Andrew Weaver2013-05-20T08:10:10-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=andrew-weaverCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Andrew WeaverGood old fashioned elbow grease.I Joined the Green Party Because I'm a Scientisttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32339132013-05-08T11:43:49-04:002013-05-08T12:13:14-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/NDP is greener than the Green Party -- especially as her springboard for this claim was a so-called climate motion brought forward by the NDP that forgot to include a call for reduced greenhouse gases.
In fact, the NDP motion was so badly worded and misconceived that Elizabeth May, leader of the federal greens and Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands, could not vote for it. I couldn't have voted for it either. I guess, despite being a climate scientist whose work is recognized around the world, according to Megan Leslie, that means I am not concerned about climate action.
The reason I joined the Green Party of BC was not because I was yearning for power, or willing to parse the truth and join in the hyper-partisan spin of the major parties. I joined the Green Party because it is the only party to consistently support climate action -- carbon pricing, an end to fossil fuel subsidies, aggressive efforts in energy efficiency and demand-side management and the steady expansion of renewable and green energy. These steps would improve our economic performance, create tens of thousands of new jobs across Canada, while preserving a sustainable world for our children.
The only time a major party was willing to call for a tax shift, to reduce income taxes and increase pollution taxes, was in 2008 under Stephane Dion's Liberal leadership. And what party was first out the gate to slam him? The federal New Democrats. Then, when the BC Liberals announced a provincial carbon tax, one now widely supported across British Columbia, the BC NDP launched their "Axe the Tax" campaign. Now, in the 2013 provincial election, we have the NDP taking a better position, by broadening the scope of the carbon tax, with, ironically, the provincial Liberals calling for a freeze.
What Canadian politics needs is a party that is more interested in respectful debate and dialogue, in pressing for climate action as a daily commitment, than parties that swing with the winds of political expediency.
I never imagined I would be a candidate for any party. As a scientist, I am way outside my comfort zone. But when I look at my children and imagine what their future will be if we continue with politics as usual, I realized I could no longer sit on the sidelines.
The decisions being made in Victoria and Ottawa are too important to be left to the politicians. Here in British Columbia, the two major parties are willing to bet our province's future on fracking and natural gas exports. Green leader Jane Sterk was able to obtain a confession from Premier Clark in the debates that the energy from the Site C dam is intended for that LNG production. Meanwhile, renewable energy opportunities for BC are being ignored and critical infrastructure improvements, for efficient mass transit, are ignored.
Greens understand we will not be forming government any time soon. But we equally believe it is critical to have representatives in our legislatures who will support other parties when they have a good idea, criticize those who twist the truth, condemn those who block action, and work to promote cooperative, positive decisions to reduce greenhouse gases. Let's stop pointing fingers and work together to get the action we need.
]]>The Latest Proof of Global Warming? Adios Summer Sea Icetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18665872012-09-09T01:31:52-04:002012-11-08T05:12:02-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Summer Mortimer and Benoit Huot continued their impressive medal haul at the 2012 London Paralympics. But more negatively, the federal Tories were up to more of their tricks putting fossil fuel interests ahead of pretty much everything else.
During this past week Arctic sea ice retreated to all-time lows, shattering the previous record set in 2007 by an area roughly the size of (ironically) Alberta. In a bizarre response, cruise ships are now bringing tourists through the inside passage to check things out, and our federal Minister of Natural Resources is in Vancouver trying to convince British Columbians that the proposed Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipeline projects are a good thing.
Summer sea ice is nearly half of what it used to be just a couple of decades ago. And it is almost certainly committed to melting away in its entirety during the summer as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases. But it gets worse.
On September 9, Andrew MacDougall, Chris Avis and I published a paper in the international journal Nature Geoscience. In it we quantify the magnitude of the permafrost carbon feedback to global warming that had been hitherto unaccounted for in previous assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The news is not good.
Instrumental records have clearly revealed that the world is about 0.8°C warmer than it was during pre-industrial times. Numerous studies have also indicated that as a consequence of existing levels of greenhouse gases, we have a commitment to an additional future global warming of between 0.6 and 0.7°C. Our analysis points out that the permafrost carbon feedback adds to this another 0.4 to 0.8°C warming. Taken together, the planet is committed to between 1.8 and 2.3°C of future global warming -- even if emissions reductions programs start to get implemented.
