We All Can Enlist in the War on Climate Change
Stephen Hume | 02.03.2007 14:11 | Climate Chaos | World
There are common-sense ways to deal with many of the environmental problems we have created. Help from O Canada to counter our helplessness and hopelessness
WE ALL CAN ENLIST IN THE WAR ON CLIMATE CHANGE
GLOBAL WARMING – There are common-sense ways to deal with many of the environmental problems we have created. Let’s get with it
By Stephen Hume
[This article was published in: The Vancouver Sun, February 17, 2007.]
Sixteen years ago, after an international conference in Toronto concluded that global warming posed a threat to humanity exceeded only by thermonuclear war, eight parliamentary standing committees met jointly in an urgent climate change forum.
“We are the first generation in the history of the human race that looking down on coming decades can clearly see that if we do not change we shall not survive, at least as we survive today,” warned John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
By 2000, Canada’s greenhouse emissions would be pushed back to where they were in 1990, the Conservative government’s then-environment minister announced in 1990.
In 2007, emissions are at record levels and rising.
Just a reminder – as Premier Gordon Campbell promises to cut British Columbia’s greenhouse emissions 33 percent by 2020 – that politicians have played the green card before. Yet here we are having done little to confront climate change beyond talk.
Our best tools, Fraser said in 1990, were information, human adaptability and strong leadership. Instead, we’ve frittered away a decade on disinformation, denial and an absence of leadership.
Clearly, if real changes are to occur, it’s up to citizens to lead from behind. Here’s how, and some objectives:
1. Be engaged citizens: This is a democracy. Let your MP or your MLA or your municipal councilor know that empty rhetoric won’t be tolerated. Tell them to behave as they would if we were at war. Be relentless. Write letters, send e-mails, phone constituency offices, beard them at luncheons and cocktail parties. Raise their discomfort level. Tell they to get with your agenda or get dumped regardless of party.
2. Think globally, act locally: We can’t force China or the United States to act. We can do the right thing instead of the expedient thing. That’s leadership. Nor must we gut the economy to begin. Let’s start curbing emissions incrementally by immediately shifting taxes to provide incentives for good behavior while discouraging bad behavior.
3. Get educated: Don’t take the word of politicians, pundits, ideologically motivated think-tanks or the campaigns of front groups for industrial special interests. Use the Internet to research what national science academies and organizations say. Read the technical reports upon which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions. Read books. For starters, Jonathan Weiner’s The Next One Hundred Years, Pulitzer prize winner Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On, George Monbiot’s Heat, David Helvarg’s The War Against the Greens, and Wayne Grady’s The Quiet Limit of the World.
4. Apply common sense: There are plenty of things we could be doing immediately, but are not. For example, let’s insist politicians make serious investments in public transit. Alternatives to the car must be pleasant, efficient, inexpensive and, above all, convenient. Public transit can be all of those things. Demand that it be made so. Think big. The flat prairie landscape is ideal for high-speed trains. Why don’t we have a network linking Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg? Why don’t we provide incentives for moving truck trailers across Canada by rail? Why aren’t we investigating sail-assisted carriers for bulk trans-oceanic cargo?
5. Hold ourselves accountable: The laws of physics mean heavier vehicles must burn more fossil fuel and thus release more greenhouse gases while causing more wear on road infrastructure. Okay, the heavier the car, the more of environmental and infrastructure costs we should recover in sales taxes and licensing fees; the smaller the car, the less we need to recover. Perhaps it makes sense to subsidize people to drive the very lightest, most fuel-efficient cars.
6. Insist on small: Bigger cars occupy more space. In a city, space is money. So make all downtown parking spaces the size of a smart car. Then, charge for parking according to space occupied. If your car occupies two or three or four spaces you must pay two or three or four times the hourly fee. Treat those free parking spaces at malls and workplaces as taxable benefits. Mandate park-and-ride shuttles – they work fine at airports. What would be the economic impact of a buy-back on fuel-efficient old cars and providing the poor, who rely disproportionately on old vehicles, with interest-free loans to acquire new, small, fuel-efficient vehicles?
