Publié par le sénateur Grant Mitchell le 15 mars 2010
Cet article est disponible dans la langue officielle dans laquelle il a été redigé.
This article is available in the language in which it was written.
The lack of clear public demand for concerted government action on climate change is a major barrier to meeting our complex environmental and energy challenges. This raises questions about why the majority of Canadians have not demanded more of their government and about what it will take to motivate Canadians’ involvement and support.
In part, Canadians’ reticence to push their government stems from the concern they have with the uncertainty surrounding this issue. How will climate change affect Canada? How will managing carbon emissions impact our jobs and our economy? What sort of future are we leaving for our children and grandchildren?
These unknowns make the climate change issue particularly vulnerable to skepticism. The coalition of climate change skeptics is at least partially funded and motivated by interest groups that profit from the status quo, similar to the groups that promoted misinformation on the science linking smoking and cancer. Skeptics have manipulated disparate information to cast doubt on an entire scientific consensus that is based on years of work by an extensive number of scientists in a peer reviewed system whose conclusions are respected by the vast majority of governments. But, of course, doubt is effective because it plays to the human tendency to discount costs and problems in the future for the sake of the present.
Climate change action can also be inhibited because individuals are not certain that their efforts matter. Canadians want measurable ways to participate that contribute to a larger framework of national action. But, there has not been leadership from the government on meeting the climate change challenge so individual action can seem futile.
At the macro level, climate change is a difficult issue because it represents a classic collective action problem. We are dealing with a common pool resource, the atmosphere, and to prevent climate change we need action from all parties as it does not matter where a tonne of carbon originates. We also do not have perfect information about the actions of others, and because the benefits from preventing climate change accrue to everyone, there is a strong incentive to free ride and let others do the work. Add to this the tendency for people to discount future problems, and the enormity of dealing with the climate change problem becomes clearer.
In the absence of sufficient demand from Canadians to provide the political space for climate change action there is an urgent need for leadership.
More than the need to find new technologies for reducing our GHG’s, the solution lies in having a government that accepts the science of climate change, understands its obligations to convince Canadians of the urgent need for action and sets out program to do that. This could be as simple as the government mounting a concerted public information campaign, one that explains the science of climate change and builds the case for action. It should include having our Prime Minister, ministers and Members of Parliament as principal spokespeople in this campaign to rally Canadians around the climate change cause.
The core argument the government should highlight in this campaign is the profound economic opportunities available in tackling climate change and the huge costs of inaction. Much of our economic health is dependent on access to the US market for our exports. But, in the future our products may be judged at higher environmental standards. If we fail to take action on managing our GHG emissions, we may find decreased market access for Canadian goods to international markets. Additionally, our international competitors are racing to invest in green technologies and energy. This is the next major global market and Canada cannot afford to sit on the sidelines.
As well, energy costs will continue to rise over the coming decades and our economic model has been developed on the basis of affordable and readily available energy. The economic costs of consistently higher oil prices, at $150 a barrel for instance, could make the costs of climate change action look trivial. Within this context, renewable energy resources will likely be increasingly affordable compared with conventional energy sources. Instead of increasing energy costs, as the conventional argument goes, using renewable energy could well reduce costs.
Responsible leadership would understand that climate change is of historic magnitude; great leadership does not ignore challenges like this but instead addresses them head on. Being from Alberta, the heartland of the energy industry, the Prime Minister could be uniquely believable if he undertook to convince Canadians about the need for climate change action. He should get after it right away.