EKOS Communications, Inc.

Apparently Canada's Conservative government cannot. There's not even a mention of the protocol to which the country is a signator in their just-released "Clean Air Act." Not that this is the new legislation's worse offence. The bill sets no short-term targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, so-called "intensity targets" will be put in place which will require industries to reduce the amount of energy used per unit of production, without placing a hard cap on emissions.

Now before going any further it should be noted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his cabinet are touting the act as the centre-piece of their so-called "made-in-Canada" environmental agenda. This misrepresentation of the truth would be laughable, if it weren't so tragic. While the act itself was crafted in Canada, core concepts, such as intensity targets, were developed and copyrighted by American neo-conservatives and promoted by US president, George Bush and his administration.

Bush's climate change strategy launched in Feburary of 2002 sets a voluntary "greenhouse gas intensity" target for the United States. Specifically, his government pledged to reduce greenhouse gas (GHGs) emission intensity between then and 2012; however, actualemissions would be allowed to increase by 12 percent over the same period (Pew Center on Global Climate Change website).

How does this work? There are essentially two approaches to reducing GHGs: absolute or intensity-based. The former sets an absolute target of a specified amount for reduction. This is the approach taken by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and embedded within the Kyoto Protocol.

Convinced that such an approach would unduly constrain economic growth, the Bush administration quickly embraced the latter option wherein GHG intensity is expressed as a ratio of GHGs to economic output as reflected by the gross domestic product (GDP). According to the Pew Centre, "[t]his approach minimizes economic impact by allowing emissions to rise or fall with economic output; however, it provides no assurance that a given level of environmental protection will be achieved since the degree of environmental protection is measured in relation to GDP. Theoretically a GHG intensity target can lead to a net reduction in emissions, but only it it is sufficiently stringent." The Centre goes on to argue that Bush's target of 18% improvement in intensity over the next 10 years will actually result in a large increase in net emissions.

Given Harper's "sweeping defence" of Canada's oil industry today, it doesn't take an advanced degree of education to figure out why his government has also repudiated the Kyoto Protocol and followed in Bush's footsteps. His defence was delivered to a convention of insurance brokers in Ontario who apparently gave him a standing ovation at the end. How ironic and myopic! Here is an industry that is beginning to experience the direct negative economic impacts of climate change applauding someone whose policies are only create more losses for them.

Canadian insurance brokers had better wake up and smell the same roses that Swiss Re has. This company is the world's largest reinsurance business; they are the ones who provide insurance to insurance companies. Unlike Bush and Harper and their fans, Swiss Re accepts global warming as fact and is actively engaged in doing what it can to prevent its acceleration. If the losses and risks associated with raising GHGs become too great, one of the options Swiss Re may be forced to take it is to impose greater and greater premiums on their clients, such as those insurance companies whose representatives cheered Haper's speech today.

But I digress.

Returning to the "Clean Air Act" and its failure to adequately address climate change, it may well be that Harper and his colleagues will be forced into meaningful and immediate action on this issue by circumstances unfolding in Canada's North. With the melting and break-up of the pack-ice, Bush and his administration have begun to test Canada's soveriegnty over the region. Something that Canadians won't tolerate as it lies so close to the core of national identity.

References:

Globe and Mail (Posted at 11:40AM EDT on 19/10/06) "Tories deliver clean-air plan" www.globeandmail.com

Globe and Mail (12:39PM EDT 19/10/06) "Ambrose hails plan's 'stronger powers' www.globeandmail.com

Pew Center on Global Climate Change "An Analysis of President Bush's Climate Change Plan" : www.pewclimate.org/policy_center/analyses/response_bushpolicy.cfm

Swiss Re "New Swiss Re publication on climate change: learning to harness the risks and opportunities": www.swissre.com