A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE YV Introduction Focus The most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has made it official: the world is getting warmer, and human activity is largely to blame. This News in Review module examines the new report, the prospects for severe climate change and what steps are being or can be taken to mitigate that change.

YV

Sections marked with this symbol indicate content suitable for younger viewers.

On February 2, 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of hundreds of the world’s leading climate specialists, issued its latest report. It is the first of four IPCC releases expected in 2007 and a summary of the findings that will be detailed in the next three publications. Those reports are expected to describe especially vulnerable regions and to make recommendations for policy makers. The report comes with two extremely important conclusions. The first is that global warming is an “incontrovertible” fact. The second is that global warming is “very likely” the result of human activity. The latter statement marks the biggest difference between this report and the previous (2001) report from the IPCC. In 2001, the IPCC described human activities as having only a “likely” effect on global warming. Translated into percentages, “likely” meant only a 66 per cent certainty. “Very likely,” however, means the human contribution is more than 90 per cent certain. The mechanics of global warming are simple. The sun shines on Earth. The planet absorbs the energy, but transmits some of it back into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases—especially carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide—trap the heat on its way up. This raises Earth’s surface temperature even more. (For a useful diagram on this process, visit CBC News In Depth — Climate Change: Global Warming Explained at www.cbc.ca/news/background/ climatechange/globalwarming.html.) There are two major reasons why the authors of the report call global warm-

ing an incontrovertible fact. The first is that satellite observations now confirm the readings from surface thermometers (previous disparities between the two methods have been resolved). The second is that nothing but global warming can explain the ice melt around the world. As evidence, scientists point to two impressive statistics. Eleven of the highest average global annual temperatures ever recorded have come in the last 12 years. And, over the last 10 years, sea levels have risen at a rate double that of the previous 40 years. Recent research also permitted the authors of the report to use the term “very likely” (that is, more than 90 per cent certain) to describe the role of human activity in global warming. The predictions of statistical models of climate warming have been confirmed in detail by real-world measurements. Some of the report’s forecasts are discussed in another section of this module (see “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” on page 9). But one basic prediction is that some further warming will take place even if immediate reductions are made to greenhouse gas emissions. Other predictions point to the likelihood of severe climate changes unless the reductions are dramatic. The summary report’s authors acknowledge that, because the document is based on consensus (general agreement), they were conservative in their findings. They omitted some real risks either because the scale of the problem was uncertain or its real likelihood could not be predicted with certainty. Areas needing more urgent study

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 6

Did you know . . . Ninety-nine per cent of our atmosphere is made up of only two gases: 78 per cent nitrogen and 21 per cent oxygen. They don’t really affect the climate regulation on the planet. The six trace gases that are blamed for global warming make up only 1 per cent of gases in the atmosphere. The gases created mainly by human activities are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons (www.cbc.ca/news/ background/kyoto/).

include the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, the Siberian permafrost, the Gulf Stream, and rainforest soils. Meanwhile, Canada struggles to decide the measures it will take to fight climate change. Although we ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we have spent the years since then watching our greenhouse gas emissions rise to 30 per cent above our target level. One of the

country’s most important economic projects, the Alberta oil sands, is also one of its biggest sources of emissions. According to public opinion polls, climate change is now the number-one issue of concern for Canadians. How our governments and how we, ourselves, respond to this concern will affect our future for decades to come.

To Consider 1. Weird winter weather in 2007 has helped make Canadians especially aware of the potential effects of climate change. Was the weather unusual in your part of Canada? Describe it. 2. Did the recent weather impact you personally? Was that impact negative, positive, or mixed? 3. What examples of climate change have you observed in your lifetime? Ask the same question of your parents or grandparents.

Quote “February 2nd will be remembered as the date when question marks were removed on whether climate change has anything to do with human activity— the moment when attention will shift to what on earth we are going to do about it.” — Achim Steiner, director of the UN Environment Programme, quoted in New Scientist, February 10, 2007

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 7

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE YV Video Review Answer the questions in the spaces provided.

Quote “Climate change is going to hit Canada harder than most other parts of the world, and Canadians have little choice but to adapt to the impacts.” — Peter Calamai, Toronto Star, February 3, 2007

1. According to John Fyfe, what does Environment Canada’s research indicate is happening to West Coast storms?

2. How is climate change expected to affect Canada in the winter?

3. How is climate change expected to affect Canada in the summer?

4. How many trees did one big winter storm destroy in Stanley Park? _______ 5. What effect does El Niño have on the weather?

6. According to Bruce Anderson of Decima Research, what do Canadians now believe is a major contributor to climate change?

7. What area, in addition to Canada’s Arctic, is especially vulnerable to a rise in sea level caused by melting? ________________________________________ 8. How have Canadian greenhouse gas emission rates risen relative to those of the United States?

9. How much is the average global temperature expected to rise by the end of the century? ______________________________________________________ 10. At the end of this video, Carla Robinson lists several signs of climate change already noticeable in Canada. List three of these.

11. How concerned are you about climate change? Why?

12. What would you personally be willing to do to combat climate change?

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 8

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Further Research To stay informed about the work of the IPCC go to www.ipcc.ch.

Quote “The essence of the report is simple: the warming of the world’s climate is ‘unequivocal’ and man’s fingerprints are all over the phenomenon, particularly through the emissions of carbon dioxide” (www.cbc.ca/news/ background/ climatechange/ unreport2007.html).

On February 2, 2007, an organization called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a summary of its soon-to-be-published report on climate change. Some 600 scientists from 113 countries were involved in writing the summary, which was backed by more than 2 000 of the world’s leading climate experts. For the first time, the IPCC officially stated that the recent rise in Earth’s surface temperature was “very likely” due to man-made activities. “Very likely,” they went on to explain, means more than 90 per cent certain.

Who are the IPCC? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). The organizers were concerned that large-scale human activities—such as burning fossil fuels and intensive agriculture—were interfering with natural systems like world climate. The panel’s mandate “is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open, and transparent basis the best available scientific, technical, and socio-economic information on climate change from around the world” (www.ipcc.ch/ about/faq/IPCC%20Introduction.pdf). The IPCC is open to all member countries of the WMO and UNEP. It has three working groups: • Working Group I assesses the scientific impact of the climate system and of climate change. • Working Group II deals with the vulnerability of both natural systems and socio-economic systems to cli-

mate change. It also examines both the positive and the negative aspects of climate change. Finally, it looks at options for adapting to changes. • Working Group III examines options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions and seeks additional ways to lessen or slow down climate change. In addition, the IPCC also sponsors a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Since its founding, the IPCC has produced three major assessment reports. The fourth, whose summary was released on February 2, 2007, will appear in stages later this year. Each report indicates concerns about the extent to which human activity has been responsible for global warming. The latest is the first to declare that human activity plays an unequivocal role. What are the summary report’s major findings? Without a doubt, the most important finding in the summary report is the simple statement that global warming is “very likely” (that is, more than 90 per cent likely) caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. This one statement—backed by more than 2 000 scientists—has forced even the most determined climate-change skeptics to sit up and take notice. Levels of greenhouse gases are up and rising. According to the report, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide had reached 379 parts per million (ppm) by 2005. Over the previous 65 000 years, the natural range was 180 to 300 ppm. Careful tracking over the last 15 years has shown that levels in the atmosphere continue to rise. Global warming is “unequivocal.”

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 9

Quote “We’re locked into a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees by 2025 regardless of what we do, but the increases start to diverge depending on the levels of emissions when you look a hundred years from now. So what we do now can make a difference.” — John Fyfe, a research scientist at Environment Canada’s Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, on www.cbc.ca/news/ background/ climatechange/ unreport-2007.html

This is proven by observations of increases in both global average air and ocean temperatures. It is further confirmed by widespread melting of snow and ice and the rising mean sea level. At current levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), the global temperature will rise 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. This increase will be even greater in the higher latitudes, including Canada. René Laprise, a specialist in regional climate modelling at the University of Quebec’s Montreal campus told CBC News: “These temperature increases could exceed 10 degrees [Celsius]. Warming on average in Canada would increase four to six degrees Celsius, with a smaller change in the south and an increase of 10 degrees in the north” (www.cbc.ca/ news/background/climatechange/ unreport-2007.html). Arctic sea ice is contracting by 7 per cent every decade. Some experts predict that late-summer Arctic sea ice will disappear almost completely by the end of the 21st century. Sea levels will rise between 18 and 59 centimetres. This could be disastrous for several island nations. At the same time, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will lead to increased acidification of the oceans. Heat extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation are expected to become more frequent. Hurricanes will likely become more intense (though probably not more frequent). Precipitation will likely decrease in subtropical areas, but will increase in areas closer to the poles. Could the news be any worse? According to the highly respected New Scientist magazine, it almost certainly is worse. In its February 10, 2006, issue, the magazine published an article titled “But Here’s What They Didn’t Tell Us.” The author underlines the fact that the IPCC report is a con-

