Confessional time. I am in a rocky relationship with Jim Prentice.

I should have seen it coming, I really should have, as I suppose all good relationships must come to an end. Your true colours showed through, Jim, and not in a good, Cyndi Lauper kind of way.

The Honourable Jim Prentice began his speech to members of the University of Calgary School of Public Policy and School of Business on February 1 - though, at first, I could have sworn he was right next to me whispering sweet nothings in my ear – with soothing words about the federal government’s energy and climate change: read more…

No and yes.
The federal government knows, and agrees with, what the science is saying. The sticking point is it is acting in a manner that assumes Canada deserves to pollute more than other rich and industrialized countries.

The government should step up to the plate and commit to doing our part. Canada is now among the top 10 greenhouse gas polluters in the world and is among the top 3 polluters per capita. Yet, every single G8 country is doing more than Canada on global warming. The US, for example, is investing 14x more in renewable energy per capita this year than Canada.

[Read: It's like showing up to a world pot-luck where every one else has cooked a meal and Canada thinks it's appropriate to show up with a bag of potato chips.]

Canada should recognize it is in a very lucky situation in the world to have the ability to invest in, build and develop a clean economy based on leading edge energy efficiency and renewable energy.

[Read: We're the ones that could show up to our place at the table and offer a whole lot more - preferably with ambition, i.e. to the tune of brie, rosemary olive bread, and molten brownies.]

Canada should sign, adopt and implement Bill C-311. It is the government’s responsibility to develop a tough plan that includes Canadian laws to control greenhouse gas pollution to match the recommendations of scientists.

We did it to stop the pollution that caused the hole in the ozone layer – We can do it to fill the hole in our country’s leadership.

It’s that time of month again. Alllll the countries in the world (that can afford it) are in Bankok for a United Nations meeting on climate change. There has been a handful of them this year, about once every 6 weeks. They are discussion and working meetings for countries to talk about their climate change commitments.

The last of this year (where all the decisions have to be made) is in Copenhagen in December. (Kind of like each week of So You Think You Can Dance Canada leading up to the final showdown, and everybody wins in their heart regardless of those who technically come out on top.)

One would think, hope, etc, that the United Nations is an efficient and effective playground for ideas and decisions that ultimately impact the world for the better. Today in “plenary”, the main hall in talks that include all countries, Canada dragged out the conversation for a little longer than I would deem allowable, even by democratic standards.

Continue reading “World Compares Apples to Apples” here…

Said tights.

Among the most important memos of the 21st century (aside from ‘It’s highly respected to still know all the words to New Kids on the Block’s ‘Step by Step’” and ‘No, it’s not okay to wear tights as pants, especially the slitted ones from American Apparel.’) is: ‘All other governments in the developed world are doing way more on climate change than Canada’.

Memos are what they are. Pop culture stands strong, fads fade (or are imagined), and the ambition of government tends to fall out of their pocket unnoticeably as they run down the halls of Parliament to their next meeting.

Continue reading Slit-leggings at American Apparel and Current Climate Policy in Canada

I emailed Canada’s Chief Negotiator

(LCA stands for Long-term Cooperative Action — or, more descriptively, Leaders Can’t-get-enough Airtime — or, more solution-oriented, Lend Canada Advice — or, depending on the day, Let’s Clap for the Americans.)

We’re heading into five days of climate talks. Here’s where we left off, and where we need to go:

>> Where did we leave off at the last climate negotiations? <<

1.  Canada saying that it is “not here to negotiate domestic targets”

Yes, the point of these conferences is, indeed, to negotiate domestic targets. But it’s easy to miss a memo these days, and telegrams are often lost in the mail. Spare the government some blame for a change.

2.  Canada has the lowest emission reduction targets of all rich, industrialized countries

(Fancy mathematicians work for the government. Take our 2012 target of 6% below 1990 emission levels. Double the time frame, half the target, add 16 years and subtract the ambition:  A 2020 target of 3% below 2006 levels.

It’s like when you owe your friend $60 by Friday because she bought you front seat in a seasons series of Lady GaGa tickets. Then you turn around and say, “Actually, I am preeeetty sure owe you $30 and not until the end of the year because Poker Face just wasn’t up to my standards. You *know* I haven’t liked Lady GaGa ever since that acoustic version anyways. Obvi. Who’s in for a Jonas Brothers concert next week instead?!?”)

