Canada has received much criticism over its response to climate change. The following presents a recap of Canada's position on climate action.
Canada's Official Position
Criticism
Bill C-311, The Climate Change Accountability Act
G8 / G20 Muskoka Summit
Tar Sands
Canada's Official Position
Canada's federal government recognizes the widely supported scientific finding that human activity is responsible for the current rate of increase in global temperature and that this increase should not exceed 2° C from pre-industrial levels.
In 2007, the Environment Minister presented the government's green plan, entitled Turning the Corner. In the plan, Canada commited to reducing its greenhouse gases 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 and 60 to 70 percent by 2050.
Canada has participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since its inception and is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol came into force in 2005 and expires in 2012.
At the most recent G8 Summit in Aquila, Italy, Canada became a signatory to the 2009 Joint Declaration reaffirming the importance of the work of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC).
Canada also participated with sixteen other major economies in the US-led Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) that President Obama launched in March 2009. The MEF Leaders’ Declaration released in July 2009 commits MEF countries to identify a global goal for substantially reducing global emissions by 2050.
The Declaration also announced the establishment of Global Partnerships to drive the transformational low-carbon, climate-friendly technologies. The Partnership’s goal is to dramatically increase public sector investments in research, development and the demonstration, while recognizing the importance of private investment, public-private partnerships and international cooperation.
In December 2009 international heads of state met for the 15th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen. Their task was to agree on new global targets for the reduction of greenhouse gasses, as a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol. A series of Fact Sheets on the official UNFCCC website provides full details of the issues at stake.
While the meeting did not result in binding targets, an Accord was reached that is now being used by governments to guide their commitments. Canada's Prime Minister issued an official statement affirming a national commitment to concrete action on climate change that will be in accord with the policies of the United States.
Kyoto Protocol - With an emissions increase of 34 percent as of 2007, Canada is far from meeting its commitment to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 percent between 1990 and 2012. Countries on track to meet their commitments include: Denmark, Germany, Norway, France, the United Kingdom and the EU-15.
Countries that fail to meet their emissions targets by the end 2012 must make up the difference plus a penalty of 30 percent in the second commitment period (to 2020). Their ability to sell credits under emissions trading will also be suspended.
Back to top
After Kyoto – Moving forward, the IPCC clearly states that in order to prevent runaway global warming, which would seriously compromise the stability of our biosphere, world governments must reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 to 90 percent by 2050.
Canada’s commitment of 20 percent from 2006 levels by 2020 and 60 to 70 percent by 2050 falls far short of the scientific targets required to prevent runaway global warming. It is in line with U.S. targets, but unlike the U.S., Canada proposes no plan to cut emissions by that date. In December 2009, the CBC reported on a leaked draft document prepared for Cabinet, which revealed that the Canadian government is considering setting emissions targets for the oil and gas industry that are weaker than those set in Turning the Corner. In its web page, Canada's Action on Climate Change, the government of Canada makes the following statement:
"In April 2007, we announced Turning the Corner, however, following the economic downturn and the renewed engagement by the new US Administration, we took the opportunity to fine-tune our approach to tackling climate change. As we tackle this challenge, we are proceeding on three parallel pathways to address climate change with strong domestic, continental and international action."
Industrialized countries are entrusted to lead developing countries to prevent climate catastrophe. By setting such low targets Canada offers little inspiration or leadership to developing countries to significantly reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions.
Back to top
Harper’s Approach - "I think modest, achievable targets – particularly in the short term – will get the planet on the right track, which will allow us to make a longer term transition. The key to all this is not the setting of targets. It is actually the development and implementation of the technology that over time will make significant targets possible." Prime Minister Stephen Harper, quoted in a Nov 30 article in the Toronto Star.
There are several problems to the Prime Minister’s approach. Greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, accumulate in the atmosphere and don’t escape for hundreds of years. Countries must reduce their carbon emissions as soon as possible in order to reduce this accumulative effect. The other problem is that by not setting legally binding targets, governments are provided no incentive to transition to a low carbon economy, except if oil prices continue to rise to prohibitive levels. The IPCC emission targets are scientific. They are real. There are serious consequences – accelerated global warming - if we do not meet them.
Back to top
Obstruction - Scientists, government officials and environmentalists have accused Canada of obstructing climate change negotiations. Since 2005, The Climate Action Network has awarded Canada the ‘Fossil of the Year’ Award. This award is given to countries that have done the least to combat climate change, such as doing little to reduce their own emissions, and obstructing climate talks.
