The “High Level” session started yesterday. This means that the big
guns arrived, including UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and South
African President Jacob Zuma. Our Minister of the Environment, Peter
Kent got here yesterday although he has mostly been giving press
conferences off-site.
Geoffrey York from the Globe wrote a good piece on yesterday’s announcement. Click here.
I
appreciate that the Minister announced funds for international
adaptation, but disagree with his negotiating: “Canada has made clear
this year that Canada will not make a commitment to a second Kyoto
period [...] We believe that, ultimately, a new agreement that includes
all of the world's major emitters in both the developing and the
developed world is the only way to materially reduce annual megatonnage
to the point that we can work to prevent the global warming hitting or
exceeding 2%"
The 2% comment was just a mistake, I think he meant to say 2 °C. So
let me break this down: we don’t want the world to warm beyond 2 °C;
Canada won’t make a commitment; we need other countries to make a
commitment.
Which other countries would Canada like to see going first? Well,
China and India. Over the weekend China signaled that it was willing to
make commitments. Canada and the US responded with show me the details and we’re still not changing our mind...
And India? Well no commitment yet. It is worth noting that the it
takes 10 people from India to make the emissions from 1 Canadian. And
our emissions are over 3 x as high as the average Chinese person.
The path forward is stalled. The least developed countries want an
agreement right now. They are very vulnerable to climate change. The EU
wants to agree in principle now and work out the details over the next 4
to 5 years. The US position is to wait for 10 years and then make a
plan. Hmmm, wait a decade? The science says that if we don’t turn the
energy economy (and cap global emissions) in the next 5 years, we will
exceed 2 °C and head into increasingly dangerous climate change.
And Canada? I think Canada actually wants no agreement. And with a
consensus based process, it’s easy to achieve. And when we doan't reach
an agreement, the default is, business as usual. Canada is working very
hard though to make it sound (at least back home in the media) that we
do care and are trying, yet it’s just not working out. Hmmm, what do you
think?
Are you Coptomistic? Or is this a COP-out?
Yours, a north by northwest scientist / politician reporting from the south by southeast
John Streicker