The political means of addressing climate change are once again up for discussion.

Nostradamus was right. The year 2012 will certainly bring the end of an era.

Next month’s UN convention on climate change in Copenhagen reminds us that the Kyoto Protocol is on its last legs.

Indeed, the world’s first legally-binding legislation on greenhouse gas emission and climate change, for years battered and bruised through political conflagrations, diluted by the rhetoric of parliamentarians and spokespersons, pondered, plied and twisted through years of delay, and ultimately never ratified by the United States, is in need of a successor. And if Environment Minister Jim Prentice’s prognostications prove accurate, a definitive deal will not be reached in the Danish capital.

So, what can we expect from the Copenhagen summit? What will the major players have to say for themselves?

Let us briefly reflect on the attitudes of some of the world’s most significant CO2 and greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting nations, and their priorities.

Canada:

Our home and native land! Though certainly not the world’s greatest overall contributor to CO2 emissions, our country had the dubious distinction of cracking the top 10 in total CO2 emissions in 2006. According to a study by the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Canada also ranked third in the world in terms of total per capita “carbon footprint” in 2001, behind only the United States and Australia.

The Conservative administration of Stephen Harper declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, on the grounds that it would cause too much damage to the Canadian economy, and that China and India, both major contributors to the world’s total CO2 but defined as “non-Annex I” or developing countries in the wording of the accord, were not required by Kyoto’s tenets to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. Harper’s upcoming visit to China is expected to involve discussion of environmental issues with President Hu Jintao.

Along with Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, Canadian high officials have argued that Canada is blessed with significant “carbon sinks,” or for our purposes swathes of forested land, whose potential to isolate GHGs and mitigate their environmental impact is worthy of consideration in the next accord.

Harper still expresses concern over the “emerging” countries and their GHG production. The EPA’s estimate that “developing” nations will surpass “developed” nations in total CO2 contributions by 2015 appears to justify this concern.

Besides Environment Minister Jim Prentice, who will likely represent Canada in next month’s proceedings, a number of Inuit denizens of the Arctic, hailing from Nunavut to Siberia, also plan to make the trip to Copenhagen to raise awareness of their plight. The Inuit contend that the impact of climate change on their way of life is especially acute, and are hoping a new international climate action protocol will take shape in the near future.

The United States of America:

Vice President Al Gore was one of the key players in the formulation of the Kyoto Accord. By contrast President George W. Bush, a long-time associate of the Texas petroleum industry, withdrew the US entirely from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001 fearing the damage it would do to the economy.

Current US President Barack Obama, breaking from Bush’s policies, has proposed a “cap and trade” energy motion, whose principles bear a remarkable similarity to Kyoto, but whose objectives have been slightly tweaked. The motion is currently under discussion in Congress.

Not unexpectedly the United States, as the world’s wealthiest nation, has been challenged to assume a leadership role in Copenhagen.  Whether Obama’s administration is able to assist in the development of a new protocol, to which even the United States will accede, remains to be seen.

China:

The world’s fastest-growing economy is in the midst of an industrial revolution, fuelled by a command economy. For example, to displace millions of people in a massive hydroelectric dam construction project on the Yangtze River is an undertaking of the sort few countries could accomplish. China’s modus operandi in this day and age appears to be “the bigger, the better.”

Corroborating this belief is the fact that China recently surpassed the United States as the world’s most significant emitter of CO2, and the increase in the country’s GHG emissions has exceeded expectations.

In light of the fact that China’s CO2 emissions have increased by at least 73% from the 1990 levels discussed in the Kyoto Protocol, it will be enlightening to see if China will be held accountable for those emissions in a new protocol. Happily, the recent meeting between Presidents Hu Jintao and Barack Obama seems to indicate that China is prepared to reduce GHG emissions.

Interestingly, however, per capita GHG emissions in China are only a fraction of their Australian, American and Canadian counterparts.

India:

The situation of the world’s most populous democracy, where Prime Minster Harper is currently on a state visit, is analogous in many ways to that of China. CO2 emissions from the subcontinent have increased by 88% since 1990. Again, accountability is an issue India will likely face in Copenhagen, as it has also been defined as a “non-Annex I” or “developing” nation by Kyoto standards.

India’s per capita GHG emissions are even less that China’s, and far less than America’s.