sensus that excludes some important current thinking by many experts on climate change. “The IPCC’s review process was so rigorous that research deemed controversial, not fully quantified or not yet incorporated into climate models was excluded. The benefit—that there is now little room left for skeptics—comes at what many see as a dangerous cost: many legitimate findings have been frozen out.” For an example of excluded material, New Scientist points to the results of a 2005 conference on dangerous climate change held in Exeter, UK. Dozens of prominent climate scientists from around the world identified a number of what they called “tipping points.” These are factors not included in current climate models, any of which could accelerate global warming or a disastrous rise in sea level. “These included the physical collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, rapid melting in Antarctica, a shut-down of the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, and the release of carbon dioxide and methane from soil, the ocean bed, and melting permafrost.” Many of these same scientists now feel that climate models predicting a slow melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets may well be flawed, and that the two ice sheets may be close to disintegration. Were that to happen, the rise in sea levels would be measured in metres, not centimetres. New Scientist also notes that the IPCC report identifies that global warming contains “a deadly time lag.” At present, 80 per cent of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases ends up in the oceans. As the oceans themselves grow warmer, more of this heat will remain in the air. Even if we make sharp reductions in the amount of greenhouse gas we generate, the world will continue to grow warmer by 0.1˚ C per decade for years to come.

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 10

Activity 1. Review the findings of the IPCC report and identify what you believe are the three most important findings of the summary report. a) ___________________________________________________________________

b) ___________________________________________________________________

c) ___________________________________________________________________

2. Will the finding of this important report change your behaviour in any way at all? Explain why or why not.

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 11

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Kyoto Review Further Research Additional information on the Kyoto Protocol can be found at www.cbc.ca/news/ background/kyoto/.

The most significant international attempt to reduce man-made greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change only came into effect on February 16, 2005. At present (March 2007), 169 countries are parties in the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. For purposes of the protocol, member countries are divided into two groups. Annex 1 countries are the developed countries that have committed to a greenhouse gas reduction. Under this agreement, they are committed to reducing emissions of greenhouse gases by an average of five per cent below 1990 levels. The deadline for achieving this goal is 2012. Non-Annex 1 countries are developing countries that have no reduction targets. Instead, they are encouraged to participate in the Clean Development Mechanism. This permits Annex 1 countries to invest in emission-reducing projects in developing countries as a means of offsetting some of the greenhouse gas emissions in their own territories. Almost every major industrialized country has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. But there are two significant exceptions. One is the United States, which produces about 25 per cent of the emissions responsible for global warming. The second is Australia, which holds the world record for highest level of per-person greenhouse gas emissions. It is also worth noting that China— with greenhouse gas emissions second only to those of the U.S.—has ratified the protocol but is exempt from regulation because of its status as a developing country.

Setting Emission Targets The Kyoto Protocol is intended as a first step in reducing greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent catastrophic climate change. Plans for the development of a second round of cuts have already begun. While the goal is an overall global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012 to about 5 per cent of 1990 levels, not every country has the same target. Canada’s target, for example, is 6 per cent. The U.S. was supposed to strive for a target of 7 per cent. The European Community is working toward an 8 per cent reduction. Some countries, such as Russia and New Zealand, are not required to make any cuts. Instead, they aim to hold their emissions to 1990 levels. A third group of industrialized countries is actually allowed to increase its emission levels. This includes Australia, which is permitted an 8 per cent increase, and Iceland, up 10 per cent. As we have seen, Australia nevertheless has refused to ratify the protocol. Meeting Emission Targets It would seem obvious that the way to meet an emission reduction target is to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, that is certainly the most straightforward method—finding ways to be more efficient and to burn less fossil fuel. Methods might range from setting higher emission standards for new automobiles to closing coal-fired generating stations. However, there are other ways in which countries can meet their targets. Probably the most important is the trading of “carbon credits.” Countries that are having trouble meeting their

