Closer to the finished version.
CC,
I am aware of the Ontario power crisis, but the left seems to have convinced that province that all forms of power generation are bad. This has not quelled their desires for power though, and recent studies, as mentioned, have stated that support for nuclear power is "soft"
All,
There are numerous issues not explored in my paper, (carbon trading, for example) but I am already approximately 1/3 over the word limit, which is verboten in all but the most extraordinary cases, so I have to cut somewhere!
This is v2. There are some major changes to the beginning (Brad, thanks) so I posted the whole thing again, comments please!
Canada and the Kyoto Protocol; A Dangerous Combination of Good Intentions and Opportunism
The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is, at heart, a two documents; one conceived by individuals with only the best of intentions for the future of our world, and the condition of the natural environment. The other, a declaration of economic warfare enticingly cloaked in environmentalism, but bearing only difficulty and even danger for those foolhardy enough to answer the siren call. There was malice when it was written, combined with an idealistic slant that was either unaware of, or perhaps believing that environmental concerns transcended the historical and economic conditions that would come into play when the time to sign it came. These conditions are precisely why the Kyoto Protocol is a terrible idea for Canada, Canadians, and the entire developed world.
The Kyoto Protocol is an addition to the existing United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The basis for it lies in the concept of a certain level of pollution of the atmosphere by eight gases considered by the UN to be the major contributors to the global “greenhouse effect”, which is human activity creating a rise in the earth’s overall temperatures by releasing gases into the atmosphere hold more of the sun’s radiated heat on earth, as opposed to allowing it to dissipate into space, as was previously the case. It should be noted that this is only a theory as to the reasons behind climate change, and there is a large group of prominent dissenters who claim that human activity has little or no effect on climate change. The Protocol aims to achieve this reversal or stoppage of climate change by placing restrictions on countries that have large amounts of heavy industry, which emits large amounts of these gases, and instituting a system of international “emissions credits” the possession of which allows the holder to pollute to a set limit, at which point he must buy more. In the interests of the global economy, the writers of the Protocol proposed that the emissions levels be set for the declared level of emission of 1990, as a benchmark, with the eventual goal being for all countries to lower national emissions of the eight gases to 5.2% below 1990 levels. Nations that are above this level would have to purchase emissions credits on the global market, in order to stay below their set limit. The Kyoto Protocol sets no limits on the emission of greenhouse gases by undeveloped signatory nations, and there are no reliable methods of ascertaining the levels at which many nations emit these gases now, or at any point in the past. The “exempt” signatory nations of the Protocol have no timeline to become adherents to it, and the Protocol specifies only that the levels at which undeveloped countries will be permitted to emit will be ascertained “in the future”. The Protocol also leaves some participant nations with the option to increase their emissions, due to economic and political factors that will be covered later. The Protocol came into effect on the 15th of February, 2005, after it had been ratified by 55 “Annex 1” nations, whose emissions totaled 55% or more of the world emissions. Developing nations were not counted as members of the annex 1 group. In short, the Kyoto Protocol is an extremely complicated document that does not apply to any two signatories equally.
Kyoto and the Environment
The effects of Kyoto on the environment are also difficult to ascertain, and given the present wording of the document, possibly very small, especially given that Canada is responsible for approximately 2% of global Kyoto Protocol gas emissions At the present time, the five largest national emitters of Kyoto Protocol gases are the United States, China, Russia, Japan and India. Interestingly, only the US and Japan would be expected to curtail their industrial activity or purchase emissions credits from the developing world, while China and India, with their rapidly expanding economies and surging use of fossil fuels would be permitted to pollute with impunity, and simultaneously enjoy exempt status from the Protocol, as well as large amounts of foreign exchange from the industrialized signatory nations. Russia would also benefit from the Protocol, given that after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990-91, industrial production fell sharply, and emissions with it. This has placed the Russians in the enviable position of having enormous emissions in 1990, the benchmark for the Protocol, that fell off immediately afterwards, and are currently approximately 35% below the level set by the Protocol. This means that Russia would profit handsomely from the implementation of the Protocol, being as Russia is a net energy exporter, and could now profit from both the sale of energy, and of the use of energy as well! The effect that a reduction or stabilization of emissions in the industrialized world would almost certainly be dwarfed by the massive increases that will occur in the developing world, given that they are not subject to the reduction standards, would be profiting from the sale of emissions credits, and would also benefit from an additional competitive edge, given that industry in industrialized nations would still have to be profitable, even with the added burden of supporting their unrestrained competition. This would have the additional effect of creating even more industrialization in the undeveloped nations and increasing their levels of emissions even further! The environmental effects of the Kyoto Protocol in the present form are likely to be small initially, and even worse over the long term, as the emitters of greenhouse gases fight to keep their “exempt” status as they industrialize further.
Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. These reasons encompass the full spectrum of national interests, from the effects on the Canadian and international environments, to the effects of an enforced Kyoto Protocol on the Canadian economy, the implications for national unity and domestic politics and the loss of Canadian independence and sovereignty in the economic and strategic spheres.
A Roaring Economy Reduced to a Whimper
Canada as a nation has a widely diversified economy, but is still one that places an emphasis on natural resources and the export of them, primarily to the United States. This has created an extremely wealthy, skilled and educated Canadian population, and one that enjoys one of the highest standards of living on the planet. This natural resource based export economy has an environmental price though, and combined with the high living standards, this has become quite high, with Canadians driving larger and more vehicles, residing in larger homes, and consuming more goods, which require transport, sale and climate controlled space. As a result, Canadians are among the worst per capita polluters in the world. The goods that provide the source of Canadian wealth, hydrocarbons especially, contribute to this even further, both in the production of them, and the subsidies which encourage even greater use in certain Canadian provinces, as a matter of public policy. The rising price of all hydrocarbons, in addition to the rise in the price of many natural resources, from iron to diamonds has created an even more successful economy in Canada, but one that requires extensive use of petroleum to maintain it. For example; the Canadian mining sector has made great advances in recent years, but the entire mining industry relies on the use of diesel engines to operate, and thus the use of diesel fuel. The Canadian economy relies on polluting the air with impunity, and must be allowed to continue to do so to.
The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would reduce the profitability of nearly every Canadian industry, and effect savage cuts to the standard of living in Canada – for all citizens. If Canada was to be required to reduce emissions to 1990 levels, and this was to be enforced, the industrial emissions alone would have to drop by 24%. Given that this 24% increase in emissions has effected a 43% increase in Gross Domestic Product, (as of 2003) the question must be asked, if Canada’s rise in GDP and prosperity is strongly related to increased emissions of Kyoto Protocol gases, why on earth would any politician supposedly acting in the national interest attempt to implement it?
The effects of implementing Kyoto on the Canadian public would be severe as well. If every Canadian were to be assigned a “carbon credit” and forced to purchase more, they would quickly command a premium, and enforcement would be nearly impossible. A more likely scenario is that an added tax would be applied to all forms of energy, as a method of discouraging use and raising capital to pay for the right to emit. This money would then be sent to the national governments of undeveloped countries. In essence, this would be a global tax on Canadian citizens, with all of the proceeds leaving the country. Simultaneously, the cost of producing every good in Canada would rise substantially, as producers attempted to remain profitable in the face of enormous increases in their costs of production. Canadian citizens would watch their costs of living skyrocket, with no end in sight, as energy resources are getting scarcer, and demand for many types is only rising, and will continue to do so, especially given the surge in wealth and industrial activity that would occur in the developing world. The damage to the resource based Canadian economy would be catastrophic. Thousands of Canadians would be put out of work as their places of employment were bankrupted by a combination of crushing Kyoto taxes, energy costs and competition from an unrestrained developing world. One study places the cost of Kyoto at a conservative $2700 per household, per year, based on information available in 2002. This information is telling, but the costs of many items have risen significantly since 2002 (oil, for example, was worth approximately $25/US a barrel in 2002, it is now worth approximately $60! ) and given that there are approximately 14 million households in Canada, this cost (in 2002) dollars amounts to a total drain of gargantuan proportions, especially considering that there is no perceivable benefit! All of this money would be spent in other countries! Canadian industries could be further damaged as producers, unable to manufacture goods domestically at a profit, moved their facilities to Kyoto – exempt nations. This could make Canada an exporter of raw materials only, as value was added in nations whose economies operated without the loadstone of emissions taxes. In short, the Canadian public would be expected to suffer enormous increases in the cost of nearly every good and service, increased taxation, and job losses, to cut emissions by an amount that Kyoto exempt nations like Mexico, India and China could wipe out in a fiscal quarter of solid economic growth.
