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.

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.

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

Zoë

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

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

http://madrad2002.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/tar-sands-column/