When
will governments get their act together on climate change? A huge body of scholarly
research now exists on the science and economics of global warming. It shows
that failure to limit our emissions would bring gigantic financial, human and
environmental costs. It also shows that we still have time to reduce emissions enough
to prevent the worst impacts, while continuing to grow our economies.
But this
is possible only if governments immediately begin enacting policies capable of
stimulating a massive deployment of emission-cutting technologies.
The
world's most authoritative scientific bodies - the major National Science Academies - put it plainly. "The
need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable," they
said in a joint statement earlier this year. "Large reductions in the emissions
of greenhouse gases... are needed soon." "It is essential that world leaders
agree on the emission reductions needed... in Copenhagen in December 2009."
So why do we have a government in Ottawa that has allowed
four years to pass without implementing any policies capable of substantially
cutting emissions - a government that has been widely seen as one of the least
constructive participants in international climate negotiations, and that has tried
to downplay expectations for the UN's Copenhagen summit?
Federal ministers must either not have been listening to the
scientists, or have chosen not to believe them. It simply isn't possible to show
so little conviction about tackling the problem after taking in the devastating
projections of a failure to act now: tens of millions of people displaced by
sea-level rise, hundreds of millions without sufficient fresh water, a massive
loss of living species.
Clearly, governments don't like disturbing powerful economic
interests. Policies cannot be effective in cutting emissions unless they make
high-emission investments less attractive and low-emission investments more so.
This means incurring the displeasure of those who want to continue pursuing activities
like oilsands development. But it is also a huge opportunity to create growth
and jobs in new sectors like renewable energy.
Some of Canada's provincial governments have a much better track
record, but the best of them still don't have policies in place that add up to their
emissions targets. Further afield, a few European governments are nearer to
cutting emissions in line with the science. But overall, industrialized
countries' current targets for 2020 add up to much less than a reasonable share
of the global emission cuts required.
Emerging economies like China and India must take greater
action too. But between now and 2020, as they continue to lift millions out of
poverty, they will need to continue increasing their emissions - albeit at a
slower rate. In the international negotiations, Canada appears to have been the
only country calling for near-term hard caps for China and India - a position
almost universally seen as unrealistic, unfair, or both.
The Copenhagen conference is important because it's a
critical opportunity for governments to up their game. With over 60 heads of
state and government under the scrutiny of thousands of journalists and observers,
this is the time for politicians to show real leadership. Copenhagen is not now
expected to produce the full
legal language of a new climate treaty. But it can still deliver a binding outcome that lays out the key specifics of
that treaty and sets a timetable to finalize it.
If Copenhagen fails, leadership by individual governments
will be more important than ever. Canada's Enviroment Minister Jim Prentice currently
states that his climate policy is to wait for U.S. decisions and then "harmonize"
with them. This "after you" approach is the exact opposite of leadership. Despite
the best intentions of President Obama, what appears to be the maximum of
current political feasibility in the U.S. still falls far short of what the
science shows is needed. Canada can and must do better.
Recently the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki
Foundation published a major economic modelling study that showed how Canada
could meet a science-based emissions target in 2020 while continuing to enjoy solid
economic growth and creating as many net new jobs as under business-as-usual -
even if the U.S. takes far weaker action. Alberta would still expand its oil
sands operations and lead the country in economic growth. Policies would
protect vulnerable manufacturing sectors from impacts on their competitiveness.
That's not to say it would be easy. The policies required
would be an order of magnitude more ambitious than anything governments have
done or proposed in Canada to date. But Canadians are ready for leadership on
this issue. Almost two-thirds agree that "climate change is mankind's defining crisis." Fully
three-quarters agree that "it's
embarrassing that we are not doing more to curb emissions." Now it's up to
governments to act.
Matthew Bramley is Director of the Climate Change program at the Pembina Institute. This commentary appeared in the Globe and Mail on December 11, 2009.
