How much is climate change going to cost us?

By the time this column is published, global leaders will be discussing climate change in Copenhagen putting this issue where it belongs - in an international forum. Prime Minister Harper, President Obama and representatives from190 countries will be negotiating global answers to what is a global issue.

Canadian representatives at Copenhagen will propose reducing absolute greenhouse gas emissions to 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020. Similarly, the US aims for reductions of 17-20 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020. But, closer to home, an Ontario climate change bill pushed through Thursday contains no targets – those are to come in regulations where MPP’s have no debate.

The inappropriateness of a local, provincial law, with no targets, for a global problem is concerning. Also worrisome is the lack of information on cost.
In the U.S. we hear that climate change cap and trade will cost $300 billion annually – or $1,761 per household. According to a TD-funded Pembina/David Suzuki report, Canadian industry would be paying between $46-billion and $72-billion annually for the federal cap and trade plan. Costs in Alberta alone have been pegged at between $15 billion to $24 billion annually.

However, this Ontario government won’t talk about costs - that’s how we wound up with a projected $25 billion deficit. Government members went as far as voting down my attempt to introduce amendments during provincial cap and trade committee hearings to ensure that the Ontario approach is costed out before being implemented.

Once the McGuinty Government forces industry into making emissions reductions, jurisdictions that do not face these decisions will gain a leg up from a competition perspective.

For instance, with investment in the coal industry rising at an annual rate of 50 percent, China will retain its current position as the leading global consumer of coal. There are seven million coal miners in the country. Reliance on coal in China means cheaper energy prices and cheaper manufacturing costs giving a competitive edge over our heavily-taxed, high labour cost manufacturing .This is why some refer to cap and trade, as cap and trade jobs to China

And then there’s “climate-gate”. According to the Wall Street Journal: “the scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents…that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.”

In one e-mail, Phil Jones, the director of a prominent climate change research centre at Britain’s East Anglia University, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University that skeptics' research was unwelcome. He stated, we "will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" Mr. Jones stepped down last week amid allegations of misconduct.

If true, the accusations being made take away from what should be open and free debate. Neutral objective research data is key to make that separation between science and political science. But as we’ve seen with the Ontario government’s handling of its cap and trade legislation, sometimes those who think they know what’s best don’t always want to hear dissenting viewpoints.

That attitude paved the way for rapid passage of the Ontario cap and trade legislation. A time allocation motion left only 20 minutes for the Official Opposition to present its views.

We’ll wait and see what all this will cost - and who will be paying.