Maybe it's just me but it looks like 2012 Kyoto targets could become the Free Trade of our generation. One one side you will have a government defending sound economic policy and on the other you have demogoguery with the government winning the argument and a majority government. Obviously the conditions are not exactly the same now especially with third-party advertising bans now in place but when implementing the targets by 2012 means a 30% reduction in the economy or $20-$30 Billion in foreign credits you would think the government should win the case.
..."The economic cost would be 30% of the Canadian economy, if we were actually going to reduce emissions," said Jayson Myers, senior economist with the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters.
"To implement the protocol we need to reduce fossil fuel energy by about 30% in order to get a 30% reduction in emissions and you need to do that in a four -to-five-year period," he said. "It is impossible to do.
"To reduce emissions in Canada by 30% you could eliminate the entire manufacturing sector, you could take all of the cars off the road, and together that would still not close the gap. So anyone who says we can ever meet Kyoto has absolutely no idea what the immensity of this problem actually is."
Here is another area where the conditions are not quite the same.
...Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Autoworkers Workers, does not expect any government to try to implement Kyoto according to current deadlines.
"It would be devastating for the whole community, anybody that signed on," he said. "It's not even a remote possibility. No prime minister in any one of the parties in the House of Commons is going to bring in any kind of regulation that says we have to do that. It would be suicidal for our economy.
"If somebody were to come out tomorrow and say you have to reach the objective that was laid out initially immediately you'd almost have to shut down every major industry in the country from oil and gas to the airlines to the auto industry and that just doesn't make sense."
Comments (14)
The case against Free Trade, while in my opinion wrong, was far more sensible than the case that we can meet our Kyoto emission targets. One can make a not-stupid case for paying billions for credits, just to remain compliant with the treaty, but I doubt the public would go for it.
Posted by MarkCh | February 9, 2007 9:22 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 09:22
Does this mean Buzz will support the CPC, the only party talking sense on Kyoto? And will that be the kiss of death for the CPC like it was for the Liberals?
I say call an election today on Kyoto and let the chips fall where they may. Climate change hysteria has taken hold and can’t be entirely uprooted, but the file must be managed by sane people - i.e., not climate porn enthusiasts like Dion. In an election giving a choice between the radical and the cautious (and that’s how it would be framed by Harper, make no mistake), guess which one Canadians are likely to choose? Let’s go.
Posted by Alan | February 9, 2007 9:24 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 09:24
One one side you will have a government defending sound economic policy
Spin, spin like a top! ;P
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2007 9:32 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 09:32
Also, I never, ever thought I would see you use a quote from Buzz Hargrove. Don’t you feel dirty?
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2007 9:33 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 09:33
To Markch:
How does paying billions to follow through on an unreasonable deal make sense when the terms of the treaty expressly provide for quitting, which would take the cost of a stamp?
Posted by MTH | February 9, 2007 9:57 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 09:57
MTH: I didn’t say it was a good policy. What I meant was that it was sane. You could make the argument that Kyoto is important to future progress, Canada should show leadership, etc., etc. It is bad policy, but at least possible. That is quite different from pretending that we can meet the emissions targets without a GDP cut of the order of the Great Depression.
Also, I didn’t know that the treaty had a clause for pulling out.
Posted by MarkCh | February 9, 2007 10:08 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 10:08
It’s true, we can withdraw with no consequence: Article 27 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
Posted by MarkCh | February 9, 2007 10:17 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 10:17
It’s true, we can withdraw with no consequence:
It all depends on what you mean by consequence. What if Europe slaps a carbon tax on our exports, for example?
http://www.alligator.org/pt2/070205eddy1.php
Posted by Greg | February 9, 2007 10:30 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 10:30
What I meant was “no consequence different from whatever would have happened had we never signed the treaty in the first place”
Posted by MarkCh | February 9, 2007 10:44 AM
Posted on February 9, 2007 10:44
Note: Mulroney won a majority in 1988 only because of Quebec, where the PCs won 63 seats. Where is Kyoto most popular right now? Oh, right, Quebec.
So… no majority - albeit not for the Tories or the Liberals.
Posted by Josh Gould | February 9, 2007 12:49 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 12:49
Even if we could withdraw from Kyoto with no apparent monetary penalty, the damage to our reputation would be long lasting. I’m conservative, and can realise the fact remains that we signed the thing, and it is going to cost us, no matter what happens. It makes more sense to start taking action instead of all the useless “he said, she said” debates that happen in government now. The only thing that happens in parliament is the members race to see who can make the other look the worst on TV…….it’s depressing.
What needs to happen is for parties to leave the partisanship at the door and create a policy……period.
Posted by DazzlinDino | February 9, 2007 1:26 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 13:26
Isn’t Buzz Hargrove making sense one of the signs of the appocolypse?
Posted by chris | February 9, 2007 2:53 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 14:53
Sinister Greg,
Chirac can’t levy a carbon tax on imports that 1. contravenes the WTO rules and 2. targets Canada/US, but not Gulf states/China/India. Kyoto could very well result in a intercontinental trade war, but these things work both ways. The real economic competitors to NA are in Asia, not Europe. Kyoto is Europes’ baby. Japan doesn’t even follow Kyoto and that’s where it was signed.
Posted by PlaidShirt | February 9, 2007 5:17 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 17:17
Staples,
I agree. Harper is trying to run away from a Kyoto fight. I think he should stand and fight. He should go to the people and ask for a mandate for a made-in-Canada environmental plan. Otherwise, the Senate is going to block everything environment related.
Free Trade was small potatoes compared to the ramifications of Kyoto.
Posted by PlaidShirt | February 9, 2007 5:21 PM
Posted on February 9, 2007 17:21