Kyoto Speakers Series: Alan Amey
Overview
[Also published at Alberta IndyMedia.]
Alan Amey presented the third lecture in the University of Calgary's Kyoto Speaker's Series October 23, 2002 in the MacEwan Hall Ballroom under the title, ``Canada and Alberta Climate Change Challenges''. The University produced a Web-cast [QuickTime: 56Kbps, 112Kbps, 300Kbps] of the presentation.
Amey is the President and CEO of Climate Change Central (or ``C3''), a non-profit ``public private partnership'' corporation set up two years ago by the Alberta government which has -- according to annual reports handed out before the presentation -- given C3 around $8 million in the last two years. Although presented as a ``partnership'', all of the approximately $130000 in funding from industry came in the form of ``borrowed staff''. In other words: ``partnership'' means the government pays for the corporation which then consults the private sector.
The Board of C3 includes Premier Klein as executive chair, the Honorable Lorne Taylor, provincial and municipal politicians, corporate representatives from farming, resource-extraction and production industries as well as one environmental group representative (from The Pembina Institute). Broken down:
Government: Bruce Beattie (AESA); Len Bolger (Alberta Science and Research Authority, Co-Chair of Alberta Energy Research Institute, Director of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research); Bob Hawkesworth (Calgary Alderman); Honourable Ralph Klein (Premier); David Lynch (Dean of Engineering U of A); Luke Ouellette (MLA); Ross Risvold (former mayor of Hinton); Honourable Dr. Lorne Taylor (Environment Minister)
Industry: Len Bolger (Director, React Energy Corporation, and Director, Alternative Fuel Systems, former Shell Canada Chemical Company President); Charles Fischer (TCPL,Encor,Nexen); Bill Hunter (Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries); Darshan Kailly (Canadian Freightways); Don Lowry (Epcor); Patricia McCunn-Miller (EnCana); Lewis Nakatsui (Lincolnberg Homes Ltd.,RCG Developments Inc.); Jim Popowich (Fording Coal Limited); Vince Smith (Dow Chemical Canada)
Institutions: Elaine McCoy (Macleod Institute; environmental consulting firm); David Pollock (Pembina Institute; environmental group)
Other: Paul Griss (independent consultant)
The Presentation
Amey's presentation was reasonably concise at just under 40 minutes and focused mostly upon what may be done about climate change. He was quite careful to avoid explicitly stating whether either he personally or C3 generally were for or against Kyoto ratification (they officially hold the position of fence-sitter) and refused to say whether he thought Kyoto was a good idea.
Early in the presentation, Amey noted that there are ethical and/or moral issues surrounding Kyoto and generally brushed value-judgments into this area, saying that everyone must make up their own mind. He deflected questions about the value of various reduction schemes (and questions about non-ratifying countries) as personal ethical considerations. This made his personal stance on Kyoto ambiguous.
Neither C3 nor Amey disputed the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Amey was quick to point people towards these reports [Tech Summary] when questioned on the science behind Kyoto; he did not try to answer science-critical questions himself and noted that there was a public debate occurring about the science of climate change and that this was a good thing. Amey suggested that, Kyoto or not, there was common ground between the groups C3 works with (government, industry, the public and interest groups): they agree that action is needed; they agree we should be looking for the ``most effective solution''; they agree there must be public engagement; they agree we ``need investment in energy efficiency''; and they agree we need an ``adaptation strategy'' (by which he meant that the climate will change over the medium-term no matter what we do now and we need to adapt to this).
Amey pointed out differences in the approach of the same groups: groups differed about whether Kyoto should be ratified or not; groups especially disagreed about the economic impact of Kyoto ratification; groups differed about the time-line needed to implement Kyoto reductions.
We are heading towards ``a carbon constrained future'' according to Amey and must place a price on carbon; this will require broad behavioral changes throughout society, according to Amey.
Amey pointed out that Canada's emissions have grown since Kyoto was signed, necessitating a 29% drop (or 250 million tonnes) by 2010. Amey presented an analogy that this was approximately equivalent to 500,000 households of carbon dioxide and dead-panned that this, ``was a lot of hot air''; throughout the presentation, Amey attempted to inject humour, often successfully.
Going over methods of reducing emissions, Amey noted that the Russian Federation had reduced their emissions to 17% below 1990 levels (WordlWatch has figures showing a 23.9% drop since 1992) and suggested that their example indicated one way to meet targets: ``shut down the economy''. Here, he was referring to the massive collapse of the Russian economy in the wake of the IMF/WorldBank-imposed privatization scheme. Amey claimed that, ``no country but Russia can meet their Kyoto targets'' given the ``gap'' figures he presented.
The fact that Russia already has emissions far below their Kyoto targets has typically raised concern that other countries will simply buy Russian emissions credits and therefore not have to do anything about domestic emissions. During the last lecture, David Anderson indicated that Canada would not be considering the purchase of Russian credits as a method of meeting Kyoto targets.
Conspicuously absent from Amey's examples was any mention of China.
Amey also presented some unreferenced figures claiming that emissions have historically been tied to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth insofar as growing GDP implies growing emissions. It was unclear whether he was suggesting this was a cause/effect relationship or a correlation. He also neglected to note how strong such a correlation might be and whether it is getting stronger or weaker. Using formulas derived from these figures (apparently presuming a 100% correlation), Amey concluded that lessening the ``intensity'' of emissions wouldn't suffice to reduce emissions during a period of GDP growth.
Some other analysis of a GDP/carbon emission correlation:
- WorldEnergy.org [correlation];
- Economic Policy Institute [weakening correlation] ``Historically, economic output and carbon emissions have gone hand in hand, but recently this link has begun to weaken.'';
- WorldWatch: ``[A 0.5%] decline in emissions [the first since 1993] in the face of a world economy that expanded 2.5 percent in 1998 suggests an accelerated "de-linking" of economic expansion from carbon emissions, undercutting arguments that reducing emissions will damage the economy.''
- Please post additional information.
Mr. Amey had some good points and generally appeared to be giving a well-balanced talk from both sides of the Kyoto fence. However, the figures he presented and the manner of their introduction seemed to favour a non-Kyoto method of emissions reduction over a longer period than mandated by the Kyoto Protocol; his comments on the ``impossibility'' of all countries meeting their targets, presentation of a vague graph of ``the Alberta plan'' and misleading presentation of GDP/emission correlation all point to a longer-term emission-reduction plan than that mandated under the Kyoto Protocol. Further, nearly all of his examples of emissions reduction were from an economic point of view, suggesting that monetary savings (i.e. monetary incentives) are the best way to achieve reductions.
Amey did well to steer questioners towards scientific reports while still presenting a mostly-accurate picture of the scientific community (i.e. that there is wide consensus about anthropogenic climate change which is still being debated by some scientists). It is unfortunate that his talk did not include more references to source data nor the presentation of conflicting data where appropriate.
It is also unfortunate that there was not more detail provided about the so-called ``Alberta plan'' to reduce emissions, especially given that the Alberta government has almost solely funded Climate Change Central. It also appeared that the longer-term emissions reduction goals found in the ``Alberta plan'' were being pushed by Mr. Amey's presentation.
The University of Calgary was thanked many times during the question period for holding this speakers series. Given the technical nature of these discussions, it's unfortunate that the University has not also organized panel-type debates at the conclusion of talks; having expert criticism is invaluable, especially when many audience members do not have the background (whether in climatology, biology, economics or politics) to criticize what is being presented.