Posted on 7-5-2002
Kyoto
And Common Sense
By Ronald Colman*
Suppose your doctor tells you that you have high blood pressure
that puts
you at risk of heart attack. She acknowledges that there are
major
uncertainties: Most hypertensives don't have heart attacks;
your blood
pressure may stabilize; or it may cause different problems like
stroke.
Nevertheless, she says, better safe than sorry. Take drugs to
control your
blood pressure; change your lifestyle; exercise more; eat less
fat.
Now along come the editor of the National Post, the premier
of Alberta, and
the president of the Chamber of Commerce. They tell you in detail
how much
the drugs will cost you, how much productive work time you'll
lose
exercising every day, how much less competitive you'll be as
a result, how
inconvenient it will be to change your diet and your lifestyle.
They never
mention heart attacks or strokes or premature death. They never
mention
what it may cost not to meet the Kyoto targets. If you mention
risk, they
quickly remind you the doctor's diagnosis is uncertain. Better
be
absolutely certain before you act or spend a dime. How certain,
you ask?
When I have a heart attack? When Nova Scotia farmers experience
a fourth
year of drought? When we have another ice storm or when Charlottetown
is
flooded?
No wise decision, and no accurate reckoning of costs and benefits
are
possible when we ignore half the equation, when we ignore the
costs of not
controlling our blood pressure, and of not curbing our greenhouse
gas
emissions. When a risk is potentially catastrophic, we err on
the side of
caution. We follow the doctor's advice. We wear seat belts and
bicycle
helmets, even when the risk of death and catastrophe is remote.
And we
carry that logic forward to future generations. We regularly
make
sacrifices for our children -- to ensure their safety, security,
and
wellbeing.
That "precautionary principle" is even written into law. Part
One, section
2 (b) (ii) of the Nova Scotia Environment Act states: "The precautionary
principle will be used in decision-making so that where there
are threats
of irreversible damage, the lack of full scientific certainty
shall not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental
degradation." In the face of uncertainty, insurance companies
raise
premiums in response to higher risk assessments. And we follow
the
precautionary principle in our own lives when we follow the
doctor's
advice, and when we take our fire insurance against the very
unlikely risk
that our house will burn down.
Yes, the science of climate change is uncertain. But it is much
less
uncertain than the chance of our house burning down. A consensus
of 2,000
highly qualified international scientists on the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that
the 1990s were
the hottest decade on record, that snow cover has declined by
10%, mountain
glaciers are retreating, and sea level is rising. They stated:
"In the
light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties,
most
of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (66-90%
chance) to
have been due to increase in greenhouse gas concentrations....
The
projected rate of warming [in the 21st century]...is very likely
(90-99%
chance) to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000
years." In
the coming century, the scientists project temperature increases
of up to
5.8oC as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere more
than double
from pre-industrial times. That, they say, will likely cause
more heat
waves and droughts, more intense storms, a rise in sea level
and associated
flooding, and adverse effects on agriculture, health, and water.
The scientific academies of 17 countries, including the Royal
Society of
Canada, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and the Royal
Swedish
Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prizes, have strongly
endorsed
the IPCC findings. In a joint statement, the 17 academies recently
urged
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and said: "We urge everyone
--
individuals, businesses, and governments -- to take prompt action
to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases.... The balance of scientific
evidence
demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to Earth's
climate."
No wonder the Government of Canada declared climate change to
be the
greatest challenge facing this country since World War II. And
yet, we keep
on burning fossil fuels in our cars, homes, power plants, and
industries as
if there were no tomorrow. Nova Scotians pump out an average
of 22 tonnes
of greenhouse gases per person each year, twice the west European
average.
Our provincial emissions are now 15% higher than they
were in 1995.
In Nova Scotia the predicted impacts of climate change include
an increase
in extreme weather events, particularly hurricanes, floods,
and droughts,
as well as adverse impacts on the province's fisheries and agriculture
industries. Nova Scotia farmers have already suffered from an
unprecedented
three years of drought in the last four years, with 1999 farm
losses
estimated at $50 million. Low-lying regions around Yarmouth,
the Bay of
Fundy, and Halifax Harbour have been identified by Environment
Canada as
particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, higher tides, increases
in storm
intensity and frequency, and storm-surge flooding. Climate change
economists, using computer models, have estimated that each
tonne of
greenhouse gases we emit will cause at least $38 in climate
change damages.
This means that Nova Scotia's current annual greenhouse gas
emissions will
cause more than $760 million in damages. Carbon dioxide has
an atmospheric
life of more than 100 years. So every tonne of greenhouse gases
we emit now
will continue to heat the planet and cause damage for a very
long time,
affecting the welfare of our children and grandchildren.
All the talk about the "cost of Kyoto" never mentions this side
of the
equation -- what is the cost of not reducing our emissions?
In its 230-page
Greenhouse Gas Accounts for Nova Scotia, GPI Atlantic did look
at both
sides of the equation and found that every dollar invested now
in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions will save at least $17 in avoided damages
due to
climate change. The GPI report also identified many ways to
reduce
greenhouse gases that would save money and make us more competitive,
(for
example, by conserving energy and thereby reducing business
costs.) Without
serious dislocation, the province could reduce its greenhouse
gases to 17%
below 1995 levels by 2010, and avoid more than $200 million
a year in
energy costs and global climate change damages. Yes, ratifying
Kyoto will
require some lifestyle changes, just like controlling our high
blood
pressure. But for the sake of our children's safety and security
50 years
from now, will we not be willing to drive a smaller car rather
than an SUV,
to carpool when possible, and to turn down our thermostats at
night?
The reassuring thing about the precautionary principle is that
if our blood
pressure goes down, and if climate change scientists determine
there is no
risk of global warming, we can always ditch the drugs, eat more
meat, and
burn more fossil fuels. By contrast, once we have had a heart
attack or
another drought, ice storm, hurricane, or heat wave, once Charlottetown
or
Truro are flooded, our options are much more limited. Another
drought year
will put many Nova Scotia farmers out of business. How long
will we wait to
take preventive action? What the National Post, or the Alberta
Premier, or
the Chamber of Commerce President never tell you is that "uncertainty"
could mean worse than predicted outcomes as easily as better
ones. Let's
play it safe and do our part to make the world a safer place
for our
children rather than a more
dangerous and uncertain one.
Ratifying the internationally agreed Kyoto Protocol, says the
Royal Society
of Canada, is "a small but essential first step towards stabilizing
atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases" that will create
a base
"for the more substantial reductions that will be necessary
by the middle
of the century." That's the advice of our country's most prestigious
scientific academy. It is time to stop delaying, and follow
the doctor's
wise advice. And when the Post, and Mr. Klein, and the Chamber
come
calling, let us at least ask to see both sides of the cost equation.
For the full GPI Greenhouse Gas Accounts for Nova Scotia, please
visit the
GPI Atlantic web site at www.gpiatlantic.org
* Chris Alders, 24 Fairview Street, Kentville, Nova Scotia,
B4N 1G2 (902)
678-0326 chrisalders@hotmail.com
|