Here are the numbers: 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 is 126 megatons. Environment Canada is now projecting that it will have achieved only 20 megatons, which, amazingly, is more than current emissions.

Will the government accept that the so-called sector-by-sector, piecemeal, smoke-and-mirrors approach is not working and that we need real climate action?

[nKm3mcq4n7g]

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, of course, this is the first government in Canadian history to actually reduce emissions of greenhouse gas.

The Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and my colleagues have taken a number of important actions, including the announcement on truck harmonization standards, just recently. We will continue to look at ways to move forward on this important file.

The post Questions – The Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Given that all of these things are occurring faster than anticipated, when was the last time the Prime Minister was briefed on the scientific aspects of this crisis, and who briefed him?

Right Hon. Stephen Harper: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at this question from the leader of the Green Party.

Just last week on behalf of the government and the minister from Newfoundland and Labrador, we announced one of the most important green energy initiatives in the history of this country, an initiative supporting the Lower Churchill and related developments that will take 4.5 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions out of our system.

Yet the Green Party of Canada stood against it. On this side, we are for helping the environment and making sure there is energy security and prosperity—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The post The Environment appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“On the heels of Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, now Harper’s Conservatives are backing away from the one step they were preparing to take to address climate change concerns in Canada,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May.  “This news suggests that the Harper government has no intention to deal with Canada’s growing emissions.”

Regulations to impose carbon capture restrictions on new coal-fired power plants and phase out coal emissions have been in the works for some time now.  Some climate scientists are calling for the elimination of coal-fired power in developed countries within this decade.  Now, it appears the regulations will emerge in a weakened state, with Environment Minister Kent promising flexibility mechanisms to ease the burden of eliminating coal-fired generation.

“At best, weaker regulations mean that provinces will be able to get away with reducing emissions less overall, as they will be able to count emissions reductions they might have made anyway against the requirement to phase out coal emissions.  At worst, the flexibility could allow emissions to grow if provinces are permitted to set intensity targets or use offsets,” said May.

“Intensity targets that simply dictate the proportion of energy that can come from dirty coal allow coal plants to continue to operate, weakening the effect of national regulations.  One can already see that the supposed equivalencies that provinces would offer could be weaker than the federal regulations,” said Erich Jacoby-Hawkins, the Green Party critic for Ecological Fiscal Reform.

“Canada needs federal leadership, working with the provinces to ensure real and verified emissions reductions.  Hollow regulations that fail to reduce emissions are worse than nothing at all,” said May.  “Thank goodness we have provinces and municipalities that are working to curb climate change, in spite of the roadblocks from the Harper government.”

The post Keep Regulations Strong to Curb Coal Emissions appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Never before in Canadian history has this country withdrawn from a treaty we have ratified – not on any issue. Ever.

I don’t see how other delegations that dealt with Canada’s obstructionist position in Durban, in which we negotiated as a Kyoto party, will possibly regard this as anything but negotiating in bad faith.

Ever since CTV broke the story that the Harper Cabinet had decided to legally withdraw from Kyoto – with no debate and no vote in the House – I have been, at one and the same time, certain the leak was correct while hoping they would not go through with it.

And now they have.  It is devastating.  It is even worse than all the other regressive steps of the Harper government in blocking climate action.

Kent announced legal withdrawal with a flurry of bizarre and untrue scare tactics.  As if the Kyoto Protocol had effective sanctions for law breakers like Canada.  As if Kyoto had the kind of draconian mandatory minimums of the Omnibus Crime Bill.   Kyoto has no effective enforcement mechanisms.  The only penalty would be for a country that decided to enter into second commitment period negotiations (NOT Canada). And even then it would only mean that the target Canada would negotiate (if we were negotiating) would have a top up of .3 of a tonne for every tonne we agreed to.  So in negotiations we could take into account the amount of the penalty and set out target low enough to absorb the penalty.  Each country negotiates what it will accept.  That’s why in 1997, Australia’s Kyoto target was 8% above 1990 levels, when all other industrialized countries were to go below 1990 levels. (Canada by 6%, US by 7%, and the EU by 8 %.)  True most European nations did not hit 8%.  They cut 20% and more.  Europe as a block has more than met its Kyoto targets.

