UNFCCC Update: Durban and Canada’s Kyoto Participation both come to a close
December 19, 2011
After two weeks of climate talks in Durban, South Africa, a deal was reached to negotiate a comprehensive climate agreement by 2015 and if ratified, have it come into force by 2020. Other goals, such as building upon the Cancun Agreement, were also accomplished. Despite these developments, there is criticism that the Durban Platform is delaying action that needs to be taken now and will not have enough legal force once ratified. The Government of Canada stated it is pleased with the outcome of the conference and is optimistic that a treaty can be reached by 2015. Canada has since withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol.
The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework on Climate Change sought to advance the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, the Bali Action Plan, agreed to at COP13 in 2007 and the Cancun Agreements, reached at COP16 in 2010. Some countries, including Canada, signalled disenchantment with the Kyoto Protocol since it does not require developing countries, even large emitters such as China and India, to reduce GHG emissions. Kyoto was to be a first step to show leadership by developed countries with greater historical responsibility and therefore Canada’s objections are seen as disingenuous by some.
In Durban, European negotiators wanted to create a new, legally binding treaty but language they proposed had to be softened to appease certain countries. The Durban Platform, which will be negotiated by 2015, will theoretically bind all 194 countries. The stabilization of CO2 pollution in developing countries could be essential in delaying climate change so this is a welcomed development. However, it is still unclear how much “legal force” this agreement will have or the emission goals that will be set. Though some are referring to this as a “landmark deal”, others feel that not enough has been done. Bill Hare, Director at Climate Action Tracker, states that “There are still no new pledges on the table and the process agreed in Durban towards raising the ambition and increasing emission reductions is uncertain in its outcome”. The International Union for Conservation of Nature has stated that the target date of 2020 for a complete climate accord is too far away and that more urgent action is needed.
Apart from this new climate change platform, aspects of the Cancun Agreement were also strengthened, including rules for a new climate fund, the formation of an international network of technology centers, a scheme to avoid deforestation and means to increase the transparency of countries involved in reducing emissions. Management of the Green Climate Fund, which will scale up over the next 8 years and provide $100 billion US annually to help developing countries adapt to climate change, was high on the conference agenda and further details of the fund were fleshed out, although more work is needed to fully operationalize the fund.
Canada’s role within these talks has been questioned, with the Pembina Institute stating, “Canada is coming into these talks in a very weak position and is not poised to contribute much in the way of positive solutions”. At the Durban Conference, Canada argued that the Kyoto Protocol is not where the solution lies and had stated that it would not renew their commitment to Kyoto when it expires next year. Instead, Canada has set a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17% over 2005 levels by 2020 and the Harper government has stated that it wants to keep targets in line with the US. Based upon the outcome of the Durban Conference, the Minister of Environment Peter Kent is pleased with the platform and is optimistic that a new climate treaty can be reached by 2015. Even though the Platform accounted for a second commitment period under Kyoto, Canada has consistently stated it was not going to be party to a future commitment period and captured further global-interest hours upon returning from the Durban Conference, when Kent formally announced Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. The Canadian Government stated that complying with the obligation to reduce emissions by 6% from 1990 levels would require billions of dollars of spending, something the Government could not support in the current economic circumstances.
We must end on a somber note: Kyoto is the first international agreement that the Government of Canada has officially withdrawn from – ever. It is unfortunate that our Government could not prioritize this agreement and find a way to continue to support it, and comply. Hopefully Canada will return to the international negotiating table in future years and show renewed ambition and leadership in constructively addressing this most pressing global issue.
Blog post by Steph Vanthof and Laura Zizzo
Opportunities to Address Transportation-based GHGs Abound
December 16, 2011
Today half of the world’s population live in cities, therefore transportation in and around cities, especially during people’s daily commute to work and back, can have a significant environmental impact. Jean Mercier, one of the leading scholars of environmental policy in Canada, and professor at the University of Laval spoke at the University of Toronto recently about upstream and downstream policy instruments for sustainable transportation. The transportation sector accounts for approximately 28% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which makes it one of the largest contributors to climate change, second only to electricity generation.
To address transportation in cities, Mercier defines upstream policy instruments as the state of a city before it decides on creating sustainable transportation. For example, cities in Europe, that were built long before automobiles were around tend to be rather dense with most of the buildings 6 to 7 stories high, consisting of multiple family homes, and the streets within the city are narrow. Whereas most North American cities (Los Angeles being a prime example) were built with the automobile in mind.
