Kyoto Kerfuffle

The second non-fiction book I've read over the past month or so deals with the issue of climate change, specifically relating to the problem in Canada. Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge (2007) by Jeffrey Simpson, Mark Jaccard and Nic Rivers is a very comprehensive look at the whole issue. The book has two parts: the first deals with the science and politics of how we got into the mess we're in and the second part suggests options and solutions for getting out of the mess we're in.

What I found most interesting was a review of the politics over the past two decades! This past year it seemed "Kyoto" became the buzz word, and I, for one, realized I hadn't been paying much attention. Oh sure, I knew Canada had signed a much-ballyhooed agreement, but I thought it was probably one of those pie-in-the sky general goals. But then when I heard environmentalists and others taking up the cry that we must implement measures to meet our Kyoto commitment immediately and the government on the other hand saying that those commitments could not be met, I began to wonder who was right. Was Kyoto a blood sucking socialist scheme to rip off the west or was the government refusal to act a protectionist tactic in cahoots with the oil companies?

Interesting how we agreed to the Kyoto protocol: in the analysis in this book some of the "blame" gets placed on our government (we Canadians!!) trying to stay morally superior to the US - talking the talk grandly abroad but not walking the walk at home. We signed a protocol without any consultation with the provinces or with other stakeholders such as industry and with no plan in place for implementation. In a nutshell, we have agreed to reduce our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 6% below 1990 levels in the next four years. If we can't reduce the emissions we can buy credits from a country that has reduced its emissions - for example, Russia has shut down many coal-fired plants due to a slow economy. Do we really want to pay 5 billion dollars to Russia or some other country to buy credits? The authors of this book state that we've 'blown Kyoto' and what we need to do is get on with working out a sensible realistic plan. Reducing our GHG emissions to those levels can even be done but it is going to be a slower process. But we should and must get on with it.

The question is "why?" Why should we do anything in the first place? Is the problem even that bad? The authors point out that we are a large northern country, we transport our goods over long distances, we have a growing population and we need and use fossil fuels for heat, electricity and to support our economy, in other words, our way of life. However, the authors argue, the science in support of global warming affirms that it is not a good thing for Canada. They examine some very compelling reasons why we want less warming, the thinning of the Arctic ice cap and the shrinking glaciers being two of them. One very real menace is an insect, the pine beetle that is destroying the forests of British Columbia. It is spreading eastward and the only thing that will stop it is cold - a good spell of -30 degree Celsius weather on the Prairies is essential, or there goes the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland.

The authors review all the measures that have been suggested, attempted, and indeed, urged: reducing our use of fossil fuels, improving efficiency, conservation measures, switching to other fuels such as solar, wind and even nuclear, and so on. All are good, but in the final analysis, the authors say these measures only go so far. They argue that what is needed are compulsory measures: only policies that put a price on GHG emissions will work. Yes, we're talking carbon taxes, cap and trade systems, regulations that mean new homes and factories will be built to zero-emissions standards, and so on - in other words, aggressive measures that must begin now.

For an excellent review of the material in the book this article should prove helpful.