A little good news

A cleaner environment will result from the carbon reduction efforts, and that is a great thing. But global warming won't be reversed by it. Climate change is the one constant of the planet's history, and that won't be changed by current efforts.

I'd be worried if there wasn't either global warming or global cooling because global constancy hasn't ever existed (even before man started industrialization).

We need to go green for a cleaner environment, healthy drinking water, respiratory relief for people with breathing problems, and cleanup of toxins. But anybody who looks at the statistics and research and thinks man has anything more than a marginal impact on temperature is being lead instead of being well read.

Patricia,

Thank you for this column in general and this one on climate change in particular. I live and work in northwestern Ontario and find it hard to get people thinking positively about this issue - they tend to think mild winters are good for us that is until we have a major insect infestation in the summer. I also worship with an Anglican parish that is working at how to become greener individually and corporately - we sometimes feel that we are taking baby steps but they are steps nonetheless. Thanks for the encouragement about what is happening in the US and let's hope some Canadian jurisdictions (other than the federal government - which doesn't seem to want to take this issue seriously) take the hint about what can be done.

Patricia,
Thank you for providing a small glimmer of hope to start my morning.

Once again we Canadians have egg on our collective faces. It seems that we are always badmouthing our American friends and never noticing the good things that happen down there. Could the media hold any responsibility for this? I remember quite a few years ago when my colleagues in the health field were bragging about how far ahead of our counterparts in the U.S. we were. I happened to visit one of these departments stateside a little later and lo and behold they seemed to be lightyears ahead of us in equipment and expertise. Go figure.

"Has Stephen Harper been inspired by this fellow conservative’s example? No, he has not. Harper wouldn’t recognize a global opportunity if it stood up in his soup."

Judging from the overall tone of the piece, however, it's not Stephen Harper who needs the inspiration, but Dalton McGuinty, Jean Charest, Gordon Campbell, and the mayors of our cities and towns.

In other words, environmental action is best taken at the *local* level, with actions designed to reduce car use and increase public transportation, encourage recycling and trash reduction, increase more green space, reduce energy use, etc. Doing things locally is more likely to reduce greenhouse gases than passing national laws. Americans seem to have realized this. Why shouldn't Canadians?

Most of the oil produced from Canada ends up in the US. Over 50% of natural gas goes to the US and much of what is used in Canada is used in the production of oil from the tar sands. Canada also exports coal. So whatever is saved by Canadians is used in the US and if they do not use it then China, India or Japan will. Every new house, condominium and other accommodation increases the output of greenhouse gases. As I believe you are writing about GLOBAL warming it seems the way Canada can help is to reduce the production and importation of oil, natural gas, coal and wood.
People seem to think that using paper bags is better than plastic but is it really? Now biodegradable plastic is being produced that is better than the wholesale clear cutting of trees, both for the quality air and wildlife.

The only way to really make any inroads into the problem is to reduce the population and that means no children not just 1 or 2. Or we could stop training doctors and stop all medical training and pharmaceutical research.

The aforementioned will not happen any time soon or at all so the biggest contribution Canada could practically make would be to stop destroying its forests, old and new growth (90% of the paper coming into my home I do not want and it goes straight to recycling), stop destroying any more of its farmland, countryside, severely limit resource development and stop building monster homes occupied by 2 or 3 people.

If Toronto wants to improve its air quality it should get on with its public transportation plan,not wait for some handout from another level of government, taxpayers are going to pay whether its municipal provincial or federal, and it could ban the the use of wood fires.

Ken

Excellent piece. Last spring my wife and I attended an environmental education conference at which Hunter Lovins spoke. She addressed the efforts many of the mega-corps are making toward reducing their environmental foot print - all for profit. Many environmentalists suggested their efforts are green wash. I have found however, through the corporate websites that most of the companies identified by Lovins have demanding and quantitative goals and are publishing their successes. The outcomes are provided in financial terms and clearly show that money is to be made by going green. Hugely impressive by comparison to some governments I know. Further, regarding the efforts being made at the municipal level, check out Portland, Oregon. That cities' published concern is peak oil, an issue not being broadly discussed yet. A citizens commission issued a report to the city council this past March. The thoroughness of their plan to achieve regional sustainability is ambitious and courageous to say the least. There are many examples for those who care to look.
In spite of the foot dragging by national, state and provincial governments, society's grass roots are getting the message. Good thing. We'll be the ones to pay the price.

