A New DeSmog Investigation: Operation ecoTRUTH

Fri, 2007-12-07 16:42Emily Murgatroyd
Emily Murgatroyd's picture

A New DeSmog Investigation: Operation ecoTRUTH

This is the first in a DeSmogBlog exclusive investigative series we're calling, “Operation ecoTRUTH.”

One of the Canadian government's banner climate change funds could easily go toward subsidies that actually make the problem worse - and officials in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's administration would neither know, nor care.

Canada's Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, recently reported to the government's Public Accounts Committee that she is investigating concerns about the Conservative government's $1.5-billion Eco-Trust for Clean Air and Climate Change.

The stated purpose of the Eco-Trust is:

“To provide support to those provinces and territories that identify major projects that will result in real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants. The provincial initiatives supported by the Canada ecoTrust for Clean Air and Climate Change will complement industrial regulations and existing federal initiatives. Projects could include provincial technology and infrastructure development, such as carbon sequestration, and clean coal and electricity transmission, that will lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution. The Government will invest over $1.5 billion in the trust.”

The problem, as identified by the Auditor General, is that the government has no way to confirm that the money goes to projects aimed at “real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.” The bigger problem, as revealed in committee the other day, is that Environment Minister John Baird doesn't seem to mind.

Public Accounts Committee Chair, Shawn Murphy (Charlottetown, Lib.) expressed concerns over the Eco-trust fund at a Committee attended by the Auditor General on November 20, 2007.

Murphy said that, despite the Ecotrust's laudable goals, the provinces had received the money into General Revenue and therefore, “they do not have to spend it on environmental initiatives; in fact, they can spend it on anything they want.”

The Auditor General appeared to agree:

“We are concerned about very large transfers being made purportedly for certain purposes, but when you look at the actual agreements, there are absolutely no conditions requiring the recipient to use the moneys for the purposes being announced.”

Fraser went on to compare the Eco-Trust to a similar failed health equipment program from a few years back:

“Some members might recall a few years ago there was a great deal of press coverage of money for a medical equipment fund and the criticism of some provinces that they were in fact using that money to buy lawnmowers.”

Fraser concluded that:

“We believe there should perhaps be a little more truth in advertising, and we would like to do a piece for Parliament to inform Parliament about what are the major transfers to the provinces, are there in fact any conditions on them, and if there are conditions, does the government have any process in place to actually ensure those conditions are being met?”

Apparently, the current answer is: no.

The feds have thrown $1.5 billion into the air and have listed it proudly among the shamefully new measures they have taken to address climate change. But the provinces can spend the money subsidizing coal plants or tar sands developments that are precisely contrary to the goal of reducing global warming. Maybe it would be better if they spent the money on lawnmowers.

At least it would be updating the provincial fleet.

Comments

Which work is that may I ask?

Which work? Are you really that ignorant or just pretending in order to be obnoxious? It took an outsider, an amateur no less, with a profound respect for the principles of scientific enquiry to draw attention to Mann’s mathematical jiggery-pokery and, moreover, to the extraordinary weakness of his tiny bit of bristlecone pine data as a hook on which to hang major climate history revisionism.

Which work? Are you really that ignorant or just pretending in order to be obnoxious? It took an outsider, an amateur no less, with a profound respect for the principles of scientific enquiry to draw attention to Mann’s mathematical jiggery-pokery and, moreover, to the extraordinary weakness of his tiny bit of bristlecone pine data as a hook on which to hang major climate history revisionism.

Which work?

Oh Please…..
the deliberately Fradulent Hockey Stick that was subsequently used in the Gore Fantasy flick AIT.

Where have you been?

For anyone with an open mind, here is an interesting article on the ON GOING Mann issue:

Harvard Physicist Lubos Motl Debunks Real Climate’s Gavin Schmidt about Medieval Warm Period Study

http://icecap.us
There is a link to the Reference Frame for more detail.

Icecap is a denialist site. Gary knows nothing about science.

Is Lubos still at Harvard or is someone being imprecise (Lubos’ criticism of Gavin Schmidt)? From Wikipedia:

Luboš Motl (born 5 December 1973) is a Czech theoretical physicist who works on string theory and conceptual problems of quantum gravity.

Motl was born in Plzeň. He received his master degree from the Charles University in Prague, and his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Rutgers University and has been a Harvard Junior Fellow (2001-2004) and assistant professor (2004-2007) at Harvard University. He currently has no known academic affiliation, though in July, 2007 he announced his plans to return to the Czech Republic after leaving academia.[1]

So dump Mann’s graph if you think it is fundamentally flawed. There are umpteen OTHER STUDIES AND GRAPHS, produced independently and showing the same results. How do you explain that little detail?

OOOOh, I can’t pass up that softball.

“Umpteen” studies is a tad exaggerated but, yes, there are a few, all written by colleauges, collaborators or reviewers of Mann with, natch’, different co-authors and precious little new data. If you can point to any exceptions, please do, and I’ll eagerly read them.

This is the same sort of academic incest about which I complained, earlier in this thread, with respect to meaningless peer reviews. All members of the fellowship.

The one that McIntyre and McKitrick “debunked” by using “corrected” data?

I ask ZOG and Gary replies…

Very funny. I think ZOG is actually thinking of a scholarly work by Rush Limbaugh. When you paint yourself into a corner and have no idea, one way to deal with a question of sources if to bluster and say “Are you kidding, you DONT KNOW!?!?”

Ah yes, Rush Limbaugh, the far right right oracle. What the f— did he ever say about AGW and what does that have to do with anything?

If you’re truly not familiar with the details of the saga of Mann’s “research” hoax, you’re too dense and ill-informed to be commenting here and should be making your arguments in your neighbourhood bar. Yeah, go out and hoist a couple; that would improve your primative intellect enormously and, if you are a dedicated warmist, probably improve your sour outlook on life too.

How do you know it’s a hoax?

Amyone interested in the history of the study of climate change can read about it here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

and here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm

Hey; Excellent posts.
I have read most of this before but not one nicely compiled series.
It really tells a story.
Everyone should review these.
Thank you.

Pages

[x]

Problems caused by climate change are likely already dangerous and global warming may be irreversible, according to a draft science report by a United Nations committee.

The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) report, leaked earlier this week to a number of major media organizations, said continued greenhouse gas emissions caused primarily by burning oil, coal and natural gas will probably increase the likelihood of  “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”

The New York Times...

read more