WWF-CANADA BLOG
News, views and analysis from our team as we work to protect the future of our planet.
The WWF is run at a local level by the following offices...
- WWF Global
- Argentina
- Armenia
- Austria
- Australia
- Belgium
- Bhutan
- Bolivia
- Borneo
- Brasil
- Bulgaria
- Cambodia
- Canada
- Caucasus
- Central America
- Chile
- China
- Colombia
- Denmark
- Finland
- France
- Germany
- Greater Mekong
Climate: We love you, we love you not
Some people lose sleep because of crying babies. Others lose sleep over debt or financial downfalls, or even a dire relationship struggle. I lose sleep over Canada’s response to climate change. And last night was especially restless.
Posted by Zoë Caron
Canada’s only federal climate change legislation, the Climate Change Accountability Act, was voted down in Senate yesterday after passing in the House of Commons. After over a year and a half of inspiring support-building within communities and across political parties, through the system of democracy in this country, a non-elected body had trumped what could have been Canada’s first real solution climate change.
This climate bill, Bill C-311, commits the Canadian government to taking responsibility for cutting emissions to the level recommended globally by scientists. It is ambitious, yet necessary. It recognizes that Canada will play its fair role in cutting those emissions back down, along with dozens of other countries around the world. Some may call this “what is fair,” some may call it “quid pro quo,” and some may simply call it “responsibility.”
Canada is among the highest per-capita emission creators. Additionally, we as Canadians are just as much at risk to climate change as other parts of the world. But it’s not too late. There are solutions. This bill was a starting point – a shift that could jump-start Canada’s needed reaction.
Herein rests our government’s responsibility to respond to Canadians’ calls for solutions and to bring that integrity to the upcoming annual United Nations climate change talks at the end of the month.
Canadians elected our Parliamentarians. Parliamentarians voted to approve a Canada-wide solution to climate change. While Senate voted this down, Senate did not vote down the will and desire of that which democracy produced – Our government should take the intent of Canadians to the negotiating table and act to right its wrongs starting at the United Nations in Mexico next week.
See related post:Canada’s Climate Bill Makes It to 3rd Base
6 Responses to Climate: We love you, we love you not
-
Greg,
To clarify, using ‘climate’ is meant to insinuate ‘climate change’. Using ‘love you, love you not’ is meant to insinuate the difference in opinion and care being communicated by the Senate and government in contrast to the public. I hope that helps.
This blog is meant to be a – yes, simple – tool for key updates around WWF-Canada’s priority conservation issues. My communication style is in that light.
I certainly welcome any information that will further my knowledge of climate change.
All my best,
Zoe
-
Zoe:
Nice sidestep! I had asked to discern how you defined “climate”, not “climate change”. And I asked you twice. No matter. By using the term, “greenhouse effect” you have intimated that your understanding of the atmosphere is limited, and by claiming that adaptive strategies should only apply to those effects that might be induced by humans, you reveal how narrow your perspective is. Continue to aim your message to the lowest common denominator, it may be your best hope.
-
Greg,
I would define climate change as the human-caused rise of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere that is contributing to the Earth’s greenhouse effect, and the entirely of impacts that this entails.
My title was meant to show the variance between what the majority of people in Canada and our elected parliamentarians have worked towards (solutions to climate change) and the outcome of Wednesday’s Senate decision (voting against a proposed solution).
Hope that helps to clarify. Thanks for reading!
Zoe
-
One question I have made it a habit of asking all speakers, writers and even bloggers whom write about “climate change” is, how do you define “climate”? No point in wasting a lot of time is discussing things if there is complete dissonance of perspective or understanding. You claim to “love climate”… what is it, exactly, that you love?
-
You can find a list of Senators and their contact information here, to call and express your sentiments on their voting outcome:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/senate/isenator.asp?sortord=W&Language=E
Leave a Reply
About this blog
At WWF-Canada, we're passionate about climate, water and people. Follow us for the latest from Panda HQ.
Zoe,
What would Bill C-311 have actually achieved? I mean in real, concrete terms? Let’s do some math… shall we?
In 1990 Canada’s carbon emissions stood at 122.7 MtC (million tons of carbon), and rose to 153.7 MtC in 2008. A 1.3% annual increase. (Not much different from our country’s population growth.)
Let’s assume that without the bill, Canada would have continued to grow it’s carbon emissions in line with the forecast for OECD nations in the IPCC’s worst case scenario… SRES A1FI. Using 2008 figures as a starting point, emissions would grow to 177.7 MtC by 2020, 214.8 MtC by 2050, and a whopping 320.1 MtC by 2100. Canada’s cumulative carbon emissions from now to the end of the century would be 20.7 GtC (billion tons of carbon).
Assuming now that Bill C-311 had become law, and Canada did indeed achieve the emissions reduction targets… 25% below 1990 levels (or 92.1 MtC) by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels (or 24.5 MtC) by 2050, with emissions remaining flat until the end of the century, then cumulative emissions from now to the century would total only 4.6 GtC. That’s a whopping difference of 16.1 GtC prevented from entering the earth’s atmosphere.
But what impact would that have on climate? As of 1990, atmospheric CO2 concentrations stood at 354 ppmv (parts per million by volume), and at the time it was estimated that a total of 750 GtC were resident in the atmosphere. Therefore it takes 2.1 GtC to increase CO2 concentrations by 1 ppmv.
So assuming that 100% of all the carbon emitted were to remain in the atmosphere until 2100 (a completely unrealistic assumption, since in reality, approximately half of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are absorbed by the oceans or taken up in plant biomass), then Canada’s 16.1 GtC emissions reductions would result in an atmospheric CO2 concentration that was 7.6 ppmv lower than would have otherwise been the case at the end of the century.
What does 7.6 ppmv CO2 mean in terms of global temperature? Assuming that by 2100, global CO2 concentrations have risen to 550 ppmv (up from todays 389 ppmv), and assuming a climate sensitivity of 3.0 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 concentrations, then the total impact on global average temperature would be only 0.06 degrees C. This is an amount less that the measurement accuracy of even the best meteorological instruments.
So, is it really worth undertaking 40 years of drastic carbon emissions reductions (which necessarily involves increasing the cost of hydrocarbon fuels in order to reduce fuel consumption, and force an industry-wide conversion to much more expensive alternative energy sources), all so that after nearly all of us are dead, our great grand-children can enjoy a world that is imperceptibly cooler?
All I can say is, if I were a senator, I know how I would have voted on Bill C-311.
Report this comment