Critical Issues In Canadian Democracy

Introduction

According to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by the researchers under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences, most of the observed environmental warnings over the last 50 years have concluded that the warming of the earth is due to the increase concentrations of greenhouse gases [1]. Scientific reports have shown that ice is disappearing from the Arctic Ocean and Greenland at a fairly rapid pace. The Qori Kalis glacier, just off of Peru, is shrinking at a rate of 200 meters per year. This is 40 times faster than in 1978. Furthermore, hundreds of species of animals have been spotted moving to cooler regions, and spring has been starting sooner for more than two hundred countries. This phenomenon continues with the rising sea levels and the changing of rain patterns. As reported in Alberta, the water flow of the Peace River is apparently down by 35 percent from its long-term average. Also within the same report, the South Saskatchewan River was down 53 percent while the North Saskatchewan River was recorded at an astounding 62 percent below average measurements.

As this chain of events occurs, the change in climate is definitely to be blame. Climate change can be driven by an imbalance between the energy the earth receives from the sun, largely in the form of visible light, and the energy it radiates back to space as invisible infrared light. The 'greenhouse effect' is caused by the presence in the air of gases and clouds that absorb some of the infrared light flowing upward and radiate it back downwards. This process warms the earth's surface causing the planet's temperature to rise above its normal 14 degrees Celsius.

The problem of climate change had New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to react by quoting, "Global warming threatens our health, our economy, our natural resources, and our children's future. It is clear we must act [19]." This has led to an international response to the issue of global warming. Initially instigated by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1992, but later, the issue of global warming was replaced by the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 [1]. Within the meeting in Kyoto, Japan, all members agreed that the main way to cut greenhouse gas emissions is simply to burn less fossil fuel [19]. This includes energy conservation, energy efficiency, and also fuel switching. But developing an effective emission abatement response to climate change represents an enormous policy challenge to most signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, and Canada is no exception [1].

Despite the difficulties that will be head, in December of 1997, Canada, along with 160 other countries agreed in Kyoto, Japan to the Protocol that calls for major cuts in emissions over the next 15 years [17]. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol has generated both enormous outcries and also strong supports in regards to topics of health issues, economic stability, and also the amount of environmental benefit it will have to the future of Canada.

Arguments AGAINST Canada's participation in the Kyoto Accord.

'Ratifying the Kyoto protocol will have detrimental consequences for Canada.' This statement can be heard echoing within the anti-Kyoto Protocol community [23]. According to the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association (CME), Kyoto will produce pain, but no gain [3]. Cameco Corporation Senior Communication Specialist Ghislain McLeod said, "There are valid concerns that the Protocol will negatively affect economies and do little to help the environment. While the average person on the street may think Kyoto is great, they may not realize it will come at a considerable cost [2]."

Moreover, the opposition to the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol yet argued by targeting the federal government. They argued that the federal government had developed a set of twelve principles, by while they - the federal government - all believe should form the foundation of a national plan on climate change. They have all said that until Ottawa commits to those principles, and commits to developing a national plan with them, the Kyoto Protocol should not be ratified. But as one can see today, the federal government has released a plan - the Kyoto Protocol - that does not incorporate all twelve principles articulated by the provinces. It only incorporated a few of the ideas, but does not reflect the provinces' priorities [5]. At different times, 9 premiers have signed a letter urging that Kyoto not be ratified as a treaty, but as Ralph Klein, Premier of Alberta, said, "Time after time, premiers from different provinces have urged Ottawa to sit down with them to work in partnership to develop a truly national and Canadian solution to climate change. But the only respond that was given was 'no' [5]." This gives the impression that the federal government alone has the monopoly on environmental concerns [5]. But records beg to differ. The record indicates that Canada's provinces have been the true leaders in environmental stewardship, and that they intend to be just as effective in dealing with climate change as the federal government [5].

Environmental Benefits.

The anti-Kyoto Protocol community argued that the Protocol would have minimal benefits for the environment. The panel of over 1,000 world-renowned scientists had concluded that in-order to stabilize the climate, the need for a 70 percent reduction in emissions from the 1990 level must be met [1]. But in Canada, the government are resisting the modest proposal of reducing our emissions by only 6 percent by 2012 [1]. Even if all the signatories of the Kyoto Protocol achieve their target, which is highly unlikely to occur, such reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will only delay a doubling of CO2 by a mere 6 years [1].

Consequently, with only such small delay time of 6 years before the doubling of CO2 and the need for a 70 percent reduction in emissions, these two factors will non-the-less create very little benefit with the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

Economic impacts.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association (CME) predicted not just 450,000 fewer jobs will be a consequence of the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, but radical changes in lifestyle will also be affected [3]. These changes include paying up to twice as much for electricity, 60 percent more for natural gas, 80 percent more for gasoline and a bill for $30,000 for each home to make it more energy efficient [3]. With all these extremely high rates provided by each household, a competitive economic environment would pose