Hello friends! I hope that you’re all having a fantastic long weekend. It’s definitely nice having an extra day off of camp to just chill. Last week was very busy, so it is a much needed break.
This week’s post is a continuation from last week’s, making it part two of three posts on the topic of climate change and carbon pricing.
Let’s recap what we learned last week: climate examines the average weather patterns in an area over a long period of time, which is different that just the day-to-day patterns shown by a weather forecast. Rising global temperatures are causing irreversible damage in all aspects of life. Our emissions (from cars, airplanes, factories, etc.) are increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere to dangerous levels. They prevent solar radiation from escaping the atmosphere (which they should not be doing!), increasing global temperatures by doing so. These changing temperatures can impact everything from soil quality to ocean pH to population size.
This week, we are going to learn about some of the biggest initiatives currently in effect around the world that are working to reduce our carbon footprint. Let’s get straight to the post!
There have been several large-scale attempts at reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, mainly carbon dioxide. Some attempts have been successful, such as the Montreal Protocol. Others…not so much. There are two main international agreements which you have likely heard about on the news or from a family member/friend. These agreements are the largest treaties for climate change action we have ever had, which is why I think it is important for you to know about them. They also are an important part of not only Canadian history but for the history of countries all around the world. First, we will discuss the Kyoto Protocol. After that, we will examine the Paris Agreement. Yes, there is going to be a lot of political talk in this post, but don’t worry, I’ve made it very straightforward!
To begin, let’s discuss the Kyoto Protocol and how Canada failed embarrassingly at following through with their promises in this treaty.
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty established in 1997 by the United Nations Framework Connection on Climate Change. It officially took force in 2005, making it the first international greenhouse gas reduction treaty in the world. In a series of “phases,” the goal of the Protocol was to reduce GHG emissions in the 192 countries that signed on to the treaty. Each industrialized country had a different reduction goal to meet, chosen based on several factors: the country’s wealth, demographics, current ecological footprint and more. The goal for industrialized countries like Canada was, on average, higher than developing areas: when averaging out these industrialized countries’ targets, they were overall required to reduce their emissions 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels by December 31 2012; this date marked the end of “Phase One” of the Protocol. The European Union had a reduction target of 8 percent by 2012, while the States had a target of 7 percent; some places, like Iceland, were even allowed to increase their emissions by 10 percent. Canada’s reduction goal was 6 percent.
The second phase of the Kyoto Protocol began in 2013 and runs until 2020, with a joint emissions reduction goal of 20 percent from the 1990 levels. As amazing as this sounds, Canada didn’t make it to this stage.
It doesn’t matter that Canada was one of the first countries to sign the treaty in 1998. The nation was under the ruling of Liberal Jean Chrétien at the time of signing. In 2011, under Harper’s Conservative government, Canada became the only country to this day to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. During Phase One, which was a time when Harper was in power, it was apparent that the country would not meet the 6 percent reduction target. Instead of pushing for more action, our country drop out altogether. We tried, and when failure seemed likely, we gave up. Giving up is not how we will overcome climate change.
Meanwhile, some countries (like the United States) never signed the treaty in the first place, and others chose not to accept Phase Two of the Protocol that began in 2013. The map below depicts how the world did or did not commit to the Kyoto Protocol.
Source: Wiki Commons
Harper was not a fan of the Protocol because he believed it was targeting “rich” or developed countries only, forcing them to change their workforce and industry while the developing nations got off free. Yes, there were higher expectations on economically and socially wealthier nations like Canada than countries in a lesser state, but each country was required to do what was manageable for them. Nonetheless, Harper cut ties from the treaty, an embarrassing and degrading moment in climate change history for our country.
Fast forward a few years and we have a new government and international agreement that is very promising. The Paris Agreement is a treaty that, like the Kyoto Protocol, seeks to reduce global emissions in hopes of slowing the rate that earth’s temperature rises. The Agreement was negotiated at COP 21, the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference, in late 2015. COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and by Parties it (mostly) means countries. Sealed on December 12 2015 and signed on April 22 2016, the treaty came into effect on November 4 2016. A total of 179 Parties have signed the agreement, promising to do their part to keep the global temperature from increasing more than two degrees by 2100, and more ideally less than 1.5 degrees, which is below the pre-industrial rate of increase.
To meet this goal, the Parties have agreed to reduce their emissions to a personalized level by 2030, with emissions peaking no later than 2020. Canada’s emission target is to reduce our GHG’s 30 percent by 2030. This past May, the involved Parties were required to assess their current status in relation to achieving their targets, and identify what challenges they face. In order to reach their targets, Parties will need to deviate funding towards new green technology, policy development and research. This is where a tool like carbon pricing would come into play, which I will discuss in the next post.
