Canadian PM must be held to account for dangerous climate change policy

---

Most developed nations, Canada and the U.S. included, support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as the body to coordinate an international, legally-binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction agreement. The current foundation for UNFCCC climate negotiations are the Cancun Agreements; virtually all nations have agreed to these documents, although they are not yet legally-binding. Since their creation in December 2010, the Agreements have been strongly boosted by both the Canadian and American governments as the solution to our supposed climate woes. Unknown to most people is the fact that developing nations were effectively given an opt-out clause in the Cancun Agreements. This would allow them to agree to legally-binding emission cuts but then never actually have to carry them out. Developed nations do not have this option. In other words, any agreement based on Cancun would become another Kyoto Protocol in which the developed world would be held to rigid GHG reduction targets while developing nations would not be. Here are two of the applicable clauses from Cancun:

---

---

• At the beginning of the documents it is stated: “...Parties should cooperate in achieving the peaking of global and national greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that the time frame for peaking will be longer in developing countries, and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries…”
• In the section entitled “Nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country Parties”, the first clause starts: “Reaffirming that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing country Parties, and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs…”

In other words, if a Cancun-based treaty ever became international law, GHG reduction would proceed in developing nations only to the extent that it does not interfere with their “first and overriding priorities” of “social and economic development and poverty eradication.” Developed countries would be held to their emission reduction obligations regardless of the impact on their societies. Since actions to significantly reduce GHG emissions will usually interfere with development priorities, developing countries will soon realize that an agreement based on Cancun will not limit their emissions. Such a treaty would then work in the same asymmetric fashion that Kyoto functioned. That Canada, the U.S. and other countries have said they will not participate in a second phase of Kyoto may prove immaterial if any legally-binding treaty based on the Cancun Agreements ever comes into force. This is not the only problem Harper should be asked about in New York. Under the Cancun Agreements, U.N. monitoring is to be much more intrusive in developed countries than in developing countries. For example, the world is expected to simply believe China when they assert that certain domestic GHG reductions have been accomplished—the U.N. cannot inspect. Reporting fraud will likely be rampant and we will have little idea of what emission cuts actually happen in China. International inspection and monitoring of developed countries’ emissions will be very strict, however. Australia has already experienced what we should expect when, in 2011, they were rebuked by the U.N. “for poor reporting of progress to cut greenhouse gases” and “ordered” to do better. It is hard to imagine the U.N. rebuking or ordering China to do anything. The only significant difference between a Cancun-based GHG reduction treaty and Kyoto may be that developing countries are expected to submit their intended emission cuts to the U.N. But their obligations to actually carry out those cuts would appear to be meaningless. All of this is designed to persuade the U.S. to participate in an agreement for binding international GHG emission limits. Then, the U.S. and everyone else would be effectively included in an extension to the Kyoto Protocol after all. Prime Minister Harper needs to be asked at Thursday’s presentation why he supports such a useless and dangerous plan.

---