
Is Canada jumping off the deep end by not meeting its Kyoto targets or is it much ado about nothing?
Weather forecasters are predicting the summer of 2006 to be one of the hottest in recent years and perhaps no one is feeling the heat more than Environment Minister Rona Ambrose.
Calls for her resignation from the opposition parties were among the last things heard on Parliament Hill before the government took its annual summer break.
Ever since Ms. Ambrose said the only way to meet Canada’s Kyoto targets was to basically shut down the economy, she has earned the wrath of environmentalists across the country.
“There are four things Canada can do to make progress towards the Kyoto target,” said Matthew Bramley, director, climate change program at the Pembina Institute.
“The first is to reduce economic activity, which no one wants to do. The other options are to be more energy efficient, use cleaner energy sources, and fourthly, finance emission reductions in other countries,” said Mr. Bramley.
“The thing that is regrettable is Minister Ambrose’s statements in the House of Commons where she has talked as though only the first of those four options – which is the dumbest one – is available,” he added.
Just how far off target is Canada?
Under the Kyoto Protocol, which the previous Liberal government signed in 2002, Canada agreed to reduce its annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to a level six per cent below 1990 levels over the period 2008-2012.
Last fall, the United Nations released a report detailing changes in GHG emissions between 1990-2003. Canada was the sixth-worst offender, with a 24.2 per cent increase.
That statistic can be explained by Canada’s robust economy.
“Between 1990 and 2003, Canada had reduced GHG emissions per dollar of GDP (that is, our economy is becoming less GHG emissions intensive), but growth in GDP per person, and total population has outpaced reductions in GHG emissions per GDP,” said Nick Schneider, policy analyst, risk and environment at the Fraser Institute.
“Therefore, much of the reason that Canada is 30% off target is because of our growing economy.”
Where does Canada go from here?
“The practical implications of reducing Canadian GHG emission in time for the first Kyoto commitment period makes the task essentially not possible,” said Mr. Schneider.
One of the ways Canada can move towards its targets is to purchase credits on the international carbon market, something Mr. Schneider believes makes more economic sense than reducing Canada’s economic output.
However, the idea of giving countries like Russia billions of dollars and not reducing GHG in Canada does not sit well with many people, including the government.
According to a spokesperson from the Ministry of the Environment, Canada will not be buying credits on the international carbon market – the so-called “hot air” credits.
“We are being honest and transparent with Canadians. We are saying we cannot reach those targets without buying international credits and we don’t believe buying credits helps Canada at home.”
Mr. Bramley believes opponents of Kyoto are looking at it the wrong way.
“The trouble is, opponents of Kyoto talk about that (buying credits from Russia) as if it were the only option and that is simply not true,” he said.
“What we need to do is invest in projects in developing countries. Projects that have a rigorous verification process to determine how much emissions were reduced for those projects and you only get credit if you have shown you have real emission reductions. That is what we are interested in when you talk about buying international credits,” said Mr. Bramley.
The government, however, believes a made-in-Canada approach is a better solution and is working on policy over the summer months. When it is unveiled in the fall, it will include much more than a plan to reduce GHG emissions.
“The made-in-Canada approach will be a holistic approach. It will not simply deal with greenhouse gas emissions,” said a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Environment.
“Canada has no water policy right now. There is no policy right now to clean up The Great Lakes. There will be initiatives on clean soil. There are numerous environmental problems that need to be addressed.”
Regarding the government’s made-in-Canada plan – there is no shortage of opinions.
“I would focus on impact and adaptation,” said Antoni Lewkowicz, a University of Ottawa geography professor who has been studying climate change in northern Canada for 30 years.
“What we need to get around to is how we are going to adapt and manage the impact of those emissions and the increases in temperatures that we can expect,” he said.
Are Canadians their own worst enemies when it comes to climate change?
Professor Lewkowicz says when he asks his students if they support the Kyoto Protocol, most of them put up their hands. But when he asks them if they are willing to give up their cars, fewer students raise their hands.
“Canadians seem to expect Ottawa to reduce emissions for us,” said Mr. Schneider. “But much of Canadian emissions come from the actions of individual Canadians. There’s no shortage of ways for individuals to reduce their emissions. Anything that reduces energy or fuel use will reduce personal emissions – and likely save on your hydro, electric, or gas bill,” he added.
“I don’t like blaming citizens for this,” said Mr. Bramley. “The far most important failure here has been the failure of political leadership in putting in place the policies.”
Whether Canada comes close to its Kyoto targets or not, most people believe something has to be done about climate change.
“Many people ask me when I come down from the north if I believe climate change is happening and my answer is yes,” said Professor Lewkowicz. “Northerners are very aware of what is going on because they spend so much time outdoors looking at the environment more than we do. I think they are going to be profoundly affected in the next 50 or 100 years.”

