Although it appears that Canada has committed itself to acheiving signifigant CO2 reductions, I can't help but wonder, what if there is in fact no climate change problem?

What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?

Jonathan, I would venture that the weight of the body of evidence, particularly the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is such that we can reasonably believe that climate change is real and is here now, as a result of human impacts.

In terms of the opportunity cost of being wrong, I would suggest that there will be distinct economic and social benefits to introducing alternative energy technologies; energy retrofitting of existing buildings; diversifying energy sources in terms of national security, and moving to demand management policies.

Ann

[quote="Jonathan Fleming"]What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?[/quote]

I am waiting to see the economic and social benefits of the recent run up of oil prices to (almost) $40/BBL? In fact, the economy seems to be following the classic pattern in response to an energy price shock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/business/02ECON.html

As for the IPCC, note the recent article in 'the economist' regarding the errors in their calcs. Is this simply a repeat of errors of The Club of Rome?

JF

[quote="Ann Dale"]Jonathan, I would venture that the weight of the body of evidence, particularly the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is such that we can reasonably believe that climate change is real and is here now, as a result of human impacts.

In terms of the opportunity cost of being wrong, I would suggest that there will be distinct economic and social benefits to introducing alternative energy technologies; energy retrofitting of existing buildings; diversifying energy sources in terms of national security, and moving to demand management policies.

Ann

[quote="Jonathan Fleming"]What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?[/quote][/quote]

[quote="Jonathan Fleming"]I am waiting to see the economic and social benefits of the recent run up of oil prices to (almost) $40/BBL? In fact, the economy seems to be following the classic pattern in response to an energy price shock.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/business/02ECON.html

As for the IPCC, note the recent article in 'the economist' regarding the errors in their calcs. Is this simply a repeat of errors of The Club of Rome?

JF

[quote="Ann Dale"]Jonathan, I would venture that the weight of the body of evidence, particularly the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is such that we can reasonably believe that climate change is real and is here now, as a result of human impacts.

In terms of the opportunity cost of being wrong, I would suggest that there will be distinct economic and social benefits to introducing alternative energy technologies; energy retrofitting of existing buildings; diversifying energy sources in terms of national security, and moving to demand management policies.

Ann

[quote="Jonathan Fleming"]What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

Even if science is wrong, which seems very unlikely, fossil fuel conservation in the name of reducing CO2 emissions will be essential in extending the supply of non-renewable resources. Nobody is disputing that the supply is limited, so why shouldn't the sceptics agree to reductions in greenhouse gases for the obvious other benefits?

I wonder why we always seem to err on the side of expansion, rather than prudence. The body of evidence is now significant that there are indeed limits to the planet on which we live, and that these limits are finite, and climate change is but one example of not understanding those limits.

Ann

[quote="ghann"]Even if science is wrong, which seems very unlikely, fossil fuel conservation in the name of reducing CO2 emissions will be essential in extending the supply of non-renewable resources. Nobody is disputing that the supply is limited, so why shouldn't the sceptics agree to reductions in greenhouse gases for the obvious other benefits?[/quote]

I agree that we tend to err on the side of expansion quite often. Working for the federal government, and under a sometimes conflicting mandate, I am becoming familiar with government announcing a new policy that appears to take them a step in the right direction, say for sustainable development for example. Unfortunately, I often wonder why we bothered when I see that the same policy takes two steps backwards by either "grandfathering" one industry or making special exceptions for another. I guess it's because money is power and you can make more money from the minerals in the ground than from the environment above it. It seems the focus in on economic gain and not on what resources, both renewable and non-renewable, we should leave for our future generations to enjoy.

I have to agree with Ann that we're pretty certain the science relating to climate change is right. This website is a good supporter of that science. http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/plan_for_canada/plan/chap_1.html#a
And even if the science was wrong, I don't think anyone can argue that those same emissions cause a lot of pollution in larger cities like Toronto and New York and negatively affect the air quality there. We see rising rates of cancer, athsma and other respiratory illness all the time and I think the impacts to human health would benefit greatly with reduced emissions.

Shannon Pagotto

“Although it appears that Canada has committed itself to achieving significant CO2 reductions, I can't help but wonder, what if there is in fact no climate change problem? What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?”

I think that those questions are valid, and I think that more people should ask questions about the efficacy of a proposed change that affects many people, as well as whether or not those changes are indeed warranted.

Well there are certainly some skeptics about the reality of global climate change, the majority of the world’s scientists believe that there is enough empirical evidence to suggest that it is our present reality. I highly recommend that you and every other Canadian research the topic of global warming, in order to arrive at your own conclusions. There certainly isn’t any shortage of scientific literature available, especially on the internet.