Kent claimed staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion.  Rubbish.

What are they spinning?  The cost of trying with no plan and a year from the target to reduce our emissions enough to meet the 6% target — and then deciding to buy enough credits to meet the target — could be $14 billion.  I haven’t checked their math because the whole idea is screamingly bogus.  Nothing in Kyoto obliges us to spend one dime.  Nothing in Kyoto could induce or require a country to buy credits.

And now, despite Harper’s death wish for Kyoto and Kent’s “Kyoto is in the past,” look what was approved in Durban:  a second commitment period under Kyoto.  Not enough countries have signed up to accept targets, but the intention is to do so.  Hardly “in the past.”

What’s in the past?  Canada’s reputation as a country with any integrity.  Canada’s reputation as a country showing environmental leadership.

What must not be “in the past” is our chance to avoid cataclysmic climate change.

We are running out of time (see latest International Energy Agency report).  Durban’s agreements are weak and Canada just gave them a swift kick in a place that hurts.

So although, like me, you may feel like throwing yourself down and weeping for the betrayal of our future, for the loss of Canada’s ratification of Kyoto, do not waste the energy.  Get back up.  And fight.

Get back up and resolve: Stephen Harper must not be allowed to get away with this.  There must be a political cost.

Write letters to every newspaper denouncing the will of the majority of Canadians who support Kyoto was ignored.  Spend some time on media websites.  Write comments. Vote thumbs up and down. If you have a Conservative MP, leave them messages on the constituency phone lines.  Demand an appointment. Organize protests. Go on line to petitions.  Send a donation to the Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, or WWF and ask them to mount campaigns to demand we stay in Kyoto.  Our legal withdrawal does not take effect until next year, so we have time to push back.

Ask why Parliament was allowed to vote on Kyoto ratification (December 17, 2002) but given no chance to debate or vote on withdrawal in 2011.  Ask why they are lying to Canadians and claiming staying in Kyoto would cost $14 billion.

I know it is almost Christmas, but how can we rejoice with our children and grandchildren when a lifeline to their future was just sawed off by a reckless government?

This is not a partisan issue.  Mulroney showed global leadership on climate.  Chretien ratified, but never gave us a plan.  Paul Martin (with Dion as Environment minister) produced a decent plan.  Stephen Harper killed the plan within weeks of becoming Prime Minister.  It is clear that the Prime Minister does not have one single solitary clue of why reducing GHG matters.  But he does understand political cost.  This betrayal must cost.

Even though it is almost Christmas, almost Hanukkah and holidays, skip some last minute shopping.  Whatever you were going to buy, your children need a liveable world much much more.

The post Kyoto withdrawal: There must be a political price to be paid appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Mr. Cameron will address Members of Parliament and Senators on Thursday.

This spring, the United Kingdom set a binding target to cut their greenhouse gas emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2027. They are strongly committed to a second commitment phase for Kyoto and are showing leadership by having a legally binding target beyond 2020.  As part of the European Union, the UK Kyoto target was a reduction in greenhouse gases of 8% below 1990 levels by 2012. They are now 27% below. Canada’s original Kyoto target was 6% below 1990 levels by 2012; however, that target was later changed by the Conservative government to 3% above 1990 levels by 2020 (17% below 2005 levels by 2020).  Right now, Canada’s emissions are almost 30% above 1990 levels.

Under Kyoto, the collective of 41 industrialized Annex 1 countries committed to an overall reduction of 5% below 1990 levels.  This target has now been met, despite Canada’s failure.

“Other countries are doing the heavy lifting with regard to meeting Kyoto targets while Canada’s emissions continue to rise,” said May. “We are not pulling our weight and we need to get on board fast and in a serious way.”

“Europe and the United Kingdom have shown real leadership on the climate crisis and I sincerely hope that Mr. Cameron’s visit provides our government with some inspiration to take action,” said May.  “The United Kingdom has realized that a genuine plan to reduce greenhouse gases can spur economic innovation and in future will see their country be more competitive and more resilient.  We hope Canada will join the UK in calling for a second commitment period under Kyoto.”

The post Canada should follow lead of UK on GHG reduction appeared first on Elizabeth May.