Can capitalism save the Earth from climate change?
On December 15, two speakers from the Pembina Institute gave an on-line presentation to more than 100 people about the economic impact of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions in Canada. Matt Horne and Josha MacNab cited a recent report (see box), which suggests that with the right environmental policies, including a sharp increase in wind-powered electricity generation, the country’s gross domestic product could rise, on average, by 2.1 percent annually between 2010 and 2020—and emissions could still be reduced to 25 percent below 1990 levels.
They said this would be in line with the cuts necessary to ensure the average temperature won’t rise two degrees on average above that of the preindustrial period. “It doesn’t mean that at two degrees, we won’t see impacts,” MacNab said. She pointed out that B.C.’s stated target for 2020 is for emissions to fall 14 percent below 1990 levels. The federal government’s stated target for 2020 will bring emissions only three percent below 1990 levels, she added.
The presentation was sponsored by the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, which promotes carbon-neutral electricity generation, including run-of-river and wind-power projects. The report was released by the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation and, according to Horne, was supported by TD Bank and written by SFU resource economist Mark Jaccard.
These days, groups like the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation are playing an increasingly big role in the national and provincial climate-change debate. This concerns David Peerla, a former Greenpeace forestry campaigner who wrote a PhD thesis on environmentalists’ tactics.
“Good environmental campaigning and good social-justice campaigning makes the production process more transparent,” he said in a recent interview at the Georgia Straight office.
He claimed that “business environmentalism”, on the other hand, is characterized by backroom deals with companies and governments that inhibit transparency. And in Peerla’s eyes, the Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation are more interested in playing the “inside-Ottawa, inside-Victoria, inside-the-corporate-boardroom game” than traditional, grassroots B.C. environmentalists, who have sometimes engaged in civil disobedience to force changes.
“Let’s just take the slogan 'cap and trade’,” Peerla said. “There are two styles of campaign. 'Cap’ people are like old-time toxics fighters—block the pipe, end the industry—they’re the guys who say 'No.’ ”
In this camp, he listed Greenpeace, the Wilderness Committee, and people fighting run-of-river power projects. Peerla contrasted the “cap” folks with the “trade” people in the environmental movement, who embrace market solutions to environmental problems. These groups, including the David Suzuki Foundation, favour run-of-river power because the emergency is so great that only businesses can move quickly enough to bring about solutions.
“This looks to me like a Naomi Klein disaster-capitalism scenario,” he noted. “There’s a disaster. The planet is on fire. Therefore, the solution is capitalism, which is ironic given what happened on Wall Street just recently.”
The market-oriented environmentalists trumpet trade, such as the sale of energy-efficient light bulbs and organic juice. And he said that those “cap" environmentalists who practise civil disobedience will rarely get money from U.S. foundations.
Peerla cited Tzeporah Berman, a Cortes Island climate-change campaigner, as an example of an activist who crossed over from practising civil disobedience to embracing business environmentalism. In her 20s, she led protests against clear-cut logging in Clayoquot Sound. Then Berman became a negotiator to save the forest. “Now, she calls herself a facilitator,” Peerla said. “What’s the next step?”¦Corporate director?”
Berman, like Suzuki, has spoken out in favour of carbon-neutral, run-of-river power as a necessary measure to combat climate change. Peerla, however, said it appears to him that there is no transparency and no accountability in the approval of these projects. He speculated that the premier might go so far as to eliminate the B.C. Utilities Commission as a necessary measure to deal with a planetary emergency. This would please former mining speculators who now stake their claims on B.C. rivers. “Again, it’s the trade-style solution,” Peerla claimed.
He added that Wall Street capitalists are “licking their chops” at the prospect of trading carbon credits in response to the disaster of climate change. “Some are saying that’s the next speculative bubble,” he said.