Canada’s effort to meet their Agreement target is noticeable, but highly unlikely if not impossible to reach by 2030. Since Trudeau’s inauguration in 2015, the Liberal party has worked to increase the country’s climate change action and back their governmental decisions with more science-based evidence. Science is essential for providing solid evidence in decision making processes, especially when it comes to how emissions and other anthropogenic activities are harming the environment. In 2017, Trudeau appointed a federal Chief Science Advisor, Dr. Mona Nemer, to offer unbiased, expert advice during his decision-making processes for the country. Already, Dr. Nemer is working to make Canadian politics more transparent to the public and prioritize the Canadian Environmental Impact Assessment plans, which are used to monitor and regulate the environmental impact of industries, construction and other projects in the country. Her work is essential for conveying environmental data to the public and providing us with the information we need to take environmental action. I am among the many who are applauding Trudeau for taking this huge step in the right direction.
This step was no simple feat, either. Trudeau has significant damage to reverse: he must undo Harper’s efforts to “muzzle” scientists (prevent them from sharing their research, cutting their funding) and how they presented their research to the public. Not to mention the fact that Harper developed a communication policy in 2007 that prevented environmental scientists from openly interacting with the media, and cut the role of a national Science Advisor in 2008 from office (read the policy here), both of which resulted in a reported 80 percent reduction in media coverage of our environmental issues. Bringing back the Science Advisor and tearing down the barrier between scientists and the media will only help us reach our emissions target so we (the public) can make more environmentally conscious decisions.
I would like to discuss Harper’s “muzzling” a bit more, because this is a serious issue that no doubt stagnated a significant amount of the environmental action our country has taken. To illustrate, a 2011 study confirming that the snow near the Alberta’s oil sands were contaminated with petroleum; the policy discouraged the researchers from presenting and discussing this data with the media at the 2011 Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry conference. Instead, the two scientists presenting the report were given a script. They were told what to say for the different potential questions they could be asked. One answer they were provided with was: “I am a scientist. I’m not in a position to answer that question but I’d be happy to refer you to an appropriate spokesperson.”
These contaminated soils could impact the aquatic life in the nearby Athabasca River as the snow melts and runs into the river in the spring. Despite this, the scientists could not express the issue because of how Harper stripped them of their voices. They stated in a “scripted” interview that the results of an impact assessment for petroleum contamination in the river were negative, and they could only answer media questions with previous approval. As stated in a 2010 publication in the Montreal Gazette, “the new communications policy has practically eliminated senior federal scientists from media coverage of climate-change science issues, leaving them frustrated that the government was trying to “muzzle” them.”
Protests were common for both scientists and public citizens during Harper’s reign because of his decision to cut funding to many research projects in the environmental field. One such protest includes the 2012 “No Science, No Evidence, No Truth” protest after Harper cut funding to a project providing industries with information on how to reduce damage from acid rain and phosphate pollution in Ontario’s lakes. This project could not keep running without the funding that Harper ripped away from them.
If this doesn’t sound fishy to you (no pun intended), I don’t know how else to show you how difficult our national leaders have made it to access reliable information that can help our environment. But why would they do this? Why prevent us from knowing about the problems we face, how our own actions are harming the planet?
Apparently, many of these cuts were made due to a tightening budget which required Harper to appoint funds to agencies that he felt were of higher priority. What’s more important than researching our impact on the planet, which will directly change how we live in the future? While Harper boasted about how he lowered tax rates, these rates create an economic deficiency that in turn tightened our national budget and reduced the funding our scientists and researchers were provided.
Meanwhile, Harper believed that Canada was an “emerging energy superpower,” largely because of the growing extraction of oil from the country’s tar sands, like the Athabasca tar sands. In a 2011 announcement, he stated, “The oil sands are a very important resource for our country, it’s a source of economic growth and jobs across the country, not just in the West, but in Ontario and Quebec, too.”
I do not think it is coincidental that reports on the damaging effects of our tar sands came out at the same time that scientists’ access to media coverage was restricted. Yes, the tar sands are important to Canada as they have been a huge source of economic surplus. However, the impacts that this energy source has on the environment far outweigh its economic benefits.
Needless to say, Trudeau’s government is struggling to pick up the pieces of the science and research field that were torn apart by Harper. While many argue that Trudeau’s government is still muzzling scientists and researchers, we can understand how difficult it must be to reverse Harper’s policies and funding decisions, which were implemented throughout his nine years in office.
