CBC reports that crews have already started pulling up some tulip beds a week before the festival is even due to start.

It isn’t all bad. The late blooming beds are still going strong, although they might not last the full two weeks of the Festival. And there are some beds that have yet to flower.

Yes, this winter it snowed in Europe and the U.S. But it was damn hot up here.

Weaver Seeks Unprecedented Order to Remove Stories That “Poison” the Internet

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA–(Marketwire – April 21, 2010) – University of Victoria Professor Andrew Weaver, the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis, launched a lawsuit today in BC Supreme Court against three writers at The National Post (and the newspaper as a whole), over a series of unjustified libels based on grossly irresponsible falsehoods that have gone viral on the Internet.

In a statement released at the same time the suit was filed, Dr. Weaver said, “I asked The National Post to do the right thing – to retract a number of recent articles that attributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held. To my absolute astonishment, the newspaper refused.”

Dr. Weaver’s statement of claim not only asks for a Court injunction requiring The National Post to remove all of the false allegations from its Internet websites, but also seeks an unprecedented Court order requiring the newspaper to assist Dr. Weaver in removing the defamatory National Post articles from the many other Internet sites where they have been re-posted.

“If I sit back and do nothing to clear my name, these libels will stay on the Internet forever. They’ll poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” said Weaver.

The suit names Financial Post Editor Terence Corcoran, columnist Peter Foster, reporter Kevin Libin and National Post publisher Gordon Fisher, as well as several still-unidentified editors and copy editors. It seeks general, aggravated damages, special and exemplary damages and legal costs in relation to articles by Foster on December 9, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web”), Corcoran on December 10, 2009 (“Weaver’s Web II”) and January 27, 2010 (“Climate Agency going up in flames”), and Libin on February 2, 2010 (“So much for pure science”).

The Statement of Claim was filed April 20, 2010 at the BC Supreme Court Registry at the Vancouver Courthouse: Weaver v Corcoran and others, SCBC No.102698, Vancouver Registry. Court record information and documents are publicly accessible online at Court Services Online: https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do.

Good luck to Professor Weaver with the suit. Even if the Post is forced to remove the false allegations, they will be up against the Streisand Effect when it comes to taking down reposts on other websites. Which may be the point of the court injunction; the Sisyphean task may be onerous enough to make them think twice about defaming him.

“As in any day where we symbolize a matter of significance, Earth Day highlights the cause, it highlights the importance of all of us making individual efforts, and so yes, it’s important,” he said.

“I would like Canadians to think about our responsibility as stewards as one of the most remarkable landmasses on the earth and the obligation we have to leave Canada, cleaner and better than we found it,” he said.

To make that a reality, he said, Canadians should think about whether they should reduce the size of their car, recycle more, leave their phone chargers plugged in or if they need to keep that flat-screen TV on all the time.

“It’s a question of the individual choices we make,” he added. “How many televisions are you going to have in your house? Are you going to shop and try to get the most efficient appliances in your home? It’s about choices.”

If Canadians should think about changing anything it is their laws and politicians, not their behaviour. We have tried Prentice’s approach before, after all. The One Tonne Challenge was an abject failure of a policy for reducing carbon emissions, and would not have made much of a dent considering the sources of most of this country’s emissions (see chart).

Note: The grey portion of the chart represents GHG emissions from the energy sector. The activity sectors reflect the UNFCCC methodology. Source: Environment Canada, 2007a. National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada, 1990–2005. Greenhouse Gas Division, Ottawa, Ontario.

And besides, if Prentice really wants to change Canadians’ behaviour, he should do more than exhort them to just think about doing so for one day a year. A price on carbon, as economists will agree, would do more to change behaviour than would simply thinking a little on Earth Day.

The opt-in climate policy he suggests offers a realistic way of dealing with the Alberta problem. There’s no way of getting around the fact that Alberta is increasingly dependent on the tar sands, and it is not willing to come close to making, or meeting, an effective emissions reduction target. However, other provinces, like Ontario and Quebec, are committed to making reductions and the Federal government could have a role to play in helping them meet the reductions targets.