As a starting point I would personally recommend that you watch the NOVA documentary dedicated to this very question called: “What’s up with the weather”? “The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: earth's temperature has risen during the past century. But is it due to man's use of fossil fuel energy? And if so, how can we prevent the catastrophic results that some scientists predict if global warming continues? In "What's Up with the Weather?" NOVA and FRONTLINE join forces to investigate the science and politics of one of the most controversial issues of the 21st century: the truth about global warming.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/

Even if you end up arriving at the same conclusions as the majority of people, there are still questions about the effectiveness of Kyoto itself, as a way to reduce global warming. There are many scientists who believe that the proposed Kyoto CO2 emission reduction schedule will have little impact on impeding global climate change. "The Kyoto Protocol will make only a modest contribution – around 1% – to reducing the growth of global greenhouse emissions."
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/international/kyoto/ “The increasing amount of chemicals being put into the air has to be reversed first before there is any potential global cooling to turn around the recent changes in climate, if the reduction in gases has an effect at all.” http://www.whitehorsestar.com/storyDetail.lasso?r=44241

To me the answer is clear that Kyoto itself cannot conquer the problem of global warming. However, this model does not change the fact that the “cost of doing nothing” is far greater than the cost of making some type of contribution to the restoration of our biosphere from the anthropocentric perspective of human species survival. Surely one of the wealthiest nations, who enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, who consume the most energy per capital on the entire planet, can take some responsibility and leadership for being one of the greatest emitters of pollutants into the Earth’s atmosphere? After all, due to the transboundary nature of chemical transport in air sheds, our actions in Canada contribute greatly to the degradation of the air quality of surrounding nations. To me the ratification of Kyoto represents a symbolic gesture of good faith, that as a first world nation we are willing to take some responsibility for the consequences of our actions as top world polluters.

Canadian’s consume over 25% of the world’s energy on an annual basis -more than any other nation in the world. In 1990, Canada produced 609 megatons of greenhouse gases and by 2000, this value rose 19% to 724 megatons. At this present trend of increase, without Kyoto, the value would be expected to rise to 890 megatons! http://www.whitehorsestar.com/storyDetail.lasso?r=44241 Kyoto is only asking Canada to reduce output levels by 6% of the 1990 levels, to drop to 572.5 megatons by 2012.

I think that Kyoto is just the beginning, to get people to recognize how much energy is wasted and how much energy that we as individuals consume. According to the Canadian Federal government, the average Canadian is responsible for the emissions of 5,400 kg of gases each year.

What is the opportunity cost of being wrong?” about global warming and whether or not we even need Kyoto you ask? Well, to me the answer is that Kyoto is the necessary cost of doing business and ultimately it will lead to a new type of economy that does not rely on the exploitation of natural resources, but rather encourages clean energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and my personal all time favorite: geothermal heat. http://albertageothermal.ca/pages/technology1.htm

What could be simpler and more desirable than moving pre-existing heat from the ground into your home in the winter, and cool air from the ground into your home in summer? The best part is that one of the primary reasons many people are turning to this clean energy source rather than natural gas is because it is so economical and readily available. For example, a family friend in Cochrane, AB. who installed this system three years ago, paid $12 in total to heat his home this winter and did not emit any polluting gases into the atmosphere.

So, to me whether or not you believe in climate change, you cannot deny that Canadians are polluting the atmosphere for everyone and the cost of doing nothing ultimately indicates to other nations that we don’t feel any obligation to take responsibility for this. We must lead by example. But, it doesn’t end with Kyoto it begins with Kyoto, which will hopefully act as a catalyst for change in the mentality of Canadians towards energy efficiency, energy conservation, pollution emission and the quest for sustainability.

My previous reply was cut off, so I have attached it as a word doc.

Being conservative by nature and having a certain respect for the scientific community, I think that this question is much more relevant than "what if the science is wrong".

Too add to Lori's information from the NOVA special, check out the section that details the information gathered from ice core samples that provide data up to 160000 years before the present day. For those who need to see something real to convince them that things are changing, this is very compelling evidence.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/stories/

As I contemplated the issue of climate change and the greater issue of sustainability over the past weeks, I found that, in some respects, the more I know, the less I know.

My head sometimes spins with information overload, but at the end of the day, I am always left with a queer feeling that is fear mixed with hope. I am convinced that change will happen only from the bottom up, as described by someone in another thread. Attitude change at the individual level will be the force that in turn drives consumerism, which in turn drives business, that in turn influences government.

If the science is right, as I believe that it is, I sometimes fear for my children and the challenges that we have left them. I think we owe them an education in critical analysis and ecology to equip them to face this challenge. As the professor of an ecology course that I recently completed said, to be an ecologist, one must take on the responsibility of educating others with the knowledge of the interconnections between humans and the natural world. In fact, we need to help people see that humans are not separate from nature, as Dr. Suzuki outlines in his book "The Sacred Balance".

It is no doubt a daunting task, but a worthy one.

JR

From the reading I have done and the courses I have taken, I don’t believe the science is wrong about global warming, its impacts and the anthropogenic factors that are contributing to it. I do, however, feel that our knowledge is limited and that we could very easily be wrong about expectant implications in the future. Meaning we could be understating the effects or overstating the effects. What if we are understating the effects? Could we really take the chance of sitting idly without making any effort for change? On the other hand, what if we are overstating the effects? Even if this is the case, would reducing our emissions of GHG’s be detrimental?

