Canadians more willing than Americans to pay more for renewable energy

Read our position on wind energy

A recent poll shows that Canadians are more willing than Americans to pay more for renewable energy – they’re also more likely to accept evidence of climate change.

A survey by the Public Policy Forum and Sustainable Prosperity found that 73% of Canadians would be willing to pay up to $50 more every year for renewable energy. Their American counterparts were less willing to do the same – only 55% agreed to a $50 hike in yearly energy costs.

“The results are encouraging and in line with much of the research that we have recently published,” said Sustainable Prosperity’s Alex Wood in a statement. “The numbers are clear, Canadians want smart climate change policy, and the evidence here is that they believe carbon pricing to be a central element of smart climate change policy.”

This translated into support for cap and trade and carbon tax policies by the majority of Canadians surveyed. Not surprisingly, 40% of Canadians agreed that federal and provincial governments should take action against climate change.

It’s notable that Canadians’ support for smart climate change policies – even at the cost of an extra $50 per month – stands in contrast to Americans’ opinions. Why the difference? There are likely many factors involved in shaping public opinion on climate change policy, but a fundamental factor is how strongly people believe in the phenomenon of climate change.

According to the poll, Canadians are more likely than Americans to believe in climate change: 80% of Canadians believe there is strong evidence to support climate change, compared with only 55% of Americans. One reason for this gap could be the degree to which Climategate affected Americans’ views on climate change compared to Canadians, which is alluded to in the survey’s comments section.

Despite the 2009 email scandal involving prominent climate change scientists, Canadians showed strong support for the idea that climate change is happening – 90% believe it’s a serious problem.

The survey attracted a lot of media attention for highlighting the difference between Canadian and American views on climate change, but perhaps the greatest take-away message was that Canadians want to see their government enact environment-friendly energy policies.

The Cancún Agreement

Last week saw the conclusion of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancún, Mexico. The resulting Cancún Agreement is not legally binding, but it is more than most expected. The signatories (all negotiating parties except Bolivia, who considers the agreement ecocide) agreed to keep talking; promised to keep global temperature rise below 2 °C (without saying how); and pledged to establish a Green Climate Fund (with the World Bank as the trustee) where developed countries are expected to contribute $100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries, as well as approximately $30 billion for 2010-2012 as a fast-start finance mechanism.

Two other positive advances in the climate negotiations are: 1) an agreement on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), in which developing countries are encouraged to, and compensated for, protecting their forests.; and 2) the establishment of the Cancún Adaptation Framework, with the ‘objective of enhancing action on adaptation’.

The unresolved question is whether to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which contains binding emissions reduction targets for developed countries. The debate is postponed to COP17 to be held in Durban, South Africa in 2011, or in 2012, the year the Protocol expires. Unlike many countries that were willing to compromise, Canada, Japan and Russia strongly oppossed an extension of Kyoto. Canada has argued only an agreement including all countries would be effective and fair–the US has not ratified the Protocol, and India and China are exempted from cutting their emissions until 2012. Some Canadians, however, would prefer to be leaders in cutting emissions.

For many, the Cancún Agreement has revitalized the UN body regulating climate change, especially after the failure of COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. Expectations were extremely low, so most have applauded the outcomes. Yet the most urgent outcome-a plan to reduce emissions and keep the global temperature rise below catastrophic levels-will have to wait until South Africa.

Report says it's time to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies

An oil pipeline stretches across
the landscape

Last week the Climate Action Network released a report on the billions of dollars in tax breaks that the Government of Canada hands out to oil, coal and gas companies each year -- and the problems this poses for attempts to address our changing climate and transition to a greener economy.

From the report, Fuelling the Problem:

By subsidizing fossil fuel producing companies the government is encouraging faster production and facilitating the rapid expansion of large fossil fuel projects such as the Alberta tar sands, Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution.

Globally, artificially low costs of fossil fuels have been shown to encourage wasteful consumption, distort energy markets, and allow for increased greenhouse gas pollution, thereby fueling the climate crisis. Subsidizing oil extraction also makes investments in oil more attractive compared to lower carbon, lower risk alternatives, thereby increasing the lock‐in of economies into fossil fuels.

In a time of fiscal constraint, the federal government could generate hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue by ending unfair tax breaks to some of the richest companies in the world. Eliminating handouts to oil and gas corporations operating in Canada would also help the country take a step towards a cleaner energy economy.

So why no action? Using leaked government memos, the report outlines a months-long strategy to downplay its responsibility to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, something all G20 countries agreed to do in 2009. According to the report, the Green Budget Coalition (in which Nature Canada is a member) has identified over $900 million in tax breaks to the fossil fuels industry that could be eliminated in the March 2011 federal budget.