Canadians are concerned. Opinion poll after opinion poll reveals a high level of willingness within Canada to introduce policies to combat global warming. And the government repeatedly assures us that they get this.
For example, in June 2007 Prime Minister Steven Harper told world leaders that climate change was "perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today," and that "we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem." This oft-repeated mantra is exactly what Canadians want to hear from their elected governments. The federal government apparently understands the seriousness of the issue and so wants to do something about it. But when you scratch below the surface, it doesn't take long to find out how vacant and cynical these statements are.
Coming back to this past week, the much-anticipated new and improved federal regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired electricity plants leaked out. To no one's surprise, they are significantly weakened from what we had been told to expect. This one is particularly personal. Over the last year, the Tories frequently touted our study published in the scientific journal Nature Climate Change in February as evidence that the global warming potential of the Alberta tar sands resource is small relative to coal. What they failed to explain was that our overarching conclusion was that as a society, we live or die by our consumption of coal.
So here we now have a government willingly and knowingly committing future generations to ecological collapse and untold climate-related catastrophes. It's fully "knowing" since they have read, and selectively quoted from, our study on the warming potential of coal. It's "willing" because despite this, they are introducing policies that will ensure we have coal-fired electricity plants spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for decades to come. Will future generations hold these ideologues in Ottawa accountable for their actions? I certainly hope so.
And as the Arctic sea ice breaks new records, the federal government responds with its fourth headline-grabbing, yet issue-distracting, search for the missing Franklin ship in five years. Quietly, it sets in place countrywide medieval-style book-burnings as it shuts down and destroys the collections contained in scientific libraries at its federal laboratories across the nation. At the same time, we find out the feds are planning to build a multi-million dollar "world class" Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay. But don't kid yourself; this has nothing to do with science.
In science you first ask a question that you want to address and then you put together the tools, instruments and programs to try and answer it. This is precisely what was done by Environment Canada in 1993 under the Mulroney government's progressive Green Plan. The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) in Eureka, formally known as the Arctic Stratospheric Ozone Observatory, was built to monitor, study and report on the status of the Earth's protective Arctic ozone layer. It was situated on Ellesmere Island, about 1,100 km from the North Pole for scientific reasons. Yet just when the ozone hole reaches record levels, the Tories shut down funding for PEARL. Gone is Canada's ability to monitor the Arctic ozone hole. And gone is the investment of tens of millions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer funding.
Instead, the Tories offer up a facility in search of science to justify its existence. There are no scientific questions driving this agenda. The establishment of CHARS is all about enforcing sovereignty in the North to pave the way for enhanced resource extraction, particularly in the oil and gas sector. Sure, there will be opportunists in the scientific community who will take advantage of the facility if it's built, just like barnacles will find and latch onto a new ship brought into a harbour. But the real question is: when will the federal government come clean with its agenda?
So as we move into the autumn of the second year under the Harper regime, the war on science and the environment continues. Is there no one left in the Conservative Party willing to stand up to this short-sighted and one-dimensional view of the world? Apparently not.]]>Tories War on Science Hurts Us Alltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15496522012-05-29T17:48:11-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Environment Canada's Experimental Lakes Area, cutting a smokestack emissions research group and a Department of Fisheries and Oceans contaminants program, I reread it today. Here is what it said:
Dear Dr. Weaver,
Just a quick note to say thank you for your efforts to make public the plight of federal government scientists. Restrictions on our ability to address the public are certainly in place and are being enforced. Like you, I suspect that part of the strategy may be to keep the public from knowing that we do anything to earn our salaries so that somewhere down the line, they will get rid of science in the federal government claiming that we don't do anything anyway...This attack on government science and scientists will have repercussions for science in Canada for years to come...
How prophetic this scientist's words were. But they are also deeply troubling.
It's become evident to me that the Harper government has little understanding of science in general, and the distinction between university, government, and industry research in particular (see my other post). It's also evident to me that the Harper government has an agenda: mortgage our future to maximize short-term profits from the tar sands. And in order to fast track implementation, they squash or remove any obstacles that might slow things down. Is shutting down key groups involved in pollution research and monitoring really in the best interest of the public? I think not.
