Review of "Two decades of failed climate change policy" by Mark Jaccard

First, I want to apologize because while I heard the second half of the lecture, I couldn't take notes as my battery died half way through (actually, exactly half way through). So, the notes you're going to read are pretty much only from the first half. Since Mark is an academic (and so am I), I think I would be making him a disservice if I wrote what I recall. The rest of my notes are pretty verbatim (I type really really fast) so I think I captured what he said.

Second, my overall assessment. I think Mark's lecture was excellent. I know that a lot of people are going to complain about certain points that he made, or about his particular viewpoints on a number of issues (for example, on why he opposes Gateway). And quite honestly, I do disagree with some of his points as well (particularly in regards to carbon offsets). But the truth is, he really made it easy for a general audience to understand the rather conceptually complex theory behind environmental policy instruments. I think that there is a place for academics like Mark who are able to connect to general audiences and explain these concepts to them in an easy and accessible way. I know three other experts in the field of climate change in Canada who have the same ability, although they are based at UBC (not SFU).

He first started by explaining four broad categories of environmental policy tools to reduce GHG emissions from fossil fuels, based on four methods of reduction:

• Energy efficiency
• Switch to renewable energy sources or nuclear energy
• Pollution control (carbon sequestration)
• Catch-all

In Mark's words, politicians don't do the above. Consumers, households and industry do it. So, governments only have policy tools to lead us to change actions. The four categories of policies he suggested are:

• Information programs
• Subsidies
• Regulation
• Financial charges

Mark made a point that I found interesting - he is NOT an advocate of a carbon tax, as often portrayed in the media, but he said he was an advocate of compulsory policy because research has shown him that's the way to do it. That's not surprising to hear (that his research is often misinterpreted and portrayed in the wrong way on the media - that's happened to a number of other researchers - just ask Robert Putnam and his latest research on social capital, diverse communities and 'hunkering')

Mark also made a point that all previous policies that had been implemented in Canada had failed to meet the target. According to Jaccard, energy efficiency is more costly than we think (what he called the second inconvenient truth), but that doesn't mean that we ought not to do it, we still should do it.

While I have a smattering of other notes, I think that the best I can do is to just give you what were his main points. He suggests that non-compulsory policies (like subsidies, information programs, etc.) are NOT a substitute for compulsory policies.

I was a little surprised (and taken aback) that he apparently doesn't advocate or even like the idea of offsets (as noted below)

With apologies to people who have worked very hard to establish offsets emissions. It can give us a sense that “we don’t need to put in the compulsory policy”. An offset is a subsidy from an individual to another individual. Still has the same problems with subsidy – we have to try to make sure that the money will indeed make people behave differently – how can you be sure of that?

I do like the idea of offsets because (a) at least they're at least a first step in reducing emissions and (b) there are systems that can be third-party audited. But then again, each one of us is entitled to our own opinion.

Overall, I liked his delivery style, and it was an interesting lecture. I think that what VTACC is doing is rather important (educating people on climate change issues). I also think that they can't stop with three lectures and they need to keep this going. You'd be surprised. I got to the Canadian Memorial Church to see a room pretty much full with people who wanted to learn more about climate change. I don't think that VTACC should stop, they should continue the lecture series (and bring lots of other perspectives, even within the academic realm).

VTACC will make his PowerPoint slides available freely on their website (he didn't want us to 'read the slides' so he only showed one or two throughout the conference). If you want to learn more about what Dr. Mark Jaccard does, you can look here.

Upcoming climate-change and environmental events in Vancouver

Well, hello sunshine! Today was a beautiful day and thus I had a chance to enjoy the sun for a bit. Worked from home for most of the day, although felt really sleepy at times. Anyhow, for those of you enviro-folks in town, here are some events you can hit.

• Via one of my close friends, here is a link to a lecture that will be given tomorrow by Sheila Watt-Cloutier, sponsored by the Terry Project at UBC, on The Right to be Cold: The Global Significance of Arctic Climate Change. This will be at the(Life Science Institute, West Atrium, Friday Feb 29th, 12noon. If you don't know who Ms. Watt-Cloutier is, she was one of the top nominees for the 2007 Nobel Prize (which ultimately went to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

• Via Keira-Anne's blog, I found out about the Green Living Show (February 29th to March 2nd, 2008). She is going to head there on Friday with Rebecca (aka Miss604) so if you want to check the show AND hang out with two beautiful women, I'd suggest you head there on Friday. I plan to go on Saturday morning as I have a pretty packed social weekend, and most likely I'll go with Phaedra and probably my friend HZ. I wish I could go on Friday but I'm totally booked (so blog updates unlikely until Saturday afternoon).

