Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

Canada dead last on climate change
We can no longer use the U.S. as an excuse for inaction
By GERALD BUTTS, Freelance, July 8, 2009

Here is a sobering thought to consider as Canada prepares to assume the presidency of the G8 following this week's meeting in Italy: Canada has for the first time replaced the United States as the worst performer on tackling climate change among G8 nations. This was revealed in the recent G8 Climate Scorecard, released jointly by WWF, the global conservation organization, and the global insurance company Allianz.

The report confirms recent events in North America: There is a new worldview in the U.S. as it rejoins the global community, while Canada continues with the "No, we can't" approach adopted by successive Canadian governments.

The fact that the U.S. is rapidly leaving Canada in its wake on climate change is particularly important, as Canada's political leaders have repeatedly claimed that Canada couldn't afford to move faster or further than our major trading partner.

If that argument ever had merit, it certainly doesn't now as we see the difference that political leadership can make.

More has been done in the U.S. in the last six months than in the last 30 years. We have seen tough new standards for greenhouse-gas emissions from cars introduced by the Obama administration. There have been massive investments in energy efficiency, green power and public transit. A renewed respect for science, backed by new funding. Climate legislation that would cap emissions from large industrial polluters has been passed by the House of Representatives, and could become law before the international negotiations over a new global deal on climate action in Copenhagen later this year.

The U.S. remains far short of the level of emissions reductions that are needed, and much remains to be done, but it is a remarkable record in a short period of time.

Perhaps most important, Washington will bring these deeds, and not just words, to Copenhagen as proof of a renewed commitment to join the global community in stepping up the fight against climate change.

The Canadian government, meantime, has not only backtracked on its commitment to regulate industrial greenhouse-gas emissions by January 2010, but has threatened to challenge the new California low-carbon fuel standard and the U.S. federal efforts to reduce carbon pollution under international trade law.

Some of the reasons for Canada's intransigence on climate change are easy to understand. There is no path forward that will allow for both the rapid expansion of the tar sands and for Canada to achieve the kinds of reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions that scientists say are necessary to avoid climate change. This stumbling block will have to be cleared if Canada is to join G8 leaders in contributing to a solution.

The scorecard shows that none of the G8 countries have yet solved their carbon-emissions problems. But there is evidence of a more considered approach in Europe and now the U.S., with concrete steps taken and planned to prevent the worst effects of climate change and leave a better world for our kids. In this respect, Canada remains an outsider.

The Canadian government is placing an "all-in" bet that the tar sands and other fossil fuels will power the Canadian economy for the foreseeable future. This bet is based on a large number of assumptions that are increasingly untenable or uncertain: That unproven and expensive technology will emerge quickly enough to reduce our emissions, that other nations will take on extra emissions reductions on our behalf, and that we have more time than most scientists predict to prevent the worst effects of climate change.

Even worse for Canadians, we risk missing out on a once-in-a-generation opportunity to join and lead a green job revolution.

Given recent actions in the U.S, it is an increasingly lonely bet. Even if we win, Canadians might not be interested in claiming the prize: a future in which Canada is the energy sweatshop to the world, where countries import our energy while turning a blind eye to standards that they would never permit within their own borders.

As we prepare to participate in the Copenhagen climate summit in December and to play host to next year's G8 meeting in Huntsville, Ont., we should be taking the longer view and building a legacy of a green economy that will make Canadians proud. The good news is that progress in the U.S. shows how much can change, and how quickly, with a simple change in mindset, from "No we can't" to "Yes we can."

Gerald Butts is president and CEO of WWF-Canada.

With the demonstrated and lamentable demise of truth in presentation described here, I think it's fitting to call the attention of the readers to this obituary:

http://www.northnet.org/brvmug/WindPower/CommonSense.html

The fact that there is no solution for ultimate storage is a particular concern.

This document was presented to the G8 as a form of "scorecard" for environmental action policy. A copy is available at the link below.

http://www.scienceblogs.de/primaklima/G ... s_2009.pdf

One notable alteration of the data is explained in the document.

"WWF does not consider nuclear power to be a viable policy option. The indicators “emissions per capita”, “emissions per GDP” and “CO2 per kWh electricity” for all countries have therefore been adjusted as if the generation of electricity from nuclear power had produced 350 gCO2/kWh (emission factor for natural gas). Without the adjustment, the original indicators for France would have been much lower, e.g. 86 gCO2/kWh."

So basically what they are saying is: "we reject the use of Nuclear as a CO2 reduction scheme and have recalculated all your nasty nuke power as if they were Nat Gas power."

This level of dishonesty in climate and policy analysis is not only unfair to nuclear generators, it exposes an underlying habit of certain political entities of simply changing the numbers to influence policy. This needs the widest exposure possible. Whether you approve of nuclear power or not, this behavior of dishonest analysis MUST NOT be allowed to influence policy.

Please accept a position for our district that such dishonesty will not be tolerated. The presenting entity enjoys tax-exempt status in many nations, including the United States. Some form of censure against WWS due to this practice would be a means by which our district might lead the way towards more honest analysis for workable climate change policy.

Regards,

Tobin

Additionally, I would ask that any data from this NGO be censured from current bills until such time that the data is corrected or replacement data is entered into the record.

I would request that any policy being authored or under review that contains data or analysis from Allianz or WWS be removed completely from the policy making process pending a public retraction and correction of the above report by Allianz and WWS.

The blog entry about the artifical inflating is here: The WWF cheats on the scorecards.