Thursday, November 09, 2006

Kyoto, Kyoto

There is a lot of talk about the Liberal record on climate change and how the Liberals didn’t deliver. Personally, I find it poor logic for the Conservatives to say, well you guys didn’t do anything, so weren’t not going to do anything either… but hey, that’s just me.

Now, when talking about Kyoto it seems to me that everyone ignores the actual Kyoto Protocol mechanisms. The way that Kyoto works, is that a certain percentage of Annex I countries (industrialized countries) have to sign and ratify Kyoto before it actually enters into force, i.e. becomes a legally binding international agreement.

And up until the late 2004, either Russia or the USA had to ratify Kyoto for it to come into effect. At the time everyone was talking about how Kyoto “was dead” or “dying”, etc because it looked like Kyoto was never actually going to happen - that it wouldn’t enter into its legally binding phase.

Finally on November 18th, 2004, Russia ratified and Kyoto entered into force on February 16, 2005. That means that Kyoto has only fully come into existence as a legally binding piece of international law as of last February.

Now what about Canada? We ratified Kyoto in December 2002. So yes, Liberals, as a party that believes in climate change and the importance of reducing greenhouse gases, should have “done better” – done better than what, I’m not sure, but yeah, sure, “done better”.

However, remember that Kyoto only became legally binding in February 2005. Now I don’t know about you, but when I know that a law is about enter into force, I start preparing myself, but I don’t actually go about abiding by the new law until it is actually a law. I think that that is pretty standard behavior.

For example, before wearing seatbelts in the back seat was the law, I didn’t wear my seatbelt. I knew I should have worn my seatbelt because it’s probably better for me, but it feels sort of uncomfortable and I wasn’t use to it, so I didn’t. I didn’t do it until it was the law. Now I wear it all the time, and I don’t even notice it. But I think that is pretty normal behaviour for both people and nation-states for that matter. We don’t usually tend to follow the law until it is ACTUALLY THE LAW.

Climate change and reducing greenhouse gases is sort of like wearing your seatbelt in the back seat. It’s going to be a bit uncomfortable, because it’s going to involve changing our behaviour. Now, I believe in climate change and I want to do something about it, I’m not too sure how, but I’d like my government to tell me how and suggest ways to make changes and reduce emissions.

Climate change is global – emissions don’t respect borders, it’s an international issue and needs an international legally binding framework. This legally binding framework is the only way to make nations abide by the rules and then implement their own national systems to make sure that we, collectively, play by the rules.

Sure Canada could have done better after 2002 – but the real timeframe that we should be judged against is how we performed after Kyoto became international law in February 2005. And I think if you look at the Liberal record from February 2005 onwards, I think you’ll find that we were on the right track to making huge and important changes. Hey, under the leadership of Stephane Dion, we broker a huge international agreement on how to reduce emissions after 2012 (Kyoto requires Annex I countries to reduce emissions only until then).

As a result, Canada achieved enormous international acclaim for negotiating that agreement between over 162 on something as complex as climate change. (Unfortunately, this international acclaim was drowned out by the internal domestic sounds of the last election). However, I think that, that agreement was a great example of Liberal leadership on the climate change file… Now, if only the Conservs could come close to demonstrating that kind of leadership… then, perhaps, we could compare scores.

8 Comments:

At 6:22 PM, Blogger Oxford County Liberals said...

So ex-Ndip, can you explain to me what you suggest we do then? Throw up our hands and do nothing? Try to get companies and corporations to do "voluntary" targets? - Right... like that's going to work.

Implement a "Green Plan" that wont even deal with emissions caps until 2025 and halve them by 2050, when most of our polar ice cap will already have been melted an wildlife like our polar bear population is extinct or gone?

Sometimes.. we need to do things for the good of the earth or the good of humankind, and that sometimes involves sacrifices that hurt us in the economic pocketbook. I'm willing - and by the look of recent polls where the Environment is listed as the 2nd highest concern amongst Canadians only next to health care, most Canadians are willing to make those sacrifices.

Kyoto "science" is very valid and proven. It depends on "reality-based" facts.. not "pie in the sky" stuff that conservatives seem to profess in.

 
At 8:06 PM, Blogger wayward son said...

"Yea we were so bright we negotiated one of the largest CO2 reductions,"

How dare we negotiate a large CO2 reduction considering that we are among the 3 biggest CO2 emitters per capita (along with Australia and the US). The UK signed on cut emissions by a higher percentage despite the fact that per capita they already produced about 1/3 less. Several countries signed on for larger cuts than we did.

"Explain how giving money to Russia and India will make the air cleaner in TO?"

Kyoto is not about reducing smog. It is about reducing CO2 emissions, something that, like CFCs, does not matter where the cuts occur, only that the cuts occur.

"Kyoto is about wealth transfer . . . . global socialism."

That is a crock. The idea of buying carbon credits was brought in because the US Congress and Senate (both controlled by Republicans at that time) demanded it. Carbon credits were opposed by environmental groups, the EU and most left-leaning groups. It was supported by right-wingers and corporations who thought it would more cost effective to plant trees in the third world than in the industrial world. Funny how the same people who made sure carbon credits were part of kyoto are the same people who are lambasting the credits.