A key change in Canada has been the shifting of population, political power and wealth to the west. The West got in, and don’t expect them to put in place federal policy that it would perceive as being against its own interests. Indeed, if politics is shaping up to mean a shift in power away from the federal government to the provincial, the sort of role the federal government can play in climate change will need to reflect and respect that shift. An opt-in program is a good compromise.

Unfortunately, should all the provinces except Alberta choose to opt in and meet targets, there could be little benefit for Canada on the international stage if Canada as a country fails to make overall emissions reductions. Nonetheless, as Prof. Donner points out, “it would be a vast improvement on the status quo” and “break the stalemate that has stalled progress on emissions reductions”. I’ll take it as a good start.

More: http://www.themarknews.com/articles/1183-working-around-alberta-on-climate-change

Winter 2009/2010:

• 4.0°C above normal
• Warmest winter since records began in 1948
• Driest out of the past 63 years, 22% below normal
• Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan had 60% less precipitation than normal

It really has been extraordinary. Says David Phillips, a senior climatologist with Environment Canada:

"I think it’s a combination of a strong El Nino and the shrinking and disappearance of the ice at the top of the world," says Phillips, adding that changing "pressure spots" in the Arctic and Atlantic also played a role. "They’ve all been working in cahoots to create this unbelievable winter."

Oh yes, and it looks like the tulips are coming up already. That could mean poor timing for the Tulip Festival here in Ottawa, May 7th to the 24th. We usually have snow coverage on the ground until early April, which would delay growth, but not this year. As far as the tulips are concerned, it feels like spring.

First, a promise about creating The Economy of Tomorrow [p.55]:

In designing Canada’s Economic Action Plan, the Government incorporated measures to help create the economy of tomorrow. In 2010–11, the Action Plan will invest almost $1.9 billion in post-secondary education, infrastructure, research, technology innovation, and environmental protection. This builds on 2009–10 investments of over $2.1 billion to support these strategic investments.
In 2010–11, the Government will provide $1 billion to support deferred maintenance, repair and construction at Canada’s colleges and universities. This investment will help keep Canadian research and educational facilities at the forefront of scientific advancement and will help to ensure that high-paid jobs are maintained and created in Canada.

New shiny labs, jolly good. Operational funding would be even better.

Funding to create the economy of tomorrow will also extend access to broadband Internet in remote communities, develop carbon capture  and storage technology, and fund other strategic investments in science, technology and research.

That’s a bit vague. CCS gets a mention: a technology investment that promises to mitigate the tar sands. Never mind if it doesn’t work.

The Canadian High Arctic Research Station gets a push:

Canada’s Economic Action Plan laid the groundwork for delivering on the Government’s commitment to build a world-class Canadian High Arctic Research Station by providing $2 million over two years for a feasibility study for the proposed facility. Budget 2010 is taking a further step by providing $18 million over five years to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to commence the pre-construction design phase for the station.

So that’s still more infrastructure funding, and it is still some time away from even being constructed.

“Arctic research infrastructure” overall has $35 million committed under the 2009-2010 economic action plan, and $52 million committed for 2010-2011 [p.247].

There’s “$126 million over five years to strengthen the world-leading research” at TRIUMF, which is something for the operational funding side. And for more like that: the research councils NSERC, CIHR and SSHRC get an additional $32 million per year [p.79]. It breaks down as follows:

• $16 million per year to the CIHR to support outstanding health related research and development.
• $13 million per year to NSERC, including $8 million per year to strengthen its support for advanced research, and $5 million per year to foster closer research collaborations between academic institutions and the private sector through NSERC’s Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation.
• $3 million per year to SSHRC to support world-leading research in the social sciences and humanities.
• $8 million per year to the Indirect Cost of Research Program. This enhanced funding will help institutions support the additional research activities enabled by the new resources provided to the federal granting councils through Budget 2010.