Paying Others to Pollute Here
Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would, in essence, mean that Canada would be participating in a massive wealth re-distribution scheme, in which Canada would be the number one spender, and in which other participants would be spending far less, if anything at all! The “benchmark” for Kyoto emissions was set at 1990. This was a standard of great advantage to both the Europeans and Russians, but punitive to Canada. In 1990, the former Soviet states were in a state of vicious industrial decline due to the collapse of the command economies of the former Soviet Union; as such, their emissions were startlingly low. East and West Germany had also recently reunited, and the horribly inefficient Eastern industrial base had largely become quiet. This, along with the collapse of the East German coal industry and the factories which it supplied, which had fallen victim to the ruthlessly efficient west in the new, free market economy. In Britain, the Iron Lady, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had worked and succeeded to break the powerful coal mining unions in her country, and as a result, inefficient and polluting mines were shut down, simultaneously inspiring industry to switch to cleaner alternatives and raising the price of that commodity for foreign trade. As a result of these timely reformations, European (both eastern and western) and Russian emissions were at a low ebb, and falling immediately after the benchmark was decided upon in 1990, due to new nations calculating new amounts, and reformations which were healthy and ultimately necessary taking place. Canada was in the opposite situation. Canadian emissions were low in 1990, and have been on a steady rise ever since, especially with the signing of the North American Free Trade agreement in 1994, and the rising costs of oil, of which Canada is a net exporter. The benchmark of 1990 is highly advantageous to most signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. With 1990 as the benchmark, all of the annex 1 signatory nations have significant emissions “room” in which to expand their emissions, with the exception of Canada and Japan. The Japanese only signed the Protocol after it was ascertained that there would be no enforcement mechanism put in place, because they have no intention of enforcing it themselves, realizing the terrible economic costs it would have! Canada has the most ambitious of the Kyoto targets, and the most to lose by fulfilling their “obligation”. Nations like Russia and the Ukraine are likely to become net emissions credits exporters, so for them, the Kyoto Protocol was a great idea; they only had to sign, continue planned economic recovery, and sell a good (emissions credits) with no cost to themselves, but which would provide a large source of foreign exchange – in short, the ideal commodity for export! Canada is the only nation to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol which will actually have to pay the significant costs associated with it. Canadians will be paying Russians and Ukrainians to pollute Canada under Kyoto.
Kyoto Across Canada – Well, Most Of It
One of the first moves the Liberal government made in 2003, when the plans for how the Kyoto Protocol could be met were being drawn up, was to exempt the southern Ontario automotive manufacturers from any emissions cuts or regulations under the agreement. This vital bastion of liberal electoral support is to be shielded from Kyoto cuts while the natural resource producing (but right leaning and conservative voting) west will bear the full brunt of this agreement. This means that Canadians will bear the full costs of Kyoto, but their place of residence will play a major part in just how much they pay, or whether they will have a job at all in the first place! While the issue of western alienation has always been a problem in Canada, this single action, even more than Pierre Trudeau’s wealth redistribution plan, the NEP (National Energy Plan), demonstrated to residents of western Canada that they were destined to forever be the “drawers of water and hewers of wood” for eastern Canada unless a sympathetic government could be voted in. The exemption of Liberal friendly ridings from Kyoto was perhaps the most telling action that proved that Canada has no plans to distribute the pain of Kyoto evenly, preferring to concentrate the negative effects in areas that are not traditional supporters of the Liberal party, and consolidate their hold on power even further.
The resource based economy of the west would also suffer even more under Kyoto, due to the nature of many of the economic activities in western Canada. The production of liquid oil from oil wells produces significant amounts of gases linked to climate change, which are either burned off or simply vented into the atmosphere as “fugitive gases”. While the practice of burning off natural gas was common a decade ago, the price of this resource has risen to the point where it is now worth it to capture it for sale. Even with this capture of a valuable by-product, however, the mechanics of the chief propellant of the western Canadian economy must be discussed to fully understand the implications of Kyoto as envisaged by the liberal party of Canada. The oil sands, centered in northern Alberta in the area to the north and west of the town of Fort McMurray, are the number one source of jobs, royalties and economic activity in western Canada. The process by which the bitumen (crude oil) is separated from the sand it lies in, involves the raw product being heated, then filtered, before being refined. This heating is largely done with natural gas, leading to the specter of a possible five levels of taxation on what are already the most expensive costs of oil production in the world. The first is the provincial royalties that must be paid on the resource as it is removed from the ground. The second is the cost of paying the Kyoto emissions cost for the fugitive gases that are produced, the third, the Kyoto tax levied on the natural gas used to separate the sand from the bitumen, the fourth on the fugitive gases produced by the refining process, and the fifth and final taxes being levied by the provincial and federal governments “at the pump” or source of purchase. Even in an industry as profitable as the oil industry currently is, the level of taxation mentioned here would strain any industry. Most disturbingly, all of the Kyoto “taxes” would be siphoned right out of the Canadian economy, providing plenty of local negative effects, with no tangible positives for Canadians. The combination of a possible five layered taxation scheme for western Canada and an exemption from Kyoto targets for the major economic activities in eastern Canada would be potent ammunition for disgruntled westerners, already disillusioned with the eastern – centric nature of the federal government. Kyoto is not only bad for the Canadian economy, it is also bad for Canadian unity, and has the potential to create a three way split of Canada, as opposed to the current French – English rift.
