Canada’s post- Kyoto plan
Last month, I announced that Canada would invoke our legal right to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. This decision formalizes what our Conservative government has said since 2006 — that we will not implement the Kyoto Protocol. Since then, some have asked, “What is Canada’s post- Kyoto plan?”
The answer is simple: This government, unlike the one that signed on to Kyoto, has a plan to reduce greenhouse- gas ( GHG) emissions, and we are making good progress. We are working to address climate change in a way that is fair, effective and comprehensive, and allows us to continue to create jobs and growth in Canada.
In stark contrast to the opposition, who created policy by announcement rather than thoughtful planning, we are focused on real action to combat greenhouse gases. Not feelgood, short- term symbolism that would kill Canadian jobs, yet do nothing to reduce emissions.
This is why we remain committed to our realistic and comprehensive plan to reduce Canada’s GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels — 607 megatonnes — by 2020. Together with the provinces, we are already a quarter of the way to reaching this goal.
Some have also asked: “Why did we withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol?”
The answer is, again, simple: The Kyoto Protocol is ineffective. Canada’s goal is to see levels of global greenhouse- gas emissions go down. But the sad reality is that with Kyoto, they would continue to go up.
A Maginot line in the battle to counter climate change, the Kyoto Protocol is based on a decadesold global reality that simply does not reflect our current situation.
The global challenge of climate change requires a global solution, where all the major emitters are involved. Before December, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global GHG emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. Moreover, Canada and other developed countries’ emissions are coming down, but the developing countries’ emissions between now and 2030 will soar.
In addition, had Canada stayed in the Kyoto Protocol, we would have been required to buy $ 14- billion worth of compliance credits ( which would do nothing to reduce emissions) in order to meet our target for the first commitment period under the Protocol, ending in December 2012.
The math is clear: The total number of carbon credits required multiplied by the average cost of a carbon credit is $ 14- billion. And the facts are simple: You cannot enter the second commitment period without completing the first, and we either pay the $ 14- billion or we would be in violation of the protocol.
Our government believes in investing in Canada’s future, not buying hot air from foreign governments.
We also believe that a one-sizefits- all approach to carbon reduction simply does not work.
This is why, as part of our plan to reduce GHG emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, we are taking a sector- by- sector approach. We have already started with transportation and electricity — two of the largest sources. For example, we recently published draft regulations for coalfired electricity that will encourage the phase- out of dirty coal. Currently under review, these regulations will be issued in the coming months.
As we learned in the 1990s with the issue of acid rain, pollution does not recognize our southern border. This is why we are working to harmonize and align, where appropriate, our approaches with our neighbour, largest trading partner and one of the world’s biggest emitters, the United States — for example, in the transportation sector, given the highly integrated nature of the North American automotive industry.
A one- size- fits- all approach to carbon reduction simply does not work
We will also work toward getting a new global climate- change agreement, with legally binding commitments for all major emitters, that allows us as a country to continue to generate jobs and economic growth. We saw some movement of this in Durban last month, but it is not enough. We need to engage not only the developed countries that were not in Kyoto, but also the major developing countries whose emissions are increasing dramatically every year.
We are bound to this land, and we must protect it. But we must also ensure we make pragmatic and realistic choices that enable us to continue creating jobs and promoting economic growth. A balanced approach is the only solution.