Small dollar amounts compared to what is going in to infrastructure, and this after last year’s budget cuts.

Genome Canada gets a mention, after being omitted from the previous budget; they get an additional $75 million in 2009-2010 “to launch a new targeted research competition focused on forestry and the environment and sustain funding for the regional genomics innovation centres.”

The Economic Action Plan directed funds toward “Clean Energy and the Environment” [p.245]. And by funds, I mean a staggering $1 billion for the Clean Energy Fund, which includes “$150 million for clean energy research and $850 million for clean energy demonstration projects.” These include the following:

• $120 million for a Shell Quest CCS demonstration project
• $315.8 million for the TransAlta Keephills Project to attach CCS to a coal-fired power plant near Edmonton
• $30 million for the Alberta Carbon Trunk Line project.

I remain to be persuaded that these are good investments. A better investment was made through the ecoENERGY Retrofit-Homes program, which disbursed $205 million under the Clean Energy Fund to finance 120,000 retrofits for Canadian homeowners.

Notable omission from the budget: The Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS). Their funding ends in 2011 and research projects are already being dismantled.

There’s a good argument to be made that with this budget, the government is trying to pick winners, rather than the hands off approach of letting the research councils direct funds. The emphasis on funding practical research with profit potential rings alarm bells; the UK is heading down a similar path, and the scientific community rightly has concerns.

Michael Ignatieff comments:

“An Arctic strategy can’t be only a military strategy.” Spot on. A couple of new icebreakers to keep the rowdy Danes in check would be nice and all, but there’s a lot more to the Arctic than sovereignty issues. As for that: “We have to directly involve Arctic people… we have to reactivate Arctic diplomacy.” The circumpolar region is a culture unto itself and with the ice melting, there’s going to be a lot more marine communication. Let’s keep it friendly.

“We are stewards of the global refrigeration system.” A fascinating line to use, and not all that outrageous, although I had to stop and think about it for a bit. The phrase ‘Global refrigeration system’ appears in An Introduction to Geographical Hydrology, ed. Richard J. Chorley, 1969, so it’s been around a while. Ignatieff first used it in speeches back in 2006. For example:

“The Canadian Arctic is a crucial piece of the global refrigeration system. This system is breaking down. The science is clear. Global warming is happening. Working with other nations in the Arctic Council, we must take leadership in stabilizing the global climate system.

In understanding Canada’s place in the world, we need to think of ourselves not just as defenders of our own sovereignty, but as stewards of the global commons.”

Back to the present: it was gratifying to hear a politician connect the dots on the Arctic. Ignatieff also said: “the Arctic is globally significant. We need to stop going to international conventions on climate change and having nothing to say. We are the stewards of the global refrigeration system. We need to have something to say!” Agreed. At the very least, I would like us to be informed on climate change related perturbations in the Arctic and be in a position to report on them. Permafrost melt, carbon and methane release from land and ocean, changes in boreal forest, tundra, etc. etc.

Also mentioned during discussions:

The Arctic, and Canada, need policies for climate change adaptation. All well and good to offer money for developing countries for adaptation, but the Arctic is already experiencing the effects of climate change. In 2008, a flash flood split the town of Pangnirtung on Baffin Island in two, separating residents from essential services that took days to restore. Tuktoyaktuk is experiencing the fastest rate of coastal erosion in Canada, losing 2m of shoreline every year. The effects of climate change have begun to be felt, and it is the height of irresponsible governance to ignore it right here in our own country.

CFCAS on research in the North:

It is cheaper to get to New Zealand than to Resolute. That poses some logistical problems…

Climate change is significantly affecting the Mackenzie Delta, where there is a lot of infrastructure. We need more knowledge to be able to plan for further changes.

Killer whales will be able to enter the Arctic once the ice barrier is gone. That should make life interesting.

All of CFCAS research ends in 2011, and there’s no more funding in the pipeline.