Equally disturbing is the widespread muzzling of federal scientists.
The media play a critical role in a functioning democracy. First, they widely communicate issues of public interest in a timely fashion. Second, they act as watchdogs over those we elect to make decisions that affect our livelihood. Third, they provide us with a forum for public debate. When the media is stymied from getting access to information, and in particular science, the very foundation of democracy is at stake.
What we're seeing emerge in Canada is the dismantling of scientific institutions that have been in place for decades. These institutions have played important roles in ensuring the health, safety and welfare of the Canadian public. But who needs science when it can sometimes lead to inconvenient results? It's a lot easier for the Feds to simply feed media lines to the Canadian public. Besides, as George Orwell pointed out, Big Brother knows best.
Where are the real Tories willing to put the word "conserve" back into the Conservative Party of Canada? There must be a dozen or so sitting in the backbenches. Do they really want to be part of the legacy of destruction this government is bringing to Canadian science?]]>The Science Funded by Your Tax Dollarstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.15496582012-05-29T07:52:24-04:002012-07-29T05:12:04-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
University research is typically curiosity-driven. Individual researchers seek to answer scientific questions that interest them. They submit research grant proposals to federal funding agencies in the hope that they will convince their peers that these research questions and proposed methodologies are sound and worthy of support. Each individual research grant typically lasts between two and five years.
A successful university researcher will have to juggle several research projects with each one on its own funding cycle. Most university researchers are required to get all of their research support through external grants and have little, if any, ongoing direct research funding from their institutions. Over the years, their research interest will move from area to area as they seek to explore new scientific issues. However, it is this curiosity-driven research that typically leads to the greatest scientific discoveries.
One of the most important outcomes of university-based research is the training it provides for both graduate and undergraduate students and postdoctoral fellows. These so-called highly qualified personnel (HQP) take their knowledge and skills into the workplace upon completion of their degrees or fellowship terms. Both industry and government rely upon these university-trained scientists to fill the ranks of their own scientific staff. A consequence of the short term funding cycles and continuous turnover of HQP is that academic researchers are usually not able to sustain long term monitoring programs or dedicate many years to a single project. This niche is filled by scientific research conducted in the federal and provincial government laboratories.
Federal and provincial government research is almost always targeted and mission-oriented. For example, the Bedford Institute of Oceanography (BIO) in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia is Canada's largest oceanographic research facility. This federal government laboratory houses researchers from a number of federal departments: Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Environment Canada (EC) and National Defense (DND).
BIO is charged with providing,
"advice and support to government decision making on a broad range of ocean issues, including sovereignty, safety and security, environmental protection, the health of the oceans, safe and accessible waterways, the sustainable use of natural resources (fisheries, minerals, oil & gas) and the integrated management large ocean management areas."
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has 19 research centres across Canada each with their own different focus. In St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Atlantic Cool Climate Crop Research Centre has a mission to "develop technologies which diversify and add value to rural economies in cool summer regions."
"conducts research on crop production, including fertilization requirements of crops, ecology and control of weeds, biology and management of crop diseases, genetics and breeding of barley, management of pastures and cattle, land resource management, and impacts of agriculture on the environment."
While university research is usually curiosity-driven and government science typically focuses on research in service of society, industry research has a different set of motivators. Industry research is normally conducted in order to sustain market competitiveness or to increase shareholder value.
The taxpayer ultimately pays for research conducted or funded by the government. Shareholder investments and corporate loans or profits provide the income source for industry resource. As a consequence, university and government research is expected to be publicly available, unless it is considered classified or secret as in the case of some research that might be conducted within the Department of National Defense.
Industry research is less open. For example, the taxpayer should expect to have access to the results from federally funded health research on potential side effects of a particular drug. However, a start up biomedical drug company would likely not want to publicly disclose all of its research until patents protected its products. What would a company do if its internal research determined that its products or actions were harmful to people or the environment? Would the company want to publicly disseminate this research? Should it be required to do so? What are its current legal requirements do so? What does fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders suggest that the company should do?
The distinction between public and privately funded research becomes blurry in the area of university-industry partnerships. University researchers are almost always asked to sign confidentiality agreements when they engage in research in collaborative projects with industry. Yet very often, industry contributions to a research program are matched by funds from government granting agencies. It is difficult to determine what if any of this research should be publicly available.
