Last week, I wrote about the things I know about climate change.  There are a few observations I derive from all of this:

1. If someone believes that climate change is occurring but that it is not caused by human activity, you would think that they would be absolutely terrified...Because if we are not causing it, we have absolutely no chance of fixing it. If you think climate change is caused by sunspots or sun winds, can you tweak those to make sure they don’t get the earth too hot?

2. What are the consequences of the argument that we should not start if other countries will not. If we understand the consequences of climate change, how can we say that? We are just going to continue without acting until the consequences descend upon us. It seems to me that if you take that position you are truly not a believer in climate change.

3. We don’t need more or different technologies to capture and reduce GHGs. We have all that we need to start. The problem is that there is not enough pressure from Canadians to make governments do what needs to be done because many people, I think, lack the fundamental understanding that climate change is a monumental problem with catastrophic impacts. They are therefore not demanding action strenuously enough to precipitate action.

We are also in an era of politics where it is almost impossible to have reasoned debate about complex issues. Debate is so easily dismissed with “carbon tax” or “hot air” or “wealth transfer”.

So, I am now convinced that what we need is a new technology that allows us to communicate, educate and debate complex and important issues in a way that allows for sufficient public commitment to policy solutions for difficult problems. What might that include?

• A government whose senior ministers and Prime Minister are prepared to go on the road relentlessly to tell people that we have a huge problem, that there are solutions that will not be prohibitively costly, that there is huge economic opportunity in the solutions as well, and that political leaders need to have the political leeway from the public  to do what has to be done.
• An advertising campaign that supplements this effort by educating people about the science of climate change and the profound consequences of inaction.
• A government sponsored program of climate change scientists speaking across the country to help educate and encourage the public.
• Curriculum in the schools that teaches children about the consequences of climate change and climate change inaction. (I would rather have them learning about what could happen than having to live with it once it’s happened because we did not act and educate them to act too).

Sometimes I feel almost desperate about climate change and the failure of governments to do anything at all about it. Their default position is to do nothing and they shuffle along toward action only when forced to. Canada can and should provide leadership to the world. This is a moment in history crying out for great leadership. US President Obama is trying to provide it and needs help.

These are the things I know for sure about climate change:

1. It is happening and we are causing it.

2. Some people do not believe that it is happening or that it is being caused by human activity. This kind of sentiment erodes the intensity of commitment that is needed to deal with the problem.

3. There is huge urgency that we take action and that we provide leadership. The consequences of inaction are catastrophic.

4. There is huge economic opportunity in dealing with climate change and potentially huge economic loss if we do not.

5. A recent study modelled by Mark Jaccard commissioned by the TD bank shows that the Canadian economy will grow by 2.4 percent annually (2010-2020) in a business as usual model. In comparison, meeting the government’s current GHG reduction targets would see economic growth of 2.2 percent annually. That is only a difference of 0.2 percent!

6. Those who argue that the costs of action are all but prohibitive have never produced any studies that support that contention or the opposite problem, the infinite costs of doing nothing.

7. There are sufficient technologies and financial mechanisms already available to solve the GHG emissions problem if we would only start.

8. When we start, we will find that the problem will be solved much faster and at much less cost than some feared.

9. If Canadians fully embraced the problem of climate change, there would be so much pressure from them that the government would be able to react and take climate change action.

10. Business wants more certainty in what policies they are going to have to meet.

11. The day to day pressures of taking care of our families and making ends meet makes it very difficult to embrace the potential impact of climate change and changes that climate change action will mean for our lives. But surely, if we could truly appreciate the impact of climate change on the lives of our children and grandchildren action would be demanded.

12. Canada is becoming isolated internationally because we are not making our contribution to the solution of the climate change problem.

Then there are some things I cannot understand:

1. How can people not see that climate change action is at the base of the next economy, an economy of the 21st century? How can they not see the economic risks of the US prohibiting imports of our products and commodities on the basis of GHG emission standards?

2. How can educated people in a modern society that is driven by science and technology not accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that it is being caused by human activity?

My concern continues to escalate about climate change and our government’s unwillingness to do anything about it. I cannot understand how they can really think that action is not required urgently.

