WHEREAS scientific research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other Canadian and international academic research has identified that climate change will have a higher impact on many regions of the circumpolar world, and specifically regions of the Canadian north than elsewhere on the planet;
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has not met the expressed needs of the scientific community to invest in the work needed to produce and analyze comprehensive data on change that is occurring throughout northern regions on and off shore;
WHEREAS the ability to understand and predict the impact of these changes on the northern ecology, environment and society is fundamental to the ability to adapt to negative outcomes of these changes;
WHEREAS this data can also provide a knowledge base upon which to make wise decisions on the pace and direction of development in many areas of the north and sectors of the economy;
BE IT RESOLVED that a National Liberal Government will initiate a national dialogue with the academic, private and public research communities to design the most relevant and effective research program and approach to generate understanding of the impact of climate change on the north;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a National Liberal Government will triple Canada’s investment in northern scientific research to collect information that will support understanding of the impacts of climate change on northern environment and society;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the use of this enhanced investment be focused on the designed program and approach emanating from the national dialogue among research communities.
Yukon Federal Liberal Association
we should promote the government of Canada hosting an UN conference with the goal being providing a framework for research/discussion on Geo Engineering leading to an International Treaty –potential for individual States implementing Geo plans is a reality and a potential risk to all States—this idea is very proactive and timely
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that immediate attention be given to the extreme weather events we are now experiencing and will continue to experience and how we may reduce the impacts of these events.
Good point Linda – the average voter makes the link between extreme weather and and climate change in a more visceral way than academic climate studies its worthwhile political to underscore the connection.
By in large I see most of the resolutions as being very worded and couched in legalise. The Conservatives are about to back away officially (no big deal as they haven’t done anything but sabotage the process anyway). The Liberal Party needs a response and a plan to communicate it to the average Canadian in terms they will understand
When did being a Liberal automatically mean that you were compelled to endorse the position that changing climate conditions are a direct, conclusive result of human activity? I’ve never held this notion, and I believe we are wasting billions of dollars globally that could be better spent making more direct improvements to overall human wellbeing, such as combatting malaria and fighting other diseases that impact millions more people that any weather related activity. Weather is not becoming more extreme, it is simply being reported more accurately and frequently, and to think we mere mortals cause more impact than earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and changes in solar activity is egotistical in the extreme.
Climate change cannot be ignore. In western Canada it might as well be spring!
Dave
Thank you for your comment
I agree with you that the scientific evidence is clear and climate needs to be addressed with more urgency by Canadians and hopefully the Harper government will start to listen
As I live in Vancouver , i confess I am happy when the weather is moderate
However I find the extreme weather we have been experiencing worldwide quite disturbing
Mary Pynenburg
Paul
I believe making efforts to slow the pace of climate change is a priority that all Canadians, including Liberals, should consider a priority.
The vast majority of scientists agree that it will be even more costly to address after we pass the tipping point.
You may find this brief summary on climate change science from the US Environmental Protection Agency useful:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/pastcc.html
MaryPynenburg
Mary,
Thank for the link, however over the last few years I’ve read nearly everything I can put my hands on – print articles, books and web content – related to the topic of climate change, including the effects of CO2, Solar Activity, Volcanic Activity, localized warming near urban centres, and historical glacial and climate patterns. I consider myself to be far more versed on the subject than most. I have also worked within the energy sector for the last 14 years and have a solid understanding of the technologies currently available for electricity production and developing oil and gas resources, including their respective costs and byproducts. For clarity, I have no financial interests in any of these areas beyond my ordinary course of work. It pays the bills.
The subject of Climate Change, which has essentially become its own self fulfilling political monster, is very near and dear to me because I truly believe that billions of dollars are being wasted chasing ghosts, when they could be better directed towards education, healthcare, and maintaining our basic social services.
I disagree with your statement that the vast majority of scientist have determined it will be more costly to address the affects of climate change after some as yet determined tipping point. Certainly those with a vested interest, i.e. research dollars, will continue to bang the drums of doom and gloom. The scientific evidence is NOT clear. Many climate models do not even account for changes in solar activity, but look strictly at the effects of CO2 and nothing else. It’s easy to see an amplified effect when you apply only one variable to an equation. Examining CO2 concentration levels in glaciers is pointless because CO2 is soluble in water, which means it is not a static measuring stick of the history of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Sound policy should encourage making existing, cost effective technologies as efficient as possible, rather than trying to curb human development and progress while placing additional financial burdens on the public in the forms of higher taxes, higher energy costs and higher costs for food production. We’re spending billions, even trillions, trying to do what amounts to spinning the earth backwards. Climate change happens every day. Our best approach is learning to adapt to that change while focusing on improving quality of life for everyone.
I must admit, Paul very much mirrors my own feelings. I started from a place where, as a post-doc in Norway almost ten years ago, I became very interested in global warming as I would have been seriously affected in that Scandinavian country due to projected Gulf Stream changes. Having done a BSc in Marine Biology/Oceangraphy at UVic years before, I felt that I could analyze much of what was being talked about myself.
Well, after having a look at the source of Al Gores CO2 & Global Temps vs Time graph, I could see that CO2 increases lagged behind temperature increases. In other words, temps go up first, then CO2 goes up. Al Gore was pulling a fast-one. That was the moment when I turned a skeptical eye to every claim made by scientist or NGO or whatever that says that humans are behind global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate weirdness/weather extremes…etc etc. Furthermore, as I am a scientist myself and have published in peer-review journals and have applied for funding at various national and international levels, I am all too aware of how journal (more specifically, their editors) and funding agencies drive the science rather than the other way around.
That being said, I am still a Liberal. I believe that the Liberal Party of Canada is a big enough tent to understand the issues that Paul and myself raise and is mature and inclusive enough to give consideration to the issues and concerns raised in a way that moves party policy that benefits Canadians. For example, if we are not spending billions on various carbon-regimes and instead using these for infrastructure, education, health care, job creation projects and the like instead, then we will all benefit. Indeed, if we have cheap, reliable energy for our manufacturing and don’t hinder ourselves with carbon-priced additional costs (which have no real effect on climate) unlike the case with many Kyoto-adopting countries, then we have a competitive advantage.
I simply cannot see anyone arguing that we should actively sabotage any competitive advantages that we have as a country. As Liberals, we should be promoting competitive advantages.