Whether scientific research is undertaken in industry, government or university based facilities, it makes little difference as to its role in the formulation of policy.
Science can never be used to prescribe a particular policy. However, science is able to examine the implications of various policy options. Policy can also be developed or modified to reflect the latest science. In the end, the formulation of policy requires engaging a variety of stakeholders including special interests, religious groups, and industry. It also requires dealing with ethical, political, legal, financial and social issues including any potential application of the precautionary principle.
Science should feed into policy discussions, but in and of itself science cannot and should not dictate what policy directions should be taken. At the same time, science and scientific uncertainty should not be deliberately misrepresented or suppressed by special interests in order to influence public policy in a particular direction.]]>Our New Study: Global Warming From Coal Worse than Oil Sandstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12882642012-02-21T09:08:26-05:002012-04-22T05:12:01-04:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/Nature Climate Change on Sunday. We received no funding for this research.
We asked the question as to how much global warming would occur if we completely burned a variety of fossil fuel resources. Here is what we calculated for the following resources:
tar sands under active development: woud add 0.01°C to world temperatures.
economically viable tar sands reserve: would add 0.03°C to world temperatures.
entire tar sands oil in place which includes the uneconomical and the economical resource: would add 0.36°C to world temperatures
total unconventional natural gas resource base: would add 2.86°C to world temperatures
total coal resource base: would add 14.8°C to world temperatures
In other words: Coal presents a climate challenge that is much greater than that presented by the oil sands.
Our overarching conclusion is that as a society, we will live or die by our future consumption of coal. The idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels is misplaced. We'll run out of our ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.
Some might point out that our published calculations do not account for the additional greenhouse gases arising from the extraction, transportation, and refining of the tar sand resource. This was deliberate.
The so-called "wells-to-wheels" approach to tar-sands mining includes the natural gas, diesel, and coal emissions that arise during extraction and refining, together with the transportation of the oil. However, these would come from the other resource pools and shouldn't be double-counted. The relative mix of such fuels would obviously change in the future as well. We wanted to be consistent to ensure that emissions and subsequent warming from all resources were calculated the same way.
Nevertheless, if you account for the additional "wells-to-wheels" emissions, our estimates of potential global warming from the tar stands would increase by about 20%. But even this is uncertain. If all refining, extraction, and transportation were done using renewable energy or nuclear power, the number would be close to 0%. If it were all done using electricity from inefficient coal-fired generators, it would be higher. Once more the key message is clear: We will live or die by our future consumption of coal. And if everyone in the world had similar per-capita emissions as North Americans, it will be sooner than later. More information on this topic is available on Neil Swart's website.
I have always said that the tar sands are a symptom of a bigger problem. The bigger problem is our societal dependence on fossil fuels. As we use up the easy-to-find resources, we start going to more extreme measures to access what is left. The result is increasingly environmentally hazardous approaches to extraction. For example, this image illustrates the breadth of boreal destruction associated with tar sands exploration.
None of this discussion takes away from the profound ecological and social concerns involved with the development of the tar sands that I attempt to articulate here.
I am convinced that the Canadian government can do a better job of regulating the tar sands industry to ensure that these ecological and social concerns are properly addressed. In addition, the industry represents the single biggest growing sector of Canadian greenhouse gas emissions.
The atmosphere has traditionally been viewed as an unregulated dumping ground. There is no cost associated with emitting greenhouse gases. Economists call this a market failure. To correct this failure, a price is needed on emissions. This allows individuals and businesses to find the most cost-effective means of reducing their own emissions. In fact, the oil and gas industry have repeatedly called upon the federal government to introduce such emissions pricing. They want some certainty as to "the rules" under which they must operate.
Does our study mean that I am in favour of the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline in northern British Columbia? No. For the record, I am strongly opposed to it for four reasons:
We are shipping our natural resource offshore instead of ensuring energy security in North America.
The pipeline would go through the world's last great temperate rainforest that should be protected.
Tanker traffic along the BC coast is an accident waiting to happen as the waters are hazardous to navigate. Environmental destruction would be profound when a spill occurred.
Virtually every First Nation is opposed to the project. The Northern Gateway pipeline would go through their traditional land and their wishes must be respected.