Can Canada sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase economic growth? | |
|
“It’s very possible. It takes time, but I think that there’s a lot of economic spinoff, or economic benefit, from fixing the problems that we’ve created over the past 50 or 100 years. For example, the automotive industry. All the technology that would go into creating an emissions-free car is an opportunity for a lot of different industries and companies.” |
“I think it’s possible to sharply reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. I think there is a fallacy if we believe that we can have unlimited economic growth. The Green party supports strong, resilient, local self-sufficient economies. So there would be lots of economic activity. It just wouldn’t be based on consumption.” |
|
“In the long term I think it can be done, but it’s going to take decades to move to new energy systems. I’m very pessimistic that large greenhouse-gas reductions can be achieved quickly at a low cost. I simply don’t buy that at all. It may be necessary to do it, but the cost is going to be significant. That’s especially true for a place like Canada.” |
“The answer is yes, because the form of economic growth that we need is not industrial growth; rather, we need growth in different sectors, such as sustainable agriculture, education, the arts, in small at-home businesses. This type of work does not cause massive increases in greenhouse-gas emissions.” |





Derek Lee
Jane Sterk
Jock Finlayson
Geri Tramutola
Tzeporah Berman is a not so wealthy elite who want to become a very wealthy elite so she has sucked up to Campbell big time. The big casualty of course is the environment and like so many Judases before Tzeporah Berman has sold out for her own version of 30 pieces of silver.
Berman is a yesterdays person, like David Suzuki, and should be treated as such - ignore the b****.
Economists are not of one mind on this issue. Some favour a carbon tax, others a cap and trade system, and some believe both are needed. I do take issue to some degree with Peerla's division of the cap and trade remedy into two distinct parts. Any serious proposal recommends them in combination, for without the cap, the permits will trade for nothing.
Does Wall Street have something to gain from trading permits? Sure. They've been trading acid rain permits for years, and that measure has worked in solving the acid rain problem. I guess you could say it's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it, and who better qualified than the wretches who brought us the first truly world wide recession in real output since the Thirties.
Avoiding bubbles is a general problem in managing financial markets, not something unique to trading pollution permits. The biggest bubbles we have had are in residential real estate, ... and isn't it just passing strange that not one of the better financed Vancouver-based ENGOs want to talk about that bubble, or what it means for socio-economic sustainability of real, daily life in this region? For example, what does over-priced residential real estate mean for the supply of either agricultural or industrial land, and therefore for local food production and local industrial employment?
Rod Smelser
Are you kidding me????
cap?i?tal?ism [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Seems like you are asking for another dictatorship on top of the one that is already in existence....
Asking for more taxes for the sake of saving the environment??? Like our tax money hasn't been mis-managed before when other issues came up! Do you really think that any tax money is going to go to sustain the environment, then you are naive!
The problem is we do not view "nature" with respect because our failing systems have no respect. Capitalism is a broken system making the average person broke!
I do my diligence as a citizen of this world. I opt for public transportation, I recycle, I compost, etc.... but I do not agree that capitalism is going to save the environment. Individuals need to wake up and grow conscious of the fact that we are a part of nature, not seperate. Then, true change will occur.
But it can make the ensuing climate disaster less unpleasant for an elite few.
It's just that simple.
The Invisible Hand loves you! Have Faith.
Say Amen and pass the plate.
If some of you honestly think that a communist approach is going to help, I'd love to see how long you'd last in one of those two countries.
This study assumes that governments will make the ridiculous choice of spending billions of dollars each year to expand freeways and roads, increasing driving and GHG pollution. Then they model what would happen if governments spent billions more to improve public transit so people will drive less and reduce emissions. We need to look at what would happen if money, and road space, was re-allocated from freeway expansion to cost effective transit.
Since about half of Canada's carbon footprint comes from transportation, including sources like the up stream emissions from the tar sands, this is a crucial weakness in Mark Jaccard's analysis.
We don't need economic growth if we just stop being so stupidly wasteful. That is the basic message behind the UK Sustainable Development Commissioner report 'Prosperity Without Growth' at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914
Just do a search for Maurice Strong.
Most of us inhabit the Left/Right paradigm and so are blinded to how we are manipulated by the globalist elite. You might also want to look up the UN's Agenda 21.
Jock Finlayson, the executive vice president of the Business Council of B.C. is dreaming in technicolor when he suggests we can have more economic growth and reduced emissions.