3.  Canada’s delegation is full of very talented, hard-working, dedicated, and kind people

(Some of them have been public servants for over two decades, and some have been involved in these climate talks since before the Spice Girls even existed. For serious.)

4.  Canada’s Lead Negotiator, Michael Martin, is a very friendly and photogenic man

(Who, if we all remember correctly, let me sit with the government team at the official UN tables without fear that I would jump across the table and sing profanity into the microphone for every country from Algeria to Zimbabwe to hear. You can’t get much friendlier than that.)

>> What are we looking for this time? <<

1. A big statement along the lines of, “Yes, we will negotiate our domestic targets to the level that the science recommends.”

(Scientists recommend 2020 targets of 25-40% emission cuts below 1990 levels. Canada agrees that, yes, this is what the world needs to achieve. But, so far, has its reasons for Canada not being one of those countries in that world. We’d like to, how do we say it…. Be fair.)

2.  A little statement along the lines of “Ok, ok… We admit it. We only came for the mid-night target limbo dance sessions with Japan: How Low Can You Go.

(Japan has almost as excruciatingly painfully low-ambition national emission targets. So far, Canada holds the reigning “We’re Still in Limbo, Baby!” title.)

In all seriousness, I look forward to connecting with our Lead Negotiator on a daily basis. Please comment here, on Twitter, or email (adoptanegotiator@campaginhub.org) in your questions.

Bonn, c’est bon? We’ll have to see.

According to some, it is not only economically feasible, it’s economically prosperous.

That is, according to a study released by The Pembina Institute and the David Suzuki Foundation in December, 2008. The study shows that it is possible for Canada to make 25 emission cuts below 1990 levels by 2020, and still be doing quite well economically. (Read the press release here.) The science recommends a 25 to 40% cut below 1990, while Canada’s current target is 3% below 1990.

The economic modeling analysis was commissioned in partnership with the David Suzuki Foundation, and written by M.K. Jaccard and Associates Inc.:

Deep Reductions, Strong Growth: An economic analysis showing Canada can prosper economically while doing its share to prevent dangerous climate change, shows that  governments — and Ottawa in particular — are able to work constructively towards job creation and higher standards of living.

Here is a summary of the key findings, according to the David Suzuki Foundation:

• Canada’s economy can still grow by almost 20% in the next decade while the country reduces its greenhouse gas pollution to 25% below the 1990 level.
• Canada will continue to enjoy strong net job growth.
• Meeting the 25% reduction target requires a significant price on carbon pollution as well as targeted regulations and investments to expand the use of clean technology.
• By 2020 Canadians will save more than $5.5 billion each year at the gas pump because of more efficient vehicles, more public transit and shorter commutes.

Dale Marshall, climate change policy analyst with the David Suzuki Foundation, says, “Our challenge as a country is not economic or technological-it’s showing bold political leadership.”

The current economic downturn does not affect the findings of the report. All policies in the study start in 2010, allowing the economy time to recover. And even if the U.S. and other major trading partners do less to cut emissions than Canada, our international competitiveness doesn’t have to suffer. The report shows that vulnerable sectors can be protected by returning some carbon pricing revenue to those industries.

- David Suzuki Foundation press release

Good news for all of us here in Canada, certainly.

What do you think?

The United Kingdom’s emissions are dropping year by year. China has committed $600 billion into green technology. There were 100 passionate young people present, ensuring the presence of another generation was seen and heard. The United States is fully participating at the negotiating table. Rich and polluting countries support the science that a 25 to 40% emission cut below 1990 levels by 2020 is completely necessary, and that we may need to go even farther.

Inspirational notes aside, the resounding feeling coming away from the talks, is the deep rumbling craving for one simple attribute: Ambition.

Don’t get me wrong, the Bonn climate talks certainly moved forwards – like how my little sister moves forwards out of bed to the kitchen for breakfast at 6am. I want the negotiators to rush to their United Nations meeting desks with an ambitious level of tenacity, focus, and recognition of opportunity – because, the climate knows, we need it.

What is it that is missing? How can a driving desire for success be created? Is there a deeper level of emotion that needs unearthing? Do governments crave praise? Support? Love? Good will? Public demand? Is there more incentive needed?  I’ve adopted Canada’s negotiators. And I’m fiercely concerned about our country’s position based on the past 2 weeks.

Here’s why:

1.  K Y O T O    L A I S S E Z  – F A I R E     P R O T O C O L

The 1st commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol is 2008-2012. The 2nd one is likely to be 2013-2017. In Bonn, countries were supposed to agree on an aggregate target (the weighted average of the reductions to which developed countries should be committing.)  This didn’t happen, though discussions towards it did – a total of 20 organized meetings, to be exact.

