ENVIRONMENT

“We commit ourselves to strong action and anticipate in 1997 a successful outcome of the Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention”.

Grade: O

It was difficult to give Canada a grade which would reward efforts made with regards to this commitment, and simultaneously reflect the dismal reality of Canada's record on Climate Change and the position it will likely take in Denver and Kyoto. It is also difficult to determine what the G-7 leaders meant by “successful outcome”. For the benefit of the environment, a successful outcome should mean that all parties would agree to reduce greenhouse gases to levels which would promote environmental sustainability. However, this ideal will inevitably be tempered by political interests and economic realities and a “successful outcome” may likely be defined simply as an agreement on targets and timetables reached by all parties at Kyoto. Unfortunately, the latter definition lends itself more for describing a political, not an environmental victory.

Nevertheless, with so many differing views on the policies and measures that could be adopted to meet agreed targets and timetable, and with many countries, including Canada, already failing in their commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, a successful outcome to the Climate Change Convention will be difficult to achieve, no matter how “successful” is defined.

Canada has participated in negotiations to draft a text for an international agreement committing developed countries to cutting their emissions of greenhouse gases in the first decades of the 21st century. However, when discussing timetables and targets for emissions reductions, Canada is arguing against a reduction of carbon dioxide by 10-20% by the year 2005, calling this goal unrealistic and proposing that objectives be set for the 2010-2015 period without quantifying them. On a more positive note, Canada submitted Building Momentum-Sustainable Development in Canada to the Fifth Session of the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, April 7-25, 1997. Part of the report dealt with measures Canada is currently taking in the transportation industry to reduce its harmful effects to climate change, the depletion of the ozone layer, the spread of toxic organic and inorganic substances, and other environmental problems.

Ruth Archibald, the Head of the Delegation of Canada to the Commission on Sustainable Development Inter-Sessional Ad-Hoc Working Group, stated the following on 25 February 1997:
“A successful outcome at the Conference of the Parties meeting in Kyoto in December 1997 is critical in addressing the climate change issue. In our view new commitments should be environmentally effective, realistic, enforceable, and achievable in a cost effective manner. Like many other countries, Canada is unlikely to meet its goal of stabilizing greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000. This does not mean that we are standing still. Canada has an active national program of initiatives aimed at mitigating climate change...We hope that world leaders gathered at the Special Session will give a special impetus to all parties to propel climate change negotiations forward.” All of which Ms. Archibald stated in her address to the Chairman of the Working Group is true. Canada is taking certain steps to improve its record on Climate Change. However, it also cannot be denied that Climate Change is not on the top of Canada's environmental priorities. Forests, oceans, and the Arctic dominate the Canadian environmental agenda. Climate change appears under the guise of transportation and even then it is beaten by cross-related issues such as gender equality, youth, education and health. Thus, while Canada has taken action to mitigate climate change, it is evident by the way the federal government has structured its environmental priorities that Canada has not committed itself to taking strong and meaningful action to adhere to the agreed upon commitments in the Climate Change Convention, as the G-7 commitment calls for. If the government had, they would be allying with the European Union on the issue of carbon dioxide reduction. Canada is saved from a negative grade for compliance on this issue because of its involvement in the climate change negotiations, its initiatives in the transportation industry to reduce carbon dioxide levels, and Ruth Archibald's word that Canada is committed to propel the Climate Change Convention forward.