In October, I met with a group of Canadians concerned about climate change. They advocated short- and medium-term targets to guide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They expressed hope that this conference would lead to an inclusive, effective regime by 2008 or 2009. They wanted us to implement mechanisms for emissions trading and clean development.
I’d heard these positions advocated before. But not from people like this. For these were leaders of some of Canada’s largest corporations, including those in the resource and energy sectors. They were encouraging government to adopt an aggressive plan to combat climate change. They had come to understand, they told me, that Canada’s economic and environmental futures were entwined. And, more than that, that our nation had a responsibility to join those at the forefront of the fight against global warming.
Everyone in this room understands that our world is changing. And now attitudes are changing, too. There is a consensus growing. And that consensus presents us with an opportunity – a chance to make a difference here. A chance to make Montreal a name that is synonymous with the moment the world came together, and together set off down the long but vital path to progress, real progress, progress we can measure, progress we can one day celebrate.
The time is past to debate the impact of climate change. We no longer need to ask people to imagine its effects, for now we can see them. You may each have examples from your own part of the world. As climate change takes hold, we will be forced to re-evaluate what we can successfully farm and harvest. Patterns of precipitation – of drought – are shifting; weather events are intensifying. Storms and forest fires, and infestation are already testing our capacity to respond and to recover. As time goes on, these events will worsen. There will be an economic toll. There will be a human toll.
Here in Canada, our Far North has become an incubator for the altered world of tomorrow. High in the Arctic, in our interior and along our coasts, the country we know is being transformed. Winters are growing milder, summers hotter and more severe, there is plant life where before there was none; there is water where before there was ice. Our permafrost is thawing – and releasing methane gas into the atmosphere, accelerating climate change itself. Within short decades, the North-West Passage, the famously un-navigable thoroughfare of history, may be passable – a striking and unsettling example of our delicate balance succumbing to untenable strain.
Some speak of the cost of bringing about change. But surely we realize by now that a greater cost will be exacted if we lack the will or the tenacity to change.
We can talk about this in terms of energy security, in terms of economics. We can talk in terms of ecology or our ethical obligation to others and to ourselves. In each case the facts line up the same way. In each case they point to the same conclusion. We must act, and we must act now.
Traditional fossil fuels have become too costly to waste – too expensive to use indiscriminately; with too great and lasting an impact on the planet. In the face of this challenge we cannot separate the collective from the sovereign interest. We need to accept that with our behaviour, with our actions, we affect one another and the planet we share. We are in this together.
Many in the developing world blame developed nations for having gotten us into this. And who can disagree? Certainly not me. But we are in this together.
There can be no hiding from the fact that the developing world, which is so vulnerable, will suffer most if the effects of climate change set off an even worse decline in local living conditions or a global economic slowdown. These nations do not have the luxury of a margin of error. We are in this together.
The developed world cannot walk away from its responsibilities. I need only look at my own country. We are an energy-producing, energy-consuming nation. Our record on combating climate change was far from perfect in the 1990s.
From the Prime Minister's Web Site (http://www.pm.gc.ca/)
Note: http://www.pm.gc.ca/

I would like to see what the actual gross numbers are for emissions. In any case, both countries appear to be increasing emissions and that is something that needs changing fast.
Paul Martin is in no position to chide the U.S. regarding pollution. Listening to Martin "wag his finger" at the U.S. in his little speech this week made me retch, frankly. He loves to talk the talk (as with the softwood lumber fraud) as if he's going to "get right on that" and then absolutely nothing happens. At this point, he might as well just have an eagle tattooed to his forehead. Martin has become an embarrassment. Mr. Dithers, indeed.
As the producer of at least 25% of all the worlds emissions, the US can not proclaim they only produced less of an increase over anyone else. (Oxymoron) Now that car manufactures have gotten their dream, China will follow suite. If Canada has increased their share of polution since 1990, because of more productivity, one has to think China will need less time. Hopefully China won't be thinking "bigger is better" and dominate their world with huge worthless gas guzzleing SUVs.
Emissions, climate change, cancers and other epidemics are the transferred costs of "cheap" products, and the price we pay for the so called "wealth creation" by various ideological madnesses.
Until the world and elected politicians dare to face well known and unalterable physical facts there won't be any changes for the better.
I didn't mention economists, as they're hopelessly screwed up in the head to understand simple logic.
Ed Deak, Big Lake, BC.
Heh Ed: How about the switch from leaded to unleaded gasoline? Should we switch back since all change is futile? Maybe we could take the robots out of the car plants and build each auto by hand? Since in the end there are no efficiencies to be gained in any process. And wealth cannot be "created".
Usually not, but here is something interesting on the subject from the CBC:
"
At the same demonstration on that brutally cold day, one of the Greenpeace high priests offered a brilliant synopsis of how comprehensively the concept of global warming applies.
