The latest science on global warming shows we must rapidly slash carbon emissions, or face catastrophic impacts on our civilization by the end of the century.

How can we effectively eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions both fairly and effectively? Cap and Dividend is a relatively simple and transparent model that uses existing mechanisms rather than inventing new administrative bodies. It is already in the works in the United States, where it is before the Senate as the Cap and Dividend Act of 2009.

Cap and Dividend clearly has a place in Canada, and what better province than BC to guide the way?

Read the Sierra Club BC's Vancouver Sun op-ed piece on Cap and Dividend.

Stabilizing Temperatures

There is a general agreement in the scientific community  that a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius represents a  dangerous threshold which would trigger all kinds of nasty effects -- from  dramatic reduction in crop yields in tropical zones to the loss of up to 40 percent of the world's species.

Are BC's legislated targets - 33 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 - sufficient to avoid that dangerous threshold?

Sierra Club BC and the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union asked the Climate Modelling Group at the University of Victoria to apply their Earth System Climate Model toward defining what exactly is called for globally to stabilize temperature below 2 additional degrees. The resulting study has been published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Read the research paper by Sierra Club's Dr. Colin Campbell and Cliff Stainsby of BCGEU.

Authors' summary

Appendices to research paper

The results are compelling. In strict fairness, British Columbia would have to reduce emissions 94 percent by 2050, compared to 83 percent for the world. Because we already vastly exceed our equitable share, to follow this strategy would mean a rapid drop in emissions below the global average, and sustaining this low for an extended period of time.

Such a steep descent would be nearly impossible to achieve without economic depression and social upheaval. But we might be able to smooth the descent by cutting a deal with nations whose emissions are under the global average.

An alternative scenario would see us descend to the global average more slowly, over the next 90 years. We would need to reduce our emissions by 6.6% per year, starting now.  However, this would still mean that we would emit 84% more carbon than strict fairness would allow.

To compensate for this we would need to pay poorer nations, currently emitting at less than the global sustainable rate, to not increase their emissions. Payment could be in the form of technology transfer or support of clean and green power, transportation or energy efficiency projects.

What does this mean for the BC government, which has a legislated target of 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050? Our calculations indicate 94 percent is the more accurate figure, with intermediate targets of 24 percent by 2012 (versus the 5-7 percent proposed by the BC Climate Action Team), and 56 percent by 2020 (as compared to the currently legislated 33 percent).  

In other words, we need to cut our emissions by about half in the next twelve years!

The choices are many and under active discussion.  The rationing of carbon via strict caps proceeding to zero emissions may be inevitable.  Radical urban re-design with strict requirements for buildings, electrically driven mass transportation, reductions in flying, maximized local food production, and large expenditures on infrastructure rebuilds will be necessary.  Finally we must acknowledge and pay our international obligations while we match provincial goals to all these outcomes.