By Jim Harding
Was Copenhagen a predictable failure? Does it still present us with an opportunity to create a comprehensive, binding agreement that will redirect our development path away from the catastrophic, irreversible climate change brought on by the carbon-economy? It depends on what we now do, especially in the build-up to meetings in Mexico in 2010. And in the aftermath of Copenhagen, nowhere is there more need for "doing" than in Canada and Saskatchewan.
Copenhagen was an unprecedented gathering in the history of the human race. The process of weaning ourselves from the carbon-economy started when 172 countries met in Rio in 1992, and continued on with the Kyoto Accord in 1998. In Copenhagen 193 countries and 131 national leaders assembled to try to enact collective foresight. As Mexico's President Calderon put it, this is "the only world we have"; then he asked if "we as a species are capable of meeting the challenge of climate change." Contrast this with our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who initially refused to attend Copenhagen, and then reversed his position after President Obama announced his plan to go.
With two years of planning we might have expected the two-week Copenhagen meeting to iron out a substantive, enforceable treaty to replace the Kyoto Accord that expires in two years. But in the end, geo-politics trumped the stalled UN-led inter-governmental process, as President Obama held private meetings with China and other emerging carbon-economies to work out an Accord that ended up being begrudgingly accepted by the larger meeting. This may partly be a good thing as China and the US, just two of the 193 countries present, account for one-half of the globe's greenhouse gases (GHGs), and neither backed the Kyoto Accord.
HUGE DISCREPANCIES
However, the discrepancy between the stated goals and actual pledges is enormous. There was agreement in principle to keep temperatures from rising 2 degrees C and to have global GHG emissions reduced by 2020. But there's no binding mechanism, and if you look at the totally voluntary individual country commitments they simply don't add up to achieving these goals. The Accord also includes a $30 billion fund to help developing countries convert to low-carbon technology, and a commitment to find $100 billion a year for this by 2020. This is far short of what the UN says will be required. Contrast this approach with the hundreds of billions of dollars so quickly found to bail out the banks during last year's financial crisis.
This won't be reassuring to the people of the Maldives whose island-home will surely sink below rising sea levels as glaciers worldwide continue to melt at rates exceeding the "worst case" scenarios of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Maldives and other vulnerable countries pressed for keeping global temperature from rising above 1.5 degrees C, while the EU, the only region that will meeting its Kyoto targets, pushed for greater reductions of GHGs. The latest science seems to support them.
Canada's contradictions are the worst on the planet. A fossil fuel defender and climate change skeptic at any cost, Harper abandoned Canada's Kyoto commitment to reduce GHGs by 6% below 1990 levels by 2020. Noticeably hiding behind Environment Minister Jim Prentice at Copenhagen, Harper restated his goal of a 20% reduction from 2006 levels by 2020. This would allow a massive rise over 1990 levels, which is totally incompatible with the goals of the Copenhagen Accord, which Harper accepted.
CANADA'S UNTENABLE POSITION
The Globe and Mail's Dec. 19th editorial highlighted Harper's totally untenable position saying, "Canada's unwillingness to do any work whatsoever was on full display at Copenhagen", continuing, "The federal government seems unaware of the damage done to its reputation at Copenhagen." It emphasized that "among developed countries Canada stood alone in its apparent apathy."
This affects us all. Canada got the "Fossil of the Year" award from global environmental groups and some people have called for the expulsion of Canada from the Commonwealth, drawing an analogy with the expulsion of South Africa's past apartheid regime. They say Canada is to climate change what South Africa was to systemic racism.
Saskatchewan's Environment Minister Nancy Heppner was positive about the Copenhagen Accord without seeming to gather the huge discrepancy between the stated objectives and voluntary commitments. Saskatchewan has the exact same position as Harper's government, committing only to a 20% reduction of GHGs from 2006 levels by 2020, amounting to a huge increase over 1990 levels. Meanwhile we have the highest per capita GHG emissions in all of Canada and, at 72 tonnes per person, we are 20 times the global average. Whether it is denial or short-term economic self-interest or a combination of these, we are now one of the environmental "bad guys". The failings of our current political leadership are a challenge for our democracy to become more vibrant and bring Canada back to responsible behaviour within the international community. Copenhagen's "failure" demands bottom-up democracy here, now.
One way to explain the discrepancy at Copenhagen is that scientists are saying one thing while politicians and taxpayers are saying something else; this is too simple. In our eagerness to play our role in averting irreversible climate disaster, the Canadian public is far ahead of the Harper and Wall governments. Over the last year we have strenuously debated nuclear power and, to its credit, the Saskatchewan government has now announced it will follow a non-nuclear energy policy. As we approach 2010 perhaps we can make a collective commitment to quickly steer our province to renewable energy and a sustainable economy, which will reduce our emissions and get us back on track with the human species. This is a New Year's resolution worth making.
Originally published December 31, 2009 in RTown News