Downward Google trends

"The largest upward spike in Google searches for global warming occurred just after Earth Day in April, 2007, a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide to protect human health, and two months after the film “An Inconvenient Truth” won an Academy Award for Best Documentary. Since 2007, however, Google searches for the term global warming have declined to almost the same flat, relatively low level of searches for climate change."

Has climate become 'background' noise?

Overcoming crisis fatigue

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Alternative energy strategies in this country are often viewed as impractical or even anti-Canadian because they suggest a departure from oil dependence. The oil industry insists that oil is an absolute necessity and that phrases like ‘global warming’ and ‘rising emissions’ are blowing things out of proportion.

But, perhaps the idea of oil as a necessity is blown out of proportion. While the real threat of climate change makes itself known around the world, some countries are taking it seriously enough to invest in more sustainable power sources.

This last Friday, a record-breaking level of CO2 was measured at the Mauna Loa research facility in Hawaii. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million—the highest concentration in over 800,000 years. Scientists say that levels shouldn’t exceed 350 ppm in order to prevent a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius. Reaching the 400 ppm measurement shows things are changing faster than scientists had previously imagined.

Many countries have been attempting to reverse this increase by setting energy targets for themselves. The aim is to be oil-free in the not-to-distant future by utilizing things like geo-thermal heat, wind, solar, hydro and wave power. There is no relevant work being done in Canada to suggest that an oil-free goal is even being considered.

According to data collected by The Global Footprint Network, Canadians have the eighth largest ecological footprint in the world. We consume over three times as much per person than what is considered the maximum for earth’s capacity. These numbers suggest that change is imperative, if not inevitable.

It would be easy to use the tiny nation of Tokelau, a territory of New Zealand, as an example of radical change. Tokelau is entirely solar powered. But the conceptual comparison can’t be made—Tokelau is too different.

Sweden, Iceland, France and Germany are not so different from us. Citizens of these countries are familiar with modern comforts like smart phones, snowmobiles, and sandwiches. Yet each of these countries is doing much more to reduce its ecological and carbon footprint. 

With the goal of being oil-free by 2020, Sweden is doing everything it can to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. In 2009 they began putting labels on food that indicate the carbon emissions associated with the production of that item. It is estimated that they “could cut… emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent. An estimated 25 percent of the emissions produced by people in industrialized nations can be traced to the food they eat, according to recent research [conducted in the US].”

Iceland has been called “global warming’s front line." The effects of climate change are undeniable, as the ice melts will change the topography drastically. Iceland is pushing hard to become the first nation to break free from the constraints of fossil fuel.

Already, two-thirds of Iceland’s power comes from renewable sources such as hydro and geothermal heat. A few years ago, the first hydrogen-powered commercial vessel – a whale-watching boat – set sail from Reykjavik. Iceland hopes to convert its entire transport system to hydrogen by 2050.

France is a good example of a nation that isn’t suffering for want of culture. Yet they've been bold in their efforts to institute environmental principles at the highest political level. France has been working internationally to “give the environment issue a global institutional framework.”

In 2011 France even outlawed hydraulic fracking, making it "the first country to pass a law banning the technique for extracting natural gas and oil."

Germany is a champion of renewable energy and a wizard at implementing practical environmental policy that benefits both the environment and the economy. The government in Germany has done everything from implementing an eco-tax to discourage petroleum use to heating government buildings with biodiesel to subsidizing renewables like solar and wind. Germany is one of the few industrial nations to actually reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2005 – by some 18 percent. Between 1990 and 2011 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased by a staggering 267 percent. 

Germany's bold move away from nuclear energy also showed the nation's ability to overcome a powerful industry lobby – one that insisted the German economy would crash, prices would soar and energy independence be lost – should a move away from nuclear occur. The story of Germany in this regard should give hope to a nation like Canada, with deep cultural and economic ties to the oil and gas sector. 

Yet Canada, as a country, is resistant to change. When it comes to energy consumption, we’re investing even more heavily in carbon-intensive fuel sources like unconventional oil and gas. And despite international pressure to limit dirty energy projects like the Alberta tar sands, Canada seems intent on digging in its heels.

