Canada & Kyoto

With little fanfare Canada released its Kyoto implementation act on August 21, giving the public time to respond until September 20. I only just found out and read the act to discover that Canada agrees with everything, calls itself an international leader, claims to have met all Kyoto obligations except the one little detail of actually meeting its legal and moral commitments. Instead of reducing our CO2 emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, we will be at least 34% higher than 1990 levels. Even the USA has done better than that.

They claim that given the current situation it is impossible to meet the Kyoto target, and they may well be right, but they are not even trying. To draw away attention from the blatant failure of the current and past governments they are now trumping their new goals of 20% below 2006 levels by 2020 and 60-70% by 2050. Unfortunately, the 20% goal means that 8 years past the Kyoto deadline they are still 7% above their original commitment. Hardly a lofty goal. The 60-70% goal looks impressive but because it is relative to 2006 and we raked up a 34% increase by then it is actually still well below the European initiatives and well below what the science tells us is needed.

Canada has been an early adopter of 5 international greenhouse gas reduction proposals since 1988 (C.D. Howe institute report) and until this day they have failed to live up to any single one of them. We don't need more words, we need action in the form of a concrete plan with no loopholes and with enforcible milestones.

Of course Canada is one of the few countries that stand to benefit from global warming, at least for the first little while. I do not think/hope this is the reason for inaction, but Canadians have indicated that climate and environment are their top concern, more so than healthcare or national security. So what are they waiting for...

For all Canadians on this list with an interest in our planet - land, sea, and cultures - I suggest you voice your displeasure with the easy-to-use climateactionnetwork.ca website where you can just sign their standard letter or modify it to your liking.

Bart

Bart,

Is anyone meeting Kyoto goals, or is it all just a smokescreen? (pun intended)

If there are countries who are meeting the goals, who are they, and what are they doing differently?

Jeff

Good point Jeff. While Canada seems to be the worst offender it is not the only one that hasn't yet met its obligations. The 15 main EU countries had stabilized their emissions by 2004 to just a bit below 1990 levels but have another 7 percent or so to go to make ends meet. They have proposed actions, including spending 3 billion euros on the "Kyoto mechanism" which probably means buying credits of questionable impact from others. Still they are relatively close, believe they will meet their target, and have ambitious plans for the post-Kyoto era.

The 10 new EU countries are actually doing better than promised but largely due to "restructuring their economies" which means their emissions declined mostly because their economies declined. Now that their economies are picking up, their emissions are rising as well. They are still expected to meet or exceed their Kyoto targets though.

Japan was 8% above 1990 levels in 2003, expect to be at 6% above 1990 levels by 2010 with the current plans already in place and have proposals for new initiatives that reduce emissions by another 6.5%. Carbon sinks and the "Kyoto mechanism" are to cover the remaining 4.5%. The proof is in the pudding but they are still committed to make their target.

I don't have time to read the reports from all other countries but the above countries are the most comparable to Canada. They have already done a lot better and do expect to fulfill their commitments in time. Even if they don't quite make it, there is a difference between getting close and being 40% above your target as is Canada's "best-we-can-do" claim.

Bart

How are China and India doing ;-)

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

James

If there are countries who are meeting the goals, who are they, and what are they doing differently?

It may be more about what Canada is not doing than what others are doing. The liberal government that negotiated the Kyoto treaty did tell everyone who wanted to listen how progressive they were on the global warming front but did not actually bother to do anything substantial until the protocol was signed into law. When that happened in 2005 we had a minority government that couldn't get anything done, followed by the current conservative minority government that initially went on a PR campaign to explain why Canada couldn't and shouldn't do anything and actually terminated the few initiatives that the liberals had set into action. Only when the public opinion polls indicated that the environment and climate had become the top voting issue did they do a 180 and reinstated the plans they earlier canceled under different names so they could claim credit. However, even now it has been mostly words. Against this background prime minister Harper had the guts to recently say in Sidney:

"We want to be a world leader in the fight against global warming and the development of clean energy," he said. "We want to lead, not by lecturing, but by example."

I'm hoping that he actually means it, but if his Kyoto implementation act is any indication then it is not looking good.

The one valid argument for the Canadian problems to meet the Kyoto agreement is that a lot of the increase in CO2 emissions comes from the exploding oil sands explorations. However, with the increase in oil production and the equally exploding oil prices there is also a lot of resource revenue for both the government and companies that could have been used to mitigate the rising emissions. But the first principle is still that Kyoto actions cannot negatively impact the economy. This is ridiculous with one of the more robust economies of the developed countries and a currency that is on target to eclipse the $ for the first time in 3 decades by year end (it rose ~15% against the US$ in the past several months). The whole environmental mess is largely due to the fact that the environment is still not considered as a finite resource that should be part of the economic equation. As long as that is the case polluting is free and market mechanism will remain part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Bart

How are China and India doing ;-)

 

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

 

James

Hi James, why did you not include the USA in that list?

I don't have numbers but I'm sure their emissions have increased at least on par with their economic growth, which means bad news. The Kyoto discussions did intend these countries to start to get involved in the next phase but so far they have been reluctant to agree to much, except for some vague and non-binding agreements on the APEC summit earlier this month.

Countries with large negative trade balances with these two countries, one in particular comes to mind but it really affects most developed countries, also in effect export the corresponding CO2 load. Given that China and India are much less energy efficient this is just one more argument why keeping them out of emission reductions is not a good thing for the environment and the global economy. Canada is sure to also complain that their Kyoto failure is in large part due to the rapidly increasing oil exports to the States (oil sands exploration is the most energy intensive oil extraction in the world). I think this is just whining, since these industries were economically viable at $20 per barrel of oil, so there is a very wide economic margin to implement CO2 reduction strategies. However, two weeks ago Exxon's CEO raised his finger (his index finger) and warned of serious consequences if the government dared to shift some of the economic burden to the petro industry because "nobody can predict future oil prices". I would like to see our government raise another finger and call their bluff, but so far they seem to be gullible as always.

Finally, not taking action because others don't, never got us anywhere. Developing nations were given special treatment in the first round for sound historical but poor environmental reasons. If the developed nations that created their prosperity largely on the basis of cheap fossil fuel cannot lead by example, the other countries are not going to follow. In the end we may still be saved by economics. If energy prices keep increasing at the rate we have seen in the past 5 years then an industrial revolution will take place and the current dynamics between the GMs/Ford's/Chrysler's and the Toyota's/Honda's will start playing out at a larger scale and the countries that changed their infrastructure early are the ones that are going to benefit.

Bart

Bart, I mentioned China and India since the only thing restricting their growth rates right now is energy availability (oil and methane). Now would be a great time to focus on getting them switched over from coal to just about anything else.

Cheers

James

Bart, I mentioned China and India since the only thing restricting their growth rates right now is energy availability (oil and methane). Now would be a great time to focus on getting them switched over from coal to just about anything else.

 

Cheers

James

Amen!

Just heard this morning on CBC Radio (Canadian Broadcasting Corp.) that among other things, the budget for the Canadian Wildlife Service has been frozen for the rest of the bugetary year.

No new research is to be undertaken as the government (which is dripping in cash these days) says the monies are needed to combat global warming.

Talk about robbing Peter to pay Paul...

Hopefully, the next federal election will not be too far away...