On a brighter note, Trudeau released Canada’s new budget this past February, which will devote almost 4 billion Canadian dollars to science over the next five years, compared to the measly 1 billion from the year prior. Canada’s finance manager, Bill Morneau, stated that this is “the single largest investment in investigator-led fundamental research in Canadian history.” The Polar Environment Atmospheric Research Laboratory, one of the many environmental protection research organizations that require government funding, were preparing to close as their funding was running out. They are now among the many organizations benefitting from this budget, which can now run until at least 2019 when the new budget is announced.
On the other hand, the Climate Change and Atmospheric Research program, another vital research program in our country, did not receive any new funding to outlive it’s expiration this year. Our funding can only go so far without being stretched too thin, it seems. There is still much more our government can do, but nonetheless we are showing a promising move in the right direction.
Let’s take a break from talking about Canada for a minute. While our country appears to be making “greener” decisions, our neighbours to the South are not feeling so inclined to act in the same manner. Aaaannndd cue the Trump rant:
Since Trump’s ascent into presidency last year, he has decided to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement and eradicate all climate change procedures set in place by Obama. To him, climate change is a scam. You’ve probably seen the infamous tweet: December 6, 2013, Trump tweeted, “Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee – I’m in Los Angeles and it’s freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!” Yes Trump, because that is absolutely how climate change works. This shows how well he understands climate change, and how important it is that people read this post to understand what climate change is really about.
Due to Trump’s ignorance, his government is working to disassemble and divert funds directed to climate change action. This includes stepping away from Obama’s climate target, which is to lower the country’s emissions 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels (their highest levels ever recorded) by 2030. Cutting out the USA’s climate policy will, in a best case scenario, allow the country to only reach a 20 percent emissions reduction, and quite possibly only reach 12 percent. Trump feels that the Paris Agreement “disadvantages” the United States because it will cut thousands of jobs, result in factory closures, and put economic and social strain on the country’s people. Only when the terms are “fair” for the nation will he consider re-entering the Agreement. Wait, doesn’t this sound familiar? *cough cough* Harper choosing to withdraw Canada from the Kyoto Protocol *cough cough*
The States are not the only ones who will miss their target. Germany will reach 31.7-32.5 percent below their 1990 carbon dioxide levels, when their target was 40 percent (although their target is much more ambitious than the States). In fact, most industrialized countries are far from reaching their goal. Canada, for instance, will certainly not reach their target by 2020. At our current emissions level, if every country behaved in the same manner as Canada then the planetary temperature would increase by 3-4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. That is double what our goal reduction level is!
The only two countries that are currently meeting their goal below the 1.5 degrees mark are Morocco and Gambia, two countries which are far less industrialized than Canada and our neighbours. While the Paris Agreement is a smart way of getting global action to mitigate climate change, the 2030 deadline is overly ambitious. Many countries still rely heavily on fossil fuels and other emission-heavy processes that took decades to develop and stabilize their economies. Expecting them to change their ways by 2030 is simply not practical for some countries, especially those currently facing financial crisis or insecurity. It may be possible to develop laws and policies to help reduce emissions in this time, but actually having them implemented is just as long and tedious as the policy-making process.
With COP 24 coming up at the end of the year in Katowice, Poland, chances are that discussions will focus on the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and how we can slow down climate change before it is too late. Federal policies, such as national carbon taxes, are proving ineffective in some areas because provincial-level leaders do not agree with the federal law (more on this in the next post about carbon pricing!). Not only that, but countries are arguing over the best course of action for combating climate change (or in Trump’s case, if we should bother taking action at all).
With so many different opinions on the matter, it is beyond challenging to take action. What we need is our nation’s leaders to sit down and talk, really talk, about their values. Do they value economic prosperity over the wellbeing of their citizens? COP 24 is a time for this to happen, and this year’s conference is essential. If our leaders don’t come to terms with the future we will soon face, we will never meet our targets in the Agreement, let alone reduce emissions and slow down climate change any time soon.
In next week’s post, I will discuss my thoughts on what I believe is one of the most practical tools we have to combat climate change and reach our emissions reduction goal. Carbon pricing can be effective and immediate. Like other tools, there are so many mixed feelings about this tool, which I will also discuss.
I know that this post was long. If you got to the end, thank you for reading it all the way! I couldn’t make this post any shorter because this information is vital for understanding the crisis we currently face, and how our countries are choosing to deal with it. If we are not educated on the issue, we cannot demand better, faster action from our leaders. Without action, we will never find a solution. Without a solution, we will find ourselves in a very difficult position in the future. Our lives, and our future generations, are at stake. The decisions that we make now will change the way we live our lives for many, many years to come.
Until next time.