It would be funny if so much weren't at stake.
Anonymous culture-jammers (probably the "Yes Men") earlier today apparently managed to fool the Wall Street Journal into reporting that Canada has abandoned it established greenhouse gas emissions reductions target of just 3% below 1990 levels by 2020. Instead, it would henceforth support something more in line with what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- and most of the developing world -- say is necessary to avoid dangerous interference in the global climate: 25-40% below 1990 by 2020.
Within an hour, the Canadian government had apparently set the record straight:
The Office of the Environment Minister and Environment Canada confirm that this release and all statements within it are unequivocally false. Worse, they risk heavily damaging the negotiating process. Canada wishes to fully expose these efforts for the irresponsible deceit they represent, and shall seek the full measure of legal recourse against these criminals under Danish and international law.
Canada remains committed to the 3% goal -- which is pretty much in line with what the U.S. Congress and therefore Barack Obama, is willing to accept.
So, we now return you to regular Copenhagen conference programming. But wait, check out the language the Canadian government, which George Monbiot has described as "behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party" used in its response to the hoax. Here's the first paragraph:
OTTAWA, Ont. -- December 14, 2009 -- One hour ago, a spoof press release targeted Canada in order to generate hurtful rumors and mislead the Conference of Parties on Canada's positions on climate change, and to damage Canada's standing with the international business community.
So the primary concern of those who no doubt drafted the release in haste is Canada's reputation in the international business community. Interesting. A rare moment of candor?
But by the sixth paragraph, things are really getting suspicious:
Canada's current energy policy represents an elegant synthesis of the most advanced science, while remaining faithful to Canada's tradition of political pragmatism. Experts note, for example, that the much-decried oil sands of Alberta, contrary to environmentalists' dire assertions, are enabling Canada to meet ambitious emissions goals by providing her, as well as her neighbors, with the energy resources needed to transition to a cleaner energy future.
"Without the dynamism of our oil sands industry," says Bruce Carson, a special Adviser to Environment Canada, "we in Canada would not have the energy - moral, financial and literal - to develop the alternative energy future the whole world craves."
"Canada's line may not always be popular, but we do feel the scientific and political assumptions we've inherited from the Kyoto Protocol no longer suit present physical or market realities, or a vigorous energy policy into the future," notes Michael Martin, Canada's chief negotiator in Copenhagen. "A 2006 baseline for emissions reduction targets, and a comprehensive re-examination of finance for developing countries in the context of a generous and efficient foreign-aid policy package, will guarantee an efficient, direct path to useful negotiations within our increasingly fast-paced energy market."
"An elegant synthesis" is not a phrase I would choose to describe the discrepancy between the science as laid down by the world's climatology community and the targets set by the Canadian government. And I suspect some Canadian officials at Copenhagen will find it necessary to yet again explain how extracting oil from the tar sands, a process that uses significantly more energy and therefore produces more greenhouse gases than most other forms of fossil-fuel production, helps Canada "transition to a cleaner energy future." But they're probably getting used to that by now.
The requisite quote from Canada's environment minister, however, sends the irony meters over the edge:
"It is the height of cruelty, hypocrisy, and immorality to infuse with false hopes the spirit of people who are already, and will additionally, bear the brunt of climate change's terrible human effects," said Jim Prentice, Canada's Minister for the Environment.
Was this just the result of Environment Canada's press staff working too fast? No. The response was posted at www.ec-gc.ca, while the genuine Environment Canada site is www.ec.gc.ca. GC is the domain used by all Canadian government department websites. Same thing for the Euro WSJ site, which used a similarly sophisticated recreation and URL tweak.
The spoofed sites are remarkable. Virtual mirrors for the actual sites. A lot of work went into this. I guess that's because so much is at stake.
Just so there's no confusion, here's what a genuine Environment Canada press officer had to say in an email to me this morning about Canada' negotiating position at Copenhagen:
The Government of Canada remains committed to reducing Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020, and 60-70 percent by 2050.
Remember that Canada's 2006 emissions levels are better than 26% higher than they were in 1990, which is the benchmark used in the negotiations. If you ever have trouble doing the math in your head, there is a handy online converter here.
- Log in to post comments
Funnily enough, Canada's three most populous provinces (which account for 85% of the country's population, and 75% of its economic output) think the Harper government plans are a joke, and don't want to be responsible for shouldering the entire burden of carbon emissions, while Harper and his junta of hicks from the west allow the tar sands project to keep increasing every Canadian's per capita carbon footprint exponentially.