Food prices:

Food costs a lot more in the North. $10 for a bag of flour, for example. Average price of a basket of food: 44% higher than in Ottawa. Country food remains important in the North, but I think we can count on climate change to bugger up that food supply.

Ghost stations:

As someone mentioned afterwards, lots of infrastructure funding available for building shiny new Arctic research stations, but not a lot of money available for researchers to actually go there and research. Oh well. The ghost stations could be used instead for annual remakes of The Thing.

John England of the University of Alberta had a piece in Nature on Arctic research: we need an overarching research policy, like the States have, and better integration between NSERC and PCSP. Researchers who do get funding to work in the North run into serious logistical problems when it comes to actually conducting their research. Worth a read.

“If the United States decides to go down that road of not carbon taxing and not capping and trading but rather, simply, detailed regulations across the economy, we would need to harmonize with the United States on a regulatory approach,” he said.

What is left to try, if not a carbon tax and if not cap and trade? “Detailed regulations across the economy” sounds like a lot of red tape, an idea that won’t fly with the Cons or the business community. Not to mention that it would probably be more complex than cap and trade, which is, in turn, more complex than a straightforward carbon tax. A Conservative minister in favour of more regulations is a strange beast indeed.

But lest business be burdened with all the responsibility, he also thinks that each of us should step up and follow his own action plan:

Prentice, who bills himself as a keen recycler who doesn’t own a car, says every Canadian must make an effort to cut their own emissions by unplugging their flat-screen TVs, recycling and turning off the lights.

So, to cut personal emissions, if you have a flat screen TV, stop watching it. If you have light bulbs, turn them off. And, for some baffling reason, recycle, although what that has to do with cutting emissions is beyond me. It isn’t as though milk comes in a carton made out of methane clathrates, and if we don’t recycle them to the icy depths, we’ll each have a carbon footprint the size of Athabasca.

Business doesn’t get to abdicate its responsibility for emissions reductions by passing the buck to individual Canadians, who, besides, can’t get the job done. After all, the One Tonne Challenge was a miserable failure. If Canada wants to make any serious effort in cutting emissions, it needs to change its laws, which means that some day, Prentice and Harper are going to need to have an awkward conversation with their base.

It needn’t be all that awkward. Putting a carbon tax on the table wouldn’t be a bad idea. All the revenue could be kept in the Provinces, it would stimulate emissions reductions by producers, and provide an incentive for consumers to make low carbon purchasing decisions. Contrary to what the Conservatives like to say, according to a report that they once tried to cover up, it wouldn’t mean economic apocalypse; and it will be a lot more effective than unplugging that flat screen TV.

“Kyoto does virtually nothing to deal with pollution and to deal with the quality of the air that we breathe. Let’s forget about this unworkable treaty.. Kyoto’s never going to be passed.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, September 5, 2002)

“This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this will do to their economy and lifestyle.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, September 5, 2002)

“No, what I am supportive of is, frankly, not ratifying the Kyoto agreement and not implementing it.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News, September 6, 2002)

“[Gobal warming] is a scientific hypothesis and a controversial one.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, September 5, 2002)

“Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 11, 2002)

“We cannot predict the weather tomorrow with absolute accuracy. We certainly cannot predict the climate 100 years from now… Models have been constructed that suggest there could well be a base line increase of about 2.5°C over 100 years. There is no particular knowledge at the moment whether that relationship has to do with natural or man-made carbon dioxide. Frankly, over the last few years we have failed to see the full rise in global temperatures that the models predict.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 24, 2002)

“The relationship of carbon dioxide to global warming also involves complicated and complex science that is far from settled. It is a matter of significant debate.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, October 24, 2002)

“[Kyoto] is designed to address the so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ phenomenon, the hypothesis that the increase of certain gases – not necessarily pollutants – contribute to a long-term global warming trend.” (Stephen Harper, Address at the Ottawa Leader’s Dinner, November 20, 2002)

