GOOD

How Costs, Not Skepticism, Are Defeating Action on Climate Change The Kyoto Protocol and the High Cost of Fighting Climate Change

Even Canadians are rejecting greenhouse gas limits. How can sustainability fans fight global warming?

U.S. diplomats visit Canadian oil sands


The key barrier to fighting climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions is that any such scheme is likely to be expensive.

Some people find that argument straightforward, even obvious; to others, it’s naïve and incorrect. For those in the former camp, recent news has provided an instructive example. Before this week’s annual United Nations’ climate talks in Durban, South Africa, Canada confirmed that it will not renew its commitment to (and may even withdraw from) the Kyoto Protocol, a binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, when it expires in 2012. Japan and Russia have also said they will not renew. All three countries' leaders have concluded that there is no point in signing up for a binding commitment to reduce emissions unless other countries—particularly China and the United States (the world’s biggest and second-biggest emitters respectively)—pledge to do the same. “Kyoto is the past,” Peter Kent, the Canadian Minister of the Environment, said at the conference.

"What's astonishing is watching Canada emerge as a rogue among developed countries," said Bill McKibben, the author and environmental activist, in an interview with the Huffington Post. Many environmentalists were disappointed rather than surprised. Canada is generally a good international citizen, and has been a prominent voice on global climate action. It was one of the most prominent countries to sign the protocol, in 1997, and to ratify it, in 2002. Its participation was meaningful because its economy, like that of the United States, is highly carbon-intensive; in addition to consuming a lot of fossil fuels, Canada is a major producer. For it to ratify Kyoto suggested a serious commitment to fighting climate change.

But Canada has not come close to meeting its targets. The domestic opposition to the Kyoto Protocol has always been fierce, especially from the business community and oil-rich Alberta province. The current Prime Minister, Conservative Stephen Harper, has never supported the protocol. As detailed in this timeline from CBC, Canada's commitment to Kyoto has therefore been debated more or less continuously for the better part of 10 years.

Kyoto’s critics have got the upper hand recently, for a number of political and economic reasons. Kathryn Harrison, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia, explains that the resistance to deep reductions has only grown as Alberta increasingly produces oil from unconventional sources such as tar sands. That form of production that is more greenhouse-gas intensive than traditional drilling, meaning that in the prime minister’s home province, the relative cost of compliance with reduction efforts is actually growing. “They were opposed from day one,” she says, “and as Alberta’s emissions have increased, they haven’t exactly embraced the idea.”

Self-centered, perhaps—as Harrison points out, the province has long benefited from its natural resources, and it’s not as if Albertans put the oil in the ground themselves—but it’s hardly incomprehensible. And what should be of particular interest to environmentalists in the United States is that it has nothing to do with climate science. “Most Canadians have come to terms with the reality of climate change,” wrote Dale Marshall, a climate policy analyst, in 2002, summarizing the politics at the time. “Yet the country remains embroiled in a debate over the economic costs and benefits of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.” There are climate skeptics in Canada; Harper used to be among them. But for the most part the science is taken as settled.

That’s why, despite widely different political rhetoric on the issue, Canada has ended up with a position that is actually quite close to that of the United States, where climate skeptics scoff freely. In some contexts—the Republican presidential primary, for example—belief in climate science may actually be a liability.

The odd thing is that though skeptics are vocal, they are the minority. Polling has been consistent on this for years. While the number of Americans who believe in global warming is declining, a significant majority—63 percent, according to the latest survey from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press—agree that global warming is real and consider it to be at least a somewhat serious problem.

And in the United States, as in Canada, costs have been the most significant barrier to coordinated climate action. When it came time to ratify Kyoto, for example, George W Bush was president . While Bush does believe in global warming (though his administration squashed reports from government climate scientists on the topic), he announced that Kyoto was too expensive.

During the 2009 effort to pass the cap-and-trade bill, the Congressional Budget Office projected that the law would reduce GDP by between one-fourth and three-fourths of one percent by 2020, and the costs to households would have been smaller than the costs to industry thanks to rebates built into the legislation. Still, there was a perception that the bill was prohibitively expensive. Republicans dredged up a comment that Barack Obama had made during his presidential campaign: under his plan, he said, electricity rates “would necessarily skyrocket.”

The upshot of all of this is that environmentalists should pay more attention to the economic arguments than the outright skepticism: For whatever reason, America has more vocal climate skeptics than Canada does; chalk it up to American unruliness (or Canadian politeness). But the fact that they’ve ended up with the same position suggests that belief is less important than the business implications. That might point to the next steps. If international agreements—still the best way to coordinate collective action on what is the world’s biggest collective action problem—are stalling out, it’s going to be hard for individual countries to adopt carbon restrictions that won’t, on their own, affect a global problem.

Maybe the pitch to reluctant nations is that it’s better to invest in low-emissions technology sooner, rather than risk being left behind when the price of oil and gas rises. Even if the externalities of fossil fuels are never priced in, you could still make the argument for a diversified energy portfolio; at some point, we’re going to have a problem if our infrastructure is built around easy access to cheap fossil fuels.

Another approach would be to focus on tangible environmental goals that are already widely accepted. Improving emissions standards for cars or factories, for example, could be pursued in the name of air pollution and efficiency. Canada's reversal on Kyoto is demoralizing for environmentalists, but it should clarify the nature of the challenge, a necessary condition for overcoming it.

Photo
via (cc) Flickr User U.S. Mission Canada

Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business