Why Kyoto is a rip-off

 



  According to a study released last week by the Canadian 
Manufacturers and Exporters, implementation of the 1997 Kyoto 
global warming treaty would cost our economy 450,000 jobs and as 
much as $40-billion. But Jean Chretien is not worried. "I don't 
accept these figures," the Prime Minister said. "There is 
nothing to be gained by frightening people when all the facts 
are not known."

  But the $40-billion figure, far from being conceived to 
"frighten" Canadians, is plucked straight from government 
documents. According to a report released in 2000 by the 
National Air Issues Co-ordinating Committee on Climate Change, a 
group staffed by officials from the federal, provincial and 
territorial governments, hitting Canada's Kyoto target may mean 
"the loss of roughly one year's growth, or, viewed in absolute 
terms, in 2010, the loss in annual economic output of 
approximately $40-billion (or $1,100 per capita)."

  This is not a price worth paying. Governments are expected to 
protect the national economy, and they should deviate from that 
mission only when crucial national interests are at stake 
(fighting terrorism, for example). Yet rising temperatures pose 
little threat to Canada. In its authoritative Feb., 2001, report 
on the projected impacts of global warming, the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified several 
threats to Canadian ecosystems, but concluded that our farmers 
would generally benefit from warmer temperatures. (Non-farming 
Canadians, most of whom spend at least part of the winter months 
scraping ice off their cars, chopping firewood and shovelling 
their walks, will profit as well.)

  As for the globally felt benefits that would follow from 
Canada's implementation of the Kyoto protocol, they are slight. 
By 2010, our $40-billion sacrifice would yield an expected 
reduction in annual carbon and carbon-equivalent emissions of 
about 46-million tonnes -- just 1/200th of the world's total 
projected greenhouse gas output.

  Even if Canada managed to convince the United States and every 
other Kyoto signatory to ratify the protocol, world carbon 
dioxide emissions would still soar. According to the U.S. Energy 
Information Administration, world energy consumption will 
increase by about 60% between now and 2020, with most of the 
upsurge expected to come from developing nations, which are not 
covered by the Kyoto Protocol. Under the fully implemented 
treaty, carbon dioxide emissions would grow 26% during the 
1990-2010 period. Without Kyoto, the figure would be 34%. The 
worldwide cost of that 8% dip: about $2-trillion in lost GDP -- 
give or take a trillion.

  There are better ways to spend that money. Instead of trying to 
cap carbon dioxide emissions -- a costly burden at home and an 
impossible task in the developing world -- we should focus on 
abating the damage global warming does in at-risk nations. If 
scientists are correct, higher temperatures and rising sea 
levels will depress grain yields in Africa and parts of Asia, 
fuel the spread of diseases, and threaten coastal nations such 
as Bangladesh and Senegal. But these problems can be abated, or 
even eliminated, with Western assistance. While helping Third 
World nations plant new crops, vaccinate people and relocate 
coastal towns will be costly, the bottom line will likely be 
only a fraction of Kyoto's 13-digit price tag.

  
RELATED SITES:

  
(Each link opens a new window)

  
Backgrounder on The Kyoto Accord

  
Prepared by Canada's environment minister.

  
Kyoto Protocol

  
Download the full text in pdf here.

  
Climate Change/Kyoto Protocol Activities

  A list of related meetings, conferences projects and reports on 
the accord hosted by the United Nations Industrial Development 
Organization.



Copyright @ 2002 National Post Online |