A prior homily by Yvonne Double: shared her deep faith and environmental concern, particularly with respect to climate change, calling for Canada to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

This presents for me a dual dilemma: firstly, many in the congregation today did not hear Yvonne speak; secondly, I share many of her views while holding a different perspective on others.

Polls consistently indicate that Canadians are concerned about this issue and favour ratification, but reveal limited understanding of the sources of emissions. Canadians see this is a problem that governments and industry should address, but do not appreciate the effect of their own daily decisions.

It is not my wish to engage in a scientific or political debate—instead I ask you to focus on areas of agreement, prayerfully considering your personal lifestyle and how you can take personal responsibility for reducing resource consumption and atmospheric emissions.

Let me begin with what I see as a biblical bias for action, based on our responsibility as stewards of God’s creation. I will touch on the science, the implications and the magnitude of the challenge before closing with some examples of practical actions you can take.

But with our privileged position comes a responsibility to use God’s abundance wisely and equitably.

In the parable of the dishonest manager, Jesus warns:

Today’s Gospel Reading, the Parable of Weeds among the Wheat also reminds us that at the Last Day we will be judged according to our actions.

Life as we know it could not exist on earth without the greenhouse effect, which increases surface temperatures by reducing re-radiation of solar energy.

The Kyoto Protocol rests on a theory, supported by model predictions and some observational data, that rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other GHGs (arising mainly from fossil fuel combustion) will cause climate changes, leading to extreme weather events, rising sea levels and species losses.

The media regularly reports statements to the effect that temperatures are rising, and that attribute extreme weather events including storms, droughts, ice storms to climate change.

This raises two key scientific questions: is the climate changing, and if so is it due to human activity (in particular human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases)?

Dr. Tim Patterson, a leading climate researcher and professor of earth systems evolution at Carleton University, writes in the National Post of July 15^th:

[The full text is reproduced here while selected excerpts were presented on July 21^st.]

Tim Patterson

As a scientist involved in paleoclimate research, I am concerned by much of the pro-Kyoto rhetoric coming from the federal government, environmental lobby groups and many in the media. They seem to not understand the tremendous natural variability in our planet's climate system. Even a cursory examination of the climate record reveals how ridiculous it is to blame every heat wave, drought, Antarctic iceberg or bout of extreme weather on human-induced global warming.

1. If the climate is changing (whatever the cause), substantial resources will be needed for adaptation in Canada and elsewhere.
2. Increased funding for scientific research is needed to better understand the influence, if any, of human activity on our climate.
3. Climate change is a long term issue; a long term approach is appropriate to develop and implement appropriate solutions.

While I believe that a cautious approach is warranted, there are many practical steps that can and should be taken NOW. Many are "no regrets" measures with clear social and/or economic benefits.

Canada’s Kyoto target is to reduce average annual emissions during the period 2008 to 2012 to 6% below the 1990 level. It sounds deceptively easy, doesn’t it?

The principal drivers of GHG emissions are population and economic activity (GDP); other factors include energy per unit of GDP and the GHG intensity of energy.

Canada’s national emissions have grown since 1990 as a result of steady population and economic growth, partly offset by reductions in energy per unit of GDP and GHG intensity per unit of energy. The challenge for Canada is intensified because GHG intensity per unit of energy is lower than in most other countries because much of our electricity is generated from hydro or nuclear energy.

Over the 20-year period from 1990 to 2010, rates of growth are likely to be on the order of 1.7% for population and 2.5% for GDP per capita. In order to achieve the Kyoto target of –6% or –0.3%/y solely through domestic action, it would be necessary for GHG emissions per unit of GDP to shrink at a rate of 4.5% per year (or 90% over the entire period). Normal technological development and capital stock turnover reduces energy intensity by about 1% per year.

There are ways to square the Kyoto books and achieve Canada’s target for the first commitment period, but they require substantial new taxes and large capital outflows, most likely to the Russian Federation.

An alternative approach would focus those resources on other priorities, including energy conservation and the development and application of more energy efficient technologies.

Canada’s Third National Report on Climate Change: Actions to Meet Commitments Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2001, shows that the sources of emissions in 1999 were distributed as follows: transportation 27.0%, electricity 17.0%, fossil fuel production 16.7%, industry 15.9%, agriculture, land use change and forestry 9.0%, residential 6.1%, commercial and institutional 4.1%, others 4.0%.

Residential emissions represent only direct emissions for fuel combustion in homes. About two-thirds of transportation emissions are from personal vehicles. Household demand also drives a significant share of emissions from electricity, fossil fuel production and other sectors. In short, if there is a problem then individual Canadians are a big part of the problem and must also be a part of the solution. Our energy consumption reflects daily lifestyle decisions and past choices about where we live and about long-lived vehicles, appliances, construction, etc.

What can you do? Time permits only a few examples.

Transportation. Consider needs and alternatives. When purchasing or leasing a vehicle, consider fuel consumption and costs. Have your engine tuned-up and maintain proper tire inflation. Avoid idling: more than 10 seconds wastes fuel, and in any case Mississauga has a by-law in place to limit idling. Consider use of public transit, walking or cycling where appropriate.

Household. Open and close windows and blinds to take advantage of passive heating and cooling. Adjust your thermostat to reduce heating and cooling costs (especially during the summer when electrical energy consumption peaks). Install a programmable thermostat. Change furnace filters and have your furnace maintained. Insulate hot water lines. Ensure weather stripping and caulking is in good condition and seal leaks. Consider adding insulation or upgrading windows and doors. Install energy-efficient lighting. When replacing an appliance, consider buying a more energy-efficient model. Did you know that a front-loading washer reduces water and detergent use as well as energy consumption? Think twice about keeping your old refrigerator in service when you replace it! Reduce waste by assessing the need for purchases. Participate in recycling: it not only reduces waste disposal but conserves resources and is a preferred strategy to reduce the energy intensity of material production processes.

There is a political dynamic that equates ratification of the Kyoto Protocol with action, and opposition with inaction. Whatever your views on ratification might be, I challenge you to consider how you personally can make better use of resources, including water, energy and materials. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem!