Canada might be suspended from the Commonwealth

[Ekiqa]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ate-change

Scientists target Canada over climate change


Prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies.

The coalition's demand came before this weekend's Commonwealth heads of government summit in Trinidad and Tobago, at which global warming will top the agenda, and next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Despite criticism of Canada's environmental policies, the prime minister, Stephen Harper, is to attend the Copenhagen summit. His spokesman said today: "We will be attending the Copenhagen meeting … a critical mass of world leaders will be attending."

Canada's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the world's highest and it will not meet the cut required under the Kyoto protocol: by 2007 its emissions were 34% above its reduction target. It is exploiting its vast tar sands reserves to produce oil, a process said to cause at least three times the emissions of conventional oil extraction.

The coalition claims Canada is contributing to droughts, floods and sea level rises in Commonwealth countries such as Bangladesh, the Maldives and Mozambique. Clare Short, the former international development secretary, said: "Countries that fail to help [tackle global warming] should be suspended from membership, as are those that breach human rights."

The World Development Movement, the Polaris Institute in Canada and Greenpeace are among the organisations supporting the plan. Saleemul Huq, a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said: "If the Commonwealth is serious about holding its members to account, then threatening the lives of millions of people in developing countries should lead to the suspension of Canada's membership immediately."

Canada's environment department refused to comment on the call for it to be suspended.

The Commonwealth comprises 53 states representing 2 billion people. In the past it has suspended Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Nigeria and South Africa for electoral or human rights reasons. Speaking earlier this week, its secretary general, Kamalesh Sharma, said: "I would like to think that our definition of serious violations could embrace much more than it does now."

Hopefully this will shake up the Canadian public, and government. Several Commonwealth nations are directly at risk, such as the Maldives, which will disappear due to rising ocean levels.

As well, the permamnent arctic year over year sea ice is now only 19%, with the rest being 'rotten', less than 2m thick, and easily cracks.

[Korvan]

I'm not trying to defended our per capita emissions which are definitely too high, but I do think it is a bit unfair to single out Canada for criticism when Australia has a higher per capita emmision rate. Not to mention if you look at total emissions which is what really is affecting the climate, the UK matches Canada and India has almost three times our rate. And even the entire Commonwealth's combined emissions (including India) is less that that of the US or China (about 13% vs ~20%).

Our energy habits and our government's attitude towards climate change are definitely worthy of criticism, but other offenders need to criticized as well.

[TheKwas]

Why would we look at absolute emissions? The point is that we're not doing our fair share and are piggybacking on the efforts of other countries at the same time as damaging the crediability of international agreements. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, we're the cheater and we should be punished.

Australia was subject to large amounts of cricitism as well, but since then they have turned around and have implemented real policies that will reduce their emissions under Rudd. Canada, on the other hand, has no real intention of doing anything about our emissions.

The fact that Canada has the same emissions as the UK, despite having a significantly smaller population, is actually a massive disgrace.

[Ekiqa]

I'm not trying to defended our per capita emissions which are definitely too high, but I do think it is a bit unfair to single out Canada for criticism when Australia has a higher per capita emmision rate. Not to mention if you look at total emissions which is what really is affecting the climate, the UK matches Canada and India has almost three times our rate. And even the entire Commonwealth's combined emissions (including India) is less that that of the US or China (about 13% vs ~20%).

Our energy habits and our government's attitude towards climate change are definitely worthy of criticism, but other offenders need to criticized as well.

Its more to do with the Harper Government and its stance on climate change, and how he's threatening the lives of millions of Commonwealth citizens with his policies.

He scorns any attempt at serious emmisions cuts, stated he wouldn't go to the conference in Denmark, until he was shamed by Obama the next day.

Australia at least is making noises towards cutting emissions, as is the UK.

[SCRawl]

The fact that Canada has the same emissions as the UK, despite having a significantly smaller population, is actually a massive disgrace.