In terms of the Keystone pipeline, I believe the industry was arrogant in its approach to the very legitimate concerns of First Nations, Nebraskans, and other Canadians and Americans. For example, it is troubling to contemplate building a new pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer. Some have also raised legitimate concerns about the social cost of exporting jobs to the United States instead of building refineries locally to process the crude. In the end, it seems that compromises might be reached in the case of Keystone XL. But it is hard for me to see any possible room for compromise in the case of Northern Gateway.
It would be a huge mistake to interpret our results as some kind of a "get out of jail free" card for the tar sands. While coal is the greatest threat to the climate globally, the tar sands remain the largest source of greenhouse gas emission growth in Canada and are the single largest reason Canada is failing to meet it's international climate commitments and failing to be a climate leader. The world needs to transition away from fossil fuels if it wants to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate system. That means coal, unconventional gas, and unconventional oil all need to be addressed.
Correction: A previous headline stated coal is 1500 times worse for the environment than oil sands. The correct number is 41.
]]>Why Fear B.C.'s Clean Energy Policy?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.10342962011-11-01T09:15:53-04:002012-01-01T05:12:01-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/copied by the Australian government, which passed similar carbon legislation two weeks ago. B.C.'s goal of becoming a green energy powerhouse is far-reaching in its ambition and scope and forward-looking in terms of future economic planning. B.C.'s commitment to a carbon-neutral government has meant public sector leadership in the transition to a low-carbon economy. And the introduction of B.C. Hydro's smart meter technology is a crucial first step on the path towards better energy conservation and base-load electricity management.
As B.C. forges ahead with the implementation of its environmental and clean energy policy, there will be those who will resist the change. But change does not have to be something we fear. Change can be exciting and empowering.
Take smart meters for example. In B.C., we have known that they were on their way since 2007. Successful pilot projects were run in several local communities including Vancouver, Campbell River, and Fort St. John. Smart meters will improve service. They will create opportunities for consumers to conserve electricity, introduce smart appliances and monitor their energy use. The modernization of our electricity grid is long overdue. What are we afraid of? Likely it is our instinctive fear of the unknown which, when combined with our natural tendency to resist change, feeds our insatiable desire to criticize.
As B.C. breaks new ground on greenhouse gas management, there will be teething pains. The carbon neutral government regulation in B.C. requires the public sector to buy offsets from the Pacific Carbon Trust, a B.C. Crown Corporation. The Pacific Carbon Trust has been heavily criticized for doling out public sector money to a fossil fuel energy company for a greenhouse gas offset project. In their defence, the Pacific Carbon Trust can argue that they were simply following the rules set out in B.C.'s Emissions Offset Regulation. But that doesn't make it right.
There's also a glaring inconsistency between B.C.'s treatment of the public sector and the fossil fuel industry -- an industry that produces 24 per cent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions. B.C. has no hope of reaching its legislated emissions reduction target of 33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 if it doesn't tackle growing emissions from this sector. And the only way to do that is through regulation or emissions pricing.
Does this mean we should repeal the requirement of carbon neutral government as some have suggested? Is this really a solution? I think not. As a society we look for leadership by example from our public sector. What the carbon neutral requirement has done is provide an incentive for the public sector to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For example, the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) certainly lived up to its branding as Canada's Green University by installing a modern biomass gasification system to provide heat for the Prince George campus. By replacing natural gas as its heat source, up to 3,500 tonnes of greenhouse gases each year are being kept out of the atmosphere. UNBC also saves about $87,500 annually in offset costs.
But here's the problem. Unfortunately, current carbon regulation means that Nexterra, the B.C.-based company that built the biomass facility, could not access Pacific Carbon Trust funds for the project. If Nexterra had instead built the biomass facility for a private sector client in B.C., it would have been able to sell offsets to the Pacific Carbon Trust. In essence, public funds would then have been used to support industry projects.
Rather than turning back the clock to 2007 and abolishing the requirement for a carbon neutral public sector, it strikes me as more progressive to simply adopt an additional regulation that public sector funds must be used for public sector projects. That way, offset funds become a source of capital for the promotion of innovative private sector projects aimed at reducing public sector emissions. And reducing emissions also improves the annual operating budget for public institutions. Everybody wins.
