Climate Change Tipping Point?
By Stephen Leahy
20 December, 2006
The Inter Press Service
This was the year that most people
in the U.S. and Canada began to take climate change seriously and express
hope that their governments would take action to reduce emissions --
but it is unclear if they will take action themselves.
Last month, thousands of
people stood outside electronics stores for three, four and more days
and nights to be the first to spend 600 dollars for the latest electronic
video game console, but how many would spend two hours protesting the
inaction of their governments on climate change?
"There is increasing
public support for action but I'm not sure there's a willingness to
do anything," said Eileen Claussen of the Pew Centre on Global
Climate Change, a U.S. environmental think-tank working with business
leaders and policymakers.
Public opinion polls conducted
last fall show that Canadian and U.S. citizens are clearly worried about
the impact of climate change on their children and grandchildren. And
they know their governments aren't doing much to reduce emissions, the
The recent film "An
Inconvenient Truth" by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, in which
he systematically lays out the enormous body of evidence that the world
is becoming dangerously warm due to human-generated greenhouse gas emissions,
is the third-highest-grossing documentary in the United States ever
and has been screened around the world.
But experts caution that
simply raising public awareness of the problem is not nearly enough.
"The most important
action needed is to establish a national policy to reduce emissions,"
Claussen told IPS. "Cities, states, industry and business all agree
we need a national policy."
For example, the U.S. retail
giant Wal-mart is both insisting that its 30,000 plus suppliers reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions, and also informing people who shop in
their stores about the issue, she said.
"But there won't be
a U.S. national emission reduction policy for at least two years and
more likely four," she added -- in other words, long after the
George W. Bush administration has left office.
Under the Kyoto Protocol,
which came into effect in February 2005, 34 industrialised nations are
obligated to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below
1990 levels by 2008-12.
Although Washington signed
the treaty in 1998, the Bush administration has refused to send it to
the U.S. Congress for ratification, arguing that the cuts would be too
costly to the economy and unfairly exempt large developing economies
like China. Since 1990, U.S. emissions have risen about 16 percent,
and now account for about a quarter of all global carbon dioxide emissions.
Canada, which did ratify
the treaty, has also seen its emissions rise nearly 30 percent since
1990, mainly due to a booming oil and gas sector. The country needs
a good national reduction plan but there is no political will to do
so within Stephen Harper's Conservative government, says Morag Carter,
director of the David Suzuki Foundation's climate change programme,
a Canadian environmental group.
"Hopefully the public
will convince the politicians to take action," Carter said in an
Despite their concern, it
is an open question whether U.S. citizens and Canadians are willing
to drag themselves away from their televisions and video games to make
sure their leaders do something.
Meanwhile there are still
plenty of oil- and coal-company-funded climate change or global warming
deniers and media pundits claiming the issue is "too complicated"
to know for sure what to do.
"I'm hoping the U.S.
media is finally beginning to understand that the scientific debate
is over," said Claussen.
But the public still does
not understand that their personal actions and decisions about what
car or washing machine they buy can reduce or increase emissions of
greenhouse gases, she said.
"People also discount
the effectiveness of personal action because they see so few other people
doing the same," she noted.
It would help if the average
person was clear about 10 things they need to do in their daily lives
to reduce emissions, she said.
The David Suzuki Foundation
launched such a programme four years ago called the Nature Challenge.
It asks people to sign up and commit to taking action on the 10 most
effective ways to reduce emissions and protect nature. These include
reducing home energy by 10 percent; walking, biking or taking public
transit to regular destinations; eating meat-free meals once a week;
and choosing energy-efficient homes and appliances. More than 238,000
people have joined the programme, which also provides monthly tips on
making sustainable choices.
"Canadians are willing
to make modifications in their lifestyles -- hundreds join the programme
every week," Carter said.
However, to achieve the deep
cuts that many scientists say are needed -- 80 percent by 2050 -- major
industries that are responsible for more than half of Canada's emissions
have to play a significant role. Emissions caps are the best and fairest
way to do that, Carter says. And it need not be costly. Canada's oil
and gas sector, which is making billions of dollars in profits, could
become carbon-neutral at a cost of only pennies per barrel of oil, studies
However, Canada's government
has made it clear that it prefers voluntary measures.
That is a long, long way
from Britain's proposed legally binding, three percent annual national
emissions reduction plan. Nearly 400 members of parliament support the
new climate change legislation that would force the government to ensure
national emissions are cut by three percent every year.
It could become law next
year, says Catherine Pearce, Friends of the Earth (FOE) International's
Britain is one of the world's
leaders in tackling climate change, and yet 70 percent of Britons don't
think their government is doing enough.
"People in the UK and
Europe are willing to make changes and know their behaviour is destructive,"
Pearce told IPS from London. "Governments are forced to do more
because of the growing knowledge of the public."
Business also needs a framework
and targets that won't allow them to get away with increasing emissions.
The three percent target, which FOE calls "The Big Ask", will
also help Britain develop new technologies before other countries, which
can then be marketed to the rest of the world, Pearce said.
One of the reasons Britain
is so far ahead of North America has been Prime Minister Tony Blair's
leadership, she acknowledges. And it looks like the next British election
will be fought over which party has the toughest climate change action
Germany will provide stiff
competition in the emissions cuts race with a recent proposal to reduce
emissions by 40 percent by 2020 if the European Union (EU) takes on
a target of 30 percent.
"These are extremely
ambitious targets but there is a great deal of activity in the EU to
move away from importing oil and gas to domestic renewable energy programmes,"
The EU believes it should
show leadership and set the standard for rapidly industrialising countries
like India and China to follow, said Pearce.
Meanwhile, many politicians
in the United States and Canada complain that they shouldn't have to
do anything unless India and China make commitments of their own.
"The world community
is exasperated with Canada's and the U.S.'s irresponsible attitude,"
Copyright © 2006 IPS-Inter
Share Your Insights