that most of the greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, since they dissipate only over many decades, were put up there by the rich countries. The poorer or developing countries therefore believe the burden of cuts belongs to others.
On the money front, now the richer countries are rallying around a proposal to up the fund for poorer and developing countries to $100 billion a year. It's unclear whether the developed countries will go for it, or go for the conditions that come attached - including "meaningful" pollution reductions and transparency in reporting.
One can't escape the feeling that Copenhagen hasn't been so much a negotiation as a forum where the richer countries have put their cards on the table and said "take it or leave it." You don't get the sense there has been any meaningful back and forth, nor a spirit of compromise. There is also little trust.
Canada has played its own part in undermining that trust through revelations that it cannot meet even the weak cuts it put on the table due to its obsession with dirty oil growth in the tar sands. It will therefore join the $100 billion push and hope it can buy off those who would call foul.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Energy and Climate
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Spin Baby Spin
Finally caught in an "untruth" about giving the tar sands a special break after all, Canada's Conservative government is in full damage control mode at the worst possible time - on the world stage at an international climate conference.
Remember those denials about special treatment for the tar sands some months ago? Well, turns out that the federal government in fact meant the opposite of what it said.
CBC broke the story about a leaked cabinet document confirming that the petroleum sector will get weaker pollution targets than others, plus all polluters will get the loophole of paying into a technology fund instead of reducing emissions.
Now, Environment Minister Jim Prentice is confirming that he hasn't ruled out special treatment for the tar sands - but wait: it's because the Americans are making him do it!
By ridiculous logic, Prentice is now saying that the tar sands qualify as "trade exposed" - the label used by the Americans for those industries (like steel companies) likely to re-locate elsewhere due to local carbon laws. Yes, that's right, the tar sands deposit, all 173 billion barrels, is going to pick up and move somewhere else.
Moreover, all Canadian polluters will need to be able to pay into a tech fund rather than reduce emissions because the Americans said so, even though American companies are given no such loophole under draft climate legislation there.
How the Canadian delegation can walk into negotiations here in Copenhagen and keep a straight face with other countries regarding its sincerity to meet even its own inadequate targets is in serious doubt given these latest reports.
How the Canadian people will feel about the Conservative government letting tar sands pollution explode while everyone else is supposed to be making reductions is another matter.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Remember those denials about special treatment for the tar sands some months ago? Well, turns out that the federal government in fact meant the opposite of what it said.
CBC broke the story about a leaked cabinet document confirming that the petroleum sector will get weaker pollution targets than others, plus all polluters will get the loophole of paying into a technology fund instead of reducing emissions.
Now, Environment Minister Jim Prentice is confirming that he hasn't ruled out special treatment for the tar sands - but wait: it's because the Americans are making him do it!
By ridiculous logic, Prentice is now saying that the tar sands qualify as "trade exposed" - the label used by the Americans for those industries (like steel companies) likely to re-locate elsewhere due to local carbon laws. Yes, that's right, the tar sands deposit, all 173 billion barrels, is going to pick up and move somewhere else.
Moreover, all Canadian polluters will need to be able to pay into a tech fund rather than reduce emissions because the Americans said so, even though American companies are given no such loophole under draft climate legislation there.
How the Canadian delegation can walk into negotiations here in Copenhagen and keep a straight face with other countries regarding its sincerity to meet even its own inadequate targets is in serious doubt given these latest reports.
How the Canadian people will feel about the Conservative government letting tar sands pollution explode while everyone else is supposed to be making reductions is another matter.
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Approaching That Other Tipping Point - Beware
(Updated below)
The usual meaning of climate related "tipping points" are those scary feedback loops that may lead to runaway climate change - like the release of vast amounts of methane from melting permafrost.
But, in Canada we're probably approaching instead a climate-related tipping point in the political sphere, and one that holds its own dangers.
Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to to much of anything on climate change. This is in keeping with the fact that he once denied the science itself, and has continued to surround himself with deniers even recently.
But, events of the past weeks have built to a point where his government must at least be seen to be doing something, or else face a growing political risk coming from many directions.
A strong indicator that we're approaching a political tipping point is Harper's recent messaging that he will be seeking a "binding" deal in Copenhagen. This seems to run counter to his government's strategy of not wanting any international responsibility at all - indeed, his is the only government on the planet to simply walk away from ratified Kyoto targets. Remember also that until a week ago, Harper was saying he'd not go to Copenhagen, and that nothing much was likely to happen there anyway.
Harper is likely recognizing that he needs to come away from Copenhagen with some kind of result that turns the tide of public perception that has gone dramatically against his government recently on this file.
The label for Canada as "the dirty old man of the climate world" has started to stick in the international media in the past few days, building on events in Canada that saw both the two most populous provinces and the majority of MPs in Parliament chastise the Harper government for not doing enough. Public opinion polls also consistently show Harper to be offside with Canadians on this issue. When ridicule is starting to set in, you know you have a problem.
So, Harper needs to be seen to be doing something different on climate change to turn the tide. We've seen this movie before, though, when his government was caught off guard by the upsurge in public concern following Al Gore's documentary and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and made all kinds of promises to get "tough" on all kinds of polluters.
But of course, nothing actually happened then, and if left to their own devices, the Harper government will seek to repeat the empty promise play once more. Its support of tar sands growth is simply incompatible with real action, and there are no signs of that changing.
