Sticky issues for Canada: the right to develop, the Kyoto Protocol and major emerging economies
Posted on 16. Dec, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada
It is a flurry of non-activity here at the Bella Centre today. Chief Negotiator Michael Martin had a briefing as usual this morning. When I asked Mr. Martin if Canada had 1) specific elements they want to see in the negotiating texts, and 2) what they would be satisfied to see, he re-iterated Canada’s position so far. Mr. Martin answered that this would ideally be a single agreement, although the outcome of this conference will likely not be legally-binding, as there is considerable discussion still to be done. However, Canada continues to work towards a comprehensive “set of commitments”. As I understand it, Mr. Martin is referencing Canada’s recent dismissal of the concept of differentiated responsibility, as enshrined in the Kyoto Protocol, and seeks instead a global plan that includes all major economies (while it still stresses the national circumstances of a country like Canada).
When I followed up with the question of whether Canada would like to see more specific elements in the text included, for example GHG emissions reductions targets, a goal such as 350 PPM goal, or adaptation financing, Mr. Martin answered that Canada has not changed its position and for many these specific targets remain the subject of great debate.
Now, the current negotiating position (as outlined in this position paper), does respect the goal of maximum 2 degree C warming. However, both the document and Mr. Martin are careful to frame this in reference to global emissions not rising to dangerous levels. Thus, Canada supports a global reduction to ensure maximum 2 degrees temperature change, yet has been quiet on translating this to national commitments. Instead, Canada supports a 2020 target of 3% below 1990 levels, which is far below the national targets that the IPCC has recommended to prevent catastrophic global warming (25-40% reductions). From what I can gather, the rational for this approach is that Canada is an energy superpower, and as such as increased license to continue with rising emissions. These are the unique national circumstances often referred to in government statements. The logic depends on global reductions worldwide absorbing and counter-acting the rise in Canadian emissions.
That’s a rather swaggering negotiating position, and it makes other countries nervous. In response to arguments like these, developing countries are defending the Kyoto Protocol tooth and nail in order to protect against the burden of emissions reductions falling on them. They may have good cause for concern. This tension inspired Maclean’s magazine to explore why “suddenly the world hates Canada“.
And battle lines are drawn. It seems that this is going to be a sticking point. Should rich countries take responsibility for the emissions they have piped into the atmosphere for over 100 years? Do poor countries have the right to develop? And forget the history for a second, what does the atmosphere say?
Today in the high-level, Australia spoke on behalf of the Umbrella group of nations – representing ‘rich’ countries that are not part of the EU. Canada is part of this negotiating block. The language in their statement referenced binding commitments on all major emerging economies, which is a far cry from the principles in the Kyoto Protocol. This makes sense, as Canada has already made it clear that they no longer support the Kyoto Protocol track.
The EU’s statement delivered by Sweden was more nuanced. They did recognize that “we will never succeed without important contributions from the emerging economies, which must reduce emissions significantly compared to business as usual”. However, they framed their discussion in the context of development and alleviating poverty. They discussed billions in broad and fast-track adaptation funding (“ready to commit to fast start funding with at least 7.2 billion Euro (10.6 billion dollar) for the years 2010 to 20). They cited their own goals to protect the 2 degree threshold, and reduce emissions by up to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. They called on both the US and China to take leadership. From the US, they expect “as from all developed counties, a legally binding economy-wide commitment to reduce emissions.” From China, they expect, “binding actions”. This was refined phrasing, avoiding a lot of hidden mines (binding actions are a lot different than binding emissions targets), and refreshingly honest.
I wonder what they expect from Canada.
More speeches will be coming in throughout the evening (till after midnight according to the schedule). In the meantime, negotiating sessions are indefinitely on hold.
Much love from Copenhagen,
Rosa
Meetings postponed... again. A shot from the display screens, that normally include exact times and locations.