Leading climate scientists, lawyers, doctors and scholars from around the world are calling on the Dutch Government to reconsider its plans to appeal the historic Urgenda judgement by a Dutch Court ordering the government to dramatically reduce carbon emissions by 2020.

In a letter submitted yesterday to the Dutch Prime Minister Rutte and Vice Prime Minister Asscher, renowned climate experts James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes and Michael Gerrard were among the 20 signatories urging the government to “accept a judgement which is solidly based in existing law, jurisprudence and the need to protect people from the harm associated with climate change”.

Earlier this month, the Dutch Government announced plans to appeal the decision. The deadline for filing an appeal is September 24, leaving just one more day for the government to formally submit an appeal – and just one more day for others to try and persuade it otherwise.

The groundbreaking court ruling, announced in June, “offers new hope for progress on a problem which has been dogged by inertia in international negotiations,” the letter reads. “The court simply applied existing law and science in order to protect present and future generations from harm. In the face of these grave and imminent threats, governments have a legal duty to act.”

The Urgenda judgement was the first climate liability suit brought under human rights and tort law and was the first time a court has determined that states have an independent legal obligation towards their citizens.

According to the court, the Dutch Government must cut its emissions by at least 25 percent within the next five years. The three judges ruled that the government’s original plans to cut emissions by just 14-17 percent compared to 1990 levels by 2020 were unlawful, given the scale of the threat posed by climate change.

“To accept that governments have duties under the law to protect humanity from the dangers of climate change and that they need to do more to fulfil these would represent a display of leadership that the world needs at this time,” reads the letter.

“To solve the climate crisis, governments must accept that both the science and the law require them to act. The Netherlands now has an opportunity to lead the way in spreading this simple but powerful idea.”

Photo: Urgenda / Chantal Bekker

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.

This is a guest post by energy and environment economist Mark Jaccard. It was originally published on his blog, Sustainability Suspicions.

Prime Minister Harper promised in 2006 to reduce Canadian emissions 20% by 2020 (in 2009 he changed it slightly to 17%). Only two policy approaches can achieve this: emissions pricing or regulations (or a combination). But he rejected emissions pricing, whether carbon tax or cap-and-trade. So this leaves regulations on technologies and fuels, which he promised. However, he has not implemented regulations to achieve his 2020 target, and, according to Canada’s Auditor General, even an immediate aggressive effort is unlikely to succeed – he only has 7 years left after doing virtually nothing since making the promise 7 years ago.

In any case, he is instead promoting rapid expansion of the Alberta oil sands, which, according to Environment Canada, will leave Canadian emissions in 2020 at least 7% above rather than 17% below their 2006 level.

In contrast, both the European Union and California have adopted serious fuel and technology regulations that independent experts agree will achieve the more aggressive 2020 emissions targets of these jurisdictions. Both governments also recognize that it is futile and foolish to spend money on domestic emission reductions if these are offset by higher emissions elsewhere.

It makes no sense to switch to hybrid-electric cars in California if the resulting increased demand for electricity is provided by coal-fired power plants in Arizona or Alberta. And it makes no sense to improve vehicle efficiency if a growing amount of gasoline sold in California is produced from high emitting production processes, like that of the Alberta oil sands.

This is why California has adopted a renewable portfolio standard for electricity, that restricts imports of high emission electricity, and a low carbon fuel standard for vehicle fuels, that restricts imports of high emission gasoline and diesel. There really is no other way to act responsibly in a world in which global-scale emissions pricing is unlikely to happen any time soon.

In the same vein, Europe is trying to finalize the implementation of a Fuel Quality Directive that looks upstream to consider the emissions caused by producing a given fuel, and restricts market share for high emitting sources, including oil from the Alberta oil sands.

If one takes a regulatory approach to climate policy, as Stephen Harper professes to support, these are the kinds of regulations you have to implement. They are messy.

But there is no alternative to such regulations that try to distinguish and restrict higher emission fuels and technologies, whether the high emissions occur at the point of consumption or production.

This is why it is so ironic that the Harper government, with its “apparent” preference for regulations, has undertaken an aggressive lobbying campaign to convince Europeans to emasculate their Fuel Quality Directive so that Canada’s high emission oil sands are treated no differently than low emission sources. It has been joined in this effort by the Alberta government and, of course, the oil industry.

All together, the Harper government’s approach can be summarized as follows:  (1) It promises to reduce emissions by a specific amount. (2) It promises to use regulations to meet its emission promises. (3) In 7 years, it has not implemented regulations that would meet its emission promises. (4) Instead, it lobbies Europeans to prevent regulations that would actually help Canada achieve its targets.

Tired of this hypocritical position of the Canadian government, some European politicians invited Jim Hansen and me to Europe in early May of this year to provide an alternative perspective, one that focuses on how to achieve the promise that Harper and other global leaders made in 2009 to prevent global temperatures from increasing more than 2° C in this century. [For Jim's perspective on this, see this post].

In Brussels we spoke to an audience of European parliamentarians (as well as Canadian and Albertan government lobbyists who seemed to be tracking us). In Berlin, Paris, London and The Hague we met with elected officials, senior bureaucrats, and senior political advisors to Chancellor Merkel of Germany and President Holland of France. We also met in London with the UK Minister of Transport and appeared before a parliamentary committee.

As a climate scientist, Jim explained that the 2 °C promise of Harper and other leaders means that most fossil fuel resources on the planet cannot be burned; virtually all leading climate scientists agree that these are “unburnable assets” if we are not to exceed a 2 °C increase. As an energy and environment economist,

I explained that virtually all leading energy system analysts agree that the oil sands, and other unconventional oils, should not be rapidly expanding. As a team from MIT said in a recent report, “The niche for the oil sands industry seems fairly narrow and mostly involves hoping that climate policy will fail.”

How was our tour?

To be honest, I was shocked at how warmly we were received. I think every person we met mentioned several times how happy they were to finally meet a Canadian who was not trying to convince them that expanded oil sands production (and hence greater carbon pollution and climate change) was in their interests. I left feeling that many European politicians will work hard to sustain their climate policy, difficult as this is with economic concerns so dominant.

But will the Europeans have the fortitude to stick with their policy? That’s more difficult to say. Lobbyists for oil companies with a lot of money can wield a lot of influence. And when they have a national government using all sorts of trade threats and diplomatic pressure on their behalf, their power is that much greater.

Still feels like these are very dark times for us all.

Image Credit: Kris Krug via flickr.

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.

Read At the Limits of the Market: Why Capitalism Won't Solve Climate Change, Part 1.

One answer to the question of why free market capitalism has failed to generate technological solutions to the crisis of climate change is that green innovation simply isn’t as profitable as speculation. In an era when financial markets generate record profits and investment banks are too big to fail, the long work of investment, research and construction of new energy infrastructure simply isn’t attractive to profit-seeking corporations.

Faced with the clear failure of the free market to respond to the approaching dangers of climate change, politicians have reacted by attempting to coax corporations into serving the needs of people as well as the bottom line. This is typically referred to as finding “market-based solutions.” It sounds good at first: we’ll harness the best minds in the private sector to develop new technology, create new jobs and solve climate change in the process.

But all too often the phrase “market-based solutions” works as a kind of coded communication. In effect, it signals to corporations that the government will not take any measures that could interfere with their business model. Rather than impose meaningful restrictions on emissions or the extraction of fossil fuels, market-based solutions focus on changing behavior by creating the right set of incentives.  

But without strong penalties to go along with those incentives—a stick alongside the carrot—market-based solutions simply end up creating profitable new markets without addressing the underlying economic drivers of climate change.

When the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, the creation of markets for trading carbon emissions (typically referred to as a cap-and-trade system) was established as the primary means of tackling climate change without endangering profits. The basic idea of carbon markets is simple: establish a cap or limit on the total amount of CO2 that companies can emit. That amount of carbon is then divided up and allocated to different companies through the creation of carbon permits: in order to emit any amount of carbon, each company needs the corresponding permits.[view:in_this_series=block_1]

For those companies that emit less than the allotted amount, carbon permits can be traded or sold for additional income. For those companies that produce carbon emissions over the limit, the need to purchase costly permits should function as a reason to innovate and develop low-carbon production methods.

But carbon emissions trading hasn’t lived up to its promise. The world’s largest market for carbon emissions trading, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), is failing. The European system is awash in excessive permits, meaning that the price of emitting carbon is so low that corporations have no incentive to clean up their production methods. At the global level, the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is suffering a similar fate.

As Steffen Böhm, director of the Essex Sustainability Institute at the University of Essex contends, “Carbon markets have lost us more than 15 years in the battle against climate change.” A combination of aggressive industry lobbying for additional permits, a lack of transparency and inadequate oversight mechanisms has simply turned carbon markets into yet another profitable arena for speculation, with no measurable effect in terms of reducing emissions.

One of the staunchest critics of the emissions trading approach is NASA climate scientist and activist James Hansen. Hansen has accused carbon markets of failing to rein in emissions and allowing “polluters and Wall Street traders to fleece the public out of billions of dollars.”

Hansen’s critique is more than grousing from the sidelines. Alongside groups such as the Citizens Climate Lobby in Canada, Hansen advocates an alternative approach to reducing emissions called fee and dividend. Although it remains a solution based on the market, fee and dividend takes a different tactic: rather than work to create new avenues for profit, it restricts markets, makes the fossil fuel sector less lucrative, and attempts to direct markets to meet human needs.

Unlike the cap and trade system, which is plagued by an opaque structure and dominated by bankers, industry insiders and technocrats, fee and dividend relies on a simple mechanism. It works by imposing a carbon fee directly at the point in which fossil fuels enter the economy: the port, the wellhead or the mineshaft. The collected fees are then distributed in their entirety to the population in the form of a monthly dividend. Everyone receives the same amount deposited directly into their bank account, regardless of income or assets.

The carbon fee would then increase each year, slowly making reliance on fossil fuels less and less economical, while driving incentive for green innovation. Since the increased cost of fossil fuels would then be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices, the monthly dividend provides a cushion to compensate for higher heating and transportation costs.

The advantages of this system over cap and trade are clear and significant. It is simple and transparent, requires no new government bureaucracy, and does not create new opportunities for speculation. When coupled with the removal of all fossil fuel subsidies, it aims straight for the heart of the economic motor of climate change: cheap oil, gas and coal.

Crucially, fee and dividend also has a progressive dimension. According to a 2011 report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), the emissions of the top 1% of households are approximately three times the average, or six times greater than those of the bottom 10%. The report also shows that two-thirds of Canadians have average or below-average emission levels. Since every household receives the same size monthly carbon dividend, fee and dividend acts as a progressive income boost for lower-income, lower-emission groups. Plus, it provides an economic incentive for all Canadians to reduce their household emissions.  

By ensuring that the costs of reducing emissions are largely borne by the enormously profitable fossil fuel companies themselves, fee and dividend provides an equitable and effective way forward. With the window for action on reducing emissions rapidly closing, we can’t afford to wait for the market to decide that preventing catastrophic climate change is profitable.    

Art by Will Brown. All Rights Reserved.

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.