How does 5 degrees Celsius hit you? A study published today claims that the climate policies of China, Russia and the True North Strong and Free would drive global warming to a 5C rise.
China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century, according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.
The US and Australia are only slightly behind with both pushing the global temperature rise dangerously over 4C above pre-industrial levels says the paper, while even the EU, which is usually seen as a climate leader, is on course to more than double the 1.5C that scientists say is a moderately safelevel of heating.
The study, published on Friday in the journal Nature Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed their example.
...The related website also serves as a guide to how nations are sharing the burden of responding to the greatest environmental threat humankind has ever faced.
Among the major economies, the study shows India is leading the way with a target that is only slightly off course for 2C. Less developed countries are generally more ambitious, in part because they have fewer factories, power plants and cars, which means they have lower emissions to rein in.
On the opposite side of the spectrum are the industrial powerhouse China and major energy exporters who are doing almost nothing to limit carbon dioxide emissions. These include Saudi Arabia (oil), Russia (gas) and Canada, which is drawing vast quantities of dirty oil from tar sands. Fossil fuel lobbies in these countries are so powerful that government climate pledges are very weak, setting the world on course for more than 5C of heating by the end of the century.In other words, you've got a prime minister feeding you a diet dangerously rich in horseshit.
Sleight of Hand:
Under the Paris agreement, there is no top-down consensus on what is a fair share of responsibility. Instead each nation sets its own bottom-up targets according to a number of different factors, including political will, level of industrialisation, ability to pay, population size, historical responsibility for emissions. Almost every government, the authors say, selects an interpretation of equity that serves their own interests and allows them to achieve a relative gain on other nations.Neoliberalism has transformed us over the past 40 years. Not just our governments but us as individuals. We have come to accept as normal policies and practices that maximize consumption without anything more than market restraint. We have cannibalized the achievements our predecessors bequeathed to us. We have rapaciously devoured whatever we could lay our hands on in the present. We embraced an ideology of "because I can" with scant regard to whether we should. Worst of all, we have robbed generations to come of a decent future. Asking us to atone for our excess, even to make basic sacrifices, has become an affront. Somehow it morphs into self-righteous indignation. "How dare you?"
During the Harper years I felt deeply ashamed of my country as it was properly mocked, even denounced as a climate change pariah. When Trudeau marched onto the floor of the 2015 Paris climate summit and boasted "Canada's back," I and many Canadians felt that environmental enlightenment was to return. No longer would we be a climate pariah. And yet we still wallow in the gutter with the worst of the worst. Just the three of us - China, Russia and Canada. This is leadership, responsible Liberal leadership?