Opinion

Beyond the Carbon Tax

Two enviros argue it's 'fluff' and 'blackmail' and no real fix for climate change.

By Michael M'Gonigle and Blake Anderson, 30 Apr 2009, TheTyee.ca

Smokestack spelling CO2

Tax energy, not just carbon?

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Despite the economic doom and gloom, catastrophes in fish farms and wild rivers, controversial multi-billion dollar highway schemes, in this election no one seems to care. Instead, the first 10 days of the election have been "virtually a referendum on the carbon tax" reported UVic political scientist Norman Ruff.

Yikes! In a world running amok, this is it? With seemingly pivotal decisions facing BCers on every front, the carbon tax debate shows the depressingly low level of the climate change conversation -- and of our politics. For their shared fixation is on symptoms not causes. If you are willing to look, the problem is clear: over-production and over-consumption, the real issue being not carbon, but energy and the economy that mainlines it.

We are told that we need a response akin to a wartime emergency. Well, if so, a carbon tax is designed to fight a phantom war that diverts us from thinking about, let alone fighting the real one. The enemy? Business -- and life -- as usual.

The political challenge is not Liberal vs. NDP vs. Green but what it will take for an increasingly conservative environmental movement to shake off its political complacency, and lead the charge.

Where is everyone?

Requiem for the carbon tax

In their Climate Action Plan, the provincial Liberals wax poetic that their plan will allow businesses to "capture new opportunities in fields such as clean energy and energy-efficient technology." Their de facto academic spokesperson, SFU's Mark Jaccard, is even more effusive that a carbon tax is fine because Canada's "economy would continue to grow rapidly."

But, of course it will. At a time when the price at the pump can fluctuate 10 cents per litre in a week -- with no reason except our deference to the global law of economics -- the carbon tax is only 2.5 cents per litre. And it will climb by a few cents over the next few years to its peak of 7.25 cents per litre. Whew! We can handle that.

And what happens to this money? Not spent on public transit (as the GVRD mayors recently requested of Premier Gordon Campbell) or energy efficiency for low-income housing or rental units (that might satisfy NDP leader Carole James). No, this is a "revenue neutral" tax, with $300 million in carbon taxes translating into almost $500 million in tax cuts this past year. Whew! We can still do our trip to Italy.

With some good caveats built in (like refunds for low-income earners and Northerners), one might give credit for at least doing a wrong-headed policy somewhat right. The economists are happy. But what will it achieve? If it works (and this is a big IF), its proponents hope to see a 33 per cent reduction in CO2 by 2020 and an 80 per cent reduction by 2050. 33 per cent will be the easier part -- you know, the "low hanging fruit" stuff -- and that would (could) be a significant reduction.

But the big part -- the 80 per cent -- now that's a lot. But 2050? That's 41 years from now. Forty-one years ago, Richard Nixon had just become president, and Barack Obama was six years old. The Vietnam War was raging and the Beatles had just released Sergeant Pepper's. The Americans hadn't even landed on the moon. 2050? Like, this is two generations away! Some wartime emergency.

Carbon colonialism

Unfortunately, the experiences with similar technical initiatives indicate that these targets will be neither achievable nor enforceable. Despite lofty claims from politicians and economists, pricing is a fickle game that in practice has yet to provide solutions.

The Transnational Institute (TNI) in Paris reports that Europe's experience with its related "cap and trade" is a documented disaster -- emissions have increased, large polluters have made massive windfall profits, energy costs rose for consumers, while innovation waited on the sidelines to see where all this policy dust settled. This past week, the world's second largest reinsurer, Swiss Re, closed its carbon trading desk due to lack of business.

Meanwhile, Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute decries the carbon offset market that allows one, for example, to pay to plant trees to "offset" the carbon emitted on one's travels. Carbon offsetting projects have been redundant, ineffective, unproven, unmonitored, although they have spawned a highly-motivated and lucrative new "green" industry selling cheap absolutions to the frequent flyer.

'Carbon colonialism'

Calling it "carbon colonialism," one TNI critic of the impact of offsets on southern development projects noted that "instead of building wells, rich countries can now plant trees." Ironically, the most prolific flyers that we know are climate scientists, followed by climate lobbyists (environmentalists) and climate academics. They are, they say, "on the road to Copenhagen" (the site of the next Kyoto conference). Like millions in our generation of jetsters, they are carbonizing their way to distant meetings -- but important ones, of course.

