Durban Climate Talks: Environment Minister Peter Kent Says Canada Hopeful Of Reaching New Treaty By 2015

Durban Peter Kent Climate Talks

First Posted: 12/11/11 07:38 AM ET Updated: 12/14/11 01:43 PM ET

DURBAN, South Africa - Canada's environment minister has praised the agreement on climate talks reached in South Africa on Sunday, and said he was cautiously optimistic a new treaty can be concluded by 2015.

"The Durban Platform is a fair and balanced framework for responsible and effective action," Peter Kent said.

Earlier in the day, the 194-party conference in Durban agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make.

It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

"Although these negotiations will be difficult, we are cautiously optimistic that we will reach a new agreement by 2015." Kent said.

The minister also reiterated his opposition to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, saying the deal was not good for Canada, and the previous government should not have ratified it.

"We want to avoid another Kyoto-like pact at all costs."

Currently, only industrial countries have legally binding emissions targets under the Kyoto Protocol.

Those commitments expire next year, but they will be extended for at least another five years under the accord adopted Sunday — a key demand by developing countries seeking to preserve the only existing treaty regulating carbon emissions.

Kent, who came to Durban saying Kyoto represents the past, declared Sunday that Canada would not undertake a second Kyoto commitment period.

"Nor will we devote scarce dollars to capitalize the new Green Climate Fund _ part of the Durban agreement _ until all major emitters accept legally binding reduction targets and transparent accounting of greenhouse gas inventory."

But he promised to work with Canada's international partners on "fair, effective and comprehensive ways" to address climate change.

In Vancouver, the Pembina Institute's climate change program welcomed the Durban agreement.

"The decision to launch talks on a new global climate agreement with legal force represents a potentially significant step forward," said Matt Horne, director of the program.

"But a new deal will only be as effective as the level of ambition that countries are willing to bring to the table," he warned.

He said Canada was marginalized at Durban because of the country's failure to present constructive solutions or meaningful action.

"Our country has regrettably passed up countless opportunities to demonstrate a willingness to do our fair share."

He said restoring Canada's credibility will take hard work.

"It will require much stronger actions from federal, provincial, and municipal governments if clean energy is going to become the status quo."

Meanwhile, the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition has rejected the accord. The group also challenged claims that developed countries are somehow responsible for global warming.

"Developed nations are not guilty of causing the climate change that developing nations claim they are suffering," said Tom Harris, executive director of the group.

At the Durban conference, India's environment minister had argued that developing countries have less responsibility than industrial nations for global warming.

"Climate changes all the time, both warming and cooling, due to natural causes and there is nothing that we can do to stop it," Harris said.

"However, to the degree possible, and considering our economic circumstances, developed nations still have a moral obligation to devote a proportion of their foreign aid to helping the world's most vulnerable people adapt to natural climate events."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

DURBAN, South Africa - Canada's environment minister has praised the agreement on climate talks reached in South Africa on Sunday, and said he was cautiously optimistic a new treaty can be concluded b...
DURBAN, South Africa - Canada's environment minister has praised the agreement on climate talks reached in South Africa on Sunday, and said he was cautiously optimistic a new treaty can be concluded b...
Filed by Lauren Strapagiel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 68
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Victor Saymong
Canuck up Toronto way
08:31 AM on 12/12/2011
Well, if Peter Happygolucky says it's cool it must be a disaster.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
09:58 PM on 12/11/2011
Just like Fox News, huh?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
King Stevie Harper
10:47 PM on 12/11/2011
Well that's great Peter Kant can't even come up with convincing B.S, just Faux news slogans, is he working for Murdoch now.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
01:09 PM on 12/12/2011
Peter Kant isn't exactly Immanuel Kant, is he?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
05:30 PM on 12/11/2011
"Not all Canadians are represente­­d by this "fringe" Canadian government­­. As a matter of fact, only 39% of Canadians are."

This reasoning assumes all the Canadian majorities since WWII were "fringe" governments, as well as most current European ones.

Dear World. This is why the Liberal party of Canada can't get more than 34 seats in a country more liberal than ABBA.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony frm Banff
Search for truth,not spin
08:44 PM on 12/11/2011
In time in time.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:11 PM on 12/11/2011
Depends on if they keep the same talking points.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
haddanuff
Progressives think 'We' while cons think "Me"
01:10 AM on 12/12/2011
"This reasoning assumes all the Canadian majorities since WWII were "fringe" government­s, as well as most current European ones."

Nope...just this one.
This bunch of idealogues = fringe.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
08:15 AM on 12/12/2011
Wrong again. The original post is refering to the vote turn out.