So why are we such laggards?

The answer is culture. And that, in part, is a culture of convenience. Richard Wilk, Anthropologist and professor at Indiana University suggests in his paper, Culture and Energy Consumption, that North Americans fear a change in our energy infrastructure will greatly affect our level of comfort. He makes the correlation with how ideas of comfort become culture.

Wilk writes: “it took more than 30 years to convince Americans that air conditioning was not going to cause disease.” It would probably take even longer now to wean the Amerian populace off of air conditioning.

Cultural mindsets can be firm, but can also change when necessity dictates it. 

In a recent interview, former US vice president, Al Gore, used the recent legalization of gay marriage as an example of how suddenly shifts in mentality can occur. He said that he couldn’t have predicted such a “non-linear shift.” But he’s noticed that, when given a simple choice of what’s right and what’s wrong, change can be quick. “There is a bubble of illusion on carbon fuels, and the dawn of realization that we are destroying the climate envelope within which human civilization has flourished will change everything.”

But that realization has yet to prove its importance to Canada's oil and gas sector. Industry appears to abide by its own form of convenience – one heavily invested in fossil fuel production, no matter how unsustainable that production has become. Like Germany, Canada needs to make a bold transition away from the dominant energy paradigm. And like Germany, Canada needs both the general public and the government to push for that to occur.

A loss of culture—or convenience—doesn’t appear to be associated with a transition to carbon-free energy for any of these other countries. Canada's path to climate action won’t be the same—there are geographical, political and economical differences between us. But, on a conceptual level, perhaps the real threat to Canadian culture is the commitment to the status quo, rather than the idea of an oil-free Canada.

Image Credit: wiki

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The following is an email we sent to Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver:

Dear Minister Oliver:

Thanks for taking the time to read this email. We know you are very busy, flying back and forth to the United States and now Europe, making the case for Alberta’s oil sands to its many skeptics, while at the same time arguing with those “radical” environmental groups opposed to the Northern Gateway project at home in Canada. Now it seems Al Gore has also got you fired up over comments published over the weekend that your government’s oil sands strategy “hurts Canada.”

It’s a tough job being the Natural Resources Minister these days, between the growing opposition to proposed pipeline projects you’re pushing for, plus taking all of those orders from Stephen Harper as he plots the next cabinet shuffle. All of that pressure must explain why you and your ministry appear to have lost focus lately. How else to account for the confusing statements you’ve been making about climate change, which bare little resemblance to the concerns Canadians have about the impact of global warming on our planet?

Truth be told, you’re kind of embarrassing us Canadians, especially in front of our friends south of the border. It happened again recently when you were in Chicago heavily promoting the oil sands as the “greener alternative.” Then, last month, you claimed former NASA scientist James Hansen was “crying wolf” with his “exaggerated” comments about the environmental threats of oil sands development. That had us burying our heads behind our Tim Hortons cups back at home. We’re bracing for what you might tell the Europeans this week.

Unfortunately, you’re making some equally baffling comments in Canada, too. Remember last month, when you told reporters in Montreal that society isn’t as concerned about climate change? You cited information from “scientists” who you claim argue that climate change fears are “exaggerated.” [We noticed you really like that word – exaggerated.]  Unfortunately, when asked to identify those scientists, you couldn’t name one. Your staff was quick to follow up with media, but that response was disappointing. It turns out one of your key information sources is controversial author Lawrence Solomon, a climate-change denier who, by the way, isn’t a scientist.

At DeSmog Canada, we’re convinced you’re getting bad advice. We’re concerned about the quality of the ministers briefing file you’ve been given. In fact, that’s the real reason we’re writing. We think it’s time to return that well-thumbed copy of Solomon’s 2008 book, The Deniers, to the Ottawa Public Library (those late charges must really be adding up!) and expand your reading list.

In fact, we want to help get you better educated about the climate change debate. There’s a ton of research out there, from actual scientists, which shows climate change is in fact a real threat. We know you have a lot of meetings to attend and speeches to give and that you can’t read everything (and your staff isn’t that helpful in this area), so we’re recommending a few sources to round out your knowledge.

