Lord Vader

cheese, sir?

Novocastrian

No thanks. I've had more than enough from you already.

FFS

ergyngfeld

Why can't Canada set a good example like a responsible developed country? Sure, China and India are huge polluters, much more so than Canada. But using that as an excuse for Canada to sit around doing nothing is a bit childish!

London Mike

Very good point. It's down to Western nations to show leadership here since it's the West who have taken the world to the brink in the interests of removing its own population from poverty over the past 150 years (or trying to...). If we want China and India who, frankly, have it in their powers to take the world past the tipping point to take this seriously then it's important for countries like Canada to take this seriously.

This is a purely self-interested and politically motivated decision. I think this fact alone makes Canada look really stupid on the global stage. Everyone can see it for what it is.

Former Lancastrian

When its minus 30C and with the wind chill a balmy minus 45C I think the last thing Canadians are thinking about is Kyoto and the carbon footprint.

London Mike

I don't think it's the weather they care about, it's keeping gas to under $1.25.

JamesM

Let's be honest Canada is insignificant. It doesn't really matter what it does.

I'm just amazed that this insignificant place received such coverage for a change.

It make's no difference if Canada is involved than say Guatemala.

The UN needs to sit down and broker an environmental deal with the world's biggest economies and it's time this tosh of Canada being a G7 country was laid to rest.

Novocastrian

That's G8 these days. Talking of which, the Kyoto Protocol (negotiated in 1997 this month exactly 14 years ago) only became a Treaty when it was ratified by Russia on Feb 16th 2005, the exact same day that Canada's Parliament ratified it.

Although Vader chooses to accuse Chretien of this dire act of international responsibility, it was actually Martin who was PM at that date.

However, the first minority Harper regime was elected on Jan 23rd 2006, so that was that.

Canada is the only Annex 1 country who ratified the Treaty who's failed to even get close to it's (binding) commitment and now the only country in the world (Annex 1 or otherwise) who's reneged on ratification.

Ashamed? We should all be.

London Mike

James, it is significant because the fact that its exit is seen as legal, and that India and China only have "voluntary" commitments, means that others may just simply say forget it. However, I think you're right that a new deal needs to be brokered. Kyoto is out of date.

Novocastrian

Agreed. It was supposed to run for 15 years, ending next year. It hasn't failed though. Everyone else who agreed to cuts has more or less done it (although I realize part of that has to do with collapsing economies rather than positive action). Canada is the only exception.

I don't think anyone here would claim that they anticipated in 1997 the exponential growth in the economies (and emissions) of China, India, Brazil etc., or that any would claim to have anticipated the financial meltdown in 1997/8 in the US, UK and so on.

Which only makes it more ludicrous and embarrassing that Canada would renege on its Treaty commitments days after all these countries (including Canada) had agreed to negotiate new, legally binding commitments at Durban to follow up on Kyoto.

jimf

I notice TwoJags was on the CBC earlier giving Canada the benefit of his advice. It's alright John - with climate change the harvests in the Champagne region will be even more bountiful.

London Mike

Yeah, saw that. I'm sure if he ate/farted less, Canada's own inflated emissions could be offset.

Novocastrian

Eff off. And goodnight.

Lord Vader

It was Chretien who signed the thing in the first place, then the left who ratified it how many years later, 7 or 8?

Not too much in the way of planet saving was going on with this agreement. Assuming that many of you have driven across large parts of Canada and Europe, possibly Japan and Eastern China, it doesn't take a genius to see that "developed" has different meanings. Beijing and Shanghai and the other parts of Eastern China are still developing, while Manitoba, Nunavut and Newfoundland are already developed places? It was foolish for countries like Canada and Australia to fall into this Western Europe trap game because of a label. Canada and Australia are not part of Europe and do not have a compact population like Japan and other old world "developed" countries.
Call me back when the "developing" countries are on board. Or maybe we can use C02 emissions per square kilometer instead as a measure of development. I am sure we would be kicking ass and taking names if that was the case.

JonboyE

I really don't know as much as I should about this issue so I am happy to be educated.

In finance we are warned not to be influenced by sunk costs. We need to complete a project and have two options X and Y. Option X will cost $100m to complete and option Y $75m. It is irrelevant that we have already spent $200m developing option X from concept to ready to build. That money is gone. We have to look forward from today. Option Y is the best value and is to be preferred.

I heard an interview with the South African High Commissioner in Ottawa. She made two arguments:

* That Canada was part of the developed West and should pay a penance for pollution to date.

* That all non-western countries have a right to develop rich economies like the West and anything that would hinder this (such as controls on pollution that the West historically did not have) is immoral.

In isolation these both seem to be supportable concepts. However, I understand the problem is that too much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere and the only way to slow down global warming is to slow down the rate of increase in CO2 emissions then reverse it.

I don't see how either of these propositions brings us nearer to a solution.