Hot enough for you? In the late Antarctic summer of 2002, a chunk of ice half the size of Prince Edward Island broke free of the eastern tip of the continent. Scientists called the event "staggering" and said it raised fears that global warming is starting to destroy one of the world's crucial reserves of ice. (Kyoto).

The Kyoto agreement (signed in that Japanese city in 1997) is aimed at reducing the emission of carbon-based fuels into the atmosphere. It is believed that this and the release of other gases is a source of global warming and other changes in the climate worldwide. The process is called the Greenhouse Effect, because the blanket of gases is causing the Earth to warm up just as in a greenhouse.

The world's leading contributor of greenhouse gases is the United States, but it has withdrawn entirely from the Kyoto process. U.S. President George W. Bush has decided that Washington will rely on voluntary measures and tax breaks to slow the growth of, but not cut, heat-trapping gases. Mr. Bush's action has driven a wedge between America and the European Union, while the environmentalists have labelled the U.S. president the "Toxic Texan."

The world's politicians have haggled for a decade over modest proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the ten years since Rio, global emissions of carbon have grown by 400 million tonnes. The United States' is the source of about a quarter of the world's man-made output of greenhouse gases. By pulling out of Kyoto, the U.S. puts pressure on everyone else to make deeper cuts.

In an article in the Globe and Mail in May 2002, the federal Environment Minister David Anderson, pointed out that Canada only contributes two percent of global emissions. Consequently, 98% of the effect of climate change experienced in Canada comes from emissions elsewhere in the world, primarily developed countries. The Kyoto Protocol requires industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to a level 3.5% below 1990 levels by the year 2012. In practice, that means cuts will have to be made of between 20% and 30% of what levels would have been by 2012 if action isn't taken. As Mr. Anderson sees it, climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution, and we can't expect the rest of the world to tackle it if we don't do our share.

The political shadow boxing is not just international. Ottawa is in a fierce battle with the provinces, particularly Alberta, over meeting Canada's Kyoto commitments.

Lorne Taylor, Alberta's Environment Minister, says Alberta isn't opposed to taking action on climate change, it just doesn't think the Kyoto solution is the best one: "Without the United States and other nations with large emissions as signatories, the agreement does little to reduce overall global emissions, and could potentially harm Canada's economic competitiveness if we are forced to comply with Kyoto's tight timelines while others are not."

Big business is with Alberta. The argument is that ratifying the treaty means committing to costly emission reductions while the U.S. would face no such constraints. This might leave Canada with catastrophic economic consequences. Some estimates suggested the accord could cost Canada as much as $23 billion in 2012 alone under a worst-case scenario, but other government calculations put the cost at $10 billion to $15 billion a year. At the other extreme, is the suggestion that it could actually add $5 billion to the economy in 2012. But, forecasts from around the world in March 2002 predicted the economic impact on Canada would fall somewhere between $300 million and $3.3 billion. With a range that wide, it seems that no one knows what the real costs are. Supporters of the Kyoto Protocol point out that the worst-case scenario assumes that no other country will do anything about emissions, which is not likely. Prime Minister Jean Chretien dismissed as fear-mongering predictions by Canadian manufacturers and exporters that Canada could lose 450,000 jobs if Ottawa ratifies the Kyoto agreement.

One study by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) showed that municipalities alone could meet up to 25% of Canada's Kyoto emissions reduction target. There are 300 Cities for Climate Protection communities around the world, 90 of them in Canada. As of July 2001, Canadian communities aimed to cut emissions from municipal operations by 20% by 2008-2010 according to Jack Layton, President of the FCM. They're doing it through "sustainable practices and policies that simultaneously create more local jobs through building retrofits, save taxes through energy efficiency, reduce smog, and create profitable business opportunities locally.

"We've found the idea that reducing emissions will hurt our economy does not bear out in practice. On the contrary--local economies are improved ..."

Meanwhile, environmentalists and the scores of countries that have already ratified the treaty, including members of the European Union and Japan, want Canada to fall into line. It was reported in March 2002 that even some business leaders have started criticizing the anti-Kyoto campaign. The E-mission 55 Canada group, named after a European group formed in the summer of 2001 to promote the Kyoto Protocol, also dismissed the campaign for using scare tactics in what has become a political issue. Supporters say we should be looking at the long-term health of the planet and go with the Kyoto treaty because it's the right thing to do, morally. The skeptics say hold on, this is an incomplete agreement that needs some refining. But even companies that think Canada should reject Kyoto say they care about the environment: in March 2002, it was reported that Imperial Oil and Exxon Mobil (which owns 69.6% of Imperial) are investing tens of millions of dollars in research and development of new technologies to produce cleaner fuels. While the companies aren't behind Kyoto, they say they believe that a cleaner environment and sustained economic growth can both be achieved.