At the end of 2007 Canada blocked a Commonwealth resolution to support binding targets for industrialized nations. In November 2009, prominent campaigners, politicians and scientists have called for Canada to be suspended from the Commonwealth over its climate change policies.
The 2009 Climate Change Performance Index, produced by Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, assesses the efforts of the world's 60 richest nations. Of the 60 countries, Saudi Arabia came last at 60th. Canada came 59th.
Bill C-311 - The Climate Change Accounability Act
Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act passed third reading in the House of Commons on May 5th, 2010. Conservative MPs voted against it, while the majority of Opposition MPs supported it. The Bill is now before the Senate in second reading. Senator Mitchell introduced and defended the Bill before the Senate on June 1st. Debate will continue when the Senate resumes September 28th. To urge Senators to support the Bill, click here.
If passed into law, the Act will require the Canadian federal government to set regulations to bring emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The Act will require the government to produce five year target plans, establish independent reviews and punish polluters who break regulations.
G8 / G20 Muskoka Summit (June 25-27)
As host of the 2010 G8 / G10 Summit, Canada sets the agenda. At this point, climate change is not on it. With the failure in Copenhagen for governments to set binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions, the Muskoka Summit is a critical opportunity for countries to prepare for the UNFCCC's Conference of the Parties 16, held in Cancun this December.
The Climate Action Network has initiated a campaign called At the Table to engage citizens and their federal representatives to put climate change on the table during these critical talks.
Citizens are also asked to contact Prime Minister Stephen Harper to urge that he place climate change on the agenda in Muskoka this June:
pm@pm.gc.ca
Phone: 613-992-4211
Fax: 613-941-6900
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2
Canada’s behavior is due primarily to its interests in the tar sands in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The world is running out of cheap oil - oil easily extracted from wells found primarily in the Middle East. As a result, tar sand development, an expensive and destructive process, has become economically viable, so much so that it has fast become an integral part of the Canadian economy. Indeed, the value of the Canadian dollar is determined by the demand for Canadian oil. When oil prices spiked in the summer of 2008 until the market crashed, the Canadian dollar traded on average $0.95 against the American. When the recession hit, demand and subsequently tar sands development plummeted. This outcome of course adversely affected the Albertan economy and saw the Canadian dollar trade at as low as $0.78 in March 2009.
Good for the Economy? - As a result of tar sand investment and development, is the Canadian economy becoming less diversified? Is it wise to invest so heavily in one commodity, particularly one so vulnerable to the peaks and valleys of the global economy?
According to Jeff Rubin, former Chief Economist at CIBC World Markets, in his book Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller, Canadian oil sands development was made possible by giveaway royalty agreements and federal tax breaks. As a result, less than a third of oil revenue goes to the Alberta government. To put this into perspective, the Norwegian government receives 78% of revenues from oil. In Canada, most of its oil revenue leaves the country for the benefit of multinational corporations.
Energy and Water Intensive – Tar sands energy rate of return is very low. Its production demands one Btu of energy for every three Btu of energy extracted from the source (compare this to the typical oil well in the Middle East where one Btu of energy produces 100 Btu). Consider that 1,400 cubic feet of natural gas is required to produce one barrel of synthetic oil from the bitumen. Tar sands are also very thirsty. Three barrels of water are required to produce just one barrel of oil.
Toxic Waste Land - This commodity is energy intensive and environmentally toxic and damaging. Its production calls for stripping thousands of hectares of land, including the Boreal Forest, one of the last remaining ‘lungs’ on the planet. The water required in the process becomes contaminated and is stored in vast tailing ponds, which leak organic poisons, arsenic and mercury into the rivers. The First Nations people living downstream have developed a range of exotic cancers and auto-immune diseases as a result. The 2008 report, Canada's Toxic Tarsands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth, provides an overview of these critical issues. This report was followed in 2009 with Clearing the Air on Oil Sands Myths, which systematically addresses key critical issues distinguishing the "spin" from the evidence and facts.
Tarsands exploitation involves the destruction of vast regions of the Boreal Forest, a globally significant ecosystem spanning nearly the entire breadth of Canada and responsible for the natural sequestration of carbon. Losses of the Boreal result in decreased amounts of carbon sequestration, therefore increasing the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere over and above the amount generated through the production of oil.
Contact Us
Send to a Friend
