Tuesday, June 09, 2015

On end dates

There's no doubt that Stephen Harper characteristically did everything in his power to put off any meaningful international action on climate change. But it's worth noting that his procrastination only resulted in a more definitive statement from the G7 as to where the global economy is ultimately headed:
Mindful of this goal and considering the latest IPCC results, we emphasize that deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required with a decarbonisation of the global economy over the course of this century.
Of course, that common destination might be reached in one of two ways. On that front, we can count on Harper to insist that we spend this century extracting and burning everything we can get our hands on, rather than spending a single moment preparing for generations to come.

And of course we have to think Harper's real intention is simply to set another future goal that won't be met (and for which he can't be held solely accountable). 

But Harper has set up a ready counter any time he tries to pretend that we have no choice but to equate fossil fuel resources with the national interest.

Now, Harper himself has agreed that decarbonisation is required within the lifespan of both the people and the industry already operating in Canada. And if the only question about our long-term energy policy is when we start planning our transition toward the inevitable end of fossil fuels, there's precious little excuse for continued delay.

4 comments:

  1. Anonymous5:55 PM

    "...there's precious little excuse for continued delay. " But delay they will. This G7 agreement simply kicks the ball 85 years down the field and gives the fossil fuel industry (and their political puppets) a convenient excuse to continue with business as usual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Again, I don't doubt that's the Cons' intention. But I do think it matters that they've effectively conceded the substance of the matter so the only argument left is as to timing.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:12 PM

    "But I do think it matters that they've effectively conceded the substance of the matter...."

    I don't think you understand the kind of people you are dealing with. Nothing has been conceded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In their minds, no. In the words they've agreed to, yes. And it's our responsibility to make sure public expectations are based on the latter rather than the former.

      Delete