I listened to Rex Murphy's Viewpoint on climate change yesterday evening and was discouraged to hear such illogical drivel from someone who purports to speek so well. Has Rex not heard of the "Tragedy of the Commons"? He says let's not take any action on greenhouse gas emissions unless China and India also agree to do their share. Like the "Commons" our planet may become useless for humans and other life species without immediate action. The above article on "Green America" is a " A Little Good News" and is somewhat encouraging.

Patricia: Odd. All California has done, is cut emissions INTENSITY. Just like Harper wants to do.

Meanwhile, California's ABSOLUTE emissions have INCREASED over 1990 levels.

Frankly, it is only getting easier to be green. I live in Toronto, where I can easily commute. I have the ability to recycle, compost and reuse the materials I have. It is something we will see more of in the near and imediate future where everyone wil be thinking and acting in a pro-green way - simply because it is easy and cost effective. And it will either be on our own iniatives or in tandem with the government.

This is good news. Still despite everything there is hope.

Patricia: California's emissions have increased about 17% since 1990. In the last GHG inventory report, that California published this year, emissions have gone from 425 million tonnes in 1990, to just under 500 million tonnes in 2004.

So....why are they heroes, and Harper a villain? This is LESS than what Harper had suggested.....

It is a shame indeed that our Canadian Conservatives don't have the imagination or intuition to see the global environmental movement as an opportunity. It's funny they call themselves "conservatives" at all, since they generally haven't made an effort to conserve anything - most notably our natural resources.

Obviously the author has never driven the freeways in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana. Big hulking SUVs are still the norm, going well above the speed limit and passing this slow poke Canuck driving along at the speed limit like I was writing Harper's environment policy. If the entrepreneurial spirit simply replaces huge V8 engines with smaller V8 engines and half-assed hybrid power systems on board at an even greater cost in terms of scarce resources (lithium batteries for example) then more harm than good has been done. Why people need to drive themselves long distances to and from work alone in a Chevy Suburban or a Ford Expedition I'll never know.

Its good to see someone recognize the fact that not all Americans are Bush robots (although -- sadly -- its easy to understand why one might think that way). Just as polls show, most of us don't agree with his foreign policy and most do not agree with his lack of environmental initiatives.

American universities, for example, are some of the greenest institutions/businesses on the planet. With 5,000 colleges & universities throughout the country it is amazing the positive impact these communities (each and every one of them is a city or town unto itself) have on the environment. From recycling to renewable energy to initiatives aimed at reducing the use of paper on campuses, the American educational industry is at the forefront on fighting climate change.

I should note that I am not implying the US is doing nearly all it can do, but Ms. Pearson is right: once Americans realize they can make money fighting global warming then the nation will indeed join the rest of the world in confronting this critical challenge.

Bravo, Patricia Pearson! National governments twiddle their thumbs, but smaller jurisdictions (if you can call California small) are leaping into the breach. Now, I wonder why Canadian governments (part from provinces like BC and -- maybe -- Quebec) haven't seized the opportunity? Harper is indeed hopeless, but I wonder how many Canadians see the imminent danger (and the challenges) posed by climate change? In today's Globe and Mail, in response to the online poll question asking readers whether of not they thought climate chnage was one of the greatest crises ever, only 55% (a bare majority) agreed. Maybe people feel that it's game over and there is nothing left to do but await the impending holocaust. I sure hope not.

While entrepreneurial spirit may indeed be rampant in the US, that spirit is only kept alive by the glimmer of profit. If the administration supports and subsidizes non-green products and lifestyles over green ones, the entrepreneurs have no hope.