7. Attack urban sprawl: Provide tax incentives to develop underused urban space. For example, encourage universities to build residential condos above their classroom, laboratory and office complexes. With their rich intellectual and cultural life, university campuses provide attractive communities for urban dwellers. Let universities use the revenues to enhance applied research activities, Tax property owners at higher rates for undeveloped property and, in inverse proportion, at lower rates for high-density developments.
8. Re-green the world: Plant trees everywhere. A tree represents a ton or more of sequestered carbon. One big tree can sequester it for hundreds of years and releases it slowly when it finally rots. So why are we still cutting the biggest trees? Protect old growth everywhere.
9. Re-think work: Too many managers cling to 19th century models. Information workers needn’t be tied to schedules devised for factories. Reward telecommuters. For those who must attend a worksite, make public transit a benefit.
Harvest forests on 300-year cycles to maximize carbon sequestration instead of 30-year cycles. Require everyone who removes a tree to replace it with three. Mandate recycling of wood and paper products
10. Invest in our genius: Let Ottawa set aside $10 billion to fund a center in each province for applied and theoretical research to develop the technology that can mitigate global warming. Each province could tackle a different aspect: Wind power, tidal, solar, geothermal, desalinization technologies, more efficient air, land and sea transportation. Does $10 billion sound expensive? It is less than half the projected spending on the 2008 Olympics. It’s the cost of two pipelines proposed for Arctic gas fields. However, if global warming is indeed a threat to our way of life exceeded only by nuclear war, $10 billion for such a climate change Manhattan Project is a pittance.
shume@islandnet.com
GLOBAL WARMING – There are common-sense ways to deal with many of the environmental problems we have created. Let’s get with it
By Stephen Hume
[This article was published in: The Vancouver Sun, February 17, 2007.]
Sixteen years ago, after an international conference in Toronto concluded that global warming posed a threat to humanity exceeded only by thermonuclear war, eight parliamentary standing committees met jointly in an urgent climate change forum.
“We are the first generation in the history of the human race that looking down on coming decades can clearly see that if we do not change we shall not survive, at least as we survive today,” warned John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons.
By 2000, Canada’s greenhouse emissions would be pushed back to where they were in 1990, the Conservative government’s then-environment minister announced in 1990.
In 2007, emissions are at record levels and rising.
Just a reminder – as Premier Gordon Campbell promises to cut British Columbia’s greenhouse emissions 33 percent by 2020 – that politicians have played the green card before. Yet here we are having done little to confront climate change beyond talk.
Our best tools, Fraser said in 1990, were information, human adaptability and strong leadership. Instead, we’ve frittered away a decade on disinformation, denial and an absence of leadership.
Clearly, if real changes are to occur, it’s up to citizens to lead from behind. Here’s how, and some objectives:
1. Be engaged citizens: This is a democracy. Let your MP or your MLA or your municipal councilor know that empty rhetoric won’t be tolerated. Tell them to behave as they would if we were at war. Be relentless. Write letters, send e-mails, phone constituency offices, beard them at luncheons and cocktail parties. Raise their discomfort level. Tell they to get with your agenda or get dumped regardless of party.
2. Think globally, act locally: We can’t force China or the United States to act. We can do the right thing instead of the expedient thing. That’s leadership. Nor must we gut the economy to begin. Let’s start curbing emissions incrementally by immediately shifting taxes to provide incentives for good behavior while discouraging bad behavior.
3. Get educated: Don’t take the word of politicians, pundits, ideologically motivated think-tanks or the campaigns of front groups for industrial special interests. Use the Internet to research what national science academies and organizations say. Read the technical reports upon which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change bases its conclusions. Read books. For starters, Jonathan Weiner’s The Next One Hundred Years, Pulitzer prize winner Ross Gelbspan’s The Heat is On, George Monbiot’s Heat, David Helvarg’s The War Against the Greens, and Wayne Grady’s The Quiet Limit of the World.
