When celebrated Cambridge astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees estimated humanity’s chances of surviving the century at “no more than 50/50,” Stephen Harper had not yet sabotaged the Copenhagen talks to protect the Alberta tar sands project from binding carbon reduction goals. Sir Rees has yet to update his estimation, but it cannot have improved. In the post-Copenhagen world it takes less than PhD qualifications to calculate the survival chances of the world’s most desperately poor at somewhere between “slim” and “nil.”
After Copenhagen, it appears the rich nations, the primary creators of global warming, will resist emissions cutbacks to maintain their competitive advantage in the world economy. Meanwhile, droughts will bring cholera, and floods will bring malaria to the poorest peoples on earth who, incidentally, do the least emitting. The savage drought currently leaving a trail of crop failures, animal corpses, and human bodies in its wake as it ravages Kenya gloomily foreshadows the fate awaiting the pauperized masses of the African coast and flood-prone regions. As the drought wreaks grotesque devastation on subsistence farmers, pushing 1.3 million people into risk of starvation, the tar sands project contaminates over 3 million barrels of water a day as its carbon emissions climb steadily into the range of mid-sized industrial states. The anticipated decimation of fisheries as oceanic PH levels decline due to climate change could be catastrophic. This fate now seems ever more likely.
The highly-trumpeted non-binding agreement thrown together at the eleventh hour of Copenhagen would only limit the world’s temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels. Even if this purely voluntary target is met (by signatories who displayed their abundant good will all week by blaming each other and the developing world for climate change), the deal still dooms Tuvalu and at least three other island states to watery graves.
That such people suffer the carbon profligacy of rich nations because major emitters refuse to rein-in industrial profiteering smacks of dystopian irony. It’s of little comfort that Stephen Harper told Bloomberg.com that this government will put economic recovery before efforts to protect the environment. Nor is it reassuring that the much-hyped Tar Sands Boom will be a lasting gravy train for the future economy. Leaving aside the immorality of prioritizing of the Canadian economic recovery above the survival of countless Africans, the idea that the Tar Sands will benefit the future Canadian economy holds water only if that economy is somehow independent of human survival past this century—a view not likely shared far outside of the Conservative Cabinet and the corporate oil lobby.
While Harper’s myopic choosing of oil over the planet unacceptably menaces our grandchildren with disaster, others are experiencing this disaster at present. Right now, Kenyans are doubtlessly wondering what Tuvaluans, Maldivians, and millions of coast-dwellers will likely wonder in the near future: “Why are the profits of big Canadian oil corporations more important than the lives of our children?” Others, even more audacious, may ask: “Why do the Canadian people allow their government to kill us for money?”
These are the questions we will have to answer in the future, unless we ask them now.
Comments
I'll be waiting and watching to see Tuvalu meet a 'watery grave'.
You treat the economy like it is separate from providing food and shelter for Canadians. No, I am not saying that a Canadian life is worth more that an African life. Rather, I am saying you wish to usurp power beyond what you have earned by bullying world governments into 'binding' decisions that you have deemed necessary.
I'm sorry, but Rees was wrong. The world survived the 20th century, and we'll probably survive the 21st better than you could ever imagine. I think African countries are laughing at us as we fret over emissions while they struggle to implement things like clean drinking water.
You feel like you're saving Africa with this global warming nonsense, but what they really want is cell-phones, automobiles, factories, and big-box stores which you have grown so averse to. Get over yourself.
Jan 9, 2010 at 06:32 AM
Dan, who is usurping power? Mr. Capobianco personally? or the oil conglomerates? Food and shelter are not going away if we don't get extra money from the oil sands. I don't believe people will see much money from it anyways. Unless you consider oil companies people. They get the bulk of the profit. Do you have a monetary stake in the oil sands? I hope so, you chump.
Jan 10, 2010 at 11:32 AM
The idea that Harper "sabotaged the Copenhagen talks" is so absurdly divorced from reality I have to question the sanity of Capoblanco. In fact, the Canadian government kept a low profile at the talks, and at the end was complemented by summit officials for maintaining a constructive attitude.
Such bizarre statements by Capoblanco undermine the article.
But here are some problems for any Canadian PM. First, if Ottawa attempts to shut down the oil sands, western Canada may well separate. They simply won't tolerate central Canada destroying the oil industry again (the first was the the National Energy Program of the early 80's).
Second, no matter how quickly alternative energy progresses, Canadians will need petroleum for many generations to come. We can produce it ourselves or we can buy it from often-unstable nations who do not have our best interests in mind.
It's true that oil sands petroleum produces about 15% more CO2 than regular petroleum due to the method of extraction. But to put this in perspective, the extra CO2 due to extraction is about .5% of the total CO2 produced by the U.S.
For this you want to split up the country and keep us hostage to foreign oil producers?
Jan 10, 2010 at 09:25 PM
Hey rabbit,
Thanks for posting.
