A highly respected climate change scientist has taken aim at fellow members of the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change who engage in political advocacy. Andrew Weaver, a professor at the University of Victoria, is concerned that some panel members have become involved in advocating particular climate change policies and actions rather than serving simply as science advisers. He suggests that those who do so should resign, and that the Panel needs to re-organize to remove the taint of such activity. He suggests that the culprits take their leave of the Panel.

He is right. The panel has over 100 members who are asked to investigate and work on climate change as independent scientists. The work of the Panel has been excellent. Unfortunately that excellence has been compromised in part because some members and associates have become active in advocating for particular policies, including acting as paid consultants to those with an interest in the climate change issue. This creates at least the appearance of using their association with the Panel to further their own interests, which is a sure fire way to discredit the Panel’s work.

Some may think the target here are those who advocate on behalf of the public interest. Oh that this were the case. In an earlier posting I reported on a similar issue related to the activities of one of the panel members from BC. In that case an academic from my own university who has been associated with the work of the Panel took work as a consultant to the Independent (Private) Power Producers association of BC, an industry lobby group. In his report he attacked and attempted to discredit another energy expert who is a recognized professional and author of public interest reports and testimony before the BC Utilities Commission. The expert’s sin was to challenge the positions of the private power producers, who were and are lining up for special deals from the government all the while using the climate change issue to justify highly questionable contracts to supply expensive and largely useless power to BC Hydro. The consultant’s industry sponsored attack came in a widely publicized report paid for by the association. The attack was both unfair and in some aspects just plain wrong. However, it got widespread coverage and was given credibility in part through the author’s association with the work of the UN Panel. Needless to say, it was very damaging to the victim’s reputation and credibility. The attack was couched in very personal terms, notwithstanding the fact that the subject of the attack is one of the most honest, reputable and thorough experts in the field.

One cannot help but think that Andrew Weaver in part had this case in mind when he went public with his concerns.

He is right. This sort of thing must stop. Taking the side of an industry lobby group is about the most unappetizing form of political advocacy possible. Doing so while having acted as a supposed independent adviser to the UN Panel is especially egregious. Those who participate in bodies such as the International Panel on Climate Change must be free of the taint of political activity that furthers private interests. The Independent Power Producers should know better and so should those who do their dirty work, but clearly they do not. The UN should not tolerate this kind of thing from the people who work on its independent panels.

As a matter of interest the same private power producers that bought and paid for this disreputable undertaking in order to undermine and silence an informed and carefully researched critic are apparently once again taking after one of their prominent critics. The highly respected and independent minded journalist Rafe Mair reports that a group associated with the private power interests are circulating a poisonous email about him, twisting something he wrote in December in the Tyee that was critical of them. (see posting at http://www.greenenergybc.ca/media_280110.html). Discrediting critics is clearly part of their way of operating. Mair reports that the circulated email states:

“Rafe Mair’s new found love of nuclear energy is quite suspect. Rafe is ostensibly against run of river hydro because of what he claims to be high cost of production, among other things (which is untrue, as run of river production costs less than what it costs BC Hydro to produce new power).”

These are the words of the private power producers. Note the claim that he “loves” nuclear energy, the careful distortion of facts and the implication that he makes “untrue” claims. And all intended to personally discredit this honourable man.

Rafe’s response is as follows:

“I do not, repeat not, say we should adopt a Nuclear power program in BC, only that we stand back and look at Nuclear with a jaundiced eye but still look. We are, under the Campbell Liberals, bound and determined to destroy our rivers. Campbell, nose growing all the time, says we need the power and that’s why our rivers must be sacrificed. His nose stretches because we do not need the power and even if we did, private river projects won’t help because they only produce power when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. But if there’s a valid alternative, shouldn’t we look at it?

There are, as I see it, these concerns to be dealt with, any one of which would negate the arguments for Nuclear energy.

1. Is it, under 2009 conditions and knowledge, safe? Even if it’s safe
under everyday circumstances could terrorists use it to create an atom
bomb like disaster?

2. How do we dispose of the waste? It’s been this problem that has for
many people made the issue a non starter.

3. Is it cost effective? We know that they haven’t been but are the
numbers better now?

4. Is it really green, considering what it takes to build and maintain a
facility?

We would be damned fools to rush into a pro nuclear policy but also damned fools not to consider it.”