I think it cannot be said much better than the Nobel Peace Laureates who issued this statement from their recent 10^th annual summit in Berlin in November:

“Climate change now poses an unacceptable risk of catastrophic and irreversible harm at a global scale, possibly even within the next decade, threatening global peace, human security and development, and putting the sustainability of human society in jeopardy.

Current negotiations are based on scientific information that is several years out-of-date. The latest science indicate that, on the balance of probabilities, we have badly underestimated both the extent and speed of climate change, to the point that we now run a rapidly increasing risk of sudden failure of some part of the climatic system, possibly via tipping points which may prove irreversible.

Despite 20 years of negotiation, virtually nothing has been done so far to contain the problem, and there is no sign of that changing at the forthcoming Copenhagen meeting. Excellent work is underway by concerned governments and organizations, but it is now clear that conventional processes will not deliver the speed and extent of change required to avert potentially catastrophic impacts.

New thinking is required to break through politics-as-usual. We have run out of time to take a graduated response and we must now move to global emergency action. This will require cooperation across the spectrum, involving civil society, public and private sectors, bipartisan political involvement, on an unprecedented scale. As the world’s poorest suffer most from but contribute least to climate change, and as we bear responsibility for future generations, climate justice must be a guiding principle.

Want to hear more? Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SenMitchell

Here are two written questions I've submitted to the government in an effort to get more information about their climate change policies. 

November 26, 2009—With regards to the report done by Natural Resources Canada "From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007'', could the government provide the estimated economic costs (2010-2050) of adaptation to the following significant impacts as identified regionally in the report:

In the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island:

1. Rising sea levels triggering more frequent and higher storm surges, and subsequent flooding;

2. Rising sea levels (especially in southeastern New Brunswick);

3. Coastal erosion triggered by storm surges, flooding and rising sea levels (including the economic costs of infrastructure threatened by coastal erosion);

4. River flooding from increased participation and a variable winter climate; and

5. Damage from increased frequency of ice storms.

In the Province of Quebec:

6. Infrastructure sensitivity in Nunavik due to thawing permafrost; and

7. Vulnerability of coastal zones to seal level rise, floods risks and saltwater intrusion into groundwater.

In the Province of Ontario:

8. Infrastructure impacts of near shore lake warming;

9. Infrastructure and transportation impacts of decreasing water levels in the Great Lakes (especially on the shipping industry);

10. Impacts to the energy system from reduced hydroelectric output; and

11. Potential arrival of the mountain pine beetle.

In Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba:

12. Diminished surface water resources;

13. Impact of increased drought on the agricultural sector and water systems;

14. Increased extreme rainfall events; and

15. Spread of mountain pine beetle infestation.

In Canada's Northern Communities:

16. The impact on northern communities and businesses of the expected reduction in the availability of ice roads (especially in the mining industry);

17. The impact of melting permafrost on community and industrial infrastructure, including waste containment structures;

18. Replacing food that has been secured through traditional and subsistence activities; and

19. Climate related changes in forest productivity.

In the Province of British Columbia:

20. The impact of rising sea levels on coastal communities and infrastructure;

21. The impact of abrupt changes and/or distribution of pacific salmon, sardine, anchovy, and western red cedar;

22. The impact on BC's hydroelectric system of water shortages; and

23. The impact of drought and water shortages on agriculture in the BC interior, especially in the Okanagan region.

24. Regarding these impacts, and others identified in the 2007 report, what is the government's climate change adaptation strategy? If the government does not have a climate change adaptation strategy, when will one be developed, and what is the mechanism for doing so?

Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.

November 26, 2009—With respect to the Government of Canada's 2020 target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% from 2006 levels:

1. Could the government provide its assessment on how Canada will meet the 2020 target?

2. Could the government provide its estimated emission levels for each year in the period 2010-2020 (in megatonnes); specifically noting which year Canadian emissions will peak?

3. Could the government indicate how many emission credits will need to be purchased to meet the 2020 target, and where the government intends to purchase them from?

4. Could the government indicate what it estimates the carbon price (under the carbon pricing scheme that the government plans on using) will be for each year in the period 2010 — 2020?

