Has Harper even read the details of Kyoto?
So help me understand this.
Harper says that “Kyoto slapped binding targets on three-dozen countries but not the rest, including some of the worst polluters such as the U.S. and China.”
First, the Kyoto Accord did include China as a signatory, but recognized the fact that developed nations had created the problem in the first place, thus requiring them (us) to take the major burden for making cuts earlier and deeper, for cutting energy usage, and for bearing the cost of developing necessary technologies which could be implemented in developing nations. China was a signatory. Is still a signatory. China has always said they will be there for negotiations for a post Kyoto agreement. And China has always acknowledged that they too must be part of the long term cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.
Second, the U.S. was also a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and then failed to ratify the agreement. Does this mean that Harper proposeds to wait to see what the U.S. and China will do before making commitments for Canada to cut emissions? Does this mean that Harper will do nothing if the U.S. again fails to ratify the future agreement? Where’s the moral leadership in that? What’s he saying? If the big emitters do nothing we won’t either because I don’t really believe in this global warming bunk anyway?
While I may agree with him on one point, that an agreement will be stronger and more effective if every country in the world accepts targets and then sticks to them, I vehemently disagree that it is acceptable to say that we’ll do nothing until they do, na-na, na-na, na, na, so there!
And it is also not a sufficient reason for the Conservatives to have been in power for almost two years without making any policy changes which would even begin to stabilize, let alone reduce, emissions.
Any. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
At the very least, even if you believe that an agreement is pointless without all countries signed on to binding targets, I would then have hoped that Harper would push for a statement from the Commonwealth along the lines of, “The Commonwealth nations will collectively work toward an agreement with all countries in the world to negotiate binding targets for each nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by __% by 20xx.”
But no. First we got a denial of the science. Then when that was no longer politically acceptable, we got finger pointing and delaying tactics. And now? “Aspirations” of mediocrity.
This government has got to go.
I think the real problem Harper has is with the US. Canadian businesses will probably have to shoulder additional costs that their US competition won’t making them less competitive. However, many US states are taking the climate change problem seriously and are acting on their own which may mitigate that concern somewhat. While I’m concerned with the growth of China and India, Canada and other developed nations could always impose heavy sanctions on those countries to slow down their growth if they behave irresponsibly.
A really interesting question would be can the Canadian government legally implement a carbon levy on American imports or is that a violation of the FTA?
Glenn, I hear what you’re saying, but I have to agree with Harper on this, and not just because I consider myself a Conservative. I feel the whole issue is non-partisan.
Anyway, China and the US are Canada’s largest trading partners. Combined, they represent a massive amount of our imports and exports.
There’s no denying that complying with reductions such as those set out in Kyoto, will have significant cost to Canada. If our 2 major trading partners are not playing on a level field, we would be at a massive disadvantage, and I just can’t support that.
The higher dollar is already putting pressure on Ontario’s manufacturing sector, and I don’t want to tie another competitive hand behind their backs. I work for one of those manufacturers, and can see the impacts of it.
You may say that moving forward without the US and China having to make the same sacrifices would show moral leadership, but I say that’s just being played for a sucker.
Any agreement will be stronger if all countries are subject to the same restrictions, and I believe Harper’s stand, while not necessarily doing anything to reduce our current emmissions, applies more pressure to other countries to join. Remember, he’s not saying ‘no’ to reduction targets–he’s saying let’s work towards getting the best plan, not just some mediocre plan that gives a few countries a free pass and a big economic competitive advantage.
I’m not going to put myself out of a job just to do some good for Canada’s emissions. If the US is subject to the same restrictions, I’ll have a much better chance of keeping my job, and we’ll all reduce emissions.
The past is the past. Sure, developed countries may have started the emission problems, but I don’t believe that’s a reason to give other’s a pass. You could argue that’s like making someone pay for the debts of their parents. Giving us a competitive disadvantage because a previous generation had an advantage. Thanks, but no thanks.
Hey, don’t get me wrong, I’d be the first to praise an agreement to which all countries signed. I believe this should be the goal.
But my questions still stand:
First, what will Harper do if there are countries that do not sign the agreement? Will he be willing to be on the list of those that condemned the world to the worst effects of climate change? Or will he decide that he wants history to judge him as a man if integrity, that took on the tough battle regardless of what certain weak minded leaders do?
Second, what does he deem a “fair” deal? Does he believe that all countries and their citizens must cut equally? Or does he believe that fairness demands that the people of the world be allocated an equal share of permissible emissions on a per capita basis?
So yes, there are ways that I could agree with Harper on this one, but I suspect he is not viewing fairness in anyway near the same way that I do.
