Home Page Election 2019 News Opinion Foreign Policy Politics Policy Legislation Lobbying Hill Life & People Hill Climbers Heard On The Hill Calendar Archives Classifieds
Hill Times Events Inside Ottawa Directory Hill Times Store Hill Times Careers The Wire Report The Lobby Monitor Parliament Now
Subscribe Free Trial Reuse & Permissions Advertising
Log In
Global

Climate change is not about saving the planet, it’s about saving human beings from an ugly, difficult future

By David Crane      

By 2050, the world is projected to have some nine billion mouths to feed in a potentially much warmer world, with prolonged heat waves, drought, grave water shortages, rising sea levels threatening many of the world’s major cities, the risk of new diseases and much reduced biodiversity and damaged ecosystems.

By acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and moving to a low-carbon world, we are trying to lower the great risks our children, grandchildren and generations beyond could face. This is what the climate change challenge is all about. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Share a story
The story link will be added automatically.

TORONTO—Margaret Wente writes an intelligent and often provocative column in The Globe and Mail and I enjoy reading it, even when I don’t agree, as sometimes happens, with her premises or conclusions. But I got irked the other day, though I don’t mean to single out Wente because many others depict climate action as saving the planet.

After complaining about coming increases in oil and natural gas prices from carbon pricing and high electricity prices as a result of Ontario’s well-meaning, but grossly mismanaged greening of the electricity system, “don’t feel blue,” Wente wrote. “You are helping to save the planet.”

Wrong. Acting on climate change is not about saving the planet. It is to save us, human beings, from an ugly and difficult future. By 2050, the world is projected to have some nine billion mouths to feed in a potentially much warmer world, with prolonged heat waves, drought, grave water shortages, rising sea levels threatening many of the world’s major cities, the risk of new diseases and much reduced biodiversity and damaged ecosystems.

By acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and moving to a low-carbon world, we are trying to lower the great risks our children, grandchildren and generations beyond could face. This is what the climate change challenge is all about. Do we leave the next generation a truly disastrous world, or do we try to leave as our legacy a world that won’t be easy, but easier than it would be if we failed to act now?

By depicting action on the climate as saving the planet, we are trivializing the real threats we face as humans. The planet has been around for about 4.6 billion years and could be around for another five billion, when a much enlarged and extremely hot sun finally engulfs our planet and destroys it. There is nothing we can do to save the planet.

Our species, Homo sapiens, has been around for somewhere between 200,000 and 400,000 years. But we won’t be around that much longer, as measured in eons unless, as Stephen Hawking warns, we can move to another planet—presumably one in another universe. There is a good chance there will be no animal or plant life of any form on our planet in less than a billion years. By then, the heat from the sun would also have evaporated all of the water in all of our oceans. For several billion more years, our planet would be an empty rock circulating around the sun. Our concern is about human existence so long as the planet is habitable.

If we accept the science of climate change as essentially correct despite some uncertainties, as most informed people do—Donald Trump doesn’t, but this only diminishes him—then we have to act.

But there is a cost—as well as an opportunity—in moving to a more sustainable way of life. There is no free lunch. William Nordhaus, the prominent Yale University economist, cites the social cost of carbon—the economic cost caused by an additional tonne of carbon dioxide emission or equivalent—as currently about US$31 a tonne. When greenhouse gas emitters do not have to pay a carbon price, they are in effect being subsidized.

The International Monetary Fund estimates this “subsidy” at about $34-billion a year for Canada, though it also includes other economic costs such as traffic accidents and the value of tax incentives. Through carbon pricing we are loading the social cost onto the emitters and users, where it belongs.

As TD Economics points out, “carbon pricing is the most efficient way of reducing emissions, and offers potential opportunities for the Canadian economy.” Carbon pricing means higher gasoline prices, but it also means government revenues that can be used to support innovation and deliver cleaner and more efficient forms of energy. Paradoxically, the Conservatives oppose what is a market-based approach to climate change, and propose instead a socialistic array of regulations, deluding themselves that regulations don’t affect prices.

In its 2017 climate outlook, the global bank HSBC recognizes that a Trump administration will be loaded with appointees strongly committed to the coal and oil industries and hostile to climate action—this is part of the America First program. However, the bank’s economists expect “market forces, such as the break-even economies of different energy sources and speed of low-carbon technology innovation, to be a more significant driver.” There is also a risk for the U.S. if it goes slow—other countries such as China, members of the European Union, Japan, and even Canada will gain an edge in innovation and new technologies. If Americans decide to be stupid, the rest of the world can still move on.

Perhaps, more importantly, more people are starting to see the connection between climate change and other global challenges.

“We expect analysis of the natural and human consequences of climate change to become more interconnected through the course of 2017,” the HSBC analysis says. “We believe the social consequences of climate change, e.g. food and water system change and health issues, play out at the global level through trade flows and population disruption.”

We should be less worried than Wente is that gasoline may go up 4.3 cents a litre from carbon pricing, and more worried about the future world we will be creating if we fail to act. More expensive gasoline is a small price to pay—and with higher prices we will have more and better alternatives. This is not about saving the planet—it is about the conditions of life for ourselves, the human species, and the kind of legacy we will leave for our children and grandchildren. That’s the big challenge.

David Crane can be reached at crane@interlog.com.

                  The Hill Times 

Politics This Morning

Get the latest news from The Hill Times

Politics This Morning


Your email has been added. An email has been sent to your address, please click the link inside of it to confirm your subscription.

McKenna wins re-election in Ottawa Centre, trumpets voters’ support for climate fight

News|By Neil Moss
'I’m so relieved,' Catherine McKenna said, about continuing with the Liberal climate change plan.

Election 2019 was a ‘campaign of fear,’ say pollsters

'There may well be a message to this to the main parties, that slagging each other will only take you so far,' says Greg Lyle.

Election 2019 campaign one of the most ‘uninspiring, disheartening, and dirtiest’ in 40 years, says Savoie

News|By Abbas Rana
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May says she has never seen an election where mudslinging overwhelmingly dominated the campaign, leaving little or no time for policy discussion.

Strategic voting to determine if Liberals will form government, say political players

News|By Abbas Rana
As many as nine per cent of progressive voters could vote strategically in this close election potentially affecting the outcome in more than 100 ridings, says Innovative Research president Greg Lyle.

Turkish offensive should pressure feds to act on repatriation of Canadian citizens in Kurdish-controlled ISIS detention camps, says expert

News|By Neil Moss
The issue of repatriation will be less politically fraught after the election, says expert.

Business tops experience among 2019 candidates, one-third have run for office before

Here’s an analysis of the record 1,700-plus candidates running for the six major parties this election.

Pod save us all: the growing role of political podcasts in election 2019

News|By Mike Lapointe
The Hill Times spoke with some podcast hosts taking a deeper dive into the political nitty-gritty, within a medium that only continues to grow in popularity.

No-shows from Conservative candidate could hurt party’s chances in tight Kanata-Carleton race, say politicos

News|By Palak Mangat
The Conservative's candidate, Justin McCaffrey, has skipped two events, including a debate on the environment, intended to feature all candidates.

For whom will the bell toll in Peterborough-Kawartha?

In a riding where voters are deeply engaged in the political process, candidates avoid the low-hanging fruit and stay out of the mud as they grapple with who to send to the House of Commons.
Your group subscription includes premium access to Politics This Morning briefing.