As a result, the TNI urged California to reject both "the fundamentally flawed trading and offsets approach." It won't be long before we hear the same thing about carbon taxes. Even staunch advocate Jaccard admits that for them to work, they will have to impose carbon pricing that is perhaps 400 per cent greater than now permitted. And the big hike will have to be accompanied by "strong complementary regulations and public investments."

Carboniferous politics

But such policies are not on the agenda. Instead, at just 2 plus cents per litre, the carbon tax is all show. Without actual bite, the carbon tax doesn't demand the investment of real political capital. And without that, there isn't serious debate. It's carbon fluff.

Although the NDP rejected the carbon tax, their shallow political calculations are less than inspiring, and their analysis has been less than informative. Meanwhile, respected organizations like the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute remain staunch carbon tax advocates, despite all the evidence to the contrary, making support for this tax the litmus for environmental correctness.

How often have we been told (erroneously) that any rejection of the Liberals would be devastating for political innovation anywhere on climate change? This is carbon blackmail.

From our review, only the Dogwood Initiative's Cliff Stainsby has set a higher bar. He advocates an awkwardly named "cap and dividend" strategy that would set a cap on CO2 emissions at a point where they enter the economy, and emission permits auctioned off, the money raised to go directly into transitional adjustment assistance that also reflect the social impacts. Stainsby also calls for a ban on such emissions as a toxic substance, old-fashioned direct regulation in Europe having had dramatically greater success with other pollutants (like acid rain) than America experience with cap-and-trade programs.

But even this analysis skirts the main point -- that it's about energy, and our insatiable demand for more and more, and more still. Where will this demand take us? When will it end? What are the alternatives?

Post-carbon politics

One place it will go is a diversion on every usable stream, a windmill for every hilltop, perhaps a nuke for every metropolis. BCers don't like the thought of run-of-river hydro power fuelling electric cars to jam the new $3 billion Gateway freeways into Vancouver. The proposed 10 lane Port Mann bridge is even justified by the government because it will "reduce vehicle emissions by reducing congestion-related idling." Yikes again!

And BCers are not alone. Just ask how the farmers and residents of the Niagara Escarpment feel as they plod off to yet another public meeting to oppose the imposition on them of another politically correct "solution." A UNESCO biosphere reserve, and once an iconic protected area just north of Toronto, the area's once draconian planning powers have been stripped away by a provincial government intent on clearing the area for massive windmill developments to fuel the city. From that huge bluff, and certainly from the top of any windmill fueling the city, you would be able to see Highway 401, its 22 lanes still crowded with traffic late into the evening.

What we should really do

So why not just skip right past all this tax shifting that merely fiddles with new supply lines while the planet burns? Let's cut straight to the quick-- a real economic transition strategy that reduces demand. Now there's an election topic, if only we had a functioning democracy that was up to the reality of the 21st century.

Let's scrap Gateway (now), and put that money into a 200 kilometre light-rail network that the UBC's Design Centre for Sustainability argues could blanket the Lower Mainland for the same price -- and take thousands of cars off the road, millions of litres of gas out of the pipelines, and tonnes of CO2 out of the air.

Let's repeal the $300 million plus in annual provincial subsidies and $1.4 billion in federal subsidies for new energy exploration and development. Dogwood calls these subsidies that co-exist with carbon taxes as B.C.'s number one "climate contradiction." Yes, we need to use energy, but the question is whether we should be subsidizing new use, rather than fostering initiatives that will generate new non use. And let exploration follow the dictates of the much-loved market, but a changed market that now works in the context of an energy-frugal, innovation economy.

And let's have a meaningful "energy transition levy" that has no pretense to revenue neutrality but is explicitly designed to kick-start a collective endeavor to grow an eco-economy. Imagine the pride of making B.C. a showcase of a sustainable, just and practical economic model for the 21st century.

The tools are there -- smart meters, differential pricing (say for urban gas commuters and rural residents, and according to the environmental impact of the energy source), identified targets for direct investment that can dramatically increase efficiency and low-income supports, public transit opportunities, and much more.

Let's cut energy demand by a quarter, fast

So, let's put 2050 aside, even 2020, and focus on 2015 -- and a real reduction in energy demand by that date. How about 25per cent?

The tools are there, but where are the people? Beyond provoking an outcry over jobs and deficits, such a dramatic economic transition strategy that takes seriously the climate challenge should also provoke a debate about our real deficit -- the democratic deficit.

In this election and beyond, we must move past the half-thought-out carbon policies and the artificial divisions they sew. We need a real referendum on our collective future, and a process that gets us there with not just the usual environmental suspects but a whole host of characters -- social housing advocates and green entrepreneurs, investment gurus and tech wizards, visionary politicians and engaged citizens.

