CLIMATE DISRUPTION AND GLOBAL SECURITY

CLIMATE DISRUPTION AND GLOBAL SECURITY
CITIZENS’ CLIMATE LOBBY CANADA’S EDITORIAL PACKET: April 22, 2015
Contact: Cathy Orlando, National Manager [email protected] 705-929-4043
Earth Day 2015: Global warming is real, human caused and poses a threat to global security. The solution
is to cut emissions. The good news is pricing carbon will create jobs and save lives. Yet, climate change was
not mentioned in the Conservative Government’s pre-election budget on April 21, 2015. Also missing in the
budget is the $300 milllion Green Climate Fund pledged in November 2014 aimed at supporting projects,
programs, policies and other activities to address climate change in developing countries.
In December 2015, nations will gather in Paris, France, to share their plans for combatting climate disruption.
During this election year, with a dose of political will, Canada can turn a corner, do our fair share to combat
climate change and diminish terrorist threats.
ENVIRONMENTALLY-CONSCIOUS PEACEKEEPERS NO MORE
In 2010, PM Harper lost Canada’s seat on the UN Security Council in a bid for a two-year council term. The
defeat came after six successful campaigns for a seat over the previous six decades. Since 2010, Canada also
withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol and the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.
In late 2014 Canada joined the coalition that is currently helping Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by
bombing Islamic State targets in Syria. This coalition operating in Iraq and now Syria is outside the purview
of NATO and without a resolution from the United Nations. Countries such as France, the UK and even
Australia are not members of the coalition. The coalition did not get the expressed invitation from the Syrian
government to bomb Syria. The Conservatives have indicated that dropping bombs in Syria was justified
under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is a self-defence provision. If the Conservatives want to be taken
seriously about terrorists, they need to do more about climate change.
SYRIA AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The connection between climate change and terrorism is relevant to Syria. On March 2, 2015, Scientific
American published a paper “Climate Change hastened Syria’s Civil War.” If PM Harper is serious about
terrorist threats and global security, doing our fair share internationally to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
should be an integral part of his plans for Canada. Otherwise his Churchillian stance on Syria may be viewed
as akin to warmongering by future historians.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL SECURITY
It is well established that climate change poses a threat to global security. In April 2008, Britain’s Royal
United Service Institute warned that a failure to acknowledge the threats of climate change to global security
is as dangerous as neglecting the risks of terrorism or nuclear weapons proliferation. In 2011, in the United
States, A New Strategic Narrative for the 21st Century was presented to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It identified
climate change as a key threat to global economic and political stability. In 2014, the fifth Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change report detailed threats of climate change to global security and possibilities of
violent conflict.
CANADA’S GHG EMISSIONS
Canada’s population accounts for 0.49 per cent of the global population, yet collectively we produce 1.48 per
cent of the global greenhouse gas emissions. Canada is only 8% of the way towards meeting our greenhouse
gas emissions targets. Much of our emissions reductions are because of provincial initiatives, and there is no
coordinated effort between the provinces by the federal government. It is often argued that Canada’s GHGs
are a drop in the bucket. Desmog Canada clearly made the case that that is a faulty argument . Finally,
Canada failed to submit our plan for carbon reductions to the UNFCCC due March 31, 2015. However, the
federal government has announced that it will reveal its climate plan June 7, 2015.
JOB-KILLING REGULATION
Since 2008, the phrase “job- killing carbon tax” has been said 293 times in the House of Commons. The
following study from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission turns the Harper Government’s phrase on its head.
On April 7, 2015 Canada's Ecofiscal Commission released a report called "The Way Forward". Their study
compared the economic impact, as measured by growth in gross domestic product (GDP), that by 2020 if
regulation or market-based carbon pricing were used to manage carbon pollution and we were to meet our
current GHG reduction targets. The market-based carbon pricing mechanism could be either a well-designed
cap and trade or an efficient carbon fee (a.k.a. tax or levy).
