Event Summary:
With Generous Sponsorship by the CIC (Canadian International Council)
Panel Discussion on
Hot or Not?
Canada’s Post-Kyoto Strategy for Tackling Global Warming
21 September 2006
Windsor Ballroom, King Edward Hotel
Summary by: Justine Chen, Havergal College
Event organized by CIIA Toronto Members Jo-Ann Davis and Jonathan Dick
Moderator of the Event: Jo-Ann Davis
Panelists:
Professor Thomas Homer-Dixon, University of Toronto
Ms. Elizabeth May, Leader of the Federal Green Party
Mr. Peter Foster, National Post
On September 21st, 2006, the Canadian Institute of International Affairs Toronto Branch held an event titled Hot or Not? Canada’s Post-Kyoto Strategy for Tackling Global Warming, which was held at the King Edward Hotel. Three distinguished speakers were invited: Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon from the University of Toronto (Trudeau Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies); Ms. Elizabeth May the leader of the Federal Green Party; and Mr. Peter Foster from the National Post. The purpose of the event was to provide a forum for informed debate over the various issues related to climate change.
Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon, Professor of the University of Toronto, began his presentation by discussing the scientific background for climate change. Citing evidence from various academic reports and journals, Dr. Homer-Dixon noted the alarming state of global warming phenomenon, emphasising that the state of the phenomenon has evolved from a matter of serious concern to extreme urgency. The melting of Greenland glaciers, combined with the acidification of oceans due to the increased burden from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans, posed serious environmental stresses not only to human beings, but also to other organisms. The problem was further complicated by the so-called “Positive Feedback,” whereby in addition to the present warming, changes occurring on the planet contribute to further warming. Methane release is a particular concern in regards to positive feedback. Dr. Homer-Dixon argued that we are close to a climate tipping point, where we reach the point where there is irreversible climate change.
The global warming phenomenon is multidimensional, Dr. Homer-Dixon noted in his presentation. Despite the tremendous amount of scientific information and evidence we are getting, there is not yet enough constructive response to the problem. Such social and psychological denialism is in part due to the powerful socio-economic interests that influence and direct governments’ and the general public’s reactions to the problem. Furthermore, as Dr. Homer-Dixon pointed out, human beings have the unfortunate tendency of not dealing with problems that initially start developing slowly.
Dr. Homer Dixon stated that the Kyoto Protocol is ineffective because it does not include China and India, and that the protocol is not radical enough to facilitate effective changes in the short term. He stated that a shock is needed for a serious response to the problem to occur, but that by the time such an event occurred it would be too late to do anything about it.
Peter Foster, National Post, focused his presentation on three aspects of global warming: science, psychology, and politics. Forster observed that, because of the lack of hard scientific evidence and the uncertainties regarding the effect of climate change, the current discourse of climate change has been driven by the precautionary principle. Such “irrational ideology,” as Foster called it, has produced a consensus that is apolitical and non-scientific. He further contended that policy should not be placed on manufactured hysteria; rather, it should focus on effective measures.
With regards to the psychology of climate change, Foster argued for a dispassionate approach to the phenomenon. According to Foster, climate change has been seen by many as a moral issue, which prevents effective rational analysis of the phenomenon. Moral imperatives altered the facts, which he stated are utterly important. For example, during the 2004 election, an advertisement on the Globe and Mail claimed that 26 million Canadians supported the Kyoto Protocol, without discussing the negative socio-economic impact of the Protocol (such as the loss of jobs). To Foster, such statistics without context do not reflect the reality, and in turn contribute to policy perversity. Foster also argued that economic analysis shows it’s more expensive to impose policy than to pay the cost of adaptation. Climate change has always been there, but so has adaptation.
Elizabeth May, Environmentalist and Leader of the Green Party of Canada, also began her remarks by discussing the scientific aspect of climate change. Like Dr. Homer-Dixon, May stated that politicians’ response to the climate crisis was slower than the speed of glacier melting. The urgency of the crisis is undisputable, she stated, and the global and local impact of the crisis are not happening slowly. May emphasised the impact of global warming on Canada, and stressed Canada’s leadership role in tackling global warming at the international level. According to May, as early as in the late 1980s scientists in Toronto had concluded that humanity is conducting unintended, uncontrolled experiments whose consequence is parallel to nuclear war. In May’s view, there have been irreversible climate and environmental changes, the current largest threat to human civilisation is the climate crisis.
