The headlines coming out of the weekend meet of the Commonwealth “Defiant Harper Pans Climate Change Critics” tell us only part of the story. The distinctly isolationist stance of the Harper government to the obvious direction of world opinion on climate change is the more important political issue. Quite frankly the political issues fade in comparison to the policy issue of the need to deal with global warming.
Harper has “disputed this characterization” of Canadian policy being isolationist. That said, there are few “leaders” left who continue to effectively deny climate change. The Cabal of climate-change deniers that promote the aspirational model of dealing with global warming are disappearing faster than the polar ice-caps.
Australian’s dramatically dumped John Howard as he recently suffered the worst electoral defeat in the 63 year history of his party. He lost his own seat to boot…the first time that a sitting Prime Minister had been voted out of the Australian parliament since 1929. OUCH! Dubya has moved from lame-duck status to just plain lame in terms of leadership on climate change. He has turned over Republican leadership on the issue to “The Governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger. That irony still sticks in my mind.
Political aspirations to public policy are like water is to soup, necessary but not sufficient. Harper insisting on a 100% consensus on an issue as complex as climate change, is not leadership. It is just more of the Harper trademark of overwhelming tactical posturing inevitably leading to an underwhelming policy position.
It is time to move hard toward a binding commitment on emissions. Going green provides a wonderful opportunity for the developed world for a new form of genuine wealth creation and progress. Moving forward on hard emission standards will be the catalyst to generate new innovations and inventions that will benefit the ecology of the plant, the economy of all nations and the social cohesion of the human species.
In the 60’s JFK, in the face of the space race, challenged the American people to put a man on the moon and return him safely within that decade. They did it. It is time for an inspirational leader from the developed world to articulate and aspire to such a challenge climate change goal for the benefit of all mankind. No such leader is on the political stage at present. Al Gore has made it clear he is not going to run so he is not “in the wings.”
It is time again that we humans had a new and equally as bold aspiration as putting a man on the moon. But now we need a goal that is more profound and pertinent to the future of mankind and the planet than going to the moon will ever be. We have to change our habits and redefine success in terms of a more common wealth. We have to immediately slow down our ecologically destructive activities. We then have to focus on learning to adapt and alter our activities so that we reverse our impacts on climate change. While the urgent always trumps the important, this climate change reality is both important and urgent.
We need an inspirational call to action that is borne of a growing and increasingly urgent necessity due to climate change. The challenge today is more compelling than JFK’s aspiration to put a man on the moon. We need to get moving fast and hard, as individuals, enterprises, communities, governments and nations on reversing the impacts of our species on the planet through climate change.
We need to undertake this with a vigorous commitment and conviction beyond mere aspirations Mr. Harper. Only that way we can ensure that life on earth, including our species, can be safely sustained and even enhanced. This is not as romantic a challenge as sending a man to the moon. But it is much more meaningful to the role of mankind and much more critical to the future of the planet.
Harper has “disputed this characterization” of Canadian policy being isolationist. That said, there are few “leaders” left who continue to effectively deny climate change. The Cabal of climate-change deniers that promote the aspirational model of dealing with global warming are disappearing faster than the polar ice-caps.
Australian’s dramatically dumped John Howard as he recently suffered the worst electoral defeat in the 63 year history of his party. He lost his own seat to boot…the first time that a sitting Prime Minister had been voted out of the Australian parliament since 1929. OUCH! Dubya has moved from lame-duck status to just plain lame in terms of leadership on climate change. He has turned over Republican leadership on the issue to “The Governator” Arnold Schwarzenegger. That irony still sticks in my mind.
Political aspirations to public policy are like water is to soup, necessary but not sufficient. Harper insisting on a 100% consensus on an issue as complex as climate change, is not leadership. It is just more of the Harper trademark of overwhelming tactical posturing inevitably leading to an underwhelming policy position.
It is time to move hard toward a binding commitment on emissions. Going green provides a wonderful opportunity for the developed world for a new form of genuine wealth creation and progress. Moving forward on hard emission standards will be the catalyst to generate new innovations and inventions that will benefit the ecology of the plant, the economy of all nations and the social cohesion of the human species.
