David Suzuki: Tackling global warming will require all nations to get on board

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      It’s fitting that the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report was released during Earth Month. After all, the third chapter of its Fifth Assessment focuses on ways to keep our planet healthy and livable by warding off extreme climatic shifts and weather events caused by escalating atmospheric carbon.

      Doing so will require substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions40 to 70 percent by 2050 and to near-zero by the end of the century. We must also protect carbon “sinks” such as forests and wetlands and find ways to store or bury carbon. The good news is that weaning ourselves off fossil fuels, conserving energy and shifting to cleaner sources comes with economic and quality-of-life benefits.

      “There is a clear message from science: To avoid dangerous interference with the climate system, we need to move away from business as usual,” said economist Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair of Working Group III, which produced the chapter.

      Doing nothing isn’t an option. That would lead to a significant increase in global average temperatures and extreme weather-related events such as storms, droughts and floods, wreaking havoc on our food systems, communities and the natural environment we depend on for our health and survival. Technological measures and behavioural change could limit global mean temperatures to less than 2 C above pre-industrial levels, but only with “major institutional and technological change.”

      Because we’ve stalled so long, thanks largely to deceptive campaigns run by a small but powerful group of entrenched fossil fuel industry interests and the intransigence of some short-sighted governments, we must also consider ways to adapt to climate change that’s already occurring and that we can’t stop.

      Although carbon emissions are rising faster than efforts to curtail them, there are glimmers of hope. A growing number of networks—including cities, states, regions and even markets—are working together to implement climate plans. And costs of renewable energy, such as solar and wind, are falling so quickly that large-scale deployment is practical. Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions through carbon taxes or other methods is one critical way to shift investment from fossil fuels to renewables.

      Carbon-intensive fossil fuel economies will suffer as renewable energy technologies mature—especially those relying heavily on coal and unconventional oil such as bitumen from tar sands. Canada’s choice: take advantage of the growing worldwide demand for clean energy technology, transit infrastructure and sustainable building techniques or continue to focus on selling our non-renewable resources at bargain-basement prices until climate and food-system destabilization swamps global markets and the world rejects Canada’s high-carbon fuels.

      The IPCC found responsibly addressing climate change by pricing carbon and making needed investments is affordable: ambitious mitigation would reduce economic growth by just .06 per cent a year. That’s not taking into account the many economic benefits of reducing climate change—from less spending on health and disease to reduced traffic congestion and increased activity in the clean-energy sector. Considering the costs and losses climate change and extreme weather impose on our cities, communities and food systems, we can’t afford not to act.

      A clean energy revolution is already underway and, as the world comes to grips with the need to change, it will inevitably spread. As Canadians, we can choose to join or remain stuck in the past. Tackling global warming will require all nations to get on board. That’s because greenhouse gases accumulate and spill over national boundaries. And, according to the IPCC, “International cooperation can play a constructive role in the development, diffusion and transfer of knowledge and environmentally sound technologies.”

      As a policy-neutral scientific and socioeconomic organization, the IPCC doesn’t make specific recommendations, but it reviews the available science and spells out in clear, albeit technical, terms that if we fail to act, the costs and losses to our homes, food systems and human security will only get worse.

      It’s been seven years since the fourth assessment report in 2007. We can’t wait another seven to resolve this crisis. As nations gear up to for the 21st climate summit in Paris in late 2015, where the world’s governments have pledged to reach a universal legal climate agreement, international co-operation is needed more than ever. Let’s urge our government to play a constructive role in this critical process.

      With contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org. Join David Suzuki and researcher-filmmaker Ian Mauro at the Rio Theatre on Thursday (April 24) from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., for a special screening of Mauro’s Climate Change in Atlantic Canada, followed by a Q & A. Find tickets here.

       

      Comments

      4 Comments

      Bhudda man

      Apr 23, 2014 at 8:11am

      I commute by bicycle. I am amazed at the amount of people crying about putting in new pipe lines when they travel in vehicles that weigh thousands of kilograms.
      Homes that are all about maximum square footage equates value? You have to heat these huge wooden boxes! That's what the thousands of pipelines covering North America are for.
      Stop pointing fingers at some one else. We have the ability to consume less crude oil. All I see is a sinking ship.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Bruce

      Apr 23, 2014 at 9:27am

      @BM

      We are consuming less crude oil in north america. We turned the corner in about 2005. It's been a gradual decline since.

      http://saeedshahani.com/2013/01/04/shale-oil-production-oil-prices/crude...

      Further, driving also began to decline around the same year. The per-capita decline rate is now dramatic:

      http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/DOT-Miles-Driven.php

      And fewer young people are getting drivers licenses. A key driver here is suspected to be smartphones:

      https://ca.shine.yahoo.com/blogs/shine-on/fewer-young-canadians-getting-...

      So you're confused about why the petrocons are so obsessed with the pipelines. It's because we *are* changing. They're losing their consumer base in the western world, so they have to export the stuff. That completely undermines all of our efforts to consume less.

      Crude oil consumption/burning is more production limited than demand limited now. In this world, for our efforts to reduce emissions to matter, we have to BOTH consume less AND ensure the sh!t isn't just sold to someone who will burn it anyways.

      0 0Rating: 0

      Mark

      Apr 23, 2014 at 3:09pm

      Canada was built on natural resource extraction, and it still continues to be the leader in this field, which directly and indirectly employs a lot of people.

      I find it pretty hard that all countries will actually agree to the deal. Take a look at China. They are the worst polluter in the world, and will continue to need fossil fuels as long as they are growing at such a huge pace.

      Bruce

      Apr 23, 2014 at 4:13pm

      @mark

      Yes, a whole 3% of BC's employment is in mining and the petro sector. And the tar sands give us - wait for it - a 0.5% boost in GDP outside of Alberta.

      And I tend to think we'll lack the moral authority to criticize China if we're exporting megatonnes of bitumen and coal. We aren't just responsible for what we consume. Because there are more consuming nations than exporting nations, the true responsibility goes to those that dig the sh!t out of the ground.

      Re fossil fuels "needed" by China, the cost of solar dropped below the cost of coal-generated power roughly this year. In five years, it will drop below even natural gas. And china is the current leader in low cost PV production.

      0 0Rating: 0