Digging In - Deleteriously?
Canada's feeling the heat of global warming, in Bali. This country's government is being accused of foot-dragging for not signing on to do our part in the fight against climate change. Hesitation in no small part due to the fact that it sees the goals set forward by committed environmentalists and governments committed to the environment as unrealistic and unreachable.
In fact, while the United Nations is steadfastly urging the developed nations of the world to heed the report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself appeared to agree with Canada's environment minister John Baird's statement that it is unrealistic to expect Canada to cut emissions by 38% to 53% within a decade.
Canada should and must exert itself to bring some control over our emissions. But we still don't have a handle on our earlier commitment to bring down carbon emissions; in fact they've been steadily rising. "I'll put reality on the table. To suggest that we could get a 52% reduction in Canada in 12 years - there is no one in the world who believes that is possible", Mr. Baird reported, demanding a more practical, feasible approach.
And, of course, Canada stands almost alone on the world stage insisting that any commitment must include all major polluters, and not only developed nations. The heavy hitters on the issue; the European Union and China are pushing for the United States to agree to a 40% target. It's true that the U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas pollutants, but hey, China's right behind the U.S. and she's being excluded.
Canada has more than enough opposition; the current government is pragmatically committed to reducing emissions, but in a workable manner that will not impact too deleteriously on her bottom line. For all the support for a harder line being espoused by the provinces, blaming Ottawa for lack of commitment, should the federal government come down with a hard-line regulatory framework, the provinces would surely ignore its reality claiming provincial integrity.
Of the ten worst emitters in the country, one is located in Saskatchewan, two in Ontario and fully 6 in Alberta. These provinces have every intention of protecting their interests, of ensuring that their economies do not suffer exponentially in line with the federal government's guidelines which would have relatively minimal impact on the other, lesser-emitting provinces. And although most Canadians profess fears for the future of the environment, most would hesitate to agree to a significant diminishment of their way of life.
The federal government has set a firm deadline for its big industrial polluters, all 700 of them. They've been put on notice and have six months to submit emissions data which will then be used to set binding reductions targets. Industries such as electrical providers, oil and gas, pulp and paper, smelting, steel, cement, chemicals and mining sectors are all involved. Individual Canadians too will have to begin to slowly turn around our expectations.
Using less energy, becoming less expendable than we had always thought. Our markets will undergo changes, with fewer edible products being flown in off-season from far-flung producers. We will have to accept that all the electric and electronic gadgets we so adore eat up too much energy. Motor vehicle emissions will have to be cut through the implementation of tougher guidelines for manufacturers on the production line, much as California has already done (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on challenge by automobile producers).
That we're facing global climate change is undeniable; we have reports from our own Inuit to that effect; they're our front-line observers. As are farmers in Africa; from Kenya who tell us that the fruits they used to depend upon in their forests when drought conditions failed their crops are no longer to be had. Where farmers from Mali note that although they have always dealt with drought conditions those conditions have been irremediably altered, and floods become more frequent.
And then there are the many scientific specialists, experts in climatology, statisticians, theoretical physicists, biological scientists, hydroclimatologists, agro-biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, economists, meteorologists, climate data analysts, forest microclimate specialists, physical chemists, industrial energy efficiency scientists, marine researchers - who have concluded that planet earth is indeed undergoing climate change, but that what we are seeing is the result of a natural process.
Which hardly lessons the urgency. But, they point out, is a result of natural variability in the earth's climate. There are heavenly orbs that are our companions and that have their effect upon us, as well. The moon affects our tides, and who knows what else? That great gaseous globe to which we are magnetically harnessed affects our atmosphere in ways not yet fully understood; its sun spots and violent electrical eruptions and currents reverberate in our atmosphere.
The experts and climate nay-sayers, tell us in their great accumulated, acquired wisdom that what we are witnessing is not man-made climate change at all, but the inevitable natural alterations of the climate, cyclical in nature and to be accepted. They claim that any attempts undertaken by alarmed and well-meaning governments to prevent these changes will be ultimately futile. In short, a misallocation of funds and resources, far better spent on assisting more vulnerable populations in adjusting to the reality of climate change.