“As economic policy the Kyoto Accord is a disaster. As environmental policy it is a fraud.” (Stephen Harper, Address at the Ottawa Leader’s Dinner, November 20, 2002)

..Canada’s implementation will not lead to global reductions of CO2. In fact the transfer of wealth, jobs and emissions to non-target countries virtually ensures that carbon dioxide emissions will increase under the Kyoto Protocol” (Stephen Harper, Address at the Ottawa Leader’s Dinner, November 20, 2002)

“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.” (Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2002)

“.there is no environmental benefit [to Kyoto] of any kind.” (Transcript of Stephen Harper interview on the Rafe Mair Show, CKNW Radio Vancouver, November 29, 2002)

“We think the deal itself [Kyoto] is simply bogus.” (Transcript of Stephen Harper interview on the Rafe Mair Show, CKNW Radio Vancouver, November 29, 2002)

“Carbon dioxide which is a naturally occurring gas vital to the life cycles of this planet. Smog is an entirely different issue is not covered by this treaty.” (Transcript of Stephen Harper interview on the Rafe Mair Show, CKNW Radio Vancouver, November 29, 2002)

“We can debate whether or not… CO2 does or does not contribute to global warming. I think the jury is out.” (Stephen Harper interview on the Rafe Mair Show, CKNW Radio Vancouver, November 29, 2002)

“I will not comment at any length about the science of this other than to say the science remains in flux and is controversial. This is not just about issues of global warming or how these gases contribute to global warming, but the very reality that there has been constant climate change in the earth’s history. We know this and quite frankly science knows very little about why over the epochs and the centuries those temperature changes have taken place in the first place.” (Stephen Harper, Hansard, December 9, 2002)

“The Kyoto protocol does not deal with critical environmental issues.” (Stephen Harper, Address on the Kyoto Accord, December 9, 2002)

“The accord does negatively impact every region of the country. So rather than talk up separation, it is important to build a coalition across the country to defeat Kyoto.” (Stephen Harper, Report Newsmagazine, December 16, 2002)

“We’re gearing up for the biggest struggle our party has faced since you entrusted me with the leadership. I’m talking about the “battle of Kyoto” — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto Accord.

It would take more than one letter to explain what’s wrong with Kyoto, but here are a few facts about this so-called “Accord”:

• It’s based on tentative and contradictory scientific evidence about climate trends.
• It focuses on carbon dioxide, which is essential to life, rather than upon pollutants.
• Canada is the only country in the world required to make significant cuts in emissions. Third World countries are exempt, the Europeans get credit for shutting down inefficient Soviet-era industries, and no country in the Western hemisphere except Canada is signing.
• Implementing Kyoto will cripple the oil and gas industry, which is essential to the economies of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
• As the effects trickle through other industries, workers and consumers everywhere in Canada will lose. THERE ARE NO CANADIAN WINNERS UNDER THE KYOTO ACCORD.
• The only winners will be countries such as Russia, India, and China, from which Canada will have to buy “emissions credits.” Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.
• On top of all this, Kyoto will not even reduce greenhouse gases. By encouraging transfer of industrial production to Third World countries where emissions standards are more relaxed, it will almost certainly increase emissions on a global scale

Jean Chrétien says he will introduce a resolution to ratify Kyoto into Parliament and get it passed before Christmas. We will do everything we can to stop him there, but he might get it passed with the help of the socialists in the NDP and the separatists in the BQ.

But the “battle of Kyoto” is just beginning. Ratification is merely symbolic; Kyoto will not take effect unless and until it is implemented by legislation. We will go to the wall to stop that legislation and at that point we will be on much stronger procedural ground than in trying to block a mere resolution.

The Reform Party defeated the Charlottetown Accord in an epic struggle in the fall of 1992. Now the Canadian Alliance is leading the battle against the Kyoto Accord!

But we can’t do it alone. It will take an army of Canadians to beat Kyoto, just as it did to beat Charlottetown.

