He Said; He Said

In the anticipation of the visit of the US President, there are a lot of good reasons that those briefed on the climate issue were focused, nearly exclusively, on the question of what President Obama would say about the Athabasca Tar Sands. But the larger issues, as highlighted in my Open Letter to the President, require international progress no later than this coming December at the 15th Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen to develop a meaningful post-2012 Kyoto-plus agreement. In that context, making progress globally requires shifting Canada away from Harper’s obstructionist stance.

Some seem disappointed he didn’t come out swinging, but I never thought President Barack Obama would come to Canada and attack our record publicly. If he seriously wants to advance the agenda toward Copenhagen, he needs to bring Canada into his tent. On the other hand, I would have been horrified if he distanced himself from earlier comments that tar sands oil is “dirty” oil.

A strong sign that something more interesting was said behind closed doors was the presence of Carol Browner, former head of the EPA and Obama’s pick to serve as “Climate Czar” in his Administration. Details are scarce right now on this Clean Energy Dialogue, but it only makes sense if it is about real clean energy – renewable energy. And if it is about developing an approach for the international negotiations.

So deconstructing Harper and Obama’s press conference, while most reporters seem to think the two men were saying the same thing, here are the points of difference.

A Clean Energy Dialogue: Harper talked about Carbon Capture and Storage. Obama gave a nod to CCS, accepting that the US energy picture has its Carbon Monster in the room as well -- the coal industry. As for CCS, Obama said “there are no silver bullets.” Exactly. Harper has been saying nothing can be done to reduce GHG emissions until this end-of-tailpipe solution of burying carbon underground is perfected. But there are “no silver bullets.” The only solution to the climate crisis is to move fast on about 100 fronts at once. The way the US stimulus package does by investing in wind and solar and investments in massive improvements in energy efficiency.

Meanwhile, Obama talked about expanding a more efficient electricity grid, with more solar and wind. He said we need “billions to jump start renewables.” (Was Harper listening? He just cut funds to wind power. Instead Harper put hundreds of millions into Carbon Capture and Storage and nuclear energy. There is no money for clean coal or nukes in the US stimulus package.) I served as a Canadian rep on a commission exploring how a North American electricity grid restructuring could boost renewables. It was organized by the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation and one of the US representatives was Dr. John Holdren, now Obama’s science advisor. And the report was tabled with the three heads of environmental agencies in Canada, the US and Mexico – in the US, that was Carol Browner. “Clean Energy Dialogue” will include a discussion on CCS, but it is far wider agenda and may serve to drag Harper into a focus on renewables….maybe.

On the threat of the climate crisis, Obama said "climate change threatens my children and Prime Minister Harper's children." I have never heard Stephen Harper personalize the threat. I am 100% sure he does not actually believe it is a threat. Meanwhile, Harper said "climate change is a major challenge for the next decade." Decade??? More like century. But, then again, Harper doesn’t begin to understand the issue.

I wondered how it was that people did not laugh out loud when Harper said “Our targets are more or less the same.” OK, the short term targets to 2020 are not that far apart, but the 2050 targets are miles apart. Canada (under Harper) says 50% reductions against 2006 targets by 2050. Obama (and most of the world) says 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Canada’s use of 2006, when emissions were 24% higher than in 1990, makes our targets fraudulent, but on top of that the 50% goal is a prescription for climate chaos.

The real howler, which Harper repeated twice, was his defence of Canada’s use of the Bush invention, the “intensity target.” Canada has no targets based on real hard reductions. Our (still non-existent) plan is based on reductions per unit of production. As production goes up, the reductions per unit of production are irrelevant. Emissions keep climbing even if reduction targets are met. Harper actually said intensity targets and hard caps are just “two ways of measuring the same thing.” Sure. The way using counterfeit money and using real money are just two ways of buying the same things. Intensity targets are fraudulent. And Canada has been pressing the international negotiations to use them in the next post-Kyoto treaty. We are not content to commit fraud within our own borders. We want to sabotage the international agreement.

Only President Obama mentioned the importance of the upcoming Copenhagen negotiations. He raised Copenhagen in the context of needing to make sufficient progress in North America that we are ready to make progress at COP15. No media question was posed about those negotiations. Harper never mentions them. Bringing the world together in Copenhagen to real and immediate reductions is essential. In fact, it is our last chance to avoid a runaway global warming accelerated disaster, which human civilization is unlikely to survive.

These critical talks are the ones Canada has been undermining and sabotaging. We have to focus on the up-coming Copenhagen conference – raise its profile, increase awareness and push even this appalling government to do the right thing. And who knows? Maybe saying “these are just two ways of doing the same thing” is the first step in a little side-step that leads to hard caps without announcing a public retreat. Whatever it takes. Copenhagen must succeed. And that is more important than any of the points than can be scored against the Harper government for its aggressively dangerous climate policy.