–Glenn
“Second, what does he deem a “fair” deal? Does he believe that all countries and their citizens must cut equally? Or does he believe that fairness demands that the people of the world be allocated an equal share of permissible emissions on a per capita basis?”
I’m all for all getting equal share of permissible emissions on a per capita basis but I was told that would still be unfair to developing countries even as far out as 2050.
The UN basically said WE need to cut emissions by 90-95% and developing nations by 20-25%. Developing nations are said to be too poor to meet onerous targets. I’m not sure I buy this since China basically controls the American Economy. All they had to do was flirt with the idea of buying Euros and the American dollar plummeted.
First, what will Harper do if there are countries that do not sign the agreement? Will he be willing to be on the list of those that condemned the world to the worst effects of climate change? Or will he decide that he wants history to judge him as a man if integrity, that took on the tough battle regardless of what certain weak minded leaders do?
I can’t speak for Harper, so I don’t know what he would do in that situation. However, I know what I would do. Now this may sound selfish, but I would not want to go along with an agreement that doesn’t affect every country. I’m a fan of helping the environment, but not at the expense of losing my job, if it means we’re at a competitive disadvantage with our trading partners. My financial security and ability to support myself and my family will always remain my top priority.
Second, what does he deem a “fair” deal? Does he believe that all countries and their citizens must cut equally? Or does he believe that fairness demands that the people of the world be allocated an equal share of permissible emissions on a per capita basis?
Now there’s an interesting question! I suspect there will be as many different opinions on what is “fair”, as there are people involved in the debate!
I still look at this from an economic point of view. For the system to be fair, countries should not be subject to competitive advantages or disadvantages, as a result of any carbon agreement.
I’m not sure I agree with simply giving countries a per capita allotment. This would put countries like Canada at a disadvantage simply because of geography. We’re a cold frozen place, and we can’t control that. We need to spend a huge amount of carbon just to keep from freezing in the winter, which our neighbours to the south would not necessarily need to do.
I don’t have the answer, but in my opinion, for a system to be fair, the introduction of a carbon agreement should not, by itself, put countries at competitive disadvantages. We can’t just force a drastic change in the rules of the game on countries around the world, even if such a rule change would theoritically result in a larger savings to the environment. Because if you do, those who are being put at a perceived disadvantage will feel it’s unfair, they won’t join such an agreement, and as a result, the supposed ‘best for the envionment’ agreement is not the best, because not everybody agrees to play.
We’re a cold frozen place, and we can’t control that. We need to spend a huge amount of carbon just to keep from freezing in the winter, which our neighbours to the south would not necessarily need to do.
So how is that different from tropical countries that use air conditioning all year round?
KPK, it’s not different, and all should be taken into account. My example about climate was just that… and example of circumstance, and it must be taken into account.
Dave,
I’m personally in favor of per capita targets despite the criticisms from environmentalists. I often hear people saying Canada’s targets should be more lenient because we are a big, cold country. The fact is there are small, hot and highly populated countries using air conditioning as well. It cancels out the argument that because Canada is cold, we should allow for more emissions due to heating.
I think per capita targets are like saying every human being has the same rights. No human being has more rights than any other. Regardless whether you live in China or Canada, you are only allowed to emit a specified amount of carbon per annum. However, I have to ask myself whether it’s fair for countries like Canada to take on an additional burden when OTHER countries experience uncontrolled greater than expected population growth.
Ah, but this brings up a good point. If we can have an open discussion about allowable per capita emissions on a global basis (an argument favoured by George Monbiot in “Heat”, then the population discussion is bound to come up. We all know that overpopulation of the earth by one species, us, is the real underlying problem. Yet no one seems to want to talk about it. And then we continue to support a global economic system that not only favours, but requires, a growing population. –Glenn
Certainly some good discussion topics so far, and it goes back to something I said earlier. There are as many different opinions on what is “fair” as there are people to have opinions.
Some want per capita emissions targets. Some want allowances for this or that. Some want exemptions based on development status. Etc.
Regardless of what is best for the planet, you need to get some sort of agreement from all players, or you’ll never achieve the goal. I still feel the way to do that, is to not alter the playing field economically, at least not much, not yet. Otherwise, you’ll just scare away countries from playing at all.
I’d rather have a less aggressive plan that all are OK with, than a really aggressive plan that excludes a number of countries.
As soon as some are excluded, it becomes even more difficult for others who have agreed to the plan to play. Country X can’t compete economically with Country Y, if X has to meet targets and Y does nothing. In effect, even those countries like X who have joined, may pull out of the agreement later, or simply not do as good a job as they might have.
