Lorrie Goldstein wonders if any Canadian political party will take us out of the Kyoto accord.
Maybe a better question: What were the Liberals thinking when they signed on?
They committed Canadians to one of the most radical programs for reducing greenhouse gases on the planet, with no idea of how to achieve it. We don’t even really know how much pollution we’re creating.
Canada emits only 2% of the world’s GHG emissions, and ranks ninth. Yet we took on bigger cuts than any other industrialized nation agreed to — 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 — . Many of the other industrialized nations have been able to lower their official goals relatively painlessly, by closing a few reeking pollution behemoths. We are already over those limits by over 35%!
The Liberals did nothing on Kyoto.
So, the second damning question is same as the first: What were the Liberals thinking when they signed on?
By contrast, the U.S., the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases (20.6%), refused to ratify Kyoto because of concerns about the harm it would do to its economy.
China, the second-largest emitter (14.8%) and India, fourth-largest (5.5%), don’t have to cut emissions because Kyoto classifies them as “developing” countries.
Russia, the third-largest emitter. (5.7%) has lots of room to emit more greenhouse gases and sell carbon or “hot air” credits to other countries — like us — solely because its economy collapsed in the early 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Australia, the world’s largest per capita producer of man-made carbon dioxide emissions because of its reliance on coal, would be able to increase emissions by 8% above its 1990 levels, if it ratified Kyoto, which it hasn’t, fearing major job losses.
Canadians are having a crushing burden imposed on them. We have exceeded our targets by millions tonnes, and who knows how much worse it will be in 2012.
Here is a list of Canada’s top ten greenhouse gas(GFG) producers:
- Ontario Power Generation
- Transalta Utilities Corporation
- Saskatchewan Power Corporation
- Alberta Power
- Nova Scotia Power
- Syncrude Canada Ltd.
- Suncor Energy Inc. Oil Sands
- EPCOR Generation Inc.
- Petro-Canada
- Dofasco, Inc.
Notice that almost half of them are publicly owned, and others received incentives to get involved in government-sponsored projects. Private sector industry doesn’t appear until the #10 spot. And secondly, these are important components of our industrial infrastructure! For most utilities, they face massive capital expenditures already. For Ontario Power Generation, they would have to pony up $275,000,000 a year, and find another such such sum to refurbish the plant, or replace it.
In total, these top polluters contribute 120 million tonnes of GHGs to our to total, from all sources, of a total of 758 million tonnes. If we closed them all, we would still only be half way to meeting our targets. And what would our economy be?
Our alternative, under the tems of Kyoto, is to buy billions of dollars worth of carbon credits.
All of this expense and suffering would have only a neglible effect on the world’s greenhouse gases, thanks to what is happening in the countries that are not bound by Kyoto.
China, India and the U.S. — none of them restricted by Kyoto — are planning to build more than 850 new coal-fired energy plants over the next few years. China alone is planning 562. (Burning coal emits more greenhouse gas, linked to global warming, than oil or natural gas, the world’s two other major fossil fuels.)
…. It estimated these 850 plants will put five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than Kyoto is designed to remove, even if every other country, including Canada, miraculously hits its Kyoto target.
Think about it — “these 850 plants will put five times more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than Kyoto is designed to remove….”
Surely, it is becoming evident that Kyoto was a horrible mistake. I fret that Harper is going to capitulate to Jack Layton on this issue, and it may be tactically clever, but the problem will remain. Kyoto has to be rethought - it is an albatross.
The problem: International cooperation is essential for efforts against world-wide pollution threats, paricularly those that get in the atmosphere, and move around the world easily.
The way Kyoto has worked out, it provides nations with a way of buying absolution for their environmental sins. That must have been the Liberals’ plan. Do nothing, pay them off, and do a novena.
Kyoto has meant the struggle against all the other forms of pollution — acid rain, soil erosion, the list is long — is stalled. Climate change is all the rage now, one of the excesses of Democracy. Little is being done about toxic chemicals, about the remaining acid rain, smog and air pollution, or even a sane garbage policy.
I don’t know the answer, but it seems now that the Kyoto Treaty is in the way of environmental improvements. We have to start looking beyond it.
eyun wrote:
Interesting thoughts Simon. I see too many people these days trashing Kyoto without backing up what they say. I can see your concerns, but like you, wonder what the answer is.
Isn’t the Kyoto attempt better than nothing though? I don’t think we can judge our efforts by the fact that some of the big players aren’t pulling their weight. We can’t ignore the environment just because our neighbors do. That would be like not recycling just because the majority of our community doesn’t.
Let’s face it, we can’t live by American standards. More and more their public policy is their, not the worlds, best interest.
Posted on 17-Jan-07 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
Joanne C. wrote:
Isn’t the Kyoto attempt better than nothing though?
The answer is NO! Let’s put those resources towards actual solutions.
