By Dr. Tim Ball and Tom Harris
The world is cooling. Global temperatures have declined since 1998 and a growing number of climate experts expect this trend to continue until at least 2030. This, happening while carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions continue to rise, is in complete contradiction to the theory of human-induced (anthropogenic) global warming (AGW). The CBC and other die-hard AGW proponents respond by publicizing selected glacial melts and the impact of dramatic but improbable sea level rises, the only warming issues that seem to grab public attention.
 |
| “Climate change campaigners are frightened that, if the lid is lifted off the Pandora’s Box of modern day climate science, the vast uncertainties and contradictions in the field will become apparent and public support for multi-billion dollar climate change schemes will quickly die.” |
For most of the world’s plants and animals, humanity included, cooling is a far greater threat than warming. This is especially true for Canada where energy usage, and consequently pollution levels, will rise as temperatures drop. More importantly, if we prepare for warming and it cools, Canada’s food supply is seriously at risk since we are already at the northern limit to agriculture.
Even a small amount of cooling would necessitate increased genetic engineering of crops and animals to sustain ourselves and further cooling still would end much of today’s farming in Canada.
Yet, if we prepare for cooling and it warms, we simply adopt farming practices used to the south of us. It is the case in most parts of the world that adaptation to warming is far easier than adapting to cooling. Canada’s situation is just that much worse due to our latitude.
Despite this very real threat of continued cooling, our leaders still press for developed nations to dramatically curb CO2 emissions to counter possible warming. That the forces driving this backwards policy have little to do with protecting the environment was revealed last week at the UN high level climate summit in New York City. Developed nations were chastised for their emissions record in the opening speech by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon while he had no criticism for developing countries that are responsible for most of the recent growth in worldwide emissions. What is now needed, Ban Ki-moon recommended, is “enhanced leadership by the industrialized countries on emission reductions.” Developing nations are merely to be given “incentives… to act, but without sacrificing economic growth”, he said. China’s foreign minister clearly agreed and advised the forum, “Developed countries should meet their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol,...and continue to take the lead in reducing emissions after 2012.”
But Canada and other developed nations accepted severe targets in 1997 with the understanding that developing countries would follow after the protocol expires in 2012. Now, this is highly unlikely. The next round of UN negotiations starting in December in Bali, Indonesia will undoubtedly formalize new emission restrictions only for the one fifth of the world’s population who live in the developed world. Is it any wonder Osama Bin Laden promotes a UN climate process that threatens to cripple the West, but no one else?
The UN’s approach to climate hasn’t really been about science or ‘saving the planet’ since their Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988. Its goals were firmly positioned in the political and emotional arena at the Rio Conference in 1992. Canadian politicians assume the public overwhelming accepts the IPCC’s AGW claims even though polls show this is increasingly not the case. For example, a March 2006 Ipsos Reid poll revealed that 39% of Canadians believe recent climate change to be natural.
Nevertheless, global warming remains a massive, taxpayer-funded ‘industry’ in Canada. Most of the money goes to institutes, policy centers and government departments that effectively block proper scientific investigation. Scientists who study the impact of hypothetical warming are given significant support even though their research is based on the faulty assumption that AGW is proven. In a frightening circular argument their research is then listed as ‘proof’ of the hypothesis. Dissenting science is also excluded from government hearings, the most recent being the Commons committee hearings into the Kyoto Implementation Bill and the Clean Air Act where only AGW-supporting scientists were permitted to testify.
In the late 1980s, the Mulroney government ignored scientists’ advice that fishing quotas should be drastically cut and so implemented policies that led to the depletion of the cod stock with the resultant loss of 40,000 jobs in Newfoundland’s fishing industry. Will today’s Conservative government ignore scientists again and implement unfounded policies that lead to the destruction of Canadian agriculture?
In 2006, sixty-one climate experts asked Prime Minister Harper to order open, unbiased climate science hearings, something that has never happened in Canada. Like Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, Harper ignored their request. He must no longer. It is time to finally lift the lid off the Pandora’s Box of modern day climate science and let the public hear what scientists are really concluding about this complex and immature discipline. With billions of taxpayer dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake, not to mention the future of our food supply, there is no other ethical choice.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/site/article/122
Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have stayed at a record high for another year, according to federal statistics showing that even a warm winter and more nuclear power can't stop our up-and-up emissions trend.
The newest national summary shows our greenhouse gas production in 2005 stayed at the peak first reached in 2004, slightly above 2003, and significantly higher than all previous years.
Our emissions are now 32.7 per cent above the target in Canada's Kyoto Protocol commitment - which takes binding effect in three months.
