Is Canada Criminally Negligent on Climate Policy?
A leading environmental scientist says it is time for the international law to target climate culprit countries like his own, Canada.
Rees: US and Canada guilty of 'wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.'
-
Big Oil's Big Buy: Climate Change Denial
James Hoggan's book documents how petro-money finances confusion with the planet at stake.
-
Climate protesters stage second sit-in
-
It's the Tar Sands, Stupid
Canada home to global warming's new ground zero.
In the lead-up to Copenhagen, the Canadian government's (non)policy on global warming borders on the criminally negligent. This may seem to be an outrageous assertion, particularly to those lost in the thickening fog of deception churned out by climate change deniers, but please bear with me for a moment.
First, climate change, particularly global warming, is an undisputed fact. The mean global temperature has increased by .8 Centigrade degrees over the last century, glaciers are melting, the Arctic sea ice is disappearing, deserts are expanding and sea levels are rising-all ahead of climate model projections.*
Second, while it is true that Earth's climate is primarily determined by various non-human factors, including solar output and shifting ocean currents, there have been no changes in these sufficient enough to explain ongoing temperature increases.
Third, by contrast, human activities have significantly increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Carbon dioxide is up 38 per cent from a preindustrial 280 parts per million to 388 ppm today. Other GHGs have climbed proportionately even more -- but the CO2 increases alone are more than sufficient to account for the observed warming.*
Fourth, increasingly severe weather events are already displacing or killing tens of thousands of people annually and this trend is likely to worsen.
Moral negligence
In 2007, "The Age of Consequences" report by Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies argued that "in the case of severe climate change, corresponding to an average increase in global temperature of 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2040... nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change." Contributing author Prof. Leon Fuerth noted that rich countries could "go through a 30 year process of kicking people away from the lifeboat" as the world's poorest face the worst environmental consequences. This is happening with only 2.6 degrees warming -- estimates today suggest a truly catastrophic 4 to 6 degree increase is likely without dramatic preventative action.
In this light, climate change deniers defend a position that will kill millions of people, destroy critical ecosystems and undermine prospects for global civilization. Common sense and social justice demand that the world's nations move forcefully to prevent the anticipated wave of eco-violence.
Failing to act renders foot-dragging governments guilty of moral negligence.
Indeed, if this is really a global village, shouldn't the world community be working to establish legal grounds for negligent actions?
Legal reasoning
Canadian common law provides useful guidance. Environmental negligence suits focus on compensation for loss caused by unreasonable conduct that damages legally protected interests. Unreasonable conduct means doing something that a prudent or reasonable person would not do, or failing to do something that a reasonable person would do. The plaintiff must establish certain key elements of the tort -- cause in fact and proximate cause, damages, legal duty and breach of the standard of care.
Note that fault may be found even in the case of unintended harm if it stems from unreasonable conduct.
The Criminal Code (Section 219) is even clearer that lack of intent to harm is no defence if the damage results from conscious acts performed in careless disregard for others: "Everyone is criminally negligent who (a) in doing anything, or (b) in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons" (where "duty" means a duty imposed by law). Significantly, Section 222(5)(b) states that "a person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being, by being negligent" (emphasis added).
Time for international consequences
How might such reasoning apply to the international arena? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has established with greater than 90 percent certainty that GHG emissions from human activities have caused "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century" and that climate change is clearly capable of causing catastrophic damage. The failure or refusal of major CO2 emitters to reduce their emissions therefore arguably breaches a reasonable standard of care. What is missing in international law is acknowledgment of the offense and the capacity to create and enforce a legal duty to act.
There is no prima facie reason why the behavioural standards imposed by international law should not be as rigorous as those required by domestic law.
If human-induced climate change is a cause of death and destruction, then Canada and the United States -- two countries with the highest CO2 emissions per capita on the planet -- are guilty of "wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons." Pity that they seem poised once again to undermine the global community's efforts to reach international agreement on serious GHG emissions reductions.
*Story updated at 12:30 p.m., Dec. 2, 2009. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
dirtmeister
01-12-2009
Facts
I am surprised that the rhetoric from the climate true believers has not been toned down they have a lot of atonement to do. Facts: the temperatures have been decreasing since 1998, the hottest year in the 20th century was 1934, 1999 will be the coldest year in the last 30 years and the hurricane season will end with only 3, the lowest in 12 years. It does not look like a warming trend or the coming of Armageddon. With the climategate revelations everything that the climate apostles say is in questionable. Let us not forget that Gore is a failed divinity student and Lizzy May is an ordained Minister. They just have a new religion. I am a man of the soil living in northern BC the Canucks will win the Stanley Cup before I am able to grow grapes.
