|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 
Responding to Kyoto Opponents
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
Background on how to respond to those who oppose the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wouldn't a "Made in Canada" solution be better? |
|
 |
 |
The phrase "Made in Canada" is misleading as it is being used by Kyoto opponents. Under Kyoto, Canada will be required to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. But the Kyoto Protocol does not dictate how Canada is going to meet its target. It is up to the Canadian government, provinces and other sectors to determine what steps need to be taken to meet the Kyoto target and timetable. In this sense, the Kyoto Protocol already requires a "Made in Canada" solution. The "Made in Canada" solution, which is currently being promoted by the Alberta government, along with several members of the petroleum industry, would result in slower growth of emissions--not a reduction--and a delayed timetable. If the problem of climate change is going to be addressed, emissions must be reduced, not merely slowed down.
|
The economic cost of ratifying Kyoto is too high. It will severely affect the economy. |
|
|
|
The most recent economic modeling by the federal government indicates that our GDP could be reduced by between 0.4 and 1.6% by 2010, relative to business as usual. As the economy is currently projected to grow by 31.0% between 2000 and 2010, that means GDP growth would still be between 29.4% to 30.6 %. Regardless of what the final figure is, the economy is still growing.
Furthermore, most economic models advanced to date consider none of the costs of continued climate change. As we are now witnessing through the drought in the Prairies, increased forest fires, and the floods in Eastern Europe, the costs are already enormous and will continue to mount. Compensation payments and crop insurance payments this year alone amount to over two billion dollars in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The health costs of increased fossil fuel use (the key contributor of climate change) are significant, but are not included in many of the models that have been produced. According to the federal government, poor air quality causes 16,000 premature deaths across Canada. The Ontario Medical Association reports that health problems cost more than $1 billion in hospital admissions, emergency room visits and lost working days in Ontario alone. The health benefits that will come with cleaner air have been estimated in the hundreds of millions and must be included in any discussion of the 'costs' of Kyoto.
|
If Canada ratifies, Canadian companies will become uncompetitive. |
|
|
|
On the contrary, one of the problems for Canadian industry has been the policy uncertainty created by the federal government's continued hesitation regarding ratification. By taking a lead on environmental policy, the federal government would help position Canadian firms to be more efficient and competitive. Through the establishment of a clear regulatory framework, Canadian companies will be required to innovate and upgrade. Through such innovation, and the resulting energy savings, companies gain a competitive advantage over their international competitors. In fact, several firms that have taken early action to improve their efficiency and implement emission-reduction strategies have also increased their competitiveness. Between 1990 and 2000, for example, Dupont both reduced its GHG emissions by 60% while production increased by 10% and shareholder return quadrupled.
There is an historic tendency for targeted industries to overestimate the costs of complying with environmental regulations prior to implementation. Prior to the U.S. Acid Rain Program, the targeted utilities complained bitterly that it would jeopardize their competitiveness. In fact, innovations subsequently introduced by the targeted industries greatly assisted them in becoming more efficient and, therefore, more competitive.
|
There will be a large number of jobs lost if we implement a plan to meet the Kyoto targets |
|
|
|
While there may be fewer jobs being created in particular sectors (such as oil and gas), there will be many jobs created in cleaner areas such renewable energies, energy efficiency, public transit systems, building retrofits, etc. Studies have shown that investments in energy efficiency produce four times as many jobs as investments in traditional energy sources such as fossil fuels and nuclear.
There will obviously need to be a transition plan for energy workers. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has advanced one that would see a net gain in national employment by 2010 under Kyoto, especially if electric utilities begin to incorporate more renewable sources of energy.
|
The science of climate change is still debatable |
|
|
|
Contrary to the views often portrayed by the press and industry spokespersons, there is little disagreement in the scientific community on the science of climate warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of over 2000 scientists and experts from around the world who gather periodically to review the existing peer-reviewed literature of the relevant science, has asserted that: 1. the world has been warming and will continue to warm for the foreseeable future, 2. the warming is largely due to human activity (burning fossil fuel - oil, coal and gas - and destroying forests), and 3. the consequences of rising temperature, in all projected futures, are grave enough to warrant global action. Furthermore, a statement endorsing the legitimacy of the IPCC process and its conclusions has been signed by 16 national scientific societies, including the Royal Society of Canada and the Royal Society (UK). Even the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has taken strong positions supporting the need for action on global warming.