While we at least managed not to increase our emissions in 2005, Environment Canada says that's partly because we got lucky with a warm winter. We also reduced emissions in some areas by bringing nuclear plants back online in Ontario, which allowed the province's power plants to burn less coal.
Environment Canada adds: "Long term growth, nevertheless, remains large. Between 1990 and 2005 significant increases in oil and gas production, much of which have been provided to the United States, have resulted in a significant increase in the emissions associated with the production and transportation of fuel for export."
The Kyoto Protocol obliges Canada to keep greenhouse gas emissions six percentage points below 1990 levels, on average, from the beginning of 2008 through 2012.
Yet the latest figures illustrate the gap between the public's stated goals - telling pollsters we demand cuts in emissions - and the nation's real demand for cars, heated homes and manufactured products.
The upward emissions trend doesn't surprise Jim Bruce, a former senior official of Environment Canada now in private practice.
That's "because we haven't made any really big, determined efforts," he said. "We've taken a number of baby steps but not really big concerted effort to reduce emissions."
We can't cut fuel unless we re-engineer existing buildings to conserve more heat, and make smaller cars and trucks, he said.
"The Europeans are doing this, especially Britain and Norway and Germany." Some of these countries also have substantial wind power, and this week Britain announced it will dam the Severn River estuary to run rising and falling tidewaters through turbines that produce electricity.
"California is doing things. There are a number of developed countries and regions that have taken the bit in the teeth and are moving to reductions.
"What the Swedes did is a really a key thing. They rejigged their whole tax structure to reduce significantly income takes and other taxes and increase energy taxes."
Canadian figures comparing 2005 to previous years show that:
- People still aren't conserving electricity. Demand actually increased from 2003 to 2005, but greenhouse emissions fell when Ontario refurbished nuclear plants that had been idle, and shut down coal-burning plans. There was also some increase nationally in hydroelectric power, which doesn't produce carbon dioxide.
- Since 1990, Canadians have increased their emissions from transportation by 33 per cent. (The Kyoto deal measures everything since 1990.)
But within that category, emissions from light trucks and SUVs are up by 109 per cent, reflecting how sales of these popular brands have risen sharply despite our national commitment to use less fuel.
Most of the rest of the increase from transportation came from heavy diesel trucks.
- The growth of factory farms for pigs, chickens and beef cattle boosted emissions in the agriculture sector. As well, the conversion of forest and natural grasslands to cropland is a continuing source of gas emissions.
- Alberta is the biggest greenhouse gas producer (more than 230 million tonnes in 2005, or about 30 per cent of Canada's total.) Ontario comes second (200 million tonnes), followed by Quebec (about 90 million), Saskatchewan (about 70 million, much of it from fertilizer), British Columbia (about 65 million) and the rest all less than 25 million.
- Leaks from natural gas pipelines continue to be a major source of greenhouse gases. Leakage grew by 54 per cent between 1990 and 2005.
- Exploitation of tarsands is expected to increase greenhouse gases from energy production.
Ottawa Citizen
Canada's greenhouse gas emissions (recently revised):
2005 (also 2004) 747 million tonnes
2000 721
1995 646
1990 596
Kyoto target, beginning in 2008: 563
Source: Environment Canada
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6cff9beb-035e-4596-b6ed-4d593a62187f
A University of B.C. study claims pollution is killing 25,000 Canadians a year and costing the health care system more than $9 billion.
Study co-author David Boyd said Canadians are awash in toxic chemicals such as pesticides, heavy metals, flame retardants and air pollution.
The study, published this week in the online journal Environmental Research, says in addition to the deaths, the pollution causes 24,000 new cases of cancer and 2,500 low birthweight babies in Canada each year.
"In our cultural DNA, we think of Canada as a pristine nation, but this is at odds with our track record on the environment," Boyd said in a news release.
He said Canada's environmental record ranks around 28th in the 30-country Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development.
"When faced with a choice between protecting the environment or polluting industries, we continue to protect industries."
Boyd and co-author of the paper Dr. Stephen Genuis of the University of Alberta used recent public health data to calculate Canada's environmental burden of disease, the morbidity and mortality caused by exposure to environmental hazards.
Their research focused on respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, cancer and congenital problems.
"We focused on these diseases because there is strong evidence connecting them to environmental contaminants," Boyd said.
He believes Canada should develop a national environmental strategy, including tougher standards for air and water quality, food and consumer products.
Among the sources used for the data are the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Statistics Canada, Health Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071002/pollution_study_071002/20071002?hub=Health
Hunt the Narrows Duck Waterfowl
www.fishlakemanitobanarrows.com