We can’t stop Kyoto just in Parliament. We need your help at all levels. We need you to inform yourself about Kyoto, to discuss it with your friends and neighbours, and to write protest letters to newspapers and the government.

And, yes, we need your gifts of money. The “battle of Kyoto” is going to lead directly into the next election. We need your contribution of $500, or $250, or $100, or whatever you can afford, to help us drive the Liberals from power.

Yours truly,

Stephen Harper, MP

Leader of the Opposition

PS: The “battle of Kyoto” shows why the Canadian Alliance is so important to you and to Canada. All the other federal parties are supporting Kyoto (Liberals, NDP, BQ) or speaking out of both sides of their mouth (Tories). Only the Canadian Alliance is strong and fearless enough to block dangerous and destructive schemes like the Charlottetown Accord and the Kyoto Accord.(Stephen Harper, Letter to Canadian Reform Alliance Party supporters, 2002)

“This is just the beginning of the biggest black-hole boondoggle in Canadian history.” (Stephen Harper, National Post, August 13, 2003)

“The science is still evolving [with respect to climate change.]” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, June 10, 2004)

“Carbon dioxide does not cause or contribute to smog, and the Kyoto treaty would do nothing to reduce or prevent smog.” (Stephen Harper, Toronto Star, June 10, 2004).

“I think these are subjects where we know a lot less than some claim we know. Climate is always changing. My suspicion is that human activities have some impact upon that but I think the jury is out on a lot of the actual specific trends.” (Stephen Harper, Interview with Frontier Centre for Public Policy, May 18, 2004)

“I think these are subjects where we know a lot less than some claim we know. Climate is always changing. My suspicion is that human activities have some impact upon that but I think the jury is out on a lot of the actual specific trends.” (Stephen Harper, Interview with Frontier Centre for Public Policy, May 18, 2004)

“Redirect federal spending aimed at fulfilling the terms of the increasingly irrelevant Kyoto Protocol.” (Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, June 8, 2005)

“It’ll be a lot harder for the Liberals to run their campaign of fear. In fact, they’ll have troubling explaining why it was that the [Prince Edward] Island didn’t actually sink into the Gulf of St. Lawrence after all.” (Stephen Harper, speech to the PEI PC Party, April 28, 2006)

“But Canadians have made it clear they want us to put one task ahead of all others: protecting and improving our environment.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the fundamental challenge of our time is to make real progress on environmental protection while preserving jobs and standards of living. Finding that balance will require sound science, rational debate and political will. Our government understands that global warming is a serious threat to the health and well-being of Canadians. The just-released report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sounded the alarm yet again. Rising levels of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere are projected to exacerbate climate changes that could be devastating for many parts of our planet. My children, your children and all children deserve to grow up in a world where they have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. They deserve well-tended land that will sustain healthy crops and livestock. And they deserve large tracts of unspoiled wilderness, sanctuaries that not only preserve our precious flora and fauna, but also provide opportunities for increasingly urbanized human beings to connect with the natural world. But in order to bequeath this future to our children, we have to have a realistic plan, not just empty rhetoric. Our government supports a concerted global effort to deal with climate change – and such an effort must include the major emitters, including the United States and China. But we cannot ask others to act unless we are prepared to start at home, with real action on greenhouse gases and air pollution. After more than a decade of inaction on air quality and greenhouse gasses, Canada has one of the worst records in the developed world. The previous government committed to ambitious greenhouse gas targets, and then presided over a 27% increase. The result is increased smog in our cities and rising rates of asthma and other ailments. That is why our government is charting a dynamic new path. Our program to regulate air quality represents a radical departure from the missed opportunities of past years. In the weeks ahead, for the first time ever, Canada’s New Government will move to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from major industrial sectors. For the first time ever, we will also move to regulate air pollution from major industry sectors. For the first time ever, we will regulate the fuel efficiency of motor vehicles, beginning with the 2011 model year. And for the first time ever, we will set out enforceable regulatory targets for the short, medium and long term. The era of voluntary compliance is over.