Right minded people should protest this industry group’s tactics to distort and silence critics. One hopes that people across the province will make their disgust about these kind of tactics known in no uncertain terms. These private companies are being granted valuable public land and water licenses with which they will make big returns producing next to worthless power. If they don’t understand that the gift of these licenses requires that they show some basic social responsibility, it is time for BC residents to make this clear to them. They survive and prosper with implicit consent of the people through an unwritten social contract. If they can’t act responsibly and ethically, the contract should be terminated. The people have the power to make that happen.

One province has finally got it right on green energy. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has just announced a $7 billion deal that will have Samsung commit to a major transformation of the electricity generating system. Samsung will invest in a big way in wind and solar energy as part of a move away from dependence on fossil fuels. Samsung will also make a commitment to develop secondary industries associated with these new green energy sources. Incentives are included in the package to ensure the creation of over 150,000 new jobs. Transmission capacity will be reserved on the grid to ensure that the new green electricity will get to Ontario consumers when they need it.

Contrast this to the approach in British Columbia under Gordon Campbell. Campbell is trying to sell a hopefully gullible public on a plan to subsidize large numbers of private investors to develop hydro power at sites on sensitive rivers and in vulnerable watersheds across the province. These projects, such as the giant Plutonium power project in Bute Inlet, are destroying pristine rivers, salmon habitat, and forested valleys out of the sight of most British Columbians. Valuable licences and other incentives are being offered up by the BC government to the private companies – the venerable BC Hydro is not permitted to develop any of the projects. The biggest problem with the whole undertaking is that it can do little to displace fossil fuels as the source of electrical energy when river runs and lake levels low, but indeed increases the need for fossil fuels during such periods. Under the deals the government has put into place, BC Hydro is forced to pay exorbitantly high prices for energy produced when it isn’t needed (when lakes and rivers are high and Hydro can meet demand with its own large dams), which it must then resell at a large loss, and then it will have to go outside the province for mostly dirty coal fired electricity when the rivers are low, purchasing this power at exorbitantly high prices. These outside purchases are being forced on BC Hydro because the government has ordered the shut down of the relatively clean and efficient Burrard Thermal plant.

The sad fact is the the BC scheme is just a large scale scam to line the pockets of the friends of the government who are getting the permits and licenses for these new, dysfunctional private hydro projects. They get guaranteed high prices for electricity that is not produced when it is needed, and when it is produced must be resold by BC Hydro at a large loss because it all comes when it is not needed; a sweetheart arrangement if ever there was one. And most offensive of all, the whole plan is being “green washed” by the claim that it is a green energy plan. Sadly in this it has had the support of a couple of high profile BC environmentalists who one has to assume do not understand the admittedly complex scheme.

The Ontario plan is completely different. There will be no-payoffs to private interests who are friends of the government for unneeded power. The new wind and solar plants will to together produce power when it is needed in a planned, balanced, systematic way. Old dirty energy will be replaced by new clean energy. There are no complex transfers of money to friends of the government at the expense of provincial ratepayers. Spin-offs and new jobs will be assured. And there is no green washing, because the plan, unlike the BC one, really does, replace old dirty energy with clean energy.

Predictably the self serving private power producers who have lined up at the trough in BC are complaining about the Ontario plan. If nothing else, their criticisms confirm that the scheme they are pushing have nothing do do with green energy. If it did they would be demand that the BC governments adopt real green energy plans like the Ontario one. The fact is that the flawed BC plan is the fault of a patronage obsessed government and a corrupt arrangement that does nothing to advance green energy. It is time that energy specialists, the media, academics, and environmental groups debunk the nonsense of their claims. Until that happens all of these groups must share some of the blame for the collaboration in the green washing that has accompanied the BC plan (the worst offender is the Vancouver Sun, which has virtually become the public relations arm for the BC plan. So much for a critical, watchful media).

Ontario is to be congratulated for going green in a meaningful and in many ways radical shift in direction. What a refreshing change.

Finally, a government in Canada has done something significant and even radical.

Much has been said about Canada’s performance at Copenhagen, much of it negative. Many are disappointed that Canada did not take a stronger stand and provide greater leadership. Harper says it was a success and that the world followed Canada’s lead. However the government’s response has been seemingly halfhearted, seeming to confirm the critics’ view that the conference accomplished little and that Canada provided no leadership.

