British environmental activist and author, George Monbiot, gives Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a place of honour in his book Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning
Thanks to the efforts of Mr Harper and your environment minister, Rona Ambrose, Canada's global reputation is now beginning to catch up with its performance. When they say that Canada cannot reach its Kyoto targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, they mean that they do not intend to try. Their surrender within the first few months in office is an astonishing instance of political cowardice. Having presented himself to the Canadian people as a man who can make tough choices, Harper declared himself an irresolute wimp as soon as he was faced with a choice between upsetting a few industrial lobbyists or helping to save the planet. Keeping Canada's promise to cut emissions by 6%, he says, is just too hard. When I first heard that, I couldn't help bursting into bitter laughter. (1)
Stephen Harper didn't try because he doesn't believe in the science of climate change. In fact he doesn't believe in science at all. How else could you explain his appointment of a creationist to the science portfolio?
But denying climate change doesn't mean that it will just correct itself.
The image at the top of the page is from a billboard going into the climate change summit in Copenhagen in 2009. The world was taking notice and the world was not impressed. And in Copenhagen we won not only many Colossal Fossil awards of the day, but ran off with the top prize. The Colossal Fossil of the summit.
And not simply because of our inaction on climate change, but because Harper tried to sabotage the negotiations.
And in an attempt to rescue our reputation, the prime minister ... well ... did nothing. In fact he missed most of the conference, instead arriving with wealthy oil execs to have lunch with the Queen of Denmark.
And when he was reminded that smaller nations were being devastated by global warming, he made one of the most shocking statements ever to come out of a world leader, let alone a Canadian pm:
"This may be a shock," Harper said last month in the House of Commons, "but the negotiators Canada assigns to international negotiations (like Copenhagen) are there to represent the interests of Canada, not the interests of Mali."
With that statement he painted Canadians as cold and heartless.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has often referred to Canada as an emerging "energy superpower" due largely to the development of the Alberta oil sands. But what has been the long-term legacy of fossil fuel development in Alberta -- the epicenter of the Canadian conservative movement and Harper's political powerbase?
Deficits, foolish giveaways to corporations at the expense of taxpayers, and environmental "carnage" without funds to fix it, according to Allan Warrack, a former minister in the Alberta government who nearly 40 years ago helped craft the province's plan for saving and intelligently investing its oil wealth.
And putting his entire focus on the Alberta oil patch has been misguided at best. Goldman Sachs is now warning their clients not to invest in Canada:
A Goldman Sachs strategist has told investors that it is time to dump their Canadian stocks, so they can avoid suffering losses in the short term as oil prices decline.Noah Weisberger told investors Tuesday that Canadian stocks "made new highs last week, even as growth jitters and higher energy prices were constraining equity markets elsewhere."
But he advised Goldman Sachs clients to drop their Canadian holdings as "risks to the forward view of economic growth are more balanced as are the risks to oil prices."
And his entire environmental platform is a fraud. It's why he appointed fraudster Bruce Carson to write copy for the Tar Sands and their so-called "ethical oil".
When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Kate Heartfield wrote last week for the Ottawa Citizen: John Baird rewrites history In it she calls out Baird for his flip-flop on cap-and-trade.
In her closing statement she says: "Granted, the Liberals have changed their carbon-pricing policy too since the last election (from the tax shift in 2008 to cap and trade now) but at least they're being honest about it."
The Liberals were left with no alternative. Stephen Harper, with the help of Jack Layton, made "carbon tax" akin to poison. Which is sad because a carbon tax is a much better initiative.
It is open, transparent and can be made revenue neutral, which is exactly what the Green Shift was. But sadly, in 2008, both the Conservatives and NDP campaigned against it, as a "tax on everything".
It helped them politically but greatly damaged our chance at reversing the trend.
Now the media is giving the Conservatives a free pass on the environment, simply because they are claiming they will do what Obama does, knowing full well that the Tea Party/Republicans are severely tying his hands.
One of the budget measures they insisted on was the gutting of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, mimicking our own government's gutting of environmental protection, under the guise of removing red tape.
It's fitting that Monbiot referred to the Harper government as "a chimpanzee's tea party". The Canadian version of the Koch Brothers Tea Party.
You do the math.
And when you're done make sure you vote on May 2, and vote wisely. Our reputation depends on it.
Sources:
1. Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, By George Monbiot, 2006, Random House, ISBN: 13-978-0-385-66221-5
On October 16, 2009; residents in the riding of Mississauga-Erindale opened their doors to a surprise visitor. It was none other than famous Bollywood actor and OXFAM Ambassador, Rahul Bose.
He was there distributing pamphlets and asking those he spoke with to encourage Stephen Harper to go to Copenhagen and make an honest effort to address climate change.
This could be very damaging for the riding's Reform member of Parliament, Bob Dechert, since he was already in trouble for not spending enough time at home.
And of course, Jason Kenney's crack about being the 'minister of curry in a hurry', because of his exploitation of immigrants, including East Indian; didn't help either.
So it was time for a little damage control.
The opposition had long been critical of Stephen Harper for abandoning ties with India, so maybe this was a good time for a little photo-op there, to raise the party's profile with the Indo-Canadian community. And of course this would include an appearance on a favourite dance show and a well publicized visit with another famous Bollywood star.
MUMBAI, India — Prime Minister Stephen Harper will meet India’s answer to Brad Pitt on Monday and pose for pictures with Indo-Canadian contestants of wildly popular TV dance contest. The reason? More votes in Canada.
The pictures of Harper meeting Bollywood mega-star Akshay Kumar are pure political gold, say Conservatives in Canada. So too is Harper’s tour Monday of the television studio that is home to the reality show Premier Dance League — the subcontinent’s version of So You Think You Can Dance — that is a hit here and with the Indian diaspora in Canada. Three Indo-Canadians have advanced through several rounds of the contest. Harper’s three days India will certainly contain some of the standard photo-ops one would expect ...
Mr. Speaker, before the Liberal leader decided to return to Canada to be crowned, the Liberal government pursued an ideological policy of isolation toward India, slapping it with sanctions and marginalizing Canada's influence with India well into this decade.
Our government has been working to repair this long-term damage to our relationship. That is why the Prime Minister is in India this week, rebuilding relationships and deepening our economic ties with an emerging economic power.
