The cream turned sour: Canada has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol.

Figure: The Canadian Environmental minister Peter Kent announces that Canada is to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol

Following on from my post yesterday that the UN should be cautious before hailing the Durban conference a success, today Canada has withdrawn from the legal treaty to cut global greenhouse emissions. Therefore, just because a legally binding deal has been made, it does not prevent countries from abandoning these commitments (The Guardian, 2011).

Under article 27 of the Kyoto Protocol, a country is allowed to withdraw from the protocol after it has been in force for three years. The current protocol came into force on the 1st of January 2008 meaning that Canada is entitled to withdraw if it wanted to, which it has. Although heavily criticised as by environmental organisations and most interestingly China (who were one of the main countries opposing all countries to be legally-bound to reduce emissions under the new protocol) who have stated Canada's decision to leave the protocol as 'irresponsible' (The Guardian, 2011).

So why did they leave? The answer, put simply is money. With a target of reducing emissions to 6% below 1990s levels, Canada's current emissions have increased by a third of their estimated 1990 value. Thus, in order to meet their target, Canada would have needed to spend approximately £8.7 billion (equivalent to $1,600 in taxes for every Canadian family), on buying carbon permission permits (AAUs) from other countries that are emitting less greenhouse gases (GHG) then their quota allows (The Guardian, 2011). Although this would allow Canada to meet their target, a criticism of AAUs is that the country itself has not actually reduced its emissions but has 'bought' the allowance off of another country. However, this is irrelevant as by leaving the protocol Canada do not have to invest in these permits.

Canada claim that their withdrawal from the treaty will have limited impacts on global GHG emissions as they only contribute 2% of the world's emissions (The Guardian, 2011). Environmental minister of Canada Peter Kent, claimed that the target set for Canada was unrealistic and in order to meet their target they would 'need to remove every vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or close down the entire farming and agricultural sector' (The Guardian, 2011). Peter Kent goes further to argue that because the two largest emitters USA and China are not part of the current protocol and therefore iit cannot work. Behind this claim, is that Canada is the world's third largest producer of oil (which is highly energy and water intensive) and does not want to threaten the prospect of this industry growing in the future. 

 Therefore, as I have previously suggested it all comes down to money and whether the protocol makes economic sense. Although a deal has been done to draw up a second legally binding protocol, if loop-holes such as the right to walk away from the treaty remain then the effectiveness that the new treaty will have to force countries to reduce their emissions will be limited. If countries can simply leave the protocol before they have to pay for their industrial activities then reversing the current increase in GHG emissions seem highly unlikely.

The question now is how other countries will respond to this? Will others follow suit or will Canada mirror the current UK situation in the EU and will be cut out off a protocol that will drive movements towards sustainable development in the future?

                                        
For listen to the press release given by Canada's Environmental Minister Peter Kent click here.

Reference:

The Guardian (2011) 'Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol', The Guardian, 13th December 2011.

Vaughan, A. (2011) 'What does Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol mean for the treaty?', The Guardian, 13th December 2011.