I think this article sheds some needed light on the topic of climate change and how the states isn't (or is) partaking in the solution. Greenpeople dont really need to loose sleep over whether or not powerful countries (the US) are taking part in a better future. If the leaders of these infuential countries do't push for policy change and other measures to be more green, communities, groups, organizations, private companies, and states (or provinces) will be there to guide thier leaders into the good side. I think more of this type of action in our country of Canada, who I believe has the potnential to be extremely sustainable and conscious, is needed to show Harper, Laird and the others that we too believe in positive change as well as the potential to make a difference. Sustainability promotes local thought and effort and as the US is beginning to demonstrate, the same is true for country, changes will most likely come from our communities rather than the parliament buildings.

I generally appreciated this article, but was totally turned off by the personal aside criticising Harper - "Harper wouldn’t recognize a global opportunity if it stood up in his soup." Was it really necessary to throw that anti-Harper dig into the article? I don't think so. I think the real challenge that Pearson might have addressed was getting pro-Harper people on her side, rather than insulting them.

My main worry I have around all this 'environmentally friendly' talk is that we may be missing the point that should really be getting across, and that is, 'maybe we should start focusing more on changing our lifestyles rather than greening them'. We love to think that by buying more LED lights, and hybrid cars, we can continue living as we do. Bill Clinton's view that climate change "is the greatest economic opportunity since we mobilized for WWII" professes this standpoint. This talk neglects the fact that North Americans, and even much more than Europeans, are using a dangerously disproportionate share of limited resources. Our economic model, and lifestyle, cannot be the model for emerging economies in China, India and the world over, unless we accept the hardships that will come with it. The main obstacle here, I believe, is North American's inability to accept the fact that a little bit of sacrifice may be needed on our part. That being said, re-focusing our ideals should not always be related to sacrifice. Orienting our economy away from economic growth, and towards the growth in arts and other domains has the possibility of providing us with the needed provision of jobs, entertainment and basic needs.
All I want to say is that while we focus on "greening" our lifestyles we should also focus on how we can ALSO positively start thinking about making the larger changes in our lifestyles. On a positive note Bill Clinton may be right that climate change has the ability to mobilize us. Let us just hope we use our creative energies to make the appropriate and needed changes.

It seems nowadays that it is important to be able to read between the lines when companies say they are "greening" their practices or when countries say they are pursuing "green" initiatives. In this article was mentioned the "booming American market in Bio-fuels". Sadly, while it is easy to believe that this is an attempt for north America to go green, it could be far from the case. Large agro-businesses within the Americas have pushed for the adoption of bio-fuels because of a loss in market shares for corn, especially since Europe does not want to accept genetically modified corn. Some of the big wigs in the industry, such as Monsanto, have lobbied for subsidies and the development of bio-fuels. Yet, this comes at a time when the technology for bio-fuels is not ready. The energy in corn for ethanol is much less than that in sugarcane used in Brazil. As well, because the production processes used within farming to grow corn for ethanol are so demanding their is considerable evidence that bio-fuels aren't even a viable alternative to oil. Consider the large amounts of land, water, fertilizer, and transportation that go into the production of bio-fuels. The use of these resources puts a significant strain on limited resources that are ALSO vital to human needs.
Therefore, rather than agro-business truly trying to go "green", it is a means of protecting its profits and while disguising its activities as environmentally friendly. What is worse is that our government is more willing to grant subsidies to such "green" initiatives even without considerable evidence that it is the right thing to do. The main note of caution here is that one has to be truly critical, and learn to ask many questions before simply jumping on the band wagon. This goes for other such smaller marketing schemes as well.

Here on Vancouver Island, at the edge of the rainforest, we are preoccupied with the destruction of the ecosystem we see going on around us. Your columns are a breath of fresh air. The common wisdom is that the media are addicted to bad news and scandal, but after reading you column I feel refreshed and energized and prepared to carry on the struggle. Many thanks.

