Canada has put itself in a possition of receiving the dubious honour of going down in history as the only country to back out of the Kyoto Protocol after having ratified it. What makes this hitherto unheard of action even worse is that Canada had previously had a “long history in international processes to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gasses (GHGs)” [climatechange.gc.ca, May 2010]. So is Canada’s change in possition on this issue a move away from unreasnable expectations, or a completely pathetic policy failure?

It is clear Canada is trying to claim the unreasonable expectations angle, refering to an ambition gap. The environment minister, Peter Kent, makes it sound as if every Canadian family would go bankrupt if the treaty obligations were met. Perhaps a large burden would have been placed on Canadian households if the Federal government made any effort at all to achieve its emissions reductions, but this is following years of, at best failed attempts, and at worst, total indifference on the part of Canadian policy makers. The large sum of money that has been quoted is purely what would be needed to buy carbon emissions permits to cover the huge overshooting of Canada’s targets. Essentially, Canada withdrew to avoid having to pay for its abject failure.

To make it even worse, if that is at all possible, the recent Canadian decision followed China’s first ever agreement to limits on its emissions. High emitting but not fully industrialized countries, such as China, not being bound by any conditions under the Kyoto Protocol was the most publicized reason for why the United States Senete would not ratify the protocol in 1997. This fact was also mentioned by Canada as a disperity in expectations, but as it no longer holds up, was not used as a significant reason for pulling out.

More proof that Canada is alone on its sinking ship of international travesty is that the countries of the European Union, with higher targets to begin with (8% below 1990 levels to Canada’s 6% target), were already reporting emissions reductions and the adoption of new stretegies in April 2002. In 2005, the European Union Commission Communication reported reductions on a scale that made their Kyoto targets highly likely to be reached. Since then, despite mixed performances domestically, the European Trading System that has been established to monitor their cap-and-trade system has put the Union on a whole on track to beat their Kyoto targets. They will  most likely reach 13% below the target year by 2012. Canada has failed abominably, increasing rather than decreasing their emissions. Yet a Union that has had to coordinate the domestic implementation of any plans for 15 original signatories to the treaty, and those who have joined since the late 1990’s, have managed to surpass their already higher targets.

While Kyoto should not be viewed as the be all end all of international treaties regarding global warming and climate change, Canada has no excuse other than its own lack of reasonable effort to blame for failure. The more pressing issue surrounding Canada’s withdrawal from the treaty is the potential precedent that this action will cause on the international theatre. With the functionality of  international law depending on individual countries coming together to make agreements, and then sticking to them, Canada’s withdrawal from Kyoto, the only ‘binding’ international agreement on GHG emissions, portends more than a carelessness of their impact on the environment. It gives the impression that giving ones word and signing a treaty does not superceed domestic concerns and that when this is the case, ones word and signature are irrelavent to an international accord.

The backlash from this very public action of retraction could spiral into future negotiations as other countries, especially those with less stellar track records in international agreements to date, follow suit. The whole situation reduces my pleasure in holding a Canadian passport.