Temperatures are rising at the world climate summit at The Hague. Among the negotiators, that is. Unless cooler heads prevail by the end of this week, don’t expect an agreement that’s anything but a lot of hot air.
More than 160 governments are represented at the sixth session of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP6, as it’s called.
Delegates are trying to hammer out the details of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Under the protocol, 39 industrialized nations must cut their greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012. Canada committed to a six-per-cent reduction. But since our emissions have actually risen 13 per cent since 1990, the country will have to make a 26-per-cent cut to reach its target.
The protocol will not take effect until it is ratified by 55 per cent of the nations emitting at least 55 per cent of the six greenhouse gases covered by the agreement.
The devil, as they say, is in the details.
“Our biggest problem is that Kyoto left so many pieces unfinished and vague that it’s very hard to look at even what parameters have been set to date,” says Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. “It is hard to see a conclusive resolution coming out of (The Hague).
"It’s a daunting task.” Neil Shelly, director of environmental affairs for the Alberta Forest Products Association, agrees. Unfortunately, he says, the lack of an agreement will leave governments with no clear direction on what should be done and the industry uncertain of what’s expected.
Environmental groups warn that this week’s negotiations represent the best — and possibly the last — chance to start significantly reducing the smokestack gases that most scientists say are increasing the globe’s temperatures.
“If countries don’t leave The Hague with a sense of what their commitments are, then they’re not in a position to ratify (the Kyoto Protocol),” says Robert Hornung of the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based environmental research and watchdog organization.
At The Hague, the 15-member European Union has rejected a plan by the U.S., Canada and Japan to use forests and farmlands as carbon “sinks” to capture and store greenhouse gases. Receiving credits for reducing emissions through carbon sinks would help those countries meet their Kyoto targets.
The U.S.-led bloc also is looking for maximum flexibility under provisions in the Kyoto Protocol to establish an international, market-driven scheme to trade emissions and buy emission-reduction credits. This would include planting trees in Third World countries or buying credits from Russia and other economically struggling countries. That way, U.S, Canadian and Japanese companies don’t have to cut as much of the emissions at home.
“Our view is whether it’s for climate change or any other issue relating to emissions, environmental or safety performance, market-based (solutions) are the most effective mechanisms,” says Alvarez of the petroleum producers’ association.
But for environmentalists, the “f” word being used at The Hague really means everything from finagling to fiasco.
Canada’s negotiators “are essentially just cozying up to the American position,” which is to use loopholes in the protocol to avoid reducing actual emissions, charges David Hocking of the Vancouver-based David Suzuki Foundation.
Besides, voluntary emission cuts and energy-efficiency improvements by industry aren’t going to get Canada to its Kyoto target, environmentalists argue.
Alberta’s oilpatch had some of the biggest greenhouse gas emissions in Canada between 1990 to 1998, when the country’s emissions rose 13 per cent, according to a study by the Pembina Institute. Husky Oil operations had a 70-per-cent increase (6.5 megatonnes from 3.8 mt); TransCanada Pipelines a 66-per-cent jump (17.3 mt from 10.4 mt); Suncor Energy a 24-per-cent increase (6.2 mt from 5 mt); and Syncrude Canada a 23-per-cent hike (8.9 mt from 7.2 mt).
TransAlta Utilities reduced its emissions for the same period by 10 per cent, or to 23.4 mt from 25.8 mt. Petro-Canada just reported it has reduced its 1999 emissions to four per cent below the 1990 level.
But, overall, when it comes to increasing emissions in Canada, the figures show “Alberta’s leading the pack of bad guys,” says Rocky Mountain House environmental activist Martha Kostuch.
Alvarez argues that the province’s petroleum industry, “as an energy exporter, shouldn’t be penalized for our growth, particularly on the natural gas side, but also on the oil side.”
Pembina’s Hornung notes that if other countries adopt Canada’s position on allowing full credits for forest and agricultural carbon sinks, Canada would only have to keep emissions at their current level to meet its Kyoto target. The U.S. could actually increase its emissions by another 12 per cent rather than cut them by seven per cent as it agreed, he says.
Shelly, of Alberta’s forest products association, says the forest industry will nevertheless be looking for full credits for “carbon sequestration” in an agreement at The Hague. Studies show that when boreal forests like Alberta are managed, or cut for timber, they can store more carbon than natural-growing forests, he notes.
So what if the climate talks collapse and the Kyoto Protocol is never ratified?
“We’ve heard from governments and they’ve said that regardless of what happens with Kyoto . . . there are going to be actions to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,” Shelly says. “A lot of work’s going to get done.”
A skeptical Kostuch responds: “If we don’t see something out of (The Hague) that’s significant, we’re not going to meet Kyoto . . . the longer we wait, the harder and harder it’s going to be.”
