On cumulative effects

Most reporting on the civil service's advice to Jim Prentice is focusing on the seemingly obvious point that the world's best scientific information on climate change remains so no matter how loud the shrieking from denialists. But there's another piece of the multidepartmental message to Prentice which deserves far more attention as Canada sets its climate policy in the years to come:

The memo also advises the government to consider cumulative emissions over the years when it sets an individual target for a given year, since carbon dioxide emissions stay in the atmosphere for decades and will continue to warm the planet, regardless of whether there are reductions in pollution in the future.

That recommendation stands in stark contrast to the Cons' determination to set no targets whatsoever until 2020 (presumably to be put off further if by some chance they're still in power as that date draws near). But given that the effect of CO2 emissions is no less an issue in the time period before those targets come into play, it only makes sense that any increases in the meantime should be taken into account in determining what kind of cuts are needed in the longer term. And for a responsible governing party, that should provide some impetus to put serious work into reducing Canada's emissions in the near term to help us meet our longer-term targets.

Of course, we can't expect the Cons themselves to offer up anything but delay and denial. But for those parties who actually see preventing catastrophic climate change as a priority, the suggestion is well worth taking into account in developing plans on the subject. And hopefully that will help highlight the gap between a government determined to ignore the best advice available to it, and an alternative which actually takes the issue seriously.