I am happy to point out that under our government, Canada-India relations are at an all-time high. Canada's exports to India have more than doubled since our government was elected and exports are still on the rise. We recently expanded our trade network in India to eight offices, making it one of Canada's largest networks worldwide. When it comes to free and open trade with important allies like India, it is this government that is getting the job done.
Of course this was not really an announcement, so much as a bit of self-promotion, and typically, completely false.
After the bombing of the Air India flight 182, our relationship was strained, but:
Major economic reforms were brought about in the early 90’s and India began growing its economy, increasing its visibility and impact on the global economy. Canada realised the need to expand its presence to Asian countries and identified India as a major market with abundant scope for commercialism. In the late 90’s, Canada initiated the move to improve bi-lateral relations. There have been a number of bilateral visits at the political level since thus moving forward the trade growth. Trade between India and Canada has increased many folds in the past decade.
The Reformers are actually working toward a free trade agreement, which in neo-con language means that Canadians will probably just get screwed again.
I don't know how successful this side show was, but news from India revealed that it was pretty much what we see at home. Harper refused to answer questions and the domestic media got roughed up when they tried to 'break the rules'.
Though Stephen Harper could make an Olympic event out of avoiding the Canadian media, he will now and then talk to the foreign press, if he thinks we'll never find out.
During his recent visit to Korea, Bloomberg Press reported that he stated he would use his position with the G20 to convince nations to put the economy above the environment.
Of course, he has no intention of putting our own economic recovery ahead of his own self interests, but that's a story for another time (stay tuned. I'm working on an update with videos, songs and dancing girls. OK, no dancing girls, but there will be singing and video)
Tomorrow is the notional deadline for countries to fill in the blanks on the Copenhagen agreement on climate change by stating their targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
To be clear, each country can establish its own mitigation targets, and does not have to say how they will be achieved. Canada is expected to maintain its previously announced target of a 20-per-cent reduction below 2006 levels by 2020. There's no requirement to announce a longer-term target of, say, a 70-per-cent reduction by 2050 ....
2. And then former Reformer, columnist, and now stand up comic; Monte Solberg, is suggesting that Harper is now a conservationist. Hee, hee. He'll kill them with that act.
It is a little known fact that the Harper government has already made a great start on protecting some of our best habitat. Their $225-million Natural Conservation Areas Program has worked through the Nature Conservancy of Canada and dozens of conservation groups to preserve millions of acres of wilderness.
Every province and territory has seen important habitat receive protection, including the Great Bear Rainforest and the Nahanni National Park Reserve. In particular, vast swaths of the north have been set aside by the government to protect animals like the bowhead whale.
3. But the most disturbing story of all, comes from the CBC:
CBC News has learned that 16 Canadian lakes are slated to be officially but quietly "reclassified" as toxic dump sites for mines. The lakes include prime wilderness fishing lakes from B.C. to Newfoundland.
Environmentalists say the process amounts to a "hidden subsidy" to mining companies, allowing them to get around laws against the destruction of fish habitat ....
In a spoof letter today (at least I believe it's a spoof letter, though everything in it is true), Martin Regg Cohn shows the difference between the PC Party and the Reform-Conservatives.
For all of Brian Mulroney's faults, he cared deeply about Canada and our place in the world. (I liked him and actually voted for him ... twice ... shut up!)
Stephen Harper, on the other hand, cares very little about Canada and not a bit about our place in the world.
Our disgrace in Copenhagen would never have been allowed by any other prime minister or party leader, ever.
Yet to hear him talk, Harper has made great progress on the environment. He even told Canwest Global that he regretted that more ambitious targets had not been set. Ha ha ha ha ha.
Dear Prime Minister: So you think you can dance? Around climate change?
You're clearly chuffed about flying to Copenhagen while staying under the radar – undetected and uncommitted. But if you ask me (and I know you don't bother anymore) you shouldn't be so pleased with yourself.
Even my son Ben and his MuchMusic fans and Canadian Idol groupies expect better of you. That's why I'm sending this note via the back-channel.
I know you think internationalism is never a vote winner – unless you find a wedge issue like Israel that plays in swing ridings.
And I suppose you're determined to do things differently than all those Liberal phonies – Chrétien and Kyoto, Trudeau and his travels to Cuba and China, Pearson and his Nobel Peace Prize.
No, what really p----d me off – sorry, peeved me (okay, I'm working on cleaning up my language) – is the way you've turned your back on Canada's history of international engagement: Honest broker, middle power, peacekeeper or responsible ally – take your pick, but at least take a stand. Turn your back on the world and the world will pass us by.
That's what we saw in Copenhagen on Friday when Canada found itself the forgotten nation.
There was Barack Obama charging in to save the day. And there you were, hiding under his skirt, mumbling feebly that you would do exactly what the Americans did on greenhouse gas emissions.
Canadians understand the pressures of harmonization, although I took a lot of heat for it in my day. But we were always players – and the Americans were at least interested in what we had to say.
Where were you in Copenhagen when Obama summoned 19 other world leaders for a pivotal meeting to thrash out the framework for a deal? It's one thing to miss the "family photo" at a G8 summit because you're in the bathroom. But to not even rate an invitation to a consultation – while Australia is seated at the table wearing the mantle of middle power?
Nothing against those Aussies, but they are a smaller economy and population.
So why was their PM, Kevin Rudd, being asked for his advice by Obama while you were cooling your heels? And you're supposed to be the host of next year's G8 and G20 meetings here!
It wasn't just Liberals who gave a fig for foreign policy. I cared about Canada and the world. I lobbied for sanctions against South Africa and stood up to Margaret Thatcher. I reached out to China without selling out on human rights. And I forged a partnership with Ronald Reagan on acid rain.
When George H.W. Bush stitched together a coalition to evict Saddam Hussein's troops from Kuwait, he was on the phone to me constantly seeking advice. When Europe was worrying about German reunification and how the Soviets would react, Bush called me for consultations. And we fished together at Kennebunkport.
Okay, I admit it – I loved getting a phone call from the White House switchboard. And it bugs me that you never place a call.