OilbertaRedTory
01-12-2009
Harper's Fall Guys
On torture : Cannon or Mackay ?
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/01/documents-colvin.html
On Climate Denial :
http://www.one-blue-marble.com/harper-and-climate-change.html
Choices choices:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9uV6IxG66A
make_up_another...
01-12-2009
Test International Laws, Expose The Sham
One truth that can come out of posing legal actions such as this is the purposeful impotence of International Law and Treaties.
Take war crimes for example. Is any western country ever going to arrest and try a leader of another western country who deliberately flouted the Geneva Convention? Of course not. All those signing statements and legal fancy footwork to declare the vitims of the war on terror as 'enemy non-combatants', were designed to protect Bush and Cheney. We only apply war crimes to 3rd world dictators who have outlived their usefulness.
The same goes with the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty). Iran is a signatory, and has the right, under the treaty to enrich uranium for its own use. Israel, India and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, have not signed the NPT, but strangely are not harassed by the US. The US itself has signed this treaty but has absolutely no intention of honouring disarmament.
Look at the Colvin case. If the Harper government were knowingly handing over prisoners, 'detainees' as they call them, to be tortured, then they would be exposed to war crimes. Why else is there such a vehement response?
How about one closer to home; Nafta and the softwood lumber dispute. The US routinely and quite blatantly ignores rulings in Canada's favour.
These kinds of laws and treaties are signed cynically by governments that have no intention of applying the same standards to themselves. They are weapons to be used against lesser powers.
seth
01-12-2009
Harpo's new nuclear deal
Harpo's new nuclear deal with India and presumably the ongoing negotiations in his China trip, potentially at least, show Canada will shortly and inadvertently be on its way to number one in the world in the climate battle. Europe and the Obama are still mired in that nonsensical “renewable” religion and on track to creating the maybe ten years away civilization ending peak oil/climate crisis.
Fossil fuel use would pay for its own end with worldwide build of 10000 nuclear plants. With mass production, Atomic Energy Canada is telling Harpo, nuclear power costs drop from the current Asian $1.5 to under $1B a Gw cheaper than coal and 10% the least cost renewable.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html
A $150 billion investment in mass produced nukes, would be paid for by and would end Canada's $100 billion annual fossil fuel bill- a two year payback using only a small fraction of our industrial capacity.
Similarly, the US needs 2500 new reactors but is crippled by inefficient private power companies, a biased Nuclear Rejection Commission and corrupt and litigious political and legal systems, quadrupling nuclear costs and time frames.
By rimming the border with AECL reactors, Canada's public power companies would make $trillions selling the US nuke power at premium rates.
In Canada it would create hundreds of thousands of hi tech jobs making Canada the world leader in booming nuclear tech with massive orders for AECL ACR-1000 nukes. Unlike the US, Canada could easily legislate a one time environmental all sites anywhere permit for any and all reactors - no local input needed - 36 months start to service.
Canadian neocon governments have historically chosen the hewers of wood drawers of water route refusing to support Canadian hitech from the Arvo Arrow to most recently Nortel but this a huge employment booster and may be Harpo's ticket to that elusive majority government.
Won't that be a prize 10 years from now Canada no air pollution, no GHG's, the cheapest energy on the planet, and a booming nuclear based industrial economy.
With cheap Canadian nuclear technology for sale, we'd be saving the world, curing the US, India, and China of their nasty fossil fuel habits while Europe will be still spewing coal soot and building their absurd windmills.
ME2
02-12-2009
hypocrisy?
So why does the US drag its feet on CO2 and promote carbon trading?
[www.project-syndicate.org] Jeffrey D. Sachs
King coal's climate policy
realisticman
02-12-2009
j'accuse!
First witness for the defense take the stand.
State your name.
Dr. Phil Jones.
Are you the same Phil Jones that headed the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that prepared the IPCC study cited here by a Mr. William Reese claiming and categorically stating that there was 90 percent certainty that GHG emissions from human activities have caused "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid 20th century" and that climate change is clearly capable of causing catastrophic damage?
Yes, sir I am.