• Via VTACC (Vancouver's Taxpayers Against Climate Change), I found out about a lecture by Dr. Marc Jaccard on "Lessons for the Future from Canada's Climate Policy Failures", Tuesday March 4th, at 7pm at the Canadian Memorial Church (15th and Burrard). From VTACC website, here's the abstract:
  

Decades of climate policy under different governments have failed to reduce or substantially slow the growth in greenhouse gas emissions in this country. How has this happened? How can we get out of this muddle so that Canada can do its share in the fight against global warming?
Go here for more information

• And, from a colleague of mine, here are the details for a special lecture at SFU Harbour Centre by Professor Michael Grubb: ‘Cutting carbon in Europe to 2020: competitiveness, emissions trading and beyond’, Room 2200 (RBC Dominion Securities Executive Meeting Room), Monday March 3rd, 2008 - 9:00am to 10:30am (yes this is a morning seminar).
  

I am probably going to attend all four. Hope you can make it to at least one of them!

Upcoming event - Climate change talks organized by VTACC (Vancouver)

Voters Taking Action Against Climate Change (VTACC) is a non-partisan group that is organizing a series of talks on climate change that will take place within the next few weeks. I don't know the first couple of speakers, but I do know Dr. Mark Jaccard and he's a brilliant speaker. Many people may disagree with his views, but he is certainly a rigorous scholar who does good social science and that should not be discounted.

From the VTACC website (all talks take place at the Canadian Memorial United Church at 7 pm, on Burrard and 15th Avenue):

Global Warming: More than Hot Air?
Dr. David Chapman, Professor of Geophysics, Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Utah
Tuesday, February 5th, 7 pm.

Global Warming as Spiritual Crisis and Opportunity
Bruce Sanguin, Minister, Canadian Memorial United Church
Tuesday February 19th, 7 pm.

Lessons for the Future from Canada's Climate Policy Failures
Dr. Mark Jaccard, Professor at the School of Resources and Environmental Management at SFU
Tuesday March 4th, 7 pm.

I am a bit surprised about the fact that very little has been talked about the politics of Canadian climate change policy (that is, about the political climate in Canada and how that is impacting implementation of post-Kyoto commitments). Would be worth examining, I think. And let me know if you attend any of the talks. You're even welcome to guest-blog!

For more information about VTACC:

VTACC is a group of Kitsilano neighbours who are deeply concerned about global warming and want to mobilize people to get engaged politically to call for immediate and deep reductions in emissions.[VTACC website]

It's all about the equipment - Winter edition

Since I'm traveling soon, I had to come into my office and ensure that I would not be forgetting some important document (which, luckily, I discovered I was about to forget - MY PASSPORT!... phew, that was close!). As I'm sure you all know, it's snowing in Vancouver right now, so I had to gear up and head out in the middle of snow showers.

When I first moved to Vancouver, I had no idea about the climate and weather here. I had no idea of the natural beauty. I was completely and entirely clueless. So I packed leather jackets and a couple of light sweaters. And then it snowed... in November... and I was FREEZING!!!

I've learned a few things about myself and temperatures/weather throughout my 12 years in this city.

1. I don't tolerate rain well.
2. I don't tolerate snow very well either.
3. I am always cold.
4. I like fashionable winter clothing.
5. There is no sense of fashion in Vancouver - hence, 4 does not apply.
6. Corollary: I should get myself winter and rain gear that will allow me to feel comfortable while traveling in the snow and rain, regardless of the fact that it isn't fashionable.

Knowing how much I hate falling, my brother S kindly bought me a pair of winter boots (with increased traction, almost completely waterproof, great and sturdy support for my ankles). Furthermore, I have learned how many layers I need to wear in order to avoid feeling cold.

So, for example, right now I am wearing winter socks (thermal), thermal underwear (only the pants), a t-shirt, a sweatshirt, a wool sweater on top of the sweatshirt, a rain jacket that has another jacket attached (layered), toque, Thinsulate gloves, scarf, winter boots, umbrella and my iPod. And I think this is as prepared as I've ever been to walk out in the snow. For someone who loves warm climates, I think I'm doing fine for myself here.

Now, admittedly, I went out last night and dressed quite fashionably and quite warmly, but normally, I won't care much about how I look (unless I'm coming to the office or going out with friends). Now, I am headed back to the cold...brrrr...

Are environmental issues a fad?

