The Kyoto Games
Climate change is a contest unlike anything this country has ever seen
What, if anything, could rival the drama of the Olympics? How about Canada's Kyoto games – a bout of high-stakes politicking prior to Canada's accession to the Kyoto Protocol, the international treaty to stabilize the output of harmful greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier this month, when Alberta Premier Ralph Klein advised that Canada could "quit breathing" to meet its reductions, it not only underlined his government's commitment to industry – something Klein has never been shy about – but, more importantly, offered some insight on a fundamental trans-Canada conflict.
Climate change is a contest unlike anything this country has ever seen, as public and private leaders stake out radically divergent positions on what could become the biggest single issue of the 21st century. Not only is Canada's environmental security at stake, say a growing consensus of scientists, but after a century of fossil-powered growth, others contend that we still can't afford to build solutions.
Last month, Klein's government sounded the alarm, predicting a regional economic catastrophe: Kyoto, it estimated, could destroy up to 70,000 jobs and lay waste to some $50 billion in investment across the energy-rich reaches of the province. Canada's most affluent jurisdiction, Klein argued, could fall victim to an international effort to save the planet. More recent estimates from the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association place the cost at 450,000 jobs. Outgoing Ontario Premier Mike Harris recently weighed in, proclaiming that "any job loss is unacceptable." By the time Alberta Environment Minister Lorne Taylor threatened to sue the federal government over potential revenue earlier this week, it had already become abundantly clear that a national showdown over Kyoto would be impossible to avoid.
Depending on who's talking, the as yet undefined federal climate plan to reduce fossil fuel emissions, boost energy efficiency and diversify national power supplies is either an essential opportunity or an economic apocalypse. With provinces being the primary custodians of Canada's raw energy resources – a sector that, worldwide, contributed to two-thirds of all increases in greenhouse gas emissions since 1980 – climate change offers the kind of epic battle that accompanied the National Energy Program in the 1970s. Except this time, it's not just one province, but several, with scores of third party players, big and small, all claiming to represent the national interest. The playing field for this grand game is the vast expanse of Canada itself, from our melting Arctic to our smog-addled cities to our hydrocarbon reserves. Alberta's hardball bargaining is testament to the sheer size of Canada's oil and gas sector, which contributed $26 billion to Canada's Gross Domestic Product in 1998.
And as Ontario's provincial government aligns with Kyoto opponents, there's enough untapped rancour brewing to make national unity look like a family quarrel. It was only a few years ago that Klein quipped that climate change could cost Alberta "trillions" of dollars, while other more recent estimates chart long-term economic savings. Coming from a government that is currently advocating coal power as a solution to growing electricity demand, it's hard to believe that Klein factored in the considerable economic benefits expected to accrue from a more efficient, cleaner and sustainable energy sector.
Alberta has the distinction of a government that is clearly less enthusiastic about the Kyoto Protocol than several of Canada's top oil and gas executives, most notably Suncor Inc. and, to a lesser degree, Shell. (Several of Alberta's cabinet ministers have even actively dabbled in oil and gas ventures – including MLA Gary Mar during his tenure as environment minister.) Other provinces, like Ontario, have almost as much vested interest in the energy status quo: the former Ontario Hydro, for example, constitutes Canada's single largest source of greenhouse emissions, much of it coal-fired pollution that has been climbing steadily since 1997.
Klein may not realize it yet, but Canada's largest provincial source of greenhouse gas emissions nevertheless harbours a rich collection of post-Kyoto projects. From Calgary's wind-powered public transit to Edmonton's bio-gas composting generation program, Klein's backyard is rife with proven climate-friendly solutions. Even the massive oilsands projects of northern Alberta – one of the largest and dirtiest industrial developments on the continent – has deployed world-class energy efficiency technologies that reduce the otherwise massive impact of mining crude oil from Canada's boreal forest.
Across Canada, anti-Kyoto supporters have failed to account for long-term realities: for all the talk of economic failure, few have actually projected beyond 2010. Much of the doom is short-term, fixed to tightly wound private investment cycles and electoral terms. The real challenge of Kyoto is, perhaps, to move Canada beyond its frustrating habit of thinking small – the habit of a resource nation accustomed to royalty windfalls and quick profits.
Factored over the long term, decisive action on climate change makes compelling sense. Canada could stand to save $2.2 billion annually in human health and environmental damages by adopting measures to reduce fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, according to a 2000 study done for the David Suzuki Foundation. Over decades, improved air quality alone would reduce agricultural crop damage (a multi-million-dollar problem in southern Ontario), decrease hospital admissions, and increase economic productivity. The upside to being a nation of energy hogs is that we could make many improvements quickly – federal funding on public transit could be reinstated, for example.
Despite compelling evidence that Kyoto offers as much opportunity as challenge, naysayers abound. For example, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce contends that making immediate progress on greenhouse gas reductions is "not realistic," favouring instead what could be lengthy national consultation projects. And, in the case of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, voluntary standards are touted, a direct import of the Bush greenhouse plan. Yet the lesson of the oilsands, now estimated to be worth some $51 billion in projects, is that Canadian energy policy is virtually incoherent, as new fossil megaprojects move us away from a viable long-term action plan on climate change. That is, whenever the federal government comes up with one.
Make no mistake, the issues that face Canada are substantial. The long-term shift to a sustainable economy will require more than a few windmills, as Canada has relied on combustion – wood, coal, oil, natural gas – since its early colonial days. We have known little else.
The fact that two-thirds of all Canadians live in places subject to unhealthy levels of air pollution is reason enough to act, regardless of Kyoto. That Klein suggested that Canadians "quit breathing" to solve our environmental woes is yet another gaffe that shows how little some elites understand this fundamental and complex issue. Kyoto isn't so much a contest over resources – or even the science of climate change – but of values. Corporations and governments have had no qualms about cutting jobs in recent years, but bridle at an economic challenge that doesn't promise them a short-term payoff. How much do we value our long-term security? And when our conventional oil and gas resources run out sometime this century, where will our leaders be?
Gordon Laird is the author of Power: Journeys Across an Energy Nation. His Web site is www.gordonlaird.com |