Climate Change Bill Continues to Collect Dust

As reported by 350.org, on Sunday, 10/10/10, citizens in 188 countries engaged in more than 7,000 organized “work parties” to cut carbon and asked their politicians a simple question, "We're getting to work, what about you?"

Well on Friday September 8, Stephen Harper and his Conservative government answered them by instructing his appointed senators to delay the country’s only federal climate bill and ordering them not to speak on the subject, even though senators had five solid months to review the legislation, and to prevent the legislation from moving forward.

The legislation in question is Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, which was passed in the House of Commons last May by elected MPs and subsequently stalled in the Senate during the summer months. Harper’s instructions came after the prescribed five months to consider the bill. Richard Neufeld, an oil and gas sector veteran is responsible for leading the debate, however the senator has refused to acknowledged the bill, and according to Senate rules, only government can conclude debate on a bill or schedule votes.

This scenario is all too familiar, as a similar bill touching on clean energy was blocked in the US last July by the Senate and to this day there has been no vote and no change.

Support Bill C-311 by writing to your local MP and letting them know that you feel strongly about this issue. You can also join our campaign to stop the tar sands, Canada's largest contributor to climate change.

Study Shows Toxins Affect Polar Bears, Gulls, other Arctic Wildlife

A recently published report uses new data on the effects of persistent organohalogen contaminants (OHCs) on Arctic wildlife to evaluate health risks of a range of species, including polar bears, killer whales and black-backed gulls.

The study, created for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, looked at OHC contamination in relation to other stressors like disease, predation, climate change, food scarcity, and body condition, to see how contaminants affect species at a population level.

For the Arctic's top predator, the research findings:

have highlighted that OHCs adversely affect polar bear liver and kidney functions, immune response and endocrine system, which helps regulate growth, cognitive abilities, and body temperature. These impairments may alter the ability for bears to acclimatize and adapt to extreme Arctic environments.

When these effects are considered in combination with climate change, natural periods of fasting, cub survival rate, and female reproductive impairment, polar bear populations in East Greenland and Svalbard may be at higher risk of chronic population-level stress.

Studies of other species found similar trends. The effects of certain OHCs on great black-backed gulls from northern Norway, for example, appeared to have been aggravated when the birds were exposed to parasites, climate change, and food scarcity, among other things.

More details from this study are summarized in Environment Canada's quarterly newsletter, Wildlife and Landscape Science News, which, incidentally, I always find an interesting read.

In the Climate Debate, We Don't Need More Science, We Need More PR

Leading up to the recent G20 summit in Toronto Prime Minister Harper called climate change talks a "sideshow" and cancelled the gathering of environment ministers that normally precedes the meeting.

Back in January, Americans ranked global warming dead last among public priorities (just as they did in 2009). Now, that public opinion cooling trend has spread elsewhere. Just 42 percent of Germans are concerned about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it an urgent issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Newsweek Magazine has relegated climate change to being "just one policy priority among many" and "just another flavor of grubby interest politics".

For climate scientists, and the NGOs who advocate bold, decisive action to address the climate crisis, these are frustrating times.

Distressingly, many people in the green movement are tempted to spend time casting blame for the apparent rise in skepticism over global warming -- it's the climate change deniers and their blogs, it's the big oil lobby, it's journalists bent on providing "both sides" of the issue, it's an ignorant public that refuses to listen to the facts.

But assigning blame is a waste of time.

As Erin Biba argued in a recent Wired Magazine column, what climate scientists need isn't someone to blame, and it isn't more science. It's better PR.

This isn't a message scientists necessarily like to hear. Biba writes:

This kind of talk can be unsettling to scientists. “Scientists hate the word spin. They get bent out of shape by the concept that they should frame their message,” says Jennifer Ouellette, director of the Science and Entertainment Exchange, a National Academy of Sciences program that helps connect the entertainment industry with technical consultants. “They feel that the facts should speak for themselves. They’re not wrong; they’re just not realistic.”

Facts alone rarely convince people outside academe. Messages need to be personal, and whether we like it or not, arguments that appeal to a person's basic self-serving nature are more effective. It's not enough to say "Eat your vegetables, they're good for you." Instead you need to answer questions like What's in it for me? How do I benefit? We need to frame the issue in terms that say if we do something (invest in clean energy, say, or adopt conservation) we'll be richer and happier than we are today.