This year has witnessed the publication of an environment-focus full edition of The Vancouver Sun, the bestowing of a Nobel Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and more recently, the publication of a West Ender with the theme: Green. I am sure I am missing on other environmentally-focused publications and events, but just wanted to provide a small sample.

Despite the fact that I do not live in the West End, I religiously read The West Ender because it has lots of interesting articles. Furthermore, I don't think that there is a Mount-Pleasant-focused newspaper just yet (although admittedly, The Republic of East Vancouver does have some degree of overlap).

Now, the question that lingers in my mind is... are we witnessing a fad or are people really starting to care more for their environment? In a previous post, I indicated that there had been a steady increase in public opinion support for environmental causes and a growing interest in green issues (at some point, environmental issues overtook health as the top concern of Canadians in 2006, if I recall correctly).

So the question is - are we only witnessing a fad or is really environment our top priority? The jury is still out.

Theatre review - 2o of Fear and Desire

You might have read my earlier post on the upcoming event of 2o of Fear and Desire. I have composed this theatre review previous to the last performance, so I didn't want to publish it until the three plays were over.

I went to the second day (November 8th) with a close friend of mine (J), with the excuse of his upcoming birthday. I love Rhizome and embrace all of what it is. Therefore, I always jump at the opportunity to participate in events that are hosted at this cafe.

My experience with the play was good, but there are several reasons for that.

• I went to the play with one of my closest friends. Hard to beat a chance to spend time with good friends.
• I am a specialist in environmental issues. I know the issues at stake and I am well read and well informed.
• I am a former stage actor, and I've done experiential theatre before.
• I am very analytical in my personality. I am used to over-analyzing issues and deconstructing my thoughts.

It is an interesting experiment and I would encourage people to go to the main performance, 2 Degrees of Adaptation. Right now these are explorations through the language of theatre, so they're not exactly the final product.

People are asked to share a story and then de-construct the inner motivations behind the interactions amongst characters. As I am a trained actor, I knew what the director wanted from me and from every participant. However, hardly anyone in the audience knew what was expected of them, and thus it took a long time to build the rapport and create the atmosphere that the director wanted.

All this being said, I really enjoyed it because it provided a very different perspective on how to examine the thorny issue of climate change and how to change our own behavioral patterns. These explorations as the director called them are the foundation for a larger ensemble piece called "2 Degrees of Adaptation". I would sincerely support this project and hopefully they will be able to find the funding that will enable them to bring it to fruition.

Beautiful day in Vancouver

As usual, the Powers That Be are playing games with our hearts and cleared the rain today for A FULL DAY, so the skies were beautifully blue and without almost any clouds, it was bright, shiny, sunny and warm (15 oC). After complaining about the bad weather and how it has affected my mood, I couldn't help but think about recent events and their linkages with climate change.

I (half-jokingly, half-seriously) suggested on Keira-Anne's blog (see her post for Tuesday October 23rd) that Mexico and Vancouver trade a couple of months of rain for sunshine (see my comments on her post). Another commenter said that the weather in California had been so dry that it smelled like smoke everywhere. Well, with the fires in the California region, I can't help but wonder - what can be done to avoid catastrophes like these? How can we decrease our vulnerability to such climatic extreme events?

Post on the comments and discuss [and in the mean-time, my thoughts go to the families that have been evacuated in California].

Carbon taxes in British Columbia - Make your voice heard!

The Kitsilano-based organization Voters Taking Action on Climate Change is encouraging citizens of Vancouver (and British Columbia in general) to provide feedback to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in the form of a suggested carbon tax. For the online submission click on the previous link. Questions can be directed to VTACC (here is their Contact Us page).

Al Gore, the IPCC and the Nobel Prize 2007

After hearing the announcement that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and environmental activist/politician Al Gore were co-recipients of the 2007 Nobel Prize for Peace, I couldn’t help but recall Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase "the medium is the message". While, in the eyes of the world, the bestowing of a Nobel undeniably ramps up the legitimacy factor, McLuhan’s axiom that the medium used to convey a message becomes more important than the content of the message itself deserves a refresher.

Many detractors (primarily but not necessarily all of them right-wingers) have consistently focused on Al Gore as the Harbinger of Doom by portraying his apocalyptic "we're going to hell in a hand basket" message as unnecessarily alarming. Positioning Gore as the Chicken Little of the environmental movement allowed the naysayers to deflect attention from the issue at hand – that global warming is not only coming, it’s here – and instead critique Gore for his approach, ergo, the media of McLuhan’s axiom. I think we might be in for a sea-change (rather apt metaphor, don’t you think?) in the acknowledgment of global warming/climate change as a threat we better start dealing with, for the Nobel just might be enough to shift the focus, much to the dismay of the naysayers and their privately-funded scientists, from media to message, and the new reality is that if the media – meaning Gore and the IPCC – has been officially blessed by the Nobel Foundation, then the message is one we had better start taking seriously.