5. The Environment Minister has indicated (October 29, 2009) that it is possible to meet the 2020 target with a carbon price that is $28 per tonne. Could the government please provide all documents and assessments that outline how the 2020 target will be met with that carbon price?

Please note that I wish to receive a response within 45 days of tabling this question.

There is a sentiment, or perhaps it is a technique, that Canada should not have a firm position when we go to Copenhagen because that will weaken our negotiating position. I guess the thinking is that if we can hold firm to doing less, then other countries will have to do more.

There is another strategy; one that is integral to leadership on this issue. If we are prepared to do our fair share, then perhaps that will inspire or at least push other countries to do theirs. This is premised upon the idea that we are not really negotiating with other countries; we are dealing with climate and it doesn’t negotiate.

Recently, the government said that there was no point in doing anything unless the US does and that we should look rather at climate change adaptation. Several things struck me about this:

1. Canada used to be a country that made its own decisions and provided leadership. Most notably, Canada entered two world wars that could not have been won without US involvement long before the US had decided to become involved. In fact, it might be said that while Canada and the other early participants could not have won the war alone, their early efforts made it more winnable when the US arrived. The same might be said about the climate change fight.


2. The US actually will do something whether through new legislation or under the auspices of the Environmental Protection Agency. There is no doubt about it. We will not be ready for what they do because the government is doing nothing.


3. Under any circumstance, how could our government ever say that they were prepared to do nothing about climate change? Rather, if the problem is others not doing enough, then lead, persuade, cajole, and arm twist. Do what it takes to get this thing back on track. How can there be so much defeatism in our government at a time when our children and our world need leadership so much?

Want to hear more? Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SenMitchell

Here’s a question I asked in the Senate Chamber today on H1N1:

Senator Mitchell: This is about real people. This is not about jurisdiction, needles or the volumes; it is about real people. Honourable senators on the government side have not talked about real people once — not a single time — in this Senate chamber.

Two hundred people have died from H1N1, many of them infants and young people who would not normally have died from other types of flu. That raises the question about how many of those people would have died had they been able to get a vaccination in time. I wonder whether the minister can tell us how many of the 200 people got vaccinations early in the process and died anyway.

Please click here to read more.

Want to hear more? Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SenMitchell

I have been trying to immerse myself in the social media phenomena. This has not been an easy, intuitive process for me. The internet and the seemingly infinite numbers of ways to communicate on it are not something that my generation seems to understand readily.

I am using the internet to communicate in many different ways. The least social form, and also the oldest, is email. I am also using Twitter these days, have a Facebook site, and post on my Senate website. I also drove the creation and implementation of this site, the Liberal Senate Forum. The site was designed for all the Liberal Senators to communicate what we are doing on various issues and to listen to public input.

Emailing, for me, is pretty straight forward. It’s mail without the paper and the stamp.

The websites make sense too. The only thing that I have had a tough time understanding is why people visit a site. I am told that frequent blogging does. But then this raises the chicken and the egg question. If it takes blogs to attract you to a site, how do people know about the site to see the blog in the first place? It is a leap of faith to accept this. I am, however, convinced that quality material is somehow discovered and attracts more and more readers.

Lately, I have been doing a lot of Twittering. In doing this, I have come to several conclusions and observations:

1. There really is very little grandstanding or ‘big talk’ on Twitter. On the contrary, the writing is thoughtful, informative, tastefully funny and does not try too hard. There is, as a result, a sincerity and integrity that I had not really anticipated.
2. The people using Twitter are not really that young. In fact, statistics I have seen suggest that the average ‘Tweeter’ is between thirty and forty.
3. There is something compelling about Twitter. Opening up Twitter each time brings with it the anticipation of what messages you might have received, or what interesting ideas have been circulated.  
4. You can have a conversation about any number of things with individuals or with your whole group of followers. It is personal without being too intrusive and I think that that is much of its appeal.
5. There is also the element of finding out new things with a group of people who have chosen to follow you and you them. It is as though others have sifted through information and what they give you is significant and worth your time to read.

It strikes me that years ago people built houses with verandas so that they could sit at the front of their houses and talk to neighbors as they went by or came to visit. It was an important way of being social, exchanging information and discussing ideas. Twitter, I think, is a tremendously powerful form of social networking. It is personal but not threatening; you can evaluate who you are communicating without any pressure, and you can stop communicating with someone without any discomfort or awkwardness. Is Twitter the new veranda?