But if not Kyoto, what? Some people think a "made-in-Canada" solution might be the answer. The federal government came up with some ideas in a paper released in May 2002. The most favoured option put forward centred on more companies getting involved in reducing emissions and giving breaks to fast-growing industries. This plan depends on Canada using "clean-energy export credits" to smooth out the economic impact on various regions and sectors. These credits are part of the Kyoto deal.

For example, Ottawa has been trying to get credits for selling so-called clean energy, including natural gas and hydroelectricity, to the United States. The argument is that the cleaner fuels shipped to the U.S. would displace dirtier fuels such as coal that would be used otherwise. Canada hopes to receive credits to cover as much as 30% of its required Kyoto emission cuts, which would lower the cost of complying with the accord.

The government wants to avoid pushing up prices of fossil fuels such as gasoline, but, at the time of writing, it seemed unlikely that Canada would get "clean-energy export credits."

Other countries that support Kyoto aren't keen to provide Ottawa with more credits because it already received a break in 2001. That's when the European Union agreed that it could receive emissions credits for its management of forests and farmland because they draw carbon dioxide out of the air. These controversial credits could lower Canada's commitment 25% to 30% too, with no major burden on industry.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITY:

Political columnist Edward Greenspon has received lots of e-mails about the Kyoto debate, which he said was mostly on the side of ethics, not economics. Discuss the following reader's comments. "What is the cost if most of the predictions related to climate change are true? What are the costs of drought in Canada? What is the cost of soaring insurance rates caused by the growing number of natural disasters resulting from changing weather patterns? What are the costs to the health-care system caused by summer-long smog alerts? Let's start thinking about an ounce of prevention for a change and stop discussing our health and that of our planet in terms of short-term and short-sighted profits." Discuss.

FACT FILE

If meeting the goals of the Kyoto agreement is costly, Alberta, along with Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador, the country's three hydrocarbon-producing provinces, would be the hardest hit; it would also cost heavy carbon consumers more, including those who run SUVs.

Canadians in Quebec, where most power is generated by hydro-electric turbines, are the biggest supporters of Kyoto, with 83.1% of respondents there backing the agreement; the second highest level of support, 78.6%, comes from Ontario.

Websites

Cities for Climate Protection - http://www.iclei.org/co2/

EcoAction - http://www.
ecoaction.ca/ea/

Pain Without Gain: Canada's
Kyoto Challenge (Canadian
Manufacturers and Exporters)
- http://www. cme-mec.
ca/kyoto/index.html

RELATED ARTICLE: What do the people say?

While the Alberta government opposes the Kyoto Protocol, a recent poll found that most Albertans support signing the deal to fight global warming. An Ipsos-Reid Group poll of 1,000 Albertans in April 2002 found that 72% think Canada should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The federal Environment Minister said this confirmed his belief that the people of Alberta have a good understanding of the issue and support taking action. But Alberta's Environment Department said other polls show that most Albertans can't explain what the accord means. Alberta, which believes the treaty will place, unreasonable burdens on the province's energy sector, favours an approach to greenhouse-gas reductions based on much milder emission cuts. The provincial government maintains that Albertans want to help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions caused by energy use on their own terms, not through higher taxes and gasoline prices, as some Kyoto measures might dictate.

On a national scale, 78% of Canadians were in favour of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions of global-warming greenhouse gases, according to another poll released in April 2002. The survey of more than 2,000 Canadians was conducted by Decima Research Inc. for the environmental group Greenpeace Canada.

RELATED ARTICLE: Balancing costs.

Not everyone believes the measures outlined in the Kyoto agreement will have much effect on global warming; some don't even buy the idea that global warming is a real concern. But, pollution certainly is, and it's getting worse. Smog alerts are increasing, as are illnesses and deaths related to our ailing environment. Cutting carbon emissions is obviously going to help clean up the air we breathe. And some say the costs could be offset by increased productivity (as well as health care savings). One example cited is Irving Oil's technologically advanced refinery in the Maritimes, which increased its sales after dramatically cutting sulphur in gasoline,