Virtually all scientific models agree that we are faced with 1-2° Celsius of additional warming by mid-century, and considerably more by the year 2100. The only real debate is the rate at which climate change will occur, not whether change will occur.
The Sierra Club of Canada has compiled an excellent document which examines some the claims of climate change skeptics which is available at http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/climate/ten-myths.html.
|
There are so many countries not included. What about countries like China and India? |
|
|
|
Developed countries, such as Canada, have been the largest contributors to the climate change problem and, given their historic emissions, will be the main cause of most change in coming century. Given the long-term nature of this problem, future international agreements will be required which will, by necessity, bring in the rest of the global community. Even given the moral responsibility of the richer nations to take action first, developing nations are doing their part. India has one of the biggest renewable energy programmes of any country in the world and China has cut its emissions below 1990 levels.
|
Which other countries have ratified? |
|
|
|
150 nations have signed the Kyoto Protocol and to date, 96 countries have ratified the treaty. If both Russia and Canada proceed with their commitments to ratify the Protocol, the Protocol requirements will be met (ie. ratification by 55 countries including industrialized countries whose emissions are at least 55% of the global total) and it will come into effect as international law.
|
What'll stop companies from moving to the US where they won't have tougher laws to meet? |
|
|
|
The United States is not, in fact, an "environmental regulation free" zone as many States have tougher laws than we currently have in Canada. Furthermore, environmental policy in any one country is never fixed and, with a change in leadership, there may well be a significant shift in the American position regarding climate change. Finally, many factors go into a company's decision to relocate and the environmental policy framework is just one of many factors which would lead to a Canadian company relocating to the United States.
|
What effect on overall temperatures will full ratification of Kyoto produce? |
|
|
|
Even if the Kyoto targets are reached, there will likely be only a very small impact on the overall global climate temperature. Nevertheless, while the overall impact of the Kyoto may not prove sufficient, it will illustrate the level of change that is required to make a difference. Besides, the Kyoto Protocol was always intended as a first step towards greater emission targets.
|
Isn't it going to be very costly for consumers? |
|
|
|
Consumers do have a role to play in reaching the Kyoto target. While there is a good chance that we will see an increase in energy prices, this will likely lead to investments in energy efficiency and conservation. So, while there might well be a rise in the price of energy, bills could well go down over the long term as we reap the benefits from such investments. Research has shown, in fact, that energy productivity - that is, energy saved through conservation and a more efficient economy - is our most important source of new energy. This productivity trend produced more energy from 1970 to 1998 than all other newly developed sources combined. Along the way, Canadians pocketed about $50 billion in energy savings.
|
What are clean energy credits? Why is Canada pushing to get these at the international level? |
|
|
|
In international negotiations, Canada is trying to get credit for the sale of hydro and natural gas ('clean energies') to the United States. Such sales, the argument goes, allows the United States to reduce its reliance on more polluting energy sources such as coal. Because of this, Canada argues that it should get credit for 'offsetting' the emissions which otherwise would have occurred.
Almost all other countries are rejecting the Canadian proposal based on a variety of arguments that state that: Canada gains great economic benefits from these energy sales to the U.S.; there is not clear evidence that these sales actually do result in a substantial global environmental benefit; accepting the Canadian proposal would mean renegotiating the Kyoto Protocol and that it could create a precedent whereby other countries might seek exemptions which would lead to a weakening of the Protocol.
|
There needs to be more consultation on this issue. |
|
|
|
To date, the federal government has spent $22.3 million on consultations related to the Kyoto protocol since 1998. Since 1998, $6.07 million has been spent on the National Climate Change Secretariat, which co-ordinates federal-provincial consultations and has managed nine meetings of energy and environment ministers. $13.93 million has been spent on the activities of 16 working groups, known as issues tables, to look at how different economic sectors could contribute to meeting Kyoto objectives. $400,000 has been spent for cross-country consultations seeking input into a proposed national climate change business plan. About 400 groups and individuals, including KAIROS, took part. $650,000 has been spent on national workshops in 14 cities, intended to get input from interested groups on a federal discussion paper on Canada's contribution to addressing climate change. Finally, $1.25 million has been spent on consultations on a domestic emissions trading system, conducted by the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy
Top
of page |
|