By Climatico Director: Paige Andrews

Canada takes first Fossil of the Day at COP17 (Source: Adopt a Negotiator)

On Monday, Environment Minister Peter Kent announced that Canada “will not make a second commitment to Kyoto.” In addition, Canada will no longer take steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol and may begin to formally withdraw from the agreement next month. In place of the Protocol, Canada’s goal is for “a new international agreement, eventually binding, which would include all the major developed and developing emitters.”

Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol would make it the first nation to do so after its ratification. Although Kyoto provisions are set to expire at the end of 2012, this action on the part of Canada would demonstrate a symbolic blow to the UN climate process which has already been weakened by Party divisions.

The fate of Kyoto, the only legally binding accord that specifies reductions in greenhouse gases, has proven to be the source of much tension at the annual climate talks taking place through next week in Durban, South Africa.

Canada’s announcement angered poor nations who say that rich nations are reneging on pledges made when the protocol was signed 14 years ago.

“For countries that are historically responsible for the problem to explicitly back out would undermine the process and the credibility of what we are trying to do,” stated Seyni Nafo, spokesman for the Africa Group in Durban. “How are we to going to ask India and China to do more when Canada is saying, ‘OK, we’re checking out of the Kyoto Protocol?”

Since the election of Conservative Stephen Harper as Canada’s Prime Minister in 2006, Canada’s government has demonstrated weakening support for binding emissions reductions, stating that it had no intention of complying with Kyoto and arguing that it was too ambitious and not applied fairly.

“The Canadian government is looking for every escape possible to avoid the consequences of inaction in the face of dangerous climate change and to ensure they can expand the tar sands as projected,” said Hannah McKinnon of Climate Action Network Canada.

Canada’s announcement signifies a growing trend away from any agreement that fails to include big polluters such as the United States and China. In addition to Canada’s potential withdrawal, Japan and Russia have similarly confirmed that they will not renew their commitment to Kyoto and the European Union, a consistent supporter of the Protocol, has hinted that its continued support may be conditional.

Developed countries are not alone in their hesitation about the Protocol. China, the world’s leading greenhouse gas emitter, has also refused to commit to new binding targets, arguing that it wants to see developed countries to act first and follow through with their commitments.

“If we cannot get a decision for the future of the second commitment period, the whole international system on climate change will be placed in peril,” China’s lead negotiator Su Wei told news agencies. “If the Kyoto Protocol is devoid of any further commitment period, the Kyoto Protocol itself will be dead.”

The timing of Canada’s announcement on Day 1 of COP17 in Durban has led to questions about Canada’s role and credibility in the negotiations, as well as its ability to influence international policy.  Should other countries follow Canada’s lead, the talks in Durban may result in a series of voluntary pledges, rather than a legally-binding international agreement. 

Canada's Parliament (Image: Chris Fane)

You would be forgiven if you looked at a map of Canada’s May 2 election results and did not see much evidence of Canada’s multi-party system, modelled on the United Kingdom’s Westminster style of government. The results from the election – the country’s fourth federal election in seven years – are historic on a number of counts.

The Conservative Party, on the right, has won a third consecutive term, this time achieving its long-sought majority (there are 308 Members of Paliament in Canada, and 155 seats are needed to form a majority government). The New Democratic Party (NDP), on the left, has, with record gains, become the official opposition party for the first time. The Green Party won its first-ever seat for a Member of Parliament. And two parties were trounced: the Bloc Quebecois, Quebec’s sovereignist party, went from 47 seats in that province to an unprecedented four, and the Liberal Party, once considered Canada’s “natural governing party” – so called because of its historical success in the center – dropped to an ignoble third place for the first time, with leader Michael Ignatieff losing his seat (he resigned on May 4). The Bloc’s leader, Gilles Duceppe, also lost his seat and resigned.

Essentially, this election has shifted Canada’s balance of power from seats shared between four parties across the political spectrum to a national map that bears resemblance to a two-party system, with significant representation on the left and on the right, as well as a gap in the middle. It’s a decisive change, whether or not it indicates a permanent shift in Canada’s politics.

So what does this all mean for Canada’s climate change and related environmental policies? Now that the leader of the Conservatives, Stephen Harper, has a majority, he can move forward with his policy vision without needing the support of other parties to stay in power, as is generally the case with Canadian minority governments. He also has at least a four-year time frame before the next election is called and he has to face voters again, rather than the shorter time period between elections that a minority government generally faces.

This is likely to mean that the Conservatives will continue their past negative record on climate change unabated. For example, rather than take a leadership role, Harper has been determined to wait for, and integrate with, American policies such as emissions targets and a cap-and-trade system – but since the bill died in the U.S. Senate last year, this means that there is currently no action to take. While integration makes sense, critics point out that Canada has unique concerns that must be addressed, and that integration would not be enough.

In addition, the Conservatives have touted significant investments in carbon capture and storage, despite it being considered a largely untested and sometimes controversial technology. And Harper has been an advocate of the Copenhagen Accord, which was delivered in Denmark in 2009 to criticism that it falls short of what is needed on climate change. If that support were accompanied by more action on emissions, it could be seen as a positive step, but his record of defending the oil sands rather than pushing harder to limit emission levels and environmental damage in Alberta shows that his views on the Accord have been, so far, less about action than they are about political positioning.

If the fact that climate change barely received mention in April’s election campaign (despite an Environment Canada report criticizing Harper’s record) is any indication, its future looks grim.

