 |
|
|
| Tentative Steps on Global Warming By Louis Erlichman Canadian Research Director |
| One of the biggest issues at the recently-concluded “Earth Summit” meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa was the fate of the so-called Kyoto Accord. The Kyoto Accord (or Protocol) was an international agreement reached in Japan in 1997 to implement the United Nations Climate Change Convention of 1992. The Kyoto deal was a package of commitments by industrialized countries to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions (mostly carbon dioxide or CO2) that are thought to be the cause of global warming. The countries signing onto the deal agreed to cut their use of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas, the main source of greenhouse gases, but the Protocol will only take effect when it has been ratified by 55 industrialized countries representing 55% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. This has not yet happened. Since the U.S., which is responsible for 25% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, has refused to ratify (because its government, and George W. Bush in particular, are in the pocket of the large oil companies), it is essential for virtually every other country to do so if the Accord to is to take effect. Prime Minister Chretien’s announcement that Canada would ratify the Kyoto deal is important, not only because Canada’s share of world energy use is significant, but also because Canada not ratifying would have been an excuse for other countries to pull back, and would probably kill the Accord. The oil industry and other corporate interests have mounted a strong counter-attack on Kyoto, claiming that global warming in unproven (in spite of a strong scientific consensus) and generating vastly inflated estimates of the economic costs. In Canada, the Alberta government (home to our largest fossil fuel producers) and some other provinces, have taken up the anti-Kyoto cause. There is no question that Kyoto targets (for Canada, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-2012 of 6% from 1990 levels, or 21% from current levels) would have costs, but these would be offset by savings from energy conservation, and pollution reduction. Jobs would certainly be lost in energy and related industries, but there is no reason why these cannot be offset by gains in sustainable industries, including wind, wave and solar power, and retrofitting for energy conservation. While the Kyoto reductions in fossil fuel use should stimulate this activity, we also need more active programs to encourage sustainable energy development. Doing nothing is not a viable option. Global warming leads to rising seal levels, floods, droughts and extreme weather. We have already seen some small indication of the cost of doing nothing in the rising numbers of natural disasters like fires, floods and storms. There has already been a noticeable impact on the insurance industry. Even if new jobs offset the losses resulting from greenhouse gas reductions, some workers and regions will be particularly hard-hit. It is essential that any action on climate change be accompanied by a well-funded program “Just Transition” program to provide income support, retraining, re-employment opportunities for affected workers and communities. A strong, employment-creating, overall economy is also essential. Kyoto is far from a panacea for our environment, or even for global warming. We really need to go far beyond the Kyoto targets if we are to reach environmental sustainability. Even within the Kyoto program, many countries, including Canada, are looking for loopholes – like claiming credits for forests which absorb greenhouse gases, or for exporting natural gas, which produces greenhouse gases, but less than coal or oil. At Johannesburg, the U.S. blocked proposals for specific targets for renewable energy sources. Kyoto is well short of what we will ultimately need to do, but it is a small first step towards sustainability. If we can’t take this step, it is hard to see how we can complete the journey.
|
|
|
|
|
|