But now, you don't even rate a phone call from Obama when he's giving our allies the heads up on his new Afghanistan surge. You got Joe Biden calling to say that his boss was too busy calling up everyone else that matters.
My point is that the Liberals aren't the only good guys on foreign policy.
Progressive Conservatives were internationalists – not just me, but Diefenbaker too when he sold wheat to China and spoke out passionately against apartheid when you were just a baby.
Listen, you've been PM four years now. Remind me, what's your legacy going to be? Cutting the GST by two points? It's not just what voters say, but the verdict of historians that you will have to live with. Who do you think was chosen Canada's most environmentally conscious PM a couple of years ago? That's because I was ahead of my time, which is not exactly something you can boast about.
Which recent Tory PM won two consecutive majorities? Exactly.
You can do better. Try a little harder on global warming – and statecraft. You never know when voters will start holding you to account on the environment, or start wondering why you can't be a bit more worldly.
James Inhofe isn't the dumbest Republican buddy of Stephen Harper. That honour would of course go to George Bush, with Jim Sensenbrenner running a close second.
But, like John Baird, Inhofe is a walking caricature, who saved one his best performances for Copenhagen.
Of interest here when discussing this U.S. Senator; Reformer Rob Anders once worked for him as a professional heckler. Yes folks. Apparently that's a real job. Who knew?
But before you think that James Inhofe is really concerned with the 'hoax' of climate change, a couple of things to note. Inhofe received a total of $662, 506.00 in contributions from the oil lobby and $152,800.00 from the coal lobby. We know what side his climate change is buttered on.
Jim Inhofe gets cool reception in Denmark Politico 'The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,' Sen. Jim Inhofe told reporters in Copenhagen. 'It's just not going to happen.' By LOUISE ROUG December 19, 2009
COPENHAGEN — Sen. Jim Inhofe flew across the Atlantic and — on little sleep — braved the snow, the cold and the dark to deliver his skeptical message at the international climate conference. What he found when he got here: a few aides and a single reporter.
“I think he’s going to be a little disappointed,” one of his aides remarked. Inhofe was at least impatient.
The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hoped to spread two messages in Copenhagen: Global warming is a hoax, and there’s no way the Senate is going to pass a cap-and-trade bill.
But it was early morning when he arrived at the Bella Center, and the halls were still half-deserted. He walked quickly, brushing off an aide who suggested that he slow down and take a breath.
“I don’t want to breathe — I want to get something done,” he said.
The senator didn’t have any meetings scheduled in Copenhagen, and he did not see chief U.S. negotiator Todd Stern or the members of the House delegation, who were not scheduled to fly in until later in the afternoon.
But Inhofe’s aides eventually rustled up a group of reporters, and the Oklahoman — wearing black snakeskin cowboy boots — held forth from the top of a flight of stairs in the conference media center.
“We in the United States owe it to the 191 countries to be well-informed and know what the intentions of the United States are. The United States is not going to pass a cap and trade,” he said. “It’s just not going to happen.”
A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”
“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”
One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”
Inhofe ignored the jab, fielded a few more questions, then raced to the airport for the nine-hour flight back to Washington.
After Inhofe left, some reporters were still a bit confused about what had happened and who he was.
“His name is Inhofe,” a German journalist told a Japanese reporter, “but I don’t know if it’s one or two f’s.”
Many in the Canadian media have been feeding Harper's enormous ego, by suggesting that he saved the day at Copenhagen, and Jim Prentice is strutting around like the cock of the walk.
But when you read accounts from places outside this country, Canada doesn't even get an honourable mention. In fact they get many dishonourable mentions as recipients of the Colossal Fossil' award.
The U.S. didn't want their pictures taken with us. Our Prime Minister was not invited to the private talks that President Obama had with world leaders.
"After much predictable wrangling, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, and the United States, led by a desperate President Barack Obama, prompted a nonbinding commitment to limit the increase in world temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels by 2050."
The moral was not that international conferences couldn’t please everyone. ... First, every nation, from major to the most minor, now possesses some level of veto power. It’s as if the world is brimming with the likes of Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman. These guys can say no to the Senate bill on health-care reform and kill it, much as blocs of even the most inconsequential of nations can say “no” and thereby slow or perhaps even stop the train.
Second, African nations in particular seem to have gotten religious about bloc power. At Copenhagen, and for the first time, all of them banded together to pressure rich countries to pay for and save them from the scourges of global warming. Instead of taking the conditions of Western economies into account and pocketing the $100 billion offer of the United States, they insisted on more and risked all. When an Ethiopian leader tried to broker a compromise with the West, his colleagues slapped him down. And the Sudanese leader certainly revealed where many African heads were when he compared the climate change deal to the German Holocaust against the Jews. And African voices are made louder by their new alliance with China, the richest poor nations among them.
Third, China is emerging both as the No. 2 power in the world and as the No. 1 spoiler of multilateral action—from global warming to sanctions against North Korea. China positions itself as the champion of poor nations, and still pretends to be one itself. .. Never mind that China obsessively focuses on feathering its own economic nest, often at the expense of poor nations. Never mind that China is the second largest economy in the world and the biggest holder of foreign financial reserves, mainly American. Never mind that despite America and Western Europe having been the biggest global warmers in the past, China is today the largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
Fourth, in addition to China’s being stronger than it used to be, the United States is weaker than before and spread thin in military commitments and wars. In particular, America is weaker economically, the weakest it’s been comparatively in almost 60 years. It hardly ever was in a position to dictate solutions even at the height of its powers, but today, even its clear position of primacy has been diluted. Presidents can’t pay for cooperation or threaten punishments on the economic front as they once did. Americans can’t afford it.
Where does this leave Canada? Harper hooked his cart to GW's wagon, but he appears to now be out of the loop. That Obama dislikes him is no longer a secret. I can't say I blame him. I don't much like Stephen Harper either.
Harper, the big dummy above, showed up in Copenhagen with a dozen or more oil tycoons, that he called "advisers" so that the Canadian taxpayer would be bilked for the little vacation.
He never spoke and was not even invited to the meeting that Obama arranged for world leaders. I guess that says it all, that Canada is no longer thought of as a leader in anything, except ridicule.
