Calgary Herald

Science, politics to play role in future of energy

- STEPHENE WART

When Prime Minister Stephen Harper said this week that “science” would determine the fate of the proposed Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline it seemed reasonable to assume it would be the same science that governs Canada’s GHG reduction strategy: political science.

With the emphasis, presumably, on the former.

For instance, Environmen­t Canada reported this week that Canada is halfway to its goal of reducing emissions of greenhouse gas linked to global warming by 2020. Skepticism ensued.

Given the links between pipelines, oilsands and GHG emissions in Canada and the debate about science and climate change globally, it was a telling intersecti­on of near-term Canadian political dynamics and long-term environmen­tal consequenc­es of petroleum-based economies.

There are political overtones to all energy and environmen­t matters in Canada under Harper’s Tory government.

There’s been progress — although Environmen­t Canada’s report is mostly based on projection­s and estimates — toward what are less-ambitious GHG reduction goals for Canada than under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Canada’s “accomplish­ment” in 2010 was modest, at best: carbon dioxide emissions were 692 million tonnes, slightly higher than 2009.

The Canadian government has made commitment­s to reduce GHGs since 1992. All the while emissions have risen. The goal now is to get back to 2005 levels by 2020.

P. J. Partington of the Pembina Institute concluded Environmen­t Canada’s latest report “is overstatin­g its own efforts to tackle greenhouse gas emissions and understati­ng the challenge.”

Environmen­t Canada noted essentiall­y all provinces made progress in reducing GHG emissions with one notable exception. The report’s concentrat­ion on what amounts to the exhaust records of human and industrial activity simply confirms Alberta is the economic engine of Canada.

With GHG-intensive production of oilsands forecast to almost double by 2020 to 3.3 million barrels a day, it’s hard to envision a scenario where Alberta’s continued pumping out of more carbon dioxide isn’t going to create political ramificati­ons. Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia have all expressed concern over essentiall­y unmitigate­d oilsands developmen­t in Alberta.

It’s interestin­g that Environmen­t Canada’s report noted how Ottawa launched emissions reductions programs in the transporta­tion and electricit­y sectors, but when it came to addressing regulation­s for the Calgary-based oil and gas industry repeatedly referenced a “partnershi­p” with the sector.

With a prime minister from Calgary, who champi- ons global markets for Canadian oil and gas, it gives critics and cynics plenty of ammunition.

The bad news is Canada’s accomplish­ments so far were the easy part.

In May, The National Round Table on the Environmen­t and the Economy said Canada wasn’t likely to make up the remaining 50 per cent of its emissions target without significan­t new government measures.

“No other conclusion is possible,” warned the soonto-be-disbanded federal agency.

There’s still an exit strategy. Canada’s 2010 submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change noted the GHG target is to be “aligned with the final economywid­e emissions target of the United States in enacted legislatio­n.”

As long as the next president, or two, can get climate change legislatio­n through the U.S. Congress, then Canada has its target. Skepticism abounds.

Then again, Harper walked away from Kyoto when it became evident Canada had no ability, or political will, to meet its targets.

There has been progress. Between 2005 and 2010, Canada’s economy grew by 6.3 per cent but GHG emissions fell by 6.5 per cent. Environmen­t Canada called it a clear “decoupling” of emissions and economic growth. Others said it actually reflects a more servicebas­ed economy.

Since 1990, GHG emissions globally have increased more than 40 per cent. Canada’s emissions are rising at about half that rate. GHGs hit a record 34 billion tonnes globally in 2011 and Canada produced about two per cent.

As Harper touted science to resolve routing concerns for West Coast pipelines, the world of environmen­tal science has been taken aback by a prominent U.S. climate change skeptic’s about-face.

As emissions rise, Berkeley professor Richard Muller now says human GHG emissions are almost entirely to blame for global warming.

“Call me a converted skeptic,” Muller wrote in the New York Times.

It seemed like a deathbed confession, minus the death, but given there are some seven billion living, breathing and consuming people on Earth essentiall­y all wanting one thing — more — it’s hardly a radical conclusion.

More interestin­g is the fact the oil-rich anti-Kyoto Koch Brothers, through the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, funded the studies that prompted Muller’s flip-flop. The Foundation has subsequent­ly said its only interest is “sound, non-partisan, scientific research.”

Apparently, its now all the rage to support science, not politics, to resolve environmen­tal challenges.

Call me an unconverte­d skeptic.

 ??  ??

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada