Canadian emissions: Just the tip of the smokestack

Just a few years ago, Canada was a country proud of its natural beauty and its UN peacekeepers. Today, it's a highly polluting nation engaged in full-blown warfare. Internationally, Canada's image changes fast.

World media will not mince words when, on Nov. 6 in Nairobi, Kenya, Canadian Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, as president, opens the second Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 2) and the 12th Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 12), successor to last year's Montreal conference. Canada is 35 to 40 per cent over its Kyoto targets. Not only are per capita energy use and CO2 emissions arguably the highest in the world, they also increase faster than anywhere else. At home, Environment Commissioner Johanne Gélinas last month released a report condemning both Liberal and Conservative governments for their inaction on greenhouse gases. The Tories have been widely accused of paying lip service to Kyoto and Gélinas' report, and then ignoring both.

The Harper government's Clean Air Act was released last week. It provides no hard greenhouse gas limits until 2050. Growing industries, like the tar sands, will even be allowed to increase emissions. Moreover, by placing CO2 in the new category "air pollutants," instead of "toxins," the government - deliberately, one might suspect - invites a barrage of lawsuits: The Constitution bars Ottawa from regulating air pollutants. This guarantees more inaction, which would seem to suit the Conservatives just fine.

The Clean Air Act and its 2050 CO2 targets could prove to be dangerous. When Harper says climate change is "an evolving science," he's right, but not as he means. What evolves are predictions: They get worse, fast. British PM Tony Blair warned last Friday that without immediate action we'll reach "catastrophic tipping points" within 10 to 15 years. NASA's Jim Hansen says less than 10 years. The year 2050 is far too late. Canada's glaciers and permafrost are melting now.

For Canadians who support Kyoto, are there credible political alternatives? Not the Liberals - they messed up for eight years, and their leadership contenders are eerily silent on the subject. The Green Party and NDP focus on "green" fuels like ethanol, which scientists doubt is very green at all, and which Canada won't produce in sufficient amounts by Kyoto's 2012 deadline. The NDP wants to "invest in Canadian production of green cars," an empty statement that severely hampers their credibility. The Green Party talks the talk, but Leader Elizabeth May, when promoting a carbon tax, stated: "It's not intended to change driving habits."

Driving habits will have to change, and dramatically. As things are going, Canada will be 50 per cent over its commitments soon. Anyone supporting Kyoto must recognize that by 2012, CO2 emissions should decrease by that amount, across the board, from industry, power plants and transportation. To meet Kyoto, one in every three cars will have to go. That's scientific reality. Everyday reality moves in the opposite direction.

Harper said before the Clean Air Act was presented, "Make no mistake about it, we know what our destination is." For once, he's right.

 
 

		Write your comment on this article!

