Canada might change its mind about Kyoto after next elections

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein has conceded that the national government in Ottawa will ratify the Kyoto accord, but he is holding out hope that Canada's next prime minister will scuttle the climate-change agreement.

Canada's Parliament is expected to ratify by year-end the Kyoto Protocol and in doing so, keep its commitment to the world community to drastically reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. But the government there will change by 2004, which could mean that the nation curtails its support.
Prime Minister Jean Chretien signed the treaty earlier this year and intends to enforce his country's compliance. At the same time, Alberta's Premier Ralph Klein is an ardent opponent of the accord and says that he will fight to protect his affluent province that is dependent on fossil fuels that are thought to cause global warming, noting that Canada has until 2005 to rescind its decision.

Any backtracking by Canada could have far reaching implications for the protocol by causing other nations -- more than 160 approved it already -- to weaken their support. The agreement has forced policy makers worldwide to focus on the issue of global warming and to propose solutions both inside and outside Kyoto's framework.
"I think it's fair to conclude that if Canada failed to ratify or to carry out the Kyoto Protocol, it would cast new doubt as to how successful the treaty could be in actually leading to reductions of greenhouse gas emissions," says Frank McDonnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust in Washington, DC. "It could also suggest that the United States is having more influence over Canada regarding this issue, but that shouldn't be a total surprise given the disproportionate economic clout of the US."
Because it appears that the Canadian Parliament will endorse the treaty, opponents are putting their energies into thwarting it when a new leader takes over the helm. One of the leading candidates, Paul Martin, considered a liberal there, has said through advisors that he will support the agreement -- although he won't be tied to it. That is, if the protocol in his view is having a devastating affect, he would change course and weaken it later.

While many scientists argue that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, others say that the problem is overblown. President George Bush subscribes to the thinking that the Kyoto Protocol would damage the US economy and that other market-based solutions would do more to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He has endorsed emissions trading.
Under such a system, a cap would be placed on carbon dioxide emissions. Businesses that discharge less can sell, bank or transfer those "credits." Companies that are pushing the limit can either take steps to cut their pollution by implementing new technologies, by switching to a cleaner-burning fuel, or by buying "credits" from another business. As the ceiling on emissions is gradually lowered, pollution levels drop. A broad spectrum has endorsed emissions trading and it is expected to be part of the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, countries could buy and sell those credits among each other.

Most industrial nations that sign the accord are expected to cut their annual greenhouse gas emissions by 6 % below 1990 levels. Other countries like India and China that are dependent on fossil fuels but don't have the resources to make changes as fast as richer countries can operate under a slower timetable.
In Canada, industry would be compelled to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 240 megatons -- a megaton is 1 mm tons by US metrics -- by 2012. A recent government study of the issue there says that industry is on its way to reducing greenhouse gases by 80 megatons through a variety of sources that include "carbon sinks" where forest and farmlands sequester gases before they emerge.

The study predicts a reduction of 100 megatons by getting consumers to conserve and use energy more wisely, as well as through the use of trading credits and newer technologies. The 60 megatons left could be wiped out through the use of credits given for exporting clean energies, such as natural gas that goes to the United States -- a move that Europe won't accept that would force Canada to go back to the drawing board. At this point, however, Kyoto doesn't appear to have a credible compliance enforcement mechanism.
The current government in Ottawa says that the negative affects of ratification will be nominal. The economy will continue to grow, it says, but at 0.4 % less than otherwise – a prediction that is also made for the province of Alberta. Along those lines, between 60,000 and 240,000 fewer jobs will be created during the first phase of the Kyoto agreement, which goes until 2012. By comparison, Canada generated about 900,000 new jobs in the first three quarters of 2002. Given the potential health and environmental benefits, the government concludes, the risk is worth it.

Canada must have a definitive plan to reduce its emissions by 2005 and then go about the task of following through between 2008 and 2012. Critics charge that government officials have no legitimate strategy to cut 60 megatons and any attempt to try and ramrod that through would have harmful ramifications in terms of jobs and real wages.
Some manufacturing groups say that about 450,000 potential jobs will never be realized while a Canadian taxpayer group says that incomes after inflation will drop by 5.5 % there. That's because prices will have to rise and wages will have to be slashed to pay for the cost of implementing Kyoto, it says.

Detractors also say that not enough is known about climate science to conclude that Kyoto would serve a useful purpose, with some saying that the environmental effects of fossil fuels are much less profound than certain interest groups charge. The science, some experts say, doesn't support the ratification of Kyoto.
"In light of the fact that Kyoto yields no economic or environmental benefits, this is obviously a bad deal for Canadian households and should be rejected," writes Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph, in a study for the Canadian Taxpayers Association that was released earlier this month. "Kyoto ultimately means the fundamental restructuring of the economy."
Despite strong reactions from both sides, the tenets of the Kyoto Protocol have spurred stakeholders to action. Even the United States that has rejected the treaty has tried to come up with alternatives. In the past, political leaders and their constituencies globally have responded when the pressure is on.

A rush to newer and cleaner technologies as well as the facilitation of exchanges whereby carbon dioxide emissions is inevitable. The overall aim is to make the planet a safer place to live while promoting economic prosperity.
Canada's elected government has weighed its choices and determined that the best way to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale is for it to set an example and join the Kyoto Protocol.
"I'd be delighted if (global warming) was wrong," says Environmental Minister David Anderson. "If it is, then the price of being wrong on this is at most, a slight decline in … growth," he adds. "But if you ignore (climate change) and you're wrong, then you'll pay a major price in future generations."