When intensity is stupidity
Suzuki says plans to cut emissions shouldn’t be based on relative targets
David Suzuki

Ever since the media have finally decided that global warming is front-page material, politicians have been scrambling to come up with ways to placate an increasingly concerned public.

Some of those ways are brave, forward-thinking and innovative. Some are complete bunk. Being able to tell the difference is critical to making an informed decision.

Of course, what I just said is a gross simplification. Global warming is a pretty complicated subject, so the issue can be tackled in a variety of ways.

However, when it comes right down to it, the ultimate goal must be to truly reduce heat-trapping greenhouse-gas emissions. That’s the cause of the problem. If you don’t actually reduce those emissions in absolute terms, then the problem will keep getting worse and your plan won’t be worth the paper on which it is printed.

And this is where the trouble begins. One type of plan, in theory to reduce global warming, involves something called “intensity” targets. A smiling politician will often stand up and proudly proclaim new intensity-based greenhouse-gas targets as the foundation of that government’s plan to fight global warming.

Unfortunately, intensity-based targets will do no such thing. Greenhouse-gas intensity refers to the amount of greenhouse gases produced per unit of economic activity (GDP, for example). Right away, you can likely see the problem with such a plan. If targets are tied to economic growth, then actual greenhouse-gas emissions can continue to rise so long as they decrease relative to economic expansion.

Here’s an example: Between 1990 and 2004, Canada’s industries reduced their greenhouse-gas emissions intensity by six per cent. Fantastic! Based on this approach we appear to be well on our way to solving the problem. Well, not so fast. Because the economy grew so much during that period, Canadian industry’s actual emissions grew by 13 per cent.

So even if intensity-based targets seem to call for a reduction in emissions, actual emissions could very well continue to rise. In fact, combined with policies that encourage economic growth, they most certainly will increase. And because the atmosphere does not respond to intensity but rather to actual greenhouse emissions, such targets will do little, if anything, to fix the problem. Based on Canada’s own experiences, they could just put us further and further behind.

Yet many politicians love intensity-based targets — because industries love them. Such targets enable them to have their proverbial cake and eat it, too. They appear to be reducing pollution while actually expanding and polluting even more. U.S. President George W. Bush favours intensity targets — as did former Alberta premier Ralph Klein.

Canada’s only current national plan to tackle global warming — the Clean Air Act — also uses intensity-based targets up until at least 2020. That act, also called bill C-30, recently underwent an all-party committee review. It was substantially revised and now includes real targets — a step in the right direction. Whether Canada proceeds with C-30 or another plan, it simply must have real and substantial targets if we hope to make any headway on global warming.

Global warming is a serious problem, and avoiding scientists’ dire predictions means actually reducing our emissions, not virtually reducing them, not sort of reducing them, and not reducing their intensity.

Any plan that uses intensity as a target should go back to the drawing board until we have something that will actually work.

Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.