Time to get new targets? A short history of failed targets.

Elizabeth May

The Globe and Mail ran an editorial the other day denouncing the excellent report commissioned by the TD Bank, run under Mark Jaccard and Associates modelling and prepared by the Pembina Institute and David Suzuki Foundation.  The TD Bank report examined two sets of targets – the minimum ones demanded by science (20% below 1990 levels) and the Harper target (of roughly 3% below 1990 levels by 2020) and found that both could be accomplished while the Canadian economy continued to grow.  The cost would be lower rates of growth in some provinces and higher rates in others.  The report also found that on current government policy, the Harper government has no chance, zero, of meeting its own incredibly weak and irresponsible target. 

Please do go to the Pembina and DSF websites to read the whole report.  It is excellent.   

What prompted this blog was the Globe editorial’s suggestion that if Canada was having trouble reaching its targets, it is time for new targets.  Stroke of genius.  Wonder why we never thought of that before!  Wait.  We have! 

Deja  vu.  It gets us exactly nowhere. 

June 1988 

First international comprehensive scientific conference took place in the last week of June 1988, “Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security.”  Known as the “Toronto target” and adopted by cities around the world, starting with Toronto. 

As a first step, reduce to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. 

May 1990 

First official Government of Canada target, announced by Environment Minister Lucien Bouchard in U.N. meetings in Bergen Norway.  Subsequently approved by the Mulroney Cabinet (following Bouchard’s resignation from Cabinet) 

Freeze GHG emissions such that Canada’s emissions would be no higher in 2000 than in 1990.   

Fall 1993 

In the Liberal “Red Book,” Jean Chretien adopted the “Toronto target.” 

Reduce to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005. 

October 1997 

In preparation for the Kyoto negotiations, the provinces and federal government agreed to 3% below 1990 levels between 2008-2012. 

December 1997 

In Kyoto, Canada won concessions for carbon trading, credit for forests and other “flexibility mechanisms” that Chretien believed would provide an additional 3% to assist in the Clinton administration’s request that Canada help the US to bridge the gap to the EU demand for a 15% below 1990 levels target.  So Canada went to 6%, the USA to 7% and the EU to 8%. 

Kyoto target for Canada: 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.  The Kyoto Protocol was both signed and ratified by Canada, making it a legally binding international obligation. 

Target unchanged through remainder of Liberal years although plans to meet the target changed.  A voluntary plan (VCR) was replaced in 2002 with a nearly entirely voluntary plan, and then in April 2005 with the first serious climate plan.  The 11th Conference of the Parties opened in Montreal November 28, 2005.  On the same day, the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin was defeated.  By December 10, 2005, the 11th COP had concluded successfully with a commitment for post-Kyoto negotiations to wrap up by 2009 at COP15 (to take place in Copenhagen). 

When Harper was elected, all climate plans were cancelled and the Kyoto targets were repudiated.  

March 2006

Harper government target: 20% below 2006 levels by 2020.  In 2006, emissions were 24% higher than in 1990. (translated to 1990 levels, a 3% reduction below 1990 levels.)  All expert review of the existing plan demonstrates no mechanisms are in place to meet even this weak target. 

The day after the breath-takingly ill-informed editorial appeared, the UK High Commissioner to Canada, Anthony Carey, had a letter published in the Globe.  He rightly explained that these targets are not political inventions. They represent real imperatives driven by the science.  And he is absolutely right.  Humanity cannot negotiate with the atmosphere.   

Those countries that have met their targets share one key strategy:  they did not alter the course or adopt weaker targets.  Neither should we.