It's all the more important that the climatology community seek the expertise of PR professionals at a time when every crackpot theorist has the power to sway opinion by simply typing away in some basement. The days are long gone when spending years studying a subject, earning an advanced degree and becoming an expert in your field automatically granted you some credibility and trust. A strong anti-establishment current against experts, primarily attacking their basic motivations ("they're just saying that to get grant money") has seriously eroded public trust in traditional centres of authority.

And in the end, scientists must turn to the PR professionals because, as Chris Mooney writes in the Washington Post:

as much as the public misunderstands science, scientists misunderstand the public. In particular, they often fail to realize that a more scientifically informed public is not necessarily a public that will more frequently side with scientists...

Experts aren't wrong in thinking that Americans don't know much about science, but given how little they themselves often know about the public, they should be careful not to throw stones. Rather than simply crusading against ignorance, the defenders of science should also work closely with social scientists and specialists in public opinion to determine how to defuse controversies by addressing their fundamental causes.

In other words, we don't need more facts. We need better storytellers.

Climate Change Accountability Stalled in Senate, Faces Opposition from Chamber of Commerce

What could be more iconic than a summer road trip? Time for sun, sightseeing and… smog? That's right - we're deep into the hazy days of summer, and climate change is still on our minds.

Bill C-311, the only piece of climate change legislation currently under consideration in Canada, may be stalled in the Senate for the rest of the summer. As reported in The Globe and Mail, the Bill has been adjourned in the name of Conservative Senator Richard Neufeld and cannot move forward until he speaks to it.

The Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by NDP MP Bruce Hyer and is being supported in the Senate by Liberal Senator Grant Mitchell.

This Bill has been passed in the House of Commons not once, but twice. It was originally introduced as Bill C-377 by the NDP in 2008; the Bill died when an election was called in the Fall of 2008. In its most recent form, Bill C-311 passed third reading in the House by a majority of MPs representing almost 2/3 of the Canadian population.

In addition to the legislative delays that Bill C-311 has faced, another challenge is looming after the National Post reported that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce is calling on its members to lobby the Senate to kill the Bill. Their argument: requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change is a threat to Canada's economic competitiveness.

Supporters of the Bill point out that there are many lucrative opportunities in a new green economy that can only be achieved if we take action now to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. The Bill also contains provisions to modify the ambitious targets of a 25% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020 and an 80% reduction by 2050.

Concerned Canadians have constantly raised their voices demanding strong action from our government on climate change. We recognize that if we continue down the road we're on, it's leading to a dead end.

Nature Canada hopes the Senate will pass the bill and allow Canada to start catching up!

Photo by confidence, comely/Flickr

Polar Bear Numbers Could Decline by 30% in One Year: Study

A new study from Dr. Andrew Derocher, one of the world’s leading polar bear authorities, predicts that polar bear populations may crash in one year by 30%. Derocher warns that the bears will starve as the number of days adults are forced to fast increases while they wait for Arctic sea ice to return.

From the Toronto Star:

Scientists factored in the shrinking sea ice, which affects how many seals the bears can eat before they hibernate and how easily they can find mates. Without enough food or opportunity, mating is less successful, fewer, less robust cubs are born, and teenage bears spend longer “wandering around trying to find something to eat.”

All of that information can be subjected to “some fairly advanced math” to create data tables that chart the estimated time of death by starvation for adult male polar bears.

Typically 120 days in the 1980s, the time polar bears have to spend fasting has increased by about seven days per decade and is continuing to increase.

While 3 to 6 per cent of polar bears in the Western Hudson Bay die during a 120-day summer fast, 28 to 48 per cent would die if it reached 180 days, the study found. The fast occurs because polar bears depend on frozen sea surface to cover distances.

Arctic sea ice is shrinking by up to five per cent every ten years – sea ice that not only provides hunting ground for polar bears, but shelter and transportation for seals, walrus, arctic foxes, and the Inuit people. The underside provides a surface for algae that supports cod, char, beluga, and narwhal. The white sea ice also has a cooling effect on climate by reflecting light away from Earth’s surface. As it melts, global warming advances even more quickly.

The United States designated the polar bear as threatened in May 2008. Canada's scientific Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada places them in a less serious category, as a species of special concern, and they are not included on Canada's official Species at Risk list. Regardless of its current official status, the polar bear’s habitat is under assault from the effects of our climate crisis, which, if not reversed, will mean the end of this iconic species within our lifetime.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature added the polar bear to its "Red List" of the world's most imperiled wildlife in 2006. In 2009, the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) cited climate change as the greatest challenge to the conservation of polar bears, and concluded that 1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient to provide an assessment of current trend.