Rather that fine-tuning a broken carbon instrument, it is time to reinvent our democracy beyond carbon.

But then maybe climate change isn't all that urgent and we can just wait until Barack turns 88, and most of us are dead.

[Tyee]

Michael M'Gonigle is a professor at the University of Victoria, and a director of the POLIS Project on Ecological Governance. Blake Anderson is a graduate student at UVic and researcher at POLIS.

32 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    Get a real plan?

    And not everyone coming at it from different directions as it will take cooperation plus commitment from all levels of government. As hear Feds are putting in Cap and Trade along with Obama once economy stable as measures would be conture productive.

    Also remember dollars are carbon driven as most money has energy associated with it as the cost of doing business.

    Get citizens onboard throught long term incentives like a free hydro bill for those who show real efforts in reducing their carbon print for one idea to several families? Free transit passes while reducing the cost to ride and park what ever it takes and what thing for sure the Liberals do not have what it takes?

    Also business help them replace their fleets or business vehicles to electric along with incentives. It will reduce their cost of doing business while keeping the air that much clearner. And prises to citizens and rewards as its what works best. Because we know how good punishment works thats why jails are full? And they could be fuller no doubt about it if law permits.

    And don't forget big business instead of letting them off the hook while the tax payer is on for dealing with the pollution they leave behind.
    Its time for everyone to do their part and big business does big environmental damage and therefore needs to clean up after itself.

    Creating a New Industry worth billions as British Columbians become experts at cleaning up while making a bundle. Sounds better than taking down the little guy while big business continues to pollute big time.

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    And Mike and Blake?

    Do you drive? Are you putting your cars in permanent park? Guess what neither are most British Columbians so instead of shutting everything down look at making the necessary environmental changes as we will see more electric on the road along with other innovation not to far down the road.

    But forget Campbell's trains as he has a investor in a losing proposition?
    And that tells me right off the bat its the tax payer and rider and the environment who is going to have to pay to ensure Mr. Bucks makes a buck on a losing proposition such as public transportation.

    And thanks to Campbell and his wheeling and dealing he found a loser, the public that would buy into it.

    Because certainly no business would unless it wasn't ensured in getting its big time rewards. But you'll never know because you don't get to see what going on in the private.

    Anyways hang in there just a little longer as BC will get to shop on the green side when it goes to buying transportation as it looks on the wild side. As speed and design along with the environment entice driver to park it and take the train to for a ride to work.

  • realisticman

    3 years ago

    Sustainable Prosperity

    More on this tomorrow:

    Sustainable Prosperity

  • politico

    3 years ago

    Dogwood

    I like our happy planet and all that but I don't understand how this organization has any credibility given the ED's wielding of his partisan meat hook.

    Stainsby points out the obvious and it was stunning that this election offered virtually nothing new on the climate front especially since Gordo has been sqwalking about being a world leader for so many years.

    He offered zilch in his platform yet no one notices, nobody cares, it is somehow all Carole's fault as they nitpik over minor details in her platform and ignore Campbell's complete side step altogethor.

    Moreover, the pathetic politics of Dogwood kicks in and they do a drive by shooting on the leader of the only party that can actually defeat this climate/environment destroying government.

    Gregor Robertson and the rest of the crew of SS Hollyhock are running a tight ship that flys the climate change flag of convenience. Lets hope they don't take us all down with them while they sink BC's environment and destroy any semblence of democratic values they may still be trying to cling to.

  • KWD

    3 years ago

    wishful thinking

    Smart meters, differential pricing, increased efficiency, financial assistance and public transit may be part of the tool box but, as much as we’d like to think otherwise, they are not going to solve the problem of environmental degradation, resource depletion and anthropgenically induced climate change. If anything they will simply delay and compound the destruction of the biosphere.

    The same applies to the claim that things will change if we work at getting rid of the democratic deficit.

    It should be obvious by now that capitalism abhors democracy. Revamping an economic system that is controled by Dollar Democracy is impossible in a system that continually requires more stuff be produced so that profits can be made so that people can go to work and make enough wealth so that they can fly or drive or cruise to every corner of the planet and generally destroy the environment in the process so that more stuff can be produced …

    The solution to the calamity we face will not be found in any well laid plan of mice or men or sudden revelation or global action, it will be spelled out by an environment that will decide who lives and who dies. Despite the misguided mental gymnastics of the pope, we do not have dominion over resource scarcity or abundance, or disease anymore than we have dominion over life forms other than human.

