Citizens Centre for Freedom and Democracy
FIRST PRINCIPLES
A weekly commentary by Link Byfield
March 19, 2007
Strange to say, Parliament has never questioned whether CO2 causes global warming
One issue we at the Citizens Centre have avoided up to now is “climate change.”
Our focus as an organization is constitutional, and the constitutional implications of climate change remain unclear.
If human-emitted carbon dioxide really is unleashing hurricanes, droughts and floods, then Ottawa should certainly consider imposing reductions, and provinces should co-operate.
But if it isn’t – if CO2 is just a harmless, fluctuating component of Earth’s atmosphere – anything Ottawa does to restrict emissions constitutes a gross theft of provincial rights and responsibilities.
So it’s a scientific question first, and then, depending on the evidence, a political and constitutional question.
We have all been told that the science is now settled.
The main authority behind this assertion is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Yes, says the IPCC, the temperature and the sea have both risen slightly in the last century, and will rise slightly again in the next, causing limited coastal flooding, and accentuating regional patterns of drought and rainfall. And yes, this will be caused in large part by humanity increasing atmospheric CO2 from 260 parts per million to 375 ppm.
It’s less gripping than Al Gore’s sci-fi horror movie showing New York under 20 feet of seawater. But it’s concerning.
To appreciate how much work – and guesswork – has gone into this, read the IPCC’s latest report, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
But be aware as you read that many credible scientists still dispute the central contention, that CO2 raises temperatures.
This was the point of a BBC documentary on March 8 (on-line at http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_detail.php?StreamID=566).
In it a roster of experts argues that the current temperature falls midway within a known natural range, and is driven by fluctuations of the sun, not CO2. And besides, they say, a little more heat is probably good, not bad.
The BBC show also suggests that most climate research is now being driven by green propaganda and governments looking for reasons to control the economy.
So where does this leave us?
Before Canada plunges into huge and costly disruptions to provincial energy production on the basis of some questionable UN theory, we suggest there be a rigorous parliamentary review of the science.
Strange as it might seem to some, no Canadian legislature has performed an open and unbiased review since the controversy erupted a generation ago. Not even the Harper government. Not even the Klein and Stelmach governments.
They listen only to one side, and block their ears to the other.
I once asked a former premier why. He replied, “Because in politics you have to be on the side of the angels.”
Whatever that means. There is nothing angelic about governments clumsily redesigning the economy – which is what state-mandated CO2 reductions will do. We are still paying for similar stupidities in the 1970s and ’80s.
Nor is it angelic to needlessly increase the price of energy, especially in destitute places like Africa.
As a nation we should not take everything the UN says on blind faith. Last we heard they were still obsessing (wrongly, as it turns out) about overpopulation.
It may seem politically late in the day for a scientific public inquiry on global warming.
But better late than never.
Until Parliament has honestly and openly considered all the evidence about CO2, it has no moral right to do anything.
Link Byfield
FIRST PRINCIPLES
A weekly commentary by Link Byfield
March 19, 2007
Strange to say, Parliament has never questioned whether CO2 causes global warming
One issue we at the Citizens Centre have avoided up to now is “climate change.”
Our focus as an organization is constitutional, and the constitutional implications of climate change remain unclear.
If human-emitted carbon dioxide really is unleashing hurricanes, droughts and floods, then Ottawa should certainly consider imposing reductions, and provinces should co-operate.
But if it isn’t – if CO2 is just a harmless, fluctuating component of Earth’s atmosphere – anything Ottawa does to restrict emissions constitutes a gross theft of provincial rights and responsibilities.
So it’s a scientific question first, and then, depending on the evidence, a political and constitutional question.
We have all been told that the science is now settled.
The main authority behind this assertion is the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Yes, says the IPCC, the temperature and the sea have both risen slightly in the last century, and will rise slightly again in the next, causing limited coastal flooding, and accentuating regional patterns of drought and rainfall. And yes, this will be caused in large part by humanity increasing atmospheric CO2 from 260 parts per million to 375 ppm.
It’s less gripping than Al Gore’s sci-fi horror movie showing New York under 20 feet of seawater. But it’s concerning.
To appreciate how much work – and guesswork – has gone into this, read the IPCC’s latest report, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis” (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf).
But be aware as you read that many credible scientists still dispute the central contention, that CO2 raises temperatures.
This was the point of a BBC documentary on March 8 (on-line at http://www.fcpp.org/main/media_file_detail.php?StreamID=566).
In it a roster of experts argues that the current temperature falls midway within a known natural range, and is driven by fluctuations of the sun, not CO2. And besides, they say, a little more heat is probably good, not bad.
The BBC show also suggests that most climate research is now being driven by green propaganda and governments looking for reasons to control the economy.
So where does this leave us?
Before Canada plunges into huge and costly disruptions to provincial energy production on the basis of some questionable UN theory, we suggest there be a rigorous parliamentary review of the science.
Strange as it might seem to some, no Canadian legislature has performed an open and unbiased review since the controversy erupted a generation ago. Not even the Harper government. Not even the Klein and Stelmach governments.
They listen only to one side, and block their ears to the other.
I once asked a former premier why. He replied, “Because in politics you have to be on the side of the angels.”
Whatever that means. There is nothing angelic about governments clumsily redesigning the economy – which is what state-mandated CO2 reductions will do. We are still paying for similar stupidities in the 1970s and ’80s.
Nor is it angelic to needlessly increase the price of energy, especially in destitute places like Africa.
As a nation we should not take everything the UN says on blind faith. Last we heard they were still obsessing (wrongly, as it turns out) about overpopulation.
It may seem politically late in the day for a scientific public inquiry on global warming.
But better late than never.
Until Parliament has honestly and openly considered all the evidence about CO2, it has no moral right to do anything.
Link Byfield