In a September 25 poll on its website, the Globe and Mail asked Canadians: “In terms of global warming, what approach do you favour? Strict adherence to the Kyoto Protocol? The 'more flexible' approach suggested by Prime Minister Harper? A compromise between those two positions? No action is needed because global warming is not happening?” The about 86000 respondents were almost equally divided between the first three options, with only 5 % opting for “no action.”
But are politicians and media providing the information that would allow Canadians to make these judgments? Kyoto-bashing has become something of a national sport, a sport that Canadian media have fallen for hook, line and sinker. The same goes for political slogans touting the need for a “made in Canada solution” or a “balanced approach” to climate change. Why indeed favour a “flawed treaty”? And why resist such reasonableness as home-made balance?
According to now conventional wisdom Canada cannot meet its Kyoto obligations. Yet, even if domestic measures cannot deliver Canadian Kyoto compliance, there are good reasons for bringing Canada as close as possible to compliance.
The more we do domestically, the more we are actually implementing a “made in Canada solution” (as opposed to talking about it). We are also reducing the need for recourse to Kyoto’s two “safety valves,” either to acquire emission units abroad, or to acknowledge non-compliance and carry excess emissions over into a Kyoto-successor regime. Still, these two options ought to be taken seriously.
A good faith effort to comply is required by international law. Flaunting international obligations undermines the very system that is Canada’s best hope to forestall dangerous climate change. Citing economic hardship neither is a valid legal excuse nor will strengthen Canada’s case for serious developing country commitments. Acquiring emission reductions through Kyoto’s “Clean Development Mechanism,” however, would be an investment in the all-important goal of bringing developing countries into the regime.
Canada’s approach to its existing commitments is also relevant to future policy options. Kyoto leaves considerable domestic scope in meeting commitments. But Canada can neither convert its obligations into a “made in Canada solution” nor solve global warming at home. Global cooperation among all major emitters is indispensable.
At first blush, Canada’s “balanced approach” seems a reasonable step in that direction. But, again, several aspects deserve closer scrutiny.
Canada has declared itself committed to medium (2020) and long-term (2050) targets. Good. Long-term targets are crucial to allow states and economic sectors to plan. Medium-term targets are required if a long-term target is to be more than an unaccountable commitment by today’s policy-makers.
But not all targets are the same. Targets can serve these functions only if they are firm (rather than “aspirational”) and meaningful. In both respects the Canadian government must be upfront with Canadians. For example, it should make clear that an intensity target will not necessarily have the same environmental benefit as an emissions cap.
Similarly, we should be clear that indexing projected emission reductions to 2006 violates our existing commitment - a 6% reduction from 1990 emissions. And instead of stepping up efforts to cut emissions, this approach would significantly slow reductions because it ignores the roughly 30% by which our emissions have increased since 1990. Calls for 50 % emission reductions from 2006 levels by 2050 may impress casual observers, but they ignore the environmental side of any genuinely “balanced” approach.
The Canadian government rightly identifies the key policy challenge for any post-Kyoto arrangement: the 20 or so states that account for roughly 80% of global emissions must make emission reduction commitments. Canada’s efforts to use different forums, such as G8 or APEC meetings, to engage the major players are to be welcomed. Also, a post-Kyoto agreement need not be “one-size fits all.” Indeed, it should not be. Here too, Canadian policy ideas point in the right direction. With one proviso: multiple tracks towards global climate policy must lead back to common ground.
And that is a crucial point. The foundations for an effective global regime already exist in the 1992 Climate Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. This regime is framed by the right principles, provides the decision-making bodies and procedures required for further development, has laid the groundwork for a blend of emission reductions and global emissions trading, and has sketched the contours of a carrots and sticks approach to compliance.
Nothing prevents states from revising the Kyoto Protocol or from adopting one or more new protocols, tailored to the needs of different groups of parties. It would be foolhardy to abandon what has been accomplished, and irresponsible to score political points by falsely dismissing the global regime as flawed. The problem lies not with the regime but with the states that are, or should be, participating in it – including Canada.
We need all the fresh thinking on solutions to the climate challenge that we can get. And fast. We also need an approach that is right for Canada. But making good climate policy requires more nuance and honesty than Kyoto-bashing and catchy slogans can deliver.