Bunch of idealogues? Whatever. That's probably a word you just learned yesterday.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
haddanuff
Progressives think 'We' while cons think "Me"
04:45 PM on 12/11/2011
Dear World.

Not all Canadians are represented by this "fringe" Canadian government. As a matter of fact, only 39% of Canadians are.

The majority of Canadians understand how climate change will decimate our planet, left unchecked, and desperately wish to help.
Much like the U.S. from 2000 to 2008, Canadians have somehow given control of our country to a small group of idealogues, who are intent on ramming through their agenda in order to appease their special interest friends, corporations and religious ilk.
As a Canadian, I am both ashamed and disgusted with the insolence of the "Harper Government" and those who support it.
I hope you will help us to overcome the neo-conservative movement that has festered in Canada and once again, restore a sense of commitment and honesty to the world.
04:59 PM on 12/11/2011
Applause, applause...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
05:19 PM on 12/11/2011
"Not all Canadians are represente­d by this "fringe" Canadian government­. As a matter of fact, only 39% of Canadians are."

According to your reasoning every majority government in Canada since WWII AND practically every currently sitting Eurpean government are alllllll "fringe" governments.

Non-stop propaganda. People this is why the Liberal Party of Canada can't get more than 34 seats in a country more liberal than ABBA.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
unclelew
02:46 PM on 12/12/2011
The Con Party-— Bumper sticker solutions R us.
04:27 PM on 12/11/2011
Interesting that the quote on here is from Tom Harris, the executive director of an climate skeptics organization and a lobbyist for electricity and gas companies. Not sure he's the best reference for this- and as well, what does his group even have to do with this accord? They weren't involved in any way, according to this article. Shouldn't the reporter have gotten a quote from climate scientists that were actually at Durban?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tnanimation
04:04 PM on 12/11/2011
Nice to see the trolls out in force today.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
03:37 PM on 12/11/2011
Actually this is funny since the concensous everyone walked away from is pretty much what Mr.Kent has been saying all this time. The idea he's isolated us is pretty funny considering many have now just come on side by insisting more than just show from developing countries bart particalrily China.

You can rant "conservative" and "neocon" till you're blue in the ears but this story is tryin to spin a political win (I didn't say ethical or moral or anything else, I said political).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
09:17 PM on 12/11/2011
Maybe you should stop drinking before you post...then maybe you could spell!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:22 PM on 12/11/2011
Hey that's great. All that time and effort on your part to say nothing.

Bottom line is after all the, "Canada is responsible for 200 years of industrial revolution and our imminent demise", narriative everyone basically saw it like Kent and the US; more commitment from China.

I think I'd have to be a lot drunker than you to think a 2000 year old country with the largest work force in the world and all the same tech the West has....a nation who is planning to send men to the moon in 2025, is somehow a "developing nation".

Hey world: if we start polluting 25% of the world GHGs and start a space program to the moon will you give us developing nation status too?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
03:49 PM on 12/12/2011
"Oh and another way of looking at the per capita argument is that if Canadians are each polluting 36 times more than each Chines person is, that means, all other things being equal, that the economic impact on Canadians for a given 1% (world wide) decrease would be 36 times a severe. "

Put even another way, a Chinese person is depending on Chinese pollution-causing industry 36 times -less- than a Canadian is, even though Canada pollutes uner 1% and China, 25%. This would indicate that overall impact of change would be easier for China to accomplish.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dread
02:32 PM on 12/11/2011
All of the greenies chucking sh!! at Harper & Canada for dumping Kyoto should stop for a minute and actually read up on Kyoto.
It was sham - with the carbon credits and other double talk it actually did nothing. Read it and then thank Canada for having the ba!!s to dump this farce and maybe get something that will work in place.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
02:48 PM on 12/11/2011
Now that's just crazy talk!
Imagine reading a treaty before deciding whether to support it!

Funny none of the greens can ever explain HOW it would reduce pollution and C02 emissions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
09:17 PM on 12/11/2011
The "greens" studied Kyoto before it was proposed...of course conservatives didn't.
02:07 PM on 12/11/2011
"avoiding another Kyoto..." What a load of media savvy buloney from a Harperite and former Sun News journalist and mouthpiece. Sure they want to avoid making any commitments and showing some backbone of leadership in cutting pollution and emissions. Per capita Canada is a top notch polluter. It is so juvenile to say we don't amount to much on the big picture so who cares. It's called leadership with example. Kent is just another destroyer of Canada's world reputation for leadership and initiative. Boo.
04:14 PM on 12/11/2011
'per capita' is a nonsense measurement, since our 'capita' is so tiny(35 mil) that total emissions don't amount to a hill of beans. much ado about nuttin' !!!!
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
unclelew
02:50 PM on 12/12/2011
Another Conservative saying: We take no responsibility for anything.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
05:11 PM on 12/12/2011
I Said:
"No it isn't. It's reality. No one is saying who cares, but a 1% (world wide) drop in GHG's for Canada represents a 50% drop in our total, while a 1% (world wide) drop is 1/25th of that total. Which is 1/25th as devestatin­g economical­ly."

