Opinion

Where's Our Global Warming Protest?

Americans are marching on their capital today. Canadians, have a donut.

By Mitchell Anderson, 2 Mar 2009, TheTyee.ca

Protestors with hands up

In US, a more militant movement is growing.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

"Oh shit..."

Those words nicely sum up the latest scientific assessment of climate change. "We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything that we've considered seriously in climate policy," announced Dr. Chris Field at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Chicago this month.

Professor Field was a lead author of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that just two years ago projected temperature increases this century of up to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Those worst-case scenarios now seem mild in light of recent climate change research from around the world.

Massive emissions from new coal fired plants in China and India are largely to blame, blowing the ceiling off even the most pessimistic assumptions of carbon increases this decade.

Recent data shows that greenhouse gas emissions had ballooned 3.5 per cent a year from 2000 to 2007 -- more than three times the growth rate in the 1990s and "far more rapid than we expected" said Field.

In turn, these vast increases in atmospheric carbon are opening a Pandora's box of melting arctic tundra that could unleash an ancient store of frozen carbon that would dwarf industrial emissions.

The total amount of CO2 released since the start of the Industrial Revolution more than 200 years ago is about 350 billion tonnes. How much carbon could be released by melting permafrost? About 1,000 billion tonnes -- almost three times that much. Scientists believe our warming atmosphere has already begun that dangerous process.

Worse yet, these frozen soils also contain vast amounts of methane -- 23 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2. A recent report from the UN warned:

"The potential consequences of large amounts of methane entering the atmosphere, from thawing permafrost or destabilized ocean hydrates, would lead to abrupt changes in the climate that would likely be irreversible. We must not cross that threshold. Reversing current human induced warming will help us avoid such outcomes entirely."

Here come the wildfires

Sorry folks, but that's not all the bad news. It turns out that our warming world is drying out tropical forests, making them susceptible to wildfires for the first time in history. Not only would that be a biological catastrophe, it would lead to massive additional releases of carbon into the atmosphere.

"Tropical forests are essentially inflammable. You couldn't get a fire to burn there if you tried. But if they dry out a little, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires," warned Dr. Field.

"It is increasingly clear that as you produce a warmer world, lots of forest areas that had been acting a carbon sinks could be converted to carbon sources."

Maybe this global warming thing wasn't such a hot idea after all. It is becoming clear that if we go any farther down this dangerous road, we are unleashing forces that will vastly accelerate global warming, whether we reduce emissions or not.

The fork in this road of course is current carbon emissions. "Without effective action, climate change is going to be larger and more difficult to deal with than we thought," said Dr. Field.

No shit.

Canada's pathetic apathy

So what has been the response of the Canadian public to this five alarm planetary emergency? Not much. While our American counterparts have been planning a massive demonstration of civil disobedience in Washington to mount pressure on the already climate-friendly Obama Administration, Canadians have remained polite and calm.

Prime Minister Harper is no dummy and you can bet that if he felt this job was on the line due to public outrage over his awful record on climate action, he might take this file more seriously. Instead carbon emissions in Canada continue to climb, even in spite of the economic downturn. Our country has one of the worst records in the world on reducing our oil addiction and remains number seven worldwide in absolute emissions.

Consider this: Obama is investing five times as much per capita in green energy stimulus as Ottawa. While Canadians have enjoyed a sense of smug superiority to our American neighbors, those days appear to be long gone.

The reason: Canada is saddled with the tar sands -- the carbon equivalent of a drinking problem. While there continues an oil boom in Alberta, no rational discussion of this bitumen boondoggle seems possible. Remember the National Energy Program? Virtually every Albertan does. Even newly minted leader Michael Ignatieff felt the need to come to the defence of the dirtiest oil on Earth this week in an effort to build his political support in the West.

Must Obama save Canadians from ourselves?

Bizarrely, the one man who can put the brakes on the tar sands isn't even Canadian. If Obama chooses to limit purchases of filthy oil from the tar sands, this project is in big trouble. There is no infrastructure to deliver synthetic crude anywhere but the U.S. Declining oil prices and global credit crisis have already put the squeeze on once-booming Alberta. If their market also dries up due to a credible cap and trade system in the U.S., the party is over.

Canada, the once proud global leader on such principled issues as fighting apartheid, land mines, and pioneering peacekeeping, now finds itself hoping that it can develop the dirtiest oil on the planet. The United States may well decline to buy it for ethical reasons. Talk about being on the wrong side of history.

Politics does not happen in a vacuum -- it flows from public opinion and action. The science on climate change is not just clear, it is terrifying. How will our nation respond?

Have another donut Canada.

