Canada risks stalling the latest UN climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia because it is seen as dodging its responsibilities for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

In a leaked document, the Canadian government gave instructions to their negotiating team to insist that emissions cuts should be mandated for all countries. This is being perceived as passing the buck to developing countries, like China and India, who are not in as stable a position to reduce emissions.

“If you want to kill these negotiations, then that is what you put on the table,” says Jennifer Morgan of E3G - Third Generation Environmentalism.

“It is the responsibility of developed countries, like Canada, to show the rest of the world the way forward, and currently there is no sign of this leadership,” says Rosa Kouri, part of the Canadian Youth Delegation to Bali, a group of 30 young people from across Canada attending the conference.

“It is important for developed countries to move first so that developing countries see action before they commit to make sacrifices that can impede their development”, says Laura Zizzo, an environmental lawyer. This trust-building exercise is how international law is built and agreed upon, she says.

“What is absolutely essential is to see that the developed countries establish a record of action and commitment, which I think will induce and provide a moral basis for developing countries to assume the burden. In the absence of that, I don’t think anything is going to happen,” says Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel-prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Canada is undermining this fundamental principle because, with just two per cent of world wide emissions, it wants to get top polluters - China, India, and the United States on board to have more of a world wide impact. These countries currently have no international commitments to GHG reductions and account for 50 per cent of world wide emissions. But demanding them to adopt legally binding emissions targets is seen by environmentalists as counterproductive because it does not engage the big emitters, it just shifts blame.

“We Europeans don’t see the Canadian position as constructive,” Karsten Sach, head of the German delegation, told Deutsche Presse Agentur.

This position is at odds with the fundamental principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” written into the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the overarching structure governing the Kyoto Protocol.

This principle recognizes that developed countries like Canada, are the ones who have historically created the problem, and because they have had the longest time to benefit from industrialization, are in a better position to take leadership to reduce GHG emissions.

Thirty-six rich nations have binding reduction targets to reach emissions reductions by five per cent below 1990 levels from 2008 to 2012.

To ensure there is no ‘gap’ in commitment periods, nations have to agree to a process to discuss what is going to happen afterwards. To do this, a consensus has to take place by 2009 so that ratification of the new targets can happen in time. This is what the international community is hoping for from the latest climate change talks in Bali, Indonesia.

The agreement is looking to extend the world’s commitment to the reduction of GHGs.

According to Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UNFCCC, the Bali discussions would be considered a success if countries can agree to a framework and agenda on how to proceed with the next round of talks with a targeted end date of 2009.

The end date of 2009 is set as a recognition of the urgency in which these negotiations need to happen.

“The science is screaming at us,” says David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We need to move.”

However, it is hard to move forward when some are stuck in the past.

Canada has found a new ally in Japan, who has stated that countries should move “beyond the Kyoto Protocol,” a suggestion that would have Canada and others begin to work outside of the UN process, where binding targets do not apply.

This makes environmentalists and other nations nervous. They see that it is fundamental to work within the UN.

“Why are international commitments essential?” writes Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in a report from the Sustainable Development International and the United Nations Environment Programme. “Because without them, countries cannot be confident that others are contributing their fair share to the global effort.”

Their positions on universal binding targets and working outside of the UN process has led Canada, the United States and Japan to dominate the ‘fossil of the day awards,’ a sarcastic prize given by the youth caucus to the countries that are doing the least to progress the talks.

Canada’s position is being singled by other countries as isolationist and counter productive in the UN process. It has the potential to throw everything off the mark, says Kouri.

“The science is unequivocal,” she says. “The time for superficial discussion is over and real action needs to happen. We hope that Canada can step up and show the leadership that we know it is capable of.”

TrackBack URI for this entry

0 Comments

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form

Email Name Website		Comment smaller | bigger
		Subscribe via email (Registered users only) Write the displayed characters Add Comment

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: