As 2019 begins, some political storms appear to be developing over carbon pricing. These articles indicate that the political fight is out of step with oil industry direction and long standing scientific and ethical concerns.
 |
| Price on Carbon |
Deborah Gyapong reports that the political battle in Canada over a price on carbon threatens to disrupt the continuity that Pope Francis declares in Laudato Si is essential because policies related to climate change and environmental protection cannot be altered with every change of government.
In Laudato Si’, Pope Francis said regardless of which policies governments adopt, “continuity is essential, because policies related to climate change and environmental protection cannot be altered with every change of government. Results take time and demand immediate outlays which may not produce tangible effects within any one government’s term.”
Gunn says the Liberals have adopted the same greenhouse gas emissions target of the previous Conservative government.
“There’s no indication we’ve reduced our emissions yet, and I don’t see them as having a plan that’s going to work,” he said. “Frankly none of the recent governments have brought us close to achieving the promised goals.”
That is unlikely to improve, said Philip Cross, former chief economic analyst with Statistics Canada and a senior fellow with the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, an Ottawa-based think tank.
“If it becomes an election issue, it will be entirely because of symbolism,” he said. “The Liberals are saying, ‘See, we’re taking some action however small and unimportant. It’s hard for the Liberals to pretend they’re being virtuous” when all serious economists say you need a tax of $100 “before you get dramatic meaningful change in people’s behaviour.”
Last July, the CCCB released a joint document with the United Church on climate change. Shaped “profoundly” by Laudato Si’, it affirmed the need to actively promote “a greater reverence for creation and to teach that Earth itself is holy.”1
Monica Ell-Kanayuk connects the work of Inuit for decades on the effects of climate change to the proposals that emerged from Katowice. She notes that ideology is a serious obstacle in making progress.
Inuit have been bringing this message to the world for decades. This is partly why my reaction to the “emergency debate” in the House of Commons in the fall in reaction to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “Special Report: Global Warming of 1.5 degrees C” was to say, “the debate was 30 years too late.”
If you took note of the news that emerged from Katowice, 11 is the number of years this planet has to avert catastrophic climate change. But tell that to the people who have recently lost their homes to “fires, floods, or hurricanes of the century.” These extreme weather events will become more common as the planet warms. Without radical change in the way we generate and use energy in efforts to reduce the output of carbon dioxide, extreme weather will only get worse.
Radical action means transformational change over the next decade, in an urgent way. To me the use of the word “emergency” by the House of Commons means we are all in an emergency. It’s an emergency that should transcend party lines, and especially ideology. From an Inuit perspective, the ideologies linked to partisan politics is foreign to us in our traditional knowledge, and in modern times we don’t have political parties in our legislatures in Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, and the Northwest Territories.2
Tyler Dawson from the National Post looks at the legal battle for authority over carbon tax in Canada set to start in 2019.
“There is no free standing federal jurisdiction over the environment or pollution,” says Saskatchewan’s factum.
But the federal government says Saskatchewan, by being intransigent on carbon pricing, risks affecting British Columbia because climate change has global effects.
Lawyers for the Liberal government, a tad opaquely, draw a line between Saskatchewan’s refusal to implement a carbon tax and the fact that, annually, large swaths of British Columbia catch on fire and burn down.
The Saskatchewan government rejects this: “The greenhouse effect of a megaton of emissions from Saskatchewan upon British Columbia, for example, is no different than it is upon Timbuktu.”3
Charles Lane considers California wildfires, intense tropical storms,and increased carbon dioxide emissions as he offers the opinion that the political science of climate change is where the trouble resides.
This year, California recorded its deadliest wildfire in state history. The combined intensity and duration of the Atlantic and eastern Pacific oceans’ tropical storms and hurricanes reached a new recorded high. A group of researchers reported that worldwide fossil-fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions are projected to hit 37.1 billion tons in 2018, yet another annual record.
It’s time to take a clear-eyed look at the science behind these developments — the political science.
The data show that, for all the evidence that climate change is real, manmade and dangerous, and despite wide public acceptance of those propositions, people in the United States do not necessarily want to stop climate change, in the sense of being willing to pay the cost — which is the only sense that really matters.4
Umair Irfan clarifies the mystery of the support by Exxon for efforts to put a price on carbon.
But it’s a significant move from a company with a decades-long history of studying climate change, misleading the public about it, and funding organizations that deny climate change even exists.
Exxon has actually endorsed a carbon tax before, but now the company is putting some money behind the policy: a $1 million donation to Americans for Carbon Dividends, a Republican-led lobbying effort for a carbon tax. (Exxon did not respond to a request for comment.)
There’s some debate about whether this is a cynical delay tactic, a show of genuine concern for the environment, or an act of rational self-interest in a changing energy landscape. (Or as the Onion put it, “ExxonMobil CEO Depressed After Realizing Earth Could End Before They Finish Extracting All The Oil.”)
But what’s gone largely unnoticed is that Exxon’s proposal comes with a massive catch: In exchange for a tax, the company wants immunity from all climate lawsuits in the future.
Cities across the United States are currently suing oil companies to make them pay for damages wrought by climate change, which could put companies like Exxon on the hook for billions of dollars in payouts.5
Amy Harder reports after a whirlwind week in Katowice, Poland, where Conoco announced it is also funding a political push for a carbon tax. Conoco is also joining a connected initiative, called the Climate Leadership Council, whose corporate members include Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total.
The U.S. policy that Conoco, Exxon and several other energy companies back also sends money back to consumers. Supporters say that’s an important distinction. In a Washington state carbon pricing initiative that voters just rejected, the money would have been mostly used to fund clean energy.
With its funding of the tax push, Conoco is also joining a connected initiative, called the Climate Leadership Council, whose corporate members include Exxon, BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Total.6
The political battles that might try to make climate change policy a ballot box issue seem to be out of step with the decisions being taken by the oil industry giants and the ethical guidance from Pope Francis and Inuit leaders.
References
1
|
(2019, January 9). Climate change caught in political battle over carbon tax. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.catholicregister.org/item/28738-climate-change-caught-in-political-battle-over-carbon-tax
|
2
|
(2019, January 8). Let's remember: climate change is not ideological, it's fact - The Hill .... Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/01/07/lets-remember-climate-change-not-ideological-fact/182353
|
3
|
(2019, January 2). With legal battle over carbon tax set to start in 2019, here are the major .... Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/with-legal-battle-over-carbon-tax-set-to-start-in-2019-here-are-the-major-players-arguments
|
4
|
(2018, December 10). Opinion | It's time to look at the (political) science behind climate change. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/its-time-to-look-at-the-political-science-behind-climate-change/2018/12/10/f1787070-fc96-11e8-862a-b6a6f3ce8199_story.html
|
5
|
(2018, October 18). Exxon is lobbying for a carbon tax. There is, obviously, a catch. - Vox. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.vox.com/2018/10/18/17983866/climate-change-exxon-carbon-tax-lawsuit
|
6
|
(2018, December 17). Axios Generate: ConocoPhillips joins carbon tax push. Retrieved January 9, 2019, from https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-generate-bcae2461-6151-4e1c-97bb-29807aac5d68.html
|
No comments:
Post a Comment