Related Tyee stories:

[Tyee]

Mitchell Anderson, a freelance writer living in Vancouver, writes frequently for The Tyee and other publications. His blog is found at: mitchellanderson.blogspot.com.

30 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • jimmy_laroux

    3 years ago

    Northern Gateway pipeline

    Quote:
    There is no infrastructure to deliver synthetic crude anywhere but the U.S. Declining oil prices and global credit crisis have already put the squeeze on once-booming Alberta.

    Maybe not yet, but the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline is planned, and its

    Quote:
    90-cm diameter pipeline will carry a daily average of 525,000 barrels of petroleum from Alberta to tankers in Kitimat, which will deliver it to buyers in Asia and the Pacific United States.

    http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=480d1db9-0216-4c11-97eb-067ffbf2eff7

    The project website:

    http://www.northerngateway.ca/

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    How shrill can they get

    The IPCC climate change "scientists" are getting more and more shrill. I hope they don't pop a gasket. While they become more and more vocal, the earth continues on its cooling trend.

  • puppyg

    3 years ago

    We are apathetic as a nation

    We are apathetic as a nation because our government has consistently lied to us about climate change and the impact of hydrocarbon combustion on global warming.

    First there was blanket denial that global warming existed. Federal scientists were harangued, their findings suppressed and their reports censored.

    Then there was the closed-door dealing with the Bush administration that traded the promise of tar sands developed for the promise of political support - will we ever know the terms of that deal with the Devil?

    Even now, my encounters with professionals in Alberta's oil patch reveal the same wide-held belief there, that global warming is a myth (or that, if it is real, then, it's part of nature or even "... well, China does it too!".

    Rex Murphy on CBC just did a rant in defense of tars sands and attacking National Geographic for its tar sands expose. How grateful we should all be, he contends, for this glorious economic engine that has employed so many and uplifted the nation!

    And so we proceed, headlong into disaster.

    Harper is to global warming what Ronald Reagan was to AIDS research... that will be the legacy.

  • carfreed

    3 years ago

    where's our protest?

    It went out with Dion.
    Now we have the Libs and Conservatives supporting more carbon.

  • Fish-counter

    3 years ago

    Washington listens; Ottawa is deaf.

    Why protest when the premier is as deaf as Stephen Harper? It is a bad day when the Canadian premier is more right wing than the U.S. president. Stephen Harper and Gordon Campbell should get married; they may be nominally at opposite political poles but they are perfect bedfellows on the environment.

    I have worked for 15 years in Nanaimo to restore local streams with high school students under the Work Experience Program. The program was cancelled at the provincial level two years ago, owing to the funding crunch. The school districts find it more expedient to keep small schools open and keep parents happy than to fund their programs.

    Having worked with over 500 high school students, I can safely say that in any given year, a good number of them - about 10% - are motivated to do environmental restoration work.

    They need to connect their enthusiasm with action, or they quickly become apathetic and cynical. Local eco-programs bring enormous benefits to the local community, but it all just got canned.

    Marching and protesting in the streets was never every effective anyway. A sharp object, well-placed, might stop the heartbeat of our negligent government but a few banners will have no effect. I would rather reach for my shovel than a poster.

  • superjudge

    3 years ago

    Smoke and Mirrors...

    A group of Japanese scientists from the Japan Society of Energy and Resources has just put out a report arguing against anthropogenic causes of climate change. Climate change issue is really about political posturing, politics of fear, and social control. Things are going to change no matter what...

  • freebear

    3 years ago

    No 'Our' just 'Me's' !!!

    There is no 'our' in Canada it seems. Just a collection of me's (not discounting those that are indeed 'We's' and 'Ours').

    Burbibg carbon seems to be what humans do best; its just that there are too many of us or me's burning all the carbon we can get our hands on!

    While 'we' keep fiddlin!

  • freebear

    3 years ago

    Oops! I meant burning!

    Sorry, .... burning carbon...

  • Illahie

    3 years ago

    The word on global cooling is starting to come out

    A commentary in the National Post
    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d42a5618-e09b-4765-b180-edadc59d6677&p=2

    An article on the Japanese Research

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

  • seth

    3 years ago

    nuclear

    Of course steam from a Candu APC-1000 nuclear steam reactor would replace natural gas in tar sands production and do a lot towards greening up the tar sands.

  • alive

    3 years ago

    Apathetic, period!

    puppyg
    correction: we are apathetic, period!

    As a nation we allow ourselves to be used and abused; we never voice a concern as long as the "leaders" get a decent rating in the media!

    Thinking for ourselves is not happening and every election proves that fact!

