We have just witnessed the gathering of 151 leaders from 151 countries fly 151 planes to the Conference on Climate Change in Paris. Actually, I’m not sure that is correct as I just heard that 190 leaders attended. Whatever the number, they did not come alone. Canada had one of the largest teams with more than 380 politicians, government staff and bureaucrats in attendance; double the U.S. team, and about triple the number from the U.K. Catherine McKenna, the Federal Minister of environment and climate change, referring to Stephen Harper’s record on climate change said “We have such a broad delegation, and that's a big change from the past. Before, sometimes we actually didn't even show up. But our Prime Minister Justin Trudeau made it clear “Canada is back, my good friends.” Back at what?
Just look at the expenses incurred by Canada for this Climate Change Conference, made up of people who are passionate about the environment. Leaving out the carbon footprint from the flights and the fact that Ontario’s Premier flew back and forth twice; the transportation to and from the airports, the carbon emitted in the production of the food and the delivery to the conference, I am assuming that they didn’t just ”eat local;” let’s look at the money.
According to figures provided to CTV, the federal government budgeted more than $650,000. Add to that an estimated $121,500 was provided to other Canadian delegates -- including youth, NGOs, Aboriginal organizations, and opposition MPs -- who were invited to Paris by Catherine McKenna. Then there are the costs for the provinces.
Alberta: An estimated $80,000, but not to worry, the cost includes carbon offsets purchased for each delegate. Manitoba: Approximately $35,000 includes the purchase of carbon credits. Ontario: Twenty-two ministry officials joined Premier Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Glen Murray and “support staff” at the talks, according to a spokesperson. A cost estimate has not been released. British Columbia: At this time-no costs available for the nine delegates including Premier Christy Clark, her communication director and two “event support” staff, according to a spokesperson. Cost details were not released. New Brunswick: Six delegates No costs available but there will be no carbon offsets were purchased. P.E.I.: No cost estimate released. No carbon offsets were purchased. Saskatchewan: Premier Brad Wall was joined by two staff and an environment official.
No costs available.
Prime Minister Trudeau has pledged $2.65 billion for developing nations to develop a green economy. Obama pledged $3 billion.
It’s estimated that the main conference event itself will generate emissions equivalent to 21,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. No need to be concerned because France has pledged to offset the carbon footprint after the event. That estimate doesn't include flights to the conference, although UN officials are attending by train and other delegates have been encouraged to offset their emissions. And yet after everyone packs up there will be no legally binding document because, according to Todd Stern, US Special Envoy for climate change, "
An agreement that required actually legally binding targets would have many countries unable to participate.”
Imagine if all that time, effort and most importantly money had gone into
planting trees all over the world. In 2000, the IPCC gathered the available evidence for a special report which concluded that tree-planting could remove around 1.1–1.6 GT (gigatonnes of carbon) of CO2 per year from the atmosphere compared to total global greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to 50 GT of CO2 in 2004.
Approximately
500 million trees are planted in Canada every year to establish new forests where trees have been harvested. Planting new forests in southern Ontario with 50 million trees will absorb close to 2.5 million tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere by 2050. That works out to about
6.6 million tonnes of “carbon dioxide equivalent” (a standard measure used to calculate greenhouse-gas potential), which would be like taking about 1.9 million small cars off the road for a full year.
It was discovered in an
English Riviera resort known for its palms that its trees (mostly ash) stored 98,000 tonnes of carbon and removed 50 tonnes of air pollution each year - the equivalent of taking 52,000 family cars off the road.
New forests can help mitigate against climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Combined with the sun's energy, the captured carbon is converted into trunks, branches, roots and leaves through the process of photosynthesis. Carbon dioxide is stored in this "biomass" until it returns into the atmosphere, whether through natural processes or human interference, thus
completing the carbon cycle.
In Ontario one tree costs $2.00. Based on Canada’s expenses for the climate conference and Trudeau’s pledge we could have purchased 1,304,430,000 trees. Obama’s pledge of $3 billion would have provided 150 billion trees. One tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years. One large tree can provide a supply of
oxygen for two people. You do the math regarding “carbon dioxide equivalent” capture.
According to the
USDA Forest Service, “‘Trees properly placed around buildings can reduce air conditioning needs by 30 percent and save 20-50 percent in energy used for heating.’ The net cooling effect of a young, healthy tree is equivalent to ten room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. In one day, one large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air. For every five percent of tree cover added to a community, storm-water runoff is reduced by approximately two percent.” A tree canopy can lower temperatures by 10 C.
This is a low-cost method to make a city climate more comfortable for all.
There is more to the tree story. Back in 1984 Roger Ulrich, Professor of Architecture at Texas A&M University and a faculty fellow of the Center for Health Systems & Design, discovered that patients recovered from surgery faster when in rooms with a green view. Research done by Omid Kardan of the University of Chicago In Toronto, concluded that people living on tree-lined streets reported health benefits equivalent to being seven years younger or receiving a $10,000 salary rise. Just ten more trees per block made this difference. Studies also show that greener space-more trees-improved mental health, reduced asthma, and US scientists have even identified a correlation between an increase in tree-canopy cover and fewer low-weight births.
There are economic benefits as well. Homes for sale on tree-lined streets sell higher than a similar home without trees. It’s all in the aesthetics.
All around it seems that the $2.00 tree gives a big bang for the bucks.
As far as I can make out, there are
no legally binding agreements coming for the confab.
Was that Conference really worth the money and carbon output?