Are you then that same Phil Jones that resigned his position in disgrace on December first 2009 as Director of that same East Anglia Climatic Research Unit due to the exposure of manipulation of the facts in the study prepared for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and in so doing commenced the unraveling and exposure of the global warming scam and the general discredit of the 'Warmingistas" and their plot?
Yes Sir, I am that same Phil Jones.
Your Honour. I rest my case.
Case Dismissed! The witness will be subject to costs incurred by the aggrieved parties and I will approve them as submitted.
Fiat lux
02-12-2009
Nice to see the Flat Earth
Nice to see the Flat Earth Society, alias the Reform Party, coming out of the woodworks to deny the obvious, because the Holy Priesthood of the advertising agency by the name of the Fraser Inst. says so.
The brutal facts of climate change, we can see every day all around us, interferes with the biggest frauds in human history, the GDP, unlimited growth and "wealth creation", so they're screaming their bought and paid for heads off to mislead people.
I wonder where our deniers live? In the cities, cut off from the realities of life, or in the country, where the signs of climate change are frighteningly obvious?
Ed Deak. Big Lake.
MichaelT
02-12-2009
Ed I like you but as someone
Ed I like you but as someone trained as scientist I can say you are entirely wrong.
Anyone with any ethics or science training can see our principles be thrown out the window in the released documents.
It's a fact Mars and Venus warmed due to Solar activity.
We need to adjust our thinking based upon facts - that's how I live my life because that is my training.
I think you are smarter than you let on here.
Please everyone, we all get emotionally invested in things but we must, must examine the facts and change our ideology and not try to change facts to fit a pre-existing ideology.
----
"It is now clear that Messrs. Jones and Mann and their colleagues pressed on counting white swans all the while stumbling over the black ones. Their actions not only discredit the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, but do incalculable damage to the public perception of science and scientists."
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2292759
you may hate the paper but are you really going to not listen because of the messenger? The man is a professor emeritus in Biology.
This is how all of us with ethics and training in science think and feel. Before Gore's film came out I was the one emailing colleagues showing the melting ice-sheets, calling me a denier or a right winger is simply avoiding the facts in an ad hominem and baseless attack.
Booker
02-12-2009
J'accuse right back
I accuse climate change denialists of taking a few innocuous comments from one or two emails by Phil Jones (out of 10 years worth of emails that were stolen) and twisting them to serve their paleo-conservative ideological goals. It's just one more propaganda effort to stifle support for dealing with the environmental crisis.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/11/the_hacked_climate_science_ema.php
snert
02-12-2009
Get off the backs of Canadians.
We are not even close to being a major contributor to climate change. Our population density is such that our environmental foot print is quite small relative that of China, India and the rest of Southeast Asia or most of the countries in the European Common Market for that matter.
We have areas that can be improved, no argument but this article just demonstrates the Henny Penny attitudes of our fearless leaders that really don't have a clue what to do.
And further that we should not go blindly following 'leading scientists'. Especially when they apparently refuse to look at the whole picture.
michael maser
02-12-2009
'Climate Cover Up' unDeniable ...
'Follow the money' is the only guidance a halfway intelligent person needs to know in this debate and, if you didn't already know that, then read James Hoggan's 'Climate Cover Up - the crusade to deny global warming' and you'll get the REAL picture of what's being going in this debate.
The petro-lobby, with the use of hacks like Lomborg, McKitrick, Ball, Singer, Moore et al has worked us very effectively with the help of big media. This, too, should be considered an indictable offense, given the stakes.
- Michael Maser, Gibsons BC
Fiat lux
02-12-2009
Michael, Do you live in a
Michael,
Do you live in a city, or in the country ?
I'm no trained scientist, but I know and am in daily contact with some, who know the scores. .
Are you, or anybody seriously suggesting that the incredible pollution caused by totally unnecessary industrial activities and 100,000 ships on the seas carting products around that could and should be made with environmentally friendly methods, are not causing any harm to the environment and humanity?
Our bodies are full of poisons from the air, our hospitals full of little bald headed kids, our water and every bite we eat is full of chemicals. We have cancer and other epidemics that we haven't had before. Our forests are dying, our farmlands are destroyed with agribiz chemicals and GM seeds.
How long can this go on ?
I'm off to town now for our biwweekly shopping and in the first 30 km. we'll be passing hundreds of thousands of dead pines, because the beetle eggs haven't been killed by frost since 1995.
