Let's be honest here.
Posted on 01. Jun, 2009 by Zoë Caron in Adopt a Negotiator, Canada, Uncategorized
There is light at the end of the tunnel, if Canada chooses to walk towards it.
Canadian negotiators are stuck between a rock and a hard place. These people, government bureaucrats, are sent in good faith by the Canadian government to discuss and deliver on agreements under global climate change agreements. The team may very well be sent with specific mandates of flexibility (or lack thereof), and there may be little room to actually negotiate. But there is room. Plenty of it, and full of potential.
We must remember that we are working with a government that 1) cut climate change funding by 80% in the first month of being elected, and 2) is the only country in the world that has said it will *not* meet its Kyoto Protocol emission reduction targets.
We’re also working with a country with an economy currently depends largely on 1) our 2nd largest oil reserve in the world, after Saudi Arabia, and 2) trade relationships with the United States of America.
This means that there is reason to back down on climate commitments, but certainly not reason enough to outweigh the reason why we should live up to our word - and to our world.
Canada was off to a bit of a rough start today. We went into the United Nations saying that “all” countries should be following the same plan that was decided a year and a half ago at negotiations in Bali - a tall order for developing countries. The problem with this is that there’s a term called “common but differentiated responsibilities” that is core to all UN climate talks.
This term means that all countries have the responsibility to act on climate change, but that industrialized countries should do it first (since we’re the ones that started this in the first place), and that industrializing countries are to follow. This mistake (and perhaps it was simply a typo or a mis-read) cost Canada a “Fossil of the Day Award”, referring to the ways of using fossil fuels (that contribute to climate change). This award is certainly not a good one to “win”, particularly not on day one.
Never-the-less, both government and non-government organizations are here at this conference for the same core reason. No one wakes up in the morning wanting to bring the world down in a bad case of climate change. At the same time, no one wakes up in the morning with the same idea of how to fully deal with it in the first place.
In two weeks, Canada could choose to be a leader. The collective power of the hundreds of countries at this conference is what is going to make these agreements, and all the agreements leading up to the major climate talks in December, actually mean something positive, productive and stricken with hope.
This is but an introduction to the next two weeks, while the next two weeks could be the introduction to the story we’ve been waiting for. And it could be, with thanks to Canada.
If you have something you want the Canadian delegation to know, please let us know by responding here.
Hey Zoe,
Has there been any discussion of penalties for countries not meeting their targets for the first commitment period? Something that will apply to Canada if penalties are actually enforced….
Has Canada made any interventions/submissions re: post-Kyoto targets and timeframes?
D.
Yes, let’s be honest here.
Canada did not cut its climate change funding by 80%. You made that up.
In saying it would not meet its Kyoto commitment, Canada was honest. How is it better to pretend you will and fail miserably like most of the countries on this list>
Keeping our word? It was Jean Chrétien who, picking a number out of thin air, agreed to a 6% cut against all the advice of his bureaucrats.
I suspect that if we had agreed to something more appropriate — i.e., that reflected the fact that Canada has a large, resource-based sector, a growing population, a cold climate and a large land mass — we would have made much more progress in reducing GHGs than we did. For example, we might have stood a chance in meeting Australia’s target of 8%.
Instead, given the ridiculousness of Chrétien’s commitment, we just gave up.
Well said. I wrote an op-ed column a few months ago about US-Canada relations regarding tar-sands. I approached it from a US perspective, but I think if we want a better commitment from Canada, we need the US to step up and not purchase tar sands oil from Canada.
http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/tar-sands-column/
GreenGrift,
Oh, how I wish I had made that up! In April 2006 there was a 40% cut to climate programs at Environment Canada and Natural Resources Canada, within which the cut to all climate programs at Environment Canada was 80% (it was greater because the main program at EC was the $1 billion Climate Fund).
The 80% cut was reported via internal documents to Canadian organizations that received the cut to their climate programing. The over-arching 40% was publicly reported here:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/04/05/climate-change060405.html
Thanks for checking,
Zoë
Hi Derek,
There is the current penalty that exists, which is that the amount by which the country missed its target is rolled over into the next commitment period, plus an “emissions interest rate” of 30%. There are no financial sanctions, or otherwise. This may or may not change for the second commitment period, depending on what happens between now and December in negotiations.
I have not heard any interventions or submissions from Canada on post-Kyoto targets or time frames, but I’ll certainly post them here if and when I do.
Thanks,
Zoë
Thanks Matt. I will have a read!
Zoë
Hi again Green Grift,
As for targets, the latest emissions inventory shows that there has been a 4.7% reduction below 1990 levels towards the aggregate target of 5.2% (for developed countries only. This is, of course, largely because of Russia and Eastern Europe (37% reduction because of the collapse of the Soviet Union) coupled with a 9.9% increase so far from other developed countries.
This issue is two fold:
> In the 90s, when the Kyoto agreement was being negotiated, these developed countries made up the bulk of the emissions in the world, and so are responsible, so to speak, for the climate change we are seeing today
> Now, China and India make up the bulk of emissions on a per-country (not per-capita) basis
The Kyoto Protocol recognizes where the responsibility lies in terms of historic/past emissions. As the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is being negotiated, the major issue of growing emissions in China and India is being considered seriously.
The most widely currently accepted view is that emissions should be regulated more on a per-capita basis (i.e. one Canadian’s emissions = the emissions of 22 Bangladeshis.)
For the direct reports from countries on their emission cuts, see link here, via the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600004934#beg
Hope that helps for clarity!
Zoë
Thanks for that tidbit, but 40% is half of 80%. These cuts were necessary since none of the programs were effective. The One Tonne Challenge was a joke. The refrigerator magnet they sent me did nothing to cut GHGs.
Again, cutting funding for self-interested climate organizations is a good thing if means they stop jetting around the world to conferences. Their nagging has accomplished zero.
To be sure, it is evident that climate change is not a priority issue for our government. It never has been. But the Conservatives have done more of substance to cut emissions than the Liberals ever did; although they similarly exhibit a tendency toward meaningless PR. Banning lightbulbs was just stupid.
The Conservatives have significantly sweetened the pot for ecoENERGY retrofits, which is cost efficient. Intensity targets was also good idea, but has unfortunately been pre-empted by Obama’s cap n’ trade scheme. China might have bought into that, and it would have prevented industry from shifting production to carbon havens.
Maybe your idea about per capita caps would make some sense if it was GDP adjusted. Nonetheless, David Suzuki would be forced to buy even more offsets. On a national average basis, I’m sure I could look forward to a healthy credit.
What a great idea! Stick it to those Albertans.
For clarity, my reference was to the 80% cut on climate programming.
I certainly look forward to seeing any positive reductions from the new, hopefully more effective, programs now in place. Do you have any sources to suggest there have been more effective reductions? I haven’t seen any and would certainly be interested in that information. The most recent emissions report looks like many of the last, with emissions continuing to rise.
In my experience, I have found that there is certainly a role for many sectors other than government at international climate negotiations - from non-profit organizations, to business, to industry, to media. I’m sorry your experiences, or opinions, seem to be so negative. Have you been to these climate talks before? If so, your experience would be interesting to hear.
If you’re interested, I will certainly look into the details of per-capita and intensity-based issues. I am by no-means an expert in either of these. My role here is primarily following the climate negotiations closely and ensuring that key issues are communicated. If you have suggestions of how to improve my role here, I would certainly be more than happy to hear them.
By the way, it is interesting to see you portray the issue as so inherently political. Thanks for your comments.
da best. Keep it going! Thank you
Thanks Andrew!