How we can counter the delusional tactics of the carbon polluters

by Mark Jaccard

Originally published in The Vancouver Sun March 15, 2013

Over the past year, readers of The Vancouver Sun have been bombarded with op-eds, columns and editorials that argue British Columbians should accept carbon-polluting projects like the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, but that never explain how to prevent the climate disaster these would cause. The writers of these articles consistently ignore two glaring realities.

First, scientists agree that carbon pollution from burning coal, oil and natural gas must start declining in this decade if we are to limit the global average temperature increase to 2 C, a critical threshold in terms of preventing intensified storms, droughts, ocean acidification, ecological destruction and human suffering. The world's leading politicians, including Stephen Harper, agree that we should not surpass two degrees - which is why he committed Canada to emission reductions of 17 per cent by 2020 and 65 per cent by 2050 (targets that are unachievable with expanded production of oilsands, coal and shale gas).

Second, carbon pollution in the atmosphere is a global "tragedy of the commons." Since virtually all countries must reduce emissions to prevent a disaster, proponents of the next carbon-polluting project argue that theirs is small relative to the total, which is true no matter how big, and that stopping theirs won't help since others will go ahead, which is self-fulfilling if everyone follows this logic. (Likewise, the fishers who devastated the Atlantic cod argued that each was only a small contributor and, in any case, would be replaced by others if they stopped.)

What is sad and frightening is that the writers of these articles seem to lack the moral conscience and logical honesty to address these two critical realities of the global warming threat and our causation of it. Instead, they exhibit what Ayn Rand once called, "not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know."

Proponents and supporters of carbon polluting projects focus exclusively on the jobs, wealth and tax revenues from projects x, y and z. They talk about how each project is essential and unavoidable. If they talk about the climate at all, it is to point out that each contributes only a small per cent of global emissions. They never talk about how we should act to avoid the tragedy of the commons from global warming, because to do so would undermine their project.

But the simple reality is that more carbon pollution equals more global warming. We have to stop extracting carbon from the earth's crust for ourselves and other countries. Then, we should join with leading jurisdictions, like California and several European countries, to use trade measures as necessary to pressure Alberta, China and others to reduce their pollution. There is no other way to tackle this extremely difficult global problem.

Imagine if this newspaper's editors refused to be complicit in the deceit and delusion, and asked every writer advocating an investment that increased carbon pollution to explain what B.C. should be doing to help humanity avoid sleepwalking over a climate cliff. If the writer would not explain, the paper could follow the article with a public health disclaimer, such as "The author has declined to explain how the increased carbon pollution he or she is proposing would not lead to a climate catastrophe for ourselves and our children - as found by scientists."

Of course, the newspaper is unlikely to play this role. But you can. Every time you see an article promoting more carbon pollution here and abroad, ask yourself if the author explains how this project can occur in a world that prevents global warming. If the author does not explain, ask yourself why.

When you hear, "We need this project for the economy," you might ask, "You mean we need extreme storms and ecological destruction - that we could not have a thriving economy if we ran our vehicles on electricity and biofuels or generated electricity from renewable energy?"
When you hear, "We need to be good neighbours to Alberta," you might ask, "You mean we need to help our neighbours get rich while devastating the planet?"

When you hear, "The Chinese will just get the carbon polluting fuels from someone else," you might ask, "You mean it's better for our children that we help the Chinese increase carbon pollution rather than discouraging China and other polluters in a peaceful, responsible manner?" When you hear, "The oilsands and other polluting projects will be developed no matter what we do," you might ask yourself, "Does this person have me and my children's best interests in mind?"

Countries like Canada are large enough to make a difference on climate change

The global warming threat requires a rapid reduction in the carbon pollution emitted from every country in the world. But just as each country is only a percentage of the planet’s population or GDP, each country emits only a percentage of total carbon pollution. This enables short-sighted or selfish people (perhaps profiting from carbon pollution) to argue that their country should continue with projects to expand carbon pollution (or at least not reduce it) because their individual effort will not solve the problem.

The response has two parts.

1. The first is to point out that the logical consequence of this approach is for no one to act, even major emitters, and so we would collectively march to disaster – a classic “tragedy of the commons” outcome.

But this elicits a follow-up argument that there is still no point acting until everyone acts simultaneously since free-riders will undermine one’s effort. This triggers the second part of the response.

2. It is true that the ideal is for everyone to act simultaneously. This would be wonderful. But, realistically, this is extremely unlikely since humanity lacks effective global governance, as 20 years of failed United Nations climate negotiations have shown. So, again, the logical outcome of the demand for simultaneous action is to collectively march to disaster.

 An effective way to make this point is to ask what we should do in our jurisdiction in the face of this world reality – eventually arguing that the answer (below) is trivial, obvious to any child.

If (1) we do not want disaster, and (2) we know that humanity will not initially act in unison, then the only logical response is for individual jurisdictions to reduce their carbon pollution while simultaneously trying to get other jurisdictions to also act. One cannot possibly convince others to act if one is not acting oneself. And, even if one is acting, pressure of some kind is likely required to get others to act. This is likely to be restrictions on trade that help domestic industries compete with industries located in jurisdictions without effective climate policies.

Thus, the most likely path to success looks like this. The jurisdictions that are most motivated must act first. They may be motivated because they have an enlightened understanding of the path to success (northern Europe perhaps), or effective environmental governance institutions (California perhaps), or a special incentive because of higher global warming impacts (islands like the UK and Japan, climate-vulnerable regions like Australia). Initial efforts at trade restrictions will be difficult. But once the number of jurisdictions has passed a critical threshold, the difficulty will diminish rapidly as trade pressures mount on non-acting jurisdictions.

In the March issue of the Canadian magazine, The Walrus, I used Canada’s experience in confronting the global threat of Nazi Germany as an example of how to present these logical arguments. Here is an excerpt from that article.

We hear, “Canada contributes only 2 percent to global emissions, so there is no point making an effort until everyone acts at once.” 

Yet every year on Remembrance Day, the prime minister extols our critical role in confronting Nazi Germany’s global threat. He fails to mention that we actually contributed less than 2 percent of the Allied effort in World War II; one million Canadians served in our armed forces, compared with over 60 million who fought from the USSR, the US, the British Empire, France, Poland, and other countries. Even though we were only 2 percent of the solution, we have something to be proud of. We punched above our weight by joining France and England in declaring war on Germany in 1939, without knowing if and when the USSR and the US would join the cause. We did not wait for everyone to act simultaneously against a global threat, which is virtually impossible, but instead showed leadership. If we were to show leadership on climate, we would join forces with other leading regions, such as California, Europe, Australia, and Japan, and as this effort snowballed we would use trade measures if necessary to bring other countries along.