Since the economy is something you talk about a lot, we recommend you start by reading the latest carbon stocks/assets evaluation report from Carbon Tracker and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics. These are some smart people that know a thing or two about economics and the environment.

The report calls on regulators, governments and investors to rethink energy business models against carbon budgets to prevent what they call a “$6 trillion carbon bubble.” The report raises serious questions about how the financial system’s ability to act on the long-term risk of climate change impacts. “Smart investors can see that investing in companies that rely solely or heavily on constantly replenishing reserves of fossil fuels is becoming a very risky decision,” said Lord Stern, Chair of the Institute.

What’s more, HSBC oil and gas analyst Paul Spedding told The Guardian recently that the carbon tracker report “makes it clear that 'business as usual' is not a viable option for the fossil fuel industry in the long term.” Even rating agencies such as Moody’s, and Standard and Poor's, are talking about the downgrading of the credit ratings of oil companies within a few years as a result of this carbon bubble risk, according to The Guardian article. For a bit more information, check out this map that shows which global stock exchanges are most exposed.

Unfortunately, this is the just the tip of the melting iceberg. There’s so much more research about climate change that we think you should get your hands on. At DeSmog Canada, we’re here to help.

We’re convinced that if you review those polling results on your desk a little more closely, you’ll see that Canadians care deeply about the environment. They also want to see that their government does too. Rather than deny climate change is a problem, while demonizing environmentalists and stopping scientists from speaking out, wouldn’t it be better for both the environment and the economy if you listened to what the experts and concerned citizens have to say?

We’re confident that, as the next federal election draws near, you and your government will start to expand your circle of influence beyond oil sands lobbyists. To help make this transition easier, we’ll keep sending you some reading material to help with your education on climate change and the long-term economic impacts of ignoring this global crisis. We think you’ll see, as most Canadians do, that climate change is very real.

Regards,

Jim Hoggan

DeSmog Canada

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Sounding the alarm about climate change in 2007 got you a Nobel Peace Prize, but these days, not so much.

Today a journalist or academic writing about climate change often struggles to find an attentive audience. Why is that?

Social scientists around the world might be scratching their heads at this mystifying problem – but you don’t need a PhD to see that industry public relations plays a big role in public disinterest.

After Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth won an Academy Award the oil and gas industry doubled down with its attack on climate science. They poured even more money into the front groups and fake experts trying to convince us that climate change is a hoax. But polls show they failed to persuade us with that message. Most Canadians and Americans know climate change is happening.

But the oil gas industry and their friends on the far right succeeded in something even more mischievous than attempting to convince us climate change was something under debate. They nudged us into believing we really can’t make a difference.

When we look to industry and government for action we instead see PR and politics.  We see elected officials and business leaders saying one thing and doing another. We know we can’t trust them to do much, so why should we bother?

Cynics like me believe this was their intention all along. They knew they would eventually lose the fake debate they created  about climate science,. Their strategy was not intended to persuade us with their message but to kindle a ‘why bother’ public reaction.

As Deborah Tannen so eloquently wrote, “When there's a ruckus in the street outside your home, you fling open the window to see what's happening. But if there's a row outside every night, you shut the window and try to block it out.”

And that's what's happened to public discourse around climate change in Canada. We’ve turned away from the ruckus, and that’s a dangerous reaction.

The campaigns that create pubic disinterest, mistrust and despair continue. Ottawa and Calgary are pouring millions into advertising designed to misdirect our concern away from the very serious problem of climate change.

And we go along with the greenwashing and the misleading ad campaigns from government and industry because that’s what we expect from them.

That’s why it’s so encouraging to see Pete McMartin use his considerable talents as a journalist to explain why people like Mark Jaccard, William Rees and Tom Pederson are so concerned and publicly outspoken about the need for action on climate change.

The math on climate change is bleak. And the remedy for that isn’t denial. It’s time to face the facts.

Pete McMartin deserves our gratitude; his latest piece is what good journalism looks like.

Perhaps in a future column, McMartin might try to convince the Harper Government and the oil and gas industry that advertising doesn’t reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.