Canada’s Ecofiscal data revealed the following: GDP in 2020 is approximately 3.7% better under carbon
pricing than it is under a regulatory approach, which currently is PM Harper's plan for Canada. The gain in
GDP breaks down as follows: 0.4% from provinces linking their carbon pricing systems; 0.9% from recycling
revenue through income tax reductions; and 2.4% from the flexibility of carbon pricing*.
PROVINCIAL INITIATIVES
On Monday April 13, 2015, Ontario Premier Wynne announced that Ontario signed a cap and trade deal with
Quebec and California within the Western Climate Initiative. Quebec and Ontario’s cap should catalyze adult
discussions on carbon pricing. Many details are yet to be determined in this deal; of special concern is how
hard the caps will be, how many exemptions and loopholes will be awarded and what sorts of offsets will be
allowed.
On Tuesday April 14, 2015, seven of Canada’s provincial premiers met in Quebec City at the invitation of
Quebec's Phillippe Couillard to discuss climate change and a national energy strategy. It should be noted
that Premiers Stephen McNeil (NS), Jim Prentice (AB) and Wade MacLauchlan (PEI) did not attend the climate
change summit in Quebec City for various reasons. Premier Christy Clark (BC) joined parts of the summit by
phone from the World Bank in Washington DC*. Here are some highlights from the Climate Summit in Quebec
City:



Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Paul Davis says his government cares about climate change but
has no plans to slow fossil fuel development
Premier Brad Wall of Saskatchewan touted carbon capture and sequestration and pushed for clean
coal technology.
The provinces signed a declaration on climate change that included working in partnership with the
federal government on climate change which is desperately needed.
Footnotes:
*One limitation of the Ecofiscal study is that it used our current GHG target of 17 per cent below 2005 emissions which is a far cry from the
science-based target of 25 per cent below 1990 by 2020 that is needed to avoid climate tipping points and that other countries are achieving.
** BC’s revenue-neutral carbon tax received international attention last week from the Finance Ministers of China, India, the US and other G20
countries at the World Bank.
FEDERAL LEADERSHIP NEEDED
A huge problem facing provinces is the fact that subnational governments cannot implement border tax
adjustments to prevent industries from picking up and moving to places with a weak or non-existent carbon
pricing policy. Thus, to keep the agricultural and manufacturing sectors competitive, the federal government
must ultimately step in and coordinate a national energy strategy as we gradually ramp up carbon prices to
reflect the true social cost of carbon pollution.
Canadians want a national energy plan. In a July 2013 Harris-Decima Poll 87% of Canadians agreed with this
statement: “We need a Canadian climate and energy strategy to plan our nation’s energy future.” In March
2015, Sustainable Canada Dialogues, a consortium of 70 academics released a paper "Acting on Climate
Change: Solutions from Canadian Scholars". They, too, called for a national carbon price.
RECENT CARBON PRICING CONVERSATIONS IN PARLIAMENT
On March 11, 2015, three climate questions were asked on the floor of the Canadian
Senate by Senator Grant Mitchell (Edmonton, AB) and Senator Joan Fraser (De
Lorimie, QC). These questions were submitted by Canadian Citizen Climate
Lobbyists Cathy Lacroix, Laurel Thompson, and Lars Boggild.
On March 23, 2015, Canada’s Environment Minister Aglukkaq and MP Rathgeber
(Independent and former Conservative MP for Edmonton) debated carbon pricing
in the House of Commons. Minister Aglukkaq ended the exchange with “Mr.
Speaker, this side of the House has been very clear on carbon tax. We will not
introduce an NDP or Liberal carbon tax.”
Then on March 25, 2015, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked the government to
share with the House of Commons its intended nationally-determined contribution
to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions that must be tabled with the UN
Secretariat March 31, 2015.
Lastly, on April 1, 2015, MP Bruce Hyer (Member of Parliament for Thunder Bay –
Superior North) again asked the government to consider Citizens’ Climate Lobby’s
policy of carbon fee and dividend.