I don’t believe there is a dispute on whether global warming is occurring. The direct results can be seen and measured as ocean warming, heat waves, glacial melting, increased sea levels, and overall warmer temperatures throughout the globe. There are further effects of these impacts such as increased spread of insect borne diseases, coral reef bleaching, changes in weather patterns with increased flooding and rain/snow fall and draughts, changes in seasonal shifts and impacts on plant and animal communities (Global warming: Early warning signs, 1999). (I find it interesting that the website reference here is stating these as “early warning signs of global warming”. I think we have already missed the early warning signs and we have moved on to effects that are having profound impacts on our global environment).

There are a multitude of publications that could dispute or support the idea of global warming and its causes. I came across one research topic that I found interesting. Dr. Stan Boutin from U of Alberta has been studying the Red Squirrel in the southwest Yukon and has identified genetic changes to the squirrels breeding patterns are a result of global warming. Due to early spring temperatures and the availability of food, the squirrel has changed its breeding patterns by 18 days within the last 10 years. More information about this research can be found on the following website for U of A - http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/stan_boutin/?Page=1521.
Research such as this is occurring throughout the world to determine what unforeseen effects global temperature increases are having on ecosystems. As I stated earlier, I think our knowledge is limited and I believe there are many effects of global warming that we are yet to see and that we do not have the understanding to foresee or expect. This is frightening to me. Ultimately, we have no idea what we may really be doing to our planet.

Regardless of whether one believes GHG emissions are the cause of global warming, there is still the need for a change. We have become ultimately dependent upon our use of non-renewable resources such as fossil fuels for our current way of life. If we continue down this path, how can we expect the future to live and continue to develop. We need to find reasonable, economic energy sources that can generate sufficient energy to replace our use of resources that will become depleted. In the process, why not find more efficient and environmentally friendly ways of doing this.

Kyoto is a start. I don’t believe the 6% reduction is sufficient, yet we have to look at what is also realistic. I think the important thing about Kyoto is it has created a greater awareness of the problem of global warming to the public. The general public is now aware of the issue, and although may not be well educated on the facts, they are asking questions and starting to think about their own ecological footprint. I think this is a very important first step in trying to reduce our effects on the biosphere.

I see some else has raised the question that I now ask, “Is this too little, too late?”

References:

Global warming: Early warning signs, 1999
http://www.climatehotmap.org

University of Alberta, Environmental Sciences. Dr. Stan A Boutin > Red Squirrel Research. Feb 25, 2003
http://www.biology.ualberta.ca/faculty/stan_boutin/?Page=1521.

Thank you Lori for actually trying to answer my question!

I posted this question in order to encourage people to think about the costs of implementing Kyoto. If Kyoto is to significantly reduce emissions, as proponents argue, this means that Canadians will have to use less energy - way less. (One of my coworkers suggested that we can easily meet the target if we simply don't allow anyone with a house built post 1990 to turn on their heat....)

The point is, the costs are material, while the science is clearly not rock solid. Even if the price tag is 1% of GDP, how many fewer hospital beds or semesters at University can we afford? It seems to me that as a society we have many tangible environmental problems (ie Sydney tar ponds) that we will not be able to afford because we are doing Kyoto instead.

It should pointed out that GDP growth is strongly correlated with quality of life and of a society’s attention to environmental impacts.

[quote="Ann Dale"]I wonder why we always seem to err on the side of expansion, rather than prudence. The body of evidence is now significant that there are indeed limits to the planet on which we live, and that these limits are finite, and climate change is but one example of not understanding those limits.

Ann

[quote="ghann"]Even if science is wrong, which seems very unlikely, fossil fuel conservation in the name of reducing CO2 emissions will be essential in extending the supply of non-renewable resources. Nobody is disputing that the supply is limited, so why shouldn't the sceptics agree to reductions in greenhouse gases for the obvious other benefits?[/quote][/quote]

There is strong evidence supporting climate change and global warming. Data from polar ice cores show carbon dioxide concentrations have increased 30% between the last ice age and the start of the 19th century. There are; however, uncertainties around the timing and rate of future changes. the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates that the global surface temperature will increased by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees celsius by 2100. This may not appear significant, but when Canada was 5 degrees celsius colder we were covered by 3 km of ice.

Around the world, mountain glaciers are retrating, the global sea level is rising, and climate zones are shifting. It is expected that the northern hemisphere will be more affected by climate change. We are already seeing increased heat waves, declining water levels in the Great Lakes, change in fish migration, meling polar ice caps, and insect infestations in BC.

We need to focus on improving climate science. As a result of Canada's investigate in climate science (notably carbon sinks and filling gaps in climate observations), Canada has a reputation in climate change science. Actions Canada is taking to improve climate change science include:

1) addressing climate change uncertaintities to better understand the change over 20-30 years.
2) provision of regional scale climate change information which will provide regional detai where change may be most dramatic.
3) future evolution of climate in Arctic to predict changes.
4) determining record of past climate variability and extremes which will provide more detail on the variability of Canada's climate.