Downstream policy instruments are the tools for creating sustainable transportation that governments can employ. These include legislation, city planning for new construction and exerting influence on affordability. For example, in the 1950s Singapore was a poor city-state and had a high amount of motorization. It’s leaders explicitly set out to reverse their situation; they restrained vehicle ownership by installing expensive registration fees, road tolls and parking fees. They invested heavily in public transit, and they controlled land use development. Today Singapore is affluent and has one of the best transit systems in the world.
Historically, Canada’s major cities; Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, are “moderately successful cities”, according to Mercier, citing that Toronto was the first Canadian city to build a subway in 1954. However, today Toronto has the longest average commute time compared to 19 major cities worldwide according to a study by the Toronto Board of Trade, reported on by The Toronto Star. The portion of Toronto-area residents travelling in cars to get to work is extremely high compared to other major cities. And with the municipal government recently removing the vehicle registration tax, and planning on increasing the user cost of public transit, while simultaneously decreasing public transit services, it looks like transportation in Toronto is going to get much worse before it gets better.
Many opportunities are available for cities to improve transportation to address climate change and concurrently make financial gains in productivity. As the Star article referenced above notes, in Toronto gridlock costs $5 billion in productivity losses. Extending the public transit service areas, hours, and frequency of trips, subsidizing user fares, and adding road tolls or congestion pricing, are all ways that cities can encourage more energy efficient means of transportation.
Blog Post by ZACL Intern Cyndi Whaley
Changing Climate, Changing Legal Responsibilities
December 7, 2011
Laura Zizzo and Travis Allan contributed to Briefly Speaking, the Ontario Bar Association’s monthly magazine’s December issue. The article highlights some of the current legal concerns lawyers should be aware of related to climate change, despite the stalled international and national regulatory regimes.
From a legal perspective, there are many reasons to start dealing with climate change now, including Ontario’s emerging regulatory regime, securities guidance on environmental risks, phyiscal effects of climate change and potential civil liability in negligence and nusiance.
Report: Professional Associations Need to Acknolwedge Role in Addressing Climate Change
December 5, 2011
Professionals such as lawyers, engineers, accountants, planners, biologists and foresters are often relied upon to provide advice and help make important business and policy decisions. It is now clear that many of these decisions have climate change considerations and constraints, and professionals should have a clearer understanding of their obligations in this area. A new report by West Coast Environmental Law (WCEL), Professionals and Climate Change, highlights this. It finds that although professionals are advising clients on a wide range of issues that involve climate change and are responsible for mitigation and adaptation measures, their professional obligations concerning this work are unclear and require clarification from professional associations.
Professional expertise has been used to develop innovative solutions and responses to climate change and to take a role in adaptive management. Both the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants and The Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project believe that financial professionals have an important role in advising clients on matters related to climate change. Their report found that 9 out of 10 senior business professionals believe that business has an important role in managing climate change and that through participation, these professionals could not only reduce risk but create new business opportunities. However, no mention of any professional obligations in addressing climate change was made.
The importance of professional obligations are clear: since professionals should provide advice on climate-related matters based upon the best science (which requires formal training/education) and are working with clients who face great risks from climate change, it is important that these professionals be responsible for upholding a certain standard of care. This is usually accomplished with industry-specific codes of conduct and ethics, standards of practice, policy statements, etc., but little has been done to incorporate climate change into these documents and ensure that professionals recommend ways to minimize risks associated with it.
To rectify this problem, West Coast Environmental Law suggests that professional associations address climate change by:
- Recognizing the urgency of climate change and calling for government to act;
- Putting in place decision-making criteria and structures to ensure that climate change plays a central role in decisions made by the professional association;
- Encouraging or requiring members to receive education and training on the implications of climate change for their professional work;
- Giving direction to members on best practices related to climate change;
- Recognizing the professional obligations that their members owe to their clients and the public in relation to climate change; and
- Cooperating with other professional associations to encourage all professionals to appropriately consider and address climate impacts.
Admittedly there are numerous challenges in modifying these professional obligations, such as the additional costs incurred by professionals in obtaining training. However, as the report states: if climate change is not addressed correctly, it “may result in lost opportunities to reduce emissions, or lock in planning decisions that will not be flexible enough to deal with changing temperatures. Such decisions may result in harm not just to their clients, but also to the public and the environment.”
For more information please see: Professionals and Climate Change
Blog Post by ZACL Intern Steph Vanthof
