Canada is an energy superpower on a warming planet.

It has become clear in the years since Canada signed on to Kyoto that emission reductions do not come easily. To meet the 25 to 40 % targets envisioned at Bali would require a dramatic change in direction. Improvements in energy efficiency on the scale we have seen so far will likely not do the job. A recent Toronto Star editorial asserted that Canada will never meet the 25 to 40 % targets unless it moves beyond improved efficiencies to "hard caps" that would "strictly limit the amount of greenhouse gases that firms in every industry would be allowed to produce."  Can Canada meet those targets?  Should it even try? Whatever approach we take, progress in the future may require difficult tradeoffs, between economic growth and environmental stewardship and between our responsibilities to the environment, to our fellow citizens and to the citizens of developing countries, not to mention future generations.

Deciding how best to proceed is not about finding the correct technical solution - your decisions will reflect your beliefs, values and assumptions. In the final section of this primer, three broad, value-based approaches are presented as a starting point for your deliberations on what actions you think Canadians should support to address the climate change issue. These are meant to stimulate your thinking about the most important steps to take, the choices you are prepared to commit to and why. You are not being asked to pick one - they are not necessarily mutually exclusive and you may well come up with your own approach.

The lead-by-example option (approach #1) would see Canada make deep, mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, meet its Kyoto reduction targets and lead the charge toward bold new reduction commitments. The second approach would have Canada wage a diplomatic battle on the international stage for a broad-based climate change agreement that compels developing countries, as well as Kyoto's biggest holdout, the United States, to join in committing to emission reductions. The third approach would see Canada focus all its efforts on becoming a world leader in sustainable technologies.iscussion.

Approach One

Emphasize aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Canada would make deep reductions to its greenhouse gas emissions. We must make the necessary sacrifices to get as close as possible to our Kyoto targets, and then to make the deeper cuts discussed at the Bali conference, in an effort to prevent global temperatures from rising above the 2 degree threshold. Key actions could include: introducing carbon taxes, cap and trade regulations, and other polluter pay regulations that would substantially drive up the cost of energy and so give consumers and businesses powerful economic incentives to reduce emissions. Governments could also legislate higher efficiency standards on everything from cars to washing machines.

The costs of this approach would depend in part on how fast changes were phased in. Sooner rather than later, consumers will have to get serious about reducing automobile usage. They will have to pay substantially higher prices for electricity. Canada might even have to curtail its oil and gas production and exports. In taking this direction we must be prepared to accept that emission reductions could have a negative effect on economic growth and drive up unemployment (although improvements in energy efficiency might also offer cost savings). We must live with the fact that it is difficult to accurately predict the longer term economic costs and accept this as a reasonable tradeoff for making real progress on addressing the root causes of climate change.

Arguments in favour

√ Canada would be doing its part to mitigate climate change and would be leading by example. Deep cuts may inspire other countries to take action.

√ Canada must live up to its Kyoto commitment if it wants to maintain international credibility. As some have argued, "Flatly disregarding a treaty commitment is not just a violation that has legal consequences; it undermines the very foundations of international law."

√ The costs of meeting Canada's Kyoto targets would not be as onerous as the Protocol's critics suggest. Some experts say that Canada can meet part of its Kyoto target by acquiring credits (essentially paying for greenhouse gas reductions in other countries) and working with developing countries "to further expand the volume of credits available" at lower cost than focusing exclusively on reducing emissions at home.  As for long term reductions, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy predicted that even if Canada slashed greenhouse gas emissions by a dramatic 65 % by 2050 (and as long as our trading partners followed suit), "Canada's economy will continue to thrive."

Arguments against

× Yes, climate change is a concern. But we do not know exactly how costly, or how immediate, the effects of climate change will be. What is more, we have no idea what other big polluters are going to do. With so much uncertainty, it is not reasonable to expect Canada to take such aggressive action to reduce carbon emissions.