In terms of the substance of the negotiations, there are some reasons to support Harper’s claim. Before going he set out a number of goals for Canada in the international negotiations. First, Canada did not want a simple renewal of Kyoto. It insisted that Kyoto was a flawed deal, since it called for unrealistic reductions in carbon emissions, had no monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, and was ignored by most countries. Second, Canada insisted that all major countries must be part of a deal, refusing to participate if the emerging industrial nations are not part of any deal. While the industrial countries currently contribute about 75% of the missions, he maintained that will change rapidly as Brazil, China, India and other emerging powers grow rapidly over the next few years. Third, Canada insisted that commitments must be “realistic” and achievable. Harper was not prepared to take part in a deal that was bound to fail because it does not include plans for implementation that will be followed. Fourth, Harper insists that Canada must follow the United States and its commitments, given the close integration of the Us and Canadian economies. To do otherwise he insists would put Canada’s economy at a large disadvantage and would not be sustainable.

On the first three points he certainly has a point. Kyoto was a failure. Canada is perhaps the best example of how ineffective Kyoto was. After making ambitious commitments, Canada proceeded to do very little. No progress was made on reducing emissions. In this respect it was little different from many countries, although to be fair European and Nordic countries showed real progress. However in abandoning Kyoto Canada (and the United States who took the same position) relieve themselves of having to make up for their failures to implement it, conisderably reducing any obligations they will have. On the second and third points, Harper’s views also are credible. If any deal is not broad, inclusive and binding and certain to he honoured, it is hard to see the point. As Harper’s press secretary stated, the global warming crisis is serious and the international effort must be more than just a political game played out for its optics.

Some hard questions remain about Canada’s claims coming out of Copenhagen however. One is the claim that the conference was a success. As many critics have stated, so far we have no more than an agreement on principles and targets. A binding agreement must still be hammered out. This is much less than many had hoped for. However, it is not likely that Canada played much of a role in this outcome. Rather, the complexity of the issues and the negotiations, and the highly complex strategies of the major players, made a hard agreement impossible. The need to proceed in steps toward a hoped for concrete agreement reflects the realities of the situation rather than any leadership by Canada.

The second and more important question is whether Canada should have acted as a leader or follower in setting directions and content of climate policies. Harper says we must follow the United States. That is in many ways what informed Harper’s positions. Others including the opposition party leaders and the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec say this is as abrogation of Canada’s responsibilities both domestically and internationally. This is a credible criticism. There is a real danger that Canada’s interests could be subverted by those of the US if we just blindly follow. There is also a danger that Canada will fail to address problems of regional equity and efficiency if it simply follows the US model.

However the idea that Canada can or should devise broad policy instruments and outcomes sufficiently different from the US is not all that credible. Harper is right in saying that Canada must operate on a generally level playing field with the US. To do otherwise would impose huge costs on Canada with few corresponding benefits. To work Canada’s approach must be an integral part of a larger North American effort. It is a stretch to argue that Canada can or should come up with something that takes us in a different direction from that of the US. And of course as a Conservative leader supported by many business and core right wing voters deeply skeptical about global warming, it is not surprise that Harper sees no virtue in exceeding the US effort.

The real concerns coming out of Copenhagen are threefold. One is the question of whether the US can find a way to commit to a major effort. The majority in Congress seem unlikely to take bold action. If the US flags, the world wide effort will be minor in scale. The next few months are needed to move the weight of opinion there. In that sense a delay is not a bad thing.

Second, Canada must sort out its internal problems. As the Premiers of Quebec and Ontario have pointed out, domestic policy will determine how the burden of any carbon reductions are to be distributed by region and industry. Charest and Migiunty fear that the relatively lower per capita carbon contributions of their provinces will be used to relieve demands on other regions to take substantive action. The most controversial question here is whether carbon dirty heavy oil production in Alberta will be given a break simply because other industries which are doing much better. The Premier of Alberta expressed great anger at these two Premiers over their positioning in the issue just prior to Christmas, giving credence to this argument.

This may very well be the biggest failure on Harper’s part to date. A break for the oil sands at the expense of much cleaner industries in central Canada could make Trudeau’s national energy policy look like a minor irritant. Delay in working out the internal framework for Canada’s policy within Canada could very well be the prelude to a much larger national conflict pitting Central Canada against the West. Harper must find a way to diffuse that. Otherwise Canada could be in paralysis when the time comes to act with the rest of the world. It is still likely that the US and the rest of the world will follow Copenhagen with negotiations leading to a deal later this year. Canada needs to get its act together in the interim.

The third concern is the affect delay has in providing the ground rules of industries to make investments in carbon reductions. If 2020 goals are to be met, each year of delay imposes larger annual reductions than would otherwise be the case. It is critical that Canada act on the assumption that a binding deal will come in 2010, that that it start providing a framework for action for key industrial sectors. There is a desperate need for basic ground rules now. This more that the outcome of Copenhagen puts real pressure on Canada to get a policy framework in place on the expectation that an international accord is coming soon.