By my calculation, by the time Canada’s withdrawal kicks in one year from now, we will have had commitments under the Kyoto Protocol for five years less 19 days.
Professor Nigel Bankes from the Faculty of Law at University of Calgary reviews law pertaining to withdrawal from an international environmental agreement in his blog. He cites the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and its Article 71 that provides that where treaty relations come to an end the termination of those relations:
(a) releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty;
(b) does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination.
Prof. Bankes says that while Article 71 of the VCLT makes it clear that in withdrawing Canada can avoid prospective obligations under the Protocol but that it cannot avoid obligations that have already accrued. So who might assess those obligations?
Enter the UNFCCC Compliance Mechanism, designed to strengthen the Protocol’s environmental integrity, support the carbon market’s credibility and ensure transparency of accounting by Parties. Its Enforcement Branch has the responsibility to determine consequences for Parties not meeting their commitments. It can only consider questions raised by another Party or its expert review teams.
Some thinking has it that compliance can only be assessed after all the reporting is delivered – likely a year after the 2012 end date of the first commitment period. But why wait to assess Canada and clarify accrued obligations? Is there one stalwart Party, an outraged developing country, perhaps, that would stand up to refer Canada to the enforcement committee p.d.q.?
I, for one, see moral and legal reasons why Canada has accrued obligations. I’d like to know what they are and how Canada will address them. The UNFCCC Enforcement Branch should not wait for post 2012 review but step up its review forthwith.
Beatrice Olivastri
Yes, I like this post. I am not very well informed about Canada’s specific obligations to the international community, but it seems to me that a country that call itself civilized and “First World” cannot run away from such obligations. Canada’s reputation in the world at large is bound to suffer as it already does and our prestige, including access to service on international bodies, is now regrettably only past history.
I agree (as a Canadian) that it was reckless and damaging to diplomatic credibility for Canada to drop out.
However the narriative internationally that is being concocted to convince people that Canada, a 150 year old nation is somehow on the hook for the fact that the worlds greatest polluters won’t sign on.
So China won’t commit – (no all they did was make another promise, remember in ’98 they promised to have signed up in 10 years and they didn’t) – and the US won’t commit. And both of those giant pollute in the area of 60 times what Canada contributes in GHG’s, yet Canada is somehow on the hook for mankinds reconcilliation with the entire industrial age? AND the state Africa is in?
No. THere is a bandwagon against Canada and it exists because it is far easier to pressure or browbeat Canada successfully without any blowback, than it is to pressure the US or China, or their own coal mining voters.
This is no good for Canada. Sorry.
Obviously, Canada is not alone in abandoning Kyoto, but there has been a lot of hype about Canada leading by example–in other words, Canada is undermining the country’s reputation acquired by “peacekeeping”, among other things. U.S. and China are notoriously “bad guys”–everybody is aware of this–while Canada had the reputation–undeservedly–for being so “goody-goody.” Nevertheless, the bandwagon criticism of Canada, as pointed out by Peter, is unfair.
If it should please the court:
Per capita
“A Latin term that translates into “by head,” basically meaning “average per person.”
Income Per Capita
“A measure of the total output of a country that takes the gross domestic product (GDP) and divides it by the number of people in the country. The per capita GDP is especially useful when comparing one country to another because it shows the relative performance of the countries. A rise in per capita GDP signals growth in the economy and tends to translate as an increase in productivity. “
Point1: Astronomical population difference
————————————————
Canada a county of 34 million will never win a per capita argument with a country of 1.3 billion. It is mathimatically possible, but practically impossible. China has 36 times the population of Canada. This means if we cut our emissions to 50% China would still be polluting 18 times “less” than Canada even though that country produces 235 of the emissions while Canada would have lowered from 1.8% of world wide emissions to .9%.
Point 2: Economic sacrifice
———————————
China’s GDP income per capita, per 1 ton of GHG emissions: $ 435
Canada’s GDP income per capita, per 1 ton of GHG emissions: $ 2,348
Canadian income per capita: $39,171
China’s income per capita: $ 7,544
$7544 / $435 = 17.34 economical cost ratio per person, per 1 ton of GHG emissions
$39,171 / $2, 348 = 16.68 economical cost ratio per person, per 1 ton of GHG emissions. Note this is without factoring total emissions so far. Just 1 ton to 1 ton.
This is a base factor of 0.039% between the two, meaning it would supposedly be 0.039% harder economically on the average Chinese person to reduce 1 ton of GHG’s compared to the same thing for a Canadian. All other factors (like total output) have been considered equal to this point. Now:
China’s % of world GHG’s: 17%
Canada’s % of world GHG’s: 2%
17 / 2 = 8.5 This factor is how many times more GHG’s China releases than Canada. Subsequently we need to factor this into our “economic hardship” equation. Since the above example of, -income per person per 1 ton of GHG emissions- is based on all other factors being equal we actually need to divide Chinas “hardship factor” by this 8.5. To do this we factor it into the GDP income per capita, per 1 ton of GHG emissions number. So:
Recall that,
China’s GDP income per capita, per 1 ton of GHG emissions: $ 435
….But since they are emitting 8.5 times as much (8.5 times the rateof) GHG’s as Canada, each Chinese person is earning 8.5 tons worth of income for each ton a Canadian is earning from GHG’s. So;
China’s GDP income per capita, per 8.5 (17times our 2) tons of GHG emissions: $3,697.5
Canada’s GDP income per capita, per 1 ton of GHG emissions: $2,348
The ratio now becomes:
1.57 times economically more difficult for a Canadian to reduce GHG emissions per ton as it would for a Chinese person. This means infrastructure, services, healthcare, day care, education, taxes and so on.
Yet China is given a pass, and Canada is to be burnt at the stake.
Sorry but I’m not willing to play nice-guy-finishes-last just because people wave pictures of kids in Africa at me and don’t have the guts to face down China.
Thank you for reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_capita
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Emissions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Paron me. said this:
“1.57 times economically more difficult for a Canadian to reduce GHG emissions per ton ”
I should’ve said this:
“1.57 times economically more difficult for a Canadian to reduce GHG emissions the same amount in terms of worldwide output.”
The Liberals signed Kyoto in 1998 pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by six per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. By 2003
federal spending on Kyoto reached $3.7 billion. In 2004 Environment Canada released 2002 greenhouse gas inventory showing Canada emissions were up 2.1% and 28% above the Kyoto target. In 2005 Liberals pledge $10 billion to cut greenhouse gases by 270 megatonnes a year by 2008-2012. In 2006 Conservatives announced that since ratifying Kyoto, Canada’s emissions were up by 24%. So the only thing Canada got for it’s billions of wasted dollars were the ridiculous “One Tonne Challenge” ads by comedian Rick Mercer – which Canadians failed miserably.