Elizabeth May on global warming

On the heels of the reopening of Parliament and the Obama inauguration, Elizabeth May looks at what’s in store for the environment in 2009—and Canada’s role in it.

Green Living: Do you expect the Obama presidency to have an impact on Canada’s environmental policies?

Elizabeth May: Well, of course. The biggest disaster that ever happened in terms of climate policy was the [U.S.] Supreme Court decision to give George Bush the presidency. (I won't call it the election of George Bush.) And under Mr. Harper, we basically joined with George Bush to ignore the [climate] crisis. …    Barack Obama isn’t ignoring the crisis of climate change. He placed renewable energy and the threat of a warming planet quite high in his list of concerns in his inaugural address, and that’s really encouraging.

GL: Is it too late for Canada to get on track in terms of its climate change policies?

EM: Before December 2009 and the [United Nations Climate Change Conference] in Copenhagen—Canada’s policies have to change 180 degrees. The only way that’s going to happen is either: to see Mr. Harper leave the role of Prime Minister; or, to see him forced by the wave of “Obama-mania” to accept that an economic stimulus package should help the environment. … It doesn’t look good. I mean, they [the Conservatives] just announced help to build the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline (MVP), which is part and parcel of the Athabasca Tar Sands expansion. That is just completely outrageous; it basically represents subsidies to the wealthiest companies in the world to build a pipeline. It’s not an economic stimulus. So I don’t know that I see much hope for Canada changing it’s position as long as Stephen Harper remains Prime Minister.

GL: What would you like to see Canada do in Copenhagen, when the world sits down to hammer out a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol?

EM: We should be prepared to step up to the plate and say, “Right. Our emission reductions will be 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. And if we can’t get there entirely domestically, we will provide programs to help developing countries reduce their carbon dioxide emissions. But we won’t shirk from doing everything possible to expand energy efficiency and renewables here in Canada.” I’d like to see us agree that there are binding targets for reducing emissions that are global, and that will kick into gear the minute that the first Kyoto commitment period finishes, at the end of 2012. Canada’s going to have to accept that we have penalties for violating our first-phase Kyoto commitments and come to the table prepared to accept our lumps. We have not done those things we promised to do, but we can still get back on track. Being there and being progressive in the negotiations is going to be critical.

GL: Are you hearing more Canadians question whether we can afford to go green in the face of the economic downturn?

EM: I’m not hearing that.... I hate to go back to Barack Obama but I think that if we had a president of the United States saying, “In this time of financial peril, we don’t have time to be concerned about environmental issues; we’ll get to them later,” I'd be desperately worried.  

GL: Okay. But what would you tell people if they said we couldn’t afford it?

EM: If we don’t act we’ll have massive economic disaster. It will make this current economic crisis look like a Sunday school picnic.

GL: You recently published the book Global Warming for Dummies, along with Zoe Caron, a young climate activist. What do you think is the biggest myth about global warming?

EM: The myth persists that there's a big scientific debate out there, but hat's not the case. There’s really no question that human interference in the climate system is pushing us into a danger zone. … But there’s this concerted efforts by some, not all, in the oil and gas and coal industries, to lobby against action. Not infrequently, there’s a new petition signed by “scientists” that say global warming is not true. It throws people off. But if you look at the petitions more closely, you see the scientists were actually geologists working for the petroleum industry—not scientists working in the area of climate science. But understanding those distinctions takes quite a while, and it’s not something that someone who’s not immersed in the climate issue will immediately know how to decipher. One is basically a propaganda campaign; the other is legitimate science.

GL: What do Canadians want to know about global warming when they talk to you?

EM: I’ve been hearing from a lot of people, who I consider to be very well-informed, that they never understood what [global warming] was before they read my book. They didn’t really get the dynamic of photosynthesis, carbon sequestration in vegetation, that vegetation was squashed over millions of years until it was turned into oil and gas…that we’re taking a beneficial green house effect and converting it into something that’s potentially devastating. So I’ve been surprised at how many people are grateful for straightforward explanations of complicated science. Also, a lot of people are looking for tips: What to do, and what to change.

GL: In my experience, people really want to be part of the solution to global warming, but there’s a “green-action gap”—a difference between what people know and what they actually do—that comes into play. It’s hard to close that gap.

EM: It’s hard because under the current system, the measures you take to protect the climate are met with penalty and not reward. That’s why government leadership is so important. There are certainly a lot of people who read Green Living who are already driving a Prius, and others who have left the Prius behind and they bicycle and walk; they’re composting and recycling; they’ve already done their energy retrofits; and on and on and on.... They’re doing all the right things, but everything they’ve done cost them money for which the only hope of payback is pathetic little government subsidy programs or the return that they’ll get over the lifetime of the appliance. So really, the upfront cost is a big disincentive—a cost to people without much reward.

GL: Are you seeing many people taking grassroots actions to fight global warming?

EM: Yes, everywhere. Everywhere I look. It’s quite extraordinary. For example, I was at a little school last week in Ottawa where the kids were writing all the stores in their neighbourhood—the big chains—and saying, “Turn off you lights at night. Why do we have to see the store lit up at night?” So for all age groups and for all different types of communities, people are constantly thinking of new ways to avoid the waste of energy, to shift away from polluting fossil fuels, to walk the talk.

GL: That must keep you motivated. Are you hopeful that we can deal with the crisis?

EM: I absolutely am. After the election, I was a bit depressed, and then I went to Poznan for the climate negotiations and was much much more depressed. The thing that saved it for me was when Al Gore came. He came and he delivered a speech outside of the conference (because, of course, he’s not representing a government), and basically his message was, “Hang in. Cavalry is on the way. When Barack Obama is inaugurated, you will see these commitments.” … Anyway, Gore’s speech ended up, as you can imagine, with “Yes We Can!” which turned into chants of “Yes We Can!” by governments and delegations from all around the world. And we went from feeling in the pits of despair to thinking, “Yeah, this can turn around.” I just hope that if Mr. Harper cannot be removed from office between now and [Copenhagen in] Dec ’09 that he gets the message that he’ll never have a hope of getting reelected—even as a minority—if he’s fighting Obama and global climate negotiations.

For a smart synthesis of the issues, pick up just released book, Global Warming for Dummies, co-authored by Elizabeth May and Zoe Caron (Wiley 2008).

For more information on Canada's Environmentalist Party, check out greenparty.ca