I don't disagree with your conclusion that Canada's recent record on emissions is pretty bad, but your last line is misleading. Canada does have a smaller population, yes, but our climates are not the same. Does a community in, say, Aberdeen have the same heating requirements as one in Iqaluit, which is just a few degrees south of the Arctic Circle? I will grant you that most of Canada's population is bunched up near its southern borders, but there are still plenty of communities in the north.

It seems to me that in order to compare apples to apples, emissions need to be normalized not just to populations, but to climates and other variables. You can't fault someone for having higher than average emissions when the alternative is freezing to death.

[Thanas]

Yes, you can if other nations with harsh climates too (the Scandinavians for one) manage to have way lower emissions.

[SCRawl]

I'm not trying to say that Canada's record on climate change is good. It's not. At all. The point resting just below my post was that all things being equal, yes, per-capita emissions are a fine metric. The problem is that all things are not equal, which requires that those inequalities be normalized.

With respect to your point, Thanas, yes, Scandinavia has been incredibly proactive in this regard, and Canada, well, hasn't. Just to pick on one example, the obvious one, Denmark has done great things with wind power in the last couple of decades. Denmark does have one natural advantage over Canada in this respect, though: lots of, you know, wind. Transportation is also a major problem here, as Canada is over 200 times the size of Denmark proper while having only six times its population. (Again, people don't drive much to the far north, but the fact is that with a country this size there are going to be additional costs to move stuff around.) This does not mean that we in Canada need to throw up our hands and say that things are hopeless, so we might as well, oh, I don't know, chop down millions of trees in Alberta, boil the tar under it until it turns into dirty crude and sell it to the U.S.

[frogcurry]

Yes, you can if other nations with harsh climates too (the Scandinavians for one) manage to have way lower emissions.

I was going to counter this with a whole bunch of reasons why this is a bad comparison but google chrome decided to close the tab and I lost it all. So, to shortly summarise 4 paragraghs:

- Land distance from the coast - virtually all Finns are <200 km from Helsinki port facilities, 3mill Canadians living in Alberta are 1000km+ from their nearest port. Are ship emissions for cargo runs to Helsinki counted as part of the Finnish CO2 emissions? I suspect not, but the train/ truck emissions for transporting to Alberta from Vancouver will.
- Less hydroelectric power. Norway virtually lives off it, the others are also blessed.
- Much more rural populace and much distributed. Scandinavia (particularly Sweden in the first half of the 20th cent) experienced substantial rural to urban migration. In Swedens case it was heavily government encouraged. Canadas population density is 1/10 Scandinavia's.
- More energy intensive primary industries in Canada, i.e. mining in particular. The norwegian oil industry aside, theres not much in Scandinavia of the same. And the main oil industry output apart from power gen is making the platform steel which isn't done in Scandinavia anyway. Agricultural exports will also load against Canada (energy used growing export wheat, Scandinavia isn't a net food exporter).
- Greater travel distances = more use of cars and planes. Trains are of limited use as they are too expensive to run everywhere, and so anyone off the main population belt in Canada is screwed.

The best comparison for Canada - apples for apples - is the USA. Similar climate (as much as it matters), similar energy intensive industries, same large land mass, similar level of economic development and wealth. Russia would the other, but its probably too hard to use due to Russias unique problems and history.

[Drooling Iguana]

I'm not trying to defended our per capita emissions which are definitely too high, but I do think it is a bit unfair to single out Canada for criticism when Australia has a higher per capita emmision rate. Not to mention if you look at total emissions which is what really is affecting the climate, the UK matches Canada and India has almost three times our rate. And even the entire Commonwealth's combined emissions (including India) is less that that of the US or China (about 13% vs ~20%).

Our energy habits and our government's attitude towards climate change are definitely worthy of criticism, but other offenders need to criticized as well.

