Does anyone besides the federal government really think we can get from here to Kyoto by embracing the status quo?

by James Hrynyshyn

It sounds like a win-win scenario: we ship "clean energy" to the U.S., get credit for offsetting some of its nasty carbon dioxide emissions, and save Alberta from making any more sacrifices to its fossil-fuel industry than absolutely necessary. Who could be opposed to that?

Just about everyone who understands what federal Environment Minister David Anderson's climate change plan is really all about, that's who. The Europeans and other signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires Canada to trim its greenhouse-gas output to six percent below 1990 levels by 2012, are having none of it. Here's why:

Say you have an old refrigerator, one that dates back to the 1960s. It still works well enough, but it's too small now you have a couple of kids, and let's face it - those late-night gurgling noises always annoyed you. A new, quiet, efficient refrigerator will make for an expensive outlay, but because modern technology uses as little as 30 percent of the energy of the old models, you'll save money in the long run. Plus, more efficient appliances are also better for the environment. So you buy the new model. But then, just as you prepare to take the old one to the dump in the SUV, you think, why bother getting rid of it? Aren't fridges full of ozone-eating CFCs? Plus, wouldn't it be great to have a beer fridge for the rec room downstairs now that the home theatre is all set up? And, hey, maybe when the kids move out, you can turn the basement into an apartment and rent it out, complete with appliances.

The only problem is, now you've got two refrigerators, consuming 110 per cent of the energy and producing 130 percent of the equivalent of carbon dioxide emissions, not 30 percent. That's the scenario Canada is entertaining by trying to claim credit for exporting "clean" energy to the U.S.

It might not be so bad if the U.S. had agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. But thanks to an intransigent Senate, that didn't seem likely when Bill Clinton signed the treaty back in 1997, and the arrival of George W. Bush in the Whitehouse four years later laid to rest any hope of a change in policy. As a result, the U.S. has no federal accounting mechanism to ensure that its net emissions decline. Should we export clean energy south, there is no way to guarantee, and no way to measure, whether the U.S. actually uses that energy to displace dirtier sources. Americans could just consume more.

Even if the U.S. were to one day ratify the protocol, we'd end up arguing over who gets credit, the producer or the consumer. Any guesses on who would win that one?

To be fair, it is easy to see why Anderson and those opposed to more serious changes to the Canadian economy like the concept. Federal representatives at the national consultation workshops held this summer were particularly keen on the whole thing. To live up to Kyoto, Canada needs to eliminate emissions equivalent to 240 million tonnes of carbon dioxide. Under Anderson's preferred strategy, we can get credit for 70 Mt, almost a third of the goal, through clean-energy exports.

That should save Alberta the pain of foregoing one of its oil sands projects, at least for a few years. It should also go down well with Quebeckers, whose hydroelectricity will, along with Western Canada's natural gas, supply much of that so-called clean energy. (Whether natural gas is genuinely clean is another contentious issue.) But the Europeans and other, more responsible Kyoto signatories have already given Canada credit for our forests, despite mounting scientific evidence that those trees may not be absorbing nearly as much carbon dioxide as we claim. It comes as no surprise that they aren't in a mood to grant us another waiver.

That's why it's good news that Ottawa is developing a fallback plan, in the very likely event our clean energy scheme fails to win converts at the international bargaining table. An even better plan would be to ditch the idea now, and start exploring the myriad alternatives available to Canadian industry. Most of them will require changing the way we live and work, but does anyone really think we can get from here to Kyoto by embracing the status quo?

James Hrynyshyn is a freelance science writer and biologist based in Vancouver. His web site is www.cyamid.net.