You can send a letter to Environment Minister Jim Prentice asking him to add the polar bear to Canada's official species at risk list. Here is a sample letter that you can send.

Climate Change Bill Getting Closer!

There's a bit of good news for action on climate change in Canada.

Yesterday, the House passed Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act. Last week we asked you to help us raise awareness about yesterday's vote and your support worked!

In addition to the Bill passing to third reading, the Liberals tabled a motion for climate change action. Listen to Bruce Hyer as he introduced the bill last year or read the reaction of Climate Action Network Canada's Graham Saul for more details on what this means for climate change action in Canada.

The Bill still needs to make it through one more debate and one more vote, so we can't let our guard down, but we are a bit closer to changing course.

Climate Change Bill Faces Imminent Vote: Tell Your MP to Support It!

Remember Bill C-311, the bill that many of us were hoping would set a scientific target for Canada's commitments in Copenhagen? Well, we know how sadly Copenhagen turned out. But the Bill might still make a difference. That is, if we all contact our MPs before April 14th and ask them to support it! The situation the Bill is under is urgent and complex; best explained by the MP who introduced the Bill:

"An urgent message from Bruce Hyer, MP Thunder Bay - Superior North who introduced Bill C-311 - The Climate Change Accountability Act:

Because of a surprise procedural motion foisted upon the House of Commons by the Conservatives just as the debate on Bill C-311 was about to begin, things are drastically different from what was originally expected. The debate on the bill was cancelled, and there will now be a crucial vote in the House on April 14 that will determine its fate. It will be a simple vote: support the Climate Change Accountability Act going forward to Third Reading, or not. If the vote fails, the bill dies. Our fear is that with a procedural vote coming with so little notice, many MPs won't realize the significance of the vote...

We know the NDP and Bloc caucuses will be there on April 14 to vote in support of C-311. But many years of work on the only climate change bill in Parliament will come to an end, in obscurity, if Liberal MPs are not there in force to support it too."

For the Bill to survive, Liberal MPs must be made aware of the significance of this vote for climate change action in Canada. If this bill is defeated on April 14, the legislative process would have to start from scratch for any new legislation to ensure Canada takes significant action to reduce green house gas emissions and does its fair share to mitigate climate change. You can help Canada become part of the solution to climate change.

The Northern Gateway: Another unsustainable proposal?

The Great Bear Rainforest; First Nations lands, livelihoods and traditions; grizzlies, wild salmon, orcas and 28 Important Bird Areas; a tanker moratorium; Climate Change... these are just but a few of the many reasons a proposed pipeline to Kitmitat, BC for exporting tar sands oil should be of great concern to all Canadians.

The project should have been reviewed through a public inquiry, but the government has instead established a Joint Review Panel under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Nature Canada recently joined 18 environmental groups in urging the government to undertake a much more comprehensive environmental assessment than is currently planned of the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project.

Enbridge's Gateway Pipeline Inc. proposes to construct and operate pipelines, 1,170 km in length, between an inland terminal near Edmonton, Alberta and a marine terminal near Kitimat, British Columbia. Approximately 500 km of the pipeline will be in Alberta, and 670 km in British Columbia. The project will include an export oil sands product pipeline, an import condensate (a hydrocarbon) pipeline, terminal facilities, integrated marine infrastructure at tidewater to accommodate loading and unloading of oil and condensate tankers, and marine transportation of oil and condensate.

The scope of an environmental assessment is one of the most critical elements determining whether the review can be a meaningful exercise and contribute to sustainability. Does purporting to assess the environmental impact of this proposed pipeline without reviewing the impact of tanker traffic and of the increased oil sands production make any sense? To me, it's like calculating the harm done by a gunshot by considering the trajectory of the bullet, but not what it hits or who pulled the trigger.

A recent Supreme Court decision states that authorities conducting environmental assessments can't scope the review to avoid addressing a project's full environmental impacts. So there is perhaps some hope that Minister Prentice will decide the review of the Enbridge Pipeline will be a meaningful one.

The Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project put sustainability at the center of its assessment, released on December 30, 2009. While I have some reservations about their conclusions, their approach to sustainability should become best practice for all environmental assessments of major projects. It should be applied in reviewing the Northern Gateway project. Many don't want the pipeline at all. Stay tuned...

Photo by Tom Middleton

The Time Is Now, Climate Experts Warn

Earlier this week, renowned NASA climate scientist James Hansen warned Congress of the dangers of climate change, exactly 20 years after he did so for the first time. The message he delivered was almost the same as it was in 1988, but there was one key difference: "The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb," he