Russia and Canada know enough about ice hockey for Canada to recognize when it’s been pinned against the boards with no way to stick-handle out.
That is one of the prevailing feelings since Russian President Vladimir Putin startled everyone at the end of September by announcing that his parliament, known as the Duma, would ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Since then the accord has made its way through the Duma and now needs only Putin’s signature to become a legally enforceable document within 90 days — and Canada won’t be able to blame someone else for the treaty’s collapse.
For Kyoto to take effect it needed the support of 55 countries accounting for 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (notably carbon dioxide) in 1990.
Because the United States (which accounted for 36 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions in 1990) has opted out of the protocol, Russia, which contributed 17 percent of the global emissions, held the balance of power, now that 125 countries accounting for 44 percent of greenhouse gases have ratified or adopted Kyoto, although only 37 have agreed to national greenhouse gas quotas.
After much dithering by Russia, Putin reportedly pressured his cabinet to call on the Duma to ratify the treaty.
Russia’s about-face not well received
The about-face has not been well received, even by Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s chief economic advisor, who told the Moscow Times that “nobody” among Russian officials believes the protocol is good for Russia.
“Nobody sees any advantages ... it is purely politics,” he said, in an apparent reference to indications that the European Union may endorse Russia’s application to join the World Trade Organization in return for ratification. But Illarionov estimates that implementing Kyoto could wipe US$1 trillion from Russia’s Gross Domestic Product.
Earlier this year in Calgary, he told reporters that Kyoto “is incompatible with economic growth, not only for Russia, but for any other country that puts limits on carbon dioxide emissions.”
Illarionov said that implementing the treaty would doom Russia to “poverty, weakness, backwardness” and reduce its economy to a “death camp.”
Treaty requires 8 percent reduction
Kyoto sets the bar for participating nations at an 8 percent reduction in 1990 greenhouse gas emissions between 2008 and 2012. Negotiations about standards beyond 2012 are scheduled to start next year, including efforts to lower emissions in China and India, which are currently exempt from Kyoto.
For Canada, which exports 45 percent of its oil, natural gas and hydro-electricity to the United States, the numbers are daunting.
When it signed on to Kyoto in 1997 and subsequently pledged to implement its commitments, it projected emissions would reach 572 million tonnes a year by 2010.
But by 2000, the government itself admitted the emissions were 155 million tones higher than the 2010 target and may now have stretched the gap by 170 million tones. A Canadian government agency underlined its challenges in an Oct. 19 report that disclosed greenhouse gas emissions increased by 18 percent between 1990 and 2001.
Electricity consumption up
Since the early Kyoto negotiations, Canada’s electricity consumption has climbed by more than 20 percent, with the use of coal and natural gas to fuel that power generation up by 33 percent and 268 percent respectively. Overall, the Canadian government estimates that per capita energy consumption climbed to 353 gigajoules in 2002 from 293 gigajoules in 1982. (One gigajoule is equivalent to about 906 cubic feet at standard conditions or represents the equivalent of about 8 gallons of energy).
A spokeswoman for the Alberta government said the federal government’s compliance plan unveiled two years ago set unrealistic targets, even though it guaranteed emissions intensity targets for the oil and gas sector would be no more than 15 percent “below projected business-as-usual levels for 2010.”
Industry leaders said at the time that the offer removed the worst-case scenario, but there was still much detail to work out.
Alberta, meanwhile, is pursuing its own course, ordering all companies that emit more than 100,000 tonnes a year of greenhouse gases to report the totals.
The government and Pierre Alvarez, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, agree that is a necessary first step to develop a picture of emission levels and to help consumers understand the impact of what they consume.
The province believes 75 to 90 companies, including the major oil sands producers such as Syncrude Canada, Suncor Energy and Shell Canada, exceed the minimum reporting standard.
Companies that fail to comply or under-report emissions face fines of up to C$500,000.
For now, the Canadian government is continuing to negotiate with the oil and gas industry and electricity producers — rated the leading sources of greenhouse gases — to develop an emissions reduction schedule.
But the Ontario government is already reportedly balking at a plan to shut down its coal-burning electricity plants by 2007.
So long as Russia was dropping hints that it would refuse to sign the treaty, Canada could afford to delay and procrastinate.
Russia might be able to sell credits
What caused Putin to become a Kyoto convert is not clear.
Among the theories is one that the closure of thousands of uneconomic factories from the former Soviet Union has already dragged Russia under the emissions threshold, allowing it to sell excess emissions credits and turn Kyoto into a money maker.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov lent some weight to that view when he said: “Speaking pragmatically, this gives us the possibility of trading quotas.”
Taking a larger view, he said the new global approach of Kyoto “could lead to a new way of thinking.”
Whatever the reason, the Kyoto heat has been turned up again in Canada, with industry leaders, politicians and environmentalists telling the Canadian government it is time to put an implementation plan on the table.
So far, the government has committed to spending only C$2 billion over five years on a vague plan to tackle climate change through partnerships, innovation and targeted measures to promote energy efficiency, renewable energy, sustainable transportation and alternative energy sources.
Alberta continues to oppose Kyoto
Meanwhile, the Alberta government continues to argue that Kyoto is not the right mechanism to lower emissions and, regardless of what happens in Russia, Canada should rethink its strategy before it sends the economy into a nosedive.
Alberta, which sees itself as the protector of the oil and gas industry, is clinging to its proposal made in 2002 to reduce “emissions intensity” to half of 1990 levels by 2020 — not remotely close to the Kyoto targets.
Matthew Bramley, director of climate change at the Alberta-based Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development, is braced for a showdown between Alberta and the federal government if Russia forces Canada to pass emission-control legislation or risk breaking an international commitment. He said the only solution is for Canada to introduce its Kyoto legislation and “bring it into force.”
How and when that will happen is not clear, despite the Liberal government’s commitments during a June election campaign to proceed down that path.But an element of confusion has been injected by Canadian Minister of the Environment Stéphane Dion.
In his first speech as environment minister in Calgary two months ago he made no reference to Kyoto, talking instead about a “revolution in which the environment is a key driver of creativity, of innovation and of competitiveness around the world.”
Dion insisted that economic prosperity and environmental sustainability are not incompatible.
Later he told the House of Commons that Kyoto is a “work in progress” that will take time to shape.
Further chipping away at the Kyoto commitment, Dion said that “economic foresight calls for immediate diversification of our energy resources,” a priority that means “renewable energy resources become an economic must.”
It was not clear where Kyoto fit into that strategy.