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 12

targets can purchase carbon credits from countries that have reduced their emissions below target levels. These credits permit the purchaser to produce emissions at a higher than desirable level, and reward the seller for exceeding its goals. The Clean Development Mechanism is another means by which countries can meet their targets. This program has a dual purpose. It helps Annex 1 countries to meet their targets by allowing them to earn credits by investing in technologies to reduce emissions in developing countries. Developing countries usually employ industrial methods—such as coal-fired plants—that produce heavy greenhouse-gas emissions. This helps them obtain more modern, clean technology at a reasonable cost. A third method for meeting targets is

for a country to participate in a Joint Implementation (JI) project. Here one industrialized country invests in an emissions-reducing project in a second industrialized country. It is expected that most JI projects will be funded by North American and Western European countries and will take place in Eastern European and former Soviet countries where the cost of such projects is relatively less expensive. Each country is required to develop its own plan for meeting its emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement is legally binding, and there is an Enforcement Branch to make certain all signatories comply with the agreement. If a country fails to meet its emission targets, it will be required to make up the difference plus an additional 30 per cent during the next round.

For Discussion In round one of the Kyoto Protocol, the burden of emissions reduction falls on the developed countries that signed the agreement. What responsibilities should developing countries that are also major sources of greenhouse gases— such as China—have in the next round of Kyoto reductions? Does the world have the luxury of allowing any country a limitless level of emissions? Explain.

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 13

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Canada and Climate Change Quote “It is my experience that other nations do look to Canada for moral leadership. Canada’s position and actions on climate change matter a great deal. Nothing less than the future habitability of the planet is at stake. I urge the Harper government to do the right thing.” — Al Gore, former U.S. vice-president, The Globe and Mail, February 13, 2007

Further Research A timeline outlining Canada’s part in the Kyoto Protocol is available at www.cbc.ca/news/ background/kyoto/ timeline.html.

Canada is seeing the effects of climate change, and will continue to do so for some time. The rise in average temperature is locked in until at least 2025. During that period it will rise at least half of one degree Celsius worldwide, but likely double that in Canada. The expectation is that after 2025 greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere will continue to rise for most of the century. But the rate could slow considerably if governments and individuals take action. “The choices we make today can influence what we see by the end of the century, although not over the next two decades,” says John Fyfe, a climate modeller with the federal environment department (Toronto Star, February 3, 2007). Canadian climate scientists have identified several major impacts that future global warming will have on Canada (Toronto Star, February 3, 2007). These include: • “More water evaporation from the Great Lakes as the weeks with ice cover drop because of warmer air and water. • “Deeper snow cover in the Arctic from 2041-2070 but less elsewhere in Canada. • “Fewer but more intense storms moving across Canada from the Pacific. • “Greater risk of drought for already dry regions.”

Canada and Kyoto Canada signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol in December 2002, but there is considerable doubt that the Liberal government of the time really believed it could live up to its commitment to

reduce greenhouse gases to 6 per cent below 1990 levels. And, in fact, rather than decline, Canada’s emissions have risen to 30 per cent above the announced target level. Nevertheless, in 2005 the Liberal government under Paul Martin announced a new plan: “Moving Forward on Climate Change: A Plan for Honouring Our Kyoto Commitment.” The plan included a commitment of $10-billion in spending over seven years. The expenditure was expected to help Canada cut approximately 270 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year from 2008 to 2012. The election of a Conservative minority government under Stephen Harper seemed to put a decisive end to Canada’s Kyoto commitments. The 2006 federal budget did not even mention Kyoto. Instead the government promised to develop a “made in Canada” climate-change plan that would unfold over a five-year period. No details, however, were forthcoming. In September 2006 Rona Ambrose, the environment minister, said that there was no chance Canada would meet its targets under Kyoto. Instead, there would be new targets set by a proposed Clean Air Act, announced in October. The proposed law horrified environmentalists. The only proposed target was an emission cut of 45 to 65 per cent below 2003 levels by 2050. This was seen by most scientists as too little and too late. Furthermore, those targets would be “intensity-based.” This means that permitted greenhouse gas emissions would be relative to the economic output of various industries. In other words, the government might lower the

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 14

Further Research To stay informed about the political aspects of climate change visit the official Web sites of Canada’s major political parties at www.conservative.ca, www.liberal.ca, www.ndp.ca, www,greenparty.ca and www.blocquebecois.org.

