Next week, the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal will kick off the process of designing an international legal regime for deep reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). The science has been clear for years: to prevent catastrophic impacts on people, economies and ecosystems worldwide, the build-up of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere must be halted — requiring GHG emissions to be cut to a small fraction of their current level.
The first set of Kyoto Protocol targets represent only a small step on this road — and they expire in just seven years' time, at the end of 2012. That's why governments must now start work on a deal that takes GHG emissions lower — much lower — post-2012.
Governments will not get to the point of setting detailed post-2012 GHG targets in Montreal, but it is critical that they agree on a process and a deadline for concluding a global deal on those targets. The environmental community believes that the appropriate deadline is 2008. Waiting longer would create a damaging amount of uncertainty for the private sector, leave little time to ratify the new agreement, and risk destroying the international market in emission credits which is now creating a price signal for emission reductions around the world.
As president of the negotiations for one year, starting in Montreal, Canada will see its long-term climate policy placed under the spotlight. Environment Minister Stéphane Dion recently acknowledged that "the impacts of climate change will affect all countries and deep reductions in global emissions are essential if we are going to address it." But the Government of Canada has not yet made any commitments regarding deep reductions in Canada's own emissions.
To participate effectively in the negotiations now beginning, Canada must make up its mind very soon about the GHG reductions it is ready to commit to post-2012. Remaining silent on this question is simply not compatible with playing a leadership role internationally. Jurisdictions including the UK, France and California have already adopted targets to reduce their GHG emissions by 60-80% by 2050.
Economic modelling indicates that targets like these can be achieved with minimal impact on GDP. The necessary low-GHG technologies — with energy conservation, energy efficicency and renewable energy at the forefront — are already available. Researchers at Princeton University recently put forward 15 technology options to slash GHG emissions and concluded: "Humanity can solve the carbon and climate problem in the first half of this century simply by scaling up what we already know how to do. . . . Every one of these options is already implemented at an industrial scale."
Adoption by Canada of a responsible long-term national GHG emissions target is essential for good governance and good public policy. Canadian energy producers are contemplating investments in the order of $200 billion over the next 20 years, and if those investments are not directed to low-GHG options, we'll be stuck with high GHG emissions for decades. To prevent this happening, Canada's energy policies need to be brought into line NOW with a responsible climate policy. This can't happen if our climate policy is limited to the near term.
Lack of a clear long-term policy direction on GHG emissions also deprives the private sector of the necessary incentive to invest in the technologies needed for deep GHG reductions. This was confirmed in a letter sent to Tony Blair in May 2005 by the leaders of 13 companies including BP and Shell. The letter endorsed the UK's target to reduce its GHG emissions by 60% by 2050, and the companies declared that "Climate change policy needs to . . . create greater certainty about the long-term value of emissions reductions by setting targets for emissions trading and other related policies beyond 2012. We believe that in order to ensure that the long-term investments that our companies make are consistent with a shift to a low-carbon economy, these policies should set targets now for the year 2025."
Some say we should stay away from Kyoto-style targets post-2012. The reality is that without legally binding targets applying to major GHG-emitting countries and companies, the necessary redirection of private investment towards low-GHG options will not happen. Taxpayer-funded R&D and incentive programs have their role to play, but in the absence of binding targets they will lose the battle against the powerful economic forces that are still driving Canada's GHG emissions upwards.