I had a remarkable day today.

It started when I went to the West Edmonton Mall arena where the Edmonton Jasper Place Branch of the Legion holds its annual Remembrance Day Ceremony. It is a great place for it as there are two levels of floors surrounding the rink so many people can easily see what is going on with the ceremony.

Normally, I just quietly and unobtrusively attend a ceremony each year. It is a very personal time for me because I am reminded intensely of my father and grandfathers. My father’s father served in the merchant marines in WWI and my mother’s father in the army. He was very seriously wounded, spent a year in hospital and lost much of one foot.

My father joined the Black Watch in Montreal in 1939 and retired from the army in 1969. In the interim, he fought in Europe in WWII, was wounded in the Black Forest and awarded the Military Cross. He actually fought for the British Black Watch through the Canloan program where Canada loaned officers – 700 of them – to the British, who had lost so many of their own. As a result, we have a picture of my father with Field Marshal Montgomery who personally awarded him the medal. He also served in Korea and in Vietnam on the International Control Commission. He was a serious soldier in that very Canadian military way; he was I am sure a warrior when he had to be, but projected a certain kind of gentleness and kindness that reassured you he would do whatever he could to avoid it.

I was 1 ½ years old when he went to Korea; so do not remember that. I was 12 when he went to Vietnam and I remember him leaving and coming back vividly. Forty-six years later, I can still see him stepping off the bottom stair from the plane exit ramp as I looked on from an observation deck in the Winnipeg airport.  I was so happy to see him and so relieved that he had made it back. It had been the longest year of my life and is to this day. I still have these beautifully written letters that he sent me throughout the year.

So, I have been thinking about all those people still waiting for someone to come home and of those for whom someone never will come home.

I arrived at the ceremony with all that on my mind but no official duties were scheduled for me. Then, an old friend and colleague in the Legislature who is now a City Councillor, Karen Liebovici, realized that no MPs were there to fulfill the federal role in the ceremony. So, soon I was been asked to do that. Minutes later I was speaking to several thousand people, presenting a wreath and reviewing the troops. It was a wonderful experience for me. I was privileged to do it.

I said in my remarks that while I was to make the formal federal, Parliamentary recognition and honoring, this event each year is very personal for me and, as I noted, it probably was for everyone there. We all know a father or mother, brother or sister, cousin or friend who has been or is in the military. And so we all know their quiet courage, contribution, service and sacrifice. We know that what they are personifies what this country is. We are very lucky to know them, or sadly to have known them. For me, it is my father and grandfathers.

The Senate Finance Committee is doing some preliminary work to determine whether a full study into pensions is appropriate for our committee. Some members, driven by Senator Eggleton, think that a full study is indeed in order considering the gravity of Canada’s potential pension problem. This is also my perspective.

The problem has been highlighted by the failure of Nortel and the impact that has had on its pension subscribers. Essentially the pension fund does not have enough money in it to sustain the promised level of payout to subscribers, either from underfunding or market setbacks (or both). There is cash still in the Nortel company, which could help the pension situation, but the pension subscribers have a lower priority under bankruptcy laws than other creditors. This means they will likely not have a very good chance to get some of this money. The argument for this structure of creditor priority is that if pension liability moves up any higher, then the cost of borrowing for the company would increase. That argument seems to mean, in my opinion, that the employees in the pension are subsidizing the company’s cost of doing business. It strikes me that the fairness of that is quite debatable.

The Nortel pension is a defined benefit (DB) pension plan. This type of pension promises to pay a certain retirement income based upon the level of income and the number of years of service. For example, a person that has 30 years in a plan that averages the last 5 years of income, say $50,000 in this example, and pays 1.5% per year of service would receive 45% of $50,000 or $22,500 per year. Companies and employees pay into the pension fund and then that amount and the investment returns are supposed to generate enough to pay out the promised retirement incomes. But if there are investment difficulties or company bankruptcy, this may not happen. Witness Nortel.

