Legitimate Concerns in Canadian Withdrawal from Kyoto Protocol

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in December 2011, in the wake of the Durban climate talks, provoked a steady stream of criticism among Canadian environmentalists and the international community. Ottawa intimated that Kyoto was not the way forward for action on climate change. Certainly not alone in its doubts – Japan and Russia refused the prospect of new commitments under the treaty in 2010 – Canada is nevertheless the only country to withdraw from the pact completely.

Background

Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in December 2011, in the wake of the Durban climate talks, provoked a steady stream of criticism among Canadian environmentalists and the international community. Ottawa intimated that Kyoto was not the way forward for action on climate change. Certainly not alone in its doubts – Japan and Russia refused the prospect of new commitments under the treaty in 2010 – Canada is nevertheless the only country to withdraw from the pact completely.

Comment

The warranted concerns about Kyoto and the overall process of global climate action, which helped motivate this decision, temper somewhat the charges of “irresponsibility” from abroad.

Although China’s state media portrayed the move as irresponsible, Canada does have the legal right to sever ties with the Kyoto protocol: Article 27 states that any country can withdraw three years after the protocol is in force. The announcement, by Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent, was, in effect, a year’s notice for the country’s departure. This came a day after climate talks at the Durban conference wound down, with a mandate reached for a new climate treaty that would provide binding targets for all countries beginning from 2020. It is set to replace the Kyoto protocol provisions expiring at the end of 2012.

Kent suggested that the pull-out would save Canada US$14 billion in penalties for not reaching its Kyoto targets. With Canada’s Conservative Government protective of the nation’s booming oil sands industry, the US$14 billion figure would cover the cost of Canada purchasing carbon emissions permits from other Kyoto nations to meet its targets.

The numbers have been challenged by opposition politicians in Canada. They make a valid point: beyond international diplomatic censure, the punishment for non-compliance in meeting Kyoto targets is essentially nil. This is an apt reminder of the fragility inherent in such mandates. Canadian New Democrat MP, Megan Leslie, argued that the pullout was orchestrated by the Conservatives to avoid admitting failure in reaching the Kyoto targets.

But this would deny underlying concerns that pervade the entire global climate debate. ‘The Kyoto protocol does not cover the world's largest two emitters, the United States and China, and therefore cannot work,’ Kent said. ‘It's now clear that Kyoto is not the path forward to a global solution to climate change. If anything, it's an impediment.’

Kent went on to note that while the Kyoto protocol originally covered the countries generating almost 30 per cent of global emissions, that had fallen to 13 per cent and Canada produced ‘barely two per cent’ by itself. Restructuring these inequities in fresh global mandates has to be an issue for countries like Canada, while mega-emitters, such as the United States and China, refuse to tie themselves to legally-binding targets.

Meanwhile, the source of concern for developing economies, such as India and China, is whether the concept of differentiation between past and future emitters, found in the Kyoto protocol, will be retained in new climate treaties.

Tim Thomas

Future Directions International Research Intern

Global Food and Water Crises Research Programme

*****