    Given the current disconnect and conflicts between the haves and the have nots, rich and poor, developed and developing worlds, and the rise of religious fanaticism, population collapse is inevitable.

    The only hope for humanity is a concerted effort to explore and understand the final frontier … the space between our ears.

  • seth

    3 years ago

    easy peasey

    The best and cheapest alternatives to gateway, carbon taxes, and transit builds, alternatives that actually save instead of costing money are telecommuting and 3 day work weeks. Unfortunately until government/corporate execs are forced out their dinosaur butts in a seat mentality little will change.

    We need to force our government organizations to institute mandatory telecommuting plans then add corporate carrot/stick incentives soon after. The US GTA has marked 40% of US federal civilian employee jobs are telecommutable that includes us forest and postal services I would assume the BC government is more or less the same. A Carlton university survey found 60% of those surveyed would telecommute if they could. Stats Can has it that that institutions under the control/purview of the BC Government ie hydro ferries municipals control more than 350,000 employees. Gordo could have ended rush hour almost overnight

    This is not on the agenda of any political party. Why? Because 99% of politicians are Artsci's with a BA from someplace and are incapable of rational thought. A few engineers like CD Howe running things and we'd be on track pronto.

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    All good thoughts

    On the environment as it will take someone with a committement and who is not afraid of new ideas. And Robertson don't worry about him he is relatively new to politics and is busy running the city while dreaming the dream. And its no easy task I'm sure. How green is my city?
    Lets see what Robertson comes up with to impress as clearly the carbon tax is old news.
    And one thing for sure Robertson dosen't want to be part of the old as its new ideas and creative thinking that is required in these complex times.
    So surprise us Robertson as you work towards making Vancouver the greenest out there. Why not? We have everything to gain.
    Lets hear about how citizens who recycle win a couple of bikes or other measures that will inspire and create feedback. Or what business does to create that kinda climate, a safe one for us all and future generations. As its simple a little respect goes along way as my mom would often remind me.

  • morechatter

    3 years ago

    And KWD

    Have faith if we have the problems we also have the solutions we just have to believe. And just because we don't have the ideal at the moment it dosen't justify not doing. As its baby steps as to ensure these new environmental habits become a way of life instead of another advertising campagain that also do there damage, environmentaly in more ways than one.

    Now if we could get everyone on board these steps would turn into a pathway for environmental change. As remember first and foremost we are creatures of habit and bad habits are hard to break. So while fools rush in slow and steady wins the race. So reward entice and praise while keeping all informed of all the postive changes. As the changes also needs to be measureable to know what is working and what isn't. Something the Liberals don't like to share is information especially yours.

  • BrianWhite

    3 years ago

    Propaganda and politics.

    If carole james wants my vote to go to her nominee in my riding, she will have to axe the axe. Cap and trade that she will bring in in her SECOND TERM is insulting.
    "I will only tackle carbon if I get 2 majoritys in a row". Yeah, right.
    In my opinion doing nothing is not an option.
    If revinue neutral is a problem, change it! What is between your ears? If you are in government, you do not have to keep revinue neutral. See? You can use the billions for good works!
    If the ndp said they will keep the carbon tax and funnel 10% into alt energy, environmental improvements, energy efficiency and public transport, I would be very happy to vote for them.
    Where will the salmon be if there is a 2 degree rise in temp and a more acid ocean? In museums, thats where.
    I would applaud the NDP if they make a u turn on this issue. It is a shame that they refuse to listen and continue to spin the issues. Give in and win. That can be your slogan.
    Cos you aint winning without the environmentalists.

  • Luke Skywalker

    3 years ago

    The Much Beloved Carbon Tax...

    I just don't understand what the fixation is with carbon taxes and cap and trade. Not my personal bailiwick.

    Yet today:

    Quote:
    A think tank [Sustainable Prosperity] at the University of Ottawa has ranked British Columbia's carbon tax the most effective climate policy in Canada.

    Quote:
    Mr. Elgie said B.C.'s plan “was the most closely aligned,” with an 87 per cent compatibility score.

    Quote:
    The group also took a cursory look at a provincial NDP plan to axe the carbon tax, and replace it with a cap-and-trade system, but said that approach would create “huge instability and doubt” in the market and would fall far short of attaining climate change goals.

    Quote:
    “There's very little detail in what [the BC NDP] released,” she said, “... [but] our score card would rate this as the weakest policy in Canada.”

    Quote:
    And she said the NDP plan, to get rid of the tax and then develop the details of the cap-and-trade policy later, would be destabilizing to business.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090429.wbcelxncarbon0429/BNStory/politics/home

    Marc Jaccard, are ya listenin'?

  • Rod Smelser

    3 years ago

    The anti-Port Mann rant

    BCers don't like the thought of run-of-river hydro power fuelling electric cars to jam the new $3 billion Gateway freeways into Vancouver. The proposed 10 lane Port Mann bridge is even justified by the government because it will "reduce vehicle emissions by reducing congestion-related idling." Yikes again!

    ... Highway 401, its 22 lanes still crowded with traffic late into the evening.

    Let's scrap Gateway (now), and put that money into a 200 kilometre light-rail network that the UBC's Design Centre for Sustainability argues could blanket the Lower Mainland for the same price -- and take thousands of cars off the road, millions of litres of gas out of the pipelines, and tonnes of CO2 out of the air.

    This politically correct rant comes up all the time. It's a perfunctory kind of thing that everyone who wants to be seen as a right thinking person puts out there. It's pure rubbish, and McGonigle and Anderson know that.

    McGonigle himself refers to the 22 lanes of Hwy 401, but then when talking about Greater Vancouver, he implicitly reverts to the isolationish Vancouverism viewpoint that says everything can and will be different here, if we all just hold hands and wish together really hard.

    That may be a lot of things but its not rational public policy.

  • Frank

    3 years ago

    Yep

    Actually I liked the article and agree with most of it.

    And Seth is right, there are many things we could be doing right now but don't, such as a shorter work week and telecommuting. I bet even going back to having stores closed on Sundays would help.

    That said, I also agree with KWD, given that changes are not being made population collapse is inevitable.

    The carbon tax is a joke, cap and trade will fail and the reason is simple, both are "magic pills" designed to let us keep doing what we're doing but not worry anymore.

    And we can't wreck rivers and cheer that we're being "green".

    What we need is hard caps, better technology and a realization that we have to reduce our population and our demands on the environment. Everything else (I'm looking at you Marc Jaccard) is pie-in-the-sky that is doomed to fail.

  • Jeffrey J.

    3 years ago

    Excellent and Timely Essay

    Finally, some real analysis of the most important issue facing humankind. Well done! Indeed, the fiddling that's going on while Rome catches fire is deeply frightening. Monopoly capitalism, supported by the mainstream press cheerleading along, has yet again deliberately minimized this issue. People are slowly becoming immune to the real impacts waiting for all of us.

    All in the name of more growth, more profits, more greed. While environmental groups are the least responsible for the status quo, I agree they need to WAKE UP. Their reticence in standing up to the current neocon regimes such as Campbell, Harper, big oil and gas, run of the river programs and fish farms is embarrassing. If the Suzukie Foundation and WCWC are to have any future credibility, they will need to learn the lessons the social justice movement knows well: you can't collaborate with the enemy. Period.

    Further, NGO's who think monopoly capitalism and a sustainable environment are compatible are naive. While they may believe they can avoid a discussion of economic power, think again. It doesn't work that way, as the recent disclosure by Jim Hoggan (Liberal supporter and chair of the Suzuki Foundation) proves. Once compromised, Hoggan has lost all credibility because he IS compromised. What a disappointment.

  • KWD

    3 years ago

    I do have faith … I have

    I do have faith … I have faith that change/evolution will not come about as the result of our conscious volition, it will be a matter of circumstance. In other words the crisis must be severe enough that there is no alternative other than a change in behaviour. Those that don't change won't survive. And even then it is doubtful whether the new behaviour will alter our thinking.

    Look at a couple of the most recent crises: global economic collapse and the so-called swine flu pandemic.

    Our response, so far, to the economic debacle is simply to carry on and do more of the same. Folks are jumping back into the Ponzi scheme fast and furious. Another stock market crash is guaranteed. So much for a change in thinking.

    Our response to the flu pandemic is extremely disturbing … people are continuing to travel to the epicenter of the outbreak despite warnings from folks that telling us we shouldn’t. And when they contact the illness they are boarding planes and heading home … how pathetically non-thinking is that?. Even if it wasn’t a flu strain that humans have little immunity to, they should not be allowed to infect and everyone in their path. The recirculated air on planes and the close containment of most mass transit modes virtually guarantees the spread of airborne illness.

  • KWD

    3 years ago

    should read

    ... infect everyone ... and... the spread of airborne and contact disseminated illness

  • freebear

    3 years ago

    Would love to see/hear Suzuki respond

    Well done article-it sums up the points I have been trying tyo make.

