Climate change and the Kyoto Protocol
Imperial's chairman, president and CEO Tim Hearn contributes to the debate on Kyoto with an opinion piece on Canada's national climate-change debate that has been included in the November 28, 2002 edition of the National Post.
Following is the original text as submitted to the National Post.
Canada's missing governance on Kyoto
by Tim J. Hearn
As our parliament debates ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change, Canadians must be seriously concerned by the federal government's determination to pursue this course in such haste.
Canada and Canadians have much to lose by ratifying and implementing Kyoto, but nothing at all to gain. Conversely, we have nothing to lose by choosing, instead, a made-in-Canada approach to the risks of climate change, one suited to our own economic and social realities.
Notwithstanding the release last week of the government's "Climate Change Plan for Canada," our Kyoto target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to six percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 cannot be met under any reasonable scenario. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions means consuming less energy. Energy use is directly linked to economic activity and population growth; both are growing in Canada and both are needed to maintain employment, continued growth and our standard of living.
Kyoto advocates imply that Canada's target can be met without economic pain or individual sacrifice. The sad truth is that large segments of our economy could flounder and we would still not achieve the required reductions. Industry groups and business associations have warned of significant job losses, potential cancellations of major growth-oriented projects, and the loss of investment capital for Canada due to rising energy costs. Some of the government's own studies show significant reductions in gross domestic product and the potential for major job losses. And the rising costs of energy will affect all of us.
We will also be the only nation in the Western Hemisphere -- in which 90 percent of our trade occurs -- to be constrained by Kyoto. The United States will not ratify -- how can we compete when our largest trading partner operates without the same constraints as Kyoto puts on us?
Canada can ostensibly meet its Kyoto obligations by buying "emissions credits" from Russia and elsewhere -- countries that are much less environmentally conscientious than ourselves (Canada ranks fourth in the World Economic Forum's Environmental Sustainability Index). Those are costs without benefits of any kind, to Canada or the environment.
Even proponents of Kyoto acknowledge that the environmental benefits of its implementation will be effectively zero. Even if all the remaining affected countries meet their targets, the effect on global greenhouse gas levels will be insignificant, especially as rapidly industrializing countries such as China, India, Korea, Brazil and Mexico are not subject to Kyoto limits and refuse to accept even voluntary limits.
What prevents us from choosing a made-in-Canada alternative to Kyoto -- one that would encourage the wise and efficient use of energy today, while at the same time allowing a healthy, growing economy to develop new energy technologies and long-term solutions, without the constraints of a legally binding, unfair international commitment?
To ignore the potential impacts of climate change on society and ecosystems would be neither prudent nor responsible. But the same may be said of rashly putting our future economic well being in jeopardy.
The federal government seems bound and determined to ratify quickly and at any cost, without having a realistic plan for implementation and without truly informing Canadians of the implications for their lives and for Canada as a whole. They have blocked the strenuous debate that such a decision demands. For example, industry input that roundly rejected the government's four options in May/June/July was basically ignored, and in August the Prime Minister announced he was going to ratify no matter what.
Only in recent weeks has meaningful dialogue begun, as many provincial governments and business associations began strenuously opposing the direction being outlined for ratification and proposing a "made-in-Canada" approach not tied to the Kyoto protocol -- proposals that have also been ignored.
The government asserts that "70 percent of Canadians support Kyoto." Yet when Canadians understand the implications and the measures being considered, support falls away dramatically, as evidenced by recent polls. In rushing to ratify without being forthcoming on the true impacts of Kyoto, the government is ignoring the business community, provincial governments, members of its own party and, I believe, a significant proportion and likely the majority of informed Canadians.
There is a more responsible path forward than Kyoto -- one not tied to arbitrary Kyoto targets and timetables. It would include aggressively employing existing technologies, such as cogeneration, to reduce emissions; a tripartite approach of business, Canadian universities and governments to research and invest in medium range technologies (e.g., fuel cells, sequestration) that have potential to reduce emissions; and the education of all Canadians on how each of us can minimize emissions by improving energy efficiency. Money that Kyoto would have us send to countries like Russia under a flawed emissions trading scheme could be invested in Canada to improve our environment and develop energy-saving technologies that we would own.
This is an approach of substance, not of symbolism as represented by the Kyoto protocol, which is plainly a terrible deal for Canada, Canadians and the environment.
The federal government has told the business community -- rightly, in my view -- to improve its corporate governance. I would challenge them to apply the same principles of good governance -- transparency, openness and integrity -- to the Kyoto debate. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. Canadians deserve better from our elected federal government.
Tim J. Hearn is chairman, president and chief executive officer, Imperial Oil Limited
|  | |
