Climate Policy of Canada
David Suzuki Foundation suggests Canada can meet a 2 C target in 2020 along with a strong growing economy and high quality of life. All this is possible at the cost of steady job creation across the country. Canada has to be meaningful in adopting science based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though it is challenging, it is very much possible. Canada should come forward to pay 3 to 4 of the global costs, which would amount to US140 billion per year.
Chapter 1 Introduction to the Study
When environmental concerns are haunting the whole world, Canada is no exception and bears greater responsibility in bringing down the emission level. Canadians are always part of major summits and conferences but their overall contribution to global warming is very disappointing till date. The emissions increased above the Koyoto target (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.2). The reduction level of emissions falls far short of the science based target. It is reported that Canada was not serious in controlling GHG emissions. For the past eight years, Canadas efforts are feeble in combating global warming. But the people of Canada are keen on meeting climate targets even if it involves some cost.
The environmental and economic challenges are high for Canada in the coming years. Canada has to follow credible solutions to achieve results by 2020. Though it is difficult, the results could be seen at the later stage. The leading organizations like David Suzuki Foundation foresee a positive outlook in Canadas climate change policy. The 2009 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen was conducted to strengthen the Kyoto Protocol via reduction of greenhouse gas emission to considerable levels (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.1). Canada has to be meaningful in adopting science based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though it is challenging, it is very much possible.
Statement of the Problem
In 2002, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse emissions by 6 in Koyoto Protocol. But the emissions increased to 34 above the Koyoto target. The reduction level of emissions by only 3 below the 1990 level by 2020 falls far short of the science based target. Also, Canada is among the worst in the world for per capita emissions at 22.7 tons per person. The Harper government failed to keep up the promise before reaching the Copenhagen conference. The Governments plan also prevents industrial polluters reducing emissions because of technology fund at a relatively low cost. The solution ahead for Canada is to aim for rigorous policy making and following them seriously to bring considerable reduction in green gas emission. This is achievable without loosing its economy and by providing a peaceful lifestyle for the people.
Research Questions
To meet the goals and purpose of this study, four research questions were explored
What is Canadas commitment and their contribution to climate changes Did Canada curtail high Green house gas emission
Has Canada achieved the 2 C target What Canada was doing instead
How the impacts are going to be if Canada is not serious about the issue
In spite of Canadas tardy approach to climate changes in the past, will it be able to do better in the future by drafting better policies and following them seriously.
Definition of Terms
Protocol A protocol is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law
Global Warming an increase in the average temperature of the earths atmosphere
GDP - The gross domestic product, a basic measure of an economys economic performance.
Koyoto Protocol Industrial agreement negotiated in 1997 in Kyoto (Japan) between industrialized countries.
Chapter 2 Review of Related Literature
Canada is in the forefront of environmental concerns right from early 1970s. Canadians played a major role in summits and conferences relating to global warming. For example, Maurice Strong was the secretary general of 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm and at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro. Jim MacNeill was the secretary general of the World Commission on Environment and Development (Bernstein, 2008, p. 5). However, Canadas contribution towards global warming throughout is displeasing.
It is disappointing that the Canadian government has not fully committed to meaningful action with a national approach to climate change (Bernstein, 2008, p. 4). The provincial governments in Canada as well are looking out for policies to meet the expectations of Canadian citizens. Indulging in emission reduction process poses a big challenge.
In 2002, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse emissions by 6 in Koyoto Protocol. But the emissions increased to 34 above the Koyoto target (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.2). The reduction level of emissions to only 3 below the 1990 level by 2020 falls far short of the science based target. Also, Canada is among the worst in the world for per capita emissions at 22.7 tons per person (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.2). The Harper government failed to keep up the promise before reaching the Copenhagen conference. The Governments plan also prevents industrial polluters reducing emissions because of technology fund at a relatively low cost (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.3). It is important to note that Canada failed to act seriously to control GHG emissions a couple decades ago. However, it can compensate that by genuinely following GHG reductions through cost effective ways and through international investments. This will also create opportunities for Canada to export clean technologies (Bramley, Sadik Marshall, 2009, p.13).
The environment minister of Canada Jim Prentice in one of his speech said Canada would aim for a shared target with the United States for a cleaner electricity, common fuel efficiency standards and a common target for bio-fuels. For the past eight years, Canada has put in only feeble efforts to combat global warming. Canada bettered United States marginally in green gas emission reductions but still far from its own 2020 target set by science (Demerse, 2009). Canadas climate policies favor the companies operating in Albertas oil sands. The people of Canada want the climate targets to be based on the advice of scientists even if it involves some cost. Now Canada has to follow a globally integrated policy that works internally as well as globally (Bernstein, 2008).
Environment and economy are both inextricably linked and discussed in the Canadian political arena in the past decades. However, it yielded more heat than light in the past decades (Sadik, 2009, p.1). The challenge ahead now is how both economy and environment will intersect and lead the country up to 2020.
Canada has to follow credible solutions to bring down emission by 2020 through scientific methods. Drafting policies in this regard might involve a greater risk in terms of economy and trade. The fruitful results could be seen at a later stage much beyond where the decision makers would have left the office then.
Canadas economy always grows stronger and the case is going to be true in the next ten years in spite of its biggest trading partners not matching Canadas carbon price. Two thirds of Canadas economy comprises of service sector and the rest are involved in industrial activity by utilizing carbon.
The clear objective of reducing global warming is very well within the reach of Canada without hampering the economic growth. The leading organizations like David Suzuki Foundation foresee a positive outlook in Canadas climate change policy. According to a study by David Suzuki Foundation, Canada can meet a 2 deg C target in 2020 and in parallel have a strong growing economy and high quality of life. All this is possible at the cost of steady job creation across the country (Bramley, Sadik Marshall, 2009). According to Matthew Bramley, the director of climate change for the Pembina Institute, Canada can implement much stronger climate policies than the United States and can still prosper economically. This will be a fair contribution for countries like Canada towards global reduction in emissions. Initially, itll look like a more difficult task than it really is because it involves understanding and drafting policies and putting government and people on the routine. Devising economy wisely in the next ten years is also very important. Though the initial costs might look slightly on the higher side, the country is going to reap the benefits at a later stage.
Policymaking requires analytical tools in the field of science, economics, politics and law. A feasible, fair and sensitive to regional, national and international outcome is what is important while achieving the climate change target. It is the right time for Canada to act now to avoid serious impact of climate changes now and in the near future (Bernstein, 2008, p. 4).
To achieve a major reduction in GHG emissions, Canada has to (1) capture and store carbon dioxide (2) reduce fugitive emissions (3) increase energy efficiency (4) increase production of renewable energy and (5) replace fossil fuels by cleaner electricity. Under this policy, even Canadas carbon intensive provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan fare very well in terms of GDP (Sadik, 2009, p. 2). The carbon price revenue helps in personal income tax cut substantially.
The analysis shows that meeting the target is impossible without an unrealistic rate of capital stock turnover. The purchase of international credits will enable Canada to sell advanced green technology to recipient nations. The great grandchildren of Canada will certainly be happy with the climate change assisted by the present generation.
According to World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, the costs and risks of uncontrolled climate change would result in a 5 to 20 loss in the global GDP. About 1.86 million new jobs are expected to be created while meeting the target of this condition. This is the direct result of reduction in carbon pricing revenue and personal income tax. The GHG reductions in Canada certainly benefits global environment.
The two economic models namely CIMS and R-GEEM are relevant to GHG emission and helps in choosing technologies based on real world behavior. R-GEEM is for the Govt. of Canada and R-GEEM is for GDP and employment.
By meeting the target, the economy of Canada in 2020 will be 1.5 smaller than under business as usual. It is on the petroleum refining and natural gas extraction that suffers decline in output (Bramley, Sadik Marshall, 2009, p.11). Certain mandatory measures eliminate much of Canadas landfill commissions. The GHG regulations accelerates fuel efficient vehicle technology. Therefore the amount of money spent on personal transportation will be less, for e.g. 6.7 billion less each year.
The 2009 United Nations Climate Conference in Copenhagen was aimed at strengthening the Kyoto Protocol through reduction of greenhouse gas emission to levels that would prevent serious impacts (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p. 1). According to research, the green gas emissions could decline by 2015 if the countries follow their commitments towards reducing emissions. The focus of Copenhagen summit was in this regard. The major industrial nations committed to the 2 C limit for global average temperature increase. However, their commitments towards emission reduction fall below the required commitment (Greenpeace European Renewable Energy Council, 2009, p.1).
Going forward, Canada has to be meaningful in adopting science based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Though it is challenging, it is very much possible. Canada should come forward to pay 3 to 4 of the global costs, which would amount to US140 billion per year.
Chapter 3 Methodology
This paper examines Canadas possibility of meeting the 2 deg C target in 2020 along with a strong growing economy and high quality of life. According to David Suzuki Foundation, this is possible at the cost of steady job creation across the country. According to Matthew Bramley, the director of climate change for the Pembina Institute, Canada can implement a much stronger climate policies than the United States and can still prosper economically. The book A globally integrated climate policy for Canada by Bernstein helps to review the past and plan a new future. Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation research works contribute more towards our discussion. Besides other sources on the net supports Canadas stance in the climate policy.
Conclusion
In the past, Canada failed to achieve its agreed targets of green house gas emission reductions. Canadas objective of reducing global warming is very much possible without hampering the economic growth. The leading organizations like David Suzuki Foundation foresee a positive outlook in Canadas climate change policy. According to a study by David Suzuki Foundation, Canada can meet a 2 deg C target in 2020. Also it can have a robust economy and high quality of life.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment