Ontario’s new PC government,…

Ontario’s new PC government, like the Trump administration for that matter, appears to feel no urgency to act to stop or retard climate change. Its first acts after taking power accelerated climate change even before formulating an emissions reduction policy. They cut gas pump prices by reducing the fuel tax, which stimulated hydrocarbon consumption and its emissions. Its Green Energy Act rejected wind and solar power when renewables are now the cheapest form of new electricity generation in Canada. The government aggressively axed cap and trade which reduced Ontario’s carbon emissions shocking Ontario industries benefiting from it. The premier fired Ontario’s chief scientist diminishing his government’s opportunities to make science and evidence-based-based decisions instead of campaign rhetoric and personal biases. In the parallel universe of today’s non-fake news there is no shortage of headlines and articles, many scientific and economic, declaring climate change a real threat to our existence, that global warming is accelerating and mankind must act immediately to reduce carbon emissions before climate change is irreversible. Pollution is expensive escalating health care and property insurance costs. It has adverse effects on learning ability, harms species at risk including humans and reduces jobs and productivity. In so doing it costs everyone, even polluters. The question the PC caucus must ask is not what its base thinks but what their grandchildren who will experience the effects of accelerated climate change, will think of their grandparents’ environmental and climactic legacy. Right now it is nothing to be proud of. The following articles underscore the need for a responsible aggressive science and evidence-based climate change strategy.

The National Post’s July 2018 article citing scientists alarmed by climate change states:

“So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”
It continues:
“All-time heat records around the world worsened by climate change, scientists say So far this month, at least 118 of these all-time heat records have been set or tied across the globe, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

According to Kim Perrotta’s and John Howard’s article Toronto Star Sept. 19, 2018 "Carbon tax is being used to improve our health":

“Ontario’s cap and trade program, which allowed industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way, also brought in $2.8 billion in funds that were being directed toward public transit, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for schools, hospitals, farms and municipalities, cycling lanes, and electric vehicles. In other words, the program was reducing climate emissions from the major sources in Ontario.”

Binyamin Appelbaum of the New York Times stated on Oct. 8, 2018 :

“..Yale economist William D. Nordhaus has spent the better part of four decades trying to persuade governments to address climate change, preferably by imposing a tax on carbon emissions. His careful work has long since convinced most members of his own profession, and on Monday he was awarded the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in recognition of that achievement.
But Professor Nordhaus sadly noted that he hadn’t convinced the government of his own country.
“The policies are lagging very, very far — miles, miles, miles behind the science and what needs to be done,” Professor Nordhaus said shortly after learning of the prize. “It’s hard to be optimistic. And we’re actually going backward in the United States with the disastrous policies of the Trump administration.””
It continues:
“...a United Nations panel said large changes in public policy were urgently needed to limit the catastrophic consequences of rising temperatures. The prize committee said its choice of laureates was meant to emphasize the need for international cooperation.”

Silvio Marcacci and Sara Hastings-Simon in a Forbes article state:

“Ontario’s climate rollback wasn’t limited to the carbon market, however. The provincial government pulled out of more than 750 early-stage wind and solar energy contracts in early July, pledging that the move would save ratepayers nearly $800 million – but the move could have quite the opposite economic effect.

Solar and wind are emerging from a nascent stage in Canada, and Ontario has led the way with more than 90% of national solar capacity. But Canada’s Solar Industries Association (CanSEIA) estimates the cancellations will cost Ontario 6,000 jobs and around $500 million in expected investment, while the cancellation of just one approved wind farm could cost more than $100 million, which may be paid by power consumers across the province. Those jobs and investments may shift to other provinces – CanSEIA expects increased development interest in Alberta and Saskatchewan, both of which have 2030 renewable energy targets."

The Globe’s Sept 18/18 article, "Ontario environmental watchdog pans government move to scrap cap and trade" states:
“Ontario has gutted most of its climate change programs,” she said in a statement. “Most of the cap and trade money was funding energy efficiency programs in Ontario communities – in schools, in public housing, transit and hospitals, for example – that would have reduced (emissions) and saved millions of dollars in energy costs.”
It continues
“Dismantling a climate change law that was working is bad for our environment, bad for our health and bad for business,” she (Environmental Commissioner, Diane Saxe) said.