Cheers, Ed.
michael maser
02-12-2009
The quote mentioned above,
The quote mentioned above, Jones and Mann ..." discredit the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, but do incalculable damage to the public perception of science and scientists."
is pure hyperbolic piffle, hyper-inflated by the Flat Earth Denial Society; as has been made amply clear by comments and statements from legions of authentic cliimate scientists. Head to DeSmog Blog for some excellent links if you need convincing.
multilis
02-12-2009
On criminal...
As far as criminal goes, imo should go both ways, just like misleading on the stock market. If it is shown even in 20 years that Rees was dishonest or he deletes his data collected using public funding, then he should be a criminal and any funding he got for researching environmental issues should be treated like fraud or theft money.
CO2 has been 5x and 20x higher in ancient past according to wikipedia CO2 article, when life also thrived on earth. 1000 years ago grapes were grown in northern Britain and parts of Canada that currently can't grow grapes according to historians.
Meanwhile every year it becomes easier for biological weapons and horrible accident due to gene splicing advances.
As far as green goes, planting trees and reducing toxic pollutants may do more for environment then sequestering CO2 (which in a greenhouse *boosts* plant growth). If CO2 makes an area slightly more acidic, it may be cheapest to use lime to neutralize as is already commonly done in farming.
An example of counting the problems and ignoring the gains, average rain in Australia has gone up, try to find mention of than in search on global warming on google, wording tends to suggest drought first... http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=T
realisticman
02-12-2009
Booker
"...a few innocuous comments from one or two emails by Phil Jones..."
Ask yourself Booker, if this was so trivial then why did Dr. Jones resign? It will not help his case that he bailed out. Perhaps he's headed for the hills.
He may well be subject to criminal prosecution.
So might Mann:
“Penn State University has announced that it has begun an investigation of the work of Michael Mann, the director of its Earth System Science Center, following revelations contained in the Climategate documents that have emerged from East Anglia University in the UK. This decision follows close on the heels of a decision Saturday at East Anglia University to release climate change related data, a reversal of its previous stance. In addition, according to East Anglia’s press office, it will soon be announcing details of its own investigation.” – National Post
Urbanismo
02-12-2009
Toxic air v's AGW
Putting Canada on trial . . . ridiculous! Equally ridiculous is the name calling.
No rational person disputes global warming but neither do they dispute global cooling: irrefutable evidence shows earth climate and atmosphere changing constantly.
When "deniers" are accused, lost in the hyperbole is Big Oil's support for AGW. Big O salivates over the derivatives established in the carbon credit market: huge sums are at stake.
If I want to rip the heart out of the Island's forests, as Timber West is intent upon, then that's okay so long as I pay for a tennis court in Tegucigalpa. And all that is transacted through the auspices of the cap-and-trade market on Wall Street. Does that get your antenna twitching for heaven's sake?
Copenhagen is about money . . .
Toxic air is not! Let us not delude ourselves. Toxic air is an issue to take to court.
Unlike Mexico City we do not calibrate urban air quality. Currently IMECA today's reading is unusually low: maxio hoy 74.
Check for yourselves http://www.sma.df.gob.mx/simat2/
Bad air is not fun . . .
IMECA 100 is not unusual and at 200 schools are closed.
Unlike the US we had the most enlightened Tommy Douglas: comprehensive health care.
But we must not be lull into complacency: toxic air is big time bad in all our urban environs.
Don't let the AGW'er change the subject . . .
PS Tyees' web master needs wake up earlier . . I posted once and look what happened!
realisticman
02-12-2009
A good one
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1231673/Global-warming-Dont-wait-The-Earth-tricks-carbon-count-control.html
KWD
02-12-2009
woke this morning to -2 C
that's all the proof I need ... global warming is scam.
The earth is flat, it’s 6000 years old, man hasn’t walked on the moon, Oswald shot Kennedy, the markets will prove infinite growth is possible, building 7 collapsed because fire melted the iron work, killing
innocents is the price of progress, the only reason the US is in Afghanistan is to spread democracy, fish farms don’t kill wild salmon, abiotic oil is proof the world will never run out, Gordon Campbell is Liberal, Harper and Stelmach have a plan to control greenhouse gas emissions, Hitler was an accomplished architect, the glaciers aren’t melting, global warming isn’t happening and if it is humans aren’t the cause, science is alchemy and war is peace.
cboo44
02-12-2009
I live in the "country", Ed
"... in the country, where the signs of climate change are frighteningly obvious?"