I think they may be singling out Canada because such an action is more likely to do some good here. Right now, Canada has a government that's significantly to the right of its general population, and which has consistently failed to obtain a majority in Parliament despite repeated attempts. There's a fairly strong chance that Harper can be booted out of office within the next few years to be replaced with a more environmentally friendly administration. I'm not sure if the same applies to Australia.

[Enigma]

I'm not trying to defended our per capita emissions which are definitely too high, but I do think it is a bit unfair to single out Canada for criticism when Australia has a higher per capita emmision rate. Not to mention if you look at total emissions which is what really is affecting the climate, the UK matches Canada and India has almost three times our rate. And even the entire Commonwealth's combined emissions (including India) is less that that of the US or China (about 13% vs ~20%).

Our energy habits and our government's attitude towards climate change are definitely worthy of criticism, but other offenders need to criticized as well.

I think they may be singling out Canada because such an action is more likely to do some good here. Right now, Canada has a government that's significantly to the right of its general population, and which has consistently failed to obtain a majority in Parliament despite repeated attempts. There's a fairly strong chance that Harper can be booted out of office within the next few years to be replaced with a more environmentally friendly administration. I'm not sure if the same applies to Australia.

It wouldn't matter who is in power, the federal government would still drag it's feet, kicking and screaming in making any changes to lower emissions. The Tories are just more upfront about it.

Oh, there will be changes but it will take quite a while.

[Rogue 9]

This is a farce! They discuss ejecting Canada from the Commonwealth and simultaneously admit fucking Rwanda? That's just absurd.

[Serafine666]

This is a farce! They discuss ejecting Canada from the Commonwealth and simultaneously admit fucking Rwanda? That's just absurd.

Oh, it gets even better! They're discussing slapping Canada down for emissions while Uganda is talking about life imprisonment or execution of gays. Dukie's thread on the shocking news. I'd think that emissions would be slightly less serious.

[Samuel]

Rwanda is not Uganda. For starters, Rwanda is the country that experienced the ethnic genocide in 1994 that killed .5-1 million people. Uganda is the country that the invasion forces were launched from and stopped the genocide.

[Serafine666]

Rwanda is not Uganda. For starters, Rwanda is the country that experienced the ethnic genocide in 1994 that killed .5-1 million people. Uganda is the country that the invasion forces were launched from and stopped the genocide.

I know the difference. I'm just pointing out another Commonwealth country that's doing something pretty bad that actually dwarfs the theoretical crime of high emissions.

[Samuel]

I didn't realize they were already a member. Where the hell are your standards England and India?

[Serafine666]

I didn't realize they were already a member. Where the hell are your standards England and India?

Not to mention Canada, Australia, and Singapore! Those places are full of cool people. How'd Uganda get into the clubhouse? Yeah, bad nutty people from the American right wing are cheering Uganda on but the foreigners didn't invent the idea and hand it off to the Ugandan Parliament.

[Darth Wong]

Why would we look at absolute emissions? The point is that we're not doing our fair share and are piggybacking on the efforts of other countries at the same time as damaging the crediability of international agreements. In the Prisoner's Dilemma, we're the cheater and we should be punished.

What is a "fair share"? Considering the fact that global overpopulation is the single biggest environmental problem if you must pick one, then it makes absolutely no sense to give a free pass to massively overpopulated countries by always measuring environmental emissions on a per capita basis.

[Serafine666]

What is a "fair share"? Considering the fact that global overpopulation is the single biggest environmental problem if you must pick one, then it makes absolutely no sense to give a free pass to massively overpopulated countries by always measuring environmental emissions on a per capita basis.

Out of curiosity, at one point does the population cross into the "overpopulation" threshold? What determines whether there are too many people?

[Darth Wong]

What is a "fair share"? Considering the fact that global overpopulation is the single biggest environmental problem if you must pick one, then it makes absolutely no sense to give a free pass to massively overpopulated countries by always measuring environmental emissions on a per capita basis.

Out of curiosity, at one point does the population cross into the "overpopulation" threshold? What determines whether there are too many people?

