The report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last Thursday was the most significant announcement that has been made in human history… That proclamation may seem loaded, but with growing scientific consensus about the effects climate change will have, it is not understatement. The IPCC reported with 90% certainty that humans are the most likely cause of climate change. As of that moment, politics in North America changed significantly… or did it?

The initial reaction of the Bush administration was promising. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman accepted that the IPCC report left no doubt human actions were causing climate change. Unfortunately Bodman also stated that capping greenhouse gas emissions was unrealistic for the US because it would hurt industry. Bodman further suggested that the US was a small player in global greenhouse gas emissions.

Both statements were bold lies, but the latter more shocking since it has been established that with 25% of global emissions, the US is the world’s largest contributor of greenhouse gases. In addition, it was recently reported that The American Enterprise Institute, (an Exxon-Mobile funded think tank with close ties to the Bush Administration), has offered $10 000 to scientists who will dispute the science IPCC report. Not surprising from the group that gave us WMD.

The Harper reaction paralleled the Bush reaction. Environmentalists in Canada breathed a sigh of relief when Harper acknowledged that what the IPCC had stated was true and could not be ignored. The sigh was quickly followed by a gasp when Harper stated that it was ‘ridiculous’ to expect that anything could be done immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; cars need to run, industry could not be ‘shut down.’ Apparently Harper did not read the widely reported poll by The Strategic Counsel.

In the poll, 93% of Canadian respondents indicated that they would be willing to make sacrifices in order to combat climate change. Among other indicators, 62% indicated that they would be willing to have the economy grow at a significantly slower rate and 61% would reduce by half the amount they drive. Clearly ‘Steve’ is as out of touch as the Bush Administration.

The IPCC made it clear that there is no room for governments to ignore the scientific consensus of climate change. Our current government has acknowledged that fact, but chooses to carry out its dinosaur agenda of economy first. For our own well being, we can not allow that agenda to continue.

14 February 2007

Mr. Rahn brought up an important point in his critique of my January 17 article: a diverse energy base is a major component of addressing the energy crisis. I support that perspective as well as the idea of biofuels helping to displace fossil fuel consumption; if done so in a sustainable way. However, there is debate regarding the sustainability and environmental impact of producing biofuels using current agricultural techniques in North America. In order to address Mr. Rahn argument, I conducted a literature review of scientific publications regarding biofuels.

Science magazine published an article entitled, “Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals,” a review of publications related to ethanol production and energy balance. The article demonstrated flaws in the publication from which I had received my original information regarding the energy balance of ethanol (my apologies). The authors estimated that ethanol produces around 25% more energy than it consumes in production. Also suggested was that biodiesel could produce much more energy than consumed by using future technologies.

However, the authors demonstrate that greenhouse gas reduction through burning ethanol is only 13% when compared with equivalent fossil fuel burning. The authors note that the marginal reduction is due mainly to fossil fuel inputs to grow corn for ethanol. Corn grown in our current agricultural system is not carbon neutral; it requires fossil fuels for tractors, pesticides, transportation and refinement.

An article from PNAS, “Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels,” noted that biofuel production to replace petroleum will affect the amount of land dedicated to food production. If all current corn and soybean production in the US were dedicated to biofuel production, only 12% of petroleum needs would be met. This is a significant finding, especially in light of the fact that we expect to add an additional 3 billion mouths to the planet in the next 50 years.

There are other problems regarding soil erosion, forest loss and the degradation of marginal lands if biofuels were pursued as a replacement to fossil fuels. With the impending climatic change because of fossil fuel burning, it is questionable whether we will be able to dedicate such a large portion of our crop to energy consumption. Therefore if biofuels are produced in a non-carbon intensive way… drastic reduction in overall energy use is still the only answer to solving the global energy crisis.