Quote “Given the enormous privileges and natural heritage that Canadians enjoy, surely we owe it to the other nations of the world—not to mention our children and grandchildren—to get back on our feet and make every effort to be leaders, not laggards, in implementing the Kyoto Protocol and making the deeper reductions that are needed.” — Stephen Hazell, executive director, Sierra Club of Canada, Toronto Star, February 8, 2007

permitted emissions per barrel of oil produced. But, if the number of barrels of oil produced increased, so would the overall amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Critics of intensity-based targets say the approach allows heavily polluting industries, such as Alberta’s oil sands, to continue to grow and pollute while remaining under government-imposed limitations. Public reaction to the new law was extremely negative, and the government was forced to send it to committee in Parliament. The committee objective would be to come up with short- and medium-term targets.

An Uncertain Future Meanwhile, in mid-February 2007, the Commons passed a private member’s bill aimed at forcing Canada to live up to its Kyoto commitments. The bill— which is expected to pass in the Senate and become law—gives the Prime Minister 60 days to come up with a plan to meet the country’s 2012 targets.

What the government will do remains unclear. It has steadily claimed that the targets cannot be met without severe disruptions to the economy—disruptions it is unwilling to permit. However, on February 16 the Prime Minister did announce that the government would produce a plan to comply with Kyoto if it was forced by law to do so. Meanwhile, The Globe and Mail (February 26, 2007) published details of a leaked draft environmental plan prepared for the Conservative government in December 2006. In their words, its main feature was that it would allow greenhouse gas emissions to “rise dramatically” in the Alberta oil sands, Canada’s major polluter. The draft would give the oil sands an intensitybased target reduction of 40 per cent by 2020. However, if all planned oil sands projects go ahead, the industry could meet that target, but total greenhouse gas emissions would still rise—by 248 per cent.

Analysis 1. In your opinion, how ironclad is Canada’s responsibility to its fellow Kyoto Protocol signatories? 2. Should Canadians feel obligated to live up to the agreement, even if we might suffer economically? Explain. 3. Do we as individual Canadians have any responsibilities to help the situation? Explain in detail. 4. Describe any actions that your family, school, or community has taken to fight climate change.

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 15

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Canadian Voices: A Collage The release of the IPCC summary report intensified Canadians’ concerns over the future effects of climate change and of the ways in which the government was responding to these threats. Quick off the mark was the Prime Minister, whose government is preparing a new climate-change initiative. For each of the following quotations, use a checkmark to indicate whether you agree or disagree. Be prepared to explain your opinions. “The first step in any such plan is to try to stabilize emissions and obviously over the longer term to reduce them. I think realistically the only way you can get absolute reductions is through the application of new technology over time. I don’t think realistically we can tell Canadians, ‘Stop driving your car, stop going to work, stop heating your house in the winter.’ These are not realistic solutions.” — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, February 2, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ Toronto Star writer Tyler Hamilton saw the problem as somewhat more complex: “No single initiative or technology is enough if we want to soften the multigenerational impacts of global warming. Not nuclear, or ethanol, or clean coal, and certainly not pumping CO2 into the ground. What it’s going to take is a combination of aggressive policy shifts, tightened standards, and investment in existing technologies. Research and development is necessary and should be increased as appropriate, but not if it’s done simply to delay real action.” — Tyler Hamilton, Toronto Star, February 5, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ José Etcheverry of the David Suzuki Foundation said that there is one basic first step: let the polluter pay: “It’s ludicrous that a highly polluting vehicle pays the same taxes as a clean, efficient vehicle. The time for voluntary approaches has passed. We need smart regulation and incentives.” — José Etcheverry, climate change analyst, David Suzuki Foundation, Toronto Star, February 5, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ And The Globe and Mail’s Eric Reguly was close to despair: “What will Canada do? Expect more childish behaviour from the politicians, more blather over who—the Liberals or the Tories—is more damaging to the environment, more meaningless fiddling with haphazard ‘green’ programs.” — Eric Reguly, The Globe and Mail, February 3, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ But the government has promised action, with measures to be announced by the end of March 2007. With the support of many industries, it is expected to adopt intensity-based rather than absolute emission targets for its new clean air legislation.