Although Gore and the IPCC have two different missions, their underlying objective is identical: to raise awareness of the climate change debate by bringing it to the forefront of global discussion. As an intergovernmental institution, the IPCC coordinates the findings and research of hundreds of scientists worldwide in an effort to increase our understanding of the patterns of climatic change, and their Summary for Policy Makers, a document that translates their findings into terminology the rest of us can understand, has been their media of choice. After An Inconvenient Truth rightfully raised Gore’s profile, he further spread the message of his documentary not only by relentlessly making the rounds of the lecture circuit, but by forming a coalition of groups and individuals dedicated to further disseminating his Power Point presentations.

Yet if I had to hazard a guess, I’d say Gore's message has had more reach than the IPCC’s Summary. He’s a face, he’s got a powerful, Oscar winning documentary, and – let’s face it – aside from anomalies like Steven Hawking and Einstein, scientists and their statistics tend to lack for great PR. In recent years, naysayers and resource-extraction pals have consistently clung to the tactic of painting Gore and the IPCC as the proverbial messengers whose news are so inconceivable the messengers are obviously making this stuff up; denial and derision have become the default options. Ergo, as a resolution to unpleasant realities, shooting the messenger not only eliminates threats to the status quo, the media can be positioned as tragically misinformed. Bombs away!

Which sort of brings me back to McLuhan. Could the IPCC, in view of a profile now permanently affixed to a Big Cool Friend courtesy of a shared Nobel, attain the same level of Gore's reach? I think so. But I see their roles as complementary, and perhaps that's one of the reasons why the Nobel Prize Adjudication committee thought they should both share the 2007 Nobel Prize: because in their separate but convergent ways, both Gore and the IPCC are sending the same message: climatic change is here. That munitions maker Alfred Nobel’s legacy might yet provide the ultimate bullet-proof shield that allows Gore, the IPCC and countless others to focus on getting the message out instead of dodging fire is an irony that leaves me undeniably optimistic.

And if the message benefits, as I hope it does, from the renewed focus only a Nobel can bestow, we just might witness an irony I suspect even McLuhan might appreciate because, if ever there was a time when the message deserved to transcend the media, this is it.

Disclaimer.- Thanks to my good friend Debra Mc for editing this entry. The ideas, initial writing and analysis are mine, but her superb editing job made this post so much better!

So long, good weather

So this is what the rest of the year is going to look like, huh? I had to wear a sweater AND a jacket on top of my t shirt today. The weather was horrible. Despite what my friend J says (yesterday he was wearing shorts and t shirt), I can't cope with less than 15 oC or I feel like I am freezing. And if this is the kind of weather that we are going to have in Vancouver for the rest of the year, I am toast. Darn it!

Al Gore, UBC and climate change

I had the amazing opportunity today to go and listen to Mr. Al Gore, former Vice-President of the United States of America, speak about climate change, the future of Earth and the challenges ahead. It was a great talk. Mr. Gore is a very articulate speaker and he can galvanize the hell out of you. By the time his speech was over, I felt recharged and empowered to effect change. Yes, we can succeed in facing the sustainability challenge (at least that's the message Mr. Gore is trying to get across). He was unbelievable, and even though I'm very stressed and overwhelmed with work, I wouldn't have traded this opportunity ever. He talked at the Chan Centre for the Performing Arts at The University of British Columbia. Dr. Martha Piper, the (out-going) President of UBC was there to deliver her last official speech and present Mr. Gore. It was an awesome evening altogether. Now, back to the grind :)

Climate change in Canada and Mexico

This topic seems to occupying a substantial amount of space and time in the mainstream media and environmentally-related academic discussions in Canada. Everything seems to be associated with climatic change and the need for adaptation. I wonder to how smart this is and to what extent all these discussions and money spent on climate change-related research will be well spent.

On a related note, this year's 'Fondos Sectoriales de Investigacion' SEMARNAT-CONACYT (Mexico) seem to be strongly focussed on climate change and vulnerability/adaptation. So much that many proposals seem to have thrown the keywords "climate change" and "vulnerability" and "adaptation" in an effort to get funded. Is this how environmentally-focused research is supposed to be carried out?

It seems to me as though Mexico is following the climate change fad. This is not to say that climate change isn't a priority or that it is not occurring. I just worry that this is just one of many environmental priorities and that it should not be THE main one.