(Albertans for Ratifying Kyoto (ARK) is a non-profit citizen’s coalition which supports ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.)

By Jan Triska

With the political battle over Canada’s position on Kyoto heating up, it is easy to sit back and follow the news of both sides trading arguments.

Some are about the environmental benefits of taking action now as opposed to later, but the main reason for disagreement has been the interpretation of the potential economic transition if Kyoto comes into effect.

From a pro-Kyoto perspective, there are several aspects of the debate which often get overlooked in the mainstream press, including the linkage between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and urban smog, and the analysis of the long-term economic shift and innovation. And, in respect to the Canada vs. United States differences on Kyoto, it is the evidence from American studies on effects of implementing the economic ‘flexibility mechanisms.’

From a scientific perspective, there are two distinct but related issues to curbing GHGs. One is the man-made contribution to the accelerated process of global warming, the subject of many studies in the past two decades. The less publicized issue is the link between the action of fossil fuel emissions and urban smog.

The burning of fossil fuels in transportation and industrial processes releases both CO2, a key greenhouse gas, and a host of other pollutants. Not only that, but the GHGs tend to act as a blanket, trapping heat and accentuating the effect of smog conditions.

Furthermore, as Pembina Institute scientists have noted, the increase of ground-level ozone from air pollution has contributed to the greenhouse effect more than the decrease in stratospheric ozone has weakened it. Man-made emissions thus tend to have cumulative effects.

By placing limits on GHG emissions, there are bound to be important health benefits. Some of them will be immediate or near-term, such as the improvement to urban air quality. In a province such as Alberta, with our high asthma incidence, these benefits can not be ignored.

Then we have the issue of economic impacts of ‘adjusting’ to Kyoto. While the critics focus on perceived short-term costs to industry and consumer, the real long-term issue gets overlooked. It is the growing recognition that Kyoto represents part of a gradual economic shift and evolution, including changes to the energy industry.

The influence Kyoto will have on the Canadian economy will not be measurable over the next few years, especially given that the first reporting period is not until 2008-12.

Instead, the implementation of the necessary measures and the economic multiplier effects will be integrated into Canada’s economy over the next 15 to 20 years.

One study has pointed out that Canada’s output will likely grow 31 per cent over the next decade if we don’t ratify Kyoto and 30 per cent over the same timeframe if we do ratify.

Not much of a difference, given how volatile today’s economies are. But this study also deliberately discounts the pace of technological innovation in providing market-ready solutions to our energy industry.

In the future, the world may very well move towards some kind of a certification standard tied to the Kyoto limits on GHG emissions. We have seen the phasing-out of leaded gasoline, the increased requirements on building insulation and the labelling of products such as refrigerators with energy-consumption stats. Having a product or a process ‘Kyoto-certified’ does not seem a far-fetched scenario.

Then there is the competitiveness aspect of the whole issue, with critics of Kyoto pointing out the American position. We all know that the present U.S. administration rejects the current agreement. What is less publicized is the actual readiness in the U.S., policy-wise and
technology-wise, to start implementing some
of the Kyoto measures.

For example, Americans are world leaders in providing industry with economic incentives such as emissions-reductions trading – something with which Canada has barely started to eexperiment. It is the economic ‘flexibility’ mechanisms, including emissions trading, that will be a key component in making the short-term transition. Ironically, the American withdrawal from Kyoto has meant a lowering of the price and demand for these emissions credits on the world market. This is an
opportunity Canada should not forego.

In the public policy realm, Canada’s politicians have a hard time disassociating the terms ‘environment’ and ‘cost’. They should read and contemplate an American study (Hoerner and Mutl, 2000), done by the National Laboratories for the U.S. Department of Energy, which simulated the impact of an integrated energy efficiency policy package on about 498 industry sectors.

The study demonstrated there would be net savings for more than 80 per cent of these U.S. sectors, and an improvement in the aggregate competitive position, in import and export terms.

Other studies have tracked the performance of firms with high internal energy efficiency standards, and found most of the market leaders in various industries to also be environmental leaders.

With this in mind, it is not surprising to see some of the global energy giants (BP and Shell) investing in renewable energies, changing their business practices and actually being in the position to meet the Kyoto targets ahead of time.

What is surprising to see is the entrenchment of anti-Kyoto views in some provincial governments who also regulate these same firms.

(Triska is campaign co-ordinator and official spokesman for ARK. Its website is: www.web.ca/~ark).