When I wrote “Fact Check on Kyoto
Distortions” on November 28, 2011 for my blog, I covered the most frequently
cited, misleading/dishonest bits of spin on the subject. That blog covered the
top 5, but now there are more. It’s time for “Fact Check on Kyoto
Distortions—The Sequel.”
Distortion number six: If Canada
does not withdraw from Kyoto,
we will owe billions in penalties.
Fact Check: Sadly, there are no effective compliance
mechanisms under Kyoto. There are no financial penalties. I say “sadly” because effective compliance
mechanisms were available to the negotiators in 1997. The 1987 Montreal Protocol to protect the
Ozone Layer had a great enforcement tool --
trade sanctions.
If any party to the Montreal Protocol on ozone were to violate its
commitments to reduce and ultimately eliminate use of ozone-depleters, the
other nations in the protocol could punish the offender with trade
sanctions. In 1995 the World Trade
Organization was created. Although there
were no rulings on the matter, its Trade and Environment Committee raised the
question of whether there were any environmental treaties that compromised
trade, concluding that the enforcement mechanisms under the Montreal Protocol might violate the GATT. By 1997 in Kyoto, Canada
refused to sign onto any Protocol that included trade sanctions, as did many
other countries. This is why Kyoto’s enforcement
mechanism is essentially a wet noodle. The only sanction is that in negotiating
a second commitment period target, whatever amount of the first target that
country missed, it would have to add an additional one third of a ton as
penalty. But since the target is
individual to each country and since it is a product of negotiation, it would
be easy enough to negotiate the next phase target in a way that anticipated the
.3 ton top up.
So how does the Minister of Environment get away with saying
something that is patently untrue? He
chooses his words carefully. This is how
Peter Kent explained it in a recent opinion piece in the Financial Post:
“The math is clear: The total number of
carbon credits required multiplied by the average cost of a carbon credit is
$14-billion. And the facts are simple:
You cannot enter the second commitment period without completing the first, and
we either pay the $14-billion or we would be in violation of the protocol.”
Kent is careful to say that the $14
billion is the cost of compliance. Hypothetically,
if we were suddenly to decide we wanted to meet the 2012 target Prime Minister
Stephen Harper repudiated back in 2006, when he cancelled all programmes to
reach the Kyoto
target, it would only be possible through buying credits. Sure, it might cost the $14 billion Kent has claimed, but no one in their right mind
would do that, and there is nothing in the Kyoto Protocol to force Canada
to spend a dime.
Distortion
number seven: “You
cannot enter the second commitment period without completing the first.” (see Kent quote
above)
Fact Check:
It certainly sounds logical, but it is not true.
There are two ways in which the statement can
be interpreted and neither is true.
- The first issue is the matter of staying
in the Kyoto Protocol as a party, but not agreeing to second commitment period
targets. Japan
and Russia
are doing just that, but neither face penalties. Japan
is still hoping to hit its target, and is already below 1990 levels of
emissions (while Canada
is 28% above 1990 levels). Japan is unlikely to hit its target, but has
said it will stay in Kyoto,
participating as a party. It will be
both out of compliance and refusing to take on second commitment period
targets. It will not face penalties
because (see above), there are no penalties under Kyoto.
Canada
is not the only Kyoto Party out of compliance; but we are the only country
planning to legally withdraw. - The second way of framing Kent’s
distortion is to say that Canada could not take on a new round of legally
binding targets without first meeting the 6% below 1990 target by 2012 we legally
obligated ourselves to meet under Kyoto.
This is also not true. The
targets in the second commitment period are a matter of negotiation. To get Canada committed to new legally
binding emission reductions, other countries would likely be
accommodating. As an example, back in
1997, Australia refused to
sign onto Kyoto
unless their target was 8% above 1990 levels, when all other industrialized
countries were pledging to cutting below 1990 emission levels. Australia’s
increase in emissions was allowed through negotiation. There is nothing in the protocol that
requires being in compliance with the first commitment period before
negotiating the second.
Distortion
number eight: Canada
has withdrawn from Kyoto.
Fact check: Canada has filed a legal notice of
intent to withdraw. It will take legal
effect in December 2012. Until then, Canada is a Kyoto party.
Let’s cancel that letter and start being responsible global citizens.