Canada's "constructive" role at the UNFCCC

December 11th, 2008

The Canadian government is doing a poor job of representing our country at the UN climate change conference in Poznan: dishonesty seems to be our specialty. According to the Toronto Star:

Michael Martin, Canada’s ambassador for climate change and the country’s chief negotiator at the conference, denies obstructionism, saying Canada is playing a constructive role.

Michael Martin apparently has an idiosyncratic definition of “constructive”.

For example, Canada is currently working – along with Australia and Japan – to move away from the firm targets for carbon emission reduction that were adopted in Bali, according to Montreal’s La Presse.

L’ensemble des pays a accepté de faire allusion à la cible de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre de 25 à 40% d’ici 2020, sous leur niveau de 1990. Mais il a refusé, à la demande expresse du trio [Canada, Japan, and Australia], que cet objectif devienne obligatoire.

Targets will be noted, but not required, for signatories to the treaty that will replace Kyoto. A country with a government like ours, which advocates for a “made in Canada” solution, uses 2006 as the baseline for emission reduction, and supports intensity targets instead of hard targets, will not have government-supported initiatives to seriously combat climate change. We have also made it far easier for other countries to choose not to pursue hard emission reductions. I applaud our constructive contribution to solving the problem of climate change.

Another example of the disconnect between what our leaders say about climate change and their actions:

A display set up by the Canadian Youth at the UN climate negotiations in Poznan, Poland exploring Canada’s tar sands was torn down today at the demand of the Canadian government delegation.

I would like to see Canadians taking the lead on climate change. This is not going to happen without honesty, both on the part of our citizenry and our government. These two elements of our society are, of course, closely linked: if Canadian citizens are unwilling to look clearly at the global costs of the way we live, we are not going to elect a government that will do so for us. The firm rejection of Stephane Dion in the October election is proof of that.

That honest look will require us to move beyond regional bickering, as I alluded to in my last post, because if Alberta’s tar sands are a major and growing source of greenhouse gas emissions (and they are), so too is Ontario’s industrial base a problem. It’s not a matter of one province wanting to knock down another, but a matter of all of us needing to support changes in the way we do things.

I think that translates into clear emissions targets, support for the development of alternative industry in the oil-producing regions, research and development – preferably across the country – into alternative energy and efficient local production to meet local needs, and an immediate effort to help individuals make the small changes that are already possible, such as switching to smart metering of electricity use.

Right now, our “constructive” contribution to climate change mitigation and prevention seems to be working to avoid a treaty that would require a commitment from us to change. Honesty might be painful, but it would create an opportunity to look for real solutions instead of pretending that the problems of climate change and our contribution to it do not exist.