I meant:
"No it isn't. It's reality. No one is saying who cares, but a 1% (world wide) drop in GHG's for Canada represents a 50% drop in our total, while a 1% (world wide) drop is 1/25th of China's total. Which is 1/25th as devestatin­g economical­ly for them."
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:35 PM on 12/11/2011
WOW!
Celebration time!
They agreed to make a new agreement sometime in the future?

YAYAYAYYAYAYAYAYAYAYAAYA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
12:55 PM on 12/11/2011
Setting science aside for the moment, I am enjoying P. Kent's look of disdain, and fury. What he gained at the summit is isolation. Even the US has parted ways with his proposal and its attempt to dismantle an accord that Canada never took seriously in the first place. This is where the Tar Sands come into play, with its lack of a serious ecological impact study, from mining to transport including shipping. The Durban talks has dealt Kent a decisive and politically damaging blow.

Kent was arguing a point that the Conservatives wanted him to win, but he failed. What they assumed was, that the US would follow suit, and support a non participatory stance along with China and Russia. Of course he also assumed that climate change could still be set aside for a few more years until things got really serious, or the oil industry was more stable and accepted globally. China and the US both pivoted from their previous stance, and left Canada holding the bag, one that Kent is woe to drag back home.

The Tar Sands are soon going to be ripped open on a huge scale, and shipped to the US and China, Canada's oil allies. Now the rest of Canada will have to clean up as well, and the Conservatives will have to sign on the Kyoto extension, and figure out how they are going to pay for it, with a lot less complaining.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
01:36 PM on 12/11/2011
How are they going to pay for it?
Any idea?
Which social program will we have to cut to pay our Kyoto bill and to fund the UN slush fund?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
02:21 PM on 12/11/2011
I was thinking the same. But the F35's and our new Canadian Navy might have to be put on hold also. This event has put Harper in a difficult position, but I sure hope social programs don't bear all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony frm Banff
Search for truth,not spin
03:33 PM on 12/11/2011
Why is it that right wingers always have to cut social programs? Why not put big taxes on the big polluters like the tar sands,after all they are the ones polluting the water and air. For that matter lets up the GST and use that revenue for more R and D.
To cut social programs would be the wrong and unsensible way to go because, the poor depend greatly on social programs, and these people do the least amount of polluting in general.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:35 PM on 12/11/2011
I'm sure the ice caps will stop melting until we reach a consensus.
11:16 AM on 12/11/2011
It is no use in shutting the barn door when the horses have gone. Call it Kyoto, Durban or Mom's Apple Pie if the big polluters of the world don't buy in then what's the use. Maybe we could convince the Americans, but India and especially China don't care about anyone else but themselves.
02:11 PM on 12/11/2011
And don't forget to include Canada in that group.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nete peedham
09:13 PM on 12/11/2011
Conservative Canada, yes. The rest of us, NOT!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
northof49th
10:56 AM on 12/11/2011
2015 then 2020 then 2025 then 2030 then oops too late, Lets start all over and lets have women run the world, men are #!$%^ up's
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony frm Banff
Search for truth,not spin
03:22 PM on 12/11/2011
Is that a sexist remark? LOL Lets at least have woman come in and clean the mess up,rofl.
All fun aside north, but I think you do have a point when we have the good ol boys running things, its all about profits and nothing else. I think we should have more women CEOs in the big corporations because, at least I think they would feel more sensitive to issues like global warming and being good corporate neighbours, instead of the ruthlessness of seek and destroy and not worrying about the con-sequences except a bottom line
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Norma Ward
10:14 AM on 12/11/2011
Here is an article that outlines how the world's Arctic ice distribution and thickness has changed over the past 3 decades:

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-changing-arctic-is-change-permanent.html

It will be interesting to see what the arctic ice distribution looks like in four years - my suspicion is that the situation is going to be far worse, even if changes are made now.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:04 AM on 12/11/2011
30 years is a completely insignificant time period.
04:10 PM on 12/11/2011
Actually, since we can measure how much ice thickens and thins year by year- much like measuring tree rings- we can tell if changes are significant on a yearly basis.