The Stephen Harper Mea Culpa on his lack of Action on Global Warming “The devil made me do it”
My comments posted to:
http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note
Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”
For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.
Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.
Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.
We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.
On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://policywiki.theglobeandmail.com/tiki-index.php?page=Carbon+Capture+Briefing+Note
Canada can not couple its efforts to reduce GHG emission to the United States, whether with respect to CCS technology or otherwise. For one, the sources of GHG are different and these differences have a direct impact on the feasibility of such technologies as CCS. This issue was discussed in the Toronto Star article, “Carbon capture no silver bullet for tar sands”, 27 Feb.’09, Gerald Butts, president and CEO of WWF Canada – vis.: “Specifically, the science tells us that it may be technically feasible (though exceedingly expensive) to capture 90 per cent of the carbon emitted by a new coal-fired generator, but just 10 per cent of the greenhouse gases associated with oil from tar sands.”
For another reason, of course, you get statements like Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s saying that Canada’s hand’s had been tied regarding taking action to reduce GHG’s because of President’ Bush’s position. In other words, Harper’s Mea Culpa on failure to properly address the GW was essentially “The devil made me do it!”.
Clearly, we as Canadians can not allow this to happen. By coupling our efforts we will in effect abdicate our responsibility to clean up our own act. It is fallacy to think that if coupled we will be able to tell the US how to do things or we will be able to implement any policies that would address our specific problems unless it is a benefit to the Americans.
Also, President G.W. Brush’s position was, it seems to me, to be: don’t worry science will save us. It may be that somewhere down the road there may be some kind of scientific breakthrough or development that will save the world from global warming and/or its effects. But, given the real, and present, potential for cataclysmic disaster worldwide, certainly we must take a course of action that we, at this point in time, know will have a real and meaningful impact.
We simply cannot afford to put all our hopes in the possibility of future scientific developments. That is not to say that we should not, at the same time, pursue this future scientific salvation and do so rigorously. But, to put all our hopes in this is, to me, to say the least, not prudent. CCS is an attractive idea suggesting that we may continue our activities “steady as she goes” and avoid having to take the harsh steps that will, in fact, have a meaningful reduction on GHG’s. However, if we place all our hopes on this and this idea does not come to fruition, we’re doomed.
On the other hand, with the economic downturn and the governments looking to stimulate the economy it is an excellent time to commence such projects. After all, we cannot expect that everyone who loses their job can transfer to bridge building or other infrastructure projects. Also, as suggested, it is an opportunity to put Canada at the forefront of a developing technology. It seems to me that much greater efforts should be made into development of alternative energy motivated automobiles. Certainly coming up with an economically feasible car that using electricity, hydrogen, or the like, would have a much greater impact on our economy, our environment and our position on the international stage regarding leading edge science and technology. So, go ahead and put a few million into CCS research. But, put a few billion or even tens of billions into alternative energy automobiles, and other such areas.
Lloyd MacIlquham
posted by wlloydm at
8:45 AM
<< Home