    Suzuki has said we need to move to a steady state economy (but never mentions Green Party support), yet props up the Liberals (you should hear all the Lib candidates parroting Suzuki's and Berman's names as renowned environmentalists" support our plan) campaign.

    I am sick and tired of hearing about sustainable growth-the ultimate oxymoron, with emphasis on MORON!

    Don't forget we also have to figure out a way to limit our numbers as well. Remember LOgans Run?

    As the authors state:

    "We need a real referendum on our collective future, and a process that gets us there with not just the usual environmental suspects but a whole host of characters -- social housing advocates and green entrepreneurs, investment gurus and tech wizards, visionary politicians and engaged citizens."

    I will put forward my name to run on that platform!

    I would also say we have the tools, and nothing new needs to be invented!

  • dave49

    3 years ago

    What is the true cost of the Libs’ Carbon Neutrality targets?

    In all the fuss about the Liberals’ carbon tax versus the NDPs’ proposals for an alternative, I not aware of any analyst or journalist who is asking the question about the true cost of the Liberals carbon neutrality targets.

    In concert with the escalating carbon tax, there are targets for “government-funded” services to be carbon neutral by 2010 and a voluntary program for communities and local governments to do so by 2012. Over 100 BC communities signed on to the Climate Action Charter.

    The carbon tax was announced almost two years ago, yet very little has happened to help achieve the carbon neutrality goals. Two small programs the Liberals funded to help education & health care districts and local governments tackle comprehensive energy audits and energy efficiency upgrades shut down in April 2008 when funding was not renewed. Nothing replaced them. Apparently, the government has been working through a lengthy process of qualifying engineering and consulting firms for GHG inventory and energy retrofit work. My contacts in that industry tell me the whole ‘sustainability industry’ is on hold, waiting for those next steps, policies and incentives to be announced and get on with the work of assessment, planning and implementation to move closer to ‘carbon neutrality’. This all takes time and an energy audit and comprehensive energy retrofit make take from a year and a half to three years.

    So, it would appear there will have to be significant purchases of GHG offsets to meet carbon neutrality goals, especially for education and health care. Unless the offsets are waived by the Liberal government, or extra money is provided in the budgets of government-funded services, these offset charges will effectively budget cuts.

    The carbon tax is one part of a package of policies and targets. This obsessive focus on the carbon tax and exclusion of discussion or impact of other policies is like showing off you new car, but never talking about anything other that the bumper, grill and hood. What about the rest of the car?

  • dave49

    3 years ago

    Remake of The day the Earth Stood Still

    Did anyone see the remake of the classic 50s film, The Day the Earth Stood Still? The current script guts the original one.
    **Spoiler Alert**
    The new one suggests our fate for messing up the Earth's rare capability to support such a huge range of living creatures is to be wiped out by a superior race. In the end, the power of love, and the notion that we can change when prompted by a crisis put off such a grim fate.

    It was an unusual straight role for John Cleese as the scientist arguing that we are capable of dramatic change when we reach the brink.

    Back on Planet Earth and our day-to-day reality, there is a HUGE amount of inertia resisting change. WE and our children have a lot of work to do.

    In reality, the KEY issue is a large and growing population. I've heard several speakers express their visions of a sustainable Earth of half a billion to a billion population. We are 6.3 billion and counting. There is a lot a pain and suffering implied in the difference between those numbers...

  • KWD

    3 years ago

    key components

    Pain and suffering are key components in determining the survival (distribution and abundance) of all creatures, great and small. The problem humans face is not being able to see the difference between pain that is a product of the way we have been trained to think … which often distorts the real source of pain as well as an appropriate response … and pain that is not a product of the way we think. The pen is as mighty as the sword.

    Our inability to make that distinction is a key component of how we respond to pain and suffering that is distorted (and manufactured) by political, economic and religious ideology.

  • mjscox

    3 years ago

    what we are heading toward

    Whether it is the Liberals or the NDP or even the Greens, local plans to tackle climate change are at best a political gesture toward a much larger global problem which cannot be solved by taxes or cap and trade programs. We are on the verge of a war, a war none of us want, but a war which is going to affect each of us in the coming decade. It is a war with Nature. A war we cannot win, so we'd best be ready to accomodate and find the least onerous option for "surrender."

    This sounds ridiculous, but look at it this way: we are the enemy, the aggressor who has declared war on the natural world, and Nature's defense is simply its reactive ecosystem response to whatever we've done and continue to do.
    By warming, poisoning and acidifying the ocean (and dredging the ocean floor) we are on the verge of a total, global oceanic ecosystem collapse, which will irrevocably alter not only our atmosphere but our ability to feed millions.

