Yesterday I sat in on the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) discussion on mitigation potential and emissions reduction ranges for Annex I countries. Unlike the targets in the first commitment period which were based on politics, these targets must be based on the science if we hope to avoid catastrophic climate change. And the science is clear. Developed countries must cut their emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and assist developing countries to engage in mitigation actions as well. Given Canada’s lack of leadership, I wondered what our chief negotiator, Michael Martin, would possibly present. Mr. Martin began his brief presentation with a discussion of the economic costs of greenhouse gas mitigation and showed no regard for the costs of inaction – a point brought up by South Africa in the question and answer period which followed. The representative for South Africa said, “Most Annex I Parties have emphasized mitigation potential based on cost of mitigation. But when you deal with the cost of action, you need to calculate the cost of inaction, because it is the balance of these two costs which is the real cost.”

Martin then went on to discuss the report by the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy, an arms-length agency, made up of industry and academic players as well as environmentalists, which showed that putting a price on carbon was necessary if Canada wanted to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, Mr. Martin failed to state that the Harper government roundly rejected this report. And when Liberal Leader Stephane Dion ran his election on the Green Shift which included a carbon tax, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that Dion’s Green Shift would “screw everybody across the country” and would cripple the economy. So I was puzzled listening to Mr. Martin speak as if the Harper Administration actually intended to put a price on carbon.

Finally, Mr. Martin highlighted five key factors that drive emissions to illustrate Canada’s “national circumstances” and the difficulty Canada faces in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Canada is a cold country and our population is widely distributed,” he said. These are essentially excuses Canada is making for its failure to reduce emissions. Canada is not fooling the international community. It is disheartening to listen to the continued pleas for action from delegates of particularly vulnerable countries, such as Tuvalu, and then to listen to Canada’s relentless excuses and justifications for delay. Seems to me like this behaviour is worthy of a Fossil of the Day Award.