What Did John Baird Know and When Did He Know It?

I'm not on a witch hunt, I'm just curious. There was this curious juxtaposition of news stories a week ago:

• December 12 2007 Baird unimpressed by Quebec's emission rules
• December 13 2007 Baird warm to Quebec emissions plan

Then from one day to the next Canadian Environment Minister John Baird, who was in Bali at the time, decides that having Quebec tie itself to the California regulations is a fine idea. Why the turnaround? Well a couple of days ago Washington announced that it was denying California permission to have these emissions standards for cars. Legally, California is allowed to enact auto emissions standards that are stronger than federal standards, but it needs a waiver from Washington. Over the years these waivers have been a formality. 50 waivers were requested, 50 waivers were granted, usually within a few weeks. In 2004 California asked for a waiver to regulate CO2 emissions; it already had the authority to regulate all other greenhouse gases and the courts said that CO2 was also fair game. Washington delayed and said they had to wait for other court cases that challenged the right to regulate CO2 emissions. California won all the court cases, including at the Supreme Court earlier this year. Legally it's pretty clear that Washington has no choice but to allow the California standards to be enacted. But this week it gave its decision: the waiver will not be granted.

Without being a political expert, its seems pretty clear that they had decided this a while ago, but didn't want to announce it until after the Bali conference. Bad PR. Better wait until everyone is off for Christmas. So the question is did Baird, while meeting with US administration officials in Bali, get wind of the fact that California standards were about to be killed and that therefore there was zero risk of Quebec actually being able to follow them? Just curious.

Tags: Greenhouse_Gases Kyoto Protocol Energy Energy Efficiency Politics

[] permanent link Comments: 0

Is the Pope For or Against Urgent Climate Change Action?

The Daily Mail ran a story, repeated by several newspapers, saying that the Pope critized what they called "climate change prophets of doom", and saying that "fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering." The story says the Pope said it was vital "that the international community based its policies on science rather than the dogma of the environmentalist movement."

A bit surprising, since the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace hosted a conference on climate change in April, to which the Pope sent a message saying he wished to foster the "research and promotion of lifestyles and models of production and consumption that respect creation and the real demands of sustainable progress of peoples." But looking at the actual words of the Pope, it is clear that the press is reading in between the lines some things that are not actually there. Here is what he actually says:

We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves. Nor must we overlook the poor, who are excluded in many cases from the goods of creation destined for all. Humanity today is rightly concerned about the ecological balance of tomorrow. It is important for assessments in this regard to be carried out prudently, in dialogue with experts and people of wisdom, uninhibited by ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, and above all with the aim of reaching agreement on a model of sustainable development capable of ensuring the well-being of all while respecting environmental balances. If the protection of the environment involves costs, they should be justly distributed, taking due account of the different levels of development of various countries and the need for solidarity with future generations. Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions; it means being committed to making joint decisions after pondering responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying.

In this regard, it is essential to "sense" that the earth is "our common home" and, in our stewardship and service to all, to choose the path of dialogue rather than the path of unilateral decisions. Further international agencies may need to be established in order to confront together the stewardship of this "home" of ours; more important, however, is the need for ever greater conviction about the need for responsible cooperation. The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short. In order to face this situation effectively, there is a need to act in harmony. One area where there is a particular need to intensify dialogue between nations is that of the stewardship of the earth's energy resources. The technologically advanced countries are facing two pressing needs in this regard: on the one hand, to reassess the high levels of consumption due to the present model of development, and on the other hand to invest sufficient resources in the search for alternative sources of energy and for greater energy efficiency. The emerging countries are hungry for energy, but at times this hunger is met in a way harmful to poor countries which, due to their insufficient infrastructures, including their technological infrastructures, are forced to undersell the energy resources they do possess. At times, their very political freedom is compromised by forms of protectorate or, in any case, by forms of conditioning which appear clearly humiliating.

Now, this call prudence and for avoiding ideological pressure to draw hasty conclusions, is it aimed at environmentalists or at climate change deniers? Perhaps both, when their environmental conclusions magically align with their political beliefs? And the call to prudence, when both sides of the debate, or of what remains of the debate in the light of mounting evidence, find the positions of the other imprudent, who is it aimed at? "Prudence does not mean failing to accept responsibilities and postponing decisions," says the Pope.

When he refers to unilateral decisions rather than dialogue, is he referring to the majority who decided to act in concert to voluntarily contain their emissions or to the very few who decided not to? When he talks about setting up international agencies to confront the stewardship of earth, is it with a mandate to let each country do whatever it wants, in the absence of an international treaty or protocol? His message is very clear to me. Despite apparently not taking a side in the debate, the Pope states as fact that there is in fact an environmental crisis and that action is urgent. "The problems looming on the horizon are complex and time is short". He states that rich countries have a pressing need to reduce their level of energy consumption, and to invest in alternative energy and in energy efficiency.

Maybe the Pope who wrote that second paragraph is one of the the climate change fear-mongerers that the Pope who wrote the first paragraph is criticizing for being too hasty in declaring an urgency for action and for being dogmatic in the opinion that energy efficiency and alternative energy are required. Or maybe the conservative journalists who make him out to be a climate change denier are grasping at straws, wishing to have him seem support their point of view when he clearly does not. The Holy See has always supported the Kyoto Protocol and is well on its way to its objective of becoming the world's first carbon-neutral sovereign state.

Tags: Climate Change Kyoto Protocol Energy Energy Efficiency Pope Vatican Journalism

[] permanent link Comments: 0