Media Clipping — Thursday, March 7, 2002, The Daily News, Halifax

Ratify Kyoto or risk future

By Ronald Colman, Special to The Daily News

SUPPOSE YOUR doctor tells you that you have high blood pressure that puts you at risk of heart attack. She acknowledges that there are major uncertainties: most hypertensives don't have heart attacks; your blood pressure may stabilize; or it may cause different problems like stroke. Nevertheless, she says, better safe than sorry. Take drugs to control your blood pressure; change your lifestyle; exercise more; eat less fat.

Now along come the National Post, the premier of Alberta, and the president of the Chamber of Commerce. They tell you in detail how much the drugs will cost you, how much productive work time you'll lose exercising every day, how much less competitive you'll be as a result, how inconvenient it will be to change your diet and your lifestyle. They never mention heart attacks or strokes or premature death.

This is their argument against meeting the Kyoto targets. If you mention risk, they quickly remind you the doctor's diagnosis is uncertain. Better be absolutely certain before you act or spend a dime. How certain, you ask? When I have a heart attack? When Nova Scotia farmers experience a fourth year of drought? When we have another ice storm or when Charlottetown is flooded?

No wise decision, and no accurate reckoning of costs and benefits are possible when we ignore half the equation, when we ignore the costs of not controlling our blood pressure, and of not curbing our greenhouse gas emissions. When a risk is potentially catastrophic, we err on the side of caution. We follow the doctor's advice. We wear seat belts and bicycle helmets, even when the risk of death and catastrophe is remote. And we carry that logic forward to future generations. We regularly make sacrifices for our children to ensure their safety, security and wellbeing.

Yes, the science of climate change is uncertain. But it is much less uncertain than the chance of our house burning down. A consensus of 2,000 highly qualified international scientists on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted that the 1990s were the hottest decade on record 'that snow cover has declined by 10 per cent, mountain glaciers are retreating, and sea level is rising. They stated: "In the light of new evidence and taking into account remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (66-90 per cent chance) to have been due to increase in greenhouse gas concentrations ... The projected rate of warming (in the 21st century) ... is very likely (90 to 99 per cent chance) to be without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years."

Seventeen countries The scientific academies of 17 countries, including the Royal Society of Canada, the Royal Society of the United Kingdom, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prizes, have strongly endorsed the IPCC findings. In a joint statement, the 17 academies recently urged ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and said:

"We urge everyone – individuals, businesses, and governments – to take prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases ... The balance of scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to Earth's climate." No wonder the Canadian government declared climate change to be the greatest challenge facing this country since the Second World War. And yet, we keep on burning fossil fuels in our cars, homes, power plants, and industries as if there were no tomorrow. Nova Scotians pump out an average of 22 tonnes of greenhouse gases per person each year, twice the west European average. Our provincial emissions are now 15 per cent higher than they were in 1995.

In Nova Scotia, the predicted impacts of climate change include an increase in extreme weather events, particularly hurricanes, floods, and droughts, as well as adverse impacts on the province's fisheries and agriculture industries. Nova Scotia farmers have already suffered from an unprecedented three years of drought in the last four years, with 1999 farm losses estimated at $50 million. Low-lying regions around Yarmouth, the Bay of Fundy and Halifax Harbour have been identified by Environment Canada as particularly vulnerable to sea-level rise, higher tides, increases in storm intensity and frequency, and storm-surge flooding.

Climate change economists, using computer models, have estimated that each tonne of greenhouse gases we emit will cause at least $38 in climate change damages. This means that Nova Scotia's current annual greenhouse gas emissions will cause more than $760 million in damages. The national figure is almost $27 billion.

All the talk about the "cost of Kyoto" never mentions this side of the equation – what is the cost of not reducing our emissions? In its 230-page Greenhouse Gas Accounts for Nova Scotia, GPI Atlantic did look at both sides of the equation and found that every dollar invested now in reducing greenhouse gas emissions will save at least $17 in avoided damages due to climate change.

The GPI report also identified many ways to reduce greenhouse gases that would save money and make us more competitive, (for example, by conserving energy and thereby reducing business costs). Without serious dislocation, the province could reduce its greenhouse gases to 17 per cent below 1995 levels by 2010, and avoid more than $200 million a year in energy costs and global climate change damages. Yes, ratifying Kyoto will require some lifestyle changes, just like controlling our high blood pressure. But for the sake of our children's safety and security 50 years from now, will we not be willing to drive a smaller car rather than an SUV, to carpool when possible, and to turn down our thermostats at night?

How long will we wait? The reassuring thing about the precautionary principle is that if our blood pressure goes down, and if climate change scientists determine there is no risk of global warming, we can always ditch the drugs, eat more meat, and burn more fossil fuels. By contrast, once we have had a heart attack or another drought, ice storm, hurricane, or heat wave, once Charlottetown or Truro are flooded, our options are much more limited. Another drought year will put many Nova Scotia farmers out of business. How long will we wait to take preventive action?

What the National Post, or the Alberta premier, or the Chamber of Commerce president never tell you is that "uncertainty" could mean worse than predicted outcomes as easily as better ones. Let's play it safe and do our part to make the world a safer place for our children, rather than a more dangerous and uncertain one. Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, says the Royal Society of Canada, is "a small but essential first step towards stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases" that will create a base "for the more substantial reductions that will be necessary by the middle of the century."

That's the advice of our country's most prestigious scientific academy. It is time to stop delaying, and follow the doctor's wise advice. And when the Post, and Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, and the chamber come calling, let us at least ask to see both sides of the cost equation.

Ronald Colman is executive director of GPI Atlantic, a non-profit research group that is preparing an index of well-being and sustainable development for Nova Scotia.

Copyright © 2002, The Daily News