| Do or Die: Protecting the Climate a Priority (Issues/Action Briefing Paper #49) |
|||
| Summary Statement Three years after more than 150 countries reached an unprecedented agreement to reduce human-made greenhouse gas emissions, rules for implementing the December 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have still not been decided and the protocol itself is in danger of unravelling. The sixth “Conference of the Parties” to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in The Hague in November 2000, collapsed in disagreement; and on March 27, 2001, the US administration under President George W. Bush surprised the world by announcing the US was abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, which it had signed. At the same time as the nations of the world are unable to muster the political will necessary to address the causes and effects of climate change, the scientific and empirical evidence of climate change has become irrefutable. The role of the Government of Canada in The Hague talks on climate change and weak statements by Environment Minister David Anderson in response to the US decision to back out of the Kyoto Protocol have hurt chances of the Kyoto Protocol ever being implemented. The sixth Conference of the Parties, which was suspended last year, resumes on July 16, 2001 in Bonn. We have until then -- a mere three months -- to persuade the Chrétien government that Canada support an implementation plan for the Kyoto Protocol leading to real and significant emission reductions. Background THE EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the expert body established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization -- released its three-volume Third Assessment Report in winter 2001 and concluded: “There is new and stronger evidence that most of the [global] warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” The predicted 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius increase in average global temperatures by the end of the 21st century -- an unparalleled jump in human history -- will largely be the result of human beings emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in vast quantities into the Earth’s atmosphere through fossil fuel production and consumption, burning forest cover for farming and disposing waste in both incinerators and landfill sites. Canada, the world’s second-highest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions on a per capita basis, is already seeing the effects of climate change in the Arctic where the extent and thickness of sea ice have decreased and the permafrost has begun to thaw. THE COSTS OF INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change in polar regions is expected to be among the largest and most rapid of any region on Earth. Some of the impacts now in progress include melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in sea level due largely to thermal expansion of water, and flooding of coastal areas, low-lying regions and entire coral-island nations of the Pacific Ocean. Also likely are: - irreversible changes in global ocean circulation, changing precipitation and annual temperature patterns; - subsequently, shortages in water supply and reduced crop yields in areas already prone to drought and desertification; - more, and more severe, extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, heat waves, tornadoes and ice storms, with resulting damage to human life and property; - other effects to human populations -- displacement in the worst-affected areas; loss of livelihood and way of life for people who live off the land; greater risk from diseases like malaria as the mosquito increases its range; disruption to business; - threats to other species, such as polar bears, freshwater trout and caribou, as their natural habitat is destroyed (a loss of about 60 per cent of existing habitat in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia is projected). Dutch researchers have calculated that anything less than an overall worldwide 50.5 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases from 1990 levels will neither stabilize atmospheric concentrations nor prevent dangerous interference with the climate. Yet, carbon dioxide emissions in Canada have been allowed to grow more than 13 per cent since 1990, the international benchmark for measuring greenhouse gas emissions. In its defence of abandoning the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration has cited adverse consequences for the American economy if the US proceeds to meet its Kyoto commitment. On the contrary, the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education in Tennessee concluded in fall 2000 that the benefits of economic efficiency would equal the costs involved in the US reaching its Kyoto commitment. THE KYOTO PROTOCOL In December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, more than 150 countries reached an unprecedented agreement to reduce human-made greenhouse gas emissions. In 1992, agreement had only been achieved on stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at unspecified safe levels at some future time. The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change also divided countries signing the convention into two groups -- the “Annex I Parties” or industrialized countries that are largely responsible for creating the problem of climate change and the “non-Annex I Parties,” the world’s developing countries. The convention compelled Annex I Parties to adopt national policies and measures with the non-legally binding aim of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change was adopted at the third “Conference of the Parties” to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in response to concerns that the commitments in the 1992 convention for Annex I Parties were not adequate. The Kyoto Protocol commits Annex I Parties to legally binding targets of varying amounts for limiting or reducing their greenhouse gas emissions such that an overall worldwide cut of at least five per cent from 1990 levels is accomplished by the period, 2008-2012. Canada must reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent, the US by seven per cent, the UK by eight per cent and other Annex I Parties by other amounts. Demonstrable progress in achieving the targets must be made by 2005. The protocol lists ways in which Annex I Parties can reach their targets -- by energy efficiency, by protecting and enhancing “sinks”and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and promoting sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation, by sustainable forms of agriculture, by renewable forms of energy, by progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors, by measures to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, and by methane emission reductions in waste management. The protocol also establishes three “flexibility mechanisms,” known as emissions trading, joint implementation and the “clean development mechanism,” all of which can be used by Annex I Parties to achieve their targets so long as their use is supplemental to action in support of reduced greenhouse gas emissions at home. Through emissions trading, Annex I Parties can transfer and acquire “emission reduction units” from one another. Through joint implementation, an Annex I Party can sponsor a greenhouse gas reducing project in another Annex I country for credit. Through the clean development mechanism, an Annex I Party can sponsor a greenhouse gas reducing project in a non-Annex I Party for credit. The protocol enters into force when 55 Parties to the convention, including Annex I Parties accounting for 55 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions from this group in 1990, have ratified. Among the Annex I Parties, only Romania has ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is seen as a first step in the pursuit of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, and the protocol envisages a second compliance period after 2012. THE IMPASSE AT THE HAGUE The flexibility mechanisms, outlined in principle only in the Kyoto Protocol, were a source of disagreement at the sixth Conference of the Parties in The Hague in November 2000. The definition of sinks in the calculation of target credits was another stumbling block. In the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union and the non Annex I Parties argued that each Annex I Party target should be reached primarily by real greenhouse gas emission reductions in that country. On the other hand, an umbrella group led by the US and including Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and Ukraine, insisted on the widespread use of flexibility mechanisms and reliance on sinks to meet targets. The US, Canada and Japan have reduction targets to reach, but Australia, New Zealand, Russia and Ukraine do not in the 2008-12 compliance period; so the US, Canada and Japan could achieve a good part of their reduction targets in Australia, New Zealand, Russia and Ukraine. Unable to come to agreement on the rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the sixth Conference of the Parties was suspended and will resume on July 16, 2001 in Bonn. THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S DECISION Under pressure from oil, gas and coal companies, the US administration under President George W. Bush surprised the world by announcing on March 27, 2001 that the US was abandoning the Kyoto Protocol. World Federalist Analysis The nearly paralytic pace of international decision making in the face of the threats posed by uncontrolled climate change can be explained by the following reasons: 1. Predicting the exact effects of a phenomenon as complex as climate change and devising international standards for measurement of greenhouse gas emissions and emission reductions has taken time, and skeptics with vested interests in a carbon-based economy have exploited the uncertainty. 2. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in countries as wasteful of energy as Canada will require changes in human behaviour, and national governments elected for terms of half a decade or less would rather avoid the issue, maintain the status quo, and appease its individual and corporate citizens. 3. The general public is still mostly unaware of the magnitude of the climate change problem because its effects will be fully felt later in the century, is almost completely baffled by the arcane and byzantine international treaty process, and has, as a result, not pressured its elected officials for timely action. 4. The international treaty process does not function well when near universal agreement is required, e.g., on common global problems. A large state or group of states can hold up progress against the wishes of the majority. Despite the year 2000 red book pledge of the Liberal Party to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions in keeping with its Kyoto commitment, Canada’s performance at The Hague talks last November during the general election was bad enough to earn Canada the most “fossil” awards of any country by the Climate Action Network, the leading nongovernmental international coalition working to protect the climate. In March of this year, the Hon. David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, blamed the European Union for stalling an agreement on the rules for implementing the Kyoto Protocol when it was easier to do under the Clinton administration! How has Canada moved so far away from the far-reaching global governance principles it upheld in 1989 when it signed on to a climate protection declaration called Declaration of The Hague? Recommended Action In addition to urging David Anderson to uphold the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol, it is important that other decision makers hear from you as well. Copy your letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, your Member of Parliament, your Premier and your provincial member of parliament. Some of the vacillation coming from Ottawa is attributable to some of the provinces, Ontario especially. They have jurisdiction over natural resources and have been exerting pressure on the federal government to back away from real action on climate change. Postage-Free Addresses and Fax Numbers Hon. David Anderson Minister of the Environment House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Fax: (819) 953-3457 Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien Prime Minister of Canada House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Fax: (613) 941-6900 Hon. John Manley Minister of Foreign Affairs House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6 Fax: (613) 996-3443 This paper was prepared by Paul Dilse and reviewed by Fergus Watt, Elizabeth Snell and Dr. David Hallman. (April, 2001) World Federalists of Canada www.web.ca/~wfcnat Email: wfcnat@web.ca World Federalist Movement www.worldfederalists.org |
|||
|