"How about all those scientists that trashed Algor's scarey movie as totally lacking in facts . . . these are real scientists, signing their names, still waiting for GW "Believers" to do the same."

Yes there will always be some oil-funded so-called scientists that will deny climate change, but they are becoming fewer and fewer. If Canada Free Press didn't have such a history of printing every bull-shit article they could denying climate change, then I might read the article you harp about. But sadly CFP has proven to be nothing but a biased mouth-piece for a the few remaining nutter climate skeptics. Even Rupert Murdoc has finally came out and admitted that human caused climate change is destroying the planet. The old big name skeptics in the US like Christy and Spencer have changed their opinion to saying "Of course climate change is occuring and of course we are causing it - the question is how much." George W. Bush set up his own panel to come up with a real set of facts to oppose the IPCCs. He stacked the panel with skeptics yet when they produced their first (of what is supposed to be 21 reports) it was found to be at least as alarmist as the IPCCs predictions, probably moreso. Ever wonder why Dubya changed his tune a bit in his January speech to the nation? Because even his skeptics couldn't deny climate change when they had to use facts.

"the sun seems to play a much greater role in global temperature . . . glaciers melting on Mars."

That is horse shit. Temperatures on Mars have been steadily getting colder since the Viking landed there in the 70s. There are no glaciers on Mars. There are ice caps at the polls which are made of frozen CO2. Those ice caps melt or freeze depending on the season. The temperature on Mars has a tendency to be very variable so certain areas are hotter then normal for several years in a row, other areas are colder than normal for several years in a row. But the trend has been that overall Mars has been getting colder. Some of this large variabilty has to do with the length and severity of dust storms and thawing at the caps has a tendency to occur rapidly due mostly to the significant axis tilt of the planet. There is no global warming on Mars. The fact that skeptics will stoop to this level is proof of how desperate they are grasping at anything to protect their precious oil bosses.

 
At 2:10 PM, Blogger Prairie Fire said...

One thing I am not clear on. You go on at some length DC Grit and with passion about how Kyoto is an international legally binding treaty. Alright, but is there any actual repercussions if we don't live up to Kyoto, beyond people wagging their fingers at us and saying "bad Canada"?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for creating a more sustainable economy, and thus planet, and I believe that man-(person?)-made climate change is a reality. I am just saying, I'm not sure that arguing that we have to implement Kyoto because it is a binding legal commitment, when there are no actual penalties, is really that convincing. If you knew you would never get in trouble for not buckling up your seatbelt in the back, would you do it anyway just because "it was the law"? Thought so.

It concerns me frankly that we continue to have international agreements with no teeth – this is not a specific problem with Kyoto but more a failure of the International system in general. Pretty tough for us to get worked up into a lather about climate change politically, but then when push comes to shove, it gets put in the “nice to do” column because there is no real penalty to us if we don’t do it. Pretty tough to make this kinda of global change if no one is willing to pay the piper, because there is no piper to pay.

We need to get the right incentive structures in place as people/countries only ever take actions that are in their self-interest. The trick is, to align their self-interest with the interests of the broader community. And I don’t think we are there yet.

 
At 10:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's funny how the Conservatives always misrepresent, or pretend to not understand how trading in carbon credits works. It is not, as has been described, a wealth transfer to the third world.

On the intra-national scale, carbon credits transfer costs from cleaner (CO2) producers to dirtier (CO2) producers within an industry. This provides a market based incentive for producers to clean up their GHG emissions.

On the international scale, it transfers costs from countries who have met their Kyoto targets to those who have not. This also provides flexibility in the way developed nations choose to meet their Kyoto targets. As from a global warming perspective, it doesn't really matter where the reductions come from, this approach allows countries to invest CO2 mitigation funds where the most mitigation/abatement can be acheived the most economically (either domestically or abroad).

This is basic economics 101 stuff. The cost of the carbon credit are simply the costs of the negative externatlities - the cost if you would of altering the global climate. It is appropriate these costs be priced into cost of producing the product.

 
At 9:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great post.

 
At 11:38 PM, Blogger JJ said...

Thanks, Rob!

I was actually surprised at all the controversy this posting caused. I didn't realize that the K word would provoke such a reaction in the blog world...

For those of you that are interested, I posted a response to Prairie Fire on his blog posting: http://saskprairiefire.blogspot.com/2006/11/pre-dinner-blogging.html

Cheers,

JJ

 
At 2:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kyoto was signed in 1997, I assume with the intention of complying.

To say that we shouldn't expect anything to have happened until it was legally binding, 8 years later, is sheer stupidity. I would have thought we would, should have had a plan in place to meet international obligations at the time we made those obligations, otherwise it's just plattitudes.

The Liberal plan was to do nothing to reduce emissions, and instead buy billions worth of emissions credits. Not very environmentally friendly as far as I'm concerned.

Yours is a faulty argument "View Down South" -- try again.

 
At 5:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home