In the 60’s JFK, in the face of the space race, challenged the American people to put a man on the moon and return him safely within that decade. They did it. It is time for an inspirational leader from the developed world to articulate and aspire to such a challenge climate change goal for the benefit of all mankind. No such leader is on the political stage at present. Al Gore has made it clear he is not going to run so he is not “in the wings.”
It is time again that we humans had a new and equally as bold aspiration as putting a man on the moon. But now we need a goal that is more profound and pertinent to the future of mankind and the planet than going to the moon will ever be. We have to change our habits and redefine success in terms of a more common wealth. We have to immediately slow down our ecologically destructive activities. We then have to focus on learning to adapt and alter our activities so that we reverse our impacts on climate change. While the urgent always trumps the important, this climate change reality is both important and urgent.
We need an inspirational call to action that is borne of a growing and increasingly urgent necessity due to climate change. The challenge today is more compelling than JFK’s aspiration to put a man on the moon. We need to get moving fast and hard, as individuals, enterprises, communities, governments and nations on reversing the impacts of our species on the planet through climate change.
We need to undertake this with a vigorous commitment and conviction beyond mere aspirations Mr. Harper. Only that way we can ensure that life on earth, including our species, can be safely sustained and even enhanced. This is not as romantic a challenge as sending a man to the moon. But it is much more meaningful to the role of mankind and much more critical to the future of the planet.
This is a mischaracterization of the Prime Minsiter's approach to emission reduction.
ReplyDeleteHis argument has always been that it must be about the environment, and that it must be achievable.
Any agreement which does not require mandatory emission reductions from the world's largest emitters (India, China, Russia, and the United States) is one that puts the environment second to other objectives.
Emission reduction cannot be about popularity, or being "cool", or whatever reason Mr. Dion claims this week - it must be about a worldwide reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
Secondly, whatever approach is taken must recognize that environmental stewardship is contingent upon economic sustainability.
I agree that this is time for serious action - why does Stephane Dion put achievement second to rhetoric?
HI Will - good to hear from you.
ReplyDeleteThis is surely not the logic that releases Canada from taking a leadership role on climate change issues, is it? We have to wait for China, India, Russia and the US to go first before we engage seriously?
Not good enough and the planet heats up to tipping point levels while we wait.
Why do we have to wait for others to engage if our Canadian foreign policy is so great all of a sudden?
I am surprised you did not equate Harper to a Nazi, which is what your fellow Liberal Elizabeth May did today.
ReplyDeleteKen, do your research and see how much GHG emissions come from China, India, Russia and the US. Maybe you should get serious. Without these nations onside, any binding committment is useless.
May is the Green Party leader and a progressive - like me! In fact she is dropping in at Policy Channel tomorrow for an interview. You won't want to miss it when it is uploaded.
ReplyDeleteSend the link to the comment you refer to on Harper as a Nazi so we can verify your anonymous claims. Why do you guys think you can make such sweeping allegations without providing proof? I assume you have proof - so why not provide it without being asked???? It would add so much to your credibility as an anonymous commenter.
GHG is very serious in those countries, I agree. And because they don't get it means we Canadians don't have to act when we do get it?
The mistakes of others is not a free pass for us to do the same thing and a license to make the same mistakes. You Cons always seem to think it is.
Always looking for the lowest common denominator you can get away with instead of embracing the right thing to do in the first place.
My point is - is the goal to create a tangible worldwide reduction in GHG emissions, or is to be seen to be doing something so we can brag about it, because we're more concerned with image than impact?
ReplyDeleteAny reduction strategy that leaves the world's largest emitters unchanged is one that doesn't have the environment as the most important factor.
I guess it was just bluster from the energy sector, right Ken.
ReplyDeleteNov 27, 2007 4:10:00 AM MST
Cdn Natural Resources cuts conventional oil&gas budget by third, cites royalties (Cdn-Natural-Resources)
CALGARY _ Canadian Natural Resources (TSX:CNQ) has cut its Canadian conventional crude oil and natural gas capital budget by one-third to $1.7 billion for 2008, citing the impact of higher Alberta royalties on energy production.