Yet there are a few possible bright spots. First, the NDP Party is a long proponent of environmental initiatives and lists climate change as fourth in a series of “practical first steps.” As the new official opposition, the party’s voice will be brought into the spotlight more so than it ever has before – and its leader, Jack Layton, is likely to oppose Harper on environmental issues. Layton is responsible for drafting the Climate Change Accountability Act, which passed the House before it was defeated by Conservatives in the Senate. Even though the bill may have been flawed, it was shut down without any debate, to public outcry. That Act is a key part of the NDP’s climate change policy, which also includes plans for renewable energy and public transit. While the opposition has no power to stop the majority government from enacting what it wishes, and can only play a critic role over the next four years, it is in the position – if it overcomes the challenges of a suddenly large and inexperienced caucus – to tap into public sentiment that might have greater effect in the coming election. This is new territory for the NDP and it remains to be seen whether they can pull it off, but some believe it has a golden opportunity to work for wide support of progressive government over the next few years.

Second, the election of Green Party’s first MP, Elizabeth May, the party’s leader and a former executive director of the Sierra Club of Canada with a strong record of environmental achievement, means that the House will have a stronger environmental voice. Climate change is a significant component of its “Vision Green,” which emphasizes that Canada needs to lead in climate negotiations and reach the ultimate goal of becoming carbon neutral. Although May is only one of 308 MPs, she is an outspoken critic of Harper’s record, and her policies will gain wider exposure now that she has a seat.

Third, pundits point to the possibility – if not immediately, than closer to the next election – that Harper will become more conciliatory than in the past and move the Conservative Party closer to the ideological center to attract and retain a broader base. (The same is said of the NDP, which would need to become a more moderate voice of the left.)  Harper’s willingness to set up an oil sands review panel last fall, and his subsequent agreement to monitor them more closely, can be seen in this light.

It is not clear whether climate change would be part of this shift or not, if change happens at all. Instead, it is more likely to affect policies on the economy, taxes and crime, a few of the Conservative priorities. On election night, Harper said he would remain true to those priorities, adding that Canadians are not interested in surprises.

If those words are any measure, we can expect what Harper has already promised or proven in the Conservatives’ 2011 Platform. This platform does include some realistic and welcome efforts on energy efficiency, clean energy research and development, and the creation of several new national parks. However, we can also expect his continued support of Canada’s oil and gas sectors, including the oil sands, as well as increased development in the Arctic that is not always aligned with Aboriginal knowledge or priorities, and which has its own emissions implications. In other words, it is likely that over the next few years, there will be a mixed overall picture and a Conservative government that moves ahead on these interests, with a less than optimal push on emissions.

With the dust barely settled from the Copenhagen talks, critics within Canada have been scathing of its approach to the talks. They note Canada’s failure to take any leadership, its humiliation at the hands of the Yes Men (although there, Canada is hardly alone) in recent times, as well as the recipient of a fossil award, for lack of leadership as an industrialized country. When leaders came out of Copenhagen with an underwhelming accord, many in Canada were quick to point the finger at their own government’s failure.

Continue reading…

Following on from Derek Piper’s article on Canada’s proposed Cap and Trade system for this fall, environmentalists and policy makers will be left to wonder at whether Prime Minister Harper’s effort is part of a more serious effort to tackle green house gas emissions or simply keeping up with Jones’.

Some of the most far-reaching efforts have been initiated in Canada’s provinces: from British Columbia’s carbon tax to Ontario’s Premier McGuinty’s push for a transformation of domestic energy suppliers as renewable base. These efforts on the one hand, provide an idea on Canada’s potential to act as leader in climate change issues and, in stark contrast on the other hand, show the lack of leadership at federal level. The efforts of provincial leaders mean that the vast majority of Canada’s population and a majority of its economy are located in areas that face significant climate legislation. In addition, the British Columbia election, has shown that environmental legislation can endure beyond an electoral term. To put it plainly, Harper need only coordinate provincial efforts to turn Canada into a global leader for Climate Change policies.

Harper’s efforts however, have always been to manouvre Canada to around the middle of the developed countries pack. Harper has two rationales and if nothing else he has always been consistent with regards to climate change policy. His first rationale is that Canadian economic development is his primary aim and climate change targets will only be implemented where they don’t conflict with existing industries; particularly the EITE group industries “(energy intensive, trade exposed) which includes aluminium, cement, chemicals, iron & steel, lime, gas transmission, base metal smelting, iron ore pelletizing, pulp & paper, and potash companies”. The EITE industries are core areas of the Canadian export economy, and as might be expected have concomitant environmental impacts.

The sum of Harper’s latest move as Derek highlights, is keeping up appearances, with the US having passed the Waxman-Markey bill, (although probably not voting on it now until late Autumn and possibly watered down) and in the face of upcoming talks with the US and in Copenhagen in December. Canada will have little clout to influence the direction of global talks with its current policy widely derided as insufficient. The current proposal of Cap and Trade with plenty of opt outs allows for a generous fig leaf cover when going into negotiations. Harper has aided the undermining of Obama’s climate leadership from both stiff resistance from industrial lobbyists in the US and Republican opposition in Congress.

Where does this leave us? Harper’s efforts should not be taken entirely negatively; an actual Cap and Trade is still an improvement on the intensity based targets, although it will still fall short of the requirement that Canada cut its emissions by far more than 20% on 2006, the current emissions targets for 2020. Going into Copenhagen, Harper has left Canada positioned to be neither praised nor censured, perfect positioning for Harper, but woefully short of what a country of Canada’s wealth and status is capable of.