4. Apply common sense: There are plenty of things we could be doing immediately, but are not. For example, let’s insist politicians make serious investments in public transit. Alternatives to the car must be pleasant, efficient, inexpensive and, above all, convenient. Public transit can be all of those things. Demand that it be made so. Think big. The flat prairie landscape is ideal for high-speed trains. Why don’t we have a network linking Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and Winnipeg? Why don’t we provide incentives for moving truck trailers across Canada by rail? Why aren’t we investigating sail-assisted carriers for bulk trans-oceanic cargo?
5. Hold ourselves accountable: The laws of physics mean heavier vehicles must burn more fossil fuel and thus release more greenhouse gases while causing more wear on road infrastructure. Okay, the heavier the car, the more of environmental and infrastructure costs we should recover in sales taxes and licensing fees; the smaller the car, the less we need to recover. Perhaps it makes sense to subsidize people to drive the very lightest, most fuel-efficient cars.
6. Insist on small: Bigger cars occupy more space. In a city, space is money. So make all downtown parking spaces the size of a smart car. Then, charge for parking according to space occupied. If your car occupies two or three or four spaces you must pay two or three or four times the hourly fee. Treat those free parking spaces at malls and workplaces as taxable benefits. Mandate park-and-ride shuttles – they work fine at airports. What would be the economic impact of a buy-back on fuel-efficient old cars and providing the poor, who rely disproportionately on old vehicles, with interest-free loans to acquire new, small, fuel-efficient vehicles?
7. Attack urban sprawl: Provide tax incentives to develop underused urban space. For example, encourage universities to build residential condos above their classroom, laboratory and office complexes. With their rich intellectual and cultural life, university campuses provide attractive communities for urban dwellers. Let universities use the revenues to enhance applied research activities, Tax property owners at higher rates for undeveloped property and, in inverse proportion, at lower rates for high-density developments.
8. Re-green the world: Plant trees everywhere. A tree represents a ton or more of sequestered carbon. One big tree can sequester it for hundreds of years and releases it slowly when it finally rots. So why are we still cutting the biggest trees? Protect old growth everywhere.
9. Re-think work: Too many managers cling to 19th century models. Information workers needn’t be tied to schedules devised for factories. Reward telecommuters. For those who must attend a worksite, make public transit a benefit.
Harvest forests on 300-year cycles to maximize carbon sequestration instead of 30-year cycles. Require everyone who removes a tree to replace it with three. Mandate recycling of wood and paper products
10. Invest in our genius: Let Ottawa set aside $10 billion to fund a center in each province for applied and theoretical research to develop the technology that can mitigate global warming. Each province could tackle a different aspect: Wind power, tidal, solar, geothermal, desalinization technologies, more efficient air, land and sea transportation. Does $10 billion sound expensive? It is less than half the projected spending on the 2008 Olympics. It’s the cost of two pipelines proposed for Arctic gas fields. However, if global warming is indeed a threat to our way of life exceeded only by nuclear war, $10 billion for such a climate change Manhattan Project is a pittance.
shume@islandnet.com
Stephen Hume
e-mail:
shume@islandnet.com
Homepage:
http://www.mbtranslations.com
Comments
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments
Channel4 uk
02.03.2007 14:22
Warmerbros
Myth
02.03.2007 15:26
It's up there with Catalytic Converters as a great way for industry to make money out of a misinformed public. The fact that so many in the activist movement haven't read anything beyond some papers produced b those with interests in the myth says much about their wish to believe
A
United Nations' Experts Doctor Evidence
02.03.2007 16:22
As United Nations negotiations for the Global Climate Convention convene this month, scientists on the UN's panel of expert advisers are under fire for altering a scientific report. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made headlines with its claim that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Now there is evidence suggesting that this assessment was driven by politics, and not science.
