It is an odd place for Canada, which typically is seen as
one of the most responsible players on the global stage, usually pushing an
agenda of mutual cooperation. But the
Conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has staked out an
aggressive environmental position ahead of these talks, complete with rumors
that Canada may withdraw completely from the landmark Kyoto Protocols, the
international compact aimed at curbing the emission of climate-changing
greenhouse gases (GHGs). A key source of
contention has been Canada's Oil Sands, which the Harper government touts as a
valuable source of crude oil from a stable and friendly country and which the
environmentalists condemn as just another way to tie the world to the existing
fossil fuel economy for decades to come, while also being a major source of GHG
emissions in their own right.
In Durban, Canada is also balking at an agreement for
developed countries to establish a fund to help poorer developing nations to
mitigate the impacts of climate change that their countries may be
experiencing. Environment
Minister Peter Kent took a decidedly un-Canadian tack in discussing the
fund, saying: “there is a fairly widely held
perception in the developing world of the need for guilt payment” as part of any future climate agreement. It is part of a larger position taken by the
Harper government that Canada will not sign onto any future climate change
agreement that does not also require firm reduction commitments from developing
nations as well. Typically, the burden
for GHG reduction has fallen on the developed world, since it is argued
(usually by the developing nations themselves) that requiring the same level of
intensity from developing nations in reducing GHG emissions would stifle their
fragile economies and potentially trap countless millions of people in
poverty. And, the developing nations
further argue, since much of the historic emission of GHGs came from the
developed world, the burden in reducing it should be theirs.
Kent, and the government he
represents, have taken an aggressive stance in dealing with the climate change
issue, one that has angered environmentalists and their supporters. But like most arguments, there is a grain of
truth within it. Kent notes that in the
developing nations pool are countries like China and India – relatively
well-off countries but demanding to be treated like the poorest nations in the
world. There is clearly a difference
between China, now the world's second-largest economy and its top GHG emitter,
and a place like Bangladesh. Dirty,
coal-fired power plants have helped to drive China to annual growth rates of 8
to 10% per year; and not caring about GHG emissions, at least until very
recently, has been another way that China has kept their production costs
artificially low and their exports abnormally cheap. China is happy to act like an emerging
superpower when it comes to doling out foreign aid in Africa or throwing their
weight around militarily in the Pacific Basin, but when called on to act like a
member of the top nations club in terms of leading on the environment (or in another
area, like human rights), China shrinks back and hides behind the “developing
nations” tag – I'm not sure what the Chinese word for hypocrisy is, but this is
certainly a good example of it in action.
You can find a lot to criticize in
Minister Kent's approach towards Durban, and PM Harper's overall environmental
position, but at least on this issue they have a valid point – if the global
community is serious about tackling climate change, then it is time to expect
the top emerging economies in the
world to start acting like they belong at the big table and do their part, even
if it means their economy at home may suffer a bit.
No comments:
Post a Comment