In our environmental plan, Canadians will also see our new eco-energy programs that support energy efficiency and stimulate the production of renewable power. They will see regulations mandating greater use of ethanol and other green fuels. They will see measures to make energy efficient vehicles more affordable. They will see better protection from hazardous chemicals through our new Chemicals Management Plan. And they will see support for wilderness preservation initiatives such as B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest conservation project. Budget 2006 allowed the banking of environmentally sensitive land tax free, and we will be following this in the next few weeks with major conservation initiatives that harness the private sector. In a nutshell, Canadians will enjoy a cleaner, greener and healthier country – a better Canada.” (Stephen Harper, 6 February 2007, Ottawa)

“In the interests of time, allow me to focus my remarks this afternoon on the fight against climate change, perhaps the biggest threat to confront the future of humanity today.

Canada may be a small contributor to global warming – our greenhouse gas emissions represent just 2% of the earth’s total – but we owe it to future generations to do whatever we can to address this world problem. And Canadians, blessed as we are, should make a substantial contribution to confronting this challenge. At this Summit, for the first time ever, Canada will arrive at a G-8 meeting with a real and realistic action plan on climate change. Normally, Canada is a country that prides itself on living up to its international obligations and commitments. But frankly, up to now, our country has been engaged in a lot of “talking the talk” but not “walking the walk” when it has come to greenhouse gases. A decade ago our predecessors in government committed our country to the Kyoto protocol. They said Canada would reduce its emissions to 6% below 1990 levels beginning in 2008. And then they did practically nothing to achieve this goal. Instead, they maintained policies that pushed emissions in the other direction. In fact, when we came to office last year, Canada’s emissions were 33% above the target and rising. Which meant, with only months before the targets kicked in, it had become impossible to meet the Kyoto commitment without crippling our economy. So we vowed to develop a real plan – with real, absolute, mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

A plan that’s practical, affordable and achievable. A plan that’s balanced and market-driven. A plan that deals with our growing economy and population.But also a plan that achieves real, absolute, mandatory reductions in greenhouse gases and positions Canada as a leader in fighting climate change. There are elements of our plan that could work not just for Canada, but for many countries in the world – including some of the large emitters that did not accept targets under the Kyoto protocol. After all, the countries that did accept targets under Kyoto account for less than 30% of global emissions. The outsiders included major, growing emitters like China, India and the United States.

Obviously, if we really want to stop climate change, all the big emitters need to step up to the plate and must accept real targets. It is urgent that we start work now – and this week’s Summit is the perfect opportunity – to develop a new universal consensus on how to prevent global warming in the post-2012 period. Our own domestic plan of action has mandatory greenhouse gas reduction targets for large emitters. Every year, large emitters must become more energy efficient and emit less carbon per unit of production – intensity improvements of 18% by 2010, and 2% a year beyond that each and every year.

And let me stress that this plan will not allow emissions to continue to grow indefinitely. Improvements in emissions intensity of this magnitude mean that there will be real, absolute reductions in emissions levels by at least 2012 and as early as 2010. It will put us on track to absolute greenhouse gas reductions of 20% by 2020. And, let me be clear, Canada’s long-term target of a 60 to 70% reduction of 2006 emissions by 2050 is consistent with cutting global greenhouse gas emissions by half over 1990 levels – a goal sought by the European Union.

The approach we have chosen, basing emissions reduction targets on units of production in the short run, allows growing and developing economies to engage in significant greenhouse gas reductions without putting themselves at immediate risk. And in the long run, I believe Chancellor Merkel and I are on the same page on this point at least: all countries must embrace ambitious absolute reduction targets, so that the International Panel on Climate Change’s goal of cutting emissions in half by 2050 can be met. Of course, it may not be possible for all countries, or all industries and firms within all countries, to reduce their emissions by the same amount on the same time line. That is why other compliance measures such as carbon offsets and carbon trading are also necessary. They are part of Canada’s plan and, provided they are not just an accounting shell game, they must be part of a universal, international regime. Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for all countries – especially the large emitters represented this week at the meetings of the G8 and the five major developing countries – to come together and cooperate as we move towards a post-2012 regime. We cannot afford to have the world divided on this issue, to pit right against left, Europe against America, or the developed countries against the developing world. We need a plan that takes into account both different starting points and different national circumstances, but that moves us all towards a common destination. There will be much debate in the weeks and months ahead over the best course of action for the world after the end of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012.