Chronology of MP
Hyer championing
our carbon fee and
dividend proposal
in the House of
Commons:
November 19, 2013
May 16, 2014
May 26, 2014
June 9, 2014
September 29, 2014
September 30, 2014
October 6, 2014
December 2, 2014
December 3, 2014
February 3, 2015
March 9, 2015
April 1, 2015
The Conservative responses to these last two queries were cue-card talking points of sector-by-sector
regulation and anti-carbon tax rhetoric. This rhetoric was reaffirmed in a column by the Minister of Natural
Resources, the Honourable Greg Rickford (Member of Parliament for Kenora) on April 3, 2015.
GRASSROOTS SUPPORT NEEDED FOR CARBON PRICING
Grassroots support is essential for any long term political will for a carbon pricing policy. Our volunteers who
recently attended the public forums conducted by the provinces of Ontario and Nova Scotia and reported
that citizens did not champion cap and trade, but instead discussed at length and with enthusiasm carbon
fee and dividend and other types of carbon taxes. There was also negligible grassroots support for cap and
trade online at the Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) website. This should not be
surprising, because compared to cap and trade, carbon fees are far more transparent and are less expensive
than cap and trade. As well, the Ontario government specifically wanted feedback from First Nations. CCL
gave the them the report, No to CO2 Colonialism, a report from an international umbrella group for First
Nations environmental groups. This report called the carbon markets a false solution.
Less than two weeks after these consultations with the people of Ontario, the Wynne government announced
the cap and trade agreement with Quebec. The Ontario Liberals have indicated that they will be conducting
more public consultations over the next six months. That is good news because people want climate
action. People also want to be heard in their desire for fair, simple and transparent policies, and will more
likely support long-term carbon pricing with these qualities.
CANADA IS STILL SLEEPING WITH AN ELEPHANT
We cannot forget our biggest trading partner, the United States of America, when thinking about a carbon
pricing policy because Canada and the USA’s energy systems are intricately linked. The U.S. Congress has
repeatedly rejected cap and trade. If we are to encourage the USA to move forward with a carbon pricing
policy and ultimately synchronize our carbon pricing policies, a system closer to BC’s revenue neutral carbon
fee, not cap and trade is the best choice because BC’s carbon fee has been shown to be effective, has
grassroots support and would be easier to synchronize globally.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY FUTURE STUDY
A Stanford University-Resources for the future study released last
week, showed that two-thirds of Americans support making
corporations pay a price for carbon pollution, provided the
revenues are redistributed, i.e., made revenue-neutral. The study’s
finding is the most powerful indication yet that the US public is
warming to carbon taxation as the premier policy for combating
climate change.
A NATIONAL CARBON FEE IS THE WAY FORWARD
Soon, everyone will know that Canadians can prosper in a low
carbon world and at the same time lessen the chaotic impacts of climate disruption. In the long game of
creating political will, grassroots support and global synchronization must be borne in mind when pricing
carbon. A federal and revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend is the best choice for Canada. Citizens’
Climate Lobby is not the only Civil Society group calling for a national carbon fee and not cap and trade for
Canada: so are Ecojustice and Canadians for a Clean Prosperity.
GENERATING POLITICAL WILL IN ELECTION 2015:
“An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act” requires that each general election take place on the third
Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous election. Thus, Canadians should be going
to the poll October 19, 2015.
How can Canadians get real action on climate change and reclaim our international reputation of being
environmentally-conscious peacekeepers?
Citizens’ Climate Lobby takes the view that politicians don’t create political will they respond to it. People
with the help of their local media can create the political will for real climate action, one riding at a time by
asking their local candidates in Election 2015 these two questions:
1. How urgent is the climate crisis? Explain your answer;
2. A robust price on carbon pollution is critical piece of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What
carbon pricing policy is best for all Canadians and the global community? Explain your answer.
Thus at election time, when the electorate looks to their local media for indicators of how to vote, clear
answers about climate change and carbon pricing from the candidates will help.