Well in the late hours of last night the leaders finally came to an "agreement" that basically says a whole lot of nothing. It's hard to come away from here thinking that the conference was anything other than a failure.
It was very striking to me when I spoke to people and they found out I was from Canada. In the past when I've traveled abroad I've never heard anything but good things when people find out I'm Canadian, here it was a mark of shame. All week I heard variations on the phrase, "why isn't Canada doing anything to fix climate change, I thought you guys cared?". Over and over I had to explain that most of us did care, but the problem was our Prime Minister didn't.
Obama also taking some heat. The difference is that he tried but the House has tied his hands. With Harper, he didn't try and didn't care, but has managed to tie the hands of the House.
The EU Sunday Times December 20, 2009 Barack Obama’s climate deal unravels at last moment Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor
The United Nations climate change conference ended in recrimination yesterday without reaching a clear deal on emissions targets.
After a stormy session in Copenhagen, in which a vociferous anti-American minority brought the talks close to collapse, most countries agreed simply to “take note” of a watered-down agreement brokered by President Barack Obama and supported by Britain. This accord — which had been drawn up in discussions with China and 30 or so other countries on Friday — sets a target of limiting global warming to a maximum of 2C above pre-industrial times.
Above this temperature, scientists say, the world would start to experience dangerous changes, including floods, droughts and rising seas.
Critics pointed out, however, that the agreement failed to say how this limit on rising temperatures would be achieved. It pushed into the future decisions on core problems such as emissions cuts, and did not specify where a proposed $100 billion (£62 billion) in annual aid for developing nations would come from. Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN climate change secretariat, called it “basically a letter of intent ... the ingredients of an architecture that can respond to the long-term challenge of climate change”.
Jeremy Hobbs, executive director of Oxfam International, dismissed it as “a triumph of spin over substance. It recognises the need to keep warming below 2C but does not commit to do so. It kicks back the big decisions on emissions cuts and fudges the issue of climate cash”.
The deal was denounced when put early yesterday to a plenary session of the conference after Obama and other heads of state had flown home.
It was distressing, but not surprising; to learn that Canada was one of the only G8 countries not invited to attend the closed door meeting, hosted by President Obama, and attended by heads of state.
This is the third snub by the U.S. President, and it must be coming clear to Harper that he is simply not liked by the man.
He was left out of the Afghan discussions, possibly because of our alleged complicity in torture; and he is left out of climate talks, because we are now an embarrassment on that issue as well.
Our government has clearly aligned itself with the Republicans and Fox News. Unfortunately they have dragged us along with them.
COPENHAGEN–President Barack Obama emerged empty handed from a meeting with 18 other world leaders to try aimed at shepherding through a global climate deal Friday.
There is still more work to be done before 193 countries can put their signatures on a political statement that will signal success at the end of these two-week talks.
"After months of talk, and two weeks of negotiations ... I believe that the pieces of that accord should now be clear," Obama said in a speech to the conference.
"We are ready to get this done today, but there has to be movement on all sides to recognize that it is better to act than to talk."
The U.S. President told his counterparts gathered in the Danish capital that an agreement he can accept must include financing for poor countries, emissions-reduction targets and the promise of transparency from major emerging economies like China, India, Brazil and South Africa, which have all made pledges to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Without some method of ensuring that they are keeping the promises they have made here in Copenhagen, the act of signing a climate pact would be a "hollow victory," Obama said.
Brazilian President Lulu da Silva said in the speech preceding Obama's that transparency – some should be an essential element of the deal, and he went one step further, promising to kick in financing for the least developed countries and poorest nations on the planet.
There are a number of different draft texts that have been produced and could be merged into a final agreement, a White House official said.
Dave Martin of Greenpeace said there is a dollar figure for long-term financing but no clarity on who will provide the money. Leaders have also agreed on a fund for the next three years that is expected to provide about $10-billion annually for quick action in the developing world.
"But heads of state and governemnt have so far failed to agree on the crucial issues of emission reduction targets and how to verify these cuts," he said.
Still, there is optimism, at least in part because so many world leaders are now in Copenhagen and seem determined to reach an outcome.
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said that countries are united in purpose and "the finishing line is in sight."
"Now is the time to be united in action, common action. Now is the time for common sense, compromise and courage, political courage. Political courage, political wisdom and political leadership should prevail."
The meeting is scheduled to wrap up in the Danish capital later Friday and lack of progress could send the talks into overtime if leaders cannot find agreement.
But there is electricity in the air, said John Drexhage, the Ottawa-based climate change director with the International Institute of Sustainable Development.
"People have come in with a bounce in their step this morning," "There's something in the offing. No doubt about that."
Shortly after arriving in this city, Obama headed into a closed-door meeting with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, Russian President Dimitri Medvedev.
Italy and Canada were the only G8 nations not invited to attend the talks. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is back home after being attacked by a protester earlier this week, suffering injuries that included a broken nose and a chipped tooth.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper arrived at the Bella Center, where the summit is being held, at around 9:30 a.m. local time with bloodshot eyes after attending a gala dinner hosted by the Danish Queen that stretched until two o'clock Friday morning. Talks amongst lower-level negotiators who were hashing out the legal wording of the text here went well into the morning Friday before a public session of the conference convened, a few hours late, at noon.
"We stand before one of these rare and defining moments in history," said Danish Prime Minister Lars Rokke Rasmussen said.
"Now we must chart the course of the future of our planet. I sincerely hope that you have come here with the consensus that December 18, 2009, marks the beginning of a bright and green future."
Well he made it folks. Our prime minister descended on Copenhagen with all the fury of a fly in your ointment. It lands, you remove it, then cover your wounds.
Photo-ops and a lovely dinner. I am so proud.
Too busy or bored to speak to the crowd, he let 'Jimmy do nothing' take over, who delivered such an impassioned speech that one of the six people in the audience actually managed to stay awake. We won't tell Jimmy that it was because the man had just taken his Viagra and was waiting for his wife. We'll let him think that smile was for him.
PM keeps low profile at UN climate talks While some 57 world leaders took to the podium, the job of delivering Ottawa's view left to minister Allan Woods Ottawa Bureau December 18, 2009
COPENHAGEN–Prime Minister Stephen Harper stepped onto the biggest world stage in recent history Thursday and ducked.
