Canada faces big hurdles to meet Kyoto treaty
James
[15 Feb 2005]
OTTAWA (AFP)
On the eve of the Kyoto Protocol's launch, Canada still has no clear plan
for meeting its commitment to reduce the emission of gases which contribute
to global warming.
In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are steadily climbing in the United
States' northern neighbor.
It is an uncomfortably paradoxical situation for Canada, long a model of
cooperation on international issues and one of the Kyoto treaty's first
signatories, in April 1998.
But since the United States rejected Kyoto in 2001, the Canadian government
has been overwhelmed by opposition to the treaty from industries and some of
its own provinces, such as Alberta, which sits on the second largest oil
reserve on the planet, and Ontario, one of the largest auto producers in
North America.
They argue that Canadian industry will lose out to US competitors that will
not be forced by Kyoto to make costly investments in pollution-reduction
measures, and also trail industries in emerging economies like China and
India, which are likewise not bound by the accord.
The protocol, ratified by Canada in 2002, obliges the country to cut
greenhouse gas emissions six percent by 2008-2012 from the 1990 level.
Since 2000, Canada has proposed two provisional plans and budgeted 3.7
billion Canadian dollars (three billion US) for an initiative which would
supposedly allow them to achieve this objective.
However, far from cutting back, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions have
continued to grow, and have increased by 20 percent compared to 1990. The
main causes have been Alberta's big oil boom and the growth in the number of
automobiles.
"We would be there if the Liberal Party of Canada had not dragged its feet
on this case since arriving in power," said Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace
Canada.
Environmentalists deplore especially that, since 2002, Ottawa has not passed
any law or rule to force automobile manufacturers to increase the fuel
efficiency of their vehicles by 25 percent by 2010, even though this
objective was in the government's stated plans.
After years of talks with the industry, Ottawa has come to the point of
accepting that the automobile manufacturers will decide themselves how they
will reach this target.
"We face a lack of political will, a lack of vision, of courage," said
Guilbeault.
"We want to respect Kyoto without hurting our competitiveness," said
Environment Minister Stephane Dion.
But Dion acknowledged that, to satisfy the treaty, Canada will be forced to
bid for green "credits" from other countries to compensate for the pollution
from its industries.
Ottawa refuses to apply at home the "polluter pays" principal, as demanded
by an opposition party, and will mainly rely on technological investments
and fiscal incentives to achieve the necessary cuts in pollution.
The principal measures Canada is taking will be contained in the fiscal
2005-2006 budget, which will be presented by Finance Minister Ralph Goodale
on February 23.
owl
> Canada faces big hurdles to meet Kyoto treaty
>[15 Feb 2005]
>OTTAWA (AFP)
Yep, tough challenge but the right direction. The article is too
washed in pessimism imo.
Here's some other recent stuff on it:
The government is hoping that the revised plan will be seen as more
business-friendly than the original broad strategy floated in late
2002, which was received poorly in Alberta and in energy-intensive
sectors such as the oil sands. And it has been discussing a package of
tax breaks, subsidies and spending that would entice Canadians to
reduce their energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions. Measures on the
drawing board include targeted tax measures that would let businesses
more quickly write off energy-efficient investments, and subsidies to
buy low-power appliances and high fuel-efficiency vehicles.
Some early tests for payoffs:-
In late January, Westport's joint venture with Cummins Inc. -- Cummins
Westport Inc. -- received its single largest order, for 450 engines,
from Beijing Public Transport Holdings Ltd., an order that will
eventually see BPT operating more than 2,600 natural gas buses powered
by CWI engines.
Art Aylesworth, CEO of Carmanah Technologies Inc., a company
developing the use of solar power to power lighting systems, said
there is a growing buzz in his industry because of Kyoto.
The company started out making marine lighting systems where solar
power was the only way, but has expanded to bus shelters and airport
runways.
Meanwhile, alternative energy heavyweight Ballard Power Systems Inc.
is looking to have 120 fuel-cell powered vehicles, including 39 buses,
on the road within two years as the company expands road testing of
its technology.
"Kyoto is certainly a driver for the overall auto industry to look at
different types of technologies to improve their profiles," said
Michael Rosenberg, the treasurer at Ballard Power.
Mr. Rosenberg said Japan is one of the most aggressive markets looking
at using fuel cells in cars, with a goal of having 50,000 vehicles on
the road by 2010 and five million by 2020.
Mr. Rosenberg said fuel-cell vehicles are about 10 years behind
hybrids such as the popular Toyota Prius in terms of market
development.
About 88,000 hybrids were sold in the United States last year,
according to J.D. Power and Associates, which projects the number to
more than double to about 220,000 this year.
But Mr. Rosenberg was confident fuel cells would catch up with the
hybrids.
"They're still just a bridge to the ultimate fuel-cell future . . .
hybrids will always have emissions, because they are burning fuel in
an internal combustion engine," he said.
Shel Scott
<snip>
>On the eve of the Kyoto Protocol's launch, Canada still has no clear plan
>for meeting its commitment to reduce the emission of gases which contribute
>to global warming.
I'm here to tell you that the Canadian gov't has almost NO IDEA what
they are doing, and not just regarding Kyoto.
Lately they've been declaring that $5 Billion will be spent in the
coming years to provide day care; but guess what, they insist it must
be "not for profit", meaning public sector.
Of course those public sector workers "profit" from those jobs.
--
): "I may make you feel, but I can't make you think" :(
(: Off the monitor, through the modem, nothing but net :)
Shel Scott
However, assholes like Guilbeault would be in no position to speak
with credibility after Canada's economy became a shambles in stupid
and ill-fated attempts to meet Kyoto requirements.
"James" <jra...@iglou.com> wrote:
>"We would be there if the Liberal Party of Canada had not dragged its feet
>on this case since arriving in power," said Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace
>Canada.
sheil...@yahoo.com
plan
>>for meeting its commitment to reduce the emission of gases which
>>contribute to global warming.
Thats nopt the pobjective, probably never was . The thing is that they
did the PC thing by signing on to the KP............. along with a lot
of other countries who have no intention or clue of how to meet the the
objective.
Ian St. John
Projecting your own faults on entire countries is a bit arrogant.
sheil...@yahoo.com
of finger pointing and very little if any action.
Ian St. John
> Perhaps, But all that I see coming from KP is a lot of hot air, a lot
> of finger pointing and very little if any action.
Certainly. The world right now is dominated by the rise of special interests
called 'global corporations' which have effectively taken over government
from the people. ( see Musolinin and the definition of 'fascism') Less so
in Europe than in Canada less so than in the U.S.
The fact is that Mr. Dithers is dithering mainly because he needs to get his
ducks in a row before he opposes these special interests and part of that
will be the implementation details, and part will be in public support ( the
one thing the corporate interests can't afford to buy off ).
At least that is my assumption. I try not to speculate on what is running
through peoples minds. It is much better to rattle cages and get the public
aware of the issue so that their are fewer options regardless of what might
be the 'intent' of the 'power brokers'.
If you wish to discuss how ( cost effective) measures by which Canada *can*
reduce CO2 emissions, feel free. It probably needs to be discussed on a
regional basis as there is too much variation in the energy mix over the
country to take a 'one size fits all' solution.
More emphasis on nuclear would fit Ontario, which needs the low cost power
for industry. Alberta maybe should focus on it's high emission Coal fired
generators. Modernisation can make a serious change in emissions per watt
hour produced. I welcome a discussion.