Oh Canada, do you remember when scientists identified a grave environmental threat caused by the release of gases from everyday objects used by billions of people around the world? And do you remember how we were forced to come together to agree an international deal that phased out the release of those gases, resulting in a ground-breaking treaty that actually worked?
Do you remember that, Canada? The gases were CFCs, the threat was a growing hole in the ozone layer, the treaty was the Montreal Protocol and the country that did so much to bring about that breakthrough was you, wasn't it Canada?
Scroll forward two decades and we're here in Africa, the continent facing down climate change now, where droughts and extreme weather events are becoming more common. Where 12 million people face famine in the horn of Africa this year due to droughts. Where on the eve of the climate negotiations this week in Durban, several people died in freak flash floods. But this time Canada isn't leading by example so much as swaggering through the conference hall in the mode of a poor man's George W Bush.
This week the Harper government leaked that it will be pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol just before Christmas. Santa won't be delighted to hear that news (the North Pole may soon be ice-free in the summer, as Arctic temperatures continue to rise at an alarming rate) but it's the real people who live on this continent and know the reality of climate change for whom the Canadian flag has been sullied.
Because the Canadian government doesn't just want to avoid taking action on emissions, it wants every other country to do nothing as well. That's what it was trying to achieve when it swung its wrecking ball through the Durban Conference Centre.
As long as the EU stays firm in its commitment to Kyoto, Canada's move will make little difference. But there's a wider issue here, because Canada's position is fundamentally unserious. After all, its delegation says it has come to Durban to promote what it calls "ethical" tar sands oil. Uh? Anyone who describes the tar sands as "ethical" needs counselling for their troubled relationship with reality (the tar sands are just about the dirtiest energy on Earth -- NASA scientist James Hansen says if we burn the tar sands it's game over for the climate.) Really, if they've come here to tell us that digging up Alberta and melting it to fuel our cars is ethical, they needn't have wasted the flight.
But back to Kyoto. Maintaining the Protocol is important because it's the global rulebook on how to cut carbon across dozens of countries in a way that's fair and verifiable. If you kill Kyoto you take us back to square one and a new deal to beat climate change becomes almost impossibly hard to agree in time. Kyoto is our bridge to an international regime that would mean we're not still meeting like this in 40 years time. The EU needs to defend that bridge here, this week, no matter what Canada announces.
In the halls of the Conference Centre today Canada is being talked about as a belligerent bully and many are reminiscing about the nation that played a productive role on the world stage as a problem-solver and leader. And around the world people are protesting against the Ottawa government's marriage to the tar sands industry, from the thousands arrested outside the White House in the Keystone pipeline protests to the British activists who blockaded a government department this week after documents revealed how lobbyists have captured policy in London (and really, you have to see these documents). While the Canadian government isn't the only government who is being unduly influenced by the major fossil fuel corporations who are holding us back, it is certainly one of the most in-your-face examples of a government acting on behalf of the polluters instead of the people.
Hundreds of thousands have a signed petitions and advertisements against the tar sands, amongst them Archbishop Tutu and many Canadians, who are dismayed to learn what their government is doing in their name. And we in Durban are feeling a pang of sadness at the moral decline of the government that speaks for us.
Oh the conceit of we humans to think that we have more influence than He has.
I do remember when
Federal and Provincial lefties in power did a lot of talking to make others (and the ROTW) think we cared and were doing something, but I never saw anything actually being done.
Now we're being honest and not saying anything we're not willing to back up with actions.
There now needs to be a world plan put in place where ALL nations are included. The first phase will be for the large polluters to address their problems, do R&D to find better non-polluting ways and once that is done then we can think about the third world.
Clearly the environmentalists have nothing but a one track mind without looking at the logic or process!
Did you read the Kyoto or Copenhagen proposals?
See Gwynne Dyers book 'Climate Wars' where he suggests that even the perception of shortages in oil, food and especially water will lead to international conflict. India and Pakistan (nuclear powers) share a diminishing water resource for millions of people. Definitely trouble ahead.
China has huge pollution probelms and is building coal fired electrical plants at a tremendous rate but Greenpeace ignores that.
The reason of course is that if they critisize China they will get booted out of the country and won't be able to raise money there.
Greenpeace is a farce, all that matters is their fundraising.
Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for. !! After all , wasn't it just 40 years ago that we were told by certain scientists that we were facing a new ice age.
Conclusion, enjoy your life, there are much more pressing issues to worry about.
Now they are being honest.
Just an observation.
Chinese industry pollutes more per unit of production than out industry, more per ton of steel, more per gallon of glycol, more per pound of alunimum because it uses more energy, and energy from coal.
The NYT has a good series on that.
Chinese industry would get a pass from Kyoto while it would increase the costs to Canada’s clean industry which would make our clean industry even less competitive.
The end result would simply be more production would move to the higher polluting factories in China.
And, we would ship more raw materials to these factories in China and more products back from them, so more shipping pollution.
Why do greens want us to buy our food locally to reduce transportation pollution, but they support treaties that would result in us buying our steel from China?
Closing down clean factories here and moving production to higher polluting factories will not reduce pollution or C02 emissions, it would increase them, and it would increase unemployment here.