Here are the key rhetoric vs. reality details that will separate a Harper government PR offensive to turn the perception tide from any actual seriousness to address Canada's growth in emissions:
1) The Harper government will stop "ragging the puck" and start doing something. Now. The line has been we are waiting for the Americans. Or waiting for the Chinese. But waiting. And waiting. The media has given Harper a pass when using this line, rather than pointing out that we can get moving today on the regulatory process to regulate large polluters, since that will take some time and we know enough already to move ahead. We cannot afford to wait another day.
2) The Harper government will stop saying it will at least match the Americans, but actually do it. This involves renouncing the loopholes it wants to give to large polluters, such as intensity targets for the tar sands (which, despite recent media stories, it has never specifically ruled out for that sector) and tech fund payments in place of reductions. This will also involve a dramatic scale up in renewable and efficiency investments to catch up to Obama.
3) Finally, the Harper government will stop claiming that even matching the Americans on pollution reductions and clean economy investments is enough to stop dangerous climate change - because it isn't - and instead begin to lobby Obama to go further. The Americans are the lowest common denominator on fighting global warming, and Harper is happy to hide in that slip-stream. But, if we are to actually come out of this crisis, we need to listen to science, and not the U.S. Congress.
I would welcome action by the Harper government on all three of these points, but will not hold my breath. Time and again our government in Ottawa has mouthed the words they think the public wants to hear and has done nothing, or worse, has tried to slip in loopholes that secretly undermine any forward motion.
As Canadians, our public and our media must stand on guard. Our kids are depending on it.
UPDATE: Don Martin confirms that the PMO has done an about face and now wants a "win for the boss." He writes:
"The last image Stephen Harper wants to project is Canada intransigently blocking a meaningful deal leaving him as the leadership face of a doomed-to-fail result."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
The usual meaning of climate related "tipping points" are those scary feedback loops that may lead to runaway climate change - like the release of vast amounts of methane from melting permafrost.
But, in Canada we're probably approaching instead a climate-related tipping point in the political sphere, and one that holds its own dangers.
Stephen Harper has steadfastly refused to to much of anything on climate change. This is in keeping with the fact that he once denied the science itself, and has continued to surround himself with deniers even recently.
But, events of the past weeks have built to a point where his government must at least be seen to be doing something, or else face a growing political risk coming from many directions.
A strong indicator that we're approaching a political tipping point is Harper's recent messaging that he will be seeking a "binding" deal in Copenhagen. This seems to run counter to his government's strategy of not wanting any international responsibility at all - indeed, his is the only government on the planet to simply walk away from ratified Kyoto targets. Remember also that until a week ago, Harper was saying he'd not go to Copenhagen, and that nothing much was likely to happen there anyway.
Harper is likely recognizing that he needs to come away from Copenhagen with some kind of result that turns the tide of public perception that has gone dramatically against his government recently on this file.
The label for Canada as "the dirty old man of the climate world" has started to stick in the international media in the past few days, building on events in Canada that saw both the two most populous provinces and the majority of MPs in Parliament chastise the Harper government for not doing enough. Public opinion polls also consistently show Harper to be offside with Canadians on this issue. When ridicule is starting to set in, you know you have a problem.
So, Harper needs to be seen to be doing something different on climate change to turn the tide. We've seen this movie before, though, when his government was caught off guard by the upsurge in public concern following Al Gore's documentary and the fallout from Hurricane Katrina, and made all kinds of promises to get "tough" on all kinds of polluters.
But of course, nothing actually happened then, and if left to their own devices, the Harper government will seek to repeat the empty promise play once more. Its support of tar sands growth is simply incompatible with real action, and there are no signs of that changing.
Here are the key rhetoric vs. reality details that will separate a Harper government PR offensive to turn the perception tide from any actual seriousness to address Canada's growth in emissions:
1) The Harper government will stop "ragging the puck" and start doing something. Now. The line has been we are waiting for the Americans. Or waiting for the Chinese. But waiting. And waiting. The media has given Harper a pass when using this line, rather than pointing out that we can get moving today on the regulatory process to regulate large polluters, since that will take some time and we know enough already to move ahead. We cannot afford to wait another day.
2) The Harper government will stop saying it will at least match the Americans, but actually do it. This involves renouncing the loopholes it wants to give to large polluters, such as intensity targets for the tar sands (which, despite recent media stories, it has never specifically ruled out for that sector) and tech fund payments in place of reductions. This will also involve a dramatic scale up in renewable and efficiency investments to catch up to Obama.
3) Finally, the Harper government will stop claiming that even matching the Americans on pollution reductions and clean economy investments is enough to stop dangerous climate change - because it isn't - and instead begin to lobby Obama to go further. The Americans are the lowest common denominator on fighting global warming, and Harper is happy to hide in that slip-stream. But, if we are to actually come out of this crisis, we need to listen to science, and not the U.S. Congress.
I would welcome action by the Harper government on all three of these points, but will not hold my breath. Time and again our government in Ottawa has mouthed the words they think the public wants to hear and has done nothing, or worse, has tried to slip in loopholes that secretly undermine any forward motion.
As Canadians, our public and our media must stand on guard. Our kids are depending on it.
UPDATE: Don Martin confirms that the PMO has done an about face and now wants a "win for the boss." He writes:
"The last image Stephen Harper wants to project is Canada intransigently blocking a meaningful deal leaving him as the leadership face of a doomed-to-fail result."
Matt Price
Program Manager
Environmental Defence
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