Of course, political parties play to the polls. (Sorry about the alliteration. It just happened).
Posted on 17-Jan-07 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
Surecure wrote:
eyun, the position that Kyoto is better than nothing would be true if Kyoto had some means of guaranteeing that there will actually be a lowering of greenhouse gas emissions. And your suggestion about our neighbors begs me to ask what neighbors you are talking about? The United States has better per capita greenhouse gas emissions than us, and they actually lowered that, unlike us.
Don’t you think our emissions standards should run parallel to that, less emissions per capita and lowering it from our present rate?
As for a solution, I’m going to post a letter that I actually wrote to John Baird recently about this very issue. Perhaps then you might change your opinion on the “it’s better than nothing” POV.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There appear to be three sides in the debate over Kyoto. One side says that, while not perfect, Kyoto is the best plan there is to combat climate change. The second side recognizes climate change as a problem, but feels Kyoto is merely a wealth distribution mechanism that will do nothing for the environment itself. The third side simply doesn’t believe in climate change and will not accept any climate change treaty.
While many in the third side will likely never change their opinion on Kyoto, it is obvious the other two sides agree that something must be done. It seems that the biggest hurdle in accepting Kyoto’s framework is its “credit” system, as if there could ever be a credit system to the environment. Simply put, the environment of this planet doesn’t offer credit.
As it is, China is building coal power plants that will make any emissions reductions by Kyoto signatories useless in the coming years. And the assembly of these power plants is a physical guarantee that once China falls into the category of a country that must pay money for having high emissions, it will not live up to that expectation simply out of the cost of replacing this high number of coal power plants. This is so painfully obvious to anyone honest enough to look at the faults of Kyoto and recognize that the credit system simply doesn’t work without placing other safeguards against future emissions levels to those who are presently exempt from meeting emissions targets.
As a Canadian who is concerned about the environment but feels that Kyoto is too simplistic in its design to actually achieve any effective results, I’d like to propose to you a compromise to Kyoto to bring the first two groups together that I think would be welcome on the world stage. My proposal is a two-fold compromise that changes the entire dynamic of how climate change is addressed globally.
First, if a country that has signed the Kyoto protocol fails to meet its emissions targets, instead of transferring the money to those countries that are exempt from meeting emissions cutting targets for “credit”, the same amount of money will be pooled to directly fund a consortium of research projects into technology that will combat greenhouse gas, provide alternative clean fuels and reduce air pollution. By doing so, countries that are signed on to meet emissions targets will still be obliged to meet their targets or suffer a penalty. However, unlike the previous agreement that would simply be a transferring of money between the hands of different governments, the funds would be directly applied to environmental projects.
The second element of this compromise would require that any technology developed by this global consortium would become public domain and free to any person, government or corporation that can utilize the technology. By making the technology public domain, it would encourage all countries — whether Kyoto signatories or not — to utilize clean air solutions. This would create a domino effect of reducing all levels of greenhouse gases and pollution in general as the technology would not cost anything to anyone above and beyond the initial investment made in payments by those who do not meet emissions targets.
In my view, this is the only type of solution that would appease environmentalists while allaying the fears of those who see Kyoto as being a paper tiger in the fight to clean up the environment. If Kyoto really is about cleaning up the environment, transferring wealth between countries will do nothing. But, if the money is going to be spent anyhow, instead of just passing it around between countries with absolutely no expectation of honest and real environmental cleanup results, why not spend it on projects that will not only benefit the environment but will also create technology that will change the direction of emissions exempt countries such as China and India who are likely to contribute more to greenhouse gas in the future than any other country presently? If anything, such a move would certainly either expose or disprove whether Kyoto really is about wealth redistribution.
I certainly hope that you will take this advice into consideration when you begin to address the issues of climate change and, more specifically, how Canada is going to live up to the expectations it is presently under as a Kyoto signatory. It is undeniable that environmental issues are important both politically and morally. It is my express belief that because of this factor, governments have an obligation to continually improve the devices they have set in place to address these concerns. I believe that the compromise I have put forward above would be welcomed not only at home but abroad as the first real solution that is one hundred percent concerned with cleaning up the environment and addressing climate change.
Posted on 17-Jan-07 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
lrC wrote:
>So, the second damning question is same as the first: What were the Liberals thinking when they signed on?
IIRC, Chretien hesitated. It was already clear that the US would not ratify (Senate), and it was widely believed at the time Russia would not ratify. Without one or the other opting in, the treaty would not enter into force. It may simply be that Chretien made a political calculation: good publicity for signing on, but no likelihood Canada would actually have to pay the costs since the treaty would never enter force. Have cake, and eat it, too. Then Russia realized its economic downturn offered up an opportunity to obtain hard cash, so Russia ratified. And now the cake can not be eaten.
Posted on 17-Jan-07 at 6:50 pm | Permalink