This is playing out to be "Let those Eastern bastards freeze in the dark" all over again, except it's "Let those Eastern bastards worry about hippie-dippy stuff; we've got money to make," which doesn't quite have the same ring to it, or the same historical resonance.
Speaking as one of the Eastern bastards who would quite cheerfully plant my increased carbon footprint in the seat of Harper's ill-fitting trousers over this, I would really prefer that something actually gets done that is in the interests of the majority of Canada's population, not a bunch of reactionary yahoos who happen to have a lot of oil money and are still holding a grudge over the NEP from 35 years ago. Basically, what we've got right now is a tiny minority of the country who's willing to screw over the rest of the country and much of the world because they (think they) can get away with it.
Speaking as a former member of those "backward yahoos" it's exactly that attitude that fuels western alienation. By marginalizing the only "have" province while ignoring the fact that your heartlanders voted Sweatervest McGee in, you provide a convenient scapegoat while abdicating responsibilty. We, as canadians, voted in Harper, so we, as canadians deserve the blame for this farce. And while were pointing carbon emission fingers, what about all your car plants, international airports, manufacuring cores and millions of commuters, hmm? That 75% of GDP isn't exactly carbon neutral. So stop putting the blame just on Alberta so we can all work towards a solution.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that "Canadians" haven't actually given a majority mandate to a governing party since 1984, when Brian Mulroney squeaked out a 50.03% share of the popular vote.
Of course, Canadians seem resigned to accepting a political reality in which a small minority of the country gets to tell the rest how it's going to be. So ultimately it is there responsibility. But if you look at the regional breakdowns, it's clear that most Central Canadians are not supportive of the current government's policies. There really is a split that the Harper government seems intent on exploiting.
James, Obviously your column is tongue-in-cheek when you state: "An elegant synthesis" is not a phrase I would choose to describe the discrepancy by THE SCIENCE as laid down by the world's climatology community and the targets set by the Canadian government."
"...THE SCIENCE laid down by the world's climatology (sic climatological) community", whaaat?? Have you not heard about the fraudulent and conterfiet data used by Mr. Jones and Mr. Mann et al. to manipulate real data to their liking???? Their data is that used by the U.N. I.P.C.C to produce their predictions of rampant runaway "global warming". This is called "lying"!! Mr. Jones has lost his University position and all "scientists" involved in the I.P.C.C. database are completely discredited and should hang their heads in shame.
Once real science starts coming out on the long-term climatic data for the world from 1862 (about the earliest we have good records), I think you will be surprised to see what these real data show. (I won't spoil the surprise by telling you ahead of time!) Be on the alert for real climate data soon to begin appearing - even in mainstream media - unless they compeltely bury their heads in the sand.
May I be the first to say Bring on the real science then, Dennis. We're not scared.
Not of science anyway.
Liars and Pr folk yes, but any rational person would be.
You talking about 20% of their 3 ppm of CO2 plant food?
WOW. thrilling stuff.
According to The Huffington Post's Green Editor, the Yes Men were the one's responsible. She talked to Andy Bichlbaum in Copenhagen this evening:
A certain list of "scientists" best be getting all lawyered up if they know what's good for them.
c.c. MM, GS, PJ, GF, TW, KB, JH.................
Often we forget the little guy, the SMB, in our discussions of the comings and goings of the Internet marketing industry. Sure there are times like this when a report surfaces talking about their issues and concerns but, for the most part, we like to talk about big brands and how they do the Internet marketing thing well or not so well.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
According to the study, the most important tool for small businesses to succeed in 2010 is search engine marketing, while email marketing, public relations and social media cited as crucial for success.23.8% of all small businesses reported that search engine marketing was the tool most needed for their business to succeed in 2010.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Having been a part of the Online Universal Work Marketing team for 4 months now, Iâm thankful for my fellow team members who have patiently shown me the ropes along the way and made me feel welcome
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Affiliate Marketing is a performance based sales technique used by companies to expand their reach into the internet at low costs. This commission based program allows affiliate marketers to place ads on their websites or other advertising efforts such as email distribution in exchange for payment of a small commission when a sale results.
www.onlineuniversalwork.com
Small Business owners are largely forgotten. Thats why I only focus on them. I have experience several members of my family file bankruptcy due to small business failures. I also I suffered through 2 destroyed businesses due to failure however, in my failings I have learned some of the secrets to success. (Who can say they know it all?)
www.onlineuniversalwork.com