By James Tansey
The climate conference in Durban could have had a very different
outcome, but instead, the Federal Government's withdrawal from the
Kyoto protocol not only damaged Canada's reputation
internationally, it also squandered an opportunity to give climate
policy new momentum at a time when no other country has the same
capacity to lead.
Kyoto is flawed; it is cumbersome, has limited oversight and
even if it had been implemented by the signatories, the targets are
lower than scientists believe is necessary to reduce climate
change.
But it was the only serious attempt to negotiate a binding
agreement among the world's largest emitters.
Canada's capacity to lead on climate policy is a function of the
fact that we have weathered the financial crisis better than any
other country and that high fuel prices make the extraction of our
natural resources, including natural gas and the oil sands,
financially viable. But most importantly, the Federal government's
estimates of the financial cost of compliance with Kyoto are
wrong.
If Canada had approached the
international negotiations with an attitude of leadership and
responsibility, it would have made a dramatic difference in
Durban.
Countries that won't meet their obligations under Kyoto through
emissions reductions alone have the option of buying reductions
from developing countries through the
Clean Development Mechanism, in the form of offsets.
Minister Peter Kent suggested that, in this scenario, the cost
of complying with Kyoto would have been $13.6bn in total, or $1600
per family in Canada (or $400 per person), although it's hard to
understand where these figures come from. Canada must purchase 700
million tonnes of CO2, with the average price, according
to Kent, at $19 per tonne.
However, at current prices in the global carbon markets (roughly
$6 per tonne), Kyoto compliance could cost less than $4.2bn a year
nationally or about $120 per Canadian citizen.
If you treat these figures as an investment in renewable energy
and energy efficiency
projects, or in the conservation of forests, then it is hard to
believe that many people would object.
In a recent Environics poll, 74% of Canadians agreed that
CO2 emissions should be regulated even if that results
in higher energy prices, and support for other climate policies,
such as a carbon tax is at an all time high with almost 6 in 10
people in favour.
We've benefited enormously from the steady economic growth over
the last two decades
that has also led to an increase in our emissions. Rather than
reducing greenhouse gases by 5.2% from 1990 levels, as outlined in
Kyoto, Canada's emissions have grown by 30%, roughly 162 million
tonnes.
In 1990, the starting year for Kyoto, our GDP was $583bn and in
1997, when Canada adopted Kyoto, GDP was $614bn. Today, Canada's
GDP is currently $1.785 trillion; expansion of the energy sector
has been a major driver of the Canadian economy over that
period.
If the Federal government's exaggerated $1600 per household cost
of Kyoto is a one time expense against a tripling in the size of
the economy, it starts to look quite reasonable.
On the other side of the table, even China indicated a
willingness to participate in negotiations about targets, and
has already made progress in the development of pilot cap and trade
programs in select provinces and cities.
If Canada had taken a different approach in Durban, it might not
have saved the Kyoto
Accord but it would have re-established Canada as a global leader
that is willing to step up and demonstrate a responsible and
affordable commitment to tackling climate change. Outside of action
by Provinces like Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, Canada's
position on climate policy is an international embarrassment.
Dr. James Tansey, is CEO of Offsetters, which helps
organizations and individuals understand, reduce and offset their
climate impact. He is also an associate professor at the Sauder
School of Business at the University of B.C. James is a
frequent contributor to GLOBE-Net