Glenn, to your point about overpopulation… A growing population is a problem in much of the world. However, I can certainly see problems with not factoring population into emissions. If there is no allowance, I can see countries putting total stops on immigration, or at least very expensive immigration taxes to pay for the increased carbon emissions associated with the immigrant. As a current citizen of a country, I wouldn’t want any immigrants biting into my “carbon ration”. I’m not sure that would be helpful to the overall environmental goal? The key would lie in controlling the world birth rate, not inter-country migration.
Certainly you are correct, even if population is not part of the discussion it is “implied” in any discussion that results in a hard target for each country. If Canada has to cut 80% by 2050 as a hard target, but we allow a 25% population growth in that time, then the real impact is an 84% cut in per capita emissions. Emission cuts can be achieved through actual cuts, new technologies, efficiency, OR decreasing population. Or more likely a combination of all of these.
Problem is, as I said, we have an economic system that requires a growing population and no one is even willing to talk about this. –Glenn
“Problem is, as I said, we have an economic system that requires a growing population and no one is even willing to talk about this. –Glenn”
Probably because most people would view population control legislation as a form of fascism. You can either gently prod by encouraging practices like birth control or you can legislate (as China has) how many children a couple can have. Fortunately in Canada we are faced with a declining birthrate and don’t need to take extreme measures. Interesting that the birth rate in developed countries is much lower than in developing countries. It seems poverty does play a role here. Maybe an all out effort to eliminate poverty worldwide may also save the environment?
You make several points here, and I do agree with some, though not all, of them. Population control would be a form of fascism, and I agree that it would not be tolerated. But is this really a valid reason not to talk about it? Don’t we need to at least acknowledge the fact that the earth cannot possibly sustain 6.5 billion human beings, let alone the 10-12 billion that are projected in my lifetime?
And I think the even more important factor to acknowledge is the economic one. Our glorified shell game we call an economy requires a growing population. So no discussion about population control, by any methods, will have any meaning without addressing that first. Somewhere we need a 21st century Adam Smith to give us a guide book on how to design an economy that works at its optimum with stable population, or better yet at a gentle decrease down to a stable population about 1/2 to 1/3 of what we currently have. Then we will not need to address population control as it would get there all on it’s own.
–Glenn
Glenn,
As long as we can achieve a stable birth rate and maintain it, I think our economy would be fine. Canada’s current problem has been one of having a birth rate around 3 children per woman earlier in the century and significantly under 2 today. This has made our population too heavy in the older ages, that requires more younger people to support that bubble as they age.
To correct the problem, we need to alter the current balance. However, unless you plan to start killing off older people (not an option!), the only way to fix that balance is to increase number of younger people. Once we have the proper pyramid, I believe we could hold a nice balance.
Again, a topic that people don’t want to talk about, but Canada could theoritically set immigration quotas for very specific age groups to reach that balance. It’s controversial, and we’d take one hell of a lot of criticsm for it. But only using the birth rate to alter the balance could take 100 years. Immigration quotas by age could perhaps do it in 30?
Once we’ve achieved that theoritical balance, we’d probably have a population somewhere around 45 million. Can Canada (environmentally) sustain that population level over the long term? If not, a declining birth rate around 1.8-1.9 could perhaps bring it down slowly over time, without killing the economy.
While a rising population does mean more working population, and therefore a higher standard of living, we’re talking about the long term. And over the long term, there are always improvements in technology that improve the efficiency of labour. Pure economic theory suggests that technology advances could allow us to slowly reduce our population level while still maintaining our standard of living. In the past, we’ve used those technology advances to improve and not just maintain our standard of living. But, in theory, we should be able to maintain standard of living, but improve the environment. However, it’s a very long term plan!
However, that’s only Canada. Now to fix birth rate of the rest of the world… that’s an even bigger problem!
Sorry I must have stopped reading at the part about human quotas I dont think its an unspoken issue its just nobody wants to talk about solutions.
To me their are things we should worry about a lot more than Kyoto and I am NOT I repeat NOT a fan of conservative ideals but they have a point. The science everyone wants YOU and I to acknowledge isnt the same science I acknowledge so why should developing nations and other countries who havent signed kyoto be obligated to sign?
To the expected response: “we breath the same air , we all experience rise in temperatures” I wonder what they were thinking in the medieval ages when temperatures were higher than today.
Take a look a the REAL ice core data. Not Al Gores inconvenient lie and then profits as his stocks go up. Still a green supporter but this carbon rhetoric is going to have to be tuned down as it insights fear in the public and a basic misunderstanding that humanity must have been the reason the temperature has risen. Still coming out to show my support but for other core values the green party stands for. I hate hearing green party is a 1 issue party. But I still have respect for the ones who still believe it.