Environmentalists want the city of Ottawa to ban ads for hydrocarbons
You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
By Robert Lyman
Earlier this month, Ottawa city council considered a proposal to change the city’s policy governing advertising and sponsorships in municipal buildings. Ads could be banned after consideration of whether they might or might not lower greenhouse gas emissions.
There were over a dozen presentations, including one by me. All but mine were by representatives of environmentalist organizations. These organizations supported the policy change on the grounds that any oil and gas industry advertising that placed fossil fuel production or consumption in a positive light would have grave adverse effects on both human health and the Canadian economy. With one voice they compared advertising that favoured hydrocarbons to cigarette advertising and recommended a similar ban. Other city governments will probably face similar lobbying campaigns.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
I had only five minutes to speak. I used that brief time to question the premises behind the proposed change. I pointed out that climate change is a global, not local, phenomenon; that Ottawa annually produces only 0.015 per cent of global GHG emissions; that global emissions are mainly driven by economic and population trends in developing countries, which Canada has no influence on; and that blocking ads would in no way affect the climate, temperatures, the weather or their health effects.
I also observed that questioning the ethics of oil and gas producers implicitly impugned the actions of consumers who used the industry’s products to heat their homes, move people and goods and use the more than 6,000 products that would not exist without hydrocarbon energy and feedstocks — including pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, antiseptics and others important to health.
Time did not allow me to comment properly on the comparison of publication bans concerning cigarette smoking and oil and gas consumption. I might have noted that, among other things, smoking is a voluntary activity, whereas heating one’s home in Canada’s climate is not.
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
The NGO reps spoke with absolute conviction in the ethical and ideological correctness of their position. They paid no attention to the logical gaps in their arguments that I mentioned.
One gap concerns the claim that human-induced climate change is already causing increases in extreme weather events. It has been made so often that by now the general public probably believes it. But it is vastly oversimplified and exaggerated. The main sources of climate variability in the past, present and (probably) future, in all places and with regard to virtually all climatic phenomena, are still overwhelmingly natural.
How do we know? Climate activists generally regard the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the leading scientific authority on the causes and impacts of climate change. It published its Working Group 1 Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) in 2021. That report examined thousands of issues, including the frequency of disasters and “extreme weather events” potentially related to climate change, as well as their attribution to natural or human causes. The potential impacts examined included precipitation levels, floods, droughts, erosion of coastlines, frost, heat waves, ocean alkalinity, sea levels, cyclones and hurricanes, to name the most important. The report assessed whether, based on present evidence, the impacts are already occurring and whether, based on their models of the future, the impacts seem likely to occur sometime after 2050.
The report concluded that in the historical period (i.e., up to now) the IPCC has “high confidence” that increases are occurring in mean air temperatures, extreme heat periods and ocean temperatures and that decreases are occurring in dissolved oxygen in the oceans and in ice levels in lakes, rivers and seas. But it had “low confidence in the direction of change” of most of the climate impacts that receive most current media attention, including precipitation, drought, fire weather, cyclones and hurricanes, snow and ice, sea levels, coastal erosion and ocean acidity. For the most part, it also has “low confidence” that a wider range of adverse climate impacts will occur beyond 2050, except under “worst case” scenarios.
So, the IPCC itself contradicts the claims that are predicting climate and weather catastrophes. That pretty much kicks out the legs from under health scares related to climate change.
Ottawa council sent the proposed policy change back for further study of the potential legal issues, with instructions that staff report back within six months. At that time, one might hope, more energy consumers will join the discussion.
Robert Lyman is a retired energy economist.
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.
Opinion: Don't treat ads for oil and gas like those for tobacco
7
0
21.03.2024
Environmentalists want the city of Ottawa to ban ads for hydrocarbons
You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.
By Robert Lyman
Earlier this month, Ottawa city council considered a proposal to change the city’s policy governing advertising and sponsorships in municipal buildings. Ads could be banned after consideration of whether they might or might not lower greenhouse gas emissions.
There were over a dozen presentations, including one by me. All but mine were by representatives of environmentalist organizations. These organizations supported the policy change on the grounds that any oil and gas industry advertising that placed fossil fuel production or consumption in a positive light would have grave adverse effects on both human health and the Canadian economy. With one voice they compared advertising that favoured hydrocarbons to cigarette advertising and recommended a similar ban. Other city governments will probably face similar lobbying campaigns.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
I had only five minutes to speak. I used that brief time to question the premises behind the proposed change. I pointed out that climate change is a global, not local, phenomenon; that Ottawa........
© Financial Post
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Tarik Cyril Amar
Rami G Khouri
Dr Ramzy Baroud
Mort Laitner
Bradley Blankenship