The European Union:

As of November 13 2009, 14 of the European Union’s 15 member states, all defined as “Annex I” or “developed” countries, are on track to meet their Kyoto requirements, the only exception being Austria. Many of those who have not succeeded on an individual basis, including Spain, Italy, Ireland and Portugal, have purchased offsets from other countries who in turn have further reduced their own emissions to compensate (the atmosphere couldn’t care less about who reduces their emissions, as long as reductions happen).

The countries who can boast the greatest success in meeting these demands are Great Britain, Germany, Greece, Sweden, and France.

In the case of France in particular though, much of this “success” can be attributed to the widespread development of nuclear energy pursuant to the energy crisis of the 1970s, which the author suggests comprehends a laundry list of other problems.

England, along with nuclear power development, has replaced many of its coal and oil-fuelled power plants with natural-gas fired ones.

Germany has committed to sustainable energy sources in part by constructing extensive wind turbines in the Schleswig-Holstein region.

Expect the EU members to call on China, India and most of all the United States to make greater contributions to the emissions reduction effort.

Russia:

Like Canada, Russia is a geographically massive country with access to a variety of natural resources. In 2006, Russia ranked third behind China and the United States in terms of total greenhouse gas emissions.

In the 1990s, Russia’s GHG emissions were reduced significantly. However, much of this reduction is attributable to the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Russians are a crucial supplier of oil and natural gas to Europe through extensive pipelines, a fact they have not hesitated to use as a tool of political leverage, particularly against Ukraine, where last year a regulatory squabble prompted the Russians to halt natural gas transmission, leading to shortages across Europe.

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, at a recent press conference with his Danish counterpart Lars Loekke Rasmussen, tabled two conditions under which Russia would agree to ratify a prospective agreement: first, that all countries sign the new global warming pact, and second, that the capacity of Russia’s forests to absorb greenhouse gases be acknowledged as a “carbon sink.”

Australia:

Australia and Canada share many common traits – one of which is comparable levels of greenhouse gas emissions per capita. A country well endowed with coal and fossil fuels, Australia generates much of its electricity thermally.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2007, following a decade of Kyoto opposition from the Howard administration.

Rudd will be in attendance in Copenhagen, and is presently threshing out a domestic climate deal. Look for him to bring some concrete plans to Denmark.

Brazil:

Considered a “Non-Annex I” or “developing” country at the time of the Kyoto Accord, Brazil has long been considered an agricultural giant but not an industrial superpower. However, the desire to make use of the fertile Amazon Basin for ranching and farming has led to massive destruction of the rainforest. This deforestation, in combination with the tremendous levels of emission associated with livestock maintenance and farming, has qualified Brazil as one of the world’s largest GHG emitters.

Just this month, however, Brazil provided reason for optimism, as President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva announced that Amazon deforestation has reached a record low since monitoring began 21 years ago. Just as important, Brazil’s administration has announced this week its intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40 per cent compared to its 2020 projections, investing in more sustainable energy practices and further reducing deforestation.

Overall, some other global factors should not escape consideration. As our Prime Minister is quick to point out, the world is currently in the throes of an economic recession, and any climate deal propounded in Copenhagen will be a tougher sell as a result. Expect the conference to elicit the basis for further discussions in 2010 and beyond, but no legally-binding replacement for Kyoto.

Furthermore, much of the greenhouse gas emissions data available to us at this point predates the world financial crisis, a factor whose impact has likely been a reduction in emissions, albeit a highly pernicious one.

The UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen runs from December 7-18.

Related posts:

1. Copenhagen COP15: Not the Climate Change Summit We Were Hoping to Reach It’s finally the end of the Copenhagen climate change summit....
2. Conservative and Liberals vs. the Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen With less than 40 days remaining before the governments of...
3. Should Canada’s Stance on Climate Change be Singled out for Criticism in Copenhagen? As the world turns its attention to the climax of...
4. Stephen Harper and Conservative Action on Climate Change: Are You Getting What You’re Voting For? Stephen Harper and the Conservatives enjoy decent support in the...
5. Stephen Harper Declines the Opportunity for Canadian Leadership on Climate Change at the Commonwealth Summit At the recently concluded Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM)...

Tags: climate change, Environment, kyoto accord

This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 17th, 2009 at 6:00 pm and is filed under Canada and the World, Environment. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.