There are more issues with these DB plans:

1. How should the quality of pension fund investments be regulated?
2. When a pension fund is fully funded and has a certain level of extra ‘cushion’, administrators are allowed to stop company payments until the cushion is gone. This raises questions on how high the cushion should be before the company is entitled to suspend paying into the fund and must recommence paying into it.
3. If there is a deficit in the fund, what are the requirements for the company to “fill that deficit in” and how fast?
4. How long on average do people remain subscribers to a defined benefit pension? Long enough to ensure a comfortable retirement?
5. As a rule, do defined benefit pensions deliver sufficient levels of pension income to ensure a comfortable retirement?
6. Are there investment practices utilized by these pensions that might account for their difficulties?

These issues are central to defined benefit pensions and need to be addressed.

However, 11 million private sector workers in Canada do not have defined benefit pensions. Other Canadians in certain government jobs without DBs and often women who have chosen to stay home, and men for that matter, do not have DBs either. That means they are left for their retirement to depend upon their RRSPs and other personal savings (non-RRSP savings) or defined contribution pension plans which are really just RRSPs that your employer helps you fund. Some also get C/QPP and OAS/GIS. There are lots of issues in these plans too.

It is my experience that many people have no idea how much it takes in personal savings to generate a decent retirement income. $1.0 million at today’s interest rates would generate an income of about $35,000 per year. And, how many people have $1.0 million?

Many questions arise with this kind of retirement income:

• Do Canadians broadly understand the “math” of retiring on their own savings?
• How many people are subscribers to defined benefit plans versus depending upon personal savings?
• What is the average value of RRSPs in Canada today?
• What percentage of Canadians have RRSPs?
• What is the average annual contribution to a RRSP?
• What has been the effect on contributions to increased RRSP contribution limits?
• Is the current progression of contribution levels fair? That is to say, all contributions are limited to the same percentage of salary meaning that those earning more can contribute more? What would be the implication of allowing someone earning less wants to contribute more, even the specified maximum?
• What can someone reasonably expect to accumulate in an RRSP over various time periods, at various levels of contributions, under various rates of return, by the time they retire?
• How have personal RRSPs performed over the years?
• Are people generally aware of what level of savings they will require for their retirement?
• What are the many implications of circumstance in which many people are unable to retire because they do not have enough personal funds and/or their pension has not delivered sufficient funds for their retirement?

These are big and important questions and I hope our committee agrees to study them.

Years ago, when I was in the Alberta Legislature, I was given a tour of the Syncrude Oil Sands operations. It was impressive in many ways. Its magnitude even then was overwhelming. There was a true spirit amongst the people working there that they were part of a great pioneering adventure and something special.

I remember asking about the cost of production versus the price of oil. I was told that a barrel of Oil Sands oil was costing about $15 to produce, excluding capital costs. At the time the price of a barrel of oil was about $10. The company was losing about $5.00 a barrel and that did not include the cost of the plant and equipment. Total losses per barrel were probably in the order of $15 per barrel. But we did not hear anything about giving up because it made no economic sense to continue. No, there was a profound resolve to work at improvements until the oil sands became economically viable. And today, the oil sands are indeed very economically viable.

Great leadership is like that. It attacks the seemingly impossible and finds a way.

Yet, over and over we hear that it is too expensive to deal with the GHG emissions of the oil sands; that it will reduce competitiveness with other oil producers. Current estimates place the cost of capture and storage of one tonne of carbon from an oil sands plant at $30 to $40. That is not insignificant. We have to be ever vigilant of the industry’s competitiveness and of not singling out Alberta for unfair energy treatment. But this cost need not be insurmountable either. Government has to collaborate with the oil sands industry and provide leadership to ensure fairness. I am convinced that with the right protections and leadership, just as they have worked the production costs of oil sands oil into a competitive framework, the industry will find ways to dramatically reduce the price of capturing and storing a ton of carbon. Or they will find ways to avoid a good portion of their carbon emissions altogether.

There is a history of great resistance to environmental action argued on the basis of cost, only to find that when action is undertaken, costs and time required are dramatically less than anticipated. It will be the case for us if we could only get started. And, in this case, if we are the first off the mark, we will have something to sell the rest of the countries of the world when they catch up to our insight and leadership.

Oh, for some insight and leadership.

 

 

Want to hear more? Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/SenMitchell