A Sovereign State – No Higher Authority
The final set of arguments against the Kyoto Protocol center on the ramifications of subordinating so many aspects of the lives of Canadian citizens to a collective of nations who are participants in a globally competitive marketplace, and the strategic and military consequences of handing over control of national economic machinery to organizations that do not act in the best interests of Canadians. The act of Canada subordinating itself to such a flawed treaty as the Kyoto Protocol with no national debate invalidates the purpose of Canadians voting or having representation in a federal system due to the fact that it is, in essence, creating a higher form of legitimate government. The difference is, that the Kyoto Protocol does not have elected representatives, it is merely a document. Canadians may well be justified in demanding their government take action to study or prevent climate change, but the impetus, plan, costs and benefits should be Canadian in source and destination. There is simply no excuse to pay Russians for the right to pollute Canada, that money could be better spent improving the efficiency of Canadian industry, or researching alternative sources of propulsion, power and profit. Canada probably should attempt to reduce emissions of Kyoto gases, but it should do so on Canadian terms.
The strategic implications of a post – Kyoto world are no less startling than the economic. China and India are two of the world’s fastest growing states. Both are nuclear powers, have massive human resources, and a strong desire to achieve the “prestige, power and influence” that Louis St. Laurent spoke of. These effects are directly tied to a national ability to raise two items; a large and ongoing source of foreign exchange, and a powerful military, capable of projecting power to areas where it can be used to further national objectives. China has made large strides in this area in recent years, modernizing the People’s Liberation Army, Navy and Air Force to the extent that it will soon be capable of challenging US supremacy in the Pacific. Canada adhering to the Kyoto Protocol would facilitate Chinese strategic goals in two ways. The first is that it would drive down the demand for sources of energy within Canada and depress the price of these commodities as the Canadian public consumed them less due to the high costs associated with them. The second is that since China (being a developing nation) is not subject to the Protocol, it would be able to purchase these resources at a reduced cost, further expanding the Chinese economy and the sources of foreign exchange. Canadians, would, in essence, be subsidizing the economic and military advancement of a state which does not share Canadian values or goals and simultaneously, is a rival of the staunch, long standing and faithful Canadian ally, the United States. The Kyoto Protocol is the opening volley of economic warfare against Canada and any other state foolhardy enough to sign it.
Canada should wholeheartedly reject the Kyoto Protocol, and publicly state the reasons why. The Kyoto Protocol is a global wealth and economic growth re-distribution scheme, disguised as an environmental protection treaty. Canadians under Kyoto would be poorer, and the benefactors of Canadian sacrifice would be in the undeveloped nations who took advantage of a deviously worded environmental treaty. Canada would be weak under Kyoto. Industrial production would lower and eventually outsourced, and the economy based almost solely on resource extraction and export, and as such, subject to the wild shifts of the commodity markets. The Canadian economy would enter an eternal “boom-bust” cycle as a result, guaranteeing the maintenance of a highly mobile, unskilled workforce constantly pursuing work in different parts of the nation. This stands in stark contrast to the Canadian economy of 2006, diversified, with a solid base in resource extraction and refinement, and an expanding knowledge based category. There are no benefits to the Kyoto Protocol which could not be achieved in Canada, with Canadian innovation, without the damage to the economy that the developing world demands.
emissions in an entire year (2002 stats, read Environment Canada's "Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2002", Annex 10, and compare it to the emissions of the five coal fired plants operated by Ontario Power Generation, this is freely availible, but you can get it from CleanAir). And there are more, especially here in Alberta!