Lest We Forget     I am not belittling the impact pollution has on our wonderful planet, but once (JUST ONCE) I wish all the dialog, and resources would be focused in the right direction. Asia the number one leader in manufacturing facilities, The Russian federation, India, The Middle East, all these emerging economies all with antiquated laws (if any laws at all) not a peep from the UN or any other mainstream advocacy group, We seem to be fully cognizant that all north american manufacturing is being shifted to China, but no one is shifting the concerns of the effects of manufacturing on the environment with them. North American facilities are leaps and bounds ahead of any other country in terms of pollution control, not perfect but much better. The Kyoto Protocol is flawed relying on data from complying countries to build a model of actual world conditions is an insult to science. Kyoto should be scrapped, and a proper scientific model should be adopted that requires all UN countries to supply environmental data or allow its collection. Until then the only value to society Kyoto will have is as an economic one, because it sure occupies and employs a significant volume of personnel and resources. But as far as the environment goes it's only destructive, as so many trees have lost their leaves to be assembled in three ring binders of meaningless statistics, and delusional protocols that can never be realized.
Alex Neave	{32 votes}	October 28th, 2006
Change is Needed     It is a very depressing thought that Canada's position worsened in advance of the secondary round of talks regarding the Kyoto protocol. I hope that one day soon the Harper government reads a poll or actually listens to its constituents and changes their position. Before we do far too much more damage.
Reuven De Souza	{4 votes}	April 4th, 2007
News flash!     I agree with Oliver Domenchini that it's unfortunate that we don't have a Common Sense Party but honestly, do you think that if you had an ounce of common sense that you'd take part in today's politics? More to the point, even if you did what would you hope to get accomplished in a system that seemingly is rigged to halt any good idea from taking steady root on the hill? We pollute and pollute some more but that's okay because we won't be the one who're gonna have to deal with it--our kids and grandkids will. Comforting thought, no?
Pedro Eggers	{6 votes}	October 31st, 2006
Inevitable     I suppose this stance on Kyoto was inevitable with Bush Jr. in charge. There's no doubt that the Green Party, and the NDP would not be so soft on the issue. Ethanol is cleaner than gasoline. And there are plenty of other clean fuel alternatives as well. If the Green Party (or the NDP) were in power, more money could go into researching the alternatives. Had Exxon, George W, et. al., and the like, not been hiding what is common knowledge (global warming), this dilemma could have been much less severe. Not only does the government have to be responsible, but so does the corporate world (unfortuneately the latter can be influenced by the former, and vice versa). Those two aside, individuals have to make the change too, that is very important in itself, if people demand 'green' cars, the corporate world will have to step up. Small things also play a huge role, recyclying, producing less waste, buying environment friendly things, etc. As well as contacting local government and corporations to make people's voices be heard. All around the world their are societies with good programs working at the moment. These programs should be looked at and instituted in place. Such as a city in Sweden that burns garbage, and uses the by-product as fuel. San Francisco recycles some 60 plus percent of their waste. And as time goes on, the methods can be improved upon, and greener methods can be put in place. The sooner we can put this issue behind us the better, not just for us but for future generations.
Andrew Davidson	{15 votes}	October 30th, 2006
The Rise and Fall of Pollution     I will be writing my MP very soon after just commenting on the cuts in cultural spending vis a vis reducing grant availabilities to museums so only Ottawa prospers. And now this news on Canada's ruining of its policies on protecting the environment including cutting greenhouse emissions and toxic gas output? Remember how Harper wanted to look good by refusing to drive to his office in a limousine, to look like an 'average' citizen? What a lame way to show any sincere concern in dealing with real issues! His first drive to office in olde cars was only for show! Likewise the Kyoto accord and our delay of responsability after 2050 is also for show! Who is to say that the PM then will do any different than he does today. The country relies on exporting its resources, be they for self-centered interest or not, be they cancer causing agents or not. The hard truth is that incineration of waste still goes on in public builldings despite controls set years ago, emissions of sulfur dioxide continues to contribute to acid rain and plastics are still being produced at record rates even though there are biodegradable alternatives, all making the asbestos issue the tip of the iceberg. This country although different in character from our America in some ways, follows their example of expanding first and answering questions on the hows and whys of pollution afterward. Time to make those biodegradable choices so lucrative that plastics will be a relic of the past. But is that being too idealistic? Look at how long we've been toying with mass producing battery operated cars. We still we burn fossil fuels until our skies turn dingy. Time to send Harper out to pasture but when we do, isn't it time to make sure that businesses which contribute to or expel these toxic fumes do not have a chance to pay off politicians so that they can keep their show going?!! Time for this on-line report to refuse ads from emission contributors too!
Martin Dansky	{6 votes}	October 30th, 2006
Stigma of not Owning a Car     Practically everyone in our neighbourhood owns a car except for our tenant in the basement flat who walks, cycles and uses public transit. He has no trouble getting to and from work and doing his shopping errands. It is obvious because he still has a slim youthful appearance as opposed to many of his neighbours who have protruding bellies. With many more people like him we would not have a global warming crisis. Yet there is a lot of subtle coercion for everyone to own a car or else you are stigmatised as being poor and worthless. This perverse concept has to change.
