Today, Canadian youth were granted not one, but two short meetings with the Canadian Minister of Environment, Jim Prentice. The originally-planned morning meeting was scheduled to last for 45 minutes, but was cut drastically short due to a requirement for him to attend the morning plenary (though you think they would have known this in advance?). Contrary to John Baird's tactics in Bali last year, Prentice endeavored - and followed through on his word - to meet with us again later in the day. Having just come out of this second meeting, I can't help but feel like once again, we didn't get a firm committed answer for any of our questions.
Prentice acknowledged the science guiding the need for remaining below a 2 degree C rise in global average temperature, but did not agree that the 25-40% emissions reductions should be based on the 1990 base year. This is startling and very concerning, as Canada's choice of a 2006 baseline results in only a 3% decrease from 1990 levels, and this will hardly get us to the targets to remain below 2 degrees C.
Prentice also argued that he was unaware of how Canada would be able to meet the range of emissions reductions based on 1990 levels, given our current industrial and consumer structure. He suggested that these emissions reductions would have to be consumer-driven, though how he expects every Canadian to change behaviour at the snap of a finger without any incentive or top-down signal is beyond me. Being employed in the field of social marketing, I can certainly tell you that behaviour change REQUIRES both disincentives to stop the wrong behaviour, and incentives to drive the behaviour change.
We followed up on Canada's lack of ambition in our second meeting. Prentice continually referred to our sources of electricity generation as being a major source of emissions, but failed ot recognize the role of natural gas and oil in driving up these emissions. He identified closing coal generated electricity providers as the only real mitigation measure, replacing these with nuclear and hydro-electric power generation. I'd argue that nuclear is hardly a "renewable" resource, and hydro of the scale he referred to would have such incredibly devastating impacts on the ecosystems, local and indigenous communities, and would create signficant emissions from plant decay from flooding. Where's the committment to new energy sources, wind and solar, and new fuel sources for vehicles? No mention.
We also picked on their lack of leadership, and their repeated "wait and see" approach to what the US will do come January, and what the other "major emittors" will put on the table, such as India and China. This is not leadership, as it is and will continue to lead to a stalemate. India and China are equally stubborn in waiting for a signal of leadership from the Industrialized countries before committing to reductions themselves. As I see it, and as almost every G77 +China country will state, they are entitled to develop to the same standards as we enjoy, and have a priority to invest their own funds into poverty eradication, health, and development before siphoning off funds for climate change. Developed countries must take the lead - they have well-established economies, low poverty rates, and strong health care systems that do not require significant additional funding. They have a historic responsibility to support - financially, and otherwise - less developed countries before ever expecting them to take on binding emissions.
Overall, I was encouraged by Prentice's openness and committment to hearing our concerns, and his patience in addressing our questions. However, I came away feeling as though Prentice may not fully acknowledge how significant and frightening this challenge is to our generation, nor does he fully admit to the responsibility he and his colleagues must bear to put right Canada's wrongs in this process. How will our generation be guaranteed well-paying sustainable employment if Canada is behind the times on green technology R & D, production, and dissemination? Where will Northern communities go when they relocate their entire town because permafrost heaves or severe arctic storms have destroyed their infrastructure? What will happen to our economy if Canada is left behind in the race to the top of climate-friendly investment, financing, and technology?
But there is hope. I think he listened, and I think he took to heart our message. We'll know later this afternoon if he adjusts his speech to include any of our recommendations or demands. I also think we can look forward to - or at least push for - a transparent consultative process following Poznan, and leading toward Copenhagen on these issues. Time will tell. I'll keep you posted.
No comments:
Post a Comment