The parade to the podium of international leaders was long, and the speeches were longer: Kevin Rudd from Australia, Gordon Brown from Britain, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from Iran, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from Brazil, Angela Merkel from Germany, Nicolas Sarkozy from France.
Fifty-seven heads of state or government in all came to the podium at the Bella Center, where the climate talks are rapidly unfolding. All came with grand pledges exhorting other countries to do more, to go further, to secure a strong and ambitious deal that will limit the earth's temperature rise.
But Canada delivered a nine-paragraph speech that was literally indistinguishable from the lines the Conservative government has been repeating for months leading up to this climate conference.
And the words came not from Harper but from Jim Prentice, the Tory environment minister who has been leading Canada in Copenhagen since his arrival at the start of the week.
Harper opted instead for a fancy gala dinner hosted by the queen of Denmark. While he supped, Prentice spoke, though his midnight time slot assured that not many were listening.
While Prentice spoke for 3 1/2 minutes, Saudi Arabia's petroleum minister, Ali Ibrahim Al Naimi, spoke for roughly six minutes, and talked about his kingdom's desire to become not just an oil producer, but a clean energy giant in the world, particularly of solar power.
Prentice, meanwhile, slipped in a few lines about Canada's vast energy resources and land mass that were not included in an advance copy of the speech handed to reporters, who had mostly left by the time Prentice took to the podium.
He told the world not of the Canadian Arctic, where the permafrost is thawing and seas threaten to swallow up villages whole; and not of salmon stocks that mysteriously disappeared in British Columbia.
"Canada's broad-based actions to address climate change take into account our large diverse land mass, our growing population and the importance of our energy sector for meeting global demand," Prentice told the near-empty hall.
He added that Canadians share a "profound interest" in contributing to the fight against climate change and that the government will contribute its "fair share" toward a financial package that is integral to closing any deal here.
Canada's low profile reflects the Tory government's profound lack of interest on an issue that has drawn 119 world leaders to the Danish capital, said NDP Leader Jack Layton.
"We're concerned that ... we're not hearing the level of engagement and commitment that we're hearing from some other countries and I believe that the vast majority of Canadians would like to see us more engaged."
If Harper and Prentice are not more engaged, it may be because they already appear to have lost the key battle they came here to wage.
The government playbook for this conference included putting the Kyoto Protocol to rest and signing a new treaty that includes the U.S. and all other major emitters of greenhouse gases.
Jean Chrétien's Liberal government signed the pact in 1997, and now emissions are some 30 per cent above the target Canada was supposed to meet.
One of the side-effects of what appears to be a watered-down deal emerging here is the continuation of the world's first emissions regime, flawed though it may be.
As Canada's image is being tarnished on a daily basis, why would the Reformers take Dimitri Soudas to Copenhagen? He's never been anything other than an embarrassment. An unelected embarrassment at that.
The little jerk is making such an idiot of himself in Copenhagen that it prompted the Liberal leader to demand that he be brought back home immediately.
Not that we really want him here, but unless he's willing to sew an American flag to his hat, he can no longer be let out of his cage.
Amid today’s massive recall of roller blinds and roman shades because of potential danger to children, there is another recall demand. This one is political. Michael Ignatieff sees danger in the Prime Minister’s spokesman, Dimtri Soudas, remaining in Denmark. So much so that he is asking for Mr. Soudas’s recall from the Copenhagen climate-change conference. ...
And then when 'Jimmy do nothing' tried to selvage his reputation with photo-ops of his smugness next to his U.S. counterparts, they said no way. I can't imagine any delegates from any other country wanting to have their picture taken with Canada.
COPENHAGEN -- The federal government was stung on Monday by a sophisticated hoax that made it appear the Canadian delegation had publicly committed to bold emission reduction targets and tens of billions in new aid to help African nations.
An American social advocacy group told media organizations they were responsible for the fake news releases that set Canadians at the Copenhagen climate conference abuzz late on Monday.
Activists calling themselves the Yes Men said they sent out an initial phoney news release, which laid out the supposed new Canadian targets and action plan.
That email was followed by others, one of which appeared to be a government indictment of the first hoax -- which stated Canada's standing with the international business community had been damaged, and the Canadian government would "seek the full measure of legal recourse against these criminals under Danish and international law."
Another hoax news release had the Ugandan delegation at the international climate change talks reacting with elation to Canada's news.
The news releases were posted on a fake Environment Canada website, and the first appeared on real-looking, but bogus, Wall Street Journal and United Nations Conference of the Party sites.
Falsely quoting federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, the first hoax release said the Canadian government is setting binding emissions reductions targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. The release said that is "in line with the recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and approaching the levels demanded by the African Group."
The release also committed Canada to eventually spending up to 5% of its Gross Domestic Product to help developing countries adapt to climate change and develop alternative energy sources.
The bogus news release said Canada would send Africa $13-billion in 2010, the first year of the commitment period.
In reality, Canada is still committed to reducing greenhouse gases by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. And Ottawa has not yet made any firm funding commitment to developing countries.
Every day of the conference, which runs Dec. 7-18, Ottawa has been lambasted for not setting more ambitious targets and failing to meet Kyoto Protocol obligations.
Speaking to reporters on Monday, Mr. Prentice dismissed the hoax.
"My focus is the negotiations," the minister said. "Certainly there are many things going on the periphery of those negotiations, and you know, some of them are undesirable. And there are other things that will continue to happen that will be undesirable, including press releases that are a hoax."
The hoax also led to a heated dispute between government spokesman Dimitri Soudas and Equiterre founder Steven Guilbeault, a climate change activist who Mr. Soudas accused of being the source of the hoax.
Mr. Guilbeault maintains he had nothing to do with it.
"I have nothing to hide," he said, adding he has been up front with his view that Canada has weak climate change policies. He has demanded an apology from the government.
Soudas responded to the hoax in an e-mail, saying "more time should be dedicated to playing a constructive role instead of childish pranks."
Gerald Butts, president and CEO of World Wildlife Fund Canada, said the hoax is not a tactic he would endorse, but it's one that made him laugh.
"It's going to be pretty effective in pointing out what a gap there is between what the government is putting on the table and what people want," Mr. Butts said.
