“The debate is over.” At least this is the mainstream consensus regarding human-induced global warming. The global political centre has shifted, with formerly skeptical world leaders like John Howard, Stephen Harper, and even George W. Bush acknowledging these popular concerns. A growing number of authoritative reports, including the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, generally confirm that the earth is warming, probably due to human activity, a view most environmental scientists have held for a long time.
But should the discussion end here? What do we know for sure? What are the next steps? Can we really “stabilize” the climate? If so, what policies should we pursue, and who will bear the costs?
It seems to me that the debate is far from over. Identifying the problem was hard enough; implementing a political solution won’t be any easier. And unlike the scientists, who can arrive at their conclusions via tidy computer models, politicians must wade through muddy pools of ideological and economic interests.
As with any serious policy issue, understanding and defining global climate change is essential. According to the IPCC, it is anywhere from “likely” to “virtually certain” that the current trend of rising temperatures and extreme weather activity will continue throughout the 21st century. They are less certain about what is causing this, stating that it is “more likely than not” to “likely” that humans have only contributed to these phenomena, let alone been the sole cause. Despite these lingering uncertainties, however, it is fair to assume that massive human emissions of carbon dioxide lead to higher temperatures. So, what’s next?
David Suzuki and fellow enviro-warriors like Al Gore have called on world governments to implement strict policies that would reduce emissions to a level that will “stabilize” the global climate and prevent catastrophes. Put that way, the strategy sounds tempting.
But stabilizing the climate, let alone reversing global warming, is not easy and according to some, may be futile. Fred Michel, a professor of environmental science at Carleton University and self-professed environmentalist, believes that stabilizing the climate is “sheer fantasy,” and that the climate will continue to change “no matter what we do.” Even the IPCC report states that “warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries…even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized.”
Instead of wasting efforts trying to manage something we can’t control, Michel thinks we should make adapting to climate change our priority, while focusing on aspects of the environment that we understand better, like biodiversity, urban sprawl, and localized pollution.
But simply encouraging humans to adapt won’t satisfy the millions who thirst for a plan that will save them from the perceived environmental apocalypse. The recent media hype, reminiscent of the fear-mongering after 9/11, has prompted even the most level-headed politicians and citizens to call for over-the-top measures to curb greenhouse emissions. Just look at the enthusiasm and ease with which the NDP, Liberals, and Bloc Quebecois recently passed populist legislation requiring the Canadian government to meet the original targets stipulated under Kyoto.
Many see this united action as a bold move forward, but forget that to meet these arbitrary targets, Canada would have to eliminate the equivalent emissions of all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants, all its auto plants, and the whole tar sands of Alberta within four years! These goals will mean huge trade-offs for Canadians, without any real promise of stabilizing the climate. But that doesn’t mean everybody loses.
The subsidies promised to so-called “green” industries will help line the pockets of favoured special interests. Environmentalism is the new lobbying craze in Ottawa and Washington, leading to legislation and spending for the best organized groups, not the best ideas. Millions of taxpayer dollars are going to corporate agriculture giants-or according to politicians, “farmers”-to produce ethanol fuel from grains. But not only is ethanol an inefficient way to reduce emissions, its production has been causing over-farming and high grain prices. In Mexico for example, many poor have been hit by a threefold increase in the price of corn, their staple food, since demand for the crop increased substantially due to U.S. ethanol subsidies. Not addressing possible side-effects like these leads to irresponsible public policy. We need to question whether governments can achieve such comprehensive social goals without sacrificing their integrity.
It is not enough for us to listen to Al Gore and give the government a blank cheque for our future. Despite what the doomsday scientists say, we have time to examine the issues and weigh the costs and benefits of different policies. It is especially important that we encourage healthy skepticism, or else rational public debate will continue to be tainted by an environmental McCarthyism that confuses concerned citizens with Exxon Mobil lackeys.