This represents humanity's real and pressing problem, according to an open letter sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and copied to heads of state of (climate-change) signatory countries. Who should know if not they?
In fact, while the United Nations is steadfastly urging the developed nations of the world to heed the report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon himself appeared to agree with Canada's environment minister John Baird's statement that it is unrealistic to expect Canada to cut emissions by 38% to 53% within a decade.
Canada should and must exert itself to bring some control over our emissions. But we still don't have a handle on our earlier commitment to bring down carbon emissions; in fact they've been steadily rising. "I'll put reality on the table. To suggest that we could get a 52% reduction in Canada in 12 years - there is no one in the world who believes that is possible", Mr. Baird reported, demanding a more practical, feasible approach.
And, of course, Canada stands almost alone on the world stage insisting that any commitment must include all major polluters, and not only developed nations. The heavy hitters on the issue; the European Union and China are pushing for the United States to agree to a 40% target. It's true that the U.S. is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gas pollutants, but hey, China's right behind the U.S. and she's being excluded.
Canada has more than enough opposition; the current government is pragmatically committed to reducing emissions, but in a workable manner that will not impact too deleteriously on her bottom line. For all the support for a harder line being espoused by the provinces, blaming Ottawa for lack of commitment, should the federal government come down with a hard-line regulatory framework, the provinces would surely ignore its reality claiming provincial integrity.
Of the ten worst emitters in the country, one is located in Saskatchewan, two in Ontario and fully 6 in Alberta. These provinces have every intention of protecting their interests, of ensuring that their economies do not suffer exponentially in line with the federal government's guidelines which would have relatively minimal impact on the other, lesser-emitting provinces. And although most Canadians profess fears for the future of the environment, most would hesitate to agree to a significant diminishment of their way of life.
The federal government has set a firm deadline for its big industrial polluters, all 700 of them. They've been put on notice and have six months to submit emissions data which will then be used to set binding reductions targets. Industries such as electrical providers, oil and gas, pulp and paper, smelting, steel, cement, chemicals and mining sectors are all involved. Individual Canadians too will have to begin to slowly turn around our expectations.
Using less energy, becoming less expendable than we had always thought. Our markets will undergo changes, with fewer edible products being flown in off-season from far-flung producers. We will have to accept that all the electric and electronic gadgets we so adore eat up too much energy. Motor vehicle emissions will have to be cut through the implementation of tougher guidelines for manufacturers on the production line, much as California has already done (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on challenge by automobile producers).
That we're facing global climate change is undeniable; we have reports from our own Inuit to that effect; they're our front-line observers. As are farmers in Africa; from Kenya who tell us that the fruits they used to depend upon in their forests when drought conditions failed their crops are no longer to be had. Where farmers from Mali note that although they have always dealt with drought conditions those conditions have been irremediably altered, and floods become more frequent.
And then there are the many scientific specialists, experts in climatology, statisticians, theoretical physicists, biological scientists, hydroclimatologists, agro-biologists, atmospheric scientists, geologists, economists, meteorologists, climate data analysts, forest microclimate specialists, physical chemists, industrial energy efficiency scientists, marine researchers - who have concluded that planet earth is indeed undergoing climate change, but that what we are seeing is the result of a natural process.
Which hardly lessons the urgency. But, they point out, is a result of natural variability in the earth's climate. There are heavenly orbs that are our companions and that have their effect upon us, as well. The moon affects our tides, and who knows what else? That great gaseous globe to which we are magnetically harnessed affects our atmosphere in ways not yet fully understood; its sun spots and violent electrical eruptions and currents reverberate in our atmosphere.
The experts and climate nay-sayers, tell us in their great accumulated, acquired wisdom that what we are witnessing is not man-made climate change at all, but the inevitable natural alterations of the climate, cyclical in nature and to be accepted. They claim that any attempts undertaken by alarmed and well-meaning governments to prevent these changes will be ultimately futile. In short, a misallocation of funds and resources, far better spent on assisting more vulnerable populations in adjusting to the reality of climate change.
This represents humanity's real and pressing problem, according to an open letter sent to the Secretary General of the United Nations and copied to heads of state of (climate-change) signatory countries. Who should know if not they?
Labels: Crisis Politics, Environment, Technology
posted by Pieface | 5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home