Speaking later in the day, Mr. Guilbeault said he is also offended because the Canadian government accused him of being unpatriotic, due to his criticism of its policies.
"It's scandalous," said Guilbeault. "It seems like we've lost freedom of speech in Canada."
News from Copenhagen is that Jim Prentice combed his hair and slicked himself up, ready for a photo-op with the United States delegates. But apparently the U.S. was not too interested with being seen in public with the worst environmental minister in the world.
Boy, Obama snubs Harper and keeps him out of the loop with his plans for Afghanistan. They tell us to get our own climate policy and refuse to be seen in public with us. Not looking good.
And the hoax perpetrated on Jim Prentice, must really have him in a flap. I think I even saw a hair out of place.
Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice just finished his press conference and he dismissed the hoax press releases, saying "I am here to negotiate." The Minister's press people distributed a release for a photo-op of U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Prentice to occur shortly after the press conference, outside of the offices of the U.S. delegation.
I showed up there and noticed Steve Kelly, Prentice's chief of staff, having a raised voice exchange with a member from the U.S. delegation. The problem was the U.S. delegation hadn't given the green light for a photo-op, just for closed bilateral meeting between the two.
Over the course of 10 minutes, Kelly repeatedly asked the U.S. delegation official to reconsider, to which the U.S. delegation official replied, negative. When Kelly asked for this to be taken up the chain of command, the U.S. delegation official replied "it came from pretty high up. It's not going to happen."
The U.S. official said he didn't understand why the photograph was so important, to which Kelly replied "we were carpetbagged this morning by (environmental non-governmental organizations) with a false press release, I gotta change the story."
A second U.S. official showed up and was able to get permissions for a compromise, which was no public photo-op, but an official Canadian photographer could enter the meeting to take a shot."
It makes you wonder when the U.S. Secretary of Energy is embarrassed to have a public photograph taken with the Canadian Minister of the Environment.
The Associated Press has examined the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia, and have determined, that while they raised questions about the politics; they did nothing to challenge the science of global warming.
Young Liberal Miranda Hussey is in Copenhagen, blogging on her experiences and sharing news. This morning she mentioned that she stood in line for four hours, but is still pumped. I told her that Copenhagen is her generation's Woodstock. The memories will last a lifetime.
It was nice to hear from her that Greenpeace was handing out free coffee.
I don't know if much good will come of this though. I just read that there are 1200 limousines being used to taxi people around. Why didn't they at least try to send a positive message by using 'smart' cars instead of 'stupid' limos? Sigh.
LONDON — E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.
The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change.
However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The scientists were keenly aware of how their work would be viewed and used, and, just like politicians, went to great pains to shape their message. Sometimes, they sounded more like schoolyard taunts than scientific tenets.
The scientists were so convinced by their own science and so driven by a cause "that unless you're with them, you're against them," said Mark Frankel, director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He also reviewed the communications.
Frankel saw "no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very 'generous interpretations.'"
Some e-mails expressed doubts about the quality of individual temperature records or why models and data didn't quite match. Part of this is the normal give-and-take of research, but skeptics challenged how reliable certain data was.
The e-mails were stolen from the computer network server of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in southeast England, an influential source of climate science, and were posted online last month. The university shut down the server and contacted the police. The AP studied all the e-mails for context, with five reporters reading and rereading them — about 1 million words in total.
One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming. It is not clear if any data was destroyed; two U.S. researchers denied it.
The e-mails show that several mainstream scientists repeatedly suggested keeping their research materials away from opponents who sought it under American and British public records law. It raises a science ethics question because free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method. The University of East Anglia is investigating the blocking of information requests.
"I believe none of us should submit to these 'requests,'" declared the university's Keith Briffa. The center's chief, Phil Jones, wrote: "Data is covered by all the agreements we sign with people, so I will be hiding behind them."
When one skeptic kept filing FOI requests, Jones, who didn't return AP requests for comment, told another scientist, Michael Mann: "You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting FOI requests for all e-mails Keith (Briffa) and Tim (Osborn) have written."
Mann, a researcher at Penn State University, told The Associated Press: "I didn't delete any e-mails as Phil asked me to. I don't believe anybody else did."
The e-mails also show how professional attacks turned very personal. When former London financial trader Douglas J. Keenan combed through the data used in a 1990 research paper Jones had co-authored, Keenan claimed to have found evidence of fakery by Jones' co-author.
Keenan threatened to have the FBI arrest University at Albany scientist Wei-Chyung Wang for fraud. (A university investigation later cleared him of any wrongdoing.)
"I do now wish I'd never sent them the data after their FOIA request!" Jones wrote in June 2007.
In another case after initially balking on releasing data to a skeptic because it was already public, Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientist Ben Santer wrote that he then opted to release everything the skeptic wanted — and more. Santer said in a telephone interview that he and others are inundated by frivolous requests from skeptics that are designed to "tie-up government-funded scientists."
The e-mails also showed a stunning disdain for global warming skeptics.
One scientist practically celebrates the news of the death of one critic, saying, "In an odd way this is cheering news!" Another bemoans that the only way to deal with skeptics is "continuing to publish quality work in quality journals (or calling in a Mafia hit.)" And a third scientist said the next time he sees a certain skeptic at a scientific meeting, "I'll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted."
And they compared contrarians to communist-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy and Somali pirates. They also called them out-and-out frauds.
Santer, who received death threats after his work on climate change in 1996, said Thursday: "I'm not surprised that things are said in the heat of the moment between professional colleagues. These things are taken out of context."
When the journal, Climate Research, published a skeptical study, Penn State scientist Mann discussed retribution this way: "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
That skeptical study turned out to be partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute.
The most provocative e-mails are usually about one aspect of climate science: research from a decade ago that studied how warm or cold it was centuries ago through analysis of tree rings, ice cores and glacial melt. And most of those e-mails, which stretch from 1996 to last month, are from about a handful of scientists in dozens of e-mails.
Still, such research has been a key element in measuring climate change over long periods. As part of the AP review, summaries of the e-mails that raised issues from the potential manipulation of data to intensely personal attacks were sent to seven experts in research ethics, climate science and science policy.
