Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind... Romans 12:2
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty agreed to in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It requires countries around the world to cut greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Because global warming is primarily caused by burning fossil fuels, Kyoto encourages countries to move to more environmentally responsible ways of producing and using energy.
Under Kyoto, the target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is different for each country. For the European Union as a group, the target is eight per cent from 1990 levels; for Japan, seven per cent; and for Canada, six per cent. Because we have allowed emissions to increase since 1990, Canada is actually required to reduce emissions by about 18 per cent from today's levels.
In order for the Kyoto Protocol to come into force, it must be ratified by 55 countries that produce 55 per cent of the developed world's 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. More than 100 countries have now ratified the agreement, including the European Union, Japan, China and New Zealand. Canada has recently ratified Kyoto.
What are greenhouse gases?
Greenhouse gases trap heat in the earth's atmosphere. Without these gases, the earth's temperature would not support the variety of life on this planet.
But when we burn large amounts of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, we are dramatically increasing the atmospheric concentration of these gases. Like the glass in a greenhouse, this raises the average air temperature in the lower atmosphere. More energy is retained as heat or manifested as increased atmospheric activity. The result is climate change.
The main greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), most of which comes from the burning of fossil fuels. Methane (CH4) is produced from natural gas processing, pipeline leaks, livestock operations and solid waste dumps; nitrous oxide (N2O) is mostly a result of fertilizer use. Three industrial gases used as refrigerants, heat conductors and insulators are also listed as greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Protocol: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also powerful greenhouse gases that have been banned by a separate treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which is aimed at protecting the ozone layer.
Isn't global warming just a part of normal long-term weather cycles?
The science on climate change is solid.
In 1988, the United Nations appointed a group of more than 2,000 non-partisan climate scientists worldwide to find out whether climate change is real or not. This group, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has released three conclusive reports since then confirming the scientific basis of global warming. The U.S. National Academy of Science and many other national academies have reached similar conclusions.
By studying core samples from glaciers, scientists can calculate average temperatures and analyze atmospheric composition many years into the past. They show that the global climate has indeed varied over time. However, the current rapid, steep rise in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 200 years is without precedent. Scientists say the problem will get worse at an accelerating rate unless action is taken.
The Royal Society of Canada, our senior body of scientists and scholars, released an international statement by scientists in March, 2001. Here is an excerpt:
Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to avert damaging changes to the earth's climate.
Why should Canada have to adopt Kyoto when we only produce two per cent of the world's emissions?
Climate change is a global problem and the solution must be global. Canadians currently produce about 700 megatonnes of greenhouse gases per year, much of it from wasteful energy use. This is about two per cent of total global emissions, coming from a country with about half of one per cent of the world's population.
In other words, the average Canadian produces four times the global average level of emissions—23.6 tonnes per person, per year.
By ratifying Kyoto and taking action to reduce emissions, we will accept responsibility for the damage we are causing, demonstrate our leadership in the world community and promote innovation and energy efficiency in our own industries. Other benefits include job creation, cleaner air and a cleaner environment.
Won't Canadian businesses be unable to compete with the U.S., and go bankrupt, if Kyoto is implemented?
The shift to energy efficiency can make Canadian businesses more, rather than less competitiveby saving energy costs, and by improving their ability to innovate.
When it is time to replace equipment—such as furnaces, office equipment, or lighting—businesses should be encouraged to choose the most efficient models. Governments can accelerate this process by phasing out the sale of highly inefficient products, by updating standards as the technology improves and by offering rebates or incentives for energy efficient choices.
In many cases, the payback from energy efficiency investments is more attractive than the return on conventional financial investments. Looked at another way, the purchase of energy efficiency is often less expensive than the purchase of fuel or electric power on a per-unit basis. Interface Canada, a carpet producer with a single manufacturing facility in Ontario, has cut energy costs by $640,000 per year through adopting new technologies and processes, while expanding production and exports. Vancouver International Airport has paid two cents per kilowatt for energy efficiency since 1996, compared with an average 2.7 cents per kilowatt for electric power. The airport's total savings from reduced energy costs and maintenance costs are at least $2 million. On an international scale, energy giant BP estimates it has saved $1 billion in less than 10 years from improved energy efficiency.
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?
There are no studies to support this number. Industry lobby groups continue to use it for scare purposes.
There may be a drop in total employment in conventional energy production in Canada, but this is a trend that has been underway for several years. According to Natural Resources Canada, the energy sector employed almost 81,000 fewer workers in 1998 than it did in 1990.
However, a shift of investment away conventional energy production into other activities is likely to create more jobs. With 20 per cent of capital investment by Canadian businesses, the oil, gas and electricity industries produce just 2 per cent of the jobs. The Communications Energy & Paperworkers Union, the Alberta Federation of Labour and the Canadian Labour Congress all publicly support the Kyoto Protocol.
In other sectors, many analysts see a net gain in employment. In fact, the Canadian economy is projected to grow by 30.4 per cent by 2012, from $1 trillion to $1.315 trillion if we meet out Kyoto targets. For more information, read the Tellus Institute's report, The Bottom Line on Kyoto.
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?
Most of the so-called "costs" of Kyoto will be related to investments in energy efficiency, with payback times of a few years or even months. These investments will be made when it is normal to make them—that is, when it is time to purchase new and better industrial equipment, motor vehicles or home furnaces.
Such investments in energy efficiency since 1970 have produced net cost savings for Canadian consumers of more than $50 billion, and the annual savings amount is rising.
A well-executed emissions reduction program can provide all kinds of benefits to industry. These include
- energy savings;
- reduced energy dependency;
- a better competitive position through efficiency;
- an improved capacity to innovate, and a chance to market new processes and technologies in a global market;
- better relations with local communities as industries clean up the air and show leadership on the environment
Further, any discussion of costs and benefits needs to consider the costs of doing nothing about climate change and air pollution. We are already absorbing the high costs of inaction—including droughts, floods, more extreme weather events, and impacts on natural resource industries. As well, fossil fuel air pollution imposes immense human and financial costs related health impacts. In other words, taking action to reduce energy use has substantial economic benefits in many areas of our lives.
See also Questions People Ask About Climate Change (by Kenneth Green, D.Env.).
Return to Volume 9, Number 1.
Site Design and Content
© 1993—2006 U·TURN