Canada’s contribution was suggesting keeping an “open option” of “X% reductions by 2020″, which received support from one country (Japan). Interestingly, in 2007, Canada and over 170 other Kyoto Protocol countries agreed to a minimum of 25% emission cuts below 1990 by 2020 in the Bali Action Plan, the document guiding these negotiations. So why the ambiguous X? Because Canada is concerned with “burden sharing” – how much is truly fair for Canada to take on as an emission target? (Wouldn’t it be the same as any other developed country?)

In these same Kyoto Protocol meetings, Canada talks about their targets in the words of “20% below 2005 levels by 2020″, which translates to 2.7% below 1990 levels by 2020. It’s as though all the countries are playing Poker, and Canada is playing Solitary at the same table.  There were 42 small island states and 27 EU countries that called on Canada for lacking ambition and for playing with the numbers to make our 2020 target look strong, versus its weakness in actuality.

Side note: Numerous countries put forward amended drafts of the Kyoto Protocol. This fulfilled an important process step, which is a deadline of tabling legal text six months before the end of the Copenhagen meeting this December. There will be 3 more negotiating sessions between now and the Copenhagen meeting, with the next one taking place in Bonn in August. The time remaining is very short given the amount of work left to be done.

Progress must happen much more quickly than it did over the last two weeks to have a chance of forging a strong agreement in Copenhagen. Developing countries have stated that progress in the other negotiating track, where actions from developing countries will be agreed to, will not progress so long as industrialized countries block forward movement in the Kyoto track.

2. W H A T    T H E    W O R L D    W I L L    B E    L I K E    W H E N    I ‘ M   6 4

This is the gist of the work plan of the working group on Long-Term Cooperative Action is.  It’s one of the two main negotiation tracks working towards a Copenhagen agreement. It includes negotiations on a “shared vision” of achieving future emission reductions and the four “building blocks” that countries identified in 2007 as the key elements of an agreement: reducing emissions (mitigation), adaptation, financing, and technology transfer/capacity building.

Just before the Bonn session started, the LCA chair produced a negotiation text based on countries’ submissions. During the first week in Bonn, countries provided general comments on that text, and in the second week they submitted new text to the chair’s draft. The operating principle of the session was that countries could only add, not take away — and the result was that a 53-page document will likely become more than 200 pages long when the chair puts all the additions together.

Countries will meet in Bonn again in August to start working through the expanded text by combining ideas, deleting them, or drafting new additions. Canada did submit new text related to adaptation, technology and mitigation, but those have not been made public. Canada also committed to provide its “fair share” of financial support for climate action in developing countries.

However, Department of Foreign Affairs briefing notes obtained through Access to Information legislation indicate that Canada “seeks to leverage financial and technological assistance to extract binding emissions reduction commitments from the emerging economies,” a position that runs counter to Canada’s legal obligation under the UN climate convention to provide this financial support. The briefing note cited dates from 2008.

3.  O H    C A N A D A ,    P L E A S E    S T A N D    O N    G U A R D   F O R    T H I S :

What do we need to move forwards? How can the Canadian government redeem ourselves to be on an acceptable playing field?

In order to restore credibility and make a constructive contribution in Copenhagen, Canada needs to dramatically strengthen its level of ambition on climate policy. The two most important policy changes needed for our country are:

• Adopting a far stronger national emission reduction target that aims to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution to the levels that scientists tell us are needed to avoid dangerous climate change. A national target for Canada will be credible when backed up by a convincing plan to meet it. The centre piece of that plan would be a price on greenhouse gas emissions implemented through regulations.
• Providing our fair share of climate financing. A range of estimates show that tens of billions of dollars in new public financing will be needed to support mitigation and adaptation in poorer countries, and new analysis from the Pembina Institute shows that Canada’s contribution would be about 3–4% of the total. Using conservative estimates, Canada’s “fair share” works out to approximately $2–6 billion per year.

4.  W E L L ,   H E R E ‘ S    W H A T    W E   R E A L L Y   T H I N K :

This is truly incredible. A coalition of environmental groups released their own document entitled A Copenhagen Climate Treaty. This treaty proposes the actual legal text for a strong and equitable Copenhagen agreement, which is exactly what countries are trying to develop themselves. The legal structure of this treaty would include an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol.