"This is normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds," said Dan Sarewitz, a science policy professor at Arizona State University. "We talk about science as this pure ideal and the scientific method as if it is something out of a cookbook, but research is a social and human activity full of all the failings of society and humans, and this reality gets totally magnified by the high political stakes here."
In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.
That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.
One e-mail that skeptics have been citing often since the messages were posted online is from Jones. He says: "I've just completed Mike's (Mann) trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (from 1981 onward) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Jones was referring to tree ring data that indicated temperatures after the 1950s weren't as warm as scientists had determined.
The "trick" that Jones said he was borrowing from Mann was to add the real temperatures, not what the tree rings showed. And the decline he talked of hiding was not in real temperatures, but in the tree ring data which was misleading, Mann explained.
Sometimes the data didn't line up as perfectly as scientists wanted.
David Rind told colleagues about inconsistent figures in the work for a giant international report: "As this continuing exchange has clarified, what's in Chapter 6 is inconsistent with what is in Chapter 2 (and Chapter 9 is caught in the middle!). Worse yet, we've managed to make global warming go away! (Maybe it really is that easy...:)."
But in the end, global warming didn't go away, according to the vast body of research over the years.
None of the e-mails flagged by the AP and sent to three climate scientists viewed as moderates in the field changed their view that global warming is man-made and a threat. Nor did it alter their support of the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which some of the scientists helped write.
"My overall interpretation of the scientific basis for (man-made) global warming is unaltered by the contents of these e-mails," said Gabriel Vecchi, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist.
Gerald North, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University, headed a National Academy of Sciences study that looked at — and upheld as valid — Mann's earlier studies that found the 1990s were the hottest years in centuries.
"In my opinion the meaning is much more innocent than might be perceived by others taken out of context. Much of this is overblown," North said.
Mann contends he always has been upfront about uncertainties, pointing to the title of his 1999 study: "Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties and Limitations."
Several scientists found themselves tailoring their figures or retooling their arguments to answer online arguments — even as they claimed not to care what was being posted to the Internet
"I don't read the blogs that regularly," Jonathan Overpeck of the University of Arizona wrote in 2005. "But I guess the skeptics are making hay of their (sic) being a global warm (sic) event around 1450AD."
One person singled out for criticism in the e-mails is Steve McIntyre, who maintains Climate Audit. The blog focuses on statistical issues with scientists' attempts to recreate the climate in ancient times.
"We find that the authors are overreaching in the conclusions that they're trying to draw from the data that they have," McIntyre said in a telephone interview.
McIntyre, 62, of Toronto, was trained in math and economics and says he is "substantially retired" from the mineral exploration industry, which produces greenhouse gases.
Some e-mails said McIntyre's attempts to get original data from scientists are frivolous and meant more for harassment than doing good science. There are allegations that he would distort and misuse data given to him.
McIntyre disagreed with how he is portrayed. "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith," he said.
He also said he has avoided editorializing on the leaked e-mails. "Anything I say," he said, "is liable to be piling on."
The skeptics started the name-calling said Mann, who called McIntyre a "bozo," a "fraud" and a "moron" in various e-mails.
"We're human," Mann said. "We've been under attack unfairly by these people who have been attempting to dismiss us as frauds as liars."
The AP is mentioned several times in the e-mails, usually in reference to a published story. One scientist says his remarks were reported with "a bit of journalistic license" and "I would have rephrased or re-expressed some of what was written if I had seen it before it was released." The archive also includes a request from an AP reporter, one of the writers of this story, for reaction to a study, a standard step for journalists seeking quotes for their stories. ___ (Associated Press writers Jeff Donn in Boston, Justin Pritchard in Los Angeles contributed to this report. Troy Thibodeaux in Washington provided technical assistance. Satter reported from London, Borenstein from Washington and Ritter from New York.
EDITOR'S NOTE _ Find behind-the-scenes information, blog posts and discussion about the Copenhagen climate conference at http://www.facebook.com/theclimatepool, a Facebook page run by AP and an array of international news agencies. Follow coverage and blogging of the event on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/AP_ClimatePool)
Yes some of them got out of hand (and were quickly removed by the protesters themselves) , but that did not seem to be the norm. It's rather interesting though that they would refer to the demonstrators as anarchists. I always think of anarchists as being people who want to overthrow a government, or a violent mob.
And left-wing activists? Is that what this is about now? If you want action on climate change you're automatically left-wing? This whole thing is getting intense, but shouldn't be a left-right issue. It's a human issue. I'll bet there are many climate scientists who vote Republican or Conservative.
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,000 anarchists arrested Nearly 1,000 people were arrested in Copenhagen yesterday as anarchists and left-wing activists fought running street battles with police in the Danish capital as negotiations continued at the climate summit. By Colin Freeman December 12, 2009
Cobble stones were thrown through the windows of the former stock exchange building and foreign office buildings in the city, but police made a large number of pre-emptive arrests under a controversial anti-hooligan law.
Suspected troublemakers were herded into a closed-off street, made to sit down and then tied up with plastic cuffs. They were then bused to a detention centre set up for the climate conference.
Police said four cars were set on fire during the evening. One policeman was hurt by a stone and a Swedish man injured by a firework.
"You don't have to use that kind of violence to be heard," said Connie Hedegaard, the Danish minister presiding at the United Nations talks. She condemned rioters after welcoming the main march at a candlelit vigil outside the conference centre.
One activist group accused the police of abuse complaining people had been forced sit on the road for hours in near-freezing temperatures.
The day's main demonstration - a march involving 40,000 people - remained good natured but there remain fears that a hard-core of more violent demonstrators may still be waiting until later in the week, when President Barack Obama and other world leaders will arrive, to protest.
Inside the Bella Centre, delegates at the COP15 climate summit gathered around flat-screen TVs, showing both the police crackdown and the peaceful rally of environmental compaigners.
The split that the meeting has exposed between wealthy and impoverished nations was laid bare with news that ministers from a select clique of 40 countries were dining together away from the summit venue.
The meal, held behind closed doors at an undisclosed location, was viewed as a last-ditch attempt to cobble together a politically acceptable deal after a week of discussions marred by in-fighting, and "greener than thou" posturing over who is most to blame for global warming. Ministers are desperate to have a document ready when heads of state arrive for the final stages of the two-week conference on Thursday.