If they are incapable of domestically growing enough food to feed their own population without imports or food aid, that's a pretty good indication. If the only way to feed their population is to cut down most of their forest cover, that's also a good indication.

[Serafine666]

If they are incapable of domestically growing enough food to feed their own population without imports or food aid, that's a pretty good indication. If the only way to feed their population is to cut down most of their forest cover, that's also a good indication.

True enough, I suppose, although does this mean that a country suddenly stops being "overpopulated" if they find a way to dramatically increase crop yields (as happened in the "Green Revolution" started by Norman Borlaug)?

[Darth Wong]

If they are incapable of domestically growing enough food to feed their own population without imports or food aid, that's a pretty good indication. If the only way to feed their population is to cut down most of their forest cover, that's also a good indication.

True enough, I suppose, although does this mean that a country suddenly stops being "overpopulated" if they find a way to dramatically increase crop yields (as happened in the "Green Revolution" started by Norman Borlaug)?

Yes. That's why there was a global population explosion following that development, although the wide use of fertilizers has turned out to have a lot of serious environmental consequences, because that shit runs off into waterways.

[Serafine666]

Yes. That's why there was a global population explosion following that development, although the wide use of fertilizers has turned out to have a lot of serious environmental consequences, because that shit runs off into waterways.

Yeah and some of those fertilizers do damage outside of simple pollution. It's sort of a built-in risk that when you start pushing the ground to produce more plants, you're gonna fuck something up.

[Darth Wong]

Yes. That's why there was a global population explosion following that development, although the wide use of fertilizers has turned out to have a lot of serious environmental consequences, because that shit runs off into waterways.

Yeah and some of those fertilizers do damage outside of simple pollution. It's sort of a built-in risk that when you start pushing the ground to produce more plants, you're gonna fuck something up.

Indeed. But the general principle remains: the land can support a certain number of people living on it without serious environmental damage, and if you exceed that number, you can only pretend to make the problem go away by exporting your environmental problems and purchasing much of your food from other countries (that's what the overpopulated UK does, so they can quite frankly go fuck themselves if they're going to lecture Canada about environmentalism).

[Duckie]

I didn't realize they were already a member. Where the hell are your standards England and India?

Not to mention Canada, Australia, and Singapore! Those places are full of cool people. How'd Uganda get into the clubhouse? Yeah, bad nutty people from the American right wing are cheering Uganda on but the foreigners didn't invent the idea and hand it off to the Ugandan Parliament.

Actually they did- they wrote the book and handed it right to Parliament to pass. See the thread. The law was written by a US Evangelical Missionary, Scott Lively (curriculum vitae- former director of the American Family Association: a conservative evangelical group who perform media pressure in the US such as boycotting companies who show gay couples in advertisements, founder of Watchmen on the Walls- an evangelical anti-gay ministry in Latvia which kidnaps and attempts to "reorient" gays, author of "The Pink Swastika", a book that alleges the Nazis were made by a conspiracy of gays).

[Notice how kidnapping and attempting to convert gays back to straight with electroshock, sponsoring actual pogroms in latvia against gay communities, and now funding the execution of Ugandans- he's careful to do all of this out of the US, where he 'merely' founded a group that opposes gay rights and announces boycotts against companies which are pro-gay rights.]

But we're in the wrong thread for this.

[Serafine666]

Indeed. But the general principle remains: the land can support a certain number of people living on it without serious environmental damage, and if you exceed that number, you can only pretend to make the problem go away by exporting your environmental problems and purchasing much of your food from other countries (that's what the overpopulated UK does, so they can quite frankly go fuck themselves if they're going to lecture Canada about environmentalism).

True enough. But then you run across the big question: if the problem is too many people, how do you fix it? We generally regard forced sterilizations, massive liquidations of populations, deliberate starvations, etc as morally repugnant but how do you reduce the number of people without horrifying methods?