His attitude shows how out of touch the business community is when it comes to changing with the times. They still want more profit from more growth and they are the ones largely responsible for the election of the BC Liberals ($6 million in donations), whose policies and "business environmentalism" have made it impossible to have any positive effect on global warming issues and are going to destroy this province's environment.
We need sincere and transparent efforts to build a better and less destructive (polluting) world. Not the BC Liberals destruction of any real Transit initiatives. Better & more mass transit would be a good start thru-out this province.
This critique of an astroturfer article on the front page of Big Oil funded Scientific American fits Suzuki/Pembina almost perfectly.
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Suzuki's paper embraces insanely stupid “clean” coal recommending the same dirty old coal power plants already killing hundreds of millions of people worldwide with radioactive dust, mercury, and arsenic wastes, just burying the CO2 output for a few years.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/23/carbon-capture-study.html
Suzuki high priest James Hoggan's book, exposing Big Oil's finance of the Denialistas shows the tactics Suzuki/Pembina and their Big Oil financed cohorts use on their anti nuke campaign.
The Suzuki/Pembina study uses a $.20/Kwh for nuclear when costs are veering to less than 1 cent for new mass produced nukes. Areva's recent Ontario bid was $24B for 60 years of 3.3 gigawatts in nukes all costs considered or $.015/Kwh.
Germany has already wasted 10 years and $100B on solar/wind and has not reduced its greenhouse emissions one iota. To help with its new found addiction to Russian gas, it is planning a massive build of dirty coal plants to meet its baseload power requirements.
Nuclear is the only possible solution.
A worldwide investment in 10000 new mass produced nuclear reactors would be paid for by and would end fossil fuel use, eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives, end the global warming/peak oil problem with a 100% elimination of GHG's within a ten year time frame, is a great job producing economy boosting investment, requires only a small part of our industrial capacity, and pays for itself in less than three years.
A $150B investment in mass produced nukes, would be paid for by and would end Canada's $100B annual fossil fuel bill- a two year payback using only a small fraction of our industrial capacity.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-kirsch/add-a-gigawatt-a-day-to-k_b_261728.html.
seth
Compare the auto from 1965 to today. Progress. Logging practices from then till now? Progress. Recycling in 1965 to now? Progress. As mentioned above, the "acid rain" problem. Progress. The word form 'green technology' did not even exist then.
It can be done, but it cannot be done overnight. The question is, how much more money from your budget right now are you willing to part with? $500, $1000? Or are you going to make a green choice next time you buy a car if one is available? How about a big screen TV with minuscule electric draw if available? Move into a new abode with a water meter, heat exchanger, solar heating, and top notch recycling program nearby? Sure you will, as they come available from companies employing people and technology.
The lunatic fringe as well as the capitalist stooge are both needed to solve the issues.
Head Tax and NO HST - Damn Straight - Russians and Ukranians had to pay a Head Tax; and they never did roll around the floor and cry about it; much less rape our Canadian system about it, soo therefore! BRING IT BACK OR LET THEM GO HOME.
Say No! to Capitalists Day :) aka "Christmas" and Boxing Week (what a rip anyhow; where's the deals?!) ~ remember and spend quality time with your family instead.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/12/21/bc-greenhouse...
Regarding roads and transit...transit is not the panacea for solving our urban GHG emissions, nor is spending money on more roads, what is needed is an economic strategy that precedes land development so living wage jobs are waiting for those who move into new communities...trip distance reduction is far more productive with tax dollars than either transit or roads - it is not produced by engineering, concrete and steel - it requires clear and critical thinking.
Recently I spoke with a custodian at our local elementary school in Surrey. It appears that when it comes to maintenance employment with Surrey School District where you live is a consideration in where you are posted. Kudos to this employer...for every reduction in trip distances for an employer's workforce, there should be economic benefits provided as these are future savings not only for our atmosphere but our pocket books.
Why spend billions on transit or even roads when we can reduce trip distances without spending a dime of public money...reducing even 20% of trip distances would put us on target with Kyoto and even targets set by climate justice advocates..now if the lame asses governing the developed world can ever get beyond their political fundraising or bogus change rhetoric (Obama), then perhaps we can sit down, not just a handful of countries chosen by the mightly leader of the US, but all of us and critically work our way out of this mess.