Tag: emission

 “CAN Collectibles”: Bet You Can't Read Just One!

Fast Facts About Countries That Can Increase Their Ambition in Qatar

Collect 3, Get 1 Free!

In the Kyoto plenary yesterday, we got a taste of how things sound when there is no more time to defer decisions for another year. After all the talk of gaps, urgency and the need to set rules before targets, there’s nowhere else to move for Australia and New Zealand.

Those two were left alone in Durban as the only countries still unable to make up their minds on a second commitment period. They remained unwilling, still, to move ahead with the Durban ambition coalition, and be part of an agreement that can give us hope that we’ll close the emissions gap.

And not willing, either, to attract the ire of the world by formally withdrawing, like Canada, or refusing to participate, like Japan and Russia. It’s decision time for everyone, and the sooner Australia stops dithering about Kyoto, the sooner everyone can get on and talk about the dozens of other matters jostling for attention at the UNFCCC.

We know that Australia has a price on carbon legislated and will adhere to the Kyoto rules. We know they have a 2050 target in place to reduce their emissions by 80%. We know they want to participate in carbon markets, and for a new legal agreement to be forged that can keep greenhouse gas concentrations to 450ppm. There's really no reason for them to delay any more.

As for all the other Kyoto countries, the challenge was unequivocally put at yesterday’s plenary: the only circumstances where an eight year commitment period is acceptable is if ambition is sufficient to meet two degrees.

The only way to participate in carbon markets is to have a binding target to reduce emissions. And the only way to keep the talks for a new and comprehensive legally binding agreement on track and on schedule is to put your name down on the Kyoto willing list.

While many of you enjoyed your first full night of sleep after the Durban overtime, the Canadians had no such luck. Barely off the plane, Canada’s Environment Minister wasted no time in confirming the COP’s worst kept secret, that Canada was officially pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.

Many delegates probably had already given up on Canada at that point, but those of us in CAN who live within that vast, beautiful, hockey-loving country have had to continue to bear witness to what can only be called the government of polluters’ puppets. Since bailing on their 9-year ratification relationship with the Kyoto Protocol, the Canadian government has only gone further downhill when it comes to climate action. The highlights lowlights:

1)A report from the government watchdog on our environment and climate goals made clear last week that it would be nearly impossible under current policy for Canada to meet its (embarrassingly weak) target of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. After all, the report said, there aren’t even any greenhouse gas regulations on Canada’s fastest growing source of pollution ¨C the oil and gas sector (read: Tar Sands). The official numbers according to the government’s own data? Current and proposed policies for emissions reductions will result in a 7% increase over 2005 levels (that's ~33% above 1990 levels) instead of the promised 17% decrease.

2)The Government ramped up McCarthyist attacks on anyone worried about numbers like these. This has included outrageous attacks on civil society, First Nations and politicians, calling them radicals, terrorists, adversaries and enemies of the people of Canada. Amazingly, there have even been accusations that environmental groups writ  large are money launderers.

(Have they seen our budgets? What's there to launder?)

3)And to make it even easier for them to do as little as possible, the 2012 federal budget bill contained “a few additional items” for quick passage without democratic debate. These included the complete repeal of Canada’s environmental assessment act and a thorough gutting of decades of environmental regulations. These deletions were misrepresented as “streamlining” of approvals processes for projects such as massive pipelines that, if built, would allow the projected tripling of tar sands growth that the government is so desperate for. It is streamlining all right ¨C streamlining the path towards climate catastrophe.

The only thing the Canadian example will prove, with its fragile Arctic, vulnerable coasts and tarred economy, is that you can't withdraw from climate change.

You might have noticed ECO is having some targeted bilateral discussions in these pages. Today is with Norway. Time and time again we have reminded Parties of the urgent need to clarify the content of the pledges put on the table by developed countries.

On this issue, Norway has been an unwavering ally, and its credibility has been boosted by the transparent clarification of its own pledges. And no wonder, Norway regularly leads the league tables on transparency.

Throughout these negotiations, Norway has repeatedly made clear that out of its total emission reduction target of 30-40% emission reductions by 2020, about two-thirds will be achieved through domestic measures. But rumours have reached distant Durban that prominent political figures now want Norway to backtrack on this promise to the international community, by abandoning its pledge to achieve two-thirds of its target domestically.

So, Norway, that’s why we are having this little chat. You of all countries should not have to be reminded that promises are made to be kept, and levels of ambition should increase rather than decrease. Nothing could be more damaging to a country’s credibility in these negotiations than the perception that it is not taking the necessary action back home.

The world expects from Norway’s own position that its plans and policies will keep the promise of meeting at least two-thirds of its 2020 target through domestic action. What we don’t need is another Annex I country running away from its responsibilities. As Norway asks other countries to clarify their pledges, Norway should clarify whether it is a leader or an also-ran when it comes to reducing its own emissions.