    By overgrazing, overharvesting, and removing fertile top soil, and through the deforestation of tropical, sub-tropical and temperate forests and farmlands, we have ensured that only a chemical based agriculture can produce enough food to feed us, and even then it is likely to fail given our reliance on monocrops. Global climate change is shrinking our glaciers, putting at risk our fresh drinking water and hydroelectric power production options.

    Each of these series of actions alone is enough to warrant calling ourselves the aggressors; taken together it is an unwritten, unspoken declaration of war against nature.

    Nature will find a new equilibrium. However, that new state will probably be much less friendly to most of the life forms currently on the planet, including the hardy, resourceful species homo sapiens ("wise human"--the irony is biting). Millions will die of starvation; millions more will seek higher ground as the ocean levels flood low-lying lands, and those migrations will cause international conflict.

    But back to local politics: the carbon tax of the Liberals has been called the most effective of all measures in Canada for the reduction of our carbon footprint--it isn't perfect, it should include the entire transportation sector (shipping, airlines),as well as the energy producing sector. But the Liberals also want to build highways through farmland; they support oil and gas exploration!

    Voting for the NDP is voting for a backward-looking party, for a leader whose ideas reflect the 1980's and 90's, not the 21st century.

    The Green Party, we all know, has at its most optimistic a chance to elect one or two MLA's to the legislature.

    I'm as confused as you are. And I don't know who to vote for. All I know is, we are in deep s***t and its going to get much deeper.

  • cyberfarer

    3 years ago

    Yeah, but ...

    Great article, but the author misses his own point. He says, "the problem is clear: over-production and over-consumption, the real issue being not carbon, but energy and the economy that mainlines it." Hurray, he gets it! But then he says, "Let's scrap Gateway (now), and put that money into a 200 kilometre light-rail network."

    Better, you bet. But the problem remains the same and un-addressed if one accepts that over-consumption represents more than just the fuel in a tank and that over-production is a problem whether shoppers arrive for their fix of plastic by light rail or SUV.

    The author remains mired in the paradigm of the status quo characterized by economy and consumption before earth and ecology.

    The real problem is NOT over-production and over-consumption as those are merely symptomatic of our greater problem which is our failure to recognize we are wholly dependent on the earth, it's water, air, and soil for our very existence.

    Read Stan Rowe.

  • ROBBINS Sce Research

    3 years ago

    Excellent

    Excellent article

    http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_586.html

  • frank2

    3 years ago

    NDP has screwed up royally

    NDP has screwed up royally by rejecting the carbon tax, instead of embracing it and saying it doesn't go far enough. Campbell proved he has lots more political smarts than opposition. ALso distressing that NDP has not condemned Gateway in (relatively vain) hopes of taking Liberal seats in the commuting suburbs. That said, the stupidity of Suzuki Pembina et al in praising the Libs for the carbon tax (and putting their other misgivings into footnotes which they know will not get quoted) is remarkable.

    The article is right. We do need substantial change and cut consumption of "stuff" that uses energy. A substantial carbon tax (say start at 50 cents per litre could be one part of that.

  • frenchy mcswede

    3 years ago

    The one thing I know that europe

    is ahead of north america on is on green transportation.This means light rail for cities, not low bang for the buck skytrain. If the lower mainland had funded light rail we would now have a network of trains all over the lower mainland. And such trains must be comfortable not packed cattle cars during commute times, like skytrain.

    The carbon tax is a sick joke, and it has been instructive to watch canwest reporters like dave obee, and james mcnulty make ridiculous claims for it; its SOLE real purpose is to greenwash apremier who gutted every environmental regulation in his first term.

    I would very much like to now where jacard, suzuki, the pembina institue and others were when campbell was paving a pristine, unique ecological are in west vancouver to save skiers 5 minutes commuting time to 'the greenest olympics ever." Funny how you don't hear that phrase any more. I also reccomend forensic investigations to determine if suzuki and the pembina institute were in ANY way influenced by their corporate donors to support the carbon tax...

  • NameWithNumbers

    3 years ago

    Great article

    You know, it's been difficult to make the argument that technological advancement and policy reform alone won't solve the climate crisis we face. As old school enviros, like Mr. M'Gonigle, have been contending for years, we need to confront the reality of the crisis with a wartime mentality, and acknowledge that we will all need to reduce our consumptive ways if we are to emerge victorious.

