Canada: strategy or sabotage?

Quote of the Day: “Canada is becoming a bargain discount version of Australia of old.”
Yvo de Boer, UN Climate Chief

Canada is saying no China, no climate deal: Unless all major emitters accept binding targets, Canada will not. Considering China is the largest emitter in the world (or soon to be, depending on whose stats you use) and we live in a globalized economy, this seems prudent from both an environmental and economic perspective. On the other hand, the environmental group pleas do not sound that sensible from an environmental or economic perspective. Their proposal is for rich countries to accept binding targets, while industrializing greenhouse gas powerhouses like China get what amounts to a free pass and scoop up the bulk of new business investment sensitive to carbon pricing along their greenhouse gas belching way.

Today, I finally figured why I was so conflicted, finding myself agreeing with the perennial Fossil of the Day, rather than the defenders of Mother Nature. Both parties are right in a way. Canada is right that if you don’t involve China, you don’t make much of a dent in emissions and would economically hurt countries that try to make a dent. The environmentalists are right that asking fast-growing countries with hundreds of millions of people in poverty to accept the economic straightjacket of binding targets is like banning hockey in Canada—there is absolutely no chance. So by making this demand contingent on any deal, Canada is either engaging in some grandmaster chess negotiating or spectacular sabotage of a future climate agreement. For a government that prides itself on realism, I can’t understand why, if they are sincere about getting a valid climate deal that keeps temperatures from increasing by more than 2 degrees Celsius as Baird said is necessary a few days ago in the House of Commons, they don’t square their stated economic and environmental objectives with a mechanism that is not a non-starter with China. It’s not because one doesn’t exist.

China made that clear this week, saying that it would be willing to accept intensity targets if the developed world shows leadership. This titanic shift in China’s negotiating stance opens the door to make a breakthrough in Bali that satisfies Canada’s stated environmental and economic principles, by shifting the focus away from many national carbon caps to one global greenhouse gas target (for one atmosphere) joined at the hip with an intensity mechanism, such as a carbon tax. The door is wide-open for this, but the question is does Canada want to blaze a breakthrough in Bali, or will it continue to pop poison pills? Maybe Mother Nature was sent signal to shake things up with the mild earth quake that brought tremors through Bali this evening.

Newsflash: On December 13th Minister Baird and Stephane Dion are slated to be on the same panel together in Bali on the topic of Canadian action on climate change federally and provincially. One of the other speakers on the panel told me that she plans on holding her remarks to 1.5 minutes in order to allow maximum time for the two elected officials to hash it out.

Adventures in Bali-Land:

You can tell a lot about the five main groups of people at the Bali meetings by checking out their quarters.

The press tent provides abundant access of the lifeblood of journalists: coffee and wireless internet.

The international organizations have staid unassuming booths.

The wealthy carbon traders have fancy booths with booth bunnies in many cases, and put on great spreads of food which lead to massive migration (and free bike scarcity) of delegates during lunch time to the Grand Hyatt where their events take place.

The civil society groups have outdoor canopies with no air conditioning and no tasty free food, so they lack traffic.

Most of the national delegations have tents too. Almost none of them lock the doors to the tents. The Russians, hardened by the Al Capone capitalism of their homeland, do lock up the tent. Most of the tents are pretty makeshift like a student dorm room, but not the French tent. Their tent has two nice plants and a cappuccino machine and even though it is temporary, their tent has been made to have a classy feel, as only the French know how.


Who’s hot?
• Canadian Boreal: Canada’s boreal forest is a significant part of the global climate change solution, according to Chris Henschel of Canadian Parks and Wilderness who will be making a presentation this Saturday on the topic. The Canadian Boreal stores an estimated 186 billion tones of carbon in forest and peat ecosystems, equivalent to 27 years worth of the world’s carbon emission from burning fossil fuels. To help preserve this massive carbon sink, Henchel is encouraging Canada and the other countries that are spearheading a land use, land-use change and forestry sector review to do three key things:

1. Require mandatory reporting of all emissions from all land types (both forests and managed forests, peat lands, and agriculture). This is not the case right now. For instance Canada’s approximated 200 million ha of managed forests are excluded from present accounting under the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Rules and mechanisms for protecting natural carbon storehouses (forests, peat lands, permafrost soils, agrilands).
3. Introduce segmented liability so that countries are responsible for emissions over which they have control over, and are not responsible for phenomena over which they do not have control, such as pine beetle infestation or forest fires.

• World’s Top Climate Scientists from the IPCC: For issuing the Bali Climate Declaration by Scientists calling on governments to reduce emissions “by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.”

• Minister Baird: For agreeing to be on the same panel with Stephane Dion.

Who’s not?
• Canada: German Watch ranked Canada as the fourth worst country out of 56 on an assessment of climate mitigation policies. Perhaps aware of how bad things are going in Canada emissions-wise, Canada tried to take some of the gusto out of the compliance committee hardliners (mostly from African nations) that want countries that fail to meet their Kyoto obligations to be punished. Canada’s response: to propose that the countries who appoint representatives to look at this matter should be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. .

• IPCC Chairman, RK Pachauri: I bumped in IPCC Chair, RK Pachauri, and asked him what he thought of the UN Human Development Report’s lead author calling for a shift from a cap-and-trade to carbon tax. His curt reply: “I’d rather not talk about it,” before eschewing a free bike to jump in a taxi to motor off.

• Me: At the President’s Party tonight by the pool area with Balinese dancers, the beerless Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, caught me double fisting a couple of beers and, possibly fresh from going over equity principles in one of the negotiating groups, asked me “why do you have two beers?”