He said, and I quote, "Global warming can mean colder; it can mean dryer; it can mean wetter." Well, if warm can mean cold, if warm can mean wet, and if warm can mean dry, is it fair to ask if warm still means warm? This is the beauty of global warming. It's a theory that covers every possibility. More of a tent than a thesis.
The bigger disconnect at this monster seminar goes further than rhetoric, however. It's that Canada's the host of this sequel to Kyoto, and that Canada's performance since Kyoto – and remember, we signed on – is at this date, 24 per cent higher than our 1990 levels. According to our commitment, we're aiming for six per cent lower. So as of 2005, there's a 30 per cent spread from what we've promised and what we've done so far.
The U.S., which didn't sign on, is only thirteen per cent higher than its 1990 levels. Still, around the world, the U.S. is the villain for not signing on, while countries like ours, who talk a virtuous environmental line and host King-Kong-scale conferences to celebrate our commitment, pose as the planet's dearest lovers. Perhaps Kyoto is Japanese for hypocrisy. For The National, I'm Rex Murphy.
"
What does a vague criticism of the CBC (which offers a wide variety of programs of varied quality) have to do with those questions? I'm having trouble following the logic. Thanks.
<br />
Worse yet, the Toronto Star: <br />
<br />
‘Eloquent PM can't hide Canada's dirty secret<br />
Dec. 8, 2005. 01:00 AM<br />
JAMES TRAVERS<br />
<br />
Nothing is more sure-fire in federal politics than taking a shot at George W. Bush. But Paul Martin is the wrong prime minister and Canada the wrong country to target U.S. recalcitrance on environmental reform.<br />
<br />
Speaking to a United Nations conference here but hoping to be heard by voters, Martin positioned Canada as North America's only global conscience. Well, maybe.<br />
<br />
Despite its refusal to sign the Kyoto accord or to join much of the rest of the world in planning a cleaner, cooler future, the U.S. has, in some important ways, done better than Canada.<br />
<br />
Far from the pristine wilderness of Paul Martin's imaginations, this country is gray and gritty, a vast consumer of water and fossil fuels and, most damning of all, a climate-change backslider.<br />
<br />
Far from crazed ranting from the fringes, it's Canada's reality. Pick any report other than the government's flattering own and find disturbing evidence that a country once proud to be clean is now awfully dirty.”<br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Signing it and ignored it like everyone else, that's more “multilateral", right? <br />
<br />
------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
“Eloquent speeches won't rewrite that record any more than they will restore Canada's image as the Great White North. Martin should remember that when next tempted to win votes by taking a shot at a fellow environment sinner.”<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_051206.html">http://www.cbc.ca/national/rex/rex_051206.html</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133995813921&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795">http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1133995813921&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795</a><br />
<br />
MONTREAL -- Campaigning on Tuesday afternoon this week, Paul Martin took his large gas-sucking rent-a-jet from New Brunswick to Prince Edward Island for a one-hour ride on a couple of smoke-belching buses to a whistlestop at a rural grade school, whereupon the entire entourage headed back to the plane to burn up some more fuel en route to Montreal.<br />
<br />
All for a photo of Martin reading two nursery rhymes to some P.E.I. school kids.<br />
<br />
The next morning, the prime minister was on stage at what is being billed as possibly the most important climate-change conference of our time, lecturing officials from 157 countries on the urgent need to cut greenhouse gases -- airplane and bus fumes included -- that contribute to global warming.<br />
<br />
"Traditional fossil fuels have become too costly to waste, too expensive to use indiscriminately, with too great and lasting an impact on the planet," Martin said in dire tones. "We need to accept that with our behaviour, with our actions, we affect one another and the planet we share. We are in this together."<br />
<br />
This delicious snippet of Liberal hypocrisy -- can there possibly be a bigger waste of gas than an election campaign? -- prefaced a meeting of the world that is definitely not Canada's finest hour in the environmental department. <br />
<br />
Wait another half-century and those mountains may not be snow-capped anymore.<br />
<br />
While Martin took direct aim at the U.S. for not signing on to the Kyoto accord, he did admit the Liberals' own record of combating climate change was "far from perfect in the 1990s."<br />
<br />
Far indeed. Under the Kyoto agreement, Canada pledged that by 2012, national greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to a level 5% below what they were in 1990.<br />
<br />
Instead, those levels of pollution have soared by more than 20%, a far worse record than the U.S. -- which never signed Kyoto and is now the object of Martin's obviously misplaced ire.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2005/12/08/1343606-sun.html">http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/Election/2005/12/08/1343606-sun.html</a><br />
<br />
Seems to be just about unanimous ...
>>>>Does anyone believe anything on the CBC?<<<<<<
What this says to me is: does anyone believe ANYTHING said on the CBC, NO MATTER who says it. Presumably Paul Martin, Stephen Harper, Jack Layton, George Bush, Billy Graham, Rex Murphy, Wayne Gretzky, Don Cherry -- old uncle Tom Cobley and all!, cannot be believed once they step in front of a CBC microphone.
The logic leaves something to be desired.
Frank