    I think it's been a tough sell, at least in part, because the threat of climate change lacks the immediacy and visceral 'scariness' of the types of crises we're more accustomed to facing. A couple hundred people die of swine flu in Mexico, and Mexico city practically shuts down overnight. That's collective action in the fact of a feared threat. But, then, take climate change. The fate of the globe (or at least, the human presence on it) rests on our ability to cut our carbon emissions... to reduce our energy consumption. But we hum and haw about the least-inconveniencing policy plans possible, all the while remaining fixated on the myth of the ever-expanding economy.

    Good on-ya, M'Gonigle. It's refreshing to hear a rallying cry for a green movement that's appears to be stuck in the mud.

  • ME2

    3 years ago

    Thanks for that Michael

    I remember listening to Michael McGonigle at various public fora some thirty years ago.

    I was impressed then by his clear, rational and independant thinking, and am pleased to see that his talents have not diminished.

    I am even more pleased to note that (in this instance anyway) he obviously is not among BC's sorry lot of camp-following academics who are always eager to promote whichever bandwagon that can puke out the most grants.

  • Tbarnston

    3 years ago

    Wage Peace

    If David Suzuki Foundation chair Mr. Hoggan was serious about being a "change agent" (http://www.hoggan.com/what_we_do/) he would have helped steer the Foundation to denouncing war instead starting one in the environmental movement.

    My rough calculations show that the US DOD operations in SW Asia account for about 4.2% of global daily oil consumption. That is just the operations of the US military in that part of the world! (Based on 85 million barrells cosumed daily http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15715744/)

    From http://www.polarisinstitute.org/the_pentagon_as_global_gas_guzzler

    "1.3 billion gallons: the estimated annual oil expenditure for U.S. combat operations in Southwest Asia."
    "the [US] Department of Defense (DoD) is, in fact, the world's leading consumer of petroleum"

    Ending the bogus wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would cut at least 4% off of global daily oil consumption in short order. This would have much greater impact on the health of the planet than this asinine carbon tax.

    Let's get real.

  • Tbarnston

    3 years ago

    Changing of the guard

    Has anyone noticed that the Fraser Institute has been awfully quiet since the market tanked? Well, when we finally realize the carbon tax didn't do a lick of good for the planet and made life a lot harder for most of us who are still stuck in traffic trying to get to work (if we have a job) we will realize that the David Suzuki Foundation, Pembina, et al. were about as helpful in developing solutions for the environment as the Fraser Institute was at developing our economy.

  • Tbarnston

    3 years ago

    Technology Won't Save Us

    For anyone who thinks we will evolve our way out of this mainly through technological advancement, I submit:

    http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg

    It's not just Peak oil we are looking, but Peak zinc, tin, phosphorus, nickel, indium, lead, copper,antimony.

    The earth's resources are not plentiful enough to create the amount of technology required to replace Gaia.

  • jnewcomb

    3 years ago

    NDP don't want smart meters either

    McGonigle and Anderson may see smart meters as an important tool, but the NDP doesn't share their enthusiasm, as the NDP has pledged to cancel BC Hydro's $1 billion smart meter program.

  • RickW

    3 years ago

    A somewhat different take on carbon.....

    http://www.alannamitchell.com/seasick.html

  • Steppenwolf

    3 years ago

    Get the Whole Picture First

    The article certainly makes some really good points about this bogus "carbon tax" that, by the government's own admission, does nothing to reduce GHG emissions, but does plenty to offset the huge $700 million in tax hand-outs to major oil and gas firms by the Liberals in last year's budget.

    But the authors should take a closer look at the NDP platform and policies on these matters before dismissing them so readily.

    First, the platform offers key fundamental economic measures to deal with both economic hardship and environmental destruction in the form of pension plan investment and a Green Bond program.

    These call for direct capitalization of public infrastructure and new clean locally based economic development and enterprise--such as transit, clean energy on a mass and therefore more affordable scale, via BC Hydro, building retrofits, electric motors and cars, etc.

    If the Scandinavian examples are any indication, these measures would take us much further than either carbon taxes (real ones, that is, not the fraud we got here) or cap-and-trade, because they try to move our entire economy more away from fossil fuel dependency.

    Sadly, these ideas aren't getting much attention in this campaign.

    As for carbon taxes themselves, again some of the European example show, they are only affective when the revenues are invested directly in projects that reduce GHG emission, like transit, which gets people more out of their cars by giving them a choice.

    Not one penny of this fraudulent Liberal tax goes into this. Rather, it's just another steal from working people to spoon-feed the rich by forcing everyone to keep driving and paying.

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