× We are so far off target that achieving Kyoto emission levels by the 2008 to 2012 deadline would have dire economic consequences for Canada, increasing unemployment, reducing incomes and causing electricity and gas prices to soar . A 2007 report cited by the Conservative government indicated that meeting Kyoto would cause our Gross Domestic Product to fall "by over 6.5% from expected levels in 2008", resulting "in a recession comparable to the one in 1981-1982..." 

× Aggressive emission reduction measures (especially if we move faster than our trading partners) might be particularly detrimental to some sectors of the economy, like our valuable energy industry.  Such initiatives could also  aggravate-and be hampered by-Canada's regional rivalries. Depending on how it was implemented, for example, a carbon tax might penalize oil and gas producing Alberta more heavily than hydro-electricity generating British Columbia.

Questions

1.    How much are we personally willing to pay for greenhouse gas reductions? A 10% increase in energy prices? 50%? Are we willing to change our consumer and driving habits?

2.    Should Canada risk economic recession or job losses to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions?

3.    If Canada leads by example, will others follow? Or will other countries simply make decisions based on narrow self-interest?

4.    How do we balance (or reconcile) our responsibility to the environment and our responsibility to our fellow citizens who could suffer job losses and economic hardship if we take action? What about our responsibility to future citizens (intergenerational equity issues)?

Approach Two

Emphasize applying diplomatic pressure on the world's biggest emitters. 

Canada would focus on the real problem - working through international diplomacy and fora to get the world's biggest CO2  polluters, the United States, India, China, Russia and others,  to make substantial emission reduction commitments. Those four countries together emitted 13,919 megatonnes of carbon dioxide in 2004, more than twenty times Canada's 639 megatonnes.  Canada, with its close and long relationship with the United States, is in a unique position to help bring America into the climate change fold.

This approach makes allowances for Canada's population dispersion, harsh climate and geographic size, all of which impose higher transportation and energy requirements than those of many other countries. Canada would use its influence to support developing countries to do their part (providing technical and possibly financial assistance and carbon credits), while acknowledging that they will have lower targets than developed countries. The size of developing countries' ecological footprint is growing rapidly - the world cannot afford to not include them in a global strategy. Canada would do its best to reduce emissions, but its biggest contribution is on the diplomatic stage, using its status as a middle power and reputation as an honest international broker to bridge the gap between the developed and developing worlds. 

Arguments in favour

√  Only a truly global coordinated effort can hope to prevent the worst environmental consequences. This is an issue that demands sustained international negotiations to build agreement on regulatory and market measures that offer the most effective route to averting a climate change crisis.  Deep emissions cuts in Canada alone will have a negligible effect on climate change.

√  Given its good reputation globally, Canada is well positioned to work with the developing countries to establish a constructive dialogue on practical steps to achieve emission reductions.

√  Canada's unique geography, harsh climate and relatively low overall emissions, make it unrealistic and unfair to expect us to take the lead in making dramatic reductions. If we wait to impose reductions until other countries have agreed to do so as well, we can have greater economic certainty and our industries can remain competitive.

Arguments against

×  If a rich country like Canada with high per capita emissions refuses to make sacrifices, developing countries with serious economic challenges will be encouraged to also refuse to take tough actions. Indeed, Canada could jeopardize or obstruct Kyoto and Bali international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

×  Canada has a responsibility to consider its cumulative emissions over the years when calculating our reduction targets. After all, rich countries emit 45 % of the carbon dioxide but only have 15 % of the population.  We need to show "some ethical resolve, some appreciation that countries who have become fabulously wealthy from industrialization haven't really had to pay a cent for what they've already dumped into the atmosphere." 

×  Canada does not have enough clout or diplomatic capacity in the international arena to influence / persuade the highest emitters to change their policies.

Questions

1.    Can we afford to allow developing countries to catch up to us in terms of economic development before we expect them to begin cutting their greenhouse gas emissions?

2.    If everyone has to reduce emissions, should we have to cut more deeply than developing countries?

3.    If we are going to push for a diplomatic solution, what is that solution going to look like? In particular, how much should we expect developing countries to cut emissions, relative to developed countries? Should they have the same targets, or different ones? In calculating how much Canada should reduce emissions relative to other countries, should we consider our total emissions, our emissions per capita, or our cumulative emissions since industrialization?