Stephen Talko	{9 votes}	October 29th, 2006
Who'll Lead Canada to Greener Pastures     This article is a real eye opener as to the sorry state of Canada's role and policy regarding environmental issues. Already the Conservatives have stripped away the Kyoto Protocol in favor of this toothless Clean Air Act which will only finally take effect in 2050. In the meantime, the Greenhouse Effect is wreaking havoc on our planet every day. Just look at how weather in Montreal has changed especially over the last two or three years. And perhaps just as bad, Canada's reputation as a leader in enviromental issues has been tarnished and, according to this article, we have become a nation of hypocrites by voting no to banning chrysotile asbestos (and it turns out we are one of the top producing countries of this vile crap!). The Government of Canada has the power to represent us but that power was given to them by us. So, it's up to us to take back that power and stand up to our government and make them accountable for contributing to the demise of the world, and we have to exercise the three "R"s (reduce, reuse, and recycle) to the fullest.
Basil James	{9 votes}	October 27th, 2006
Is it just Harper?     It amazes me that after years of being told about greehouse emissions and the threat of global warming that Canada (and the world) continues to turn a blind eye on acting responsibly. A stitch in time, better safe than ... I think that it's safe to say that we are well beyond that point now. And yet, while we all want to point fingers at Harper, are we any better on a personal level? "We" voted him in, and he "represents" Canadians, (as scary as that is... ) Canadians by and large, are lethargic about changing their own personal behaviours... why should we expect the government to be any different? Seriously? How many people still drive to work in a car alone? How many people can't be bothered to replace their gas guzzlers, or fridges... at least that is, until it becomes economically profitable? If it means paying less on petrol or hydro sure, we're all for it. But if it's inconvenient.. forget about it. For lack of a better way of putting it: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone..." Act locally, think globally. And then, just maybe, we might be able to convince parliament that we actually do want to make the sacrifices necessary!
Marya Grant	{9 votes}	October 27th, 2006
We voted him in, let's get him out     The environment is so important to the Conservative party that we will absolutely definitely have lower emissions in 45 years, when very few people who have power now will still have power, and the world will be -- hard to say, but quite likely much warmer and much dirtier. We need pollution taxes, but we need a carrot for that stick, too. Encourage public transit. Encourage train use. Make walking and biking places feasible, at least from spring to fall. Unfortunately, despite the huge surplus (made larger by cutting funding to museums), none of this will happen. But we have one power: Harper is in a minority government. Write your MP. Complain. We need an election, and soon.
J Flegg	{25 votes}	October 26th, 2006
Grandma For Prime Minister     It's a shame that in the Canadian political spectrum, we don't have a Commom Sense party. Remember "A stich in time saves nine" and all those other cliche's your grandma told you. Well your grandma was older and wiser and she was right. Why do we trust our gov'ts, with their self serving agendas and corporate pandering, to do the right thing. They so rarely do. I mean if we keep pissing in the oceans and shitting in the air, we'll ( even the rich)eventually get sick, it's common sense. But I guess as long as the effects are not immediately drastic ( or are they?) than we can keep ignoring them, right? An example within our own city that I can't believe hasn't been adopted, is why haven't all city vehicles, taxis and couriers been changed to hybrid vehicles? (In Vancouver, many of the cabs are Prius') These vehicles spend millions(?) of hours on our roads doing their duties. Who knows how much pollution they create and how much less they could. Also ,why doesn't Smartcar make a four door or a small pickup like vehicle? These would be more practical and thus more people may be encouraged to buy one. Green living roofs on most new big construction, why not? These are just some suggestions. Another grandma quote, "It's better to be safe than sorry". It doesn't take a genius. So, stop voting for politicians, like Harper, who don't support grandma's wisdom.
Oliver Domenchini	{19 votes}	October 26th, 2006
Smoke-Screens!     Ok, this comes as a complete and total shock to me. I always figured that we were somehow more vigilant and proactive when it came to regulating emmisions - never would I have imagined that the opposite was actually true! Much as I'd like to take yet another potshot at Harper, there really seems to be an entrenched politcal lethargy when it comes to redressing this problem - such is the power and influence of the multi-national oil and gas interests who broker power both here and abroad.
Mark St Pierre	{10 votes}	October 26th, 2006
Walking the talk?     Reasonable article but the accompanying Jeep ad illustrates the challenge of most people actually "walking the talk".
Nik Mason	{9 votes}	October 26th, 2006

Write your comment! please follow these guidelines

Information requested in blue will remain confidential   [privacy policy] Please indicate your real first and last names.

First name :

Last name :

Your email :

Confirm your email :

Title of your comment (max. 150 characters)   Your comment (max. 2000 characters)  characters remaining       LIMIT PER PERSON : one comment per article per member. Thank you. Your comment will be read by our approval team and, if it is approved, will be posted on the website within 24 hours. It could also be published, along with your name, in the printed version of Hour magazine and on any of our partner websites. In order to present the highest quality of comments, Hour reserves the right to refuse certain submissions. Any plagiarism will entail the entire removal of the member’s profile. Hour is not responsible for the opinions expressed by the members.