In response to Dr. Homer-Dixon’s earlier remark regarding the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, May argued that the Protocol is a landmark case of multilateral diplomacy which is working in parts of the world, in that most participant countries are reaching their treaty target through the development of and investment in cleaner technology. Nevertheless, May acknowledged the failure of the Protocol to anticipate the negative impact of American opposition.
QUESTION PERIOD
Why are people not focusing on the simple question about spending less money on energy than right now?
While Foster confirmed that the process of using less energy is a constant process, May noted that encouraging people to use less energy is like digging a hole and filling it at the same time. The current energy price tag is not right. At the present, instead of taxing various energy sources, the government is subsidising them by giving the most profitable companies tax cuts. Dr. Homer-Dixon noted that the logic here has been that there is potentially lots of money to make out of the energy market. The current energy cost is far too cheap in comparison to its long term costs. The role of government is imperative in developing policy that will effectively control the price of energy in such a way that it will help to encourage people to use less energy.
Will U.S. entrepreneurship have an effect on Canadian efforts to develop and encourage Canadian clean technology?
Although there is plenty of evidence on global warming (and that science is driven by consensus), scepticism about science and technology is valid. However, it should be noted that Kyoto is a process rather than an ultimate solution. A cost-effective solution is needed.
How can first class science be distinguished and recognised as first class by those who are not doing research in the discipline?
Both Dr. Homer-Dixon and May agree that the journals in which articles are published is important in determining first class science from second or third class science. Peer-reviews and authoritative reviews are critical.
Some important remarks from the audience were made in responding to Dr. Homer-Dixon’s and May’s response above. One participant critiqued that “once an ideology gets hold the field, it excludes people who are in opposition to the ideology.”
In response to the critique, Dr. Homer-Dixon simply stated that it’s essential to insist that the sceptics provide evidence to the contrary.
There is an adversarial process between business and science.
According to May, there is really no adversarial approach to business. The role of business has been very important in the implementation the policies to combat climate change. The biggest problem is not the adversarial debate with business, but the consistent collapse of political will.
Is Kyoto a useful solution?
In responding, May stressed that, when comparing the Kyoto Protocol to the Montreal Protocol, the process of multilateral negotiation was watered down. Statements of principle were driven towards consensus. There is a need to understand that there is flexibility within the Kyoto Protocol.
Dr. Homer-Dixon added that the problem with Kyoto is that there is no target for China and India in the first phase of the agreement. Moreover, China’s problem is that its major energy source is coal, which produces more carbon dioxide and pollutant than all other energy sources.
The greatest threat to the planet is posed India and China. The real challenge is to implement technology in India and China that will allow them to reach an industrial standard that is close to ours without environmental destruction.
May stated that, although we don’t want to turn away from anything that can make a difference in averting the climate crisis, nuclear energy is not necessarily a much better choice. Economically speaking, nuclear is a very expensive process.
Speaking from a difference perspective, Dr. Homer-Dixon thought that nuclear has to be a component of the solution. But we have an energy problem, and we have to do different things to solve this energy problem including efficient conservation. Dr. Homer-Dixon was concerned that we put forward nuclear energy without considering conservation in the long way.
Foster stated that nuclear is the obvious route for the future.
CLOSING REMARKS
After the question period, Ms. Jo-Ann Davis, the moderator of the discussion, posed the following question before formally concluding the session.
Regarding Canada’s post Kyoto strategy, what global role Canada should play in this issue?
Peter Foster, National Post: Global warming is a fantasy of rationalist constructionism, the false impression that bright people getting together can solve the problems of the market. Kyoto is a terrible mess. In terms of administrative solutions, we are political pessimists rather than economic optimists. Science is not certain, and the connotation that sceptics are “idiots” and “irrational” is worrisome. Adaptation is the primary route we must take.
Elizabeth May, Environmentalist and Leader of the Green Party of Canada: We have no choice but to respond to the climate crisis. We are not in a post-Kyoto world. During the Montreal Conference, we were asked to take on a target. Adaptation is important too, and must be developed. We also need to mitigate to reduce emissions. Canada has no adaptation strategy.
Dr. Thomas Homer-Dixon, Professor of the University of Toronto: The dangers of social engineering is an important point. Decentralising innovation in markets and entrepreneurship are essential. Private enterprise has an important role in making the solution efficient. Moreover, the costs of being wrong on global warming must be less than the cost of not doing anything about it. The moral argument is not isolated from reason and scientific evidence. Moral arguments can be grounded in reason. Everyone should read science and come to their own informed democratic opinion and decision.
In concluding the session, Mr. Jonathan Dick, on behalf of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs Toronto Branch, formally thanked the panellists and all the participants.
View the event flyer: Flyer.
|
|
|
|
