Why Ford is all wrong on climate change
Credible sources agree the crisis is real, yet Ontario is moving backwards
I am writing this a concerned member of this planet, but also as a Canadian and Ontarian.
First, I object to the premier’s continuous references that he has the people’s mandate to deconstruct what has been already built by a previous administration presumably having done so with the intention of helping the same people.
This government’s popular vote was 40.5 per cent, which means that 59.5 per cent did not support their plan to deconstruct the progressive policies to mitigate human induced climate change.
Let me make three very credible and well respected references that support the policies that this government objects to.
First — Ontario Environmental Commissioner (ECO), under the leadership of Dianne Saxe.
This office is the non-political Ontario government “watchdog” on the environment of which climate change is a key component.
Saxe has publicly invited Ontarians to read their publications on climate change and write to our elected officials to voice concerns.
Their recent publication, “Climate Action in Ontario: What’s Next,” posted on the ECO website states very clearly that cap-and-trade was a well functioning part of the reduction being seen in emissions.
This report states the opposite to what Ford’s government has been saying, that cap-and-trade is ineffective and is a waste of money.
The summary in this report in my opinion, sends a clear signal that the ECO is in disagreement with this government’s policy change to undo cap-and-trade.
Cap-and-trade was providing the motivation and billions in funding for meaningful emission reductions across the province, while climate leadership was enhancing Ontario’s reputation and drawing in foreign investment. There was some inefficiency, but cap-and-trade was on its way to producing many economic and environmental benefits.
Energy projects have all been swept away, with nothing in their place. The government’s proposed replacement, the Cap-and-Trade Cancellation Act (Bill 4), currently lacks most of the features of a good climate law.
Where are we now?
“No climate policy, no emissions targets, no money for solutions. Climate polluters pollute for free. Good conduct is punished and bad conduct is rewarded,” the ECO report says.
Second — 2018 Nobel Prize for Economics, Shared by William Nordhaus of Yale University and Paul Romer of New York University’s Stern School of Business.
The award recognizes the integration of climate change and innovation into economic analysis.
Nordhaus endorses that a universal tax on carbon which would require polluters to pay for the costs their emissions impose, is the most efficient approach to combating carbon emissions.
Romer’s findings show how economic forces govern the willingness of firms to produce new ideas and innovations.
Third — The most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
This is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts. The IPCC provides an internationally accepted authority on climate change, producing reports which have the agreement of leading climate scientists and the consensus of participating governments.
The details in the report are worth understanding, but there’s one simple critical take-away point: we need to cut carbon pollution as much as possible, as fast as possible.
This report raises an urgency that we must reduce emissions to zero in the next 20 to 30 years to avoid a catastrophe in our world order.
This will require all governments to act in unison to essentially eliminate our use of fossil fuels in this very short time frame.
We have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren.
We need to act based on facts. A reminder to Premier Ford, that his ubiquitous slogan “For The People” includes our children and grandchildren, not just the four years his government has power.