Our Prime Minister is about as thick as they come in regards to climate change, but he is a clever politician. Therefore, Canadians need to make it crystal clear to him that we demand substantive action on climate change. Harper needs to deliver a plan that aspires to Kyoto, even if we do not deliver the required reductions in CO2 by 2012. Harper's prevaricating while we plunge deeper into a climate crisis is unethical and for, inexplicably stupid - he has two children - where does he think they will live 80 years from now! If he is a real leader, he will deliver the bad news to Alberta, that their ride is coming to an end over the next couple of decades. A comprehensive plan from our federal government for efficiency and renewable energy will be a fantastic boom for those industries over the next 20 years and be a model for other countries to follow. I will continue to make my voice heard for a substantive plan to reduce emissions, despite what other countries may not be doing, Harpers excuse to wait for others to act is pathetic. If you are in a sinking boat, you do not negotiate with others to start bailing, you start bailing and hope they join in too. Lots of positive action can be taken, let's show the federal government what we want.

Cheers

steve lapp

Thanks for the good news

Wow I feel a bit better already. Hope this is truely a pan American reality and not just 50,000 people

Given that Canada produces more CO2 per capita than the United States, and given that Canada is doing a worse job meeting the Kyoto protocol than the United States, perhaps Patricia Pearson should worry more about making changes in Canada than worrying about the U.S.

Think about it: G. W. Bush, the symbol of environmental irresponsibility and American arrogance has a better record on reducing CO2 emissions than the last two Liberal governments and the current Conservative government!

Until the people of this country and this earth continue to buy the Great Global Warming popsicle - there will be no real change.

Global warming is a further way to start taxing the population for their so-called carbon foot print and then the rich will get richer. I challenge anybody to research documentation relating to Carbon Dioxide and the benefits of this in our atmosphere. The IPCC is a political organization and should be recognized as such - they have a political agenda.

The earth needs to be clean and livable but selling the manmade global warming garbage is laughable.

Reading some of these comments, there really seems to be a hatred of Albertans by Ontario. I wonder why that is? Does only Ontario have the right to pollute? The steel industry produces more CO2 and pollution in Ontario, than the Oil industry directly produces in Alberta. (Not counting the CO2 that is produced when the Ontario build SUV burns it). Commentors like Steve Lapp should worry about fixing his own province before delivering "the bad news to Alberta, that their ride is coming to an end". I say we shut down the auto and steel industries in Ontario first.

We are fooling ourselves if we think that there can be such a thing as a "green" economy. Ask David Suzuki if you don't believe me but the economy has to grow if it is to be deemed successful. That means more trees felled, more oil pumped, more toxic chemicals produced, more fuel burned and therefore greenhouse gases produced. There is nothing sustainable about the globalized world economy, though companies and states will gladly label themselves green as long as they can continue to sell you anything; ever notice that the solution to our problems is always to buy something (new car, new solar panel, new lightbulb, new furnance) which means more resources consumed? I think that these small initiatives mentioned by the article are useful but really we have to question the entire structure of capitalism and its focus on endless growth (impossible on a finite earth even though we deny it). Just don't expect that story on the CBC.

My comments on Kyoto is this: Since Kyoto is a "save the world" agreement, I find it hypocritical that since the United States has not signed it, everyone thinks the world will crumble since the US will NOT meet Kyoto's target. BUT, India and China are not bound by Kyoto until they become "developed" countries. Sorry, folks, but if Kyoto is supposed to be our last hope to save the planet, and all the countries are supposed to be a part of it, why not India and China? Waiting until they become "developed" is pure insanity. There won't be a world left for them to make a comparison to see if they've become "developed" or not. On another note, I see the local governments seem to be smarter than the federal governments as they are accepting Kyoto targets. I say let's get rid of all federal governments, and let's listen to our local officials.

I don't like your comment about Harper.

Harper is unlike most politicians - he does his best to stay away from promises he can't keep. Do you honestly think Canada could have met the Kyoto requirements since Harper took office? Nor do I. Furthermore I appreciate his straight-forwad approach way more than some loopy politician making unattainable promises even if the loopy politician has "charisma".

The thing I am struggling with is the concept of sustainability. I began by looking up the definition some years ago. Oddly, this word was practically unnecessary in 1950 and is now used daily by most media sources.

Based on the definition, humans are not able to live sustainability. Why? 101 Ecology. We are never happy with what we have. We always need something better, by tomorrow. The term ecological footprint refers to how much "stuff" an animal needs to exist (humans being animals) in a given space or area (the ecosystem). For the developing world, humans need approximately 9 hectares of land to produce everything we need from laptops to lettuce.

According to ecologists, there are about 9 billion hectares of usable land to support life and in 2050 we are projected to reach 9 billion people leaving about 1 hectare per person (not 9 hectares). Doing the math, if all of humanity becomes as affluent as Americans, we will need to drop human population to about 1.5 billion people. I don’t see any drive-through line ups for people wanting to voluntarily leave.

The problems we face are three-fold. One, our policies and social behaviour is predominantly guided by laws and rules crafted by our politicians which we elect every 4 years. The political realm exists in a 4 year cycle while humanity lives in a 80 year life cycle. We are doomed in our fate by our misguidance.

Second, like a cigarette smoker, receiving news of lung cancer, and then quitting, we will come to the same end. According to the I.P.C.C, we are carrying out a climatic experiment in which we cannot go back if things don’t work out. Simple things like thermal momentum, etc.

Third, and staying with the cigarette analogy, the global addiction to energy (oil) is unparalleled in human history. Over 10,000 people FLEW in airplanes to Bali this past weekend to find solutions to air pollution.

I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic, just realistic, and I don’t see a lot of hope on the horizon.

My comment is directed at Ken Arliss's comment regarding limiting the number of children and stopping healthcare research. If we do that why not just destroy the world as much as we want....what are we saving the world for if not future generations? You make no sense.

Re: Global Warmimg

What caused that immense ice sheet that covered most of Canadan 12000 years ago to disapear? As far as I know there were no carbon emitting machines or power plants around at that time.

Mother nature contributes to and controls the thermostat of this earth and we humans can nudge it but a little I suppose.

But just the same we do need to be concerned I believe about the quality of the air we breath and the water we drink. And so we do have to control the emmisions, not because of global warming but because we of health issues

Bill Masterson

Vancouver Island

Who cares right? Someone explain to me where all the research and development technology on clean manufacturing and production is located? What country leads investment in capital venture and private equity in clean technology?

In 30 years, the US will dominate clean technology, actually, it is about to surpass the EU in those fields I mentioned above. The US economy is a behemoth which is about to go green!!!! So, how does this affect NAFTA? Someone explain how Canada can freeride this?

Coincidentally, I am reading Jeffrey Simpson's Hot Air, which documents among other things the cynicism of Jean Chretien, who instructed the higher-than-US targets and lower-than-US implementation of those targets. And the irony that so many US cities and state governments had the good sense to ignore the Bush indifference and embrace Kyoto standards to a significantly greater extent than the Kyoto signatory to the North...all of which has given the Harper COnservatives an excuse to continue doing the same....too much!

Hi:

I meant no harm or offence to the people of Alberta. The tremendous profits of the oil patch will diminish in a carbon constrained world, this will hurt Alberta and all of Canada, no question. My point is that Harper is pretending that will never happen, and he does not verbalize the economic benefits of not spending so much money on fuels, and starting to spend on efficiency and renewable energy. As for Ontario's industries, the Big 3 auto industry in particular has done everything in its power to resist increased mileage standards, so they are no favorites of mine. As much as I love a fast powerfull ride in a wonderfully engineered automobile, those days too will have to pass if we are to irrepairably damage our little planet's atmosphere.

Cheers

Thanks for that article.
I also am of the opinion Americans are
entrepreneurial, enterprising, and innovative.
That's what America is famous for.