Posted on 04/25/2007 12:06:44 PM PDT by canuck_conservative
Liberal Senator Dennis Dawson accused [Environment Minister John] Baird of scare tactics. "The sky is falling-- we've seen this before," Dawson said. "Every time we talk about changes that protect the environment we have people telling us they will destroy the economy." He said similar warnings were issued about the program to curb acid rain, yet it was implemented without difficulty.
The story of "the boy who cried wolf " ends, if memory serves, with the wolf devouring the boy. Moral: It's not crying "wolf" if there really is a wolf.
It's a time-honoured rhetorical technique, all the same -- to dismiss any and all warnings of the consequences that attend a given course of action as so much fear-mongering. It appeals to our eyeballrolling reflex, flattering our self-image as doughty skeptics, over whose eyes no wool may be pulled.
Hence the Liberal riposte to the Environment Minister's estimates of the costs to the economy of adopting their declared policy with respect to global warming, as contained in Bill C-288: a bill that would commit us, not merely to comply with our Kyoto targets, but on the original Kyoto timetable -- a distinction that seems to elude most of the media. Rather than attempt to rebut the minister's figures, the Liberals' main defence has been to accuse him of scare tactics.
But it's not using scare tactics if in fact those are the costs. And indeed the minister's numbers -- if you accept his assumptions -- are quite plausible, as a number of expert reviewers have attested, including Don Drummond, the former finance department chief economist and Mark Jaccard, perhaps Canada's leading authority on the economics of climate change.
The key assumption is that the bulk of the required reductions -- 75% -- would have to be achieved domestically, rather than by buying emissions credits abroad. We'll get to that assumption in a second, but the implications if you accept it are stark. At 770 megatonnes per year, we are now about 36% above the target set out in the Kyoto protocol: 6% below 1990 levels, or 563 Mt.
The deadline for meeting this target is not, as commonly reported, 2012. Rather, it is 2008 to 2012: the target is defined as the average annual emissions over that period. Yet emissions are currently projected to grow another 10% over the next five years, to roughly 850 Mt. So it isn't just a matter of somehow cutting 200 Mt out of emissions by next year, but of cutting nearly 300 Mt by 2012 --an average reduction of 33% from the baseline forecast. If we fall short of that target in the first year, we have to exceed it in subsequent years.
It took 17 years for Canada's greenhouse gas emissions to rise from 600 Mt to present levels. To reverse all of that increase in the space of one year, or even five, would require the most extreme measures, as the Environment study indicates, including an acrossthe- board carbon tax of $195 a tonne.
This is an enormous shock for the economy to absorb, even with offsetting cuts in personal and corporate income taxes. Eventually, it adjusts. And indeed, eventually, as the opposition protests, there would be some offsetting benefits from greater energy efficiency. But in the short term, the dislocation would be severe.
So let's relax the Minister's assumption. Let's suppose we buy a much higher proportion of the emissions credits overseas, for $25 a tonne. I have no objection to this in principle: As with any other import, if it's cheaper to buy them from foreigners, we should. The question is to what extent this can be done in practice -- again, within the very limited time frame to which the opposition would commit us.
There are two broad ways of obtaining these credits. One is from developing countries, through the Joint Implementation or Clean Environment Mechanisms established under Kyoto. But the total worldwide supply of these is an estimated 85 Mt, and the government's projection already assumes we have bought 65 Mt of these.
The other place to buy credits is on the international emissions trading markets. But these are only just getting under way, and it is to be doubted whether they could yet handle the kinds of demands we would be placing upon them. Moreover, much of the supply of credits would come from places like Russia, whose economy conveniently collapsed just after the Kyoto baseline year, leaving it with much unused capacity. Again, no objection in principle--but this is Russia we're talking about. Do we really know what we're purchasing, or from whom?
Last, there is the legal question. The clear expectation at Kyoto was that the greater part of the required reductions would take place domestically. While no specific percentage is mentioned, the Protocol speaks of a "significant element." The so-called "flexibility" mechanisms were intended to be "supplemental" to domestic action, not a replacement for it. So it would arguably violate at least the spirit of Kyoto to rely so heavily on purchases abroad.
And since complying with Kyoto is the only reason we would be engaged in this mad dash to hit an arbitrary target by an artificial deadline, what exactly would we be accomplishing?
Ac@andrewcoyne.com
© National Post 2007
Pinging you, eh.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The sad part is that none of this would have the slightest impact on the climate anyway.
It seems like cruel satire that Canadians would be worried about the climate getting a bit warmer. It is like the world is playing a joke on them and they are falling for it.
Not just up there, my friend. Ironic, isn't it, that the whole hoopla about GW is that the sky is falling, yet that's the argument they, in turn use, against someone who'd note possible consequences should GW policies be enacted; the sky would fall.
It seems we're doomed either way. I guess it's time to pour an Elmer T. Lee and wait for the end.
I just felt the need to repeat that.
Yes, why isn’t Canada happy about Global Warming? A CIA study 10 years ago predicted that the wheat growing latitudes would expand significantly to the north primarily benefiting Canada and Russia.
Find later bump.
uh no. it's NOT crying "wolf" unless there really IS a wolf. the kid cried "wolf" when there wasn't a wolf so much that people didn't beleive him when there really was one.
Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.
There are two chances of that, slim and none (and "slim" is on a diet).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.