  • Rob_

    3 years ago

    it is happening right now in Surrey

    it is happening right now in Surrey

    blockading our equivelient of coal plants - the Gateway Program

    see: http://www.gatewaysucks.org/

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    it is happening right now in Surrey

    Rob_

    The photo shows six people holding placards, with two more that have the backs turned to the camera. If those two are included, the total comes to eight.

  • Rob_

    3 years ago

    size

    Yes, it is not massive but it does show that people are willing to committ civil disobedience here as well. It was a small quickly organized event.

    The larger protest will probably happen on April 26th at Burns Bog.

  • anarcho

    3 years ago

    Put your money where your mouth is!

    I have a suggestion for the climate change denier crowd. If you are so sure of your beliefs put your money where your mouth is. Let's start a list to which all deniers volunteer to append their name. Should they be victims of any disaster related to climate change, they will be refused aid. But I am sure just like the "free enterprize" types who clamour for government assistance when the economy goes in the toilet, our climate change deniers would otherwise be first in line crying for help. I say to hell with you. Your actions have helped to hold back any attempts at rectification, so you ought to pay the consequences when the time comes.

  • Des

    3 years ago

    Global Warming

    is real, is imminent, and is dangerous. The repercussions are already happening. Deniers are either delusional (not their fault) or paid (shame on them).

  • Name goes here

    3 years ago

    Since when is science politics?

    Climate science has become political science, and that's not a good thing. I'm quoting Thomas Friedman here, and he argues that scientists are generally afraid of being advocates, because scientists are generally cautious, tentative and careful, advocates are not afraid of being scientists.

    Why can't we trust our scientists? Why do we believe our politicians?

  • Janie Jones

    3 years ago

    Global warming, er climate change

    Superjudge has it right.

    I volunteer to be the first person on your list Anarcho.

  • snert

    3 years ago

    Anachro

    As a Canadian you are globally insignificant and here is why. The results below are generated by multiplying the population by the per capita tonnes of CO2 produced divided by the surface area, in square miles, of each country. The result is the tonnes per square mile we produce.

    As a country we go from one of the worst producers to one of the best. Canada's biosphere may even be able to absorb a significant portion our own production.

    Canada

    33,570,000 x 5.6 / 3854085 = 4.88

    US

    305,905,000 x 6.0 / 3794066 = 483.8 [99.1 times higher]

    China

    1,321,851,888 x 1.3 / 3704427 = 463.9 [95.1 times higher]

    India

    1,147,995,904 x .3 / 1269210 = 271.3 [55.1 times higher]

    Australia

    21,585,178 x 5.2 / 2967909 = 4.5 [.9 times higher]

    Japan

    127,433,494 x 3.0 / 145883 = 262.1 [53.7 times higher]

    There is no need for protests, just some common sense thinking on how to reduce our dependency on GHG producing fuels.

    I think you should take your rant to China or India before unloading on Canadians. Don't forget to tell them you don't think they should get any aid for climate change disasters either.

    Because we keep our population density low our burden on the planet is significantly less than that of the majority of the countries. Canada and Canadians are not the problem.

    Disclaimer: The numbers used above are not precise and may vary depending on just which data set is used but the variation should not significantly alter the end results.

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    snert - Does that mean "lower"?

    snert
    Australia

    21,585,178 x 5.2 / 2967909 = 4.5 [.9 times higher]

    Does that mean "lower"?

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Mind-bending

    Canadians get chidded for not supporting a scam.

    Nobody seems to have noticed that temperatures are down and CO2 is still going up. There is no longer a correlation between temperature and CO2.
    NO CORRELATION = NO CAUSATION.

    "Methods and standards that have stood the test of time since the Enlightenment have been shunted aside in order to promote a political objective. Climate experts are no longer expected to create hypotheses and test them but to assume that global warming threatens the planet and to use their expertise to justify this claim. Scientists who question aspects of the orthodoxy have been silenced or fired."

    Global Warming Teach-In
    Global warming is not a crisis, but it may be creating a crisis of intellectual integrity.
    http://popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=2139

    Also, do read Prof Richard Lindzen's important summation of the situation.

    " the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore.

    Returning to the matter of scientific organizations, we find a variety of patterns of influence. The most obvious to recognize (though frequently kept from public view), consists in prominent individuals within the environmental movement simultaneously holding and using influential positions within the scientific organization. Thus, John Firor long served as administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 1980’s, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board Chairman at Environmental Defense– a major environmental advocacy group – from 1975-1980. 5"

    http://ecoworld.com/features/2008/10/30/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/

  • Trent

    3 years ago

    Source credibility

    Mopled, it's been said before:
    Lindzen has been a consultant for Exxon & DaimlerChrysler.
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/skeptics.html

    Which party has more money to buy scientists, oil or academia?