From some of the coverage of the Copenhagen talks in the national press it certainly does seem as if Canada, and Prime Minister Harper took a hands off approach. For example, on December 17th the Globe and Mail ran a piece titled: "Harper lies low in Copenhagen". More critical inquiries can be found in the award-winning British newspaper 'The Guardian' which is distinguished among major world newspapers in that it is not corporately owned, but funded by an independent foundation - 'The Scott Trust'. The Guardian described Canada as "the villain of the climate change negotiations", and, prior to the talks "The urgent threat to world peace", which will "do everything in its power to wreck the talks."
The world's leading environmental group, Greenpeace, has also condemned Canada's actions at the December talks. Greenpeace's delegate to the Copenhagen talks denounced Harper's Environment minister, Jim Prentice, for his "hidden agenda" to "sabotage the international negotiations" in an article titled "Canada sabotages Copenhagen climate negotiations: Prentice should resign."
The Globe and Mail article also explained why Harper was "lying low" at Copenhagen. The reason, said Canada's publication of record, was the "public relations beating" that Harper took over Canada's "sharply rising emissions since 1990 and its negotiating stand at Copenhagen"
Harper's intransigence at Copenhagen is part of a more general trend of his government, which has sought to both protect the tar sands, and undermine international carbon emissions deals. On the last day of Copenhagen, the Globe and Mail reported that the federal conservatives were planning to "grant special breaks" to the Alberta oil sands industry, in an article aptly titled: "Ottawa eyes breaks for oil sands." A January story in Canada's Foreign Policy Newspaper, Embassy, reported the leak of government documents detailing a "strategy" to "split European Union members and tying assistance to developing countries to binding emission reduction targets as part of a bid to influence international talks."
Despite all this Canada did win awards at Copenhagen. We received the most "fossil of the day" awards (given by environmentalist NGOs for carbon crime) of any participant country. One was awarded to us for "Minister Ambrose's attempt to mislead the international community by claiming that her climate plan 'recognises the need for urgent action so that we can finally make progress towards our 2012 international obligations'." which "In reality ...repudiates Kyoto by delaying GHG regulations until late 2010 and allowing Canada's emissions to stay above current levels until 2020 to 2025."
total emissions, the figure is predicted to increase to between 108 and 126 megatonnes by 2015, and is in addition to all other Canadian emissions.
As you rightly point out, the tar sands extraction process increases its carbon footprint. Although this is of great concern, yet more ominous is the over 3 million barrels of water-waste per day associated with this process. The water waste is expected to triple with crude output soon, and this is of grave concern as global water supplies dwindle, and climate-change-induced droughts are just beginning to ravage poor nations. Debate is already ongoing in policy journals over Canada's mass export of clean water to the US, as well as our contamination of unthinkable amounts of what will soon replace oil as the most valuable commodity on the planet.
I hope this clarifies some of the points you brought up.
Thanks for reading, and please continue to post. :)
Jan 12, 2010 at 05:38 PM
Simon:
Greenpeace and many writers at The Guardian are die-hard socialists who rarely miss an opportunity to slam conservatives for any reason, factual or otherwise. You need more objective sources than that.
But your post says two things (1) Harper was was the bad guy at Copenhagen, and (2) Harper laid low. Well, which was it? It can't be both. In fact, it was the latter. Again, the idea that Harper "sabotaged" anything is hilarious, and implies a clout on the world stage that Canada has never had.
"They produce 27 megatonnes of greenhouse gasses annually."
The U.S. produces 5,750 megatonnes of greenhouse gasses annually, 200 times that of the oil sands. China produces 6,100 megatonnes (and growing), 225 times that of the oil sands. Closing down the oil sands will have an insignificant effect on CO2 production, but a massive effect on geopolitics. More U.S. petroleum will have to be shipped by tanker from the middle east, with all of the environmental and political problems that entails.
"this is of grave concern as global water supplies dwindle, and climate-change-induced droughts are just beginning to ravage poor nations."
Waste water is indeed a concern, but water is a local issue. No one ships water great distances. Whether there is drought in poor nations is irrelevant to waste water in Alberta.
"Debate is already ongoing in policy journals over Canada's mass export of clean water to the US"
That debate has been going on for 50 years at least, long before the oil sands were in production.
Jan 12, 2010 at 09:12 PM
Rabbit,
Thanks for posting again. You raise some excellent points.
Regarding the sources in question: Greenpeace is an apolitical environmental group. They are not funded by any government or corporation and do not espouse any political philosophy - socialist or otherwise. The Guardian, as already mentioned, is likewise free of corporate or governmental influence. Fiscal independence from interest groups such as business organizations (something few major newspapers boast) makes the reportage of these sources more credible, not less credible, than publications beholden to shareholders and advertisers. If you have any evidence that these institutions are full of ‘die hard socialists’ I would of course be very seriously interested in it.
