We shall not be moved…
Posted on 07. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada
Canada attends negotiations, politely declines negotiating
It’s day one of the Copenhagen Climate Talks. The air is charged, thousands pace the walkways of the Bella Conference Centre, and political gamblers everywhere stage their bets. But Canada shall not be moved. During a morning briefing to civil society, Chief Negotiator Michael Martin re-affirmed Canada’s unwillingness to change the targets first adopted by the federal government in 2006.
Canada’s short-term national GHG emissions reductions targets are set at the equivalent to 3% below 1990 levels, a number dwarfed by recent commitments from the EU, Japan, and even the US.
This is not a huge surprise. During a luncheon last week with business leaders in Montreal, Minister Prentice stood loyally behind the government’s plan and confirmed that “we will not buy into the Copenhagen hype”.
But then what are the negotiations all about? Sometimes we need a little build-up! Confronting a global dilemma is a complex game of chess, nobody will move if the others balk. Copenhagen might actually present the catalysing moment when all countries are ready to work together. The newly elected chair of the talks warned that “the time for restating well-known positions is past. It is time to reach out to each other”. Hmm… I wonder who they were talking to?
Most are cooperating. Promising signs have already emerged from India and China, and renewed commitment from President Barrack Obama.
Is that just ‘hype’, or does it change the rules of the game?
In spite of the bluster, Canada’s Michael Martin is still “optimistic about the possibility of a successful outcome in Copenhagen”.
This morning, the COP chair also reminded the negotiators that “Our leaders expect us to adopt a global agreement 11 days from now. Let’s get it done now!”.
I guess it all depends on your definition of success. How do we know what really counts as a ‘win’? Does success mean watering down an agreement to accommodate the most recalcitrant nations? You definitely get a piece of paper and a pretty picture out of that outcome. Or does success mean holding out till the treaty respects science-based targets and guarantees support for the most vulnerable? That outcome would at least ensure a liveable future…
Whatever ’success’ we achieve is still up in the air, and we can’t predict anything yet. This morning, the Group of 77 and China confirmed that they will play hardball and are demanding significant action, in money and concrete mitigation goals, from richer countries as a minimum to sign on to any global deal.
The Association of Small Island States definitively stated that they “will not accept a made for television solution”. If that were the case, they would have to “consider their options”.
Them are fighting words, I think! Gamblers, take your bets…
With love from Copenhagen,
Rosa
Thanks for the summary Rosa. GRRRR my government drives me mad (in both senses of the word)! How can they decline to negotiate? Where is their shame? Can you tell us more about the pressure from other quarters?
Maybe if we all send Michael Martin
“care bear stares”, he will open up and learn to share and play fair with the world.
It’s the carebear countdown
5…4…3…2..1…….STARE
Thank you Rosa, I really like reading your commentary.
I believe that the US target is 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Canada’s target is 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. How exactly is Canada’s target being dwarfed by the US commitment…?
Thanks for the inside view Rosa. Keep us informed, take the shame of being Canadian away.
Hi Tom, thanks for your question. As Clare from the Pembina Institute explains in this blog post: http://climate.pembina.org/blog/44, the US target is one part of a comprehensive plan, including a cap-and-trade system, investments in renewable energy and efficiency, performance standards, and other measures, with regular targets set for 2020, 2030, 2040, and a more ambitious target than Canada’s for 2050. A draft bill that includes extra investments in reduced deforestation could cut net U.S. emissions to 16 to 22% below 1990 in 2020 - far ahead of Canada’s 3% reduction.
The bare number in the 2020 target is just the tip of the iceberg for the US. In Canada the number on paper is all we’ve got, with no comparable plan to make it happen or scale it up.