G20 Summit Outcome: Pembina Reacts (with a wince)

Clare Demerse, Associate Director of the Pembina Institute’s climate change program, made the following statement in response to the climate change portions of today’s G20 declaration:
“Unfortunately, today’s G20 declaration did virtually nothing to advance the UN climate talks on the make-or-break issue of financial support to help poorer countries tackle climate change.

With less than 90 days before negotiations on a new global agreement are scheduled to wrap up in Copenhagen, acknowledging the importance of climate finance isn’t enough. Developed countries like Canada must now offer real plans to provide their fair share – something that their leaders failed to do this week in Pittsburgh.

While the EU and the US have at least started to ‘do their homework’ on climate financing, Canada has not yet given any indication of how much new public funding it will provide.

Canada cannot play a constructive role in Copenhagen unless it contributes its fair share to helping poorer countries cut their emissions and adapt to global warming.

A range of studies have found that the overall financing needed will be in the hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Pembina’s analysis shows that Canada is responsible for about three to four per cent of the total. Based on recent estimates of the funds needed, Canada’s share works out to approximately $2 billion to $6 billion per year.

Finance ministers have been tasked with further work in this area over the fall. Jim Flaherty and his counterparts will have to step up their efforts significantly to enable a strong deal in Copenhagen.

The G20 also committed today to phase out some fossil fuel subsidies ‘over the medium term,’ with finance and energy ministers to develop implementation plans in time for the next G20 Leaders’ Summit.

In Canada, the federal government continues to subsidize fossil fuels, creating incentives for increased activity that produces greenhouse gas emissions. Removing those subsidies – while scaling up federal support for clean energy – is an important step that would encourage significant cuts to Canada’s emissions.”

The Pembina Institute is a non-partisan sustainable energy think tank.


“In Canada, the federal government continues to subsidize fossil fuels, creating incentives for increased activity that produces greenhouse gas emissions”

Seems to me there is an array of Federal initiatives to reduce energy consumption. That should be applauded.

Then, since the hypothesis of global warming due to CO2 has failed multiple times, and succeeded NONE..,why harass the Feds for wanting more North American fuel production. That helps the balance of trade.

You cannot blame Ottawa for talking the subject though, as Global Warming and climate disaster is now Religion, and what politician would ever be elected opposing Religion?(my definition of religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved, or disproved)

… could explain denial at this point. You can choose not to believe in gravity, too. It’s just a theory, but the fact we can’t “prove” it doesn’t mean that you don’t still look like a buffoon when you fall on your face. Why don’t you take 15 minutes, turn away from the corporate-funded denier websites for a change, and read something credible about climate change. Why not start with this (http://www.nature.com/news/specials/planetaryboundaries/index.html), from Nature, one of the two or three most prestigious journals in modern science.

Show me just one paper that has accurately measured the sensitivity of the earths temperature to CO2. Please do not give me the many IPCC models that fail to account for clouds, and assume positive feedback. Just give me hard data, ie, good old scientific PROOF.

So far, the proofs have been three to one against CO2 driving temperature.(ice core, troposphere warming, OLR) All it should take is one to strike out a hypothesis in science.. now we have three, and the warmists still think they are at bat!

sounds like he got to you CC.

I really think sites like this should come around to a point of view that disagreement and contrariness is good. At the very least it encourages you to explain your understanding of things in new ways, honing explanations and possibly it helps you check up on your knowledge base.

and automatic consensus gets boring.

unless we’re talking about Frank Bi- he manages to keep it amusing.

mr. criminal, how reliable are the numbers assigned to clouds. Knowing that the IPCC has changed the value of radiative CO2 forcing 3 times, it seems idiotic to believe their values of clouds to be accurate. Furthermore, you should be aware now that the IPCC was incorrect in it’s global cloud coverage percentage. They had the coverage at 58% I think and its actually 72% percent.