“Of the reduction in capital spending, 78 per cent or $645 million is due to a reduced drilling program in Alberta largely as a result of the impact of the royalty review changes,‘‘ the Calgary-based company said Tuesday.
In October, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said the province would go ahead with some of a royalty panel‘s recommendations, choosing to take $1.4 billion in additional revenues instead of the proposed $2 billion.
Several major energy companies had warned that royalty increases would discourage their investment in Alberta‘s resources.
“The new royalty regime introduced by the province of Alberta, effective for 2009, will take the vast majority of any increases in natural gas prices for most of our natural gas wells,‘‘ John Langille, vice-chairman of Canadian Natural Resources, said in a release.
“As such, the ability to increase natural gas drilling activity with increasing gas prices is severely impacted.‘‘
He said the natural gas side of the business is faced with eroded economics due to low prices, along with a new royalty regime that reduces the returns on certain types of drilling.
Good title for your piece Ken. Unfortunately, it actually serves to undermine your own position, not the Prime Minister's. The problem is that without setting some sort of target on all emitters, all we are asking is that they "aspire" to do something. Something that is not in their immediate interests to do.
ReplyDeleteI "aspire" to go into space some day, but I am not going to set the launchdate in my calendar just yet.
Anon @ 8:27 I see your point;~}
ReplyDeleteIntensity targets are at best an interim measure while we get a handle on what is needed by way of absolute caps to reduce GHG not just reduce the pace of growth.
Aspirations and intent as the test case for GHG targets is a cop out. Hope is not a method to reduce GHG emissions.
This is not going to be easy but it is necessary. You don't quit an addiction by taking 85% pure heroin instead of 100%. This has to be about creative adaptive change and wise leadership.
Canada and Alberta and Ontario must lead and be positive climate change examples to the rest of the country and to the world.
Anon@ 7:11 - Bluster indeed and it is still coming given the torque in this announcement.
ReplyDeleteThe CP story doesn't mention the impact of the Cdn dollar, the higher costs the drilling the rig companies are expecting, the low gas prices just to name a few other incidental aspects that might impact a reasonable business decision to cut back drilling.
Do you really believe this decision on conventional drilling was taken in the last month too? These drilling plans are made months in advance I am sure.
Besides the royalty review impact doesn't happen until 2009 and the natural gas deep well subsidies are still available even then.
Give all of this we are to believe that CNRL is cutting back 2008 drilling "largely" due to royalties that are not even in effect yet???
Give me a break. This couldn't have something to do with the $600m to $1.2B estimate cost over runs for the CNRL Horizon oil sands project too could it. Why spend money on high risk conventional wells when you have to put extra cash into covering the over-budget completion demands of your oil sands project?
This is a prudent business decision by CNRL to my mind. But blaming the royalty regime for a good business decisions is playing politics and pure obfuscation at its best.
Bluster indeed!
CNRL is obviously using the royalty changes as a cover for a number of changes they are making to their development plans. The royalty increases will have an impact certainly, but CNRL tries very hard to make it THE reason for the reductions in a number of areas. Spending in UK North Sea also going down, but they are hard-pressed to pin that one on Eddie. Don't think they won't try though.
ReplyDeleteI am not surprised by the language used. CNRL is renowned for not playing well with others. Ask a number of oil companies with interests in the same properties, or oil & gas service companies that work on their behalf. CNRL did not get where they are without the ability to squeeze a penny thinner than a sheet of paper.
Stock is getting whacked this morning. Some of the analyst commentary suggests that CNRL's cash flow forecasts are low even using revised production numbers. I smell "big-bath"; i.e. make it look as bad as possible using the handy cover of royalty changes, then surprise "to the upside" later in the year as/if natural as prices recover. Allows one to pass the blame, but claim credit for the gain later, so to speak.
You're both wrong, that decision has many factors but in their central AB drilling, CNRL is highly exposed to the higher royalty structure. The price of gas doesn't help but if gov't is raising the cost of doing business, then wait until they regain their senses.
ReplyDelete