On Februrary 16th the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect, binding member countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels. While Kyoto is an important first step for international cooperation on reversing climate change, our health and the health of the world depends upon a much bigger commitment to reducing emissions. The Green Party is ready to lead the way.
Canada's Warming Trade Relations
How Ottawa is trading away its commitment to Kyoto
Jim Harris
Canada's record on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since signing the Kyoto Protocol is abysmal. Not only has the Liberal government failed to meet its modest target of reducing emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels, it has added fuel to the fire by increasing emissions by 20 per cent. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say GHG emissions must be reduced by 60 to 80 per cent in order to reverse the effects of climate change.
Rather than working to strengthen international cooperation on climate change, the federal government has encouraged the development and export of fossil fuels, which are responsible for the bulk of GHG emissions. A report released at the World Economic Forum last week ranked Canada 144 out of 146 countries based on its commitment to easing environmental pressures.
Canada's pitiful record on the environment is characterized by trade deals that facilitate the export of fossil fuels to some of the world's worst polluters. Through NAFTA, Canada has committed itself to sustaining oil and gas exports to the US (the country that emits the largest amount of GHG in the
world). Ottawa is set to extend the same bad judgment by signing an energy deal with China-where energy inefficiencies are creating social and ecological havoc.
Despite serious back-pedaling last week by Industry minister David Emerson, the agreement being drafted by the Martin government will allow Chinese state-owned enterprises greater access to Canadian oil, gas and coal deposits. It will also grant Chinese producers similar legal provisions setup to safeguard publicly traded Canadian businesses.
With the right leadership, international trade would create lasting opportunities for Canadian well being by stimulating industries that generate employment and economic activity. However, Liberal trade policy is putting Canada in the precarious position of becoming even more dependent upon the extraction and export of natural resources at the expense of other industries.
Take automobile manufacturing for example: the North American market is changing and Canada has been slow to react in producing the next generation of fuel-efficient vehicles. The federal government has pledged to lead Canadians in the shift toward more energy-efficient vehicles by purchasing a fleet of hybrid cars-which reduce carbon emissions by 50 per cent and smog emissions by 90 per cent. However, it is unlikely this initiative will contribute to the success of domestic production without a new transportation and energy strategy. No wonder workers are concerned about the future of manufacturing jobs in Canada.
Meanwhile, Chinese car companies-with their rising production and export capacities-have expressed interest in fulfilling Canadian demand for hybrid vehicles. Even strategists in the Bush administration are seeking to invest billions to encourage hybrid vehicles and alternative fuels in the US. Canada may have to take similar measures in order to compete with US and Chinese production.
Such remedial action would not be necessary if the federal government took the lead on reducing emissions through fiscal reform. Green tax changes that shift public wealth creation from payrolls to resource management would stimulate energy efficiency, innovation and job creation while minimizing emissions.
Germany and Sweden have used fiscal tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower pollution levels. Rather than hinder economic performance, these measures have increased energy efficiency and sparked job growth. The Economist reports that, "By embracing Kyoto, the EU might just have given its businesses an edge in the race towards clean energy", noting the financial payback of BP (British Petroleum) reaching its emission targets eight years ahead of schedule. Taking the lead on reducing emissions will also create opportunities for Canada through carbon trading on international markets.
Policy-makers must become ecologically literate in order to prevent polluting industries from further embedding themselves in Canada's trade relations. Negative externalities-such as pollution, conflict, and climate change-must become central in policy decision-making. Only then will we be able to achieve the next step, which renowned physicist Fritjof Capra calls "eco-design" a "process [by] which our human purposes are carefully meshed with the larger patterns and flows of the natural world".
Tackling climate change is a challenge shared by everyone on the planet. In its position of relative affluence and industrialization, Canada has both an interest and a responsibility to ensure Kyoto is upheld. With the tools and the know-how at our disposal, Canadians also have a great opportunity to lead our trade partners in sound energy use. The question is neither technological nor conceptual, as Capra points out-but whether we have the political will to move pre-emptively in the inevitable shift away from fossil fuels before hegemonic or climatic powers force a paradigm shift in the global energy economy.
On Februrary 16th the Kyoto Protocol will come into effect, binding member countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by at least 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels. While Kyoto is an important first step for international cooperation on reversing climate change, our health and the health of the world depends upon a much bigger commitment to reducing emissions. The Green Party is ready to lead the way.
Canada's record on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions since signing the Kyoto Protocol is abysmal. Not only has the Liberal government failed to meet its modest target of reducing emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels, it has added fuel to the fire by increasing emissions by 20 per cent. Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change say GHG emissions must be reduced by 60 to 80 per cent in order to reverse the effects of climate change.