Group plans lawsuit over Kyoto

[stignasty]

Group plans lawsuit against Tories over Kyoto

Last Updated: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 | 3:43 PM ET

CBC News

John Baird defended his handling of the environment portfolio Tuesday as a leading environmental group filed a lawsuit aimed at forcing the Conservative government to live up to its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

Facing an at-times hostile parliamentary environment committee on Tuesday, Baird said the Tories' plan was an "ambitious policy package" that balanced Canadians' demands for action on climate change with the need to safeguard the country's economy.

"No one else is doing as much as we are," Baird said of the Tories' Turning the Corner plan, which sees Canada reaching its Kyoto emissions targets between 2020 and 2025, instead of 2012, the year laid out in the international plan to curb climate change.

Friends of the Earth launched the court challenge Tuesday, alleging Canada will likely be in "flagrant breach" of its international obligations under the climate-change treaty.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/29/...ment-baird.html

[Keepitsimple]

"No one else is doing as much as we are," Baird said of the Tories' Turning the Corner plan, which sees Canada reaching its Kyoto emissions targets between 2020 and 2025, instead of 2012, the year laid out in the international plan to curb climate change.

Media articles have almost always maintained that Kyoto targets must be met by 2012 or Canada would be in violation of the Treaty - this is misleading. The Kyoto Protocol actually says that "By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an AVERAGE of 5% below their 1990 levels". In Canada's case, we have to reduce our Greenhouse Gas emissions by about a third starting NEXT YEAR and maintain that level right through to 2012. This "averaging" concept means that if we exceed our targets in 2008 and 2009, we 'll have to cut even more to make up for it in 2010 and 2011.

As a further example, if we cut our emissions by 5% in 2008, 10% in 2009, 20% in 2010, 25% in 2011 and 30% in 2012 - that will average out to 18% for the 5 year period - far, far below our target.

Here's an excerpt and a link to the full Globe & Mail article. To support the article, I've also included some information from Wikipedia.

From the Globe & Mail:

Canada signed the Kyoto Protocol in April of 1998, committing the country to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions to an average of 6 per cent below 1990 levels during the years 2008 to 2012.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...on0201/BNStory/

From Wickipedia:

By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected GHG emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland. Reduction targets expire in 2013.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

[Riverwind]

Facing an at-times hostile parliamentary environment committee on Tuesday, Baird said the Tories' plan was an "ambitious policy package" that balanced Canadians' demands for action on climate change with the need to safeguard the country's economy.

CBC Radio had a segment on Sunday Morning about the costs of climate change. They had several guests argue the cost of combating global warming on the economy. _Every_ guest agreed that meeting Kyoto targets by 2012 was not possible unless large segments of the economy were simply shut down. Most guests also agreed that meeting Kyoto targets over a much longer time range would not need to have such a huge impact.

I can't believe there are idiots who still think that meeting Kyoto by 2012 is an option.

[noahbody]

I can't believe there are idiots who still think that meeting Kyoto by 2012 is an option.

The kind of idiots who think they can sue the government for breach of contract when there's no contract with them.

[B. Max]

The first thing the tories should have done when they took over was rip kyoto.

[noahbody]

Does anyone else have a problem with the headline of the story? Are they planning a lawsuit agaist the Tories? No. They are planning a lawsuit against the Canadian government.

The reporter also uses "Conservative Government" to put a political slant on the article. I remember when the media reported news and didn't create it.

[Who's Doing What?]

Does anyone else have a problem with the headline of the story? Are they planning a lawsuit agaist the Tories? No. They are planning a lawsuit against the Canadian government.

The reporter also uses "Conservative Government" to put a political slant on the article. I remember when the media reported news and didn't create it.

Well not only is it the "conservative Govt." but this is the "New Govt." and it happens to be conservative. Suck it up. If the current govt didn't waste so much time and effort emphasising how they are the "New Govt." and different from any previous govt. then you might have a point. They made their own bed, just like making integrity the corner stone of their election campaign and then expecting not to be held to a higher standard when a higher standard is exactly what they promised.

[Topaz]

What I found searching the net was IF a country doesn't reached its goal, then that country is required to make up the difference PLUS 30% and the country will be suspended from making transfers under the emission trading programs. So that why Baird probably said he didn't want emission trading for Canada . If in 2004 our Co2 levels started to rise, than with Alberta making the most pollution in the country, we'll never meet our targets until Alberta is done with the oil sands. Baird also said that Ontario has to do something will the coal-burning electricity, and Ontario would have, if they never told away the money for nuclear generator the Libs had planned on giving Ontario so they could shut them down. Harper has himself in a spot. He also been against Koyto for a long time but now that he's PM he has to DO something and try not to hurt Alberta or the manufacturing sector in Canada. If he tries to not hit Alberta as hard as the rest of the country, I'm sure he'll heard about it!

[Argus]

This is more in the nature of a nuisance suit. It has no chance of success, but that's not what they're going for. They want the publicity, to stand dramatically before the court door "defending the environment" - and, of course, to then hold their hands out for donations.

Most likely, if you check, you'd find that this group made little or no noise about Kyoto prior to the Tories getting into power.

[jbg]

They had several guests argue the cost of combating global warming on the economy. _Every_ guest agreed that meeting Kyoto targets by 2012 was not possible unless large segments of the economy were simply shut down....I can't believe there are idiots who still think that meeting Kyoto by 2012 is an option.

Oh yes. I can see an elected politician throwing thousands out of work because Chicken Little (a/k/a Suzuki and Gore) scream that "the sky is falling".