4.    If a substantial portion of the world's greenhouse gas emitters refuse to make binding reduction targets, is there any point in Canada cutting emissions?

Approach Three 

Focus on technology and Canada's expertise and assets.

Canada would focus efforts on developing, commercializing and marketing new technologies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Cost-effective solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions are what the world most urgently needs.

This approach might see Canada withdraw from international climate change negotiations entirely--on the grounds that they are ineffective. Instead of diplomacy, this approach leverages Canadian knowledge and efficiency. It involves finding alternatives to fossil fuels-like wind, wave or tidal power--AND finding ways to limit the emissions of existing energy sources, including technologies for carbon capture and storage. Research is required not just to develop technologies, but to find ways to make the technology inexpensive enough that it can be successfully brought to market.

  Key actions would include regulatory change and market-based incentives for innovation. If government obliges industry to use expensive new emission reduction technologies, some or all of the cost increases will likely be passed on to consumers. We must also keep in mind that, particularly in its early stages, research and development of environmental technologies can be expensive and may not offer immediate market returns. It might be necessary to raise taxes or re-direct current government expenditures (from things like health care or social programs) to subsidize some of these technologies. In lots of ways we are already on track - for instance wind power provides enough electricity to power 480,000 Canadian homes, according to the Canadian Wind Energy Association, and could power another 3 million homes (or 4% of the nation's electricity demand) by 2015.

Arguments in favour

√  Economic incentives are much more powerful than either moral arguments or international agreements like the Kyoto Protocol that are slow, laborious and show little promise. Significant emission reductions can be achieved if science can find a way to make low-emission technology cheaper than existing technologies.
√  There is high global demand for green technologies and Canada can benefit from selling such technology internationally. At the same time, we can use our knowledge, expertise and assets to make an important global contribution toward greenhouse gas reductions.
√  Canada has the second largest established oil reserves in the world and one of the world's largest coal reserves.  According to the Canadian CO2 Capture & Storage Technology Network, those "fossil fuels are of strategic national importance to Canada," and developing carbon capture and storage technology "is a means to extract the economic benefits of these resources while maintaining strong environmental objectives."

Arguments against

×  A focus on technology could be used as an excuse to avoid more difficult emission reductions that need to be made immediately . We should be cutting emissions, not finding new ways to avoid responsibility for our waste.
×  We don't need to invest heavily in new technologies when we already have a great deal of promising emission-reduction technology that is not being used. The priority should be on implementing existing state of the art technologies .
×  The Canadian oil and gas industry is doing very well. The Canadian government should not further subsidize this industry by investing in carbon capturing technologies.  If we had a polluter pay principle in Canada, then the industries would develop the technologies independently and quickly.

Questions

1.    Can technological ingenuity alone really make it possible for us to meet our environmental commitments? Or will we have to reduce consumption, as well?

2.    If Canadian taxpayers fund new technologies, should we share them freely with the developing world (and our potential economic competitors)?

3.    If we withdraw from international negotiations on climate change, we will face international condemnation and potential harm to our reputation. On the other hand, if we earnestly believe that those negotiations are not fruitful, should we play along just to avoid criticism?

4.    If this is going to be a serious alternative, we have to invest in, and develop, enough technology to compensate for our lack of progress on other fronts. But how much is enough? What targets do we set for ourselves? Do we need to devote a certain proportion of our GDP to technology development? Do we need to develop enough technology to reduce our emissions by a certain amount?

Conclusion

So now, it’s your turn.  What do you think?  As we have noted above, the information and the approaches outlined in this primer are meant to provide you with a starting place to ask questions, consider options and develop your own views on how to best position Canada in addressing climate change in the current context.  

This issue, like any international policy issue, is complex and complicated.  The conditions within the international arena are always changing and it is often difficult to navigate the best course for Canada.  We can decide not to do anything and get swept up in the current or we can set sail in a direction that we have mapped out and defined.  

Are you proud of Canada's action on climate change? Concerned? Join a discussion in our conversation forums.