New US ambassador to Canada believes in "both sides of science" on climate change

Kelly Craft, the new U.S. ambassador to Canada, said that when it comes to climate change she believes in "both sides of the science"

Craft told Rosemary Barton of the CBC that she appreciates all of the scientific evidence on climate change saying to Barton: "I think that both sides have their own results, from their studies, and I appreciate and I respect both sides of the science."

Craft said that although the position of President Trump on climate change is different from that of the Canadian government that the two countries shared the same goal to "better our environment and to maintain the environment."" She also claimed that the U.S. could still fight climate change though it is leaving the Paris climate change accord. Craft said that the US pulling out of the agreement should not impact America's broader relationships with its allies.

Craft's husband, billionaire coal-mining magnate Joe Craft, was critical of former president Obama's climate change policies.

The former Republican fundraiser was sworn in by the Kentucky governor, and her longtime friend, back in August, but she formally assumed her post after she presented her credentials to Governor General Julie Payette at Rideau Hall in Ottawa recently.

Craft is the first woman to be named U.S. ambassador to Canada. In 2007 she was appointed to be U.S. delegate to the UN.

Craft was a delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention from Kentucky. She is a member of the University of Kentucky's board of directors. She also heads Kelly G. Knight LLC a business advisory firm based in Lexington Kentucky.

Craft and her current husband gave $2 million to the Trump campaign but before that they supported Marco Rubio.

Craft said she was honoured to take on her role as ambassador. She said "Surely there is no better posting than Canada".

Catherine Mckenna, Canada's Environment Minister was quick to react to Craft's remarks about the environment saying: “There’s really only one side to climate change science — that we’re seeing the impact of climate change and that it’s man made." The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) website claims that 97 percent of scientists say that humans are causing climate change while just 2 percent reject that position.

In November of 2016 researchers at Texas Tech University examined 38 papers that denied human-caused climate change and found that all of them contained flawed methodology.

The researchers said: “A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions."

The latest assessment report by the UN-backed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed: “Human influence on the climate system is clear and growing, with impacts observed across all continents and oceans. Many of the observed changes since the 1950s are unprecedented over decades to millennia.”

According to three separate analyses by NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Japanese Meteorological Agency, this year is on its way to be one of the warmest years on record.

Canadian climate modeller: Burning coal not oil is the real environmental danger

Andrew Weaver is a globally recognised climate modeller at the University of Victoria (British Columbia). Weaver has worked for the UN among others. Weaver calculates that emissions from burning oil from the Alberta oil sands would not make all that much difference to global warming.

What would make a considerable difference to global warming is if global coal resources are used to produce energy. As far as I am aware from talking to some economists that burning coal is much worse than oil as far as global warming is concerned was already well-known. However, this should hardly be used as an excuse to downplay the significance of dirty oil production.

The study does not really address the greater emissions generated in the production process in the oil sands nor does it even take into account the effects of that production on local water resources and its impact on aboriginal communities that depend on that water.

The Weaver study found that if all the oil sands were mined and burned the total carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures about .36 degrees C but if only the commercially exploitable oil was burned the rise is just .03 of a degree.

In contrast burning all the globes coal deposits would raise the global temperature by a whopping 15 degrees. Even using all natural gas resources would raise the global temperature three degrees. However natural gas is much less polluting than burning heavy oil. It is just that there is a lot more natural gas to burn. The whole study really tells one very little especially over the shorter term.

What the study will do is provide supposedly scientific support for rapid expansion of production in the oil sands. Weaver actually sees his study as making evident the need to move away from use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible. However politicians will spin the results to serve their own purposes. For more see the full article.

Canadians ready to pay to deal with climate change: Suzuki

Sometimes I find Suzuki rather irritating. He has done a lot of great work in popularising environmental issues and educating the general public. However, he strikes me as rather dogmatic and thin-skinned with respect to criticism. He can get very snarly when crossed and some of those opposed to his views are even subject to smear campaigns. He is a master of ad hominem arguments. Should any critic do any work for ag industry then they can be automatically written off as in bed with industry. Of course there may be bias but so is Suzuki likely to be biased because his hobby horse is pro-environmental and anti-big ag science.
Suzuki also produced a very interesting and well done documentary on Cuba concentrating on agriculture. It did touch lightly on genetic engineering in Cuba but passed over to other issues rather quickly!
Suzuki does not present the evidence upon which he draws the conclusion that Canadians are willing to pay to help deal with climate change or say how much, or how much it will cost. To say that the issue transcends politics is pure garbage, even dangerous. Its as if the great David Suzuki too is beyond politics. If it isn't a political issue why does Suzuki go around criticising governments for their environmental policies!


Canadians ready to pay to deal with climate change, says Suzuki
Last Updated: Friday, April 20, 2007 | 11:21 AM ET
CBC News
Canadians are ready to pay a little extra to help deal with climate change, David Suzuki said Friday before a meeting with the federal environment minister.

"I think they're willing to suck it in and accept that they're going to have to pay more but they want it to be fair," Suzuki said during a news conference in Ottawa.

Earlier this year, the 71-year-old environmentalist travelled across the country on a month-long bus tour to promote the issue of the environment.

"The thing I hear over and over again is: 'Some sectors in Canada are getting a softer ride, and why should we as consumers have to pay when, say, the tar sands or the auto sector are not being asked to meet their obligations as well?'" said Suzuki.

Suzuki was to meet with Environment Minister John Baird Friday and deliver a petition signed by more than 30,000 Canadians who say the environment is their top priority.

Issue 'transcends politics'
He said Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservative government says Canada can't meet Kyoto targets, refused to meet with him.

Continue Article

However, Suzuki says the issue of the environment has "transcended politics."

"People on the right and on the left are concerned," he said. "They are sick and tired of political posturing and rhetoric … This is a moment and an opportunity."

Canadians want to see "concrete targets and timelines and serious efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," he said, adding that Harper didn't make the environment a high priority during his first year in office, but has started to move on the issue.

"That's a reflection that he understands the public is deeply concerned," he said. "No politician can ignore the environment now."

Baird issues dire warning
The meeting comes a day after Baird said Canada would suffer disastrous economic consequences if it tried to meet its Kyoto targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The federal study Baird outlined to the Senate committee on the environment on Thursday would result in a recession, massive job losses and a large spike in gas prices.

Harper, speaking in Winnipeg on Friday, said he stands by Ottawa's numbers.

"It's impossible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one-third in five years without a huge cost being born by the Canadian economy," he said.

Suzuki predicts long-term economic failure
Suzuki on Thursday blasted the federal report, saying the government is ignoring the cost of failing to address climate change.

"First of all, let's stop listening to the goddamn economists," he said.

"Twenty per cent of the economy will disappear. It will cost more than World War I and World War II put together. We'll go into a kind of depression we've never, ever had in all of history."

He said ignoring the warnings would be a "crime against future generations" and said he wonders if there is a legal basis to take action against governments or corporations that fail to heed such warnings.

As well as his meeting with Baird, Suzuki was to meet with Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and NDP Leader