The document also lays out the reductions needed from developed countries, the actions needed from developing countries to curb emissions and adapt to changes, and the funding and technology support that developed countries would deliver to developing countries. Side note: Canadians Claire Stockwell and Dale Marshall contributed to the project.

THANKS TO THE CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK CANADA FOR THEIR SUMMARY OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WHICH INFORMED THIS POST.

I am confident that the government recognizes the scientific advice of achieving 25 to 40% emission reductions globally below 1990 levels by 2020. Yet our target doesn’t seem to match up.

To put this in perspective, Japans statement of a much higher level, -15% by 2020, received a response from Yvo de Boer (general secretary of the UN Convention on Climate Change) of, “For the first time in 2.5 years in this job, I don’t know what to say.”

He continued to say that the emission reduction plans to date leave developed countries “a long, long way from the ambitious reduction scenarios” that scientists say are needed.

In addition, almost all other developed countries are submitting targets more ambitious than Canada. For example: European Union: 20-30%, Australia: 5-25%, United States: 17-24%. Studies show that it is economically feasible for Canada to achieve the 25 to 40% by 2020: this target is ambitious, though certainly possible.

What is it going to take for Canada to gain leadership? Quite possibly the voice of the people. I’ve written my letter to our Minister of Environment. Have you?

• Contact information of the Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Environment
• Contact information for your Member of Parliament
  

When I asked our lead negotiator, Mr. Michael Martin, to explain Canada’s position further, this was what he said:

“We are not going to set a conditional target. I honestly believe in a system where we are doing as much as we can, as fast as we can. Philosophically, I’ve never understood the logic of  ‘if you’re not doing more, I ‘m not doing more.’  It’s the problem of collective action. I heard this analogy the other day: When you’re all on the Titanic, the situation requires every one on board to do their part. We’re all heading towards a serious problem and need to all deal with it collectively and accordingly.”

[Here's where I responded, "Yes, but only those in 1st class survived the Titanic..." Anyways.]

He continued:

“The reality in developed countries is that you have domestic plans, plans for action, etc… And because it’s so fundamental and complex, and because it engages a whole economy, I don’t think you can expect in Copenhagen that a country will increase its domestic [emission target]. This is very different than Kyoto. We now have more policy work in most developed countries, and we know more – frankly. I think qualitatively it’s quite a different dynamic.  Now, how stringent Canada’s action needs to be, that’s a political discussion.

I don’t think those numbers (emission targets) are basis for negotiation. Its simply not the basis for a successful negotiation. We could put a number from 1 to 100. The models that are out there are top down; this is bottom up. We are not here to negotiate that target.“

Here’s where I blatantly said:

“Isn’t that why we are here? Perhaps this is my naïevity surfacing, but my understanding is that this is the mandate of these negotiations. What would happen if every country arrived with that position – non-negotiable targets?”

Answer? Words that only a bureaucrat could say to  a question that must be re-addressed to those that develop the political stance of our country.

At this point, another Canadian chirped in, “I’m glad I follow the [long-term commitments]… the Kyoto Protocol is too emotional.”

I could not agree more. To be quite frank, I can’t help but become emotionally engaged as I think about the immensity that is lying on the line at every one of these sessions. The consequences of inaction are unimaginable – and every single hour at the United Nations spent changing the text of the world’s commitments mark another notch in the line of progress moving towards where we need to be.

The job of the lead negotiator is to debate the policy that is within the political framework with which the negotiating team was sent. No one needs a UN translation headset to understand that mandate was sent from Ottawa, our federal government and Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Jim Prentice (see contact info), as well as to your own representative, your Member of Parliament (find contact info). Provinces and territories have a role in developing national targets as well, so writing to your regional Minister of Environment is also key.

Is imperative that we all call and write our political representatives as soon as possible in order to inspire political will and ambition. I already have, as have many dedicated readers already. We have the ability to shift this position. It is extremely helpful for our government to know that there are many people following the UN climate talks and that we would very much like to see Canada preform with the same, or greater, ambition as the rest of the developed world.

Have a look. The table speaks for itself.

Provided by Matthew Bramley of The Pembina Institute.

Subtext: According to the World Resources Institute, the Waxman-Markey Bill would produce a reduction in net US emissions (taking account of investments in international reductions) to 17-23% below the 1990 level by 2020. The biggest reason why the net effect is so much bigger than the cap-and-trade system alone is the investment in Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) – which is supposed to achieve reductions worth about 12% of 1990 emissions.