The claim is an interesting one. Note the tacit presupposition: socialists are liars. Needless to say, an accusation of ‘die hard capitalism’ would hardly be taken seriously outside of the domain of Soviet propaganda - which utilized the the word ‘capitalism’ for the same doctrinal purposes for which ‘communism’ in years past and ‘socialism’ now is often used in North America: to denigrate critics of established pieties and obviate rational discussion of important issues.
We can see this tactic being used currently regarding the national debate in the U.S over healthcare reform. Opponents of reform (representing the insurance and pharmaceutical industry) stigmatize steps toward universal healthcare as ‘socialist’ - conjuring up imaginary ‘death panels’ and other spook stories in order to scare people away from reasoned inquiry. This seems silly on our side of the border, and it should, it’s ludicrous, but many Americans take it seriously, and are really scared. The fact that health reform has nothing to do with socialism is irrelevant, because our conception of socialism is not of a real political philosophy, but of an abstract evil, by definition opposed to our values, whatever they happen to be. When resorting to scare-words, reality is irrelevant.
The tactic is an effective one. If you don’t like what someone is saying, and can’t refute it rationally, call him or her a socialist without providing evidence and be done with it. The presupposition that socialists are dishonest pathological slanderers needn’t be proved, as it’s a doctrinal given.
Consider also the idea that these unnamed ‘die hard socialists’ reflexively slam conservatives for no reason: again, you present no evidence for this claim, but it’s an interesting one nevertheless. Slander and demonization of socialism, often (as in the health care debate) on fraudulent grounds, is an accepted western truism, as you demonstrate: no evidence is required, neither is any explanation of why socialists are untrustworthy - the mere accusation is enough to discredit acclaimed, independent, apolitical sources. Consider the reaction to the charge that ‘die hard capitalists’ (us) will slam socialists for no reason. It would raise no eyebrows - not because it’s specious, but because it’s true, and the accepted norm.
As mentioned earlier the Guardian and Greenpeace are uniquely objective, in that their funding comes from public donations and an independent trust, respectively, not government or corporate investment and advertising. These are independent sources, and about as objective as they come. Hence, I do not need ‘more objective sources than that’ (as few exist) although you could stand to provide any source at all to support your unsubstantiated libeling of unidentified ‘socialists’.
The United States does indeed produce 200 times as much greenhouse gas as the oil sands. Adjusting for per capita equity (the U.S has roughly 100 times our population) that makes the oil sand emissions analogous to half of U.S total GHG production. When the oil sands GHG increases (as it is projected to) to over 100 megatonnes per annum (about one fiftieth of US totals) it will proportionally represent double their national emissions. That means that the oil sands alone will produce twice as much GHG per Canadian citizen as the entire U.S economy does per American citizen. As the worlds highest current per capita emitter we might do well to reduce, rather than increase, our carbon footprint. Furthermore, the intriguing argument that we should not curb our emissions because other nations emit more than us, besides being a formula for global suicide if adopted by all countries, risks being perceived as myopic and cynical by sane readers - no doubt irrational socialists.
On the topic of Harper’s stance at Copenhagen, if you had bothered to read the article I quoted, you would know that it can be, and is “both”. The Globe explains that Harper ‘lay low’ - avoiding press scrums and deferring questioning to Environment Minister Jim Prentice - because of the PR battering he wished to avoid over his destructive role in the talks. A dramatic example of Harper’s attempts to sabotage climate agreements was quoted from Embassy, the respected (although probably socialist) policy journal, which received government documents planning to pit European nations against each other.
Harper’s sabotage at Copenhagen may indeed seem “hilarious” to the oil companies which the federal government plans to subsidize, but not so much to impoverished Maldivians, whose national home will be inundated under the terms of the resulting agreement. As for your assertion that Harper’s stand at the talks ‘implies a clout on the world stage that Canada has never had’, I’ll not try to reconcile it with your warning that shutting down the oil sands will have a ‘massive effect on geopolitics’ but merely suggest that having one of the worlds largest petroleum deposits might give us marginal leverage of some kind.
At the risk of becoming a socialist, I posit the audacious thesis that starving people in poor nations are not “irrelevant”. While the obscenity of a rich nation like Canada wasting a million barrels of water a day to make money off of an environmentally destructive mega-project may be lost on conscientious objectors to a “massive effect on geopolitics”, Canadians afflicted with some vestige of humanity may be inclined to value the lives of innumerable Africans over the profits of oil corporations. This isn’t some abstract economic chess match between governments - real people are suffering and dying because of climate-change related droughts (which are expected to increase dramatically) and that is relevant.
Finally, I stated nowhere that the debate over water export began at the instant the oil sands project started. Impending global water shortages are not the result of the oil sands, but rather a pretty good reason not to waste billions of barrels of water. Sorry for the confusion.
Jan 13, 2010 at 07:12 PM
A point of correction:
An typographical error in the seventh paragraph, upon which further calculations are based, puts the U.S population at roughly 100 times ours. This is incorrect. The U.S population is roughly 10 times ours, with the relative figures adjusted accordingly.
Jan 13, 2010 at 07:45 PM
Post a Comment