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 16

“For greenhouse gases: the Government will build upon the emissions intensity approach with intensity targets that are ambitious enough to lead to absolute reductions in emissions and thus support the establishment of a fixed cap on emissions during this period.” — Environment Canada Backgrounder, October 19, 2006, www.ec.gc.ca/press/2006/061019-3_b_e.htm

Agree _____ Disagree ______ “Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said intensity-based standards are key for the industry. ‘You’ve got a sector that is growing very, very quickly and that at each step is improving environmental performance . . . so intensity is hugely important.’” — The Globe and Mail, October 11, 2006

Agree ______ Disagree ______ Outside of industrial circles, criticism of this policy has been deafening: “The federal government’s proposal for industry regulation on greenhouse gases is a fraud. Fabricating numbers so the current government’s intensity approach looks better than the last government’s intensity approach is no more acceptable today than it was two years ago. Intensity targets are dishonest. The time to regulate real reduction is now.” — Louise Comeau, environmentalist, the Sage Foundation, The Globe and Mail, February 6, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ “The Canadian public won’t stand for intensity targets. They are nothing more than fakery. We have to have absolute caps.” — John Bennett, executive director, Climate Action Network, Toronto Star, February 3, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ “Any country that’s serious about climate change will adopt short- and longterm targets for national greenhouse gas emissions. Intensity targets are a means for politicians to pretend they’re doing something when, in reality, they’re allowing emissions to increase.” — Matthew Bramley, researcher, Pembina Institute, Toronto Star, February 3, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______ “The reality is that the climate system counts molecules. The number of CO2 molecules going into the atmosphere is what drives the climate system and that is the number that has to be addressed globally. You have to do that in a way that actually addresses the emissions per se, not relative to something else.” — Gordon McBean, chairman of the Canadian Foundation for Climate Change and Atmospheric Science, Toronto Star, February 2, 2007

Agree ______ Disagree ______

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 17

For Discussion 1. All of this leads us to the question: Is the government right to rely on future technology to solve Canada’s emission problems, or is drastic action required immediately? Who are the realists: the government or its environmentalist critics? Based on what you have seen and read, what would you urge the government to do? 2. Read the following quotes by Prime Minister Harper. What appears to be the major difference in his point of view? Why do you think there has been a change of mind about global warming? Stephen Harper, 2002: “As economic policy, the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy, it is a fraud. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Accord and its targets. We will work with the provinces to discourage implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.” Stephen Harper, 2007: “We do need to work internationally and we are working through the Kyoto process to try and get international action, to try and get action that will involve all the world’s major emitters. These are efforts that are important and that we will continue to work on.” (Both quotes from the Toronto Star, February 3, 2007)

CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 18

A CALL FOR ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE YV How Can I Help? We are all responsible for some of the greenhouse gases that make their way into the atmosphere, and can all play a part in reducing global warming by reducing our share of those gases. In fact, the previous federal government sponsored a program called the One-Tonne Challenge, which encouraged every Canadian to find ways to reduce their personal emissions by one tonne per year. The program may be dead, but the challenge remains. The table at right (www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/ change_happen.html) shows the major areas in which energy use by Canadians impacts the environment. A reduction by every Canadian in any or all of these areas would have a significant impact on Canada’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Personal GHG Emissions from Energy Use in Canada Passenger Road Transportation 49.9% Space Heating and Cooling

29.0%

Water Heating

11.1%

Appliances

7.5%

Lighting

2.4%

For each of the five areas, determine as many ways as you can in which you might immediately make a change that would save energy and thus reduce your personal emissions level. The Web sites listed below are only some of many that will help you with ideas. For each area, try to include one truly innovative idea that you might not be able to implement immediately, but that could be truly rewarding in the future. Source of Energy Use

My Ideas for Reductions

Passenger Road Transportation Space Heating and Cooling Water Heating Appliances Lighting

Research Sources: Web sites • www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/change_happen.html • www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/climatechange.html • www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/uk.html • www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/climprot.html • www.taiga.net/nce/initiatives/publications/bulletin03.pdf • www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/climate/taking-action.html • teqsim.com/sustainable-development/documentation/pdf/transport_en_2006.pdf • www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_neutral_steps.asp • www.halifax.ca/climate/global5.html CBC News in Review • March 2007 • Page 19