Far-off impacts of global warming not so far off
My Clean Break column in today’s Toronto Star was more of a rant than usual, but given the potentially catastrophic impact of global warming, I felt compelled to add my small voice to the mix of views and opinions. I did, however, have help from Joseph Romm, author of The Hype about Hydrogen and a new book on global warming expected to come out early next year (also check out this recent Q&A in Earth & Sky). I had a chance to interview Romm by telephone last week.
Basically, my column comes to the conclusion that market forces alone won’t be enough to avert a climate disaster, and that we need a combination of mandates, creative tax policy and aggressive action to have an impact. I also take a shot at the oil sands in Alberta.
For another view on this incredibly important issue, check out this guest column in the San Jose Mercury News.
Tyler Hamilton is editor-in-chief of Corporate Knights magazine and a business columnist for the Toronto Star, Canada's largest daily newspaper. In addition to this Clean Break blog, Tyler writes a weekly column of the same name that discusses trends, happenings and innovators in the clean technology and green energy market. This blog is a personal project started in April 2005. It is not an official blog of the newspaper.
April 10th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
your column is bang on, as frustrating as it is. the thing that really seems to be missing from all levels of government though, is the ‘incentive to do better’. sure the ‘polluter pays’ stick is ideal since the carrot clearly isn’t working. yes, dirty energy should be more expensive. but the money generated from ‘end of the pipe’ taxes, plus a whole lot more, needs to reach the people and industries that are trying to progress towards cleaner production.
April 10th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I found it quite ironic that on the same day your article was published, a story called ‘Business warns against closing coal fired plants’ was also posted on thestar.com.
It states that if the Ontario gov’t does good on it’s promise to shut down all our coal-fired generators, hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, gdp will drop by $16 billion annually, etc. Naturally, there’s no mention of any additional healthcare related expenses (more and more people are getting asthma) or any increase in insurance costs brought on by global warming.
So essentially, the government extended the artifically low cap for three years to the businesses that use 1/3 of the power, and they have the nerve to complain some more? Wow, this is beyond greed.
April 10th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
That was my thought. Strangely enough, I found myself having to report on that story, though I tried to balance it off against the kind of views you just expressed. Yes, healthcare costs are ignored in their assessment, and they also make some pretty basic assumptions about the various forms of generation. Fact is, coal, natural gas and uranium prices are skyrocketing, and there’s no way we can continue to operate with artificially low prices. I think it would be best for the government to assist major industrial power consuming in co-generation and other operational efficiency projects that reduce their dependence on grid-supplied electricity. Simply extending the old way of subsidizing power only encourages the wasteful use of electricity, and over the long term, it does nothing to tackle the major pollution and greenhouse gas emissions that will ultimately affect the quality of life/health of those people whose jobs are allegedly on the line.