When opportunity knocks, it's seldom standing alone on the doorstep. There's almost always a challenge -- or two -- right there beside it.
And so it is with the United Nations' Rio+20 Conference on Sustainable Development.
Any time there is an international conversation devoted to such complex issues as the balance between environmental and economic agendas, a tremendous opportunity exists. There is opportunity to align targets, to forge new alliances and agreements in principle. There is opportunity to share best practices on a range of urgent and rapidly evolving files.
And then there are the challenges.
It's easy to get caught up in the passionate rhetoric of self-righteousness and lose sight of the need for practical measures and achievable gains -- especially when there are so many divergent voices and agendas in the mix. But rigor and focus are all the more important -- and challenging -- at a time of profound economic uncertainty and constraint.
As it was 20 years ago at the time of the first Earth Summit in Rio, the world is struggling through a tough recession. That current economic reality makes it crucial to do more with less. And therein lies the opportunity -- and the challenge -- of Rio+20.
Going forward, there is ample scope to improve upon the efficiency of our collective efforts toward sustainable development, to better integrate those measures within the existing United Nations framework, to reduce duplication and to streamline existing mechanisms, structures and programs.
By being strategic and resourceful and setting clear parameters from the outset, we can accomplish a great deal without spending significant amounts of money on new initiatives. We must apply the discipline of sustainability to our approach as well as to our intended outcome.
To that end, Canada is committed to pursuing concrete results at Rio+20 that respect and reflect the unique circumstances of each country at the table -- as well as the priorities of their citizens.
That means taking into account a nation's geography, population, economy and climate. It's the best way to foster global aspirational targets that allow participants to determine their own optimal balance of economic growth, social and environmental protection.
It's also consistent with Canada's overall approach to pursuing a greener economy: to work hard -- and in consultation with stakeholders -- to develop a set of effective policy tools that can be pursued in an orderly way and integrated into a broad range of government actions.
Certainly Canada has successfully pursued sustainable development at home. Among many other accomplishments, we have more stringent regulation of chemicals, a clearly defined target and plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, an expanded Parks system, action plans to ensure cleaner air and water, and a plan for responsible development of our natural resources.
The results of that strategy are quantifiable.
The latest emissions report for Canada indicates that, despite continued economic growth, greenhouse gases have decreased by 6.5 per cent from 2005 levels. Our per capita emissions in 2010 were at their lowest levels since tracking began in 1990.
We are on track to establish final regulations that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the coal-fired electricity sector in the coming weeks.
We have also invested more than $10 billion in clean energy since 2006.
Our opportunity at Rio+20 is to find new approaches and partners to help us sustain that momentum, to build further on a sturdy foundation of principle and action. It is also our challenge.
Follow Peter Kent on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ec_minister
How do we fare against other countries? I understand that successive governments have failed to keep pace with other countries,but Canada is behind the US in per capita emissions. This during the W era when the liberals were in power.
The one thing I can say that is environmentally friendly with the cons is that they pretty much recycled old corrupt liberal policies. Now if only the news reader would actually listen to himself read out loud, he may actually be shocked at the content of the message.
Oil extraction is sustainable?
Does it cover all major emitters, or just the wealthy countries that already have cleaner industry than China?
If it doesn't bind China to reduce CO2 emissions, what mechanism is in place to stop more production from moving from our clean factories to the already higher emitting factories in China?
Or does that question make you feel uncomfortable for some reason?
After 20 years of preaching to us, there must be some explanation out there somewhere that explains how these treaties would reduce CO2 in the real world, no?
Good luck finding any!
Or should ALL the major polluters have to be onside?
Mind you most of the people posting here have no idea what Canada's position is, they just hate Harper, and that's all there is to it.
Take home another "Fossil of the Day" award; but ultimately to be Fossil champ at the Rio games.
With Peter Kent as our star player, it's in the bag.
How would this new treaty reduce CO2 and real pollution?
Will all the major emitters have to reduce?
If not, what will keep production from moving to the already higher polluting factories in China?
"Oh, just give me the keys. I'll pick it up on my way to work. I hate parking in this city. $22 bucks? They should be arrested".
She grabbed the keys and her napsack (nylon - made from oil) and headed off into the jungle.
So what? Corporate monopolies control the food supply. With the poor getting poorer, there is little choice but to buy what is the cheapest, which means products made under poor conditions or in foreign countries with lower labour and pollution standards.
What do you propose? Just giving up? You don't think one can, say, advocate for zero emission automobiles, and still only be able to afford a used gas powered one at the moment?
That kind of paralyzed thinking will get us nowhere.
To distance themselves from their poor track record and non-plan for the environment, the Conservatives have changed the wording hoping to affect the minds of the uninformed. Sustainable is now "responsible" development.
"Certainly Canada has successfully pursued sustainable development at home."
This government is completely off the rails.
"The word "stakeholder" has been listed as one of the top ten classic jargon terms used by English councils, and as such alarms or confuses ordinary people and is best avoided."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)
Let us call it the "balance between environmental and economic agendas" Oh look Peter, you so sly
"profound economic uncertainty and constraint." - wow, scary Peter.
"current economic reality makes it crucial to do more with less." - are you trying to say something?
"to reduce duplication and to streamline existing mechanisms, structures and programs." - well, it doesn't include the word economy but he's said that in about every speech by the EnviroMan...
"taking into account a nation's geography, population, economy and climate." - yep, there it is, economy right beside climate as per PMO instructions, well done Peter.
"economic growth, social and environmental protection." - whoa, two sentence in a row, well done!
"pursuing a greener economy: to work hard" - green, economy, and hard work that'll show those EI loving hippy radicals! Way to go EnviroMan!
"despite continued economic growth, greenhouse gases" - oh that's good, your in line for a promotion!
We didn't even look into the blatant overuse of the word "Action"
Oh wait, in conclusion Peter says:
"Our opportunity at Rio+20 is to find new approaches and partners to help us sustain that momentum, to build further on a sturdy foundation of principle and action. It is also our challenge."
You couldn't resist, could you