Based on all the scientific evidence before us, the only compelling argument for inaction on greenhouse gas reduction is that as a society we do not believe that we have any responsibility for the well-being of future generations.
Premier Clark has clearly stated that the B.C. government is committed to sustaining its leadership in the fight against climate change. The Official Opposition is committed to the same goal. Opinion poll after opinion poll tells us that Canadians are looking for such leadership. It's a basic human instinct to want to provide for our children and to offer them a better life.
But when we get leadership, we need to support it. That doesn't mean that we can't be critical or hold governments accountable for their actions. Nor does it mean that policy can't be modified when unforeseen consequences are discovered. But it certainly requires us to redirect the energy we expend in opposing each and every suggested solution into more constructive things like ensuring that effective solutions are in fact put in place. And this applies to not only B.C., but to other jurisdictions across North America as well.]]>Our Politicians Not Warming to Climate Changetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9945042011-10-04T14:14:45-04:002011-12-04T05:12:07-05:00Andrew Weaverhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weaver/
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC was adopted in 1997. It was designed as a first step towards reducing global greenhouse gas emissions (192 nations are now a party to the Accord). Annex B (developed) countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Canada's target was six per cent below 1990 levels. The U.S target was seven per cent below 1990 levels. While both Canada and the US signed the Protocol, it was never ratified in the U.S. Canada ratified the Protocol on Dec. 17, 2002.
In 2009, Canada's emissions were 17 per cent above 1990 levels. U.S. emissions had increased by seven per cent. On the other hand, UK emissions had decreased by 27 per cent, Germany's by 26 per cent and Japan's by 4.5 per cent. European efforts combined with the recent global economic downturn means that as a group, Annex B countries will almost certainly meet their 5.2 per cent targeted reduction by the end of 2012. Put another way, the Kyoto goal was reached (despite the lackluster performance of the U.S. and Canada).
China, India and other developing nations are all parties to the Kyoto Protocol. Just as in the case for the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, the expectation was that these countries would be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the second reporting period. Bringing them into the umbrella of a global treaty would be an important outcome of the South Africa negotiations.
Despite the numerous commentaries masquerading as science that have permeated the Internet and certain media outlets, global warming is real. The scientific community has known this for a very long time. Global warming is being caused by increasing greenhouse gases associated with human activities, and in particular the combustion of fossil fuels. This is another well-understood scientific finding.
However our decision whether or not to deal with global warming really boils down to one question. Do we have any responsibility for the well being of future generations? Unfortunately, science cannot provide an answer to this question. It must be answered by society as a whole. Are we willing to take the steps required today to ensure that future generations are able to enjoy the same economic stability and ecological diversity that we currently enjoy? Wishing that the problem would go away is not a solution.
It's no wonder that our political leaders are having such a difficult time introducing the policies needed to ensure a reduction in greenhouse gases. Politicians are typically elected for short terms in office. Every four years or so there is a new election. A politician who introduces a regulation limiting greenhouse gases would not see the climate effects of this policy realized during their political career. In fact, they may not be realized in their entire lifetime. They would start to have an effect in the lifetime of the next generation. That's hardly something you can point to in the next election campaign.
Solutions to the global warming problem generally fall into two categories: technological and behavioral. The technological challenge is enormous. We need to move our energy systems away from fossil fuels. Of course there are many benefits to doing this anyway, including the fact that oil is a depleting resource. The technological barriers may be large, but, in truth, most of the solutions are readily available. They are just costly. Economists worldwide agree that the single most important solution to global warming involves putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Pricing emissions levels the playing field. New energy technologies are then able to compete with traditional fossil fuels. As these new technologies become commonplace, their price goes down.
Behavioral barriers are also present. Our current patterns of consumption are unsustainable. This doesn't mean we should all stop buying cars, flat-screen TVs or cell phones. Rather, it requires us to think more deeply about how these are produced and how they will be disposed of when they are no longer working.
In recent decades North Americans have not had to live in a world where duty and greater good is placed before personal entitlement and individual needs.
Should society decide to address the issue of global warming, then instead of fixating on how the actions of others affect us as individuals, we will be compelled to focus on how our actions as individuals affect others. This will require us to move away from a culture of fear and denial to one of excitement and empowerment.
It's a tall order. But it is within our grasp.
]]>