In the meantime, there is much else we can do. We’re involved in a number of international partnerships that are working to develop new technologies – from carbon sequestration to renewable fuels to clean coal – that will lead to significant emission reductions. Indeed, the agreement signed today between Canada’s National Research Council and Germany’s Helmholtz Association will bring together some of the world’s best researchers in the fields of alternative energy, bio-fuels and other environmentally friendly energy sources. Technology is the key. Just as the Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones, the Carbon Age will not end because the world runs out of fossil fuels. Instead, human ingenuity will develop alternative forms of energy as well as cleaner, greener ways to use carbon. And Canada will be at the forefront, as a green energy superpower.” (Stephen Harper, Berlin, 4 June 2007)

“The growing menace of climate change is one of the most important public policy challenges of our time… For at least a decade most Governments, including Canada’s Government, paid lip service to the issue because they were unwilling to tell the public that reducing carbon emissions will have real economic costs. We need to take action. We owe it to future generations, just as we owe them a strong and secure economic future.” (Stephen Harper, 7 September 2007, APEC Business Summit, Australia)

“Now of course, I am in your city this week on another matter, excuse me, where Canada intends to lead by example, and that is the challenge of climate change. Yesterday at the U.N. climate change meeting and at last night’s dinner, leaders joined with the secretary-general to discuss solutions to the problems of rising greenhouse gas emissions. Let me be clear. Canada believes we need a new international protocol that contains binding targets for all of the world’s major emitters, including the United States and China. And it is through such targets that the development and deployment of new clean energy technology will be stimulated.

That is what we are doing in Canada. We’re implementing a national system of mandatory greenhouse gas emission reduction across major industrial sectors. Our plan will reduce Canada’s total emissions by 20 percent to the year 2020, and 60 to 70 percent by 2050. And make no mistake; this system will impose real cost on the Canadian economy. At the same time, by basing our early targets on emissions intensity, we are balancing effective environmental action with the reality that Canada has a growing population and growing economic output. The message is that we need to take action. We owe it to future generations, just as we owe them the opportunity to have the economic prosperity that we do today. We owe them both — sustainable environment and a prosperous economy.

In the global fight against climate change, Canada will do everything in its power to help develop an effective, all-inclusive international environmental framework that recognizes national economic circumstances, just as we did with the successful Montreal Protocol on the protection of the ozone layer, on which I should add that international progress could not have come without the leadership at the table demonstrated by the United States and China.

The solution to climate change cannot and will not be one size fits all, but neither can nations treat this issue as simply somebody else’s responsibility. This is the message we’ve delivered at home to Canadians. It’s the message we brought to our G-8 colleagues in June at the summit there in Heiligendamm. It’s the message we gave to APEC countries and business leaders in Sydney, Australia, two weeks ago, and it’s the message I conveyed during discussions here in New York.” (Stephen Harper, Council on Foreign Relations, September 25, 2007)

“We had a productive dialogue on climate change. We all recognized the urgency of taking action to minimize the adverse impacts of climate change. In particular, we recognized the threats to small island states, low-lying coastal states and the least-developed countries. Those of us going to Copenhagen share a common understanding that we need to act together. Canada is seeking a long-term international agreement where we all contribute to the solution. Such an agreement would also encourage the development and use of clean technologies while fostering the economic growth needed to pay for global warming mitigation.” (Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada, 29 November 2009 Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago)

A funny thing happened in 2007…