  • snert

    3 years ago

    Rod Smelser

    The last time I looked .9 times higher was actually lower but not .9 times lower if you know what I mean.

  • Dr Alexander

    3 years ago

    An interesting point "Name goes here"... but...

    First of all, anything that Thomas Friedman has to say, I personally take with a large measure of salt.

    Second, I am a scientist and am better positioned to indicate what scientists really fear:

    Loss of funding.

    Funding from "Big Oil" or funding from "Big Carbon Lobby".

    I would be happy with 1 percent of Al Gore's US$300 Million carbon awareness fund. I would be concerned, however, if my research took me in a direction that Al didn't like.

  • Dr Alexander

    3 years ago

    Canadians are not having donuts....

    We are having doughnuts, and beavertails.

    Buy the way, I am having a doughnut to stimulate the economy.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Trent, you are mistaken

    Proponents of Man-Made Climate Fears Enjoy Monumental Funding Advantage over Skeptics

    Excerpt:
    "Compared to the proponents riding the big grant money gravy train we are the person on the corner with a tin cup. Marc Morano did a comparison of the funding received by the proponents in comparison to the smaller funding for objective scientists who take a more skeptical or open minded position (the way science used to be before the lure of money corrupted it). Marc did not include the funding the alarmists blogs get from folks like George Soros, Fenton Communications, convicted Canadian felons, environmental groups and activists which runs in the many millions of dollars. Here is Marc’s summary. You may have other examples. If so please email me (jdaleo@icecap.us).

    Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the Senate Environment & Public Works committee, explained how much money has been spent researching and promoting climate fears and so-called solutions. “In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one,” Carter wrote on June 18, 2007. (LINK)

    The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. (LINK) ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone). Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears.

    Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore’s unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails. Gore launched a $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age. (LINK)
    http://www.icecap.us/

  • snert

    3 years ago

    OOPS!

    I found a different source and was running the same formula for a new batch of countries and I discovered a couple of significant errors. Canada does not come out looking as good as in the original post but the new numbers still show the gist of what I am trying to put across.

    Canada

    33,570,000 x 5.6 / 3854085 = 48.77

    US

    305,905,000 x 6 / 3794066 = 483.8 [9.9 times higher]

    China

    1,321,851,888 x 1.3 / 3704427 = 463.9 [9.5 times higher]

    India

    1,147,995,904 x .3 / 1269210 = 271.3 [5.6 times higher]

    Australia

    21,585,178 x 5.2 / 2967909 = 37.81 [.76 of Canada]

    Japan

    127,433,494 x 3 / 145883 = 2620.5 [53.7 times higher]

    These are corrected numbers from the original set. I had some trouble wrapping my head around the figures for Japan but it seems consistent for small heavily industrialised island nations. Great Britain and Germany are in the 1500/1600 tonnes/sq mi range.

  • Des

    3 years ago

    Global Warming

    Snert - It's still true that figures can lie and liars can figure. But what's your point in guesstimating CO2tonnes/sq.mile?

    All that does is indicate that production of CO2 varies very considerably by country. Which only gives me more evidence for the variability of temperature and associated weather around the world. Which accounts nicely for drought and fire in Australia and unprecedented floods in Europe and sustained sleet storms along the east coast of North America and melting icecaps around the North/South Poles and...

    Once the global (not local) warming trend is acknowledged it is not difficult to make the anthropocentric connection. Except for the contrarians amongst us, who would just as quickly dispute the fact the sky appears blue, arguing that sunrise and sunset proves it is really red.

  • mopled

    3 years ago

    Lordy me, science fiction writers

    The 30 year warming trend, from 1979-1998, has been over for 10 years and nothing you just said Des, can be supported. It is pure, uninformed conjecture.

    “BUT the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect?

    “No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.”

    So explained William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton University, to the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on February 25, 2009."
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/03/global-warming-in-perspective/#more-4276

    You might want to read the rest Des. It just might be possible for you to learn something rather than having to make it up all by yourself.

  • snert

    3 years ago

    Des

    Firstly, it gives some indication of where the problem really lies in a global context.

    Secondly, it shows just what the problem is, population density and not per capita usage.

    Thirdly, it shows that there is no need to panic in Canada because we do not have a significant global effect hence no need to protest anything.

    As Canadians we could drop off the face of the planet tomorrow and it would still be just as much in jeopardy. We do not have to flog ourselves with feelings of guilt.

    You are right, of course "It's still true that figures can lie and liars can figure."

    I hope your ability at detecting liars is as good as you think it is. I'm still waiting for the truth to actually unfold.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.