British medical journal The Lancet in a September 26, 2018 article states:
“Air pollution is now recognised as the second leading cause of non-communicable disease (NCD) deaths after tobacco smoking, causing more than 5 million such deaths each year, and 7 million deaths in total, including communicable diseases.”
NCDs caused by air pollution include heart disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and lung cancer. The health impacts of air pollution may be even higher than 5 million NCD deaths per year, given recent evidence indicating even larger health impacts for those diseases at current exposures. 90% of the world's population is exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution. While air pollution is affected by individual choices to a certain extent—e.g., transport or other forms of consumption—public policy has a crucial part to play in shaping this major determinant of health.”

The International Institute for Sustainable Development stated in its landmark publication, "The Costs of Pollution in Canada: Measuring the impacts on families, businesses and governments" states:

“… pollution harms Canadians’ health and well-being by lowering their enjoyment of life, making them sick and, in extreme cases, leading to premature death. These are the best studied and understood of pollution’s costs. We estimate that they amounted to at least $39 billion in 2015, or about $4,300 for a family of four. They were very likely much higher than this—perhaps twice as high—because we weren’t able to measure the health and well-being impacts of many pollutants.
Pollution also costs families, businesses and governments money straight out of their pockets. When people get sick from pollution—perhaps with an asthma attack caused by smog—they need treatment. This can be costly. Medications, visits to the hospital, lost time at work—all these are a burden on households’ incomes. Businesses and governments face costs too. Farmers lose money when their crops are damaged by air pollution. Extra money is needed to treat polluted water before it can be used to brew beer. Pollution dirties buildings and erodes infrastructure, adding to their maintenance costs. Governments spend billions of dollars cleaning up sites contaminated by industrial pollutants from days past. These costs are not as well studied as those related to health and well-being, so we know less about them. Those that could be measured amounted to $3.3 billion in 2015.”……
“Put another way, income costs likely reached upwards of 3 per cent of the combined net income of households, businesses and governments in 2015.”
“Urban smog and its health impacts have been widely studied over many years, and scientists are confident in saying that its costs are significant. It is not surprising, then, that smog was found to be the pollutant with the largest health and wellbeing costs in Canada based on available data. Smog’s cost is estimated to have been $36 billion in 2015.”

The Globe and Mail’s December 2017 article "The cost of pollution is much higher than we think" states :

“However, GDP doesn't adequately measure all the impacts of economic activity, notably things that erode our nation's long-term wealth – such as pollution.
Pollution has an economic cost. If we are to treat it as a higher social priority and develop better practices and processes for mitigating its negative impacts, a better understanding of what pollution is costing us would be a critical input.”

Drs. Kim Perrotta and John Howard underscore in a Star article Sept. 19, 2018 how pollution raises health costs:
“It is not surprising, then, that smog was found to be the pollutant with the largest health and well-being costs in Canada based on available data. Smog’s cost is estimated to have been $36 billion in 2015.”
“As health professionals, we are shocked to find that our new government believes Ontario families need protection from a policy designed to bring climate change under control, rather than from climate change itself.”
They continue:
“Ontario’s cap and trade program, which allowed industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective way, also brought in $2.8 billion in funds that were being directed toward public transit, energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for schools, hospitals, farms and municipalities, cycling lanes, and electric vehicles. In other words, the program was reducing climate emissions from the major sources in Ontario.”

The National Post’s October 4, 2018 article states :

“At issue is what scientists call the ‘carbon budget’: Because carbon dioxide lives in the atmosphere for so long, there’s only a limited amount that can be emitted before it becomes impossible to avoid a given temperature, like 1.5 degrees Celsius. And since the world emits about 41 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, if the remaining budget is 410 billion tons (for example), then scientists can say we have 10 years until the budget is gone and 1.5 C is locked in. Unless emissions start to decline – which gives more time. This is why scenarios for holding warming to 1.5 degrees C require rapid and deep changes to how we get energy.”

The Insurance Bureau of Canada’s website featuring an article on the costs of climate change which states:
“The accumulation of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere is unprecedented. These gases are changing the Earth’s climate as temperatures around the globe gradually rise. The consequences of climate change are widespread and include an increase in the frequency and magnitude of climate related extreme events; events that will intensify and become more frequent in the future as the release and accumulation of greenhouse gases persists. Extreme weather events have and will continue to cause significant loss in the form of impacts to human settlements and ecosystems.”

The Insurance Bureau of Canada publication, "2018 Facts of the Property and Casualty Insurance Industry" states: "Climate change is real and its costs to Canadians are mounting. In Canada, we see the impacts of climate change mainly in an increase in severity and intensity of extreme weather events that result in more flooding and water damage. Thirty years ago, insured losses for extreme weather averaged $400 million a year. Now they average $1 billion a year."

The election is over. It is time to govern responsibly for the good of the planet, the province and our descendants.