In the Chilcotin, where the signs are also "frighteningly obvious" that we have been there before! Eagle Lake(7km E. of Tatla Lake) and many other lakes on the Chilcotin Plateau have seen remarkable water level drops over the past 40 years. Eagle Lake in particular has dropped 11 vertical feet ! The once dominant inflow and outflow have dried up. What has this dramatic drop in water level shown? OLD TREE STUMPS below the previous water line, 25 metres from the previous shoreline. What does that tell us? At some point in history.....wait for it........THAT LAKE HAS BEEN THERE BEFORE !! Prior to the evil "Industrial Age".
A "natural climate cycle"? Pretty good chance, huh?
So the climatologists and pseudo-environmentalists can take their fake "hockey stick" and ......
Chris Keam
02-12-2009
What's in a name?
I think it's good to call the leaked emails 'Climategate' It reminds us that the most powerful man in the world couldn't keep the lid on a (relatively) small break-in and wire-tapping scandal, but we are supposed to believe an entire industry has been built around a massive conspiracy and cover-up that requires huge amounts of falsified data, complicit news outlets and governments the world over, and corporate acquiesence to a radical remodelling of the underpinnings of the current economy. If Watergate could generate so much evidence of wrong-doing for one event, one would expect Climategate to deliver mountains of emails and other proof of conspiracy. Yet, here we are, with a few emails and nothing else. It just doesn't add up.
SharingIsGood
02-12-2009
Enthalpy of fusion or specific melting heat
For the climate change deniers:
I am no rocket scientist, but I remember from Grade 8 science that at the melting point it takes many times more energy(heat) to change the temperature of that substance 1 degree. In the case of water, it requires nearly 80 times as much energy to change it from a solid to a liquid.
1 cc of water require 1 calorie to change 1 degree celcius. At the melting point, it requires 8o calories to change that same cc of water 1 degree celsius.
As we are having polar and mountain-top ice disappearing at increased rates, I respectfully submit that much of the planet's heat energy that would normally be raising the temperature of the planet is currently being used to convert ice packs to water.
Those people who say that global warming is not true need to broaen their thinking and consider that the sum total of global heat must be increasing for the ice packs to be disappearing. I may be wrong about this idea, as i have not researched it, but it makes sense to me until someone can prove that we have overcome the laws of thermodynamics.
dave49
02-12-2009
Dr Alexander
You're right.
I'm reminded of the O. J. Simpson criminal trial acquittal. As one friend observed, "when there are such strong suspicions about evidence-tampering, a jury will not believe the 'beyond reasonable doubt' standard has been met and will acquit". A civil trial eventually found Simpson guilty.
Something similar may happen with global warming. It may be determined in some forum other that the IPCC that global warming is a valid and correct theory. Right now, in the mind of the public, anthropogenic global warming is not proven and possibly a sham.
The Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia has provided a foundation of sand, now crumbling, for other scientists to build on.
Next...
Chris Keam
02-12-2009
Blanket Statements Aren't Helping
"Right now, in the mind of the public, anthropogenic global warming is not proven and possibly a sham."
Nonsense. A recent poll shows Americans are split down the middle on the issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33434755
While the majority of Europeans consider climate change to be one of the most serious issues facing the world today
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_322_en.pdf
Brian Gordon
02-12-2009
Charge Rex Tillerson with Crimes Against Humanity
A case could and should be made by those on the front lines of climate change: Bangladesh, India, China, the Maldives, and many more. Urge them to charge Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil and major funder of global warming denial: http://www.briangordon.ca/stand-with-the-maldives/.
There might also be a case for charging Harper with treason and terrorism. From the Canadian Criminal Code:
In Canada, the relevant paragraphs of the Criminal Code of Canada relating to high treason are:
(1) Every one commits high treason who, in Canada,
(c) assists an enemy at war with Canada...whether or not a state of war exists between Canada and the country whose forces they are.
The relevant paragraphs of the Criminal Code of Canada relating to terrorism
are:
"terrorist activity" means
(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,
(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of...compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(ii) that intentionally
(B) endangers a person’s life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C)
http://www.celsias.com/article/case-treason-or-i-hereby-accuse-mr-stephen-harper/