Protocol a mix of politics, environment. (Kyoto Accord).

The science behind the Kyoto Protocol is intricate and in certain respects difficult to nail down. But the science is child's play compared to the complicated political substructure of what was meant to be an environmental initiative.

"The debate around the Kyoto Protocol is politically charged," Cameco Corporation Senior Communication Specialist Ghislaine McLeod says. "There are valid concerns that the Protocol will negatively affect economies and do little to help the environment. While the average person on the street may think Kyoto is great, they may not realize it will come at a considerable cost."

Since the Canadian government ratified the Protocol in December 2002, one thing has become clear: it has the potential to hit the Canadian mining industry very hard. Political decisions to address our Kyoto commitment will affect Saskatchewan mining, yet reterence points on which to base those decisions remain shadowy.

"The biggest issue for companies, mining and otherwise, is to figure out what the rules of the game are," McLeod says. "The process is still evolving and the 2008 to 2012 compliance period isn't too far away.

The years 2008 to 2012 are critical on the Kyoto time line, as that is the time frame the federal government has promised it will have cut greenhouse gas emissions to a level six per cent lower than 1990 levels. Initial federal projections estimated this would amount to 240 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent.

The federal government is looking for a reduction of 55 of those megatonnes from about 500 of the country's largest greenhouse gas emitters, a group including oil and gas companies, chemical companies, utilities and mining companies. Saskatchewan has a handful of companies on that list, chief among them and most important here to industry and individuals is SaskPower.

Approximately 70 per cent of the electricity SaskPower generates is produced by coal-fired generators. Their emissions are significant and must be reduced to meet Kyoto targets. But as McLeod points out, the utility must also meet electricity demands and satisfy customers with reasonable rates. There is a risk that the cost of reducing utility emissions could be passed on through higher industry rates.

"Mining is a very energy-intensive industry and we pull most of this power from the Saskatchewan grid," McLeod says. "Paying additional power costs to finance emission reductions for a utility like SaskPower would affect production costs and consequently competitiveness. We're mining in a country with a Kyoto target and we're in competition with countries that don't have these commitments, so it's a bit of an unfair ball game. We can't simply pass the additional cost to our customers."

For a company such as Cameco -- whose product is used to generate non-greenhouse gas energy -- an extra Kyoto levy on its electric bill is ironic. The electricity generated from Saskatchewan's annual exports of uranium to the United States helps avoid about 230 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Yet the clean air benefits of uranium were not recognized in a Canadian government proposal to receive international credits for clean energy exports to the United States.

"Saskatchewan and the uranium mining industry should be outraged," McLeod says. Lack of political will has meant the sacrifice of nuclear power on the climate change negotiating table. It is one of the only non-emitting electricity generating sources capable of providing base load power.

"Our governments have no appetite for including uranium or nuclear power in the climate change discussions even though it's clear that nuclear power offsets an incredible amount of carbon dioxide emissions."

Cameco became involved in the nuclear lobby at the United Nations level when it became apparent that international governments that supported nuclear were facing a heavy anti-nuclear lobby. McLeod, who also holds an MBA, has been involved in this level of policy development and government lobbying for more than two years.

"These decisions affect us directly as a uranium producer," McLeod says. "Anything that threatens the development, growth and maintenance of nuclear power is of interest to us."

The United States is a significant advocate for nuclear power yet their voice is muted because they did not commit to the Kyoto Protocol. Still, McLeod says, the U.S. is a signatory to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change and they do have a vested interest in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

"They're just doing it in a way that looks longer term and better protects their economy," she says, "and they're including nuclear power as a key component in their emission reduction plans."

The Canadian government is making an effort to help large industrial emitters find a manageable commitment to emission reductions. Natural Resources Canada is negotiating with industry groups including the Mining Association of Canada -- of which the Saskatchewan Mining Association is an ex officio member -- to discuss alternatives and a model covenant should be presented this year.

"The government tells us they don't want to impede economic growth, they want to increase energy efficiency, but it's still not terribly clear how that is all going to play out," McLeod says. "We agree that reducing environmental impact is a good thing yet we need to be practical and look for smart solutions."

McLeod advocates a longer-term approach. For example, the Kyoto Protocol has a provision that if a country can't meet its target through direct reductions it can buy credited reductions from other countries through a process of International Emissions Trading.

Instead of trying to achieve short-term targets through the purchase of credits from other countries, she says, take that money and invest it in Canadian research and development.

"Because of the short time frame under Kyoto it will be difficult to achieve the targets without considerable capital costs. We're better served by looking at longer-term strategies to reduce emissions."

The penalties for non-compliance with the Kyoto Protocol are toothless. There are no legal or financial ramifications and the consequence of missing a target is to have that target increased by one-third in the next agreement.

Most Canadians have little idea how the Kyoto Protocol will effect their everyday lives. When they come to understand its significance there will undoubtedly be a greater public will to ensure our mining industries have an opportunity at a level playing field in the next agreement.