Leading them will be Gordon Brown, who has fashioned himself as a global champion in the battle against climate change, and who is arriving ahead of other top statesmen in a bid to stamp his authority on the meeting.
But so far officials from 194 countries have failed to make any substantive agreements on even the most basic goals.
Arguments are still raging over targets and deadlines for limiting global temperature rise, as well as the extent to which rich nations should fund green projects for poor ones, and whether emerging economic superpowers like China should balance green considerations against much-needed development.
Washington and Beijing have also traded insults over whether China should fund its own green measures or receive handouts financed largely by the West.
With signs of an irreconcilable split growing between the large and powerful and the small and poor, last night's dinner, attended by countries including Britain, the US, China and India – was viewed as an attempt by mostly bigger, better-off nations to strike a deal in private.
"A lot of the deals are done in back rooms but there has to be transparency at the same time," said Keith Allott, of the World Wildlife Fund, which claims smaller nations are being left out of the process.
Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, attempted to paint a brighter picture of the conference, insisting he was optimistic of a deal by the time heads of state arrived.
"This remains difficult in process terms because we have 100 and something leaders arriving on Thursday and we have to get to an agreement by the time they leave," he said.
"The world is doing what it has never done before, which is trying to peak emissions and see them fall. It is not a done deal, it remains in the balance."
Mr Brown plans to travel to Copenhagen on Tuesday evening, a day earlier than planned, in an attempt to help "seal the deal". Downing Street sources said the Prime Minister was expected to hold one-to-one meetings with key figures including Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary-General.
He will attend a formal dinner on Thursday and an all-day session on Friday before returning to Britain that night. A source said: "He remains concerned that the commitment for a deal is still short of what is required."
A productive meeting at Copenhagen is widely seen as being crucial to the credibility of the global campaign on climate change. But the first week saw slow progress. Rich and poor repeatedly clashed over the need to reduce greenhouse gases, with Africa and the small island states threatening to walk out unless the developed nations committed to deeper cuts.
Many of the exchanges were bad-tempered, souring an event that aspires to be a vehicle for better global co-operation. He Yafei, China's vice minister of foreign affairs, said he was "shocked" at US climate change negotiator Todd Stern's assertion that Beijing did not need any American money. "It's not just about the US and China, it's the whole international community," he said, insisting that climate change was historically the fault of the West. "The US is a developed country and China is part of the developing countries. To tackle global climate change we need to work together."
Ian Fry, the representative of the tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu, has also claimed that even the more vulnerable countries' intended target to restrict global warming to a rise of 1.5C will leave his island underwater because of rising sea levels.
However, the G8 and major developing economies believe it is realistically impossible to restrict temperature rises to less than 2C. They have also accused developing nations of demanding more "go green" cash than they actually need.
After seven days' negotiating there is so far only a draft agreement on the table. The framework for a possible "Copenhagen Protocol" talks about cuts for developed nations of between 25 and 45 per cent by 2020, and calls on rich nations to pay their poorer cousins to reduce their emissions. But blanks remain in what negotiators term the "square brackets" – where officials must eventually insert precise figures and dates.
There is also the question of making the agreement enforceable in law. Britain has already suggested that a further summit will be necessary in six months' time to address the issue.
Once again Canada was the recipient of the Fossil of the Day Award at Copenhagen, because of our government's determined effort to undermine negotiations.
Harper announced he was going to Copenhagen, suggesting that he was taking a foot forward. But then in Korea he was quoted as saying that he was going to use his position with the G20 to convince other Nations not to do a thing until we have a complete economic recovery.
The way they are spending our money, I'm not seeing that happening anytime soon.
While U.S. President Barack Obama has been meeting with China, the world's largest greenhouse-gas emitter, trying to galvanize an international climate agreement, Canada, which uses more energy per capita than almost any other country, is like the hare that lies down for a nap while the tortoise overtakes it. Only Canada hasn't woken up from its nap, and the consequences of sleeping a little longer grow exponentially by the day.
It's not really fair to blame Canada. It's really the federal government that's asleep. The Canadian public has already woken up; 62 per cent of us say Ottawa should set "higher and harder targets" to reduce global warming pollution, according to Harris-Decima polling this October.
Seems something of this has gotten to Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, who recently proposed a cap-and-trade system that would actually reduce global warming pollution.
After months of criticizing the government without revealing his own plan, Ignatieff proposed a system that he says would be fair for all provinces and would apply to all industries. No special treatment - not even for Canada's tar sands.
The Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party support this approach as do Canada's largest provinces. All recognize that our economy will be stronger if we stimulate clean energy. In fact the jobs of the future depend on staying in the race.
We believe this is the right approach for Canada. It recognizes that the way toward business certainty and environmental health is to stimulate innovation and reward environmental responsibility.
It's also true we must be compatible with a future U.S. energy system and climate plan. But we're not remotely keeping up with the Americans, who are outspending Canada as much as 14 to 1 per capita on government investment in a green economy. The Americans are doubling renewable energy production while Canada's incentives were not re-funded in the last federal budget.
Close to nothing has been done to ensure Canadians, not to mention our children and grandchildren, benefit from the new direction the world is taking. Canada keeps hitting "snooze" just as the world, and especially our major trading partner, is waking up to the reality and necessity of a clean energy economy.
Rather than being constructive globally, rather than using our diplomacy to find common pathways forward for the developed and developing nations, Canada says we must wait for others, even though others are further ahead.
Just like the hare, Canada is riding on a false sense of confidence that could end badly - a race lost as the planet approaches climate tipping points like the potential disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers (the source of fresh water for 2 billion people in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and China).
Canada's tar sands alone hold the potential to push the world above two degrees of warming and into runaway climate change - an unprecedented responsibility.
In the race against global warming, Canada belongs at the front of the pack with our allies. Setting tough limits on global warming pollution and substantial investments in a green energy economy would get Canada back in the race.
(Steven Guilbeault is with Equiterre; Rick Smith with Environmental Defence; Tzeporah Berman with PowerUP Canada; and Dale Marshall with the David Suzuki Foundation.)
You wouldn't know it by reading some of the Canadian newspaper accounts, but Copenhagen was a bust.