The IPCC's 1995 report, the final version of which was published in June, is supposed to represent the consensus of world scientific experts regarding the highly controversial issue of global warming. The panel's work is relied upon by Global Climate Convention negotiators who are considering possible curbs on the use of fossil fuels, such as energy taxes. The IPCC's reputation for objectivity rests upon its commitment to balanced scientific opinion arrived at through the process of peer review.
Potential misconduct at the IPCC was recently uncovered by the Global Climate Coalition, an association of oil, coal, and utility companies. In a memorandum to Congress and the White House, the business coalition alerted U.S. officials that the IPCC's final published report had been altered before final publication. Substantial portions of Chapter 8, which discusses the impact of human activities on the earth's climate, had been re-written by one of its authors after contributing scientists had already given their approval. Cautionary references to scientific uncertainty were removed or modified, changes not approved by the reviewers. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz called the last-minute editing a "disturbing corruption of the peer review process" which could "deceive policymakers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."
Seitz's remarks set off tremors throughout the scientific community. Several articles about the controversy appeared in the New York Times and Energy Daily, as well as the prestigious journals Science and Nature. The IPCC's Sir John Houghton labeled the charges "appalling," and maintained that the re-write "improved the science." Lead author Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, denied wrongdoing and claimed that IPCC rules allow modifications "to improve the report's scientific clarity." However, the deletions were more than minor clarifications. Key portions accepted by contributing scientists were later removed or altered without their knowledge. The changes functioned to suppress doubts and to downplay uncertainties about forecasting a human influence on climate. For example, Santer told Science that in a discussion of when scientists will be able attribute climate change to human causes, he removed the phrase "we do not know" because it overstated doubts that human activity can be blamed.
The IPCC's explanations bolster the impression that the revisions were politically motivated. Santer cites a November State Department memo to the IPCC advising "that chapter authors modify the text in an appropriate manner." According to an editorial in Nature, IPCC officials said that revisions to the text were needed "to ensure that it conformed to a 'policymakers' summary of the full report," a document whose language is voted on by government delegates. Thus the process is heavily influenced by government officials, including non-scientists.
The IPCC had a rather different response to earlier efforts to modify its report. During peer review, Britain's Global Commons Institute (GCI) took issue with a finding in Chapter 6 that the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions may exceed the predicted economic damage from global warming. Demanding that the damage be calculated in a way which showed that richer countries owe "compensation" to the Third World, GCI orchestrated an effort by delegates from Cuba and the Alliance of Small Island States to rewrite the report, replacing all damage estimates with warnings about "the loss of unique cultures." In response, senior IPCC official James Bruce insisted that the proper time to make revisions under IPCC rules was during two prior rounds of peer review: "At this stage [the October 1995 Montreal working group], the authors can make a few editorial changes for clarity of reading, but not changes to the meaning or substance of the report" (italics added).
Perhaps IPCC officials should consult one another regarding their contrasting interpretations of IPCC procedures. Both environmentalist groups, like GCI and Greenpeace, and industry groups like the Global Climate Coalition, are having great difficulty understanding how the IPCC conducts itself with regard to peer review. What is clear, however, is that the UN panel is so thoroughly politicized that its integrity and objectivity cannot be taken for granted.
James M. Sheehan
re: channel 4 prog
02.03.2007 21:24
made by ex-Revolutionary Communist Party folk who have been twats before (Hitler planted trees/was a veggie, therefore all greens are fascists, etc) I think.
You can believe the 2,000 world scientists of the UN IPCC, or you can con yourself in the company of those funded by oil companies (only you're not getting paid) and die along with those already dying from your (in)actions.
ya twat
rcp
03.03.2007 02:18
They actually bash corporations/Blair for being too nice to the environment & were prominent in countryside alliance marches.
The dregs of a dialect materialistic "proletarian vangaurd",they have abandoned the working class & believe that nature must be conquered & that all technology must be pushed to its limits.
They are now the vanguard of hypocrisy just like a certain austrian nationalist.
A shame as they did good antiwar work in the past with their grass